FOX News & Commentary
Posted in Top Stories | 201 comments
Sep 5, 2012
Chaos erupted on the floor of the Democratic National Convention after delegates booed God during a voice vote to reinsert the Almighty and Jerusalem back into the party platform.
Delegates were visibly angry after leadership took three voice votes on the issue. It appeared the vote failed. However, on the third vote the chair announced it had passed.
Watch this stunning video of what happened:
Wow, Democrats vote against and actual BOO God. On a side note, it appears the DNC is no more representative of their base than the RNC is of theirs.
God help us all if they get a second term!
If Romney is elected he claims he will be God. I don't think I can vote for that. It was because of Romney slamming the Democrats on the God issue that Obama stepped in and put it back in the way it was 4 years ago.
They didn't boo God. They booed the proposal to insert blatantly Christian elements into the Democratic party platform. The Democrats believe there is room in their party for persons of other faiths. I'm surprised the Republicans don't want the diversity this country is founded on to show in their politics!
would you rather vote for Black Liberation Theology or Mormonism? At least Mormonism allows the Bible to be to read, prayer to be made, and worship to extend outside the doors of the church.
I disagree with Mormon theology, but I disagree with Catholic theology as well, and we had a couple great Catholic presidents. But the personal integrity, moral character and personal generosity of the two candidates isn't even a contest.
While I dispute the Mormon theology of becoming a god in the next world (and more), it is far less alarming in a president than God Damn America and every white man is an oppressor, every black a victim, which was Obama's CHOSEN theology!
That said, we need someone who can fix the mess of government, and the religion of the man should take a back seat to his abilities. Romney has never failed at anything and Obama has never succeeded at anything. Even his supporters have stated he is in WAAAAAY over his head – he simply does not have the intellect or experience for the job.
The republicans just released a video clip of Obama's speeches from 08 and 12 – they were identical. His same old failed policies and same failed unsubstantiated rhetoric show he is emotionally bankrupt.
So both the wannabe leaders have aberrant theology. Their other skills make Romney the ONLY choice! Not voting is a vote for Obama!
No, the democrats voted for more exclusion of people of faith. They are willing to pander to various minority groups but not to include the sensitivities of the majority of Americans. Exclusion is always wrong.
Jeanne, spoken like a complete ignorant democrat. Before you open your mouth in stupidity, know what you are talking about. NEVER has it been said or even insinuated that Romney said he would be God if elected. Stop drinking the stupidity koolaid and know the facts before you open your mouth. You will save yourself a lot of humiliation that way.
David, you obviously don't know much about Mormonism.
Paul Robinson WHAT "skills" exactly are those, Paul? Romney is a pitiful excuse for a businessman and a politician. He's a vulture capitalist whose tenure in Massachusetts was less than remarkable; in fact, similar to Obama's–but without the obstructionist Congress. He slashed state aid to cities and towns, many of which responded by raising property taxes. In his first two years in office, Romney presided over a 15 percent cut in spending on unrestricted aid to cities and towns; he also cut more than 4 percent of funding for local schools. Nice—screw the kids, damage their future chances.
As a result, the average local property tax bill jumped more than $700 a year–for Middle Class families already in a bind! He also increased government fees on a host of services, from marriage licenses to property deeds, further increasing the financial burden on people.
Romney promised a jobs program–it was a pretty weak result. During Romney’s four years in office, the state added a net 31,000 jobs, a growth rate of about 1 percent, compared to 5 percent nationally during the same period. State unemployment fell to 4.7 percent from a peak of 6 percent but remained above the US average, then 4.4 percent. And in fact the only thing that stopped Mass's unemployment numbers from being markedly higher was the mass exodus of workers leaving the state for other jobs in other states!
In one case, Romney got a company to come into the state and build a factory—yet, in order to secure the deal and make himself look good politically, he wound up reducing Bristol-Myers Squibb’s property taxes by about $35 million over 20 years, giving them tax incentives totalling about $100 million-one of the biggest tax-incentive packages in state history. The state would ultimately pay about $250,000 for each of the 400 jobs at the plant today.
By every measure, Romney has a record of economic success in Massachusetts that almost exactly mirrors that of Obama–and that's WITHOUT an obstructionist Congress.
But what matters MORE is his proposals for America NOW–an "Impossible" plan, as declared by the Center for Tax Policy. "The numbers just don't add up". And Mitt Romney is so unprincipled and desperate to be liked that he's going to be another George W Bush–a weak and feckless stand-in puppet whose office is run by people behind the scenes who have no accountability and no public face. His policies are almost exactly the same as those that got us here. And that's not even talking about his shameful record at Bain. Your judgment in endorsing in can only be a reflection of the potency of the bottle you're tipping back.
And how much of it did they cut out to make it say what THEY want it to say? BOTH parties edit things to THEIR advantage. Romney has NEVER FAILED??? Wow we got a PERFECT man in this world. NOT.
Summit Ministries has a thoughtful piece on whether Christians can or should vote for a Mormon. Worth reading. Also, I do not think that Romney's views on his eternal state (which btw I do not believe are biblical) skew his thinking on governance but rather they encourage him to make positive moral choices. He does not appear to have a "god complex" like his opponent.
Jeanne Stewart when would any politician Obama or Romney claim to be God that's just political suicide. People that say these type of things is the real reason for peoples apathy in the governing procedure.
Many comments here are accurate, but for those that lean to the left, facts are often overlooked for fiction. The election isn't based on christianity verses the world. It is two men that have entirely different perspectives on how to right what has gone wrong and fix it. Obama wants the government running every aspect of someone's life, put everyone on welfare, and force them to abide by his policies or feel his wrath through orders in council, bypassing the government that he answers to. Romney lets his example speak for him, he has created hundreds of thousands of jobs through Bain Industries, he believes that honour, integrity, and honesty is the priority, not atheism or Islam, which is the worst form of communism on the planet. He wants to give the people hope that their ideas can turn into business, where business creation leads to new jobs, incomes for families worrying about their lives, homes, children. He wants to close the borders until the unemployment levels drop dramatically. Obama opens the borders, wants to legalize 2.3 million illegal immigrants and add to the unemployment rolls. He proved that when he gave amnesty to 700,000 illegals, why, so they would add voters to the democrat lists. If people want to live off the government, grow to be lazy and depend on others to live their lives, you vote Obama. If you want the American dream that has existed since 1776, where future generations can create corporations, succeed in education, business, and can worship God as they see fit, you vote for Romney. That is the whole election in a nutshell.
WOW, David–you managed to say the most complete nonsense in the most elegant and seemingly-erudite manner I have ever heard. That's quite an accomplishment! Unfortunately, your premise is COMPLETELY You've obviously been duped by some Romney-propaganda mailer? Where the heck did you get the idea that Romney "created hundreds of thousands of jobs" through Bain?! HEY DAVID–it doesn't count if he created them in China, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc! HE DESTROYED COMPANIES here in America—for his own profit!
And aren't you the guys who says on his own FB page "Profits aren't measured in dollars and cents…" yeah, sure. Easy to say when you have money to burn, I'm sure? Tell that to the Poor and the workers who Romney's policies would–and have–bankrupted.
Zizzer Zazzer Zuzz
Again, your irrationality and ignorance are front and center. The Government and teachers unions, along with the autoworkers, have over one BILLION dollars of their pension plans invested in Bain because they are reliable, conservative investors.
The lies told about the closing of the GS steel plant belie that fact that the plant was outdated, and the union's 10 week strike fatally crippled the company. The rest of GS steel created over 6000 jobs currently – not bad for starting from almost 0 with a couple bankrupt companies. STAPLES employs perhaps 10,000 people, again, starting from almost nothing.
And just to push the point further: It was not Romney, but top OBAMA aid that shut down GS. http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/oops-obamas-top-bundler-jonathan-lavine-was-in-charge-of-bain-during-gst-steel-layoffs/
But then, as per usual, you are to biased and lazy to click on these FACTS that tell the truth.
But then truth means what to an atheist? Just what foundation do they have for knowing the difference between truth and a lie?
Reality and you don't send much time together , do you?
Oh Paul–you wuzz really desperate, weren't you? Silly man–you chose links that show that that stupid story about a guy's wife being killed were false–which was a regrettably bad-taste ad. And your choose BLOGS as reliable sources? One of which is so blatantly partisan that it states "If you are Left, you just ain't Right!"??? HA HA HA–you must've searched high and low to come up with SOMETHING that looked like it had integrity. Puh–LEEEZE. Yes, I did click your links Paul. And ultimately? F-A-I-L!!!
The nation's leading, trusted fact-checking site, Politifact, rated the GM PLant claim by Ryan "FALSE". Ouch. That's gotta HURT!
Besides….sigh…..ya know what? I don't really give a damn, Paul. I know what the frightening and sad vision for Ryan/Romney's America is, and I know that it will destroy America. Obama's vision is theonly one that is worth considering. HIS vision is MY vision–the return America to it's Middle Class.
Phillip Southan But Romney never said it. Like Palin never said she could see Russia from her back door. Both statements are simply smears by their opposition
Again total and complete disrefard for the facts. Stuimulous funds to GM. Where were the new plants built? CHINA
The US Government unions, the teachers unions, and many more have over a billion dollars invested in BAIN capital because they have been a serial success.
How many people invested in Odufus? Only the left wing puppeteers.
I'm thinking they were upset because the chair completely ignored procedure the will of the delegates and did what he wanted since there was clearly not a 2/3 majority in the voice vote. The two parties really are much more alike than I even thought.
They are two sides of the same coin and it is a two headed coin, flip it you lose either way, it is time to go back to The Bill Of Rights and The Constitution…WE the PEOPLE by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Scott Edwards That opinion smells pretty much like "Natural manure", Scott. Don't be so freaking stupid as to start advocating even more bloodshed in the name of Religion.
Zizzer, Not advocating bloodshed in the name of religion, advocating taking back our country from the thieves, liars and cheats that are the lawyers, bankers and big business men of both Democratic and Republican parties…Read my statement fully and understand it.
"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." – Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)
Scott Edwards OK, I'll give you a "like" or that, Scott. Sounds good to me.
Booing God! I am heartsick. What a denial of 95% of this country that believes in God. I don't think we are seeing the rise of European socialism, rather the rapid sinking into Soviet style communism on the part of the democrats.
Where did you get that 95% number from?
Do you have a better number?
The communist manifesto and the democratic platform only vary on a few issues. Mark Levin did a good presentation on the similarities yesterday
They weren't booing God they were booking the amendment. If you look at the one person screaming no he is Arab…he didin't want that in there! I'm sure half of them were Atheists anyway. They seem to be popping up everywhere!
