Creationism’s Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Alright, enlighten me with what the Bible is really referring to when it says

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

Its because you look the other way at all the bad parts of the bible. Muslim extremists don't. They take it and swallow it whole. Now granted it says if you die in the name of Ala that all your sins are forgiven and you get sexy virgins . The bible has a different delima where if you confess regardless of yoru wrongs in life, you are forgiven. basically a blank check.

You don't take all parts literally, only some parts. Clearly this is BECAUSE of the secular greatness that is at the heart of our country. It has shaped even the view of your bible.

You may not think the bible says these things, but it would be disingenuous to say that the bible was never interpreted that way by christains.

Do you guys just want to yak, or do you want to address my point?

 

[70x7]

They wouldn't run this country the way they interpret the Bible. They would simply run this country, without reference to the Bible or any of its laws at all.

Which would be a discredit to what our founding fathers founded this country on!!!

 

[BananaSlug]

If the U.S. Constitution consisted of the Bible --- and, if you atheists ran this country based on how you guys interpret the Bibe (i.e. allegorically and w/o regard to context or dispensation), then this is what we can expect:

1. slavery
2. stoning of children for disobedience to parents
3. genocide to any nation that crosses us
4. Saturday as the Lord's Day
5. April 1st as a national holiday

But if you guys ran this country according to the way you guys interpret the Bible, this country would be in very bad shape.

Actually we mention the above (1-5) of what it actually says in the Bible. That is a literal interpretation of what the Bible says, the literal view that you and your ilk cling so tenaciously to. The Bible does condone slavery, the stoning of disobedient children, etc. However we would not use any religious book for the founding of a nation's laws. Your argument makes no sense.

 

[MoonLancer]

Do you guys just want to yak, or do you want to address my point?

i don't understand. is this some sort of /thread alternative?

 

[MoonLancer]

Which would be a discredit to what our founding fathers founded this country on!!!

you mean like Adams, Jefferson, and Paine? Their was another thread like this, and no one was able to show that the founding documents are based on Christianity, or that Christianity is favored. All that they were able to show was that the pilgrims were religious. I agree they were. However the founding of America was a secular movement.

 

[gaara4158]

Do you guys just want to yak, or do you want to address my point?

Wow.
You don't have a point. You're saying that our interpretation of the Bible is violent and barbaric, while failing to specify why we're wrong. You just say we're taking it out of context, but you're not saying what the context is.

Basically, you're saying, "nuh-uh!" so forgive us if we seem unsatisfied with your "point".

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually we mention the above (1-5) of what it actually says in the Bible. That is a literal interpretation of what the Bible says, the literal view that you and your ilk cling so tenaciously to. The Bible does condone slavery, the stoning of disobedient children, etc. However we would not use any religious book for the founding of a nation's laws. Your argument makes no sense.

Since you guys are having such a hard time focusing, I'll go ahead and make a challenge out of it --- maybe I'll get an answer from someone who can understand - (but I won't count on it, though).

 

[70x7]

you mean like Adams, Jefferson, and Paine? Their was another thread like this, and no one was able to show that the founding documents are based on Christianity. That that they were able to show was that the pilgrims were religious.

Than perhaps I shall seek out that thread!
Ill just throw this in though:

"We, greatly commending and graciously accepting of their Desires for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the Providence of God Almighty, hereafter tend to the glory of His divine Majesty, in the propagating of the Christian religion to such people, as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge of the worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages, living in those parts, to human civility, and to a settled and quiet government; Do, by these our letters patents, graciously accept of, agree to, and their humble and well-intended desires. (Dated April 1, 1606) "
-taken from the original First Charter of Virginia

and....

"In ye name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by ye grace of God, of Great Britain, France & Ireland, king, Defender of faith, etc. Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just & equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience (Signed November 11th, 1620). "
-taken from the Mayflower Compact


but this is an argument obviously for another thread.

 

[MoonLancer]

Since you guys are having such a hard time focusing, I'll go ahead and make a challenge out of it --- maybe I'll get an answer from someone who can understand - (but I won't count on it, though).

do you enjoy beating your wife.... yes or no?

LOL

hows that for a challenge?

when a question starts from a false premise its not honest. Also many of your challenges falsely equate your example to something its not compatible with. unless your TRYING to say god has as much foresight as a used car salesmen

 

[MoonLancer]

but this is an argument obviously for another thread.

yeah. does anyone have a link to that thread? its only a few weeks old. If not i will try to find it tomorrow and pm it to you. I believe both of your quoted sources were discussed.

 

[gaara4158]

Which would be a discredit to what our founding fathers founded this country on!!!

Thomas Jefferson, my favorite founding father, said:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

 

[Tinker Grey]

And, of course, the ever so popular Treaty of Tripoli with the famous article 11:

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.

{Emphasis Added}

Signed by John Adams in June, 1797.

 

[AV1611VET]

And, of course, the ever so popular Treaty of Tripoli with the famous article 11:{Emphasis Added}

Signed by John Adams in June, 1797.

Not everyone signed that treaty, either.

 

[Washington]

Not everyone signed that treaty, either.

And not everyone had a pint of ale that day either. The point being, so what? Is it your impression that the treaty should have been brought to every hamlet and burg in the nation and have it read and signed at a town square meeting? It may come as a surprise to you, but people not required to sign things seldom do so. Only two American signatures were required. The Commissioner Plenipotentiary, David Humphreys, and the President of the United States, John Adams. Moreover, all 23 Senators who sat on the committee for consideration voted for recommending its ratification. But maybe you figure YOU should have had a say in it, which while absurd, isn't anymore so than your comment.

So, although everyone's brother and illegitimate sister didn't get a chance to sign it, the statement you evidently find so onerous WAS acknowledged by all those empowered to do so as representing the truth of the matter.

They unanimously felt the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

They unanimously felt the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

You might want to check this out as well ---

The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, and there is doubt whether Article 11 in the version of the treaty ratified by Congress corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli#cite_note-17

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You might want to check this out as well ---

Irrelevant, since the English version is the one the Senate and the others signed, which means they agreed with the English version of article 11.

 

[Hespera]

Irrelevant, since the English version is the one the Senate and the others signed, which means they agreed with the English version of article 11.

Highly relevant to someone who lack the capacity to ever be wrong or to acknowledge error of any sort.

Reminds me of-
I was playing chess against another girl, she lost the game but wouldnt accept it. Said I could not make that move. Her excuse was that she was playing by French rules, which outlawed that move. So end of game but she didnt lose.

Maybe one of our posters who studied psychology can explain what it is in a person's makeup that they just have to be right, no matter what.

 

[Washington]

Maybe one of our posters who studied psychology can explain what it is in a person's makeup that they just have to be right, no matter what.

Not enough psychology to render an informed opinion, but I do know that for some inexplicable reason* AV has taken the KJ version of the Bible as literally correct in every aspect. And anything that conflicts with his reading of that Bible simply cannot be right. Period! Seemingly, it's a personal investment of such magnitude that to admit any possible chink in its truth (as he conceives it) would be no less devastating to his faith than an outright visit from Jesus himself telling him he is mistaken.

Of course if I'm wrong here, AV, please correct me.



* I've never seen any.

 

[Gracchus]

It's a personal investment of such magnitude that to admit any possible chink in its truth (as he conceives it) would be no less devastating to his faith than an outright visit from Jesus himself telling him he is mistaken.

If Jesus told AV1611VET that he was mistaken, AV1611VET would tell Jesus to take a hike!

God himself could not shake the faith of AV1611VET.

 

[Split Rock]

Do you guys just want to yak, or do you want to address my point?

Sure... what is your point again?

Since you guys are having such a hard time focusing, I'll go ahead and make a challenge out of it --- maybe I'll get an answer from someone who can understand - (but I won't count on it, though).

Good luck finding an atheist who thinks in twisted circles like you do.