Why the fuck do they have that there? It pisses me off. I dont stand for the pledge mainly because of that bullshit. I mean, what ever happened to seperating church and state? Guess they failed that. What do you think about it? And while/when you were in school did you stand for the pledge?

yes i did. i did because it is a small thing and i don't care. i even said the pledge.

quote:Originally posted by Ali G in da house:

Why the fuck do they have that there? It pisses me off. I dont stand for the pledge mainly because of that bullshit. I mean, what ever happened to seperating church and state? Guess they failed that. What do you think about it? And while/when you were in school did you stand for the pledge?

If you take God out of the pledge then symbolically you make the state god.



There is no such thing as the "seperation of church and state" and I'm sure that is the heart of your arguement.

All communities exist because of the morale foundation they base their rules on.



I had this revelation a while ago but, I though I would share it here because it seems to fit...

DO you think law and religion should be seperate? (ie, seperation of church and state)

Religion = the actions of ones life that testifies to their morale belief.

Law = legal boundries that protect and serve the peace, order and prosperity of a nation or community.

Politics = the business of debate and compromise to establish law.

I've come to the conclusion that no matter what legal boundries are placed on any nation, whether it be far eastern, middle eastern or western, the reason for those laws are based on a morale code of right or wrong.

The law does not define morality but only defines the boudries of it.

The United States for example was founded on Christian principles. Interesting to note, it was not based on the bible entirely but mostly on the 10 commandments. Some other areas of the bible also obviously inspired the forefathers.

Now I ask you to think about this; if the foundation of this nation was built with Christian principles as the building blocks, why would we now being forced to remove that foundation in these times?(ie, seperation of church and state)

As I was saying earlier that the morale codes of the people are what a nation will build it's law's around.

If we remove the time honored Christian principles which is the capestone of this nation then what is really happening is the rebuilding our nation and it's laws based on an alternative morale code.

If at one time it was widely accepted that we are one nation UNDER GOD indivisble..yadda yadda..and we followed that morale foundation into prosperity then the alternate will be man made morales based on humanistic principles.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

blah blah blah



bullshit. 'god' wasn't in the pledge or our money until the cold war when we wanted to distinguish ourselves from the godless communists.

it's a piece of propaganda, a remainder of 50s psy-ops, nothing more.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



The law does not define morality but only defines the boudries of it.



Could you define what you mean by this statement? I believe the law should protect the people - I'm not sure how theologically specific "moral codes" should neccesarily be a basis for law.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

The United States for example was founded on Christian principles. Interesting to note, it was not based on the bible entirely but mostly on the 10 commandments. Some other areas of the bible also obviously inspired the forefathers.

I'm very skeptical on this point, as only 3 of the commandments (murder, robbery, perjury) appear as laws, and these are common laws throughout all religions/nations. What other principles are obtained from the commandments/Bible that make Christianity so fundamentally cruicial to the survival of the US? Is your argument essentially, "don't change horses in midstream"?

quote:Religion = the actions of ones life that testifies to their morale belief.

Law = legal boundries that protect and serve the peace, order and prosperity of a nation or community.

Politics = the business of debate and compromise to establish law.

I've come to the conclusion that no matter what legal boundries are placed on any nation, whether it be far eastern, middle eastern or western, the reason for those laws are based on a morale code of right or wrong.

I think you mean moral. Morale is something quite different.

And in a developed country like England or America, the laws are based on the protection of individual freedoms NOT on religion. The fact that religions also coincide with this is quite irrelevant.

People in society want to be able to live without the threat of being killed by other people, so they make a law to protect their right to life. They don't do it because God says killing is wrong.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

bullshit. 'god' wasn't in the pledge or our money until the cold war when we wanted to distinguish ourselves from the godless communists.

it's a piece of propaganda, a remainder of 50s psy-ops, nothing more.

So you are saying we actually lost the cold ware by embracing the enemies principles of life today?

There is much more to the history of this nation then the pledge - read the founding documents and the intent is clearly there.

I just don't understand why the athiest liberal minded have such a different interpreation of our history then the Christian conservative???

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Interest:

The law does not define morality but only defines the boudries of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Could you define what you mean by this statement? I believe the law should protect the people - I'm not sure how theologically specific "moral codes" should neccesarily be a basis for law.

To be clear I'm not saying theology is necessary for morality. Everybody has some form of morale code. I'm only saying that the laws of a community are based on that morale code. I agree - the laws should protect the people - but to protect from what? Each other - right? Only because people don't all follow the same morale code- some people think murder and stealing are ok - some think spitting on the side walk is bad - some think the laws have some kind of morale purpose to protect those subject to it - like helmet laws and so on. Morale obligations of the .gov to protect ourselves from ourselves. (the .gov is deciding what is moraly acceptable in society today - not theoligans)

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Interest:

The United States for example was founded on Christian principles. Interesting to note, it was not based on the bible entirely but mostly on the 10 commandments. Some other areas of the bible also obviously inspired the forefathers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:

I'm very skeptical on this point, as only 3 of the commandments (murder, robbery, perjury) appear as laws, and these are common laws throughout all religions/nations.



I'm not a lawyer nor do I have full knowledge of all the laws - but it is the natural laws of God that have historically dictated the use of "common sense" in the courts.

I am not saying the civil laws are the commandments - I'm saying the civil laws are inspired by them. We have never lived in a theocracy.

quote:

What other principles are obtained from the commandments/Bible that make Christianity so fundamentally cruicial to the survival of the US?

Freedom - the more humanistic things become the more heavy handed the government becomes - that is because the control of a society depends on it's conscience of the consequences of living opposed the rules.

I see it is the reason for more video surveilance, wire tapping, etc.

The omnipresent eye in the sky - if there is no God then something else has to strike at our conscience. With humanism - it is man and then man will dictate to us what is morally acceptable in society.

It will be a shame when man says it is illegal to dissent against the government in this nation.

quote:

Is your argument essentially, "don't change horses in midstream"?

No it is critical - I do not want communism nor socialism - It can stay in Europe where it belongs.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

I think you mean moral. Morale is something quite different.

Please pardon my typos but you are right I meant moral -

quote:

And in a developed country like England or America, the laws are based on the protection of individual freedoms NOT on religion. The fact that religions also coincide with this is quite irrelevant. [b][quote]

I disagree,

There is much documentation that supports the founding fathers believed that the individual freedom is a natural freedom granted by God. The Bill of rights was written on the pretense of God ordained unalienable rights.

[b][quote]

People in society want to be able to live without the threat of being killed by other people, so they make a law to protect their right to life. They don't do it because God says killing is wrong.

Serious? What if the bible never existed..How would we know that murder was wrong? We hold our view based on biblical teaching.

The story of Cane and Able would continue without consequence if what you said were true.

Without the deterrent of consequence of breaking the "morale code" embedded in the "civil code" then we are free to define the rights and wrongs that people do.

In a civilized nation of laws we accept that there is an established institution of courts and prisons to deal with crimes as crimes defined. Murder is clearly defined by the various degrees of intent. However, those nations who lack this infrastructure have a much less defined view of murder.

In some third world countries it is ok to kill a woman because she was hanging out with some dude from another tribe behind the bushes.

What if those tribes had a Christian foundation? Would it still be acceptable to kill the woman?

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Serious? What if the bible never existed..How would we know that murder was wrong? We hold our view based on biblical teaching.

The story of Cane and Able would continue without consequence if what you said were true.

Without the deterrent of consequence of breaking the "morale code" embedded in the "civil code" then we are free to define the rights and wrongs that people do.

In a civilized nation of laws we accept that there is an established institution of courts and prisons to deal with crimes as crimes defined. Murder is clearly defined by the various degrees of intent. However, those nations who lack this infrastructure have a much less defined view of murder.

In some third world countries it is ok to kill a woman because she was hanging out with some dude from another tribe behind the bushes.

What if those tribes had a Christian foundation? Would it still be acceptable to kill the woman?



I don't believe the Bible is the oldest known code of ethics and moral laws...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Some people believe the world has really drastically changed, but I don't really believe much in the way of human beings has changed...people believe that ancient people were more barbaric or uncivilized but I don't believe that either...

The ancient Akkadian empire had a regular postal service, the Code of Hammurabi dictated very clear and reasonable laws, such as laws on marriage and raising children, divorce, and more! The ancient world and the way in which people think is not so drastically different...