I am Christian. Most people I know are as well. However, I also have dear friends who are Buddhist, Agnostic, Hindu, and Unitarian. Even a few Mormons and Muslims, although I have problems with their teachings. Still, they are God's children and all are free to choose their way of worship. I would estimate more like 75%, but am not sure.
Arabs aren't atheists. Just thought I'd point that out. With the Atheists plus the Islamofascists, there was a strong objection to the Christian God. Allah would very probably been welcome
God has NO PLACE in government. She shouldn't be in EITHER platform.
Paul Robinson You're a patent fool, Paul. I assure you that, as an atheist, there is a strong objection to ANY AND EVERY "GOD". Cripes–and YOU were a "teacher"?! I shudder to think of the hundreds mislead by your ideological misinformation.
Was a Barna poll number from a couple years a go. 95% of Americans believe in "a God," Not 95% Christian or members of a religion, but believe that there is a God.
Interesting, Dave–however, a NEW story says that Atheism is increasing.
ALL teachers used to have to be of impeccable moral character, and Christian. Where is the issue? At least we are able to pass along moral values to our students, something an atheist cannot. We can teach purpose and meaning in life. An atheist cannot. You, sir, prove the Biblical point that a fool says in his heart, there is no God – you just go ahead and blab it out publicly. The fact that I don't agree with your irrational position does not make be a fool, patent or otherwise.
Speaking of which, I do not believe you are an atheist – that is a scientific and philosophical impossibility. You MAY be an agnostic – but those poor confused folk have NO basis for any life pattern or ethics.
Read this and then we'll talk – you are far to irrational at this point, since I don't think we even have the same meaning for our terms;
Written by a former atheist, it will answer several reasons why you are confused. As I stated, you are scientifically and philosophically challenged
I find that an interesting story – to bad, for your philosophical demention, it helped prove a prophesy from the Bible; Lk 18:8 for one example. There are others. Now just how do you think that some wild-eyed cave dweller could predict something so accurately using natural logic?
Fan of Todd Friel?
Increasing? maybe. But in fact its just that many closet agnostics ( I don't believe there are any true atheists) now have the environment to which that can make their silly statements and not be trashed for them.
Plus, that is the only philosophy that students are educated in, and they are not allowed to question the premise. Of course it makes a difference what people are taught. And it is certain that agnostics are in many positions of power in education to infect their students with anarchy and agnosticism. Just look around you? We are certainly not any better off.
You should read Morris' book "The Long War on God". Nothing particularly newsworthy in this article – it was all predicted long ago!
Paul, you simply don't have the authority or facts on your side to make the assertions that you you arrogantly make. The jails of America and the scandal sheets are FULL of "Christians" who have fallen from the morality that you imagine they have some exclusivity to. Atheists possess no less morality than you, and it's proven by Cultural Anthropologists that tribes and cultures which have NO knowledge whatsoever of Christianity–and no identifiable "religion" whatsoever– contain definite, quantifiable altruistic impulses and "morals" which have NO BASIS in the expression or fidelity to religion or Christianity.
Next, your "faith" in "God" I say there is no "God". YOU, on the other hand, take it on "faith"–the belief in things that are "unseen", i.e., "unproven". I, on the other hand, believe in Science and empirical evidence. Who's the fool? You figure it out. Also–if you could PROVE to me that "God" exists, my open mind would accept that fact and I would be as ardent a Christian as you would hope me to be. THAT, sir, is how an atheist such as I comports himself.
NEXT–your link. Not interested in one man's OPINION of the origins of the Universe. The whole "something from nothing" argument is a canard to begin with, because it presumes that the Universe had a "beginning" at all. I believe we humans are vain and short-sighted in presuming that because WE "begin" at some point, and expire eventually, that EVERYTHING must "begin" somehow. Who has proven that? In fact, don't you Christians believe in "life after death", i.e. no "end"? Then why do you vainly presume a "beginning" for something which you cannot possibly know–YET?!
And that small word–"YET". The way a scientific brain works, it is incorrect to assert a fact which cannot be known YET against the current evidence known. Science always asks, and questions, why, how? When? Yet in the Christian way of thinking, it's an intellectual dead end–"GOD DID IT!". That's it. Nothing more to learn, nothing more to discover, no more truths to be revealed. If you believe that, I feel pity for you.
Paul Robinson By the way, Paul—that whole "written by a former atheist" is a common religious-author marketing strategy, entirely facetious. Please don't expect me to be taken in by that claim.
"The newest polling, therefore, may simply show an increase in those willing to say the word." Increase? maybe, but no stats to prove it here, in spite of your claim. And still only 5%. That truly shows the numbers behind the vocal howlings intended to portray a much larger constituency.
Taken in or not, your arrogant elitism, that no one with any type of education believes in God, is disproved by this guys credentials. And his buddy with 13 degrees. He certainly understands your point of view, having lived in and attempting to justify that same world view you endorse. Intelligent people Can and Do believe in a personal God, even those who were raised as atheists.
Your disclaimer notwithstanding, you are simply to arrogant to even look at an opposing view point. And for you, that seems to be called intellectual rationalism. How can it be rational when there is only one side under consideration!
Paul, I guess I was "ruined" by Lee Strobel, who is the most pathetic example of a phony "former atheist" who ever picked up a pen. I DID read "The Case for Christ"–and it was utterly ridiculous in every way. He starts with the blatant assumption that God exists–and then works backwards from sectarian scripts, and by talking to ONLY fellow ideologues to "prove" his contention. I was actually outraged at the blatant fraud of his deceit and cynical method when I realized that SOME people actually took him seriously!?!? So when I hear that "used to be an atheist" garbage, I know that it's just a cheap attempt to lend gravitas to a weak argument.
I'm sorry that you think I can't consider another point–Paul, do you realize that I became an atheist in the FIRST PLACE after swearing a "sacred vow" in the 80's to slay all the secularists who were rising against Ronald Reagan's embrace of the Religious RIght in the 80's. The Michael Newdows and Madalyn Muray Ohare's of the world–I wanted to slay them, editorially in letters to the editor, and vowed to become a preeminent authority on Christianity, religion, God and Jesus. I was SO CONFIDENT of my righteous path that I even told myself that I would read the atheist garbage–surely, what could these fools be smoking?
Hey, guess what? About eight years of intense reading and study later, I woke up one day, quite unexpectedly, and couldn't deny it any longer–the Atheists just made MORE SENSE. Believe me—I couldn't even function for two days. My whole world turned on its head. But I knew I could NEVER go back after what I had learned.
THAT is why I can't buy the "former Atheist" thing. I could never, ever believe in "God" without absolute, empirical proof—the case AGAINST the existence of this Christian "God" is just too compelling. Never said that an educated man couldn't believe in God–but sadly there are some who just can't get along without the whole "God crutch". You can see it in al walks of life–people who just can't give up an irrational belief that sustains them. Conservatives seem particularly prone to this problem.
By the way, you cherry-picked that article to find something you could dispute, but I understand…
Your post is irrational, and your statement false. In logic its called elephant hurling. The jails are NOT full of Christians. Period. You are lying, this time there is no other word for it.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Oh, is it REALLY, Paul? I love you how simply "declare" things to be arbitrarily true or false depending SOLELY upon the way YOU personally feel about them! lol!
Here's proof that the majority religious population in US jails is Christian. http://askville.amazon.com/Religion-prison-populations-Atheists-ethical-Christians-Muslims/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=8384184
or this one, if you prefer? http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html
And the table itself:
Catholic 29,267 31.432%
Protestant 26,162 28.097%
None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%
Muslim 5,435 5.837%
American Indian 2,408 2.586%
Nation of Islam 1,734 1.862%
Rastafarian 1,485 1.595%
Jewish 1,325 1.423%
Church of Christ 1,303 1.399%
Pentecostal 1,093 1.174%
Moorish 1,066 1.145%
Buddhist 882 0.947%
Jehovah's Witnesses 665 0.714%
Adventist 621 0.667%
Eastern Orthodox 375 0.403%
Latter-day Saints 298 0.320%
Scientology 190 0.204%
Hindu 119 0.128%
Santeria 117 0.126%
Sikh 14 0.015%
Baha'i 9 0.010%
ISKCON 7 0.008%
——————– —— ——–
Get out of the ring, Paul; you're hopelessly over-matched!
Zizzer Zazzer Zuzz
I'm not a big fan of Strobbels either, and I don't remember recommending him. HOWEVER, the fact that a brilliant man, a layer by profession, and a well recognized journalist, who I assume has far more credibility than either of us in the academic department, DID, after considerable research, come to the conclusion that God was the most logical answer for the evidnce. Unfortunately, as you stated, this did not come across in his books – partly because he has attempted to divide his arguments up into so many sections.
But you are unscientific in rejecting Strobbel's approach. One postulates an position, then researches the evidence for and against. As Strobbel had already found for the plaintiff, so to speak, in rejecting atheism as illogical and unworkable, it would seem logical to me that he would put forward the position that God is real, and Christ the man the Bible claimed him to be, and then look for evidence to support his position. That is the scientific and logical approach. Had he found no evidence to support his postulate, then he could have dropped it. So his assumption was NOT in any way "Utterly Ridiculous". It was in fact scholarly and legally relevant. What would you expect? He was after all a law reporter.
Anthony Flew, the atheists atheist, came to a similar point in his life. It was the evidence. Alone.
For whatever logic you may have used to fight your Republican fight, I get the feeling you were probably raised Catholic. Catholics can become great philosophers, or great atheists, hence Dawkins, Hawkins, etc al. Catholics have enough religion to bug them, but not enough to bless them. Any religion that is based on your good works can become very empty. And that is not the gospel, which of course, is the reason Luther nailed his theses on the church door.
We have this similarity: that I went thru a lot of anguish when I had to give up my evolutionary sympathies. The self-doubts were painful, sometimes overwhelming, but I made it through. 40 years of intense study, and then having to be able to teach what I believed I had evidence for, put me in the opposite camp you have chosen.
Now you talk about evidence. Just what evidence compelled you that God did not exist? I'm always interested in that, because I can find none. And most of what I have debated, formally or informally, as supposed evidence against God, is no such thing. It is man's rebellion against God hiding behind carefully selected facts, or presumed facts. And yes, if you do not have access to the great body of evidence supporting the reality of God, and if you do not have a personal relationship with Him nourishing your knowledge daily that He is who He says He is, its very easy to become entangled in doubts and delusions.
