I think you will find that most people are Canadians so statements like "Basically, this nation of America was founded by men strongly rooted in God" really won't resonate with most babblers.

quote:

---

Its to merely recognize the undeniable fact (and yes its undeniable. Save it for another discusion) that God exists.

---

quote:

---

I can only speculate on how that will turn out. Look up little details on the French Revolution to find out more on when people remove God from our world.

---

[ 12 April 2004: Message edited by: Marc ]

quote:

---

Now, although I am a Christian, I have not mentioned Christ yet.

---

Actually, dude, you just did!

quote:

---

Its to merely recognize the undeniable
fact (and yes its undeniable. Save it for another discusion) that God exists.

---

I deny the existence of this so called "God", only to prove that his/her existence is quite deniable.

During the McCarthy Period, say from 1946 when Churchill made his incendiary speech at Fulbright, democracy in your country got chopped off at the knees. It hasn't completely recovered since.

Another thing you might want to look into...a lot of the people associated with the founding of the U.S. of A. were deists and not really Christians at all. Try a search on "Tom Paine", "Thomas Jefferson" and even our old buddy "Ben Franklin".

[ 12 April 2004: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

I'll let you know if I get smited.

---

quote:

---

Look it up under "Cold War", "Eugene McCarthy"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
Some people tell me that many of the founding fathers of the USA were actually quite secular, and created the USA based partially on the basis of getting religion out of their lives.

---

quote:

---

They recognized the depravity of Mankind. That's why they established the Constitution.

---

I believe they established the constitution to govern how their republic would operate free of England. It was about truth, justice, and brotherhood.

quote:

---

Basically, this nation of America was founded by men strongly rooted in God.

---

Jesus was a slaveholder too?

quote:

---

He pointed to the only way to get to Heaven.

---

Right. I must reiterate myself. When I said that God's existence was undeniable, I merely meant, that with all of science's attempts to disprove God, they have never succeeded. In fact, the complexity of it all merely helps to prove Him. The prospect of chance plus time establishing a human cell is insane. Off topic.

In the French Revolution, the French attempted to remove God from all things in their culture. According to the Christian Bible, God used seven days to make the world; six to work, one to rest. The French elongated their week to some strange number like nine or something, working the animals extra days. The animals still would rest or be lazier on the seventh day of the week. They were still technically bound by the system.

Concerning the Crusades, I hate when people mention that. The Bible says to speak the truth in love. The Crusades were a sin, according to the Bible. Most Christians do not look highly on the Crusades. To see what happens when people put a lot on God, look at the Puritan Work Ethic instead.

Also, religious freedom was one of the reasons for some settlers to plant colonies in America. If you're referring to separation of Church and State, No Yards, that concept was never put into the Constitution. It was in a letter by Thomas Jefferson stating that the State should have no business in the Church's affairs. It meant that the State should stay away. And sure, many of the Fathers could have been secular, but many of them also recognized that religion is essential to humanity, as did the Greeks.

Also, even deism recognizes a supreme being, a "God" if you will. I'm not saying Christ is essential. I'm saying God is. I'm saying that its wrong to remove His name from the pledge when it doesn't even necessarily mean the Christian God.

Flotsam, could you be more specific on that statement about propaganda.

The statement about the Constitution was vague. The Founding Fathers established a republic because they thought that the people would not be able to make decisions for the country with wisdom. I should have made myself more specific. This in itself suggests that the Foundings Fathers were upholding a thought about God, that Man is generally depraved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by flotsom:

The insertion of reference to "God" in the USian Pledge of Allegiance was, to my mind, an act of propaganda which was intended to help steer the American public away from a dangerous issues-based awareness, eg, employment, unionization/labour law, poverty etc., to one largely determined by personal values, such as religion, guns, 'law and order' and so forth.

---

Pot, kettle, black.

RFC, if you want to understand why people want the reference to God removed from the pledge... imagine a world where the pledge required you to swear that you don't believe in God. "One nation under God" becomes, say, "one godless nation." It would basically require you to swear you believe something you don't.

quote:

---

To see what happens when people put a lot on God, look at the Puritan Work Ethic instead.

---

Er, no dancing, no music and nothing shiny or colourful in the church? Sorry, it was just too good to pass up.

I don't believe in God, of any number or description, so this:

quote:

---

Also, even deism recognizes a supreme being, a "God" if you will. I'm not saying Christ is essential. I'm saying God is.

---

quote:

---

that with all of science's attempts to disprove God, they have never succeeded. In fact, the complexity of it all merely helps to prove Him. The prospect of chance plus time establishing a human cell is insane.

---

Scientists have never set out to disprove God. Quite the opposite. Scientists (those of the heretical vein, anyway - pure scientists) set out to understand the world. Some even did so in their service to God (Mendel, for one). As scientific knowledge expanded, certain fundamental statements made in some silly old book were shown to be impossible. The six day earth fable, and the myth of an earth-centered universe, would be the two most famous examples. The scientists who discovered and published their findings (Darwin, Galileo, etc.) were persecuted simply for reporting what they saw. They had no ulterior motive (aside from wanting to share their knowledge), and certainly weren't setting out to disprove the existence of God. Religious conservatives set out to disprove science, and instead of using evidence they used propoganda, tower prisons, and good ole-fashioned lynch mobs. Scientists didn't give a flipping fig about the existence or non-existence of God, they just wanted to explain their observations. The poor sods.

In regards to the insane comment - it's called evolution. Look it up. The complexity of the human cell didn't appear in one moment. It took billions of years, and several environmental catastrophes, to develop from simple protein and lipid chains into walking, speaking, sometimes sentient beings. Sometimes I wonder why Gaia even bothered.

Edited to add:

The above is all off-topic. I defer to what others have said about the McCarthy era on the thread topic.

[ 13 April 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]

Loyalty, like love, cannot be compelled. Your expressions of loyalty can only be authentic if they are spontaneous, voluntary, free.

We require soldiers, police, and other public servants, elected and appointed, to swear loyalty to us because we give them special powers. But each of us, in her role as citizen of a democracy, must refuse to allow anyone else to put words in our mouths. Find your own words as a free citizen.

Most of the specific examples given then, such as the complexity of the eye, or a bird's wing, have now been shown to have been evolved; there are many structures which qualify as near-eye, part-eye, proto-eye in the animal kingdom.

Further, it is not really "chance" which created the world, but a process which, once started, is self-correcting and self-directing.

You were apparently born in 1988. My advice is not to get too bogged down in certainties at this point in your life; you cannot have seriously contemplated, much less read, the arguments against your view. Indeed, your idea that scientists set out to desacralize the world could not be more wrong, and makes me think you may be relying on religious writings only.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Get rid of the pledge!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Get rid of the pledge!

---

To begin I first have to adress the fact that I am young. My response..."Do not let anyone look down on you because you are young." That's in the Bible.

I would just first like to ask how many people here have actually studied the Bible with an open mind.

Now that I've gotten all that out of the way, let's begin. I'm really tired, and probably shouldn't be writing at this hour after a fast-paced day, but hey, I'll try to think. Pardon the choppy nature of my sentences.

Dogbert, that is a very good point. I'm going to have to think more about that before making a statement in agreement or in opposition to that point.

I'm afraid that the Puritan Work Ethic had nothing to do with dancing, etc. It had to do with work. What your thinking of is the Puritan belief system. The work ethic merely stated that men should work to the glory of God and look at that chance as a gift. The Puritans were very good at doing good jobs and finishing their work. Then they would go home and be boring, which was the after effect of their belief system.

Aroused, I am not quite sure what your next point was really getting at. I'll take a shot. If reducing God to lower level, such as not mentioning Christ, is not good enough, then add Christ. I'm not reducing God with that statement, I'm only saying that many of the men at the meeting that worked out the Constitution at least recognized a God. And quite frankly, there's not much evidence for the Big Bang, or for that matter, something being born out of nothing. Try to fully comprehend nothing. Its impossible. Its void. Which would suggest that something could randomly be born out nothing without some form of intervention, if you must believe in the evolutionary process.

Allow me to reword my statement on disproving God. Perhaps scientists haven't, but many men have tried. They, in fact, were brought to Christ through that attempt. Even if you don't read them with an open mind, read Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Basic Christianity, Mere Christianity, and More than a Carpenter. They may answer a couple questions.

First off, the six-day earth concept is no more far-fetched than nothingness producing life, even over many years. And, it is also no less far-fetched to say that a Big Bang established the world. If life, or even a protein was established even over billions upon billions of years, there is still something being made from nothing. Plus, there was no time. Billions upon billions of years didn't exist. Nothing existed, for lack of better and more acurate phrase. Existence was not possible, if there was nothing.

Also, a right understanding of religion is essential to make statements such as

quote:

---

Religious conservatives set out to disprove science, and instead of using evidence they used propoganda, tower prisons, and good ole-fashioned lynch mobs.

---

If anyone attempted to disprove science, they would not have made a very good study of Scripture. In the first book of the Bible, its called Genesis, God is said to have given Man dominion over the Earth, which suggests that studying it will not alter our beliefs. For me, its only reinforced them. It also says that the skies declare the glory of God, and that Creation proclaims the Name of the Lord. That's in a book called Psalms. This means that Creation, or study of Creation, will only help to prove God's greatness. The Bible encourages testing God's truth with an open mind. Christians who set out to disprove science were wrong in their ways. Science helps to prove God.

Skdadl, that's another interesting point. But I'm not sure loyalty should be spontaneous. Loyalty to a loved one is earned, and feelings can hurt your perception of a person close to you, or cause you to mistrust them. But they definitely need to be voluntary and free.

I must ask when the idea that the world was created by chance arose. It seems that during the 1600's and lower the Church, although confused, rather ruled with the idea of God.

quote:

---

Further, it is not really "chance" which created the world, but a process which, once started, is self-correcting and self-directing.

---

Let us put emphasis on once-started. A process needs to be started, in this case, out of nothing. Again, this cannot happen. You are expecting to just happen, like a light turning on. But a light is triggers by a light switch, which makes a spark and sends a message in milliseconds to turn on the light. You need a trigger, but there is none for a process that just started, its beginning seeming to be chance still. Indeed, your idea that process started out of what seems to be nothing could not be more wrong, and makes me think that you may be relying on scientific writings only.

Don't let them blind you.

[ 16 April 2004: Message edited by: Rock-for-Christ ]

[ 16 April 2004: Message edited by: Rock-for-Christ ]

quote:

---

Indeed, your idea that process started out of what seems to be nothing could not be more wrong, and makes me think that you may be relying on scientific writings only.

---

What else should he be relying on? The Hockey Gazette? Two can play at this game. If you argue that the process was started by god, then I'll ask what created god. It's all turtles all the way down.

quote:

---

Don't let them blind you.

---

What does it say in the bible about removing the speck from one's eye?

quote:

---

This means that Creation, or study of Creation, will only help to prove God's greatness.

---

quote:

---

You need a trigger, but there is none for a process that just started, its beginning seeming to be chance still. Indeed, your idea that process started out of what seems to be nothing could not be more wrong, and makes me think that you may be relying on scientific writings only.

---

With respect, this is what I was trying to get at. Stating that you (or we as a species) are unaware of what 'started the process' (in this case let's say the Universe in its entirety) is not an argument in favour of a bearded gent in the firmament stretching out his hand and flipping the starlight switch to 'ON'. Ignorance of the potential causes of what could very well be an entirely natural and uncaused-by-God phenomenon is not in itself an argument for the existence of God. In other words, the fact you personally can't think of an alternate answer does not mean that everyone should admit the existence of the Divine. To rephrase what you wrote: it makes me think you're relying on religious writings only.

Some food for thought?

Big Crunch coming?

Finite Funnel-shaped Universe?

And I'd recommend a featured article in the 20th March 2004 edition as well, on events prior to the Big Bang, but it's not available online. Check your local University library?

Edited to add:

quote:

---

If life, or even a protein was established even over billions upon billions of years, there is still something being made from nothing. Plus, there was no time. Billions upon billions of years didn't exist. Nothing existed, for lack of better and more acurate phrase. Existence was not possible, if there was nothing.

---

I detect a certain degree of confusion surrounding your definition of 'nothing'. The protein you mentioned wasn't made from 'nothing'='the absence of anything', but rather from other chemical compounds. The second portion is even more unclear. What billions (just billions, not billions of billions) of years didn't exist? The ones before 4004BC? If on the other hand you're referring to our inability to observe event prior to the Big Bang, or within the Planck time (10^-43 seconds) of the Big Bang event, well, once again this is no evidence for the existence of the Divine.