One of the worst things the Bible and the Medieval period did is introduce RACISM and make it acceptable with warrant (from the Bible itself.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#Ethnicity_and_race

The racist ideas developed in the middle ages and then carried on by the Nazi's were based on information from the Bible. Some Jews to this day still believe in races and that they are a race chosen by God. Biology on the other hand, as well as genetic studies have provided enough information to verify that there are indeed no such things as races within the singular Human Race.

The Code of Hammurabi and his laws were very good in my opinion, though some might view them as harsh in this day and age.

Biblical laws and commandments on the other hand are extremely racist, prejudiced, and often unreasonable.

The Qur'an, an alternative religious text that claims to come from the divine has laws similar to those found in the Code of Hammurabi but does not believe in Race, but says that all Humans are the creation of God, men and woman, humans all equal, the better is the better in conduct. The Qur'an places little on lineage or "blood lines" as they are not considered important to the main idea it attempts to promote, the worship and devotion to a singular God, while attempting to provide laws and guidelines in following a straight path and a proper life. (As a side note, some people claim that the Qur'an is based on information from the Bible when in fact there was no Bible in Arabic in that region at the time the Qur'an was produced, furthermore, the Qur'an was a recitation of Muhammed, who was both uneducated, and illiterate, furthermore his dialect of Arabic was supposedly not the kind in which he recited the Qur'an in to the regular people, the Qur'an mentions this phenomenon on some occasions, also that accusers at the time felt he was deriving his information from foreign sources.)

The Bible on the other hand places a tremendous amount of emphasis on blood lines, race, heritage, and more. This is often used to the benefit of racists...

So the Bible in my opinion is not a good example of a nice set of ethical laws in comparison to the Code of Hammurabi which is one of the earlier known codex of laws, I am very sure there were laws earlier than that in which it was based. I also believe people were not barbaric in ancient times but very similar to how humans may be today, we're all still humans.

Judaism and the Bible have been responsible for much of the Blood Line Emphasis and Racism in the world, which eventually backfired when used by Medieval People and the Nazi's.

The Truth is, there is no such thing as a race within the Human Race and that there are better sources of law than the laws found in the Old Testament.

The Bible can be blamed for much of the emphasis placed on blood lines, heritage, and race which plague the modern world.

God doesn't believe in races and God knows they are all just humans, the best of whom are the best in conduct.

Skin colors and different features were developed due to the environment as adaptions, as well as mutations due to interbreeding which members of similar genetics and many other factors. It is generally held that humans developed in Africa originally and then migrated out.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I don't believe the Bible is the oldest known code of ethics and moral laws...

http://e n.wikipedi a.org/wiki /Code_of_Hammurabi (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Code_o f_Hammurab i)



How can you claim this? The bible goes beyond even the existence of mankind...It claims an account of the origins of our universe before it even existed. How do you get older then the begining of time?

Secondly, taking quotes from Wikidpedia is by far not a trustworthy source of straight facts. You need a different source of info...

quote:

Some people believe the world has really drastically changed, but I don't really believe much in the way of human beings has changed...people believe that ancient people were more barbaric or uncivilized but I don't believe that either...

Define barbaric? I don't believe the Islamic and Christian definition are the same.

quote:

The ancient Akkadian empire had a regular postal service, the Code of Hammurabi dictated very clear and reasonable laws, such as laws on marriage and raising children, divorce, and more! The ancient world and the way in which people think is not so drastically different...

The ancient Egyptions had a similiar civilization as well and thought it was ok to enslave an entire race of people.

quote:

One of the worst things the Bible and the Medieval period did is introduce RACISM and make it acceptable with warrant (from the Bible itself.)

http://en .wikipedia .org/wiki/Semitic#Ethnicity_and_race (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Semiti c#Ethnicit y_and_race )



This is a very flawed idea - racism was a man made thing - there is nothing in the bible that says one race is any more superior then the next. It rains both on the righteous and unrighteous equally.

quote:

The racist ideas developed in the middle ages and then carried on by the Nazi's were based on information from the Bible.

Not exactly true - they were based on a false interpretation and heresy surrounding the bible. The Da Vinci code is very simliar to the Nazi belief of the blood line being the holy grail. The Nazi's actually followed the occult belief of the nights of the templer..a updated version of a the occult practice of ancient egypt.

quote:

Some Jews to this day still believe in races and that they are a race chosen by God.

This is somewhat true but in this context it is not. God chose the Jewish people to bring about the Christ who would be sent into the world. His message was given by Israel - the proclaimed prophets to the nations. When the Christ did appear then the prophesy was complete and the gates of heaven were available to everyone else - the gentiles.

God's covenent with the 12 tribes of Israel still stands.

quote:

Biology on the other hand, as well as genetic studies have provided enough information to verify that there are indeed no such things as races within the singular Human Race.

huh? Are you going to show us a new version of evolution?

quote:

The Code of Hammurabi and his laws were very good in my opinion, though some might view them as harsh in this day and age.

I need to study this before I can comment.

quote:

Biblical laws and commandments on the other hand are extremely racist, prejudiced, and often unreasonable.

You're entitled to your opinion but, I have to question why think honoring your mother and father or not killing anybody is unreasonable, racist, prejudiced etc.?

quote:

The Qur'an, an alternative religious text that claims to come from the divine has laws similar to those found in the Code of Hammurabi but does not believe in Race, but says that all Humans are the creation of God, men and woman, humans all equal, the better is the better in conduct.

We all have an equal fate but I can see that some people can run faster then others...what do you mean by your statment humans all equal?

quote:

The Qur'an places little on lineage or "blood lines" as they are not considered important to the main idea it attempts to promote, the worship and devotion to a singular God, while attempting to provide laws and guidelines in following a straight path and a proper life. (As a side note, some people claim that the Qur'an is based on information from the Bible when in fact there was no Bible in Arabic in that region at the time the Qur'an was produced, furthermore, the Qur'an was a recitation of Muhammed, who was both uneducated, and illiterate, furthermore his dialect of Arabic was supposedly not the kind in which he recited the Qur'an in to the regular people, the Qur'an mentions this phenomenon on some occasions, also that accusers at the time felt he was deriving his information from foreign sources.)



So the Qur'an or Islam is not an Abrahamic faith?

Allah is not Jehova?

Is Muhammed kind of like how Joseph Smith is to the Mormons?

quote:

The Bible on the other hand places a tremendous amount of emphasis on blood lines, race, heritage, and more. This is often used to the benefit of racists...

The emphasis is not on geneology but a traceable route through the past which leads to the first appearance of Christ. It gives it some validaty and accountability.

Although I agree some racists to misuse the scripture for their benefit - it is a very small faction and is not the orthodox view of biblical scripture. Your claims of racism are unjust.

quote:

So the Bible in my opinion is not a good example of a nice set of ethical laws in comparison to the Code of Hammurabi which is one of the earlier known codex of laws, I am very sure there were laws earlier than that in which it was based. I also believe people were not barbaric in ancient times but very similar to how humans may be today, we're all still humans.

Again, the bible claims the natural laws of God that extend even beyond the existance of time or universe - how do you get earlier then that?

quote:

Judaism and the Bible have been responsible for much of the Blood Line Emphasis and Racism in the world, which eventually backfired when used by Medieval People and the Nazi's.

Are you sure it wasn't misinterpreation or heretical teachings?

quote:

The Truth is, there is no such thing as a race within the Human Race and that there are better sources of law than the laws found in the Old Testament.

I agree - that is why the civil and ceremonial laws were changed with Christ

quote:

The Bible can be blamed for much of the emphasis placed on blood lines, heritage, and race which plague the modern world.



I disagree - I think it's a human condition to be tribal and isolationist.

quote:

God doesn't believe in races and God knows they are all just humans, the best of whom are the best in conduct.

Ok..I found one thing I can agree with...

quote:

Skin colors and different features were developed due to the environment as adaptions, as well as mutations due to interbreeding which members of similar genetics and many other factors. It is generally held that humans developed in Africa originally and then migrated out.



man..where the evolutionists when you need them???

Ok you guys have the longest fuckin replies. holy fuckin shit how long does it take you to figure out what your going to type and then type it?? but anyways to OP i think its radical pricks like you that make things so difficult in this world. does it really offend you that "god" is in the pledge? i mean seriously if it matters that much dont say it. just leave out the god part and everybody will be happy. you should learn to have some tolerance for what is already there. the fact that god is on the money and in pledge is quite historical. oh what about having to put you hand on a bible in court? does that offend you too?? to me its almost like if you were a foreigner from a country that doesnt appreciate women at all, looked at the statue of liberty and said "well that offends me because there is a big ass statue of a woman in the water, they should take that down." get over it.