Your new supporter provided supposed evidence of the errors of the Christian teaching in another post, but almost every one of the evidences he posted was false. Now if I hadn't studied the issue so intensely (and I still consider myself a neophyte in many areas) I might think he was correct and since atheistic media is so totally overwhelming ( Browns movies, Dawkins and Hawkins and others – the world is awash with them) right now, I could also have lost faith. The reason I spend the time it takes to respond to your misinformation, however sincerely believed, is the hundreds of others who read these posts who might believe your statements if there was no alternate logical viewpoint.
The reference I gave you was for its scientific approach, by a former atheist. I cannot speak from an atheistic viewpoint, my Christian life has been far to fulfilling and rewarding to think in terms relative to atheism. However, the reference I cited DOES apply scientific evidence and logic to the issue. You demand proof? There was a start there.
Since you refused to read it, I can only assume that you refuse ANY proof. How else can I present my case but by reference to science? You refuse logic and tradition and literature as valid. Science is my last hope!
Paul, Strobel's arguments "never came across in his books" because the methodology that he used just transparently bogus and faulty to all but the most naive rubes who were simply looking for some feel-good confirmation of their beliefs, or a reassuring "wink" for their nascent doubts. He never actually made a serious attempt to "prove" God, because–as not only MY, but MANY atheists have discovered (in my case, to my supreme surprise) that when you REALLY get into the meat of the argument and use methods of discovery and proof that are empirical and scientifically-rigorous, there IS NO "proof" as we both understand and define "proof".
"Proof" does not, CAN NOT come from the Bible.I mean, that's like trying to use OJ's book to "prove" that he didn't kill Nicole. And everything else that I've seen used as an argument really comes down to a lot of preconceived assumptions and contentions that are plainly based upon "faith".
Understand this, too, Paul. Religion is an invention of Man. As is evident in the OT, religion codifies the values and tribal customs of the society in which it is born, and in which it holds preeminence. It's not hard to see, anthropologically, how a belief in a supernatural "cause" for frightening, unexplainable things was conceived of, anthropologically. But since then, there has never been any reason to believe that these primitive explanations—MANY, if not MOST of them now thoroughly explained by Science—have any validity in claiming supernatural explanations for a world which we KNOW is governed over by laws of Nature and Physics. I did not "not find" evidence for God; it's just that I found NO REAL EVIDENCE whatsoever FOR GOD that had any integrity beyond the grave and serious warnings of religious institutions who had everything invested in the deliberate promulgation of these self-sustaining, self-benefiting propositions. Again–without PROVABLE evidence, I am not prone to believe in propositions which demand subservience, self-degradation, and which claim to "reward" me for kowtowing to the psychologically-damaging notion that the source of my own potential damnation for all eternity is my own imperfect Humanity–which, following the religious line, is "the way God made me". I mean, stop for a second and think OBJECTIVELY about this, Paul.
Now, if you would propose to me that "God exists" in those indefinable laws as an absolute which is as-of-yet not completely understood, that to me would be more plausible than the proposition of a paternal God figure. Ya know–the whole "personal, loving, caring, saving, etc" God. You know–the God who "loves" us but would just as easily condemn us forever, for all eternity to a lake of fire for small infractions, and whom STILL has not explained adequately how the "sin" of one utterly naive woman who was allegedly tempted or mislead by a supremely-crafty and cynical talking snake (???) managed to "doom" ALL of us, for ALL time–so much so that he had to…..kill his son…WHAT?!?! Paul, on its face, it's fantasy. A myth. A tall tale. In a world governed by physical realities that can be tested, repeated, embraced-if-valid, dismissed-if-invalid, I see NO proof or this God whom you allege.
But mark my words, Paul–were it that you COULD provide UNBIASED proof, and an empirically-verifiable occurrence–a manifestation captured on video in front of thousands of people, an obvious and plain suspension of the laws of Nature or Science, a verifiable "miracle" performed by a visible, evident deity in front of a large crowd of unrelated citizens and subjected to rigorous scientific tests which confirmed ts authenticity, THEN I WOULD BELIEVE. But until that day–when your "God" starts really "putting out"–and NOT just for isolated individuals who CLAIM his beneficence, NOT just for "his people" or his followers–then everything that a man like YOU (who has years and years and a personal history and personal identity invested in this belief) proffers as "proof" –even something as easily dismissible as your citation of "a personal relationship with him" (purely subjective imagination) can ONLY be taken as an article of "Faith"–yours, and whomever would share that faith. I, myself, sir, do NOT.
Your problem is that you have to redefine terms to make your point. The fact that one declares a religious denomination when being incarcerated has NO bearing on whether on not they are Christian – as it seems was the case with you. The denomination you are born into doesn't make you anything – any more than going to McDonald's makes you a muffin. Unless and until one personally calls upon God in repentance and helplessness to stop sinning, and accepts the Blood of Jesus as the atonement for their sins, is filled with the Holy Spirit, and all that follows, they may have the name, but they do not have the claim.
Many of those who made the claim of denominational loyalty have NEVER been inside the doors of the denomination. So your logic is seriously flawed. Like our president who claims to be Christian, yet breaks so many of the Christian ordinances, customs and commands. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions deny ANY possibility of being a Christian. I can say I'm martian – doesn't make it so! So when he goes to jail, you are again going to list him as a Christian in jail. WRONG! And before you raise the red herring, I am well aware that some TRUE Christians also are in jail, but the percentage is VERY small.
I'm pretty sure you were raised Catholic. But while you were surrounded by religiosity, I doubt if you ever made a personal commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. You were never changed on the inside, or Born Again as Jesus referred to it. So you are still trying to make sense of life using your body and mind, but with a dead spirit. No wonder you hate God for everything you think he's deprived you of! But its your call, not His – He has made the offer, you have refused it.
So you continue on your life with no hope after death, and no basis for morality before death. Truly a miserable way to live.
Re your opinion about Strobbel's premise that Christianity IS valid, and Christ real. What you have observed is a theory being tested. You make a statement, and see if the statement holds up. He felt there was enough historical and Biblical evidence that his premise was valid. Every day I deal with people making the premise that evolution is true, and attempt to support it with far less affirmative evidence than Strobbels used to support his premise for Christ. You just refuse his evidence for very obvious reasons.
But there was nothing wrong with starting with a premise and looking to see whether the majority evidence is in support of the premise or not
And I would say without hesitation that Stobbels is far more educated than I, and far more experienced in the nuances of law than I. And I would further state that goes for you as well. I don't like using appeals to authority, but if I did, that would be primary evidence you cannot refute
"Again–without PROVABLE evidence, I am not prone to believe in propositions which demand subservience, self-degradation, and which claim to "reward" me for kowtowing to the psychologically-damaging notion that the source of my own potential damnation for all eternity is my own imperfect Humanity–which, following the religious line, is "the way God made me". I mean, stop for a second and think OBJECTIVELY about this, Paul. "
Its you who need to stop a minute and think. If God is holy, and that is an attribute that logic must apply to him, allowing you or I into heaven would be a violation of His holiness. We are not holy because of own personal rebellion and sin. So God is not in any way being capricious by rejecting us from His presence, based upon our personal love of and affinity to sinning, our self-righteous notion that we are His equal or superior, and he should do things by our standards, not His own.
The fact that Jesus Christ lived on this earth for 33 years and did so WITHOUT sin justifies the position taken by God that you COULD live without sinning, therefore justifying his judgement of those who do SIN.
The fact that God also provided a way of escape from the penalty of sin, a full pardon and payment for your debt of sin, further justifies His position and demonstrates His incredible love for you. With pardon freely available for your self-admitted sin, you cannot logically point a finger at God for being cruel or unfair by denying anyone access to heaven.
Subservient? Compared to an all powerful God, I think we are. Simple logic.
Your statement shows nothing about humility or awe – just rebellion, arrogance and defiance of God. Not exactly the qualities that would endear you to His heart.
Psychologically Damaging? Gimme a beak – Christians are the most normal people in the world. The founders of this nation were great men. Knowing that you are the personal object of the affection of your Creator certainly doesn't contribute to a damaged psyche in this universe, not sure about yours!
Paul Robinson Paul, your imaginative religious psychobabble and endless capacity for re-definition and finding excuses never ceases to amaze me. As well as your self-righteousness and smug religious superiority complex, which you share with many of your fellow "Christians" here, much to your (and their) detriment.
This is the psychological marker of a person with very low self-esteem and sense-of-self. You imagine yourself as somehow superior to other people who worship the SAME God as you, the SAME "Jesus", only in a different method of interpretation which is ALSO supported by the Bible. How sad that you feel compelled to be so conceited on a point which, I remind you, IS ALL BASED UPON MERE "FAITH"!!!
You are exactly the kind of person whom, apparently?–can and WAS taken in by Strobel's shoddy attempt at "journalism" in his pathetic "Case for Christ". Sure, Paul—there's nothing wrong with starting with a premise and looking to see whether the majority evidence is in support of the premise or not–the problem is that Strobel never got to the "or not" part. Strobel never ONCE even tried to seriously consider if there really WASN'T "evidence". Because HE KNOWS (I'm sure of it) that when you REALLY look at the TRUE "evidence", the real "case for Christ" falls apart pretty quickly and dramatically.
Face it, Paul–Strobel's book was never intended to be anything more than a reassuring pat on the back to Christians saying "It's alright; God 'exists'; don't you listen to those pesky nonbelievers". Hell, your own statement underscores one of the primary and fundamental errors of his approach–"Biblical evidence". lol! Paul, you can't use a reference or source whose very existence is tied to the necessity of proving its own contentions, lol. That would be like trying to use "On the Origin of Species" (Darwin's book) to "prove" Evolution. You would have to look for entirely INDEPENDENT evidence and research that is empirically provable in order to corroborate the contentions of Darwin's book. THAT MUCH you can do. You can NOT do that with the Bible. And again, saying that the Bible is somehow "supported" by the Torah or the Pentateuch or the book of Mormon or the Koran is invalid, because each one of these "sources" has the same vested interest in "proving God".
Your last post there just plain saddens me. You're so totally….brainwashed–there's no other word for it—that you spout religious psychobabble as if it has any connection with reality or not. You have the mentality of a slave and a child. You accept the proposition that you are somehow "guilty" for the impossible, ridiculous transgression of a mythical character (Eve) and that, furthermore, "God" damns you out-of-hand for being HOW HE MADE YOU (to co-opt your way of thinking). Let's face it, Paul–if God had wanted you to be perfect, he would have engineered that into us in Eden. But if not, then "God" made us as basically "playthings"–creatures created with a childlike, naive curiosity, and when ONE OF US acted on that curiosity, this "loving Father" doesn't forgive, doesn't gently steer or correct—no, he DAMNS US. If this attribute were in a human parent, we would rightly call them "psychotic", "cruel", "unfit to parent". And then—can ANYONE EXPLAIN THIS?!?!?—he has to KILL his OWN "son" to…..how does it go…??—oh yeah, to "absolve our sins"–WTF?!?! Paul, YOUR OWN "GOD" is "psychologically damaged"–how could his followers be anything BUT???