Put another way, if God wants to exist for 10^-43 seconds, He's welcome to it, but it's precious little time to write and dictate the Bible, even for a Canaanite sky-god with a whole pantheon of buddies to back him up!

[ 16 April 2004: Message edited by: aRoused ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
I have read the Bible, with an open mind.

---

That's excellent. The question I have struggled with is what to read it as, or how else to read it (besides with that all-important open mind). Such questioning is the realm of hermeneutics.

Some people read the Bible as a book of literal fact and a book of law. So, they hold to a six day creation, that homosexual activity is an abomination, and so on. Of course, as has been pointed out in other threads, the legalist-literalist folks run into difficulties with their selective application of Mosaic Law and homophobia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
I realized that the Bible was simply a fable-based guidebook, meant to be taken as allegory rather than history.

---

I'm not sure one way or the other about the history of many events in the Bible. For me, that's not as important as its promises.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rock-for-Christ:
I would just first like to ask how many people here have actually studied the Bible with an open mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
I have. King James; cover to cover. It's allegory.

---

quote:

---

While I disagree with their hermeneutics, they've done some pretty important bits of scholarship -- hardly reading at a grade 8 level, as you assert.

---

...carry on resolving THIS particular issue. After 5000 years of recorded history, I think we're just about there.

[ 16 April 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
I'm sorry, but anyone who actually believes that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt has some serious allegorical issues. Grade 8 may be too generous.

---

I see your point about allegory. That's only one of many issues that come from a legalist-literalist hermeneutic. Looking at the whole story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah from a promise-based hermeneutic, the pillar of salt isn't that important.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rock-for-Christ:
First off, the six-day earth concept is no more far-fetched than nothingness producing life, even over many years. And, it is also no less far-fetched to say that a Big Bang established the world. If life, or even a protein was established even over billions upon billions of years, there is still something being made from nothing. Plus, there was no time. Billions upon billions of years didn't exist. Nothing existed, for lack of better and more acurate phrase. Existence was not possible, if there was nothing.

---

No, no. Something was made from something else. Evolution is all about this. Even the very beginning fragments of DNA came from chemical compounds that were already extant.

The evolution of life from inorganic beginnings is a naturalistic, non-supernatural-involving hypothesis which happens to fit well with what we see in this planet.

Even Big Bang Cosmology has been revised in recent years with the advances in string theory which suggest that the collisions of different dimension "membranes" trigger universe formation. However, if the Big Bang is correct I have no issue with the idea that a quantum fluctuation in a cosmic egg a Planck Length in radius was what got us all here.

quote:

---

Don't let them blind you.

---

I actually find this somewhat insulting, given that I am (a) an atheist, and (b) a scientist, although not in biochemistry or evolutionary biology.

I don't see what makes the Christian creation myth any more compelling than any of the others. They all have the same amount of evidence for them (as in, none).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
I first read it when I was in elementary school (probably grade six or so). I read it literally the first time, because I was young and prone to believe everything I read. I read it again in high school, after reading much material from Norse, Greek, and other mythologies. On the second reading, I realized that the Bible was simply a fable-based guidebook, meant to be taken as allegory rather than history. I would submit that literalists are, for the most part, stuck somewhere between a grade 4 and grade 8 reading comprehension level.

---

Hmmm . . . this reminds me of a historical fiction about Norse people that I read one time. You may be overstating. As the book put it, in those days you didn't tell your child stories about trolls because they were interesting or entertaining. You told him because they were true, and he had to learn sometime.

There was symbolism stuff happening in Greek and Norse myths. And in the Norse case, poets considered them to a large extent material on which to draw for stylish allusions and cunning figures of speech. But that doesn't mean they weren't held to have literally happened. The Greeks thought their gods literally existed, and many of them were frankly depressed about the fact. They frankly seemed to wish the gods didn't exist, and weren't such petty, vengeful, bloodthirsty, unpredictable bastards (as evidenced by their behaviour in the myths).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Personally, I think many more progressive Christians go for the figurative interpretation in a desperate attempt to make the Bible seem remotely sane from a modern philosophical standpoint. It's a salvage attempt, and I think ultimately it fails.

---

Nicely put. To me, it comes around to what the Bible is about. If one chooses to see it as a book of law and history, then some pretty interesting gymnastics have to be done -- like interpreting the Song of Solomon as an allegorical descripton of the love of God for his people. There is pressure to have an agreed-to understanding of the whole of Scripture, as all of it is equally important.

During the 1950's the Knights of Columbus and other religious organisations pressured Congress to add the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. This was done during the 50's Red Scare and was meant to invoke God's favor in our "holy" battle against Communism. The ORIGINAL pledge didn't mention God.

Americans come from a plethora of religious backrounds and some haven't a religion at all. Many religions don't acknowledge a God, some acknowledge more than one(like my own) some recognise a "Great Spirit", others don't speak the name of G-d. The 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment(which guarantees Equal Protection) protect the rights of nonreligious, those who don't acknowledge God just as much as it does those who do.

I never remember being told that the pledge was voluntary, as a matter of fact I am sure that if you ask anyone they'd say the same thing. Acknowledging God, or Jesus or Allah, or Shiva or Great Spirit is a personal, and private right. You can do this in a church, synagogue, mosque, or in a public park. However the public school system isn't supposed to endorse any religion or coalition of monotheist religions against those who don't hold the same beliefs. Even if those who support the pledge are the "majority" imposing majority will upon those whose rights are violated is what Alexander Hamilton and Jefferson called the Tyranny of the Majority.

[ 16 May 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation, La Illah wa Allah, with liberty and justice for all.

As a Christian how would you feel??

Perhaps Hindu

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the republic yadd yadda
one nation under Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva with liberty and justice for all.

Perhaps Native Americans take back the nation.

I pledge allegiance,,,,,to one nation under the Great Spirit,,,,,with liberty and justice for all

Perhaps Raelians

I pledge to flag,,,,,,,,,,,to one nation under His Majestic Raelness with liberty and justice for all.

Perhaps Jewish

One nation under Adonai Elohenu,,with mishna and matza balls for chanuka

Perhaps Wiccan

One nation under Isis, Astarte, Diana, Aradia, Zeus, Jupiter, Mithra, Thor, (place hundreds more deities here) with liberty and ale for all

Or Jehovah's Witness

I refuse to pledge to a Flag, that's idolatry, and I refuse to pledge loyalty to any nation other than the Kingdom of Heaven,

Or Catholic

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to republic for which it stands one nation,Which believeth in God the Father creator of heaven and earth, Jesus Christ his only begotten son born of the blessed holy virgin mary,,suffered died under pontius pilate with salvation, reconciliation and child sexual abuse for all.

WHERE DO WE STOP??

We are blessed with religious freedom, but religious freedom comes at the price of not forcing your beliefs on others. Not mentioning God in the pledge isn't an infringment on the rights of God believers, for they have every right to worship God as private citizens. However having a state sponsored school activity acknowledge God does indeed infringe upon the rights of non-believers. It would be like asking you as a Christian to deny Christ every morning

A clersal sighting!

quote:

---

I'm afraid that the Puritan Work Ethic had nothing to do with dancing, etc. It had to do with work. What your thinking of is the Puritan belief system. The work ethic merely stated that men should work to the glory of God and look at that chance as a gift. The Puritans were very good at doing good jobs and finishing their work. Then they would go home and be boring, which was the after effect of their belief system.

---

That has got to be one of the shittiest, dullest, soul-crushing ways to live imaginable. Mortaging your one and only shot on the outside chance of some heavenly reward? Pardon my language, but fuck that shit. If God is such a big shot, he can do ihs own bloody work. I'm gonna have me a barbeque.

quote:

---

First off, the six-day earth concept is no more far-fetched than nothingness producing life, even over many years. And, it is also no less far-fetched to say that a Big Bang established the world. If life, or even a protein was established even over billions upon billions of years, there is still something being made from nothing. Plus, there was no time. Billions upon billions of years didn't exist. Nothing existed, for lack of better and more acurate phrase. Existence was not possible, if there was nothing.

---

There's reams upon reams of evidence supporting theories like the Big Bang. Evolution is a fact. There's not one iota, nor one smidge of evidence to back the mumbo jumbo about six days.

Anyways, paxamillion wrote about the US Constitution

quote:

---

I believe they established the constitution to govern how their republic would operate free of England. It was about truth, justice, and brotherhood.

---