Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 137
  1. #101  
    Originally posted by John Nowak
    Mark Twain wrote a particularly effective article about how slow preachers were to figure out that slavery was a bad thing. I think he doesn't give enough credit to the fact that most Abolitionists _were_ religiously motivated, but he does make it clear that slavery supporters were also religiously motivated.
    Actually, I wasn't speaking nearly as much to religious motivation as much as political motivation. I think regardless of how liberal or conservative one's interpretation of the bible is, that they'd think that prayer in the legislature falls under the categorization of Matthew 6:5, and can hardly be considered Christian of the majority of participants. I'd have thought such would be obvious to someone with Matthew 6:21 in their sig.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #102  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Actually, I wasn't speaking nearly as much to religious motivation as much as political motivation. I think regardless of how liberal or conservative one's interpretation of the bible is, that they'd think that prayer in the legislature falls under the categorization of Matthew 6:5, and can hardly be considered Christian of the majority of participants. I'd have thought such would be obvious to someone with Matthew 6:21 in their sig.
    The various religious rituals and prayers that start Congress and other branches of government bother me not a whit. It's something I honestly think has more to do with inertia and the traditions of those bodies than it is a sincere prayer, or even a desire to be seen as being religious.

    By and large, the Founding Fathers were religious Christians. They were also scientists, Masons, republicans (not the political party -- the government philosophy), lawyers, and history buffs with great affection for the Roman Republic. I tend to be very suspicious of anyone claiming an absolute ascendency of one aspect of their psyches, especially when it seems to involve claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow not a "real" Christian.
  3. #103  
    Originally posted by John Nowak
    The various religious rituals and prayers that start Congress and other branches of government bother me not a whit.
    They generally don't concern me much either, unless someone tries to use it as proof of the Christianity of the US Government.
    It's something I honestly think has more to do with inertia and the traditions of those bodies than it is a sincere prayer, or even a desire to be seen as being religious.
    That's why I don't see how it supports an argument that it somehow makes the US government Christian at all. AAMOF, it seems that it makes it _un_Christian and downright heretical considering Matthew 6:5.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #104  
    Originally posted by Toby
    They generally don't concern me much either, unless someone tries to use it as proof of the Christianity of the US Government.
    And those prayers really need to be balanced against the fasces on the podium. I say they prove the US Government worships Zeus, just like the Roman Republic we swiped them from. Oh, and that whole bit with the eagle proves it too. No connection to Mussolini, of course -- our use of the fasces predates his by a considerable margin.

    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]
    That's why I don't see how it supports an argument that it somehow makes the US government Christian at all. AAMOF, it seems that it makes it _un_Christian and downright heretical considering Matthew 6:5.
    To be fair, I think Matthew 6:5 is more about the motives behind prayer than anything else. Just because hypocrites pray in public doesn't mean that all who pray in public are hypocrites. I'll bet the motivation behind saying that had more to do with lighting a fire under people and forcing them to consider their motives than simply banning public prayer.
  5. #105  
    Wow Toby, what a torrent. I'll try to work through your comments first.

    You mean the doubleplus ungood double-speak? Sorry, but I'm loath to accept either belief extreme's terms to define what I think.
    ??? Don't quite understand what your saying here, unless that you plan on relying on yourself, not the Lord. OK fine. Thta's a choice he gave you.

    You're missing the point. The context was separation of church and state, remember? When the state is not separated from the church, any person under the rule of the state has to abide by it. IOW, you can't say that unbelief wasn't persecuted, only heresy, since living in the state and not believing in the state's doctrine (if it became known) _was_ heresy.
    No, you're missing the point. The original decision to NOT have an "official" religion had to do with the Christian's not wanting to have any doctrinal oppresion in the US. How that decision got changed into "no religion at all" is interesting. Since the term "separation of Church and State" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution how does it now have the force of law?

    Strange how the state and religion can do that when they mix. Stranger still how you see this as _disproving_ the idea that church and state should be separated.
    No it isn't. The Pilgrims, et al were fleeing from religious presecution. They were highly religious themselves, and the thought of removing that belief from any part of their lives was unthinkable. They didn't want that same kind of religious intolerance to occur here - so no official religion. It was about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

    You may want to look up the difference between correlation and causation. One could quite accurately say that _my_ general principles are the same as the general principles of Christianity.
    What? Are implying a correlation here? The quote doesn't seem to support that. I sense double-talk here. As to your belief I can't say.

    I don't notice any non-religion-biased sources there.
    Can you name anyone that's non-religious that spends anytime deeply researching this? Does it discount the work done. How about reading all that a person writes, identifying the bias (everyone has one) and making a decision based on the facts presented? Because Einstien believed in God, does that make his work any less cogent?

