How has darwinism contributed to the world?

Sauron · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by alexgb00
OK, here we go.

Man, you're stubborn. Come on, give me a scientific source to support that communists don't teach evolution.

Hey - YOU made the claim that they did this.  It's up to YOU to prove your claim.  He who asserts first, must prove first.

You claimed that as soon as communists move into a territory, that evolution is the first thing that they teach.

So either put up, or shut up - either you have evidence, or you don't.  Which is it?

Either you understand where i'm getting at and know that it hurts your theory, or you really don't know anything about communism.

No, I understand that you tossed a lot of nonsense out, and don't have a single shred of evidence to back yourself up.

Like i said above (you obviously didn't bother to look), i get this from people who've been there.

Sorry, not buying it.  I work with people who are immigrants from Russia. You're wrong.

I can tell you've never been in a situation where you had to decide between your morals and your career. 

HAHAHA.  You can't tell any such thing.  And the fact that you continue to duck and evade my requests for evidence demonstrates how lame your position is.

If i wanted to make up some dirt for evolution, i couldn't because lying is wrong. On the other hand, i wouldn't have to dig far.

Stop telling us all about how "if you really, really wanted to, you could find all kinds of info" - get off your butt and find some evidence that substantiates your wild claims. 

 Sheesh. 

It's hard to believe that your beloved darwinist comrades would make up "evidence" to push their theory along, isn't it?

This is real easy - do you have evidence, or don't you? 

This is an emotional statement, not scientific. You dismiss it without even thinking, but urge people like me to read into your indoctrination material. That's plain idiotic.

On the contrary.  It is quite sicentific.  I am familiar with communism, nazism, etc. and I can tell you for a fact that your opinions and claims are hogwash.

That was a joke. You can't win on this point, so why not stick your tail between your legs and run.

I have already won - as evidenced by the fact that you still haven't provided any proof for these preposterous claims of yours.

Outright, they didn't. But if you believe in evolution, thoughts like those will eventually cross your mind. Hitler believed in evolution and its tools, like "natural selection."

No, he did not.  But you are free to try and prove that he did.  You won't be able to, so you'll rant and rave, but in the end - as we have all seen - you won't post any evidence.

It only makes sense that he'd try to adhere to these and aid natural selection by killing the least fit. Another point which you blindly dismiss because you can't find a good foothold to defend your theory.

I dismiss it because there is no evidence for it. You certainly haven't provided any.  And apparently, you don't have any such evidence either.  Not surprised. 

Again, you're dismissing a good argument.

Good argument?  Good argument?  When did you ever even make an argument?  Your posts are just a bunch of wild assertions that you have never backed up with evidence.

That's not even an argument - it's just a bunch of claims.  An argument includes evidence.  So far, you haven't even presented an argument.

Why? Because you know you're losing on this point.

I have already won on this point - by virtue of the fact that you are spending enormous amounts of energy ducking and evading requests for evidence.

Good tactic, but not so stoic of you.

Sheesh. You had better look up what "stoic" means, before you try to use the word. 

It's called studying.

Which you clearly have never done.

I can see that happening. Nazis laughing their heads off at the thought of killing people for the sake of "racial cleansing."

I don't care what you can personally envision.  All I care about is evidence for your wild claims.

Evidence -- got any?

 Think what you're saying, boy. Your arguments have been based on technicalities, and when you're faced with a good question, you shrug it off to avoid embarrassment. 

BWAHAHAHAAA!!! That's a riot. 

I shrug off your claims because you haven't proven them. Your "argument" is a bunch of assertions strung together, but never backed up with facts.  You're a joke.

I'll get back to you tomorrow. Stay tuned.

And my prediction is you STILL won't have any evidence then, either. 

  [/B][/QUOTE]

Sauron · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by alexgb00

The nazis were a funny bunch. They had their own nazi baptisms, nazi altars, along with other crazy stuff. They didn't believe in God Almighty, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph.

Wrong. 

Once again we have the erroneous claim that evolution/darwinism/atheism is responsible for the Holocaust. This is just not the case. Here are some quotations from Hitler himself from his autobiography, Mein Kampf:

a)"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

And here:

b)"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

What's your explanation, Alex? 