Paul, feeling silly yet? Can you explain to me about how killing your own son takes away the collective guilt of your "toys"? Yeah, god luck. When you're finished, I'll tell you the story of the old Jewish tribal custom and myth of the Sacrificial Lamb and the primitive custom of blood atonement and sacrifice that was encoded in ancient religions before people actually became "civilized". Maybe then you'll see how this senseless, primitive mythology was written into Christianity in order to "sync up" with Judaism and make it that much easier to attract Jews and pagans alike in a "Catholic"–or "Universal" religion.
"Understand this, too, Paul. Religion is an invention of Man. As is evident in the OT, religion codifies the values and tribal customs of the society in which it is born, and in which it holds preeminence."
You have obviously never studies the Bible, so obviously your viewpoint id going be way off-base. True, if there is no revelation OF God, man will create his own god in his own image. That is because, as Pascal stated, there is a godsized hole in every heart.
But the difference between man-initiated religion (which can be the result of ignorance, but more often rebellion against God) and the true and revealed words of our Creator is that our Creator knows the end from the beginning. So not only is His account of beginnings empirically true, but so are the revelation He gave about things to come. Codifying tribal laws cannot ever predict the future, and the OT is about one third prophesy. Only if those prophesies could be proven to be untrue could it be termed as tribal codification, and not revealed knowledge.
There are so many example I don not know where to begin, so I'll just give you two as an example. The Levitical laws were the first public health manual ever. Its prohibitions against eating pork, washing after dealing with dead bodies, identification of plagues, etc were NOT codification of tribal laws, for NO culture had any knowledge of immunology or bacteria at that time. Because of these laws, they were a nation that truly upheld God's promise that if they would follow His laws, "none of these diseases" would come upon them as with their neighbors.
In the 1700's the Jewish doctor Ignaz Semmelweiss insisted on doctors disinfecting their hands after handling corpses, and suffered intense persecution for his stand. It took science 2500 years to catch up with the Levitical laws on sanitation, hand washing etc. Codified tribal regulations? I don't think so!
And there is the myriad of prophesies about Abraham's two sons – Both to be as the sands of the sea in descendents, forever at war, and one would be like "wild donkeys" and one would produce the Saviour. That was 3000 years ago. No tribal codification could be that accurate that far into the future! That's a fact!
Prophesies about Abraham, his descendents etc accurately describe what has happened with The Jewish people. Now its easy to say that it was written after it happened, but that is simply false – the Hebrew scripture goes back in written form far beyond the events it predicted. The 70 year exile in Babylon was predicted, and accomplished exactly as predicted.
The regathering of the Jews from the four corners of the planet was predicted in Ezekiel, and the alignment of world powers in Daniel and Ezekiel For example – there are lots of others. Jesus predicted the scattering and regathering of Israel, and the destruction of the temple, in exact detail. The Biblical promise that the desert (land of Israel) would bloom like a rose began to be fulfilled in the 1900's as Zionists began to buy up the land of Palestine. The Arabs and Jews are still at war, and Persia is still attempting to anhil;ate Israel, just as was prophesied explicitly. So explicit in fact that the names of cities incolved in the coming war are mentioned – almost 3000 year ago.
No, if you have no better concept of the Bible that that it is codified primitive customs, then you simply do not know what you are talking about. Your knowledge of the subject you criticize is so minimal and shallow as to make your statements irrelevant, if not laughable.
Paul Robinson Sighhhhhhhhhhh…..oh Paul. You and I are truly on different planes of both existence and intelligence. There are dozens of "tribal customs" codified in the Bible. The ones you called out and tried to debate about are, in the end, "Tribal customs". Dietary Laws were just a way for the Jews to stand apart from society. It was a way to both define themselves as "different", as well as a way to impose that yoke of conformity and control on their adherents. This ain't religion, Paul–it's archaeology. Why don't you try to explain to me why women were "unclean" during their period and had to sacrifice a pigeon to be "clean" again? Sheeesh. So SILLY!
First of all, you take SO MUCH for granted, and are so willing to make HUGE jumps of assumptions to state what you BELIEVE to be the truth. Paul. How do YOU *KNOW* that ancient peoples had "no knowledge" of public health and sanitary procedures? You DO KNOW that they burned all the books at the Library of Alexandria, right? And that Christians, for DECADES, if not centuries, burned or confiscated books that threatened to tarnish the "glory of God", or that taught human beings knowledge that contradicted the "power" of God to "punish" people for being "sinners"? There may WELL have been ancient knowledge that we STILL don't know! Ya ever see Rome or Athens up close, Paul? These ancient peoples weren't nearly as stupid as you think!
Next–prophecies…..oy…honestly. Where do I start? Paul, the Bible was written as a satire of Judaism in general, and was written in order to replace militant, messianic Judaism. To destroy it and replace it with a more peaceful, submissive religion that was intended to be a synthesis of Paganism and Judaism. Ergo, "Catholic", or "universal". The "prophecies" were mere "backdated" stories woven into the narrative to give a dubious legitimacy to this new religion and attract adherents who would have recognized the familiar themes and find amelioration in believing that this new religion was actually "prophesied" by this new religion's "messiah"–again, totally attractive to the culture which at that time was awash with messianic movements and new religions starting all the time. The Bible was written by the Roman Flavian Dynasty, and followed an almost exact timeline and parallel storyline of the military campaign of Titus, who was the general who destroyed Judea. Theologians have identified countless identifiable parallels with the campaign of Titus, and have even explained heretofore UN-explained enigmas like the Gadarene Swine narrative. The number and frequency of these parallels PROVE beyond the shadow of a doubt that there was a deliberate attempt to write this new religion as a parody of the old religion whch was destroyed by the "son"—Titus, who was the "Son of God", i.e., the Emperor Vespasian–whom the recalcitrant Jews refuse to "worship"; therefore, they "rejected God". Hate to break it to you, Paul, but YOU don't TRULY know your Bible.
Paul, you built a career and reputation pushing an old version of Bible study and Christianity that is now obsolete. I recognize your depth of knowledge in the "old" and pious understanding of Christianity and the Bible, but you've been just left behind by the new scholarship that proves Christianity to be a complete invention.
How can we react to this when we have little information regarding ON WHAT they were voting?
They weren't booing "God." They were booing a motion to insert religious language into the Democratic Party platform. And anyway, God is big enough to take it. I'm alternately amused and annoyed with people who think they have to "protect" God.
Thank you for the clarification, Karen! As our constitution is straight forward and devoid of religious tone (that was the point, after all) I, as an Ecumenical Christian, resent this GOP attempt to anger voters of Faith.
Susan Elizabeth-Marsh Tanabe
That you can say the constitution is devoid of religious tone is irrational. It was signed in an atmosphere, and by men and following intense Christian prayer, preaching and discussion. You cannot divorce the actual constitution from the declaration and the other documents of the time. If you studied or understood the environment of the signing, you would certainly not make that statement. It is, at best anti-historical, at worst revisionist.
Karen Sandness Not to INSERT, but to REPLACE that which has always been there. You have your verbs confused! While God is big enough to take it, He makes a big issue out of being acknowledged by his followers. When nations or cultures vote him out of preemnince, he tends to take their vote seriously, and leave. His blessings leave with him. Why do you think this nation is in so much turmoil?
The old expression that God comes when He is invited and stays when He is appreciated has never been more evident.
Susan Elizabeth-Marsh Tanabe
What, pray tell, is an ecumenical Christian? I taught Church History post secondary, and never heard the term. I understand the words, but not their inference.
I am glad you are open to learning this ~ an online dictionary shows: "1. A movement promoting unity among Christian churches or denominations.
2. A movement promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding.". Basically it is a response by the millions of Christians who do not identify with evangelicals.
Like I said, I understand the terms. What you seem to be promoting is a religion devoid of any particular belief, particularly belief in the Creator/God, His son Jesus and his Word, the Bible. The united religion is the religion of the anti-Christ, if you believe the Bible. Jesus said that the way to the Father was ONLY thru Him, and that it was a narrow gate, and few would find it.
My experience over 50 or more years, is that those seeking ecumenicism do so on the lowest common denominator, which is always a long way from Biblical reality.
I have has so called ecumenical friends who did not believe the Bible, in fact one simply did not believe there was a god. The Zigurat at Babel was an attempt to unify the worlds religions, and it sure didn't please God. I'm not sure you could find a basis for ecumenicism today that WOULD please God. It seems that the movement puts their opinion ahead of Gods, and that's rebellion, the sin of Lucifer.
So just what DO you believe in?
THX for your response.
Wrong, Paul! They DELIBERATELY did not include religion as part of government. That people should pray before making important decisions is beside the point!
Prove it. You are wrong, and anti-historical. If you want to debate American Church History with someone who taught it, bring it on!
They deliberately did not include a SPECIFIC Christian denomination, because each of the states at that time had a STATE religion, and no possible FEDERAL religion would please each state. The very form of government was based on the Christian teaching of the Trinity. And every paper surrounding the Constitution DID contain specific references to the Christian REligion and to the Christian God. With the Constitution fully enclosed in the parenthesis of Christianity, I doubt you can find a single historical reference to deliberately excluding Christianity from the government. One of the founders said of the constitution, that it would only serve a religious people.
Of course their entire mindset was Christian, as they proposed their new government.
Paul Robinson I shudder at the revisionism you must have taught while "teaching"–or should we say, "indoctrinating", Paul. SO apparently now you want us to believe that you talk to God, huh? ("While God is big enough to take it, He makes a big issue out of being acknowledged by his followers. When nations or cultures vote him out of preemnince, he tends to take their vote seriously, and leave. His blessings leave with him.") HOW RIDICULOUS. What an insecure, pathetic "savior". And what a bunch of nonsense you peddle; honestly, I"m laughing!
Paul Robinson " I doubt you can find a single historical reference to deliberately excluding Christianity from the government." Oh that's easy, Paul–the Treaty of Tripoli.
"The United States, BEING IN NO WAY FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION…"
Spare us the revisionist lecture, Paul' it's ok; we all know what "…in NO WAY…" means…
Zizzer Zazzer Zuzz NOt for long!
You wouldn't be quoting that mistranslated "Treaty of Tripoli" old saw again would you? (as you should know, that statement was NOT in the original) the one where the updated treaty of Paris was signed in the Name of the Holy Trinity?
You do love ignoring contexts when they disagree with your irrationalism!
Yeah, sure, beat that revisionism! You're great at it! It was in the Treaty, it's common knowledge, and I know it sticks in your side. Oh, and the salutation of the "other version" was just a political formality at that point, kinda like every damned politician feels the need to pander to you religious goons by saying "AND GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!" at the end of their speeches.
Hey Paul–even if we take your version as fact–SOMEBODY PUT THAT PHRASE IN THERE AT SOME POINT, DIDN'T THEY?! So much for your claim that Christianity had any preeminence in the government.
Wow. Perhaps I misrepresented myself. I am not an evangelist but I am a child of GOD, a sister of Jesus, a follower of the teachings of the Bible. No sir, I most certainly am NOT promoting "a religion devoid of any particular belief, particularly belief in the Creator/God, His son Jesus and his Word, the Bible" Such malarkey! As an academic surely you have read something by one of the Berrigan brothers? Jim Wallis? Have you heard of Sojourners? You sir are dangerously close to blasphemy. "The united religion is the religion of the anti-Christ,". Really? REALLY? You have just offended million with your arrogance. Only YOU know what God wants for us, who God loves, who is in His favor? Do you honestly feel ONLY EVANGELICALS can enter the Kingdom of God? Please rethink your bigoted, unGodly attitude. God is much, much larger than that. Do not dare to limit Him.
I began to list my experiences with Christ's church in this blessed nation and in the world, however you are not going to hear. I am sorry to say I cannot continue this line of discussion. Your mind is as closed as can be.
ZZZ, i hope you realize the above response was to P.R.!
Prayers for us all, for understanding.
Not a problem, Susan. You have a good day now.
Its really to bad you don't do any research on your own, or even the research points I give you. The Treaty of Triploi was written in Arabic and that statement is NOT in the Arabic version. It was inserted by the translator. The original is at Yale, if you question my accuracy.
Adams signed it anyway.There are several possible reasons. The US was planning an impressive navy which would alter the balance of power, hence a future revised treaty. Another was the current imprisonment of some 3500 English speaking galley slave whose lives were wretched, which this treaty was to free. The justification I understand is that the US was NOT a Christian nation in the sense that England was Anglican, Spain was Catholic. In other words, the president did not have to get permission as the civil leader from the Ecclesiastical leader to make a decision.
From "Original Intent"
"Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.
Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.
This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 20 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 21 and by John Adams as "rational." 22 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it. 23 "
. . .
" The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 25
Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26
Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation. "
"In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:
He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation." 29
When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:
It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well." 30
And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:
April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking! 31
May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy's forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don't he come and take it? 32"
The difference between you and I is that I am quite open to reading Dawkins ( I quote him often) and others you consider champions of your twisted worldview. You simply refuse to look at, or are terrified by, anything that might challenge your erratic and unsubstantiated opinions.
Again, your position is bereft of logic and history. And common sense. And I tire of your endless refusal to do even the simplest research in to the citations I supply.
PS Cite me one other document in the history of the world, signed under the title of the "Holy Trinity". Again, you are just blowing smoke.
I simply do not have time to open another front. I have spent countless hours studying Sojourners website, read their articles, and listened to their speakers in the hope of finding SOMETHING Biblical there. If you follow the discussions on their site, you have seen my posts.
Jim Wallace is a modern day Judas. He started out as a socialist radical. Not much has changed. He cheered the US defeat in Viet Nam. He was vicious about the "defectors" who fled after the fall of Hanoi; he loved communism and hated the US. His "conversion" simply appears to have given him a new coat to put over his old socialism; a new vocabulary; a new group to radicalize. Although only God knows his heart, his concept of socialism is that the government should take over the work of the church, and social welfare should be the responsibility of the government, not the church. Unscriptural AND unconstitutional. There's not much you could tell me about his teaching that I haven't already studied. There are many scholarly works on the net outlining his Biblical errors. You might want to look into them.
Apart from undermining the role of the church in society, his version of socialism steals from the populace thru exorbitant taxes to provide to the public such services as the GOVERNMENT sees fit. He is Obama's adviser; the religious persecution introduced by forcing religious institutions to provide reproductive services they are traditionally opposed to, his support of late term and partial birth abortions, his pro-gay endorsement, and his pro-Palestinian crusade are ALL anathema to Biblical Christianity, and happened while he was the Presidential pastor.
And on the GLBTQ issue Campola has been struggling with – how can anyone accept that as Biblical in any way? I'm assuming Campola still has some voice with Sojourners? There are gays on the staff of Sojourners according to a past letter from Wallis. That's fine. But Jesus command to the woman caught in adultery was to go and sin no more. If his gay staff are celibate, then more power to them, and its commendable that he has reached out to pastor them. If he is, as I suspect, condoning their homosexuality, what does that say about his view of Scripture?
I trust someday you will get a revelation from God's word about the error of his ways and the error of supporting him.
Those I am close to who are ardent supporters of Sojourners seem to very liberal in their views of abortion, gay marriage, the welfare state,etc – all things that are contrary to my reading of the scripture. And most do not attend church, again in violation of Scripture.
I am sorry you think I'm narrow minded. But then again, most of the Christian fathers suffered from the same disease. There is only one Gospel, and its not open to private interpretation (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 3:3, 2 Peter 1:20). Basing your Christian life on the Scriptures doesn't allow much room for some of these deliberate deviations from the Gospel message, no matter how pretty the package and how well it sounds.
My life is to love sinners, and love them enough to help them rise above their sin. Introduce them to Jesus. Part of that love is my somewhat harsh posts – an attempt to get thru the complacency of some individuals and challenge them to think. Condoning their sin and making allowances for it never cured a drug addict or a homosexual or a drunkard. The sin must be recognized and confronted before help is possible. They must realize they cannot save themselves before they can accept a Savoir.
Paul Robinson Maybe it's the weekend and I'm busy, Paul, or maybe it's just that your obvious cut-n-paste sophistry is just lifted from the internet and doesn't interest me, but straight up, I DID NOT READ IT. I'm bored to DEATH with this argument. I simply don't give a poop what your opinion is. THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW. Get over it. What's MORE IMPORTANT is that the Separation of Church and State has been re-affirmed and codified by dozens of courts and court decisions for the last 200 years–both FOR and AGAINST religious viewpoints. Where do we go from HERE, Paul? Surrender our proud history and wisdom of the FF's to theocrats and religious dictators? I shudder to think. If my apathy on this particular subject feels like a victory to you, then congratulations; you win. I'm just BORED WITH IT.
Nobody Fears God Anymore Nowadays……….(-_-).
Maybe that's the problem with the world today!
….and that's a GOOD THING!
Tell me how that works out for you, when you answer to Him for the life you've lived. It would be interesting to see your response as He questions you . . .
WHo's that. Paul? YOUR God? YOU kneel in supplication, YOU submit yourself to judgment, YOU whimper and beg your "reward"; ME? I don't believe in your god nor your delusions; he has NO POWER over me!
What Paul Robinson said, Zizzer! When you die, God is gonna give you an exit interview, If you don't answer His questions correctly, the infinitely loving, merciful Yahweh will send your butt straight to hell where your flesh will burn uncontrollably for thousands, millions, billions, trillions of years. Yes, God loves you so much that he will do that to you so STRAIGHTEN UP!
AND. Zizzer, if you behave right, you can join people like Paul Robinson and myself while we laugh and pat ourselves on the back for leading such good, Christianly lives as we watch you writhe and struggle trying to put out the flames that consume all your friends. GOSH that will be fun!
If that sounds like fun to you, then start believing . . . . Or else.
Well put, and said, Shoals Skeptics!
Only for the moment. I'm reminded of Johnathan Livingston Seagul, who thought his mind power would allow him to fly thru rocks.
Like an ant yelling at a person "You cannot step on me because I don't believe you exist"
Its hard to imagine arrogance and ignorance coinciding, but you seem to be proof! Imagine a puny and inept created being shaking his fist at the creator – the image is almost too funny!
You will have no one to blame but yourself. God cannot allow sin into His Holy City, or t would be ruined like the earth is. You have the chance to turn or burn.
God never sent anyone to hell – you make the travel plans all by yourself.
Your argument is irrelevant and arrogant!
Paul Robinson says, "God never sent anyone to hell – you make the travel plans all by yourself. "
OK, I choose not to go to hell. So I'm good, right?
Let me warn you, Paul. I am a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He exists. I give you tonight's pasta dish as proof. If you do not accept Him as your noodly and savory savior, you will be relinquished to our version of hell.
You see, the Pastafarian conception of Heaven includes a beer volcano and a stripper factory. The Pastafarian Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale and the strippers have sexually transmitted diseases.
Do you accept or not, sir?
don't feed the trolls!
Paul. You are a loser, and a hater. God says to me, to tell you. Get a life.
Paul Robinson Oh my God, Paul–the "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" soundtrack?! Niel Diamond's FINEST work! "Beeeeeeeeeeeee!!! As a page that aches for a word that speaks on a theme that is timeless!!" FABULOUS!!!
(composing myself….) Meh, other than that, yeah, I pretty much dare your God to try yo come and tangle with me. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Listen CAREFULLY, the Democrat Delegates did NOT approve the changes but were done anyway for PURE political purposes! It is absolutely CRYSTAL CLEAR to anyone watching this that there was NOT 2/3rds approval! SCARY! If they do this to their own political representatives and delegates what is next? Wonder what they will do to NON-Democrats in another term?
your right Bill there was NOT a 2/3 approval
It sounded about the same the yay and nae but do the same thing with the Republicans and it would probably be the same!
Is anyone surprised? This the way Obama and his culture of corruption have been running Washington for almost 4 years. They don't care about Congress, they don't care about the Constitution, they don't care about bankruptcy laws, they don't care about the Supreme court, and they sure don't care about the citizens of the USA.
Their oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the USA was broken so often I've lost track. I hope the voters remember!
They only added back it in to get the un-committed voters. The Party Loyals will vote for BHO! and anyone with 1/2 a brain will vote for Mitt. USA can't survive another 4 of BHO.
I don't know why anyone is surprised. This is a godless party, taken over decades ago by leftists and marxists. This is NOT your daddy's DNC.
The astonishing thing is that people who call themselves Americans actually vote for them.
It isn't a godless party. That is a terrible thing to say. At least we don't have a candidate that thinks he can become God with his religion if he is elected.
They didn't boo God. They booed the proposal to insert blatantly Christian elements into a platform intended for people of all faiths. We actually think there is room in the democratic process for faithful Jews, Buddhists, etc — rather than telling them there is no room for them, like the Republicans do!
You have totally misrepresented what happened, and I'm at a loss to know why!
What was inserted by this amendment was simply what had been removed. It was in the last party platform, so how it that this has become an attempt to force blatantly Christian elements any more than the last, and all previous, platforms.
Methinks you are just a bit irrational with your comment! There is room for anyone but Christians. You already had your CAIR co-sponsored Muslim prayer meeting where they stated that Islam was not here to compete with other religions but to dominate them.
The platform's other provisions already demonstrate that there is no room for Christians or their God in the party, so its a tempest in a teapot. Its the furor and self-righteous indignation that I find hypocritical.
How DARE you, RObert Bryan and Paul Robinson. Our President IS a Christian and if you think he is not you are uneducated. Look past his name. Look at his worship and his faith. God loves all the world's people You are sadly full of arrogance.
Paul Robinson — so it was in the previous party platform, and they didn't want it in this one. That still doesn't mean they are booing God! YOU'RE the one who is misrepresenting what happened!
Susan Elizabeth; Please take a few minutes to think about what you are proclaiming. By his own words, Obama has declared his lack of Christian belief. If you actually take the time to read his books, listen to his speeches and investigate his education and early (Islamic) training, you would know that you are plainly and simply, wrong.
His attendance at Reverend Wright's Church was to establish his Christian "cover story" and to be indoctrinated into the anti-American and anti-white racist beliefs expounded by Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
The evidence of all this is easily researched as he has NOT been able to silence everyone and seal every record.
First define Christian. By any orthodox definition Obama is NOT a Christian. His religious instruction in his early life was Islam. He later converted to Black Liberation Theology, which uses the name of Christ like Macey's uses Santa Clause. The Black liberation theology he was steeped in for 25 years is anything BUT Christian. The bookstore in Wrights church has a wide variety of Muslim books and few orthodox Christian books.
I think your response is more emotional than factual. I have looked at his worship – 4 times in church since moving to the White house. Golfing many times more on Sunday than in Church. His current pastor is another liberation theology kook, who uses the Bible only when it fits his socialist paradigm. He simply ignores the rest. That doesn't sound like a Christian to me. Just saying the words don't make it so! When he lives his life by Christian principles, I'll reconsider my evaluation.
I see no Christian faith in Obama. Could you tell me where it is? Worship?
He uses some of the words when it is to his advantage. He could NOT be a Christian and promote abortion, even after delivery, as he has done. He could not be a Christian and change his mind on Homosexual marriage. He has disdain for Israel, and respect for Islam.
My only arrogance is in applying the Scriptural admonition to judge their fruits and to mark those who cause division among you. Most of his fruits are rotten, and his attacks on religious institutions to provide contraception, abortion and transgender operations reeks of deliberate religious persecution.
Just what do you think qualifies him as a Christian? I fear your emotions are running far ahead of your intelligence, knowledge or wisdom!
I would shudder and vomit if the President were, by YOUR DEFINITION a "Christian" like YOU, Paul.
— 'nuff said!
No your candidate doesn't think he can become god, he already thinks he is!!!
I agree with you. They were not Booing God. So chill! I have never made a comment on WHY they were booing. You assumed that! But your offhand "so what" about replacing the words into the platform show a complete lack of understanding of the hypocrisy and cynicism of the Democrats and their "get elected at any cost" philosophy. They simply have NO morals.
There is no way they had the required 2/3 vote. Once again, Obama's people overrode the constituency, as they have the constitution, the laws and the congress of the US, and the democratic party demonstrated itself to be the part that doesn't want God, unless its for votes!
I'm beginning to realize that if you are against it, it must by definition be something good for American, good for fair government and good for the population.
Alan Du Brul
You are a disgrace to the collar.
Who's the fool, Paul? Look in that mirror, hard, ol man.
If you have a point to make, make it. I find that ad homineums simply mask an inability to rationally refute an argument!
I'm sorry, Paul, what "argument" did you make that I was supposed to rationally refute? If it's any consolation to you, I feel old myself sometimes.
Not founded on Christian principles?
This is from the original charter for New England
"And for as much as they have noe conveniente place-either of tradinge or ffishinge within their own precints whereby (after soe longe travell and great paines,) so hopefull a plantacon may subsiste, as alsoe that they may bee incouraged the better to proceed in soe pious a worke which may especially tend to the propagation of religion and the great increase of trade to his Mats realmes, and advancemente of the publique plantacon, the said councell have further given graunted bargained sold enfeoffed allotted assigned and sett over and by these presentes doe cleerely and absolutely give graunte bargaine sell alien enfeoffe allots assigne and confirme unto the said William Bradford his heires associate and assignee all that tracte of lande or parte of New England in America"
Jeanne Stewart Probably should do better research on the LDS faith. Just sayin.
Paul Robinson Oh Paul, who the hell cares anymore. You have your opinion, I have mine. WHat's important is that it's NOT a "Christian nation" now, even if it started out with SOME believing of HOPING that. Times change, Paul. Get with it old man.
Jeanne Stewart Ya'll need to go back over to Mother Earth News or the huffington post.
All you liberals are fools. Vote for him again and see our country go to socialism. So sad that you guys are so gullible with no common sense.
Tracey Beaver Ashley "Socialism"–ha ha, you don't even know what it means. You're just repeating spoonfed garbage that has no basis in fact. You Conservative idiots are he rason we're here in the FIRSTplace, and your idiot-fools of candidates, TweedleDumb and TweedleDumber have the SAME polices that got us this economic mess. "Fools" is too kind to describe the sheer idiocy which you possess.
You sound like another democrat free handout lazy asses that want somebody to take care of them. How long did it take you to realize you could not make it on your own? Incidently, note I don't hide behind a cartoon.
They are voting on Amendments. And he never asked the question, they just gave you a video and let all of you think that's what the said 'nae' about. Way not to fallow without question there.
And yet Dick "The Turbin" Durbin would accuse Fox of trying to insinuate something here that would play into the hands of Republican's, and to that I say NOT! The camera doesn't lie, and the Dems are losing their souls, or are at least having a religious crises not to mention their questionable support for our best friend in the world, Israel. The spirit of confusion sure is vexing the Unholy-crats.
"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all, liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, and with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord." James 1:5-7.
When you are only putting on a show, the lack of sincerity shows through.
That's an axiom in a nation made up by a sum of those adhering to your religion, other religions and the irreligious. You write: "When you are only putting on a show, the lack of sincerity shows through." And there you and I agree.
United States Constitution, paragraph 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States!
The Democrats were CONSTITUTIONALLY CORRECT! It's sad that they felt a need to kowtow to the Christo-fascists who are trying to undermine the United States Constitution!
Yawn . .. Over and over we go. Round and round – where it stops nobody knows . . .
Why cannot you simply quote in context? Your clipping of bits and your revisionist history get lame after the dozenth time.
So I'll explain it one more time. No religious test is not the same as stating of no religion. Since there were 13 states, and each state had its own STATE religion, the clause you so adeptly tear from its historical context, states that it does not matter to which STATE religion you belong, THAT cannot be used to prevent your appointment to FEDERAL office. The thought of having NO religion was discussed in various papers. Had you taken the time to read them, you would KNOW that there was never any thought given to a day when NO religion would be attractive to anyone, least of all someone running for public office. Who, by the way, had to be appointed by their STATE church to the Constitutional deliberations.
You need an education in the history of your country. Your revisionism is rather lame!
Yeah, yeah, sure it is, Paul. NONSENSE! The revisionist is YOU. Furthermore, your reading comprehension skills are suspect!
Lemme highlight this for you: "… ALL executive and judicial Officers, both OF THE UNITED STATES and of the several States"
"…. TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST under the United States!"
Seriously, Paul, it would take a desperate IDIOT to argue that this only applies to "state" legislatures. Look in the mirror, buddy!
Zizzer Zazzer Zuzz Ah! yes. And still you refuse to take the comments in their historical context, and insist on your irrational view as being the only logical one.
I cannot un-educate all the misinformation you have and then re-eductate you in this lifetime so lets see where you might actually be rational:
Do you agree that each state had a state religion before the constitution was signed? If you conceed this, you have lost your argument. If you do not, you are an ignorant buffoon!
Paul, it should surprise no one that in a wilderness like the early colonies, fanatical religious actors would ignore the mandates of the new Constitution and adopt religious affiliations in their governments BEFORE THE PRACTICE WAS SOUNDLY ABOLISHED. As it SHOULD have been, and to the great advancement of civility and fairness to minority religions and members. Admitting this in no way diminishes my stance. What was true in principle can easily be ignored by the lawless and fanatical fundamentalist.
It has occurred to me the utter absurdity of continuing this argument. The Separation of Church and State is a factual reality, and has been confirmed time and time again by courts both low and high throughout the history of AMerica. You Christians are like a PO'd group of football fans birching about the "bad call"l at the end of last season that lost you the big game. Get over it already!
1) Not sure just what point you are trying to make – your argument is mute unless you admit that each and every state has its own STATE religion at the time of the signing. And that you will, in characteristic denial of fact fashion, not do!
And I said that it only applied to the Federal, not state government – you seem to have a small problem parsing a sentence
And the issue of whether the amendment is binding on the states appears also mute, as the body of the constitution is only binding on the FEDERAL government, and the first amendment disallows any infringement of religion by the federal government. By your reasoning, that prohibition against interfering with the free exercise of religion would also apply to the states, something that would have to be based on facts not in evidence!
2) Article without the parts you left out:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
Where there are laws in conflict between the states and the Federal government, the US Constitution takes precedence.
" and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So if it isn't listed in the constitution, like religious affiliation of the particular state, then its a state issue unless the state is in opposition to the Federal government, in which case the Federal constitution takes preeminence.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;"
Any government official must act in keeping with this constitution.
" but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I and others take this to refer to the Federal government, not the state government. It is the US constitution for the "United States", not the US constitution for the states. It was done, and within the powers of the states, to require denominational affiliation for STATE positions.
As I previously point out, and you refused to think about, each state HAD a state religion, and the religion test had nothing to do with allowing someone with no religion into Federal government, but making the position dependent on having a CERTAIN religion was banned. IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
If you disagree, then quote me a legal opinion on the case, because you seem yo have difficulty understanding things in context. Repeatedly!
In the meantime I will find other sources that prove my point, because knowing you, the plain and simple explanation just won't do!
Paul, honestly? I simply don't care anymore what you think. This is getting so redundant, so tedious, so pointless. This point seems to be SO Important for you for some reason, yet the plain FACT is that the Separation of Church and State has been repeatedly re-affirmed by various courts, high and low, for the last 200+ years. I simply am BORED with this constant chest-thumping and dick-pulling. It's pointless. So some states had "official" religions–big deal. That was then, THIS IS NOW. I'm more concerned with dealing with WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE–not "where we've been". You Conservatives would go back to the Stone Age if you had your way. How can a logical person like me try to reasonably argue with people like you?
Religion is too personal a matter to be inserted into a political party's platform. What is important is that we as a nation have the freedom to believe what we want and practice those beliefs to our hearts content so long as they do not infringe on the rights and freedom of others. Isn't that the important thing? Putting "god" into a political platform where not all citizens agree on what "god" is, or that one even exists, does nothing but divide people and show preference to Christians. This is why church and state are separate and to mix religion and politics is inherently unAmerican.
Whatever happened to "One Nation under God?" Boo on the Democrats!
Our nations pledge of allegiance was transformed in 1954. Under God was inserted then. When my father was a kid back in the mid 40s. Not only was God not a part of the pledge but they rose they're right arm pointing to the flag while reciting. The majority of this country is Democrat and christian. I know most republicans would love if this weren't true, but it is. They just don't where there religion on they're sleeves. The republicans have torn down the wall of separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave. Its not 1954 anymore! We are more American then we have ever been. Time to let go of the 20th century and start embracing the 21st.
Excuse me, there is no legal separation between the government and religion. No historical separation. The Federal Government is forbidden only to found and control a FEDERAL STATE religion.The government in fact is forbidden to do anything to inhibit the free exercise of religion. Religion was the goal in the first land title in America. It was central in the Declaration, in the desperate appeals from the colonies to their citizens for fasting, humiliation and prayer for God's protection before, during and after the Revolutionary war and the constitutional conference. Presidents since that time have called for other days of national repentance and supplication to the Creator God for his blessing. The Congress was used as a church for years. The first Justice issued alter calls to those men he sentenced to death. You are lacking in knowledge of the History of these United States of America.
And I doubt that the majority is Democrat. Democrats and Christians are increasingly diverging through policy and practice. There is no place left in the Democratic party for pro-life and Christian Democrats – they are shunned, excluded from office and generally made to feel like Republicans in their democrat conventions.
The fraudulent voice vote results is simply another example of the treachery of the Democratic party, and Christians in particular are revolted by it.
Yes, I am aware that our founding fathers did not officially use the motto "One Nation Under God". But I do know that Religion especially Christianity/Judaism who believes in God and the Bible were important to our Founding Fathers. Our founding fathers believed it was perfectly acceptable to teach the Bible and pray in our schools as they did for over 200 years. It was perfectly acceptable to acknowledge God by opening Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer as they themselves did. Our founding fathers would have applauded the phrase. In God we trust on our money and One nation under God in our pledge of allegiance. They would have applauded each of these acts because none of these acts constitute the establishment of a church or a religion but simply acknowledge the religious foundation upon which our government was built. Beyond that—I do believe in God and would like to be a Nation Under God. Our Nation is falling apart and maybe our people need to put God back into our country. That is my opinion. However, Our Country currently has many privileges and one is freedom of religion and I hope it stays that way.
Quick fact check: There is no evidence for a god who gives a damn what this assembly of people think. "Booing God" makes about as much sense as booing Easter Bunny.
Irrationality on display! There is no evidence to support your claim. God has blessed this nation because they sought Him in prayer and fasting many times over its history. That, I suggest is a cause and effect denial of your statement!
"Irrationality on display! There is no evidence to support your claim. "
I need no evidence to support the non-existence of an imaginary being. It is you who are making the claim. It is you who must present rational evidence. Do that and you will save a soul from everlasting pain and suffering in a scheme developed by your man Jesus.
Mr. Skeptics, "Irrationality on display!" was merely the preview title of Mr. Robinson's irrational comment.
Ahh. My bad. It certainly appeared to me that he was calling MY stance irrational which, of course, was not rational. Thanks for the clarification.
So I'll stop waiting on him to save me from the certainty of the literal flames of hell.
I suspect by the rules of logic, the one making the extraordinary claim is the one with the burden of proof. You must be somewhat literate, after all you can type in this Facebook page. Look up all the debates about the existance of God, and read the WINNING arguments by theists. No need for me to repeat their WINNING arguments.
Anthony Flew was just one who was convinced by the SCIENTIFIC evidence that there HAD to be a creator.
One rational (as opposed to the atheistic logic) discussion is by my friend Johnathan Safarti at http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational. It also includes links to several other well reasoned discussions. You CANNOT claim that I did not direct you to a rational discussion on the subject. Your imminent refusal to read it demonstrated that you are simply bowing smoke. Your rant is just sound and fury signifying nothing.
If Jesus was simply a man how did he rise from the dead?
Paul Robinson your are a funny fundy, Paul. You say, "I suspect by the rules of logic, the one making the extraordinary claim is the one with the burden of proof."
You got it! You are making the claim that a supernatural being exists that reads our minds, responds to invisible mind-beams by mucking with reality, lives in the clouds where streets are lined with gold, created a species of people for the sole purpose of worshiping Him then punishes those same people by devising a scheme of eternal torture for those who even THINK about doubting His existence.
And then he sent his OWN SON (who was actually Himself) down to planet earth to "save" the race of people He created imperfectly to begin with. And failed.
Yeah, I'd say that's an extraordinary claim, sir. Goofy even. Really, people, grow up. This is Bronze Age mythology. No more or less. Gods were necessary hundreds and thousands of years ago. We are smarter now. Gods didn't create us. We created gods.
Miles McIntosh HA HA, Miles, he DIDN'T "rise from the dead". A pure literary invention; an attempt to cleverly conflate the newly-invented "savior" with the literally dozens of pagan deities from around the world's cultures who either "rise from the dead" or descend into the "underworld" and come out again. It's simply a means of conveying the core pagan tenet that when one became educated enough to be considered a master of some craft or philosophy, and yet humble enough to convey that information to new people (thus continuing the "perfection of Man" through higher learning and humility) that one "died" to one's old, ignorant self to be "raised up anew" into the perfection of a godlike-figure.
What a beautiful, redeeming concept, huh? In paganism it was available to EVERY man. Shame that Christianity had to go and ruin it!
Miles McIntosh says, "If Jesus was simply a man how did he rise from the dead?"
Miles, no one has ever risen from the dead. As Zizzer eluded, the Jesus story is not original. There were plenty of other man/god/rise-from-the-dead stories long before the story of Jesus was written.
Other facts that you don't learn in church: The story of Jesus wasn't written until at least 40 and as much as 70 years after his death. That means that the original witnesses of the story (and NO ONE knows who the authors of the Gospels were) were likely long dead. Another fact: The oldest surviving bit of parchment of the Gospels has been dated to 300 years after the events supposedly took place. So it is entirely possible that the Gospels weren't written until hundreds of years after the story took place. Whatever the case, that is an awfully long time to publish a story about a God who came to live with the humans. That's sorta Big News, you know? Why the delay?
Bethlehem wasn't even a town when Jesus was supposedly born there. It was a graveyard. Jewish law is VERY strict about building living spaces near the graves of the dead. It just wasn't done. However, the graveyard did become a wide spot in the road around the time the story of Jesus was written (I'm guessing that people forgot there was a graveyard there after a few decades). It might have even had a manger but probably wasn't settled enough to have an inn. The writers of the Gospels could not have known this. They picked Bethlehem as the birth city not knowing it didn't exist when the main character was "born" there.
Bottom lines is that your faith a built upon foundations of sand. You believe this stuff because you have been told to believe it, not because you have studied it.
An excellent rebuttal, "Scooby"! (Rooby RoO!!!, lol!) It's nice to see that others have done their homework! Carry on!!!
Well, you have proven one thing with your irrational rant: that you DO know the gospel story and have chosen to ignore it, to your own eternal peril.
As I aid before, you make your own travel plans. Its your choice: smoking or non smoking. Since you already know the plan God has to save you from the eternal reward for your rebellion against him, there's no reason for me to repeat it, or even carry on a dialogue with you.
You ignorance is abysmal and your arrogance outstanding. When many of the most brilliant minds in history, Anthony Flew for example, have come to an acknowledgement of theism strictly by the weight of scientific evidence, I am surprised that you think you are so much smarter than them. If people with a dozen degrees in science find it rational to believe the Gospel, then who are you to call me a fool? I feel confident that you are not as adequately equipped in the intellectual department as they. Nor do I think you intelligent enough to comprehend the WINNING logic of the many atheist/theist debates which are consistently won by the theists.
If you want to ignore the evidence of detailed and specific creation, do so at your own risk. God is not mocked.
And the ultimate proof of your arrogance is this: that if I am wrong, just what have I lost? I have had a wonderful life, and God has provided for me bountifully for me. I have never been sick. The arthritis that was supposedly going to cripple me by 30 is nowhere to be seen at 70. God has saved my life inspite of my own foolishness, for example, in flying my airplane into a storm with insufficient fuel. God had blessed half a dozen businesses I've founded. So If I am a fool, I'm a happy and blessed one. Now on the other hand, if you are wrong, you can reasonably look forward to at best an eternity in hell. As Pascal, the famous mathematician postulated, its a gamble no wise man would take.
You know, if I had a week to refute your baloney, I would do so, but I don't. Almost every statement you made is false. And easily disproved.
There is more proof of Jesus existence that for Julius Caesar. There are so many references to Jesus and his miracles in SECULAR history from the time of his life, that to say contrary demonstrates ignorance in the extreme of the issue.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? Obviously! " One of the strongest evidences for the historicity of the Resurrection is indirect: the Resurrection is the only explanation for historical events which otherwise make no sense. First, the disciples of Jesus went from cowering in an upper room to proclaiming in the streets a little over a month later that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and had risen from the dead. Most of the apostles were martyred in various ways when they could have simply recanted. One could argue that many Christians were deluded, but to say that the apostles would die for what they knew to be a lie stretches credulity.7
Also, a bodily resurrection was about the most unlikely way a first-century Jew would have explained an empty tomb. First-century Jews had diverse beliefs about the afterlife; some believed in the Resurrection, others did not (e.g. the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23)), and some believed that only some would be resurrected. But no type of Judaism believed that one person was going to be resurrected before everyone else; this is likely why the disciples had no idea what Jesus was talking about when He predicted His death and resurrection. "
Now I could cite you book and page , but it seems you and your also damned buddy won't accept evidence, so why bother?
You comments about Bethlehem are demonstrably false. A citation is required before I spend any time on this loser! To think that now, two millenia after the recorded history was written that YOU know better than the people of the time, is astonishingly arrogant!
You statement that the witnesses to Jesus life were probably dead when the Bible was written is also demonstrably false. Its just your ears flapping that makes such irrational statements. Not only were most of His disciples still alive, (Judas was certainly dead) but many other disciples of the disciples were also alive well into the next century, and we have their accounts as well. Because writing was rare and parchment expensive, oral history was an art in those days and very exact, so even two or three generations later the stories would be accurate. However, the gospels were recorded accurately by several of the best educated men of their day, and any competent historian of the times credits Luke with being meticulous in his research and presentation.
The fact that the fall of Jerusalem in AD67 is not mentioned in any of the Gospels tells any intelligent reader that they were most likely completed by then, and Christ was crucified in AD33, so at the MOST there was 40 years from Crucifixion to completed gospel. People are still writing biographies of Washington and Reagan and no one questions their ability to do so accurately. So your point is . . .?
"Comfort and Barrett state: “All of the manuscripts [contained in the book—EL] are dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)” (p. 17). In fact, “[s]everal of the most significant papyri date from the middle of the second century” and thus “provide the earliest direct witness to the New Testament autographs” (p. 18). They even suggest that “it is possible that some of the manuscripts thought to be of the early second century are actually manuscripts of the late first” (p. 23)."
There are currently (2005) 5748 manuscripts in whole or in part in various museums and libraries of the New Testament. By comparison, there are only 38 copies of Anals of Tacitus, and only 643 copies of Homer's Iliad
Your statement that no none knows WHO the authors are is ludicrous. Where do get this garbage? Certainly not from history.
In addition, as mentioned, there are a host of recorded exchanges between the disciples and antagonists which by the very charges against the disciples their teachings may be proven.
You are simply whistling past the graveyard of reality in hopes of comforting yourself on your irrationality.
Unbelievable, Paul–you actually have the chutzpah to opine that ". When many of the most brilliant minds in history, Anthony Flew for example, have come to an acknowledgement of theism strictly by the weight of scientific evidence" and then go on to offer Pascal's Wager as an "ultimate proof" against what you perceive as "arrogance" but which is, in reality, only that which threatens your psychological defense mechanisms against Truth! OH HO HO HO!! You are QUITE the piece of work!
Interestingly, a young man with whom I"m debating in private messages here offered ANdrew Flew as well as some "proof" of Atheism being wrong, and sent me a link to his alleged "5 Proofs for God" (http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/5-proofs.html) for which the only characterization can be something which would get me kicked off of this site. Flew's "proofs" are UTTERLY LAUGHABLE–one of them, for instance, lists "personal experience" as a"proof". SURELY, Paul, even YOU can see through the laughable lack of integrity that this poser offers?! The rest of Flew's arguments are as lightweight, full of unsupportable and false assumptions, and easily dismissible as the former.
Seriously–you've been OWNED by your own feckless, ineffective arguments. YOu're truly out of your league here, Paul. Go mow your lawn.
Paul Robinson Paul, your second post to "Scooby" puts you FIRMLY in the bottom of the intellectual barrel. " …more proof of Jesus existence that for Julius Caesar"?!?!? And then you go on to state "indirect proof" for the Resurrection–honestly, Paul, you're laugable in your ignorance, not only of what actually constitutes "proof", but of your uncritical willingness to simply parrot religious dogma while you iignore the actual truths which prove that Jesus and Christianity were invented by the Flavian Dynasty and rulers of Rome as a way to destroy militant, messianic Judaism. Paul, to be kind, you just DON'T KNOW. It's not really your fault; you simply DON'T know about the latest information and proofs which have been discovered by theologian Joseph Atwill, amongst others. Essentially, the key events in the life of Jesus are literary satires of events in the Roman military campaign by Titus in Judea, and show–with statistical accuracy rivaling that of the same that we use to prove DNA cases in court– that these parts of the gospels and the rest of the NT were created by the Romans to deceive the Jews into worshipping a false literary messiah. The "prophesies" were nothing more than already-occurred events back-dated in the literature to reflect a "prophecy" by this "new messiah" invented as a rhetorical device.
You're seriously waaaaay out of your league, Paul. Give it up. You're embarrassing yourself with these lightweight attempts at an "argument".
Paul Robinson uses Anthony Flew as an example: Quick takedown: Flew's arguments are exactly the same arguments I could use for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Santa Clause (who DO exist!). Even if everything he stated were true, the ultimate conclusion would be that a vastly intelligent alien species exists somewhere out there. That's no reason to worship and no reason to build a religion over it.
Then you say "God is not mocked."
Mock mock mock! C'mon, Yahweh. Hit me with your best shot. One, two THREE! . . . . Nope, still here, Paul. Fail.
"Your statement that no none knows WHO the authors are is ludicrous. Where do get this garbage? Certainly not from history"
Then show me a definitive source for the identities of your claim. Theologians throughout history have tried to track this stuff down and NO ONE KNOWS. No one, sir. You are deluding yourself if you think Mark wrote Mark and Paul wrote Paul. I happen to ascribe to the theory of the mysterious writer named "Q." Look it up. Cool stuff. It's just a theory but is compelling.
You mentioned "hundreds" is extra-biblical accounts of Jesus? Hah. I think that at last count, there were about two. The one you folks keep pulling up is the vauge reference from the Roman historian named Tacitus. It is widely believed that this historical note was inserted some hundreds of years after the fact. The bottom line is that we will never know. The details are lost in history.
Every other "source" you cite is from the Bible itself. This is called "circular logic" Paul. No worky with thinking people.
Zizzer Zazzer Zuzz says, " that these parts of the gospels and the rest of the NT were created by the Romans to deceive the Jews into worshipping a false literary messiah. The "prophesies" were nothing more than already-occurred events back-dated in the literature to reflect a "prophecy" by this "new messiah" invented as a rhetorical device. "
See? THAT"S how the study of the bible is still fascinating to an atheist. Cool stuff. I'd have to research the authenticity of these claims of yours before I'd accept them, of course, but still: It is fascinating to see the same political mind games being played thousands of years ago. The more things change, the more they remain the same!
Yes, Scooby, (sorry, but I LOVE Scooby Doo! ), research Joseph Atwill and"Caesar's Messiah"–his groundbreaking book which will change your understanding of the entire history of Christianity. Atwill's contentions have been confirmed by other theologians and his $1 Million challenge to anyone who could disprove or refute his brilliant thesis has never been challenged nor redeemed. I believe that it's available through Amazon. Get it, read it, and you will finally KNOW "the Truth". A tall claim–and one that I feel entirely comfortable as an atheist making.
Shoals Skeptics Like gravity, God cannot be seen, but His effects are obvious to those not blinded by their own arrogance.
Shoals Skeptics What would you accept as proof or evidence?
Paul, honestly, there probably isn't any amount of proof that would convince me. I walked as a believer for 40+ years. I was exposed to a few facts, met others who shared my skepticism and slowly started pulling back the curtain there in the Wizard's chamber. It took a while to get it fully open and now I cannot un-see the man who pushed the buttons.
However, I'm a skeptic first and foremost. I am open to new evidence. If I could somehow be convinced–via scientifically controlled experiments–that any form of supernatural forces exist (ESP, ghosts, telekinesis), a major chasm would appear in my skepticism that could weaken my disbelief in any of the 12,000 or so gods man has invented in recorded history.
But, alas, I would probably be just like my man Kirk in this video where he and crew meet "god": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3u4j0hVy8c
Wow…incredible! Notice the Arab screaming NO!
Wow, this makes me sick. Obama, I haven't voted in the last 2 elections, am single mom fighting cancer, children are 21and 25, have grandson that has Hirschsprung's disease and my single daughter gets no help for SS disability. He's 7 months old w/10 centimeters of intestines. Needs a total bowel transplant. You have stolen from SS to give/lend other countries. Guarantee I will vote against you and spread the word. (-: and you will lose, not giving credit to God !!!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry to hear about your grandson's illness, Ashley. He will be in our prayers.
You're an idiot if you're going to vote for the two scheisters (R&R) who would pull the rug right out from under your poor children and grandchildren by repealing the reforms of Obama's Heath Care plan. Gosh–how can people be SO STUPID?!? Better start praying–sorry, I mean "begging" your "God" for a medical plan–because the Republicans don't have ANYTHING else to offer.
And blame Bush for "giving to other countries"–he's the idiot that financed two wars by mortgaging your kids' futures to China.
I always thought you were a Democrap – it follows your other illogical fantasy-land philosophies. Afghanistan is surely Odumbest's war. He voted for it. And Iraq, if you would use your logic (oops, saying that to an atheist is an oxymoron) was Bush 41's war. Its interesting how the dempocrap/socialists want the UN to make all our decisions for us, but when the UN decided to liberate Kuwait, they suddenly exempted THAT decision from their otherwise slavish UN worship.
Paul Robinson Shame on you. Grow up and take responsibility for your Bushy's failed policies and mistakes that Obama had to clean up. And my, my Paul–you SO seem to have a problem with maturity, don't you? All those tedious little names and slurs. What is it with you mental midgets that have to use names all the time? Ya know what your post says, loud and clear? YA GOT NUTHIN'.
Sounds like your family needs some Medicaid. I got Medicaid disability back in '97 due to some stress issues, and it's been great! I get a little walking money every month, plus I ain't gotta pay for any of my health care. it's real nice!
Gee, Democrats think that money grows on trees, that Abortion is the best thing that ever happened to women, AND they dont know BEANS about FRACTIONS…
This headline is very deceptive. The democrats did not "boo God". They booed the stupid amendment and the undemocratic procedure used to implement it.
Why do religious people feel the need to be validated by politicians? Your faith must be pretty weak if it depends on being included in a party platform.
So what if the convention didn't mention God specifically? Who cares? So what? What does this prove? Absolutley nothing. Many of the democrats are practicing Christians, but they don't wear it on their sleeves. The republicans were free to mention God all they wanted at their convention. But does this mean they're better for America? of course not! I don't give a rat's patoot about this issue.
Its Time to move to Canada
Agreed Chad. When you want to move? I don't want to live in a country that denys God. "For whomever denys me before men, so I will deny them before my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 10:33
Apparently, some of those making comments do not watch the news. It is not about keeping christian beliefs intact. It is about adopting Islamic beliefs into our society. Didn't anyone see where the christian pastor was to be executed in Iran and due to pressure from other countries was released after three years. THIS CAN HAPPEN HERE IF WE DON'T TAKE A STAND. I don't give a rats butt if they are here, but when in Rome you do as the Romans do. Do not force your Muslim religion on me and I will not force mine on you. But that is not their belief. If you do not believe the way they do, you are to be eliminated. OBAMA is a Muslim. Read his two books.
Booing God! What the sam hell is wrong with these liberal sissies. They'll be booing the devil real soon if they don't start living right.
There was a time when they actually were Democrats. Not any more! Now they are socialists.
Your email address will not be published.
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Copyright FOX News Network, LLC