    Here's some non-religious men quoting about evolution. Will it change your mind about evolution, probably not:

    "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving". Richard Leakey, world's foremost paleoanthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
    and

    "I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.
    and
    "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967)
    What does the religious background of the scholar have to do with the research, unless that you're implying that religous scholars are untrustworthy....

    If all men were created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, why weren't the slaves freed the second the Declaration of Independence was signed?
    The same reason that women couldn't vote, because man is weak and prone to sin. I didn't say that those Christians (or any) were perfect.

    Yes, obviously because I don't buy into religion-biased interpretations, I must be ignorant.
    No, ignorant is not a willful state. Your decision falls under closed minded. How about read the facts (ie. the original texts, writings) that he has researched and ignoring his "religion-biased interpretations"? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What you seem to be ignoring is that everybody has a religious bias. Including yourself.

    Seems quite fair considering that it's in the context of a discussion about the beliefs of a religion (Christianity) being a de facto part of a nation (US). Do you think that the government of India is not made up of Hindus?
    Since my original quote was about Jainism, which is very distinct from Hinduism, it's not fair, merely distraction. Since it's been pretty well documented that Judaism birthed both Christianity and the Islamic religion would it be fair to lump them all together? It's generalism.

    If the government of the US was founded as a Christian government, and a Christian belief was that all slaves should be set free, ...well, draw your own conclusions.
    Are there any slaves left/allowed?

    Of course, when there is later a scientific explanation discovered, the scientist is called a heretic.
    ???? A scientist explained how a priest in Paris knew my first name although he had never met me, or anyone I knew, before?

    A scientist explained how my friend Phil Herrick (he works in the hospital where he was to be treated) was cured of cancer (brain tumor disappears completely day before surgery)?

    Shouldn't you have said "if a scientist...", or is your bias showing?

    Hi John,

    Fair comment, so I should clarify myself. I pointed out that there is no major pacifist religion. It was pointed out, correctly, that Jainism (the Quakers would also make a good example) are pacifist. However, the Jains and Quakers are relatively small sects which have had little, if no, effect on the defense policies of the countries they live in, which are both among the best-armed countries in the world. Both countries are democracies, and a shared consensus among Christians in the US or Hindus in India would be politically significant. I claim that no such shared consensus exists, in any religion.
    and

    This, incidentally, is not to deny that the New Testament is at the same time peaceful. There is a legitimate time for violence and there is a legitimate time for peace; no major religion flatly denies this, and there is no "Religion of Peace."
    Your actually stating two different things. You originally finished off your quote saying there was no "Religion of Peace", later you state that there is "no major pacifist religion." Two different things. Neither correct, but still not the same things. Your interpetation of Christianity is more Jeffersonian than anything. It denies anything that Jesus stated about peace, love and mercy. To be Christian means to follow Christ. Again, find me one quote where Jesus says it's OK to kill, just one that's all I ask.

    So which of the Creation accounts is correct?
    um, the one in Genesis? If you're talking about Genesis 1 and 2, they both refer to the same events, and don't contradict each other. Unless you read them out of context.

    You'd think divinely inspired writers would do better than that.
    I wasn't commenting on the writings, but the ability for someone to get anything they want out of something, if they take it out of context. If I wanted to disprove the theory of evolution only using quotes from Darwin I could make a pretty good case (he was like most people and had a lot of doubts)- if I picked and chose quotes.

    I notice that your definition of Christian appears to reject virtually every Christian who ever lived.
    My definition? Please reiterate for me my definition.

    Hi Toby again,

    Actually, I wasn't speaking nearly as much to religious motivation as much as political motivation. I think regardless of how liberal or conservative one's interpretation of the bible is, that they'd think that prayer in the legislature falls under the categorization of Matthew 6:5, and can hardly be considered Christian of the majority of participants. I'd have thought such would be obvious to someone with Matthew 6:21 in their sig.
    So, every US politician, who evere served, is venal and not capable of any true religious belief? How cynical and de-humanizing.

    As I appear to be a little better read in the lives of our Founding Fathers, I will hold off commenting specifically. You keep saying you have read up on this subject Toby, but your comments make me think that you're not actually quite so well read. It's appears useless to discuss this with you right now, as I don't know what you have read. Once again I suggest you go to www.wallbuilders.com and use it for a stepping point to access more writings. I do believe that your smart enough to read it and find the Barton's bias, but it would certainly expose you to a more complete picture of what's these guys actually wrote while they were making the decision. Since Madison was consistentyl voted down is he a good source later? Have you read anything on Mason?

    We were talking about the origin of the US. I'm quite aware that there are many who state(d) that they are Christian, and they don't(didn'y) even try to live as one, merely being content to keep up appearances. I'm also quite aware of the huge amount of people who claim to be Christian and do a pretty good job of following Christ.