They didn't believe in Jesus Christ. They had their own "god" who was a blood-thirsty, evil idol. It's obvoius satan was their "god." Their worshipped satan.

Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts - just more unproven assertions, I see.

RufusAtticus · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by alexgb00
So you're saying there are no useless parts, right?

Nope. I'm saying that vestigal parts can do something and still be vestigal.

That just shows that God created animals and us humans correctly from the start. He didn't have to tinker and upgrade us slowly and painfully.

Then why does the fossil record show "tinkering?"

npetreley · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by Sauron

b)"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

And this is supposed to mean what?

Hitler was a liar. Hitler made lies part of his strategy. That's why the nazis deliberately employed the tactic of repeating lies so often that people believed them. So why in the world would you expect to deduce anything from anything Hitler or anyone like him said? If it served Hitler's purpose to say something, he said it. That doesn't tell you anything about what Hitler actually believed.

As for worshipping satan, Hitler didn't have to know he was worshipping satan for anyone to come to that conclusion. Do you know who the Bible says is a murderer, liar and the father of lies? Whomever you serve is your master.

Sauron · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

And this is supposed to mean what?

Exactly what it says.

Hitler was a liar. Hitler made lies part of his strategy.

He did?  Hitler lied in his own memoirs?  Prove it.

That's why the nazis deliberately employed the tactic of repeating lies so often that people believed them.

So then anyone claiming that Hitler used evolution to justify nazism should be wary of making such a claim.

So why in the world would you expect to deduce anything from anything Hitler or anyone like him said? If it served Hitler's purpose to say something, he said it. That doesn't tell you anything about what Hitler actually believed.

Maybe you should be telling this to Alex?

As for worshipping satan, Hitler didn't have to know he was worshipping satan for anyone to come to that conclusion.

Nonsense.  You cannot worship something and not know it.

Do you know who the Bible says is a murderer, liar and the father of lies? Whomever you serve is your master.

Yawn.  So what.  If someone says they worship some pagan god, in your book they're worshipping satan. 

Fortunately, I take the person at their word, about who(m) they are worshipping.  They are final authority on the subject of what they themselves worship.

Oh, and BTW: the bible says a lot of things.  That doesn't make them true.

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

We've all heard of the idea of "separation between Church and state." Now, let's see what some of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America actually thought:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and state. That wall is a one-dimensional wall. It keeps the government from running the Church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it! We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!" -- Patrick Henry

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was that it connected in one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." -- John Quincy Adams

OK, let's see exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redness of grievances."

An "establishment of religion" is when the federal government sets up a "national" Church. Examples are the Roman Catholic Church of Italy, Greek Orthodox Church of Greece, Russian Orthodox of Russia, and the Anglican Church of England. When an establishment of religion is made, the government puts that specific faith above all others. Today in Belarus, the Orthodox Church is promoted by the government, but other Christians face many problems with the government. The Founding Fathers of the USA knew what could happen if an establishment of a certain faith took place.

"Free exercise" of your faith, however, is guaranteed by this amendment. There is nothing unconstitutional about handing out Christian tracts, or standing at a corner and telling passengers awaiting their busses about Salvation and Christ. An unconstitutional act would be forcing someone to leave the bus stop because you don't like their religious message.

Now we'll see what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say about "separation of Church and state."

That's right. Nothing. The myth of "separation of Church and state" nothing more than just that. But the easily-believing public has widely accepted this without any support. Next time someone tries to tell you the "separation" lie, be sure to tell them what the Founding Fathers really believed on this point.

-----------

I got Jefferson's quote from various bew sites, and the next three from the June, 7, 2002 edition of the Oregonian, page D9.

npetreley · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by alexgb00

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redness of grievances."

An "establishment of religion" is when the federal government sets up a "national" Church.

Obvoiusly, if you display a nativity scene in front of a public building, it is the functional equivalent of congress enacting a law that forces everyone to become a Catholic and attend mass every sunday. That's probably why it is permissible to prohibit free speech and the free exercise of relgion in a case like this.

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

So first itemize these, and then prove that these came true, according to the text.

I assume you didn't even read it. OK, here:

For he [Christ] shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
ISAIAH 53:2

Christ didn't come to earth as a caesar or pharaoh. He was born in a manger to a mother who didn't have many possessions. There was nothing that physically attracted people to him. It was His holy character. A blind man one time began calling to Him, and Jesus healed him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. ISAIAH 53:3

Jesus was always scorned by pharisees and levites. The powerful and corrupt people in society didn't like Him. As for sorrows and grief, Jesus knows that. Peter, His closest apostle, turned away from Him in times of pressure.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. ISAIAH 53:4

Christ took our sins to the cross, but many people thought, at the time, that He was a criminal being executed.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. ISAIAH 53:5

Christ was killed for our faults, to give us a way to be freed of our sins.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. ISAIAH 53:9

Christ was buried in a new grave which a wealthy man prepared for his own death.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors ISAIAH 53:12

Christ was the payment for people's sins, but many people don't accept this. To many, His blood is unneeded.

For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. ISAIAH 54:3

Israel has been taken over by Arabs for almost 2000 years. Only in 1948 did the Israelis get back their land.

Daniel, Chapter 2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DAN%2B2&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=KJV&x=19&y=6) talks of a prophecy regarding different kingdoms that have, do today, and will rule the world. Check out the king's dream and Daniel's interpretation.

Remember, these prophecies were written long before the actual events took place. But notice that Isaiah talks as if it was in past tense. I may be wrong, but i feel that the old prophets knew about Jesus and believed they would be saved by him.

Where?  When?

One day, Jesus Christ was with His disciples. They were looking over Jerusalem, when He said the following words:

"See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." MATTHEW 24:2 , MARK 13:2 , LUKE 16:44

Jerusalem was destroyed roughly 40 years later, in 72 AD. The people of Israel were scattered all over the face of the earth, and only formed a nation again in 1948.

Again - where?

"The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings." -- NAHUM 2:4

Don't know about you, but this sounds like cars on highways. Cars at night seem somewhat like "torches" with their headlights. And they sure justle one another; there are many accidents each year.

So far I don't see any of them coming true.

"Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity." HEBREWS 5:2

Sure it does.

"It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth." ISAIAH 40:22

The earth's not flat, it's a sphere. And the Portugese and Spanish did believe that from the Bible. You get the wrong impression that Christians must be dumb and uneducated.

"As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." PSALM 103:12

Notice David says east from west, not south from north. There is a south and north pole, but going east or west, you will go forever. The people back then weren't dumb. They knew navigation.

"He'd know"?  You assume that God exists, or that he wrote this in the first place.  I'm not assuming either one.  All I'm doing is looking at the text, and viewing it according to how contemporary Mesopotamian and Babylonian worldviews would look at it.

You assume that evolution took place, and i'm sitting here arguing on your terms. If it's that way, let us assume that God exists.

As far as you reviewing the text, i can't say you sound like you ever opened a Bible.

No.  They did not get any such belief from the bible.

Here we go. Another one of your unsupported assumptions. How about you prove that they didn't believe this? I'd like to see that.

Yes, but based on other information, such as reports from other mariners and evidence from classical Greece. Not based upon what he read in the Bible.

You can freely make a statement like that, but i can't? No doubt people take evolution without any proof but doubt the Bible.

Two religious texts are not scientific fact.

You claimed to have proof of Christ as a scientific fact.

Do you have such facts, or don't you?

In a court in America, you can be sent to jail with one witness' testimony. You can commit a crime and i can pick up a hobo to testify against you, and the judge will see that as solid evidence.

Then why do you refuse to believe the multiple accounts in the Bible and even one in the koran? You don't want to accept this despite good evidence. What is that, pride?

Sure there is.  We have verifiable, testable evidence.  Do you have any such evidence for Christ?

I'd bet anything for you to find an honest historian who denies Christ's existence. Do you honestly believe that the new era could've been started in honor of an imaginary man? What do you think "BC" means?

Again, eye witness reports from hundreds of people, and also people of importance in Israel. Doubting Jesus' existence is like doubting Aristotle's or Plato's existence. I can't believe how thick you appear.

No, I just know a little more about history than apparently you do.  Which isn't much, I'm afraid.  The Romans burned criminals at the stake, and for the most part, left the christians alone.  If you seriously want to know how the Romans and christians interacted with each other, have a look here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

I'm sure the testimony of PBS overrules the Bible. Yeah.

The above quote is false. Think who killed Paul (he was a Roman citizen) for preaching the Gospel, "Good News", of Christ. Romans, that's right.

That assumes that they knew it was a lie.  Sometimes people die for honestly mistaken beliefs.

Yes, but they died for things they saw with their eyes.

And, of course, there is scant evidence that they were martyred for their faith in the first place.

Just as there is little evidence for the holocaust. Is that what you mean?

Says who?

Says the Bible, the Word of God. If you don't accept that, fine. I don't accept your Mein Kampf.

Actually, that's not what the legends from these places all say. If you would bother to read the actual legends, instead of just repeating what you hear in church.

Here's an exhaustive link to various flood legends:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html[/quote]

talkorigins.org is the darwinists' favorite propaganda site. Why don't you get information from an unbiased source?

More nonsense.

Click to expand...

That's what i think of your babbling.

My argument is that:

- flood legends are not universal, contrary to your claim;
- they contradict each other, which shouldn't be happening if you are correct;
- cultures borrowed stories from each other - that doesn't mean the stories were ever true, nor does it mean that the cultures in question ever experienced such events;

In short, you haven't proven your point at all.

Click to expand...

I doubt you even read my response. I won't answer these a second time.

Fine.  Prove any of this ever happened.

Click to expand...

What do you think many cults do today? Their members learn to read palms and look into crystal balls. Some pray directly to satan. One of my mom's friend's daughter got interested in black magic, and she barely made it. Satan doesn't wish to release people who have been fooling around with his power. Just research that.

Now you prove what you said -- that everyone believes in ghosts.

Jerry Smith · Jun 27, 2002

Obvoiusly, if you display a nativity scene in front of a public building, it is the functional equivalent of congress enacting a law that forces everyone to become a Catholic and attend mass every sunday. That's probably why it is permissible to prohibit free speech and the free exercise of relgion in a case like this

I wonder what kind of reaction I would get if I displayed a shrine to Vishnu on the property of a building the community tax payers pay for and maintain. I wonder if my "free exercise of religion and free speech" would encounter any obstacles in a case like THAT.

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
Obvoiusly, if you display a nativity scene in front of a public building, it is the functional equivalent of congress enacting a law that forces everyone to become a Catholic and attend mass every sunday.

You're right, Nick. If it was a public building, like City Hall or a post office. But if i had been Paul Allen or Bill Gates and i bought the Empire State Building, i could freely put up a nativity scene on the lawn of that. Because it would be my own property.

i just heard today that the Pledge of Allegiance was made unconstitutional. That's just absurd! Crazy. I think the best line in it is "one nation under God."

OK, God bless you, Nick and Sauron.

Alex

Jerry Smith · Jun 27, 2002

Alex,

You misquoted Jefferson again. You need to double check the source you use for this.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I wonder what kind of reaction I would get if I displayed a shrine to Vishnu on the property of a building the community tax payers pay for and maintain. I wonder if my "free exercise of religion and free speech" would encounter any obstacles in a case like THAT.

I know for a fact that there were no "fishnoo" followers among the Founding Fathers, man.

Alex

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Alex,

You misquoted Jefferson again. You need to double check the source you use for this.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Jerry, those are two different letters we're talking about. I mean the one he wrote to the Baptist Pastor. You mean the one he wrote to the President. That's not the same letter.

Alex

Sauron · Jun 27, 2002

We've all heard of the idea of "separation between Church and state." Now, let's see what some of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America actually thought:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and state. That wall is a one-dimensional wall. It keeps the government from running the Church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." -- Thomas Jefferson 

Sorry. This is a blatant misquote of Jefferson. I provided you with a reference to check it.  Jerry's also given you several ways to check it.  And yes - I saw your claim that you got it from the Oregonian. However, that doesn't tell me anything, since the majority of such quotes appear on editorial pages or in the Letters to the Editor column.

Next one.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it! We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison 

Sorry - I need to know the exact letter, or correspondence, where Madison said this.  Considering how you have misquoted Jefferson, I want to know where all your quotes come from - ORIGINALLY.  Not from some website or religious tract you have read.

Moving along.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!" -- Patrick Henry 

Ditto - none of your quotes count, until you actually have references for them that someone else can verify.

But I will tell you this much:  showing what one person thought (Patrick Henry) does NOT prove what the Founders thought about something.  One man doesn't speak for that entire group.  And Patrick Henry, in particular, was an extremist on mixing church and state.

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was that it connected in one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." -- John Quincy Adams 

Same thing here.  None of your quotes count, until you actually have references for them that someone else can verify.

Let me show you how that works:

"Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. ... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).

Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" (Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).

"If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he was an impostor" (Ibid..).

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross, restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some and the roguery of others of his disciples" (Ibid., 320).

In regard to Jesus believing himself inspired he interposes the plea of mild insanity. He says:

"This belief carried no more personal imputation than the belief of Socrates that he was under the care and admonition of a guardian demon. And how many of our wisest men still believe in the reality of these inspirations while perfectly sane on all other subjects" (Works, Vol. iv, p. 327).

As for Madison, whose position you totally misrepresent, here are several useful quotes to show you how badly you misunderstand him.  Notice the bolded text, which clearly refers to separation of church and state:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State
(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
(Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

Veto message, Feb 28, 1811, by James Madison. To the House of
Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act for the relief of Richard Trevin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory," I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United
States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares the 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment (note: Madison again misquotes the establishment clause).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which  presented itself.
(Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

 

Sauron · Jun 27, 2002

OK, let's see exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution says:

quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redness of grievances."

OK. With you so far.

An "establishment of religion" is when the federal government sets up a "national" Church.

It is more than that.  It includes any religious group in society, whether that group is the established church or not.  It also prevents religion from being imposed on someone who does not agree with it.

Examples are the Roman Catholic Church of Italy, Greek Orthodox Church of Greece, Russian Orthodox of Russia, and the Anglican Church of England. When an establishment of religion is made, the government puts that specific faith above all others. Today in Belarus, the Orthodox Church is promoted by the government, but other Christians face many problems with the government. The Founding Fathers of the USA knew what could happen if an establishment of a certain faith took place.

Again - it was more than that.  It was also a guarantee to prevent churches from forcing people to adopt rules of conduct that were contrary to their own consciences. 

And for those people who do not participate in religion, it guarantees them the right to not have religion shoved down their throat.

"Free exercise" of your faith, however, is guaranteed by this amendment.

Providing that you do not infringe on anyone else's rights.

There is nothing unconstitutional about handing out Christian tracts, or standing at a corner and telling passengers awaiting their busses about Salvation and Christ. An unconstitutional act would be forcing someone to leave the bus stop because you don't like their religious message.

Providing that you do not infringe on anyone else's rights.  You cannot hand out tracts while standing on my front lawn.  Your free exercise of religion is interfering with my personal property rights.  In addition, if I disagree with your silly religious views, then you are using me and my property to further a religion that I do not agree with.

 

Now we'll see what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say about "separation of Church and state."

That's right. Nothing.

How totally silly.

1`.The Constitution doesn't mention "equality before the law" either.  Yet it is definitely a principle of the Constitution.

2.  The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from the CORRECT text of the letter that you have so thoroughly misquoted.  It was clear that Jefferson knew what it meant, and the fact that he used it to describe the legal foundation of our government is key here.

 

The myth of "separation of Church and state" nothing more than just that.

On the contrary.  It's a principle of the Constitution and of the law.  You're just woefully misinformed, and are instead substituting your own wishful thinking for good research.

Moreover, Madison refers to the same principle, except that he calls it "separation between religion and Government":

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

(Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

But the easily-believing public has widely accepted this without any support. Next time someone tries to tell you the "separation" lie, be sure to tell them what the Founding Fathers really believed on this point.

Oh, I'll be sure to tell them that the Founders were definitely in favor of the separation of church and state.

 

 

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by Sauron
"It also prevents religion from being imposed on someone who does not agree with it..."

"Providing that you do not infringe on anyone else's rights."

What do you mean "imposing" and "infringing?" That's widely used jargon, but do you know what it means?

Would i be infringing on your rights if stood up in a restaurant and quietly prayed for my food? What rights are those? 8th amendment? 

Would i be imposing my faith on you if you happened to overhear me talking about the Bible with my friend on the corner of a street?

1`.The Constitution doesn't mention "equality before the law" either.  Yet it is definitely a principle of the Constitution.

2.  The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from the CORRECT text of the letter that you have so thoroughly misquoted.  It was clear that Jefferson knew what it meant, and the fact that he used it to describe the legal foundation of our government is key here.

You're right. There is not phrase "equality before the law." It is implied by two amendments -- the sixth and the fourteenth. But this phrase isn't ever used in arguing someting. "Separation" is used frequently by people who don't know what it means even. Question: "Why can't i bring a Bible to work?" Reply: "Separation of Church and state." Question: "Where do you get that?" Reply: "United States Constitution." People are grossly misled about this topic.

Like i said to Jerry above, you're mixing up letters. The one you mean was written to the President. The one i quoted was to the Pastor of the Baptist Church. Oh yeah, if i'm misquoting it, so are about five thousand websites.

On the contrary.  It's a principle of the Constitution and of the law.  You're just woefully misinformed, and are instead substituting your own wishful thinking for good research.

I can't agree with you. This is your interpretation of it. And it's a confused one, too. You should really read the Founders' and Framers' books on what they believed.

Oh, I'll be sure to tell them that the Founders were definitely in favor of the separation of church and state.

What's wrong with you, man? You just shrug off everything i work hard to compile and post here. Everything you say i take heed of and mull it over. I think about it and reply. You just completely ignore my points and pick-and-choose "mistakes" to criticize. You're like a little kid.

 

Jerry Smith · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by alexgb00

Jerry, those are two different letters we're talking about. I mean the one he wrote to the Baptist Pastor. You mean the one he wrote to the President. That's not the same letter.

Alex

There were not two different letters. This one, as the reference I cited mentioned is the one to the Danbury Baptist Association.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

kern · Jun 27, 2002

Alex, you are committing one of the common flaws of the people in your position -- talking about things that don't exist. Nothing in any laws prevent you from praying over your food, talking with a friend about the Bible, or bringing a Bible to work. Why don't you stick to things that are prohibited by law.

-Chris

Sauron · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by alexgb00

I assume you didn't even read it. OK, here:

No, I've seen it before.  The problem is that you cannot use the bible to prove the bible. 

If you could do that, then I could prove the Koran is true.  How?  By showing you verses from the Koran that *say* it is true. 

Christ didn't come to earth as a caesar or pharaoh.

(rest of the assertions deleted).

Again - you cannot prove the bible, using the bible. It's called circular reasoning.  You can prove any holy book is correct that way - but since they can't all be correct, then there must be something wrong with that kind of approach.

Moving away from the so-called "messianic prophecies" now.

For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. ISAIAH 54:3

Israel has been taken over by Arabs for almost 2000 years. Only in 1948 did the Israelis get back their land.

However:

1.  The Arabs did not take the land over for 2000 years - the conquerors were from many different areas;

2.  The claim that the Israelis got "their land" back is comical, since there's been no proof that it is "theirs";

3.  Jews lived in Palestine continously for the last 2000 years, contrary to your claim;

4.  The context of this verse does not indicate anything about referring to modern day Jews;

5.  The verse claims something about making desolate cities inhabited - you haven't shown that any such cities were desolate in the first place;

I could go on for awhile.  But suffice it to say that you are about a hundred light years away from proving anything here.

Daniel, Chapter 2 talks of a prophecy regarding different kingdoms that have, do today, and will rule the world. Check out the king's dream and Daniel's interpretation.

Yes.  So?

Remember, these prophecies were written long before the actual events took place.

Actually, no. 

1.  The best biblical scholarship puts the writing of Daniel in the 2nd century BCE.  After these events.  Britannica:

The language of the book--part of which is Aramaic (2:4-7:28)--probably indicates a date of composition later than the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC). Numerous inaccuracies connected with the exilic period (no deportation occurred in 605 BC; Darius was a successor of Cyrus, not a predecessor; etc.) tend to confirm this judgment. Because its religious ideas do not belong to the 6th century BC, numerous scholars date <B>Daniel</B> in the first half of the 2nd century BC and relate the visions to the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164/163 BC).

2.  And you have yet to show that they took place anyhow.

 

But notice that Isaiah talks as if it was in past tense. I may be wrong, but i feel that the old prophets knew about Jesus and believed they would be saved by him.

More circular reasoning.  In addition, there is not agreement that these verses were ever intended to refer to a messiah.  The quotes you list have been taken out of context.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap2.shtml

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/1/1fact97.html

Moving along...

One day, Jesus Christ was with His disciples. They were looking over Jerusalem, when He said the following words:

"See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." MATTHEW 24:2 , MARK 13:2 , LUKE 16:44

Jerusalem was destroyed roughly 40 years later, in 72 AD. The people of Israel were scattered all over the face of the earth, and only formed a nation again in 1948.

Not impressed; this hardly constitutes "evidence".

If you knew anything about the period, you would realize that the Romans had already put down numerous revolts and rebellions in Palestine prior to 70 AD.  It did not take any special gift to predict that the Jews were going to finally go and infuriate the Romans so badly that they crushed them beneath their boot.

"The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings." -- NAHUM 2:4

Don't know about you, but this sounds like cars on highways. Cars at night seem somewhat like "torches" with their headlights. And they sure justle one another; there are many accidents each year.

However, if you look at the context of the verse, it isn't making a prediction about future technology.  It's discussing a battle scene. 

The only way that you can twist the verse into a prophecy is to deliberately take it out of context.  Because of that, this verse also fails the test for evidence.

Next one...

"Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity." HEBREWS 5:2

"It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth." ISAIAH 40:22

The earth's not flat, it's a sphere. And the Portugese and Spanish did believe that from the Bible.

Wrong.  They believed it from their personal experience in sailing, and from Greek records. 

Of course, if you disagree, you're free to prove that the Spanish and Portuguese figured this out from the bible.  I won't hold my breath, though; because one thing we've all learned is that you are scared of doing any actual research.

You get the wrong impression that Christians must be dumb and uneducated.

I can't imagine *how* I got that impression....hmm......

"As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." PSALM 103:12

Notice David says east from west, not south from north. There is a south and north pole, but going east or west, you will go forever. The people back then weren't dumb. They knew navigation.

BZZT.  Wrong.  The "east to west" reference comes from the rising and setting sun.   And the evidence from "the people back then" indicates that they did believe in a flat earth, and only knew of the navigation in their immediate areas.

You assume that evolution took place, and i'm sitting here arguing on your terms. If it's that way, let us assume that God exists.

I don't assume anything that you don't give proof for.  Have you got any proof yet? Last time I checked, you were just making more assertions.

As far as you reviewing the text, i can't say you sound like you ever opened a Bible.

You are *so* wrong about that.

Here we go. Another one of your unsupported assumptions. How about you prove that they didn't believe this? I'd like to see that.

You're the one who claimed that they *did* believe it.  And you claimed it first.  He who asserts first, must prove first.  So when you're through

You can freely make a statement like that, but i can't?

You made the affirmative statement.  And you asserted it first.  He who asserts first, must prove first. 

While you're busy working on that, you should also investigate the problems with trying to prove a negative:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

http://www.dissension.com/logic/provingnegative.htm

Next one....

 

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by kern
Alex, you are committing one of the common flaws of the people in your position -- talking about things that don't exist. Nothing in any laws prevent you from praying over your food, talking with a friend about the Bible, or bringing a Bible to work. Why don't you stick to things that are prohibited by law.

-Chris

Well, yeah. That's what i'm trying to make clear, Chris. It's kind of hard arguing on this side of the opinion, though.

 

How has darwinism contributed to the world?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PopGen Grad Student

pumpkin sailor

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

pumpkin sailor

Senior Member

Fish out of water

Senior Member

Fish out of water

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Fish out of water

Miserere Nobis

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Similar threads