Every time I stood and recited the pledge I never said under god because I have always felt it was innapropiate for me to say such a thing due to my views and beliefs about religion.

Religion should, and always be a personal matter and not one of the state and vise versa.

[This message has been edited by Nightshade (edited 08-26-2006).]

Original pledge of allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

-as proclamated by Pres. Benjamin Harrison in 1892

Original motto: "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of many, one.)

Selected by the first Great Seal committee in 1776.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-Opening statement of the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, which passed unanimously in the senate, and was signed by John Adams.

Furthermore:

1) The inscriptions of Hammurabi's Code date back to 1700 B.C. Christian apologists (http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm) estimate Genesis (or the legends composing Genesis) to have been written around 1445 B.C. So even by Christian estimates (which are quite exagerrated when compared to secular scholars, mind you), are still a few centuries behind the Babylonian king, Hammurabi.

2) Racism, while a man-made thing, is ironically promoted by the Hebrew god. The very nature of the flood, while wiping out wicked men, was also to wipe out the Nephilim, and the descendents of the Nephilim, as their blood was impure. God also commanded Israel to commit genocide on 13 nations, killing all. He commanded the genocide of the Babylonians, even in Psalm 137:9 declaring "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." The Hebrew god had no problems in ordering genocide, and infanticide, to ensure the complete destruction of entire nationalities.

Furthermore, if not racism, the bible has no qualms in teaching sexism. From the "impurities" of women being preached throughout the old testament, to the babblings of Paul in the new testament ("Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinth 14:34-35) women are belittled time and time again as mere subordinates to men.

3) In regards to biblical laws being unreasonable, prejudiced, etc.; it was so much the laws that bothered me so much as the punishments. In Numbers 15:32-36 (I feel it too lengthy to post, but feel free to look it up), god tells Moses to stone a guy to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath.

Picking up sticks on the sabbath + Being stoned to death != Justice (unless you're a merciless, bloodthirsty tyrant. Then you might find such a punishment, for such a crime, just.)

4) You say it's a human condition to be tribal and isolationist. Being a creation of humans, the bible conforms to this idea perfectly. God tells the Hebrews that all nations shall submit to them. He commands genocide of all that oppose Israel. He bans marriage with wives of other nations. He shaped Israel into a barbaric nation that massacred hundreds of thousands (or more likely, millions). He made covenants with the Israelites, initiated the ritual of circumsision. Non-Jews were looked down upon, if not killed. Yes, Israel was a primitive, tribal, isolationist nation through much of it's history (providing that history can be accepted a accurate).

I think you need to re-read your bible, Interest. Follow it up with a good course on other ancient cultures and you'll get a good idea of what a typical, copy-cat, piece of literature the bible is in comparison to the laws and legends of older societies.

edit: Sorry for the typos/poor grammar. It's 5 a.m. here and I'm a bit tired. http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 08-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Allah is not Jehova? Is Muhammed kind of like how Joseph Smith is to the Mormons?

What do you mean is Allah not Jehova? Allah is the arabic word used for God. Muhammed is the "Seal of Prophethood" the Last prophet bringing the Last book, The Qur'an.

Not much is actually known for sure about Muhammed as there is very little written about him from the actual time he existed in, but tremendous amounts of stories and myths were produced about him in centuries after his death. The Qur'an is from the time in which Muhammed lived and gives some little clues as to who he is.

Muhammed is often if not always thoroughly denied by Jews and Christians though he is mentioned in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.

You can read about that here in a long article... http://www.islamawareness.net/Muhammed/muhamed_in_bible.html

Where the somewhat well known Ahmed Deedat attempts to prove Muhammed's coming is spoken about in the Bible. Here is a snippet among the many offered proofs:

" In the Book of Isaiah, chapter 29, verse 12, we read: 'And the Book is delivered to him that is not learned'"

Muhammed was indeed unlearned as he could not read or write, nor did he have any education and indeed a book was delivered to him which he recited. But surely you'll turn away.

In any case Ahmed Deedat attempts to prove using the bible that Muhammed was the prophet predicted to come and does a pretty good job of explaining how it is not so absurd to assume that.

If you read the Qur'an, you may see that the words are not like those "transcribed" by Joseph Smith.

Furthermore to boost its validity the Qur'an offers scientific proofs which have only been discovered recently. Included are the expansion and eventual collapse of the Universe as well as information about Embryo development which can not be seen by the human eye even if one were to disect a living human being. But these proofs surely fall short, and I doubt anything can make those who are hardened, believe.

God is God, but I do not believe in a large portion of the Old and New Testament, and so I will not say that all they acclaim and attach to God is accurate or true. Nor do I believe that God is a being, of which men are in the image, that has a Son. I find that all these sayings are tremendously blasphemous and untrue and that God is not that, but rather God is what encompasses all what all are completely dependant on, God the Originator, the Creator.

So after reading the article I provided you about how Muhammed is mentioned in the bible, and I do hope you read it thoroughly, what conflict do you have with following the Qur'an, will you turn away when the warning and the message has come to you?

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Furthermore:

1) 2) 3) 4)

Excellent post E-Man, I loved it! Thanks for backing me up!

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



I think you need to re-read your bible, Interest. Follow it up with a good course on other ancient cultures and you'll get a good idea of what a typical, copy-cat, piece of literature the bible is in comparison to the laws and legends of older societies.

edit: Sorry for the typos/poor grammar. It's 5 a.m. here and I'm a bit tired. http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)



You are referencing a covenent that no longer applies. The covenent between God and Israel was changed with Jesus. The rules and laws you are referencing no longer apply to the "plan of salvation"

The bible is not meant to govern our governments and so on - it is not meant to prepare someone for life on this planet - it is here to prepare someone for life after it.

You would have to believe in God to believe there are enemies to God and His plan. What you are talking about are side shows meant to distract from the true story.

I see the spine of truth throughout history is consistent and still applies today - God's law still stands no matter what books are written or what religions are made.

Morality doesnt come from god or the law.

If God murdered a bunch of innocent children would that be moral? No.

i stand. i stretch. i sit back down. it's not that i have a problem with the whole "church and state" deal, it's the fact that i don't like the country all that much. additionally, if i were pledging my allegiance to a country, i wouldn't do it to the flag, a small symbol of it.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA

If God murdered a bunch of innocent children would that be moral? No.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/191437

The state didn't make it so what is you'r problem with it. Seriously it said it once in it and people get pissed off about it.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

So you are saying we actually lost the cold ware by embracing the enemies principles of life today?



not at all. my point was that 'under god' only came about 50 years ago. most of our nations history did not have 'under god' in the pledge or 'in god we trust' on our money, therefore using these facts to support our countries christain origin is erroneous.

quote:There is much more to the history of this nation then the pledge - read the founding documents and the intent is clearly there.

I just don't understand why the athiest liberal minded have such a different interpreation of our history then the Christian conservative???

first, most liberals are christians. second, not all athiests are liberals. third, what are your sources for american history?

the declartion of independence, for example, would seem to support the idea of a christian founding if you weren't familiar with deism. in fact, the wording is at least as suggestive, and in my opinion more suggestive, of diest influences than christian ones.

i was talking about the pledge because that was what the op was about, but you want to talk about history:

quote:

If at one time it was widely accepted that we are one nation UNDER GOD indivisble..yadda yadda..and we followed that morale foundation into prosperity then the alternate will be man made morales based on humanistic principles.

besides the fact that the 'under god' part only came about fifty years ago, this is only partially correct. while it is true that many of the founding fathers were christians, they did not form a theocracy, and many were even against state religion as well as federal religion.

not to mention number of deists.

the entire movement and idea of our governmental system did not come from the bible. to the contrary most of the ideology came from humanism (locke was a humanist) and many of the founding fathers were deists (like jefferson, madison, franklin).



basically i think you have been reading misinformation. perhaps you should suspend your present belief on the subject pending further investigation.

quote:This is a very flawed idea - racism was a man made thing - there is nothing in the bible that says one race is any more superior then the next. It rains both on the righteous and unrighteous equally.

It doesn’t say so explicitly, however God insistence that Israel is superior than the others and therefore the others should be not be given mercy for is a signal of racism.

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (Deut 7: 2-6)

quote:How can you claim this? The bible goes beyond even the existence of mankind...It claims an account of the origins of our universe before it even existed. How do you get older then the begining of time?

So you claim, you can’t prove this assumption.

quote: Serious? What if the bible never existed..How would we know that murder was wrong? We hold our view based on biblical teaching.

No, Ethics is based on collective survival and moral standards. Ethics is fundamental to Human evolution, since without such, civilizations would have never have formed. Murder (without justification) is wrong because if people murdered without compuncture then communities wouldn’t have survived or developed. Using your assumption, the Greeks and the pre-Judeo Christian world would have no ethics, which is incorrect, since the Greeks formulated better ethics than the Bible.

quote:You're entitled to your opinion but, I have to question why think honoring your mother and father or not killing anybody is unreasonable, racist, prejudiced etc.?

You forgot the other commandments, that slavery is sanctioned (Exodus 21: 2-6, Lev 25: 44-46), that the selling of your daughter is not wrong (Exodus 21:7) that the Israelite army could ravish the women of the conquered (Numbers 31: 17-18) and the sanctioning of human sacrifices or his indifference thereof (Lev 27: 28-29, Judges 11: 29-40, 2 Samuel 21: 1-9), and the murder of children for not stroking his ego (2 Kings 2: 23-24). You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

quote:In some third world countries it is ok to kill a woman because she was hanging out with some dude from another tribe behind the bushes.

One of the reasons it is a third world country.

For the subject matter, The Pledge of Allegiance was originally “without God”, however in the age of McCarthyism and the Cold War, it was added with Eisenhower’s support. So the claim that is was added because God is the basis of morality is unfounded. If one doesn't want to say it, don't say it. Either it is removed or not is not to me a major issue.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-27-2006).]

This has been a topic for far too long.

Just take the damn word out, solve a lot of problems.

The pledge of alligence is useless anyways, we are not indivisible, just look at politics, two fierce sides competing against each other in the same country.

Freedom and Justice for all? My ass, what about the innocent who get put into jail?

My point exactly.

Also, I do not stand for the pledge. I used to stand and say it but now I don't even stand. Not because of the whole "God" part, but because of what I mentioned above.

[This message has been edited by anonymouslyaware (edited 08-27-2006).]

quote:Originall posted by Interest:

How can you claim this? The bible goes beyond even the existence of mankind...It claims an account of the origins of our universe before it even existed. How do you get older then the begining of time?

Secondly, taking quotes from Wikidpedia is by far not a trustworthy source of straight facts. You need a different source of info...

Hmm, well, the Bible was written by four men, am I not correct?

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Serious? What if the bible never existed..How would we know that murder was wrong?

Do you want to be murdered? Do you know anyone who wants to be murdered? Generally, anyone who wants to die is labeled suicidal and is generally considered as needing mental help. Therefore, currently, normal people do not want to be murdered. So we create a justice system to punish those who murder despite our want to stay alive.

If a group of people does not accept something, then to them it is wrong. It's that simple. Right now, normal people do not accept murder, so to them, it is wrong.

See? I don't need the Bible to explain how murder is wrong (right now)(to "normal" people).

----------------------

Too bad, you had a (shitty) argument going, until you said that.

Now we all just think you're a complete idiot.

[This message has been edited by Inti (edited 08-27-2006).]

There are a bunch of side topics goin on that have practically nothing to do with the OPs original question. i mean if its really that important post a topic on it because NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR ABOUT THE BULLSHIT THAT HAPPENED IN THE BIBLE WHEN THE TOPIC IS HAVING GOD IF THE FUCKIN PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE!!! WTF?!?

quote:Originally posted by anonymouslyaware:

Hmm, well, the Bible was written by four men, am I not correct?

That is incorrect.

I could go through all the minor and major prophets and so on but, that would be a lot of leg work and I'm lazy. Are you thinking of the New Testament? Most Christians accept the Old and New combined -

I'm going to answer someone else here as well -

The Jewish were never considered "superior" to anybody in the bible - in fact they were the most inferior and used by God as an example of doing it right and what happens when it is done wrong. The Jewish people weren't brought into biblical history until the book of Exodus - When Moses and Aaron confronted the Pharoah.

In fact the Jewish tribes are a nation spawned from the blood lines of Noah's children. (so the story goes) In essence - everybody's geneology should be able to be traced back to Noah to Adam and Eve. (one of you scientists should get on this right away!)

Do you think Adam and Eve are Jewish? No I don't believe they were - but they did have the first covenent with God - they messed that one up to. Then after all the curses set down we continued on as a species - eventually it got all out of hand again - then the flood or another covenent between God and man via Moses - then Abraham etc. then to Jesus - all the while God trying to build a bridge between Him and us through prophets and angels.

The Jewish people are no more super then anybody else. They were just a race of people God used to tell the world about Himself. They dorked it up and then God said now I will offer the same thing to the rest of the world. Hence a new covenent or agreement with the "gentiles" or anybody who did not enter into the previous covenent between Abraham and God.

As for anything that happens after the fact (Islam)- believe what you want but, I see the "spine of truth" through history from the claimed begining of time to the claimed end of time.

The very last paragraph in the scripture states that the book is closed - we shouldn't add to it or take away from it. It is sealed - the only think left is for time to follow it's course. That is why we no longer have major prophets today - Jesus carried the last message God has for us.

It is the last message of reconiliation between God and mankind. From the begining that has been God's purpose.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by The_Big_Beef:

There are a bunch of side topics goin on that have practically nothing to do with the OPs original question. i mean if its really that important post a topic on it because NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR ABOUT THE BULLSHIT THAT HAPPENED IN THE BIBLE WHEN THE TOPIC IS HAVING GOD IF THE FUCKIN PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE!!! WTF?!?

That's pretty much how it goes - the original question is rarely the issue- just a sympton of a bigger issue...

When people talk about it - the layers get peeled away and the true issue at hand comes out.

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

Do you want to be murdered? Do you know anyone who wants to be murdered? Generally, anyone who wants to die is labeled suicidal and is generally considered as needing mental help. Therefore, currently, normal people do not want to be murdered. So we create a justice system to punish those who murder despite our want to stay alive.

If a group of people does not accept something, then to them it is wrong. It's that simple. Right now, normal people do not accept murder, so to them, it is wrong.

See? I don't need the Bible to explain how murder is wrong (right now)(to "normal" people).



I read a while back that someone claimed that people believe in Christianity because it was pounded into them all their lives - Christians only believe because they don't know any other way- was the message.

So with that in mind - how can we possibly consider your assumption when the "natural laws" of the consequence of murder have alway been with us?

The one thing that seperated us from the communists in the cold war was our faith in a all mighty that we all answer to.

The communists made it illegal to believe in anything other then government as there was no higher thing over man.

This is the example of what happens when you take away ones conscience from God. They murdered millions of people for political reasons. Because those people did not meet the requirements of government they were murdered. However, it was perfectly legal by that system of government owned and run by man.

Today, many believe abortion is ok. Many have no problem with it - that is because they don't know God's version of things. If we kept our conscience on God we wouldn't even need to use abortion as a form of birth control. When we got to that point - it became murder - supported by government and desired by the people.

I know of another story that closely resembles this view - When Jesus was put before the Jewish people by Pilot - Pilot asked them who they want - the murderer Barabbas or the Jesus who claims to be the king of the Jews?

Without a doubt - the parable is the people again chose murder over righteousness.

See we do need the bible to tell us murder is wrong - without it - then the rules get real grey real fast.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I read a while back that someone claimed that people believe in Christianity because it was pounded into them all their lives - Christians only believe because they don't know any other way- was the message.

So with that in mind - how can we possibly consider your assumption when the "natural laws" of the consequence of murder have alway been with us?



i'm sorry, this just doesn't make any sense. please elaborate on what somebody claimed about christians has to do with humanist morality?

quote:...The one thing that seperated us from the communists in the cold war was our faith in a all mighty that we all answer to...



LMMFAO! get a clue man.

quote:

This is the example of what happens when you take away ones conscience from God. They murdered millions of people for political reasons...



can you say inquisition(s)? crusades? pedophile priests? have you even read all the completely evil stuff sanctioned by god in the ot? did it ever occur to you that the church is also run by men?

quote:

Today, many believe abortion is ok. Many have no problem with it - that is because they don't know God's version of things....



i suppose all those pro-choice christians are worshiping a different god.

quote:

If we kept our conscience on God we wouldn't even need to use abortion as a form of birth control.



because christians never have premarital sex, rapes never happen in gods golden kingdom, abortions are never necessary to save the life of the mother when the child is doomed anyway, and married people never accidently concieve a child.

take of the rose-colored glasses friend, and have a look at what the rest of us call reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Interest:

I read a while back that someone claimed that people believe in Christianity because it was pounded into them all their lives - Christians only believe because they don't know any other way- was the message.