    Gotta go the Flu has me
    Michael
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  6. #106  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    No, I've not heard that. Indeed I've heard the opposite (from the administration itself): that the oilfields will be kept intact and as the property of the new Iraqi gov't. You've got to be kidding me if you think the US would claim them for itself.
    Funny I've heard it in both Dutch and Australian media...
    Let me find an english link to show you...
    The dutch version: http://www.ad.nl/artikelen/Nieuws/1041833563351.html
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  7. #107  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Funny I've heard it in both Dutch and Australian media...
    Let me find an english link to show you...
    The dutch version: http://www.ad.nl/artikelen/Nieuws/1041833563351.html
    Here's a randomly picked one: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnews...bsection=world
  8. #108  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Here's a randomly picked one: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnews...bsection=world
    That's unfair -- yours actually has direct quotes and stuff, and names individual sources. I don't read Dutch, but I don't see any actual names apart from Hussein and Bush or quotation marks in ToolKit's. Wanna bet it's just an anonymous slur?
  9. #109  
    Originally posted by John Nowak


    That's unfair -- yours actually has direct quotes and stuff, and names individual sources. I don't read Dutch, but I don't see any actual names apart from Hussein and Bush or quotation marks in ToolKit's. Wanna bet it's just an anonymous slur?
    http://www.freedict.com/onldict/dut.html
    http://www2.get-together.net:8080/di...nl&lang_to_=en

    as for source, it mentions the 'american presidential team'.. whatever that may be...
    The AD is not a newspaper that would likely use anonymous slurs...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #110  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    as for source, it mentions the 'american presidential team'.. whatever that may be...
    Unfortunately that translates badly. I'd guess "Cabinet," the collective name for the people in charge of various departments who report directly to the POTUS, which includes the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and so on. Since the Cabinet's name is actually based on an old joke which even has to be explained to 21st Century Americans, it would make perfect sense to change it to "Presidential Team." Does that sound about right?

    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    The AD is not a newspaper that would likely use anonymous slurs...
    So it just quotes "the American Presidential Team?" Without specifying a member, or what their job is? Even if this team is the Cabinet, it can't be traced to a specific person or place.

    Sounds like the definition of an anonymous slur to me.
  11. #111  
    Originally posted by John Nowak


    Unfortunately that translates badly. I'd guess "Cabinet," the collective name for the people in charge of various departments who report directly to the POTUS, which includes the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and so on. Since the Cabinet's name is actually based on an old joke which even has to be explained to 21st Century Americans, it would make perfect sense to change it to "Presidential Team." Does that sound about right?
    Don't think so, in Holland they have a cabinet too, so if it was that they would have used that word...
    By the context it sounded like a team of advisors...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  12. #112  
    Originally posted by John Nowak
    it just shows that their religion seems to have very little objective political power, and it is difficult to call them "Major."
    Ah, now I get the point. Sorry for my occasional "over-technicalisticness" (...just call me W... )
  13. #113  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    [At least we can talk diplomatically to the North Koreans. Iraq hasn't attempted to maintain a diplomatic dialogue with anyone since the Gulf war (when, as part of the cease-fire agreement, they were supposed to dispose of and stop further development of ALL weapons of mass destruction). [/B]
    OK, so now that diplomatic chat seems to have gone down the pan. Start a new thread guys or roll it into this?
    John W
  14. #114  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    [B]Indeed I've heard the opposite (from the administration itself): that the oilfields will be kept intact and as the property of the new Iraqi gov't.
    We're reading reports in Brit press that Turkey is now laying claim to the oilfields capitalising on the chaos if the balloon does go upwards. The conference in London with quote new Iraqi gov't unquote really only estblished that they will fight amongst themselves anyway and we will have feuding parties rather than a gov't. Doubtless, some of them will know where these supposed WMD are stashed away and we will be back to square one.
    John W
  15. #115  
    Well Canada don't need a bigger army. Unlike the Canadians want her goverment to spend money on keeping people alive and happy, not bombs and billion dollar planes to kill people.

    BTW Bobby Mike, Canada did participate in the Korean and Gulf Wars.

    I do not think that religion has any place in war. Why do they have amry chaplains and stuff like that? Its a mockery. Whatever happen to "though shall not kill" and "turn the other cheek"?

    The U.S may have 30% of the world's economy...but that economy is being kept up by the black gold called oil. That is why the U.S. sees it fit to spend billions of dollars to keep a force in the area. This is also why the U.S is going after Iraq. The Weapons of Mass Destruction arguement is a crock. If they have ecidence why not give it to the inspectors that are in Iraq?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  16. #116  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I do not think that religion has any place in war.
    If you're talking about as a reason for war, I agree. However, wars are faught by human beings, many of whom have deep religious beliefs. Since religion is part of their everday lives, it's also part of war.

