|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Which religion's creation story should be taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You're avoiding the question. I didn't ask how to identify a Christian, I asked what constitutes the exercise of the Christian religion. We are discussing what the Constitution says. In Message 110 you stated:
JRTjr writes: For those whom are still unclear, the Supreme Court, itself, is in violation of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ when it requires that Christian symbols, and historical landmarks be taken down from public domains because they are ‘religious in nature’. You quoted the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In Message 110 you are saying that Christian symbols and historical landmarks on public domains is an exercise of religion. I disagree. Even your response doesn't agree.
JRTjr writes: Yahushua sums up the duties of a ‘Christian’ this way: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (intellect). This is the great (most important, principal) and first commandment.And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself. These two commandments [a]sum up and upon them depend all the Law and the Prophets. If those are the duties required to exercise the Christian religion, then symbols and historic landmarks are not an exercise of the Christian religion. As I said in Message 129: A Bible sitting in a display case is not an exercise of the Christian Religion. So removing the Bible does not prevent a Christian from performing their religion. A court house should be neutral zone. The individuals inside the building are not hindered from worshiping or not worshiping as they please or speaking of their religion or lack of religion. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
First of all the Declaration is not a US legal document.
Secondly, still looking for any reference to christianity. So, I guess on your part that is a fail. You may also want to check out this link: Legal Information Institute
Nothing about christianity there, other than the Mayflower compact and a ruling by the supreme court that religion as a place in American society, but nothing stated that Christianity is the correct one. Therefore this statement
Since the United States of America was founded by Christians so that Christians could follow the dictates of their faith (religion) without fear of reprisal from non-Christians (both in government and in the privet sector)
from Message 128is still not evidenced. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In Message 110, you wrote:
This is clear, plain and simple; the Government of the United States of America, according to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’, can not restrict, or outlaw an establishment of religion or prohibit it’s free exercise. For those whom are still unclear, the Supreme Court, itself, is in violation of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ when it requires that Christian symbols, and historical landmarks be taken down from public domains because they are ‘religious in nature’.
Then in Message 163, you write:
Purpledawn writes: Actually, I wanted to know what the exercise of the Christian religion actually entails? True Christianity is not as much a ‘religiona’ in the belief system sense; as it is a relationship with the Creator of the Universes. OR, let me put it this way: I do not consider myself a ‘Christian’ because of ‘religiously held beliefs’ as much as because of Whom I believe in, Trust in, cling to, and rely onB; namely Yahushua Mashiach (Jesus the Christ). Some one once said: that The religions of the world are man’s attempt to find God; in ‘Christianity’ it is God that has searched out (is working toward a relationship with) man. Yahushua sums up the duties of a ‘Christian’ this way: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (intellect). This is the great (most important, principal) and first commandment.And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself. These two commandments [a]sum up and upon them depend all the Law and the Prophets. So therefore, taking down a christian symbol is NOT prohibiting the free exercise of the Christian religion as you originally asserted. Right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
quote:No, it cited more than two dozen violations of natural justice, not a single one of which mentions, alludes to or references the bible in any way, and all of which are completely secular in nature, being mostly concerned with legislation, taxation and supporting hostile powers/peoples. None of those are religious 'violations' - Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s Last time I checked legislation and taxation were definitely in the 'Caeser' category.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jar,
Great to hear from you again; I apologize for taking so long to get to these postings.
Jar writes: The United States was most definitely NOT founded for religious reasons, certainly not Christian reasons. The United States was founded to resolve economic, political, commercial and territorial disputes. This is a nice statement; but that is all that it is {a statement}. You have given no evidence that what you say here is true (factual, accurate, correct, right, etc. ) I have given evidence that our nation was founded by Christian for Christians; and the evidence I have given here is just the tip of the iceberg. So, if you want to ‘prove’ that The United States was most definitely NOT founded for religious reasons, certainly not Christian reasons. than you’re going to have to refute a good portion of the evidence to the contrary. Hope to hear from you soon,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I've looked for your evidence but have not been able to find any so far.
Even more important though is the topic of this thread; "Which religion's creation story should be taught?" There is no "Christian Creation Story", in fact the Creation myths in the Bible are mutually exclusive. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Theodoric,
Nice to hear from you again.
Theodoric writes: Since you are the one that brought up 'right' and 'wrong', you will need to be the one to define them. Sorry, I did not bring up 'right' and 'wrong' you did in post #116. However, if you would like me to give a definition of each I am more then happy to.
Right: adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, verb—adjective 1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. 2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer. 3. correct in judgment, opinion, or action. {Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.} Wrong:
—adjective1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. 2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer. 3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him. {Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.} Using these definitions for right/wrong I can safely say that your statement that The Constitution cannot be right or wrong. is definitely wrong. It either accords to fact or it does not. But that was even beside the point; I was making the point that If the Supreme Court says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then the Supreme Court is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right. In other words if the judgments of the Supreme Court do not accord with what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ actually says then the Supreme Court is wrong. Or, let me put it this way: If the Supreme Court say something and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says just the opposite then the Supreme Court is wrong. I don’t know too many other ways to put it. I hope this clarifies it for your. Hope to hear from you soon,JRTjr {P.S. I did not color the Hyperlinks, that is done automatically.}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
But that was even beside the point; I was making the point that If the Supreme Court says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then the Supreme Court is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right. In other words if the judgments of the Supreme Court do not accord with what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ actually says then the Supreme Court is wrong. Or, let me put it this way: If the Supreme Court say something and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says just the opposite then the Supreme Court is wrong. Who is responsible for determining what the constitution means? Do you have an example where the Constitution is "right", but the Supreme Court was "wrong"? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I have given evidence that our nation was founded by Christian for Christians; and the evidence I have given here is just the tip of the iceberg. I went back and read every post you have posted in this thread and a I can't find one bit of evidence that this nation:
was founded by Christian for Christians Nowhere does it mention the Christian God, simply God. That God can be a Deist God. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Bikerman,
Your point would be valid if not for things like the following excerpts from ‘Thomas Jefferson First inaugural address, Washington D.C., Wednesday, March 4, 1801:
Thomas Jefferson writes: enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter--with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. ...the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith... And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity. As I have been trying to point out ‘your idea of what President Jefferson called ‘separation of Church and State’’ is not what even he meant by it. Thank you for your interest and participation,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jar,
Jar writes: The intent of the Founding Fathers was to create a society that met their needs but that would change over time to meet the needs of each generation. That is why