So with that in mind - how can we possibly consider your assumption when the "natural laws" of the consequence of murder have alway been with us?



quote:

________________________________________

i'm sorry, this just doesn't make any sense. please elaborate on what somebody claimed about christians has to do with humanist morality?

THe claim was a Christian is a Christian because that is the way they were raised.

The assumption was - with our without the bible people will still understand murder is wrong.

My response is - I disagree - without a higher direction people will come to their own conclusions. Without the higher direction people become savage.

quote:...The one thing that seperated us from the communists in the cold war was our faith in a all mighty that we all answer to...

________________________________________



quote:

LMMFAO! get a clue man.



You do realize that communism is secular atheism? A government of man made rules with a morale foundation based on the needs of the day? ah..forget it..what's the point..I'll let you have this one.

quote:

This is the example of what happens when you take away ones conscience from God. They murdered millions of people for political reasons...

quote:

________________________________________

can you say inquisition(s)? crusades? pedophile priests? have you even read all the completely evil stuff sanctioned by god in the ot? did it ever occur to you that the church is also run by men?

Are you saying that the atheist is as pure as the driven white snow who has never done any evil? That the only evil perpetrated on this world is done at the hands of religion?

I am by far not saying that religions are exempt from wronging others - it is plainy true that people do good with or without religion and people do evil with or without religion. I'm not here to say any human is perfect - (well besides Jesus...)

Get over it..it's a lame arguement.

quote:

Today, many believe abortion is ok. Many have no problem with it - that is because they don't know God's version of things.... quote:

________________________________________

i suppose all those pro-choice christians are worshiping a different god.

I can only speak for myself on this one. However, if someone says they are faithful to God and then turn around and say it's ok to abort unwanted babies - I will have to question their testimony.

quote:

quote:

________________________________________

If we kept our conscience on God we wouldn't even need to use abortion as a form of birth control.

[b] quote:

________________________________________

because christians never have premarital sex, rapes never happen in gods golden kingdom, abortions are never necessary to save the life of the mother when the child is doomed anyway, and married people never accidently concieve a child.

take of the rose-colored glasses friend, and have a look at what the rest of us call reality.[/b

I've been around the proverbial block - I've been there and done that. Been half-way around the world and back - twice. I'm not innocent of sin. In fact it was only recently in my life that I surrendered my life to Jesus. I saw a better thing to follow - that's all.

You're making some wild assumptions here though. I like to think that I am a realist. I mean I try to look at things logically. Now don't run away now - faith and logic do kind of work together sometimes.

I always find it interesting that the arguemetns that come up when talking about abortion are rape, incest, danger to mother, etc. when IN FACT these items are the reason for a very small percentage of abortions commited today. The overwhelming majority of abortion is completed by a healhty woman killing a healthy baby for no other reason then the baby will be an inconvienience to the mother after it is born.

Abortion is not the answer to the problems of society. It is a symptom of the broken spirit of this nation. Murder is not ok -

It's there because the country was founded on Christian values and though we consider ourselves a multi-denominational country in reality we're still a Christian based country. That's why. It's not fair to those who aren't Christian or Jewish, but it's reality.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

It's there because the country was founded on Christian values and though we consider ourselves a multi-denominational country in reality we're still a Christian based country. That's why. It's not fair to those who aren't Christian or Jewish, but it's reality.

Cheers,

Lost



Did you read the thread? "God" was added into pledge of alleigance 50 years ago, it had nothing to do with our founding.

quote:Originally posted by king koopa:



Did you read the thread? "God" was added into pledge of alleigance 50 years ago, it had nothing to do with our founding.

I admit that using the pledge as an example of the entire history of the nation falls short by about 300 years or so.

The founding documents plainly referenced their understanding of natural given human rights and attributed them to God by Christ.

I'm sure if you dig deep enough you will find references to people saying we are not a theocracy, etc etc and that is fine. The overwhelming evidence pointing to a Christian foundation is everywhere.

Here is a reference for your research -

http://www .usconstit ution.net/ otherdocs.html (http: //www.usco nstitution .net/other docs.html)

Here's one - I didn't have to look very hard

The first sentenceo second paragraph of George Washington's first inagural address.

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge."

[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-28-2006).]

Just to add my two cents, many of the framers of these documents (The Constitution, etc...) were anti-Christian, being comprised of Masons and deists of many persuasions, and were more influenced by Enlightenment ideals; the Mayflower Compact had no bearing on post-Revolutionary American Government and the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) stated and I quote "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [i.e., Muslims] ..., it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries".

an "Almighty Being who rules over the universe..." is not indicative of christianity specifically.



quote:

THe claim was a Christian is a Christian because that is the way they were raised.

The assumption was - with our without the bible people will still understand murder is wrong.

My response is - I disagree - without a higher direction people will come to their own conclusions. Without the higher direction people become savage.



you can make that statement all you want, but it doesn't make it true. what i am asking for is some kind of evidence of logical line of thinking that supports your point of view.

see, humans can come up with morals without the bible because even without the bible people don't want to be murdered. so it becomes immoral to murder without the bible.

furthermore, implying that without the bible as a moral guide people can not be moral is asinine. what about the 70% of the people in the world that are not christian? are you suggesting they have no morals? surely you are not taking such an ethnocentric stance.

quote:

You do realize that communism is secular atheism? A government of man made rules with a morale foundation based on the needs of the day? ah..forget it..what's the point..I'll let you have this one.



yes, communism is "secular atheism" (i'm not sure what other kind of atheism there is, but ok). however, atheism is certainly not the "one thing that seperated us from the communists. although it is one thing that separated the two countries, the main thing that was different was the government and economic system. communism is not based on athiesm, although it has adopted it.

quote:

Are you saying that the atheist is as pure as the driven white snow who has never done any evil? That the only evil perpetrated on this world is done at the hands of religion?



of course not. atheists and christians are equally likely to be immoral. well, actually atheists are far less likely to be imprisoned for criminal activies, but for your sake i am saying that both are on equal moral ground. athiests murder thousands of people, christains murder thousands of people, and googlflaks murder thousands of people. the common denominator here is not a "conscience of god," but existing as human beings.

quote:

I am by far not saying that religions are exempt from wronging others - it is plainy true that people do good with or without religion and people do evil with or without religion.



this is contrary to what you said before. if christians are no more likely to be moral or immoral than anybody else...then what is your point?



quote:

I can only speak for myself on this one. However, if someone says they are faithful to God and then turn around and say it's ok to abort unwanted babies - I will have to question their testimony.



in other words, you are right and they are wrong. glad we got that established.

quote:[b]

I always find it interesting that the arguemetns that come up when talking about abortion are rape, incest, danger to mother, etc. when IN FACT these items are the reason for a very small percentage of abortions commited today. The overwhelming majority of abortion is completed by a healhty woman killing a healthy baby for no other reason then the baby will be an inconvienience to the mother after it is born.



it doesn't matter if it is only a small percentage (and how would you know? do they ask "why are you aborting this baby?")

furthermore, abortion doesn't matter, peroid. this thread is not about abortion, and some people that believe in a christian god support abortion, and some athiests are against it. clearly, morality is not so cut and dry as you would have us believe.

quote:[b]

Murder is not ok



do you support the death penalty?

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:



quote:

Murder is not ok



do you support the death penalty?[/B][/QUOTE]

Good question - death penalty as prescribed by government?

What is your definition of murder? Unjust ending of innocent life? Or is it justified ending of a violent criminal who is trying to kill you? or is it basically the ending of life in general?

There are many degrees of justified and unjustified murders. Jesus taught against the "eye for an eye" type government but he also taught we must respect the laws of the land we are in.

The answer is then if a church is claiming dominion over carrying out the death penalty then it is wrong - if the government is conducting the death penalty then who is to say? We live in a democracy - I am only but one vote.

To answer the question - I must be consistent and say if I am against all abortion then I am against all killing.

However, if I see that some abortions are justified for medical reasons or whatever and that some people are beyond reason and will like continue to kill others then I support some abortions and some executions.

I would think I tend to lean towards the later. I don't think women should abort a baby for birth control reasons nor do I think the government should execute pot smokers.

I believe a woman should have a choice to carry a baby of a crime of incest or rape. Without a question a woman should be able to make the choice if there is a medical condition that will threaten her life or the baby.

I do not believe any kind of defect or handicap should be a consideration for abortion unless a true life threatening medical problem is present - (I wouldn't be here as my Grandmother was deaf. by todays standards that is worthy of abortion by some.)

I don't believe a woman should have a choice ot abort a baby because it will "ruin her life" or ruin the rock star lifestyle she leds.

God's law is love and inside love is mercy -



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-28-2006).]

an "Almighty Being who rules over the universe..." is not indicative of christianity specifically.



quote:

THe claim was a Christian is a Christian because that is the way they were raised.

The assumption was - with our without the bible people will still understand murder is wrong.

My response is - I disagree - without a higher direction people will come to their own conclusions. Without the higher direction people become savage.



you can make that statement all you want, but it doesn't make it true. what i am asking for is some kind of evidence of logical line of thinking that supports your point of view.

see, humans can come up with morals without the bible because even without the bible people don't want to be murdered. so it becomes immoral to murder without the bible.

furthermore, implying that without the bible as a moral guide people can not be moral is asinine. what about the 70% of the people in the world that are not christian? are you suggesting they have no morals? surely you are not taking such an ethnocentric stance.

quote:

You do realize that communism is secular atheism? A government of man made rules with a morale foundation based on the needs of the day? ah..forget it..what's the point..I'll let you have this one.



yes, communism is "secular atheism" (i'm not sure what other kind of atheism there is, but ok). however, atheism is certainly not the "one thing that seperated us from the communists. although it was a thing that separated the two countries, the main thing that was different was the government and economic system. communism is not based on athiesm, although it has adopted it.

quote:

Are you saying that the atheist is as pure as the driven white snow who has never done any evil? That the only evil perpetrated on this world is done at the hands of religion?



of course not. atheists and christians are equally likely to be immoral. well, actually atheists are far less likely to be imprisoned for criminal activies, but for your sake i am saying that both are on equal moral ground. athiests murder thousands of people, christains murder thousands of people, and googlflaks murder thousands of people. the common denominator here is not a "conscience of god," but existing as human beings.

quote:

I am by far not saying that religions are exempt from wronging others - it is plainy true that people do good with or without religion and people do evil with or without religion.



this is contrary to what you said before. if christians are no more likely to be moral or immoral than anybody else...then what is your point?



quote:

I can only speak for myself on this one. However, if someone says they are faithful to God and then turn around and say it's ok to abort unwanted babies - I will have to question their testimony.



in other words, you are right and they are wrong. glad we got that established.

quote: I always find it interesting that the arguemetns that come up when talking about abortion are rape, incest, danger to mother, etc. when IN FACT these items are the reason for a very small percentage of abortions commited today. The overwhelming majority of abortion is completed by a healhty woman killing a healthy baby for no other reason then the baby will be an inconvienience to the mother after it is born.



it doesn't matter if it is only a small percentage (and how would you know? do they ask "why are you aborting this baby?")

furthermore, abortion doesn't matter, peroid. this thread is not about abortion, and some people that believe in a christian god support abortion, and some athiests are against it. clearly, morality is not so cut and dry as you would have us believe.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

an "Almighty Being who rules over the universe..." is not indicative of christianity specifically.

How did you come to your conclusion?

Because of the thousands of other ideas out there that confuse the issue? or Is it out of confusion that you came to your balanced perspective of just meeting it somewhere in the middle?

Religion does not go hand in hand with morals. People used to stone the shit out of eachother in the old times because it went along with religion.

Murder was an act that was considered immoral waaaayyyyy before the bible came along. It's just common human understanding that murder is immoral because most people value their lives. Since murder is the act of taking away a person's right to live, it is immoral.

Our forefathers clearly did not want us to think of this nation as a Christian nation, no matter what the religion they followed was. Christian fundamentalists just want to push their beliefs on others and make themselves believe they are the right religion. It's all bullshit.

quote:Originally posted by king koopa:

Religion does not go hand in hand with morals. People used to stone the shit out of eachother in the old times because it went along with religion.

Murder was an act that was considered immoral waaaayyyyy before the bible came along. It's just common human understanding that murder is immoral because most people value their lives. Since murder is the act of taking away a person's right to live, it is immoral.

Our forefathers clearly did not want us to think of this nation as a Christian nation, no matter what the religion they followed was. Christian fundamentalists just want to push their beliefs on others and make themselves believe they are the right religion. It's all bullshit.

I don't think it was as "clearly" as you portray.

Tell me what other religion or religous text or non-religious text mentioned the very first murder? or claims to talk about the first murder?

But, that is far from the point -

You sound fairly biased in your views as well. So much for fair and balanced.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I don't think it was as "clearly" as you portray.

Tell me what other religion or religous text or non-religious text mentioned the very first murder? or claims to talk about the first murder?

But, that is far from the point -

You sound fairly biased in your views as well. So much for fair and balanced.



I reccomend you study all religions also those earlier than the Old Testament and those that came later...

Including

Ancient Mythology from around the World

Hinduism

Buddhism

Islam

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



Tell me what other religion or religous text or non-religious text mentioned the very first murder? or claims to talk about the first murder?

-

You sound fairly biased in your views as well. So much for fair and balanced.





lmmfao!!

gtfo kid.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I don't think it was as "clearly" as you portray.

Tell me what other religion or religous text or non-religious text mentioned the very first murder? or claims to talk about the first murder?

But, that is far from the point -

You sound fairly biased in your views as well. So much for fair and balanced.



Your logic is irrational, so in order for a philosophy to be against murder, they have to mention a "first murder" which is ridiculous in and of itself. It doesn't follow. You, my friend, are biased.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I don't think it was as "clearly" as you portray.

Our forefathers didn't declare their independence to create a Christian nation. They declared their independence for total freedom for all people, no matter their religion. Our Constitution wasn't based on Christian values, it was based on the values of life and liberty.

quote:Tell me what other religion or religous text or non-religious text mentioned the very first murder? or claims to talk about the first murder?

But, that is far from the point -

The first murder? What are you even talking about?

quote:You sound fairly biased in your views as well. So much for fair and balanced.



How do I sound biased?

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I reccomend you study all religions also those earlier than the Old Testament and those that came later...

Including

Ancient Mythology from around the World

Hinduism

Buddhism

Islam

I wouldn't be convinced otherwise if I haven't taken some to study other religions or ideas....I am a novice apologetic of my own admission - I understand where I stand clearly.

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

Your logic is irrational, so in order for a philosophy to be against murder, they have to mention a "first murder" which is ridiculous in and of itself. It doesn't follow. You, my friend, are biased.

I'm only saying I have not read any other "religion" or text claim the first murder other then the scripture that explains the blood line of God's people from Adam to the Gentiles.

The very first murder is chronicled in the bible. The account is handed down by Moses. They were the first born of the first homosapiens. I don't know how you can you claim that murder existed before the bible when the bible's historical account explains the first murder. There is no other account in any other text that does this.

I never claimed I wasn't biased. I about as biased and opinionated as the rest of you. I just so happen don't agree. That's all.

[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by king koopa:

How do I sound biased?

Read your last sentence again -

quote:

Our forefathers didn't declare their independence to create a Christian nation. They declared their independence for total freedom for all people, no matter their religion. Our Constitution wasn't based on Christian values, it was based on the values of life and liberty.



This is a play on words - I never said the founding fathers wanted to create a Christian nation - I said they based it on Christian principles. They believed that freedom comes from God as a naturaly occuring thing. The human right to self-determination - self-defence - freedom of speech - freedom of assembly - etc etc etc..where all derived from the claim of natural God given rights to all humans...this is the protestant view of God. The English church/ Catholic church wanted dominion over all and demanded adherence to their dogmatic ceremony - which was another form of legalism. It robs man of his freewill and is counter to what the protestant believes Christ died for. Freedom



quote:

The first murder? What are you even talking about?



The bible does have an account of the first murder - it's in Genisis and I invite you to read it.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-31-2006).]

Interest...*sigh* You don't think much, do you?

First, in regards to our country being "based on Christian principles", bullocks. Many of the founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Adams) were criticle of the Christian religion itself (yes, that include your Protestantism too). If based, or inspired, by anything, the basic tenets of our Constitution were derived from the political philosophy of John Locke. Whatever you've been fed about the framing of our constitution, that they all gathered in prayer everytime they discussed it and wrote "Jesus" in invisible ink all over the front of it, it's bullshit. Straight. Bullshit.

In regards to the bible being the only religious text to talk about the first murder...what's your damn point? I mean seriously, how is that any evidence of...anything??? Just because a book is the first to talk about a given [fictional] event involving a certain action, that somehow proves that that event did, in fact, happen? Or provides any credibility for the book it is written in? How?! It honestly makes no fucking sense. At all. You don't need to study science books, other religions, or your own any more. Get a good book on critical thinking skills. Otherwise, nothing you read will do you any good.

edit: And I know I was rude in this post. But, Interest, it really can piss a guy off. It's like arguing with a kid. You just...don't get it, and half the stuff that comes out of your mouth makes no sense to anyone but yourself. Like I said, pick up a good book on how to be a bit more objective in your thinking (here's a good one for just $10 bucks (http://tinyurl.com/muz32)). My concern is not what you believe, but at least be able to hold it up under scrutiny. And saying things so crazy all rational people can do is stare at their monitor for a few seconds, then click the back button and wonder how many paint chips you ate as a kid, does not constitute backing up your arguments.

I feel like such a bastard, now. Don't think I wanted to be an ass, Interest. Sometimes, I don't really think there's any other way a guy can get his point across.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I'm only saying I have not read any other "religion" or text claim the first murder other then the scripture that explains the blood line of God's people from Adam to the Gentiles.

The very first murder is chronicled in the bible. The account is handed down by Moses. They were the first born of the first homosapiens. I don't know how you can you claim that murder existed before the bible when the bible's historical account explains the first murder. There is no other account in any other text that does this.

I never claimed I wasn't biased. I about as biased and opinionated as the rest of you. I just so happen don't agree. That's all.



All under the preconceived notion that the Bible is accurate in its details. Its not corrborated by any historical evidence and etc.. However I'll give you this, The skeleton of the Abel/Cain narrative is the Sumerian tale of the wooing of Inanna. The biblical version was written by a writer ("J") who lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, during an early period of Israel's history when they followed a nature/fertility religion (Documentary Hypothesis).

[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Interest...*sigh* You don't think much, do you?



Acutally I think to dang much..

quote:

First, in regards to our country being "based on Christian principles", bullocks. Many of the founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Adams) were criticle of the Christian religion itself (yes, that include your Protestantism too). If based, or inspired, by anything, the basic tenets of our Constitution were derived from the political philosophy of John Locke. Whatever you've been fed about the framing of our constitution, that they all gathered in prayer everytime they discussed it and wrote "Jesus" in invisible ink all over the front of it, it's bullshit. Straight. Bullshit.

OK..lets just say I agree with you - - then can you agree that the freedom of religion does not exclude public office or government?

George Washington establishing the holiday of thanksgiving:

ht tp://www.l eaderu.com/humanities/washington-thanksgiving.html (http: //www.lead eru.com/hu manities/w ashington- thanksgivi ng.html)

The point is in 1789 they announced a day of thanking God...they made a national holiday that we still observe.

If they thanked God for the opportunity to build a nation do you think they intended to build it in a way that opposes God or the "principles of the freedom" the nation was based on?



quote:

In regards to the bible being the only religious text to talk about the first murder...what's your damn point? Some people really believe what they read in a book and accept it by faith that it is true...pay attention now -- I'm not done, keep reading.

quote:

I mean seriously, how is that any evidence of...anything??? Just because a book is the first to talk about a given [fictional] event involving a certain action, that somehow proves that that event did, in fact, happen?

Firstly< I posted that because I already knew the reaction it was going to get. The point was to show that the other documents people are introducing and saying it was around long before the bible, makes no sense.

The account of Cane and Able were written by Moses - It was an event carried from generation to generation until Moses put it on - paper or whatever..rock, tablet...who cares. (1500's BC -)

Whatever the case - since this doesn't really prove anything and the event really can't be proven - what evidence do you have to support it didn't happen?

If we are allowed to use the arguement of "what came first must be true" then finding the "truth" is going to be very difficult...what history book do you trust?

[b][quote]

Or provides any credibility for the book it is written in?

It's scientifically true that there had to be a first murder - credibility is also a man made thing - it is also dependent on what people choose to believe. The events in the bible that can be collaborated with other historical documents have shown no error. The timelines are accurate. I've seen the studies.

Now there comes a point where the history in the bible can not be collaborated - (something like the missing link in evolution) we have to see that if the majority of it is accurate (timelines) then the rest must be as well. It's the same "scientific" logic used to understand evolution. Some but not all evidence is good enough.

quote:

How?! It honestly makes no fucking sense. At all. You don't need to study science books, other religions, or your own any more. Get a good book on critical thinking skills. Otherwise, nothing you read will do you any good.

Look, I see your points on understanding this world and all that's in it - scientific logic and critical thinking are required - I agree. However, faith is a matter of the soul - a non-tangable thing. Don't allow things that don't meet your litmus test for logic stand in the way of understanding the deepest part of the human condition. That's all I ask.

quote:

edit: And I know I was rude in this post. But, Interest, it really can piss a guy off. It's like arguing with a kid. You just...don't get it, and half the stuff that comes out of your mouth makes no sense to anyone but yourself. Like I said, pick up a good book on how to be a bit more objective in your thinking (here's a good one for just $10 bucks (http://tinyurl.com/muz32)). My concern is not what you believe, but at least be able to hold it up under scrutiny. And saying things so crazy all rational people can do is stare at their monitor for a few seconds, then click the back button and wonder how many paint chips you ate as a kid, does not constitute backing up your arguments.

I understand what you are saying - I can only try to grasp what I know and put it in words and try to explain it and defend it - logic and revelation of the spiritual don't go hand in hand - how do you explain the condition of ones heart and mind? It ain't easy and it rarely makes any sense inside my own head. Let alone trying to put it in words and describe it.

quote:

I feel like such a bastard, now. Don't think I wanted to be an ass, Interest. Sometimes, I don't really think there's any other way a guy can get his point across.

No problem - I don't know what you need to hear in regards to defending faith - it exists but how do I prove it? It's not a mental condition... it's not a disease or a warped sense of reality.

Critical thinking is the enemy to faith - that is what you will never get past. God is not of this world so you can not use worldy logic to figure it out.

Now going back to this government - you choose not to accept what I say because you choose to accept the modern views of secularism. For hundreds of years we have prayed here and there without hinderence - the modern belief that Christianity did not have anything to do with shaping this nations government is plain ignorance.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

All under the preconceived notion that the Bible is accurate in its details. Its not corrborated by any historical evidence and etc..

That's flat out not true - there is huge efforts at collaborating the historical accounts of the bible. Historians have been at it for years putting it all together. Massive amounts of data that backs up a great majority of the times and events in the bible. Your claim is false -

Give some examples of events in the bible where the time line is incorrect or not possible based on other historical accounts? Please back up your claim -



[]b] quote:

However I'll give you this, The skeleton of the Abel/Cain narrative is the Sumerian tale of the wooing of Inanna. The biblical version was written by a writer ("J") who lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, during an early period of Israel's history when they followed a nature/fertility religion (Documentary Hypothesis).

[/B]

If someone lived in the Kingdom of Judah - then that means it is in a time period after the Exodus - prior to it there was no form of jewish government (they were slaves to Egypt) - it was during the period of 1050BC when Saul became the first King could I imagine it would considered a kingdom - The ten commandments were given around 1445BC

Therefore the second claim of a nature/fertility religion is also incorrect. It could not of been a mainstream belief. Hypothesis incorrect.

Even if the Bible's story of the first murder is true (I'm not saying it is), that murder happened before the Bible was written and people knew murder to be an immoral act before the bible was written.

Our forefathers were spiritual people, I will give you that. But that doesn't mean that they meant for this country to be founded on the principles of any one religion. They founded the country on the basis of freedom for all people, which is an idea that does not originate from their religious views. It originated from the tyranny they experienced by their former ruler. They believed in every man being their own king rather than having one total ruler.

It's obvious the word God was never meant to be in the pledge of allegiance because it wasn't put there when it was first written. You don't have to believe in God to believe in freedom.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Read your last sentence again -

"Christian fundamentalists just want to push their beliefs on others and make themselves believe they are the right religion. It's all bullshit."

That's what Christian Fundamentalists do. They believe their religion to be the only right one and want to push their "perfect" way of life onto everyone else. They would love have religous rule over the country like the Islamic religion has in some of the countries in the Middle East where religion and government are one.

quote:Originally posted by king koopa:

You don't have to believe in God to believe in freedom.

Well said! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by king koopa:

"Christian fundamentalists just want to push their beliefs on others and make themselves believe they are the right religion. It's all bullshit."

That's what Christian Fundamentalists do. They believe their religion to be the only right one and want to push their "perfect" way of life onto everyone else. They would love have religous rule over the country like the Islamic religion has in some of the countries in the Middle East where religion and government are one.

I can't agree with you more - government and religion are not one in the same. Government for the body and religion for the soul. However, since they both coexist - it is foolish to try and seperate them.

I see it that religion is a generic term and the dictionary defines it with a generic god. I believe that one's "religion" is what dictates their moral beliefs and conduct in life. One's religion is what comes out of the heart and into the world in deeds. I don't see it as ceremony or dogmatism or conformity to some set rules or guidelines. Everyone has a set of morals whether they be right or wrong is inconsequntial.

I believe that government is nothing more then a body of rules and regulations built on the "religion" of the populace.

If the populace doesn't agree with the rules then they generaly throw them off in revolution and the government changes.

To finish off my little summary of opinion - it is obvious that secularism is ruling the day - it is the religion of the masses - This is the foundation of government - it is the morals that dictate the laws.

When at one time the moral restraint was Christianity our government had a different face. Now that the moral restraint is secularism - or government will begin to change. Now the secularist fundamentalists are forcefully advancing in this society and pushing their ideology on us.

I just hope we all understand the consequence of the "man is man's god" mentality.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Originally posted by king koopa:

You don't have to believe in God to believe in freedom.

Well said! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

It's a matter of perspective. You would have nothing if it weren't given to you by God.

Ever consider the freedom a man who stops smoking for the first time in 20 years feels?

There is no such thing as freedom - we should be saying "free from"

What you think is secular freedom is a spiritual cage. What we think spiritual freedom is some consider a secular cage.

Trapped by our own vices and crutches - everyone has them. Those material things that control us - are destined to be anchors for our souls.

Spiritual cage? Souls? Gibberish. They are meaningless words. What are the attributes of a soul? We know that memories, emotions, and personality are all products of our physical minds. What is left to belong to a soul? And furthermore, how does a supernatural soul interact with a natural body, and vice versa?

And I would have nothing if it weren't given to me by god?

You would have nothing if it weren't given to you by Brahman. To you, the previous statement is meaningless. And yet it's Hindus who would say such a thing with the same conviction you do when you say it in reference to your god. Think about that.

I wouldn't call intellectual honesty a "crutch" or a "vice" either. I am a member of a physical universe. Everything I know, observe, and experience is of this physical universe. There is a higher probability of our physical minds deluding us into thinking the supernatural exists, than the supernatural actually existing, given that there has been such controversy over this supposed supernatural element, and numerous instances of such claims being proven to be nothing more than delusions of the physical mind.

You would have nothing if it weren't given to you by Brahman.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



You would have nothing if it weren't given to you by Brahman.

True!

quote: That's flat out not true - there is huge efforts at collaborating the historical accounts of the bible. Historians have been at it for years putting it all together. Massive amounts of data that backs up a great majority of the times and events in the bible. Your claim is false -

Give some examples of events in the bible where the time line is incorrect or not possible based on other historical accounts? Please back up your claim –

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

* The Genesis Account, including the Deluge is considered a myth when taken into account the geological, cosmological and evolutionary science and the textual evidence of the Bible itself. (Genesis 1 or 2 anyone?) N.B The Creationist model demands an utter lack of transitions in any group of organisms if all were separately created. Since some transitions have been found, then that’s a strike against Genesis.

* No archeological evidence supporting the existence of the Patriarchs was found , nor was it likely to expect archeological proof for the existence of a single household in the 18th century BCE.. Archeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman offered weighty evidence that the Pentateuch in its current form was a work largely written in and for the seventh century BCE, during an age of growing power for the southern kingdom of Judah and there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Abraham, Patriarchs and the like.

* The Exodus itself is a center of controversy. Since you post a date of 1445BC for the Ten Commandments, then it could be said that the Exodus date to be 1446 BC. This is unsatisfactory. If one uses either the lower or the higher Egyptological dating schemes, 1446 falls in the reign of Thutmose III, who in archaeological records, is engaged in capturing Canaanite prisoners in battle and bringing them into Egypt, as opposed to the Pharaoh of the Exodus, who was concerned early on with the unbalanced proportion of Hebrew slaves. The archaeology of the Conquest militates for a late Exodus. (Since currently, the destruction layer at Hazor, at which a transition from Canaanite to proto-Israelite/Philistine material culture is found, is dated from 1250-1150 BCE about 200 years, contrary to the Israelite 40 Years).

* Recent re-assessment of the remains from the era, especially in places such as Jericho, have reversed the earlier conclusions - the destruction layers of various cities date from wildly different times, and thus rather than a unified short military campaign, the remains are more suggestive of a series of isolated disasters/attacks over a period of centuries. Therefore Joshua’s successive campaigns are contradicted. In the particular case of Jericho, it was already abandoned during the time of the Israelite conquest - the conquest of Jericho by Israelites would have been the conquest and destruction of an empty ruin. In addition, since archaeological remains show a smooth cultural continuity in this period, rather than the destruction of one culture (Canaanite) and replacement by another (Israelite), a growing majority of archaeologists believe that the Israelites were simply an emergent subculture within Canaanite society - i.e. that an Israelite conquest would be a logical nonsense - it would have involved the Canaanites invading themselves, from Canaan.

* Even though, there is little debate in the existence of David and Solomon, However, a heated debate extends as to whether the united monarchy, the vast empire of King Solomon, and the rebellion of Jeroboam ever existed. Solomon's empire is said to have stretched from the Euphrates in the north to the Red Sea in the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archeological evidence of Jerusalem being a sufficiently large city in the 10th century BCE (although a recent discovery might change that), and Judah seems to be sparsely settled in that time period. The conquests of David and Solomon are not mentioned in contemporary histories.

* Your “great majority” is probably the post-Solomon monarchies, the Ezra/Nehemiah. It is generally assumed that the Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as presented in the Books of Kings, is historical, even if not unbiased. Archeological evidence and chronologies of neighboring countries have corroborated the general picture presented in the Bible, although not every detail. And the Book of Daniel is thought to date from Hellenistic times, and to contain mainly fictional elements within an historical setting.

</UL>

quote: Therefore the second claim of a nature/fertility religion is also incorrect. It could not of been a mainstream belief. Hypothesis incorrect.

First, the Documentary Hypothesis: http://tinyurl.com/qkqs7

N.B Although it has been modified heavily over the years, most scholars accept some form of this hypothesis (the Vatican estimates 90% of scholars). There have also been and are scholars who reject it, including egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen and the late Umberto Cassuto and Gleason Archer, although most scholars rejecting it do so for religious reasons - Archer and Kitchen are devout conservative Christians (Archer was also a Pastor), while Cassuto was Chief Rabbi of Florence.

You assume that the Ten Commandments must have happened, at your set date which is in itself questionable. And the “J” was written between 848 BCE (when King Jehoram gained power in Judah) and 722 BCE when the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom Israel and took its people into exile. During that age “For our fathers have trespassed, and done that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD our God, and have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the LORD, and turned their backs. Also they have shut up the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt offerings in the holy place unto the God of Israel…Wherefore the wrath of the LORD was upon Judah and Jerusalem, and he hath delivered them to trouble, to astonishment, and to hissing, as ye see with your eyes.” (2 Chronicles 29: 6-8) So it is possible that a nature/fertility religion had been mainstreamed in Judah, that the Cain/Abel story was a syncretism of Sumerian myths and the Judean priesthood’s beliefs. Most scholars believe this. The statement stands.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-31-2006).]

Well God's laws were the basis of Ameriaca's laws so it would be a little off if we removed him completely. And besides it's just a small thing: less than 5 minutes, live with it.

Meh, this thread is turning into a discussion about the seperation of the soul and body, church and state, blah blah blah.

quote:Originally posted by king koopa:



It's obvious the word God was never meant to be in the pledge of allegiance because it wasn't put there when it was first written.

^^That would be the answer to the original intent of this thread.

There was no reason for that single word to be included. Not everyone in this country believes in God. If the word "Allah" were in it's place (even though it is the same god), the same people defending the pledge of allegiance and telling everyone else to suck it up would be fighting against it.



[This message has been edited by king koopa (edited 08-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



I see it that religion is a generic term and the dictionary defines it with a generic god. I believe that one's "religion" is what dictates their moral beliefs and conduct in life. One's religion is what comes out of the heart and into the world in deeds. I don't see it as ceremony or dogmatism or conformity to some set rules or guidelines. Everyone has a set of morals whether they be right or wrong is inconsequntial.



What about the people who don't believe in religion? Where do they get their morals? Like I said, religion and morals don't go hand in hand. No one needs religion to have morals.