    Why do they have amry chaplains and stuff like that?
    Ummm... perhaps because the people in the trenches need to be able to turn to their faith for spiritual strength?

    Whatever happen to "though shall not kill" and "turn the other cheek"?
    I'd say that applies to all parties, wouldn't you?

    The Weapons of Mass Destruction arguement is a crock.
    I don't understand how anyone can come to that conclusion when the entire UN Security Council seems to think otherwise. It was a unanimous decision, wasn't it? There was no disent... no question whatsoever. That tells me it wasn't the U.S., or Britain, or anybody else for that matter, using any undue influence to force a favorable vote.

    If they have ecidence why not give it to the inspectors that are in Iraq?
    I'm sure that the UN inspection process doesn't work that way. It's supposed to be an independent review. If they were told to "look in this cave", or "under that rock", sure, they'd probably find something. There's probably intelligence reports that can lead the inspectors to the "major" stores, but they really need to find everything. Plus, the Iraqi's are supposed to come clean on their own, aren't they?
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  17. #117  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    I'm sure that the UN inspection process doesn't work that way. It's supposed to be an independent review. If they were told to "look in this cave", or "under that rock", sure, they'd probably find something. There's probably intelligence reports that can lead the inspectors to the "major" stores, but they really need to find everything. Plus, the Iraqi's are supposed to come clean on their own, aren't they?
    Given the way that some will stretch credulity to see no evil, such US "guidance" would result in allegations that finds were planted by Special Forces already in Iraq
    John W
  18. #118  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well Canada don't need a bigger army. Unlike the Canadians want her goverment to spend money on keeping people alive and happy, not bombs and billion dollar planes to kill people.

    BTW Bobby Mike, Canada did participate in the Korean and Gulf Wars.

    I do not think that religion has any place in war. Why do they have amry chaplains and stuff like that? Its a mockery. Whatever happen to "though shall not kill" and "turn the other cheek"?

    The U.S may have 30% of the world's economy...but that economy is being kept up by the black gold called oil. That is why the U.S. sees it fit to spend billions of dollars to keep a force in the area. This is also why the U.S is going after Iraq. The Weapons of Mass Destruction arguement is a crock. If they have ecidence why not give it to the inspectors that are in Iraq?
    A) I'm sure that could be said of most, if not all civilized nations., history though has placed different requirements on both our countries, it's not reasonable to expect them to act the same.

    B) I know, I apologize to anyone, Canadian or otherwise, who took offense at what I said. I was being hot headed and was not very nice. As a formerly active Marine I realize that military personnel often put themselves into life-threatening positions and do so with a vigor that defies belief, considering the poor pay and living conditions they deal with. Canada is a supporting player, not a major player, in world events. But so is Belgium, Holland, France, Poland, etc. Nothing to be ashamed of. About the only way for a country other than China, Russia, or the USA to get noticed these days is to get into a confrontation with one of the big three. (or try to kill another country).

    C) I agree in that I don't think war is usually a good idea, but I agree with Markeagles assessment. I don't believe emotions should have a part in wars either.

    My pastor was a Navy Chaplain for twenty years, and quite simply he was there for the same reason the Red Cross shows up at war zones, to provide aid and comfort to the human beings stuck in situations beyond their mortal control. Chaplains don't have to carry guns. They are not there to suppoet the war, but the people involved. Big difference.

    D) The inspectors don't need anyones help in finding stuff, they just need to be able to do their work. They were kicked out by Saddam before (technically they pulled out because the Iraqis were blocking their access to sites) and if given a chance they will find evidence. You might not agree with the US on this one, but to simply assume that this mans government isn't doing anything hinky is naive or worse. He has killed his own people (Kurds in the North) using biological weapons. Where did he get them? Buy them? I think not. No country would be so stupid as to sell another country biological weapons. It's one thing to be against war, but it's another to turn a blind eye to insane dictators with aggressive agendas. Western history doesn't have to go far to find a nice example to learn from. If you remember correctly, Hitler had no intention of conquering all of Europe until he saw that the other countries involved weren't going to retaliate for Poland, etc. A dictator is nothing more than a schoolyard bully with the ability to kill millions.
    And to blame this on a US "thirst fo oil" is silly to the point of being farcical. That implies a level of inhumanity on the US governments part that defies belief. If that were true we would have simply kept rolling after the Kuwaiti incident and crushed the jerk then.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  19. #119  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Don't think so, in Holland they have a cabinet too, so if it was that they would have used that word...
    By the context it sounded like a team of advisors...
    So an unidentified individual on an unidentified team may have said something unless we assume the newspaper screwed up?

    That's seriously unconvincing.
  20. #120  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Ah, now I get the point. Sorry for my occasional "over-technicalisticness" (...just call me W... )
    Not at all; I wrote the original post poorly and thank you for making me clarify myself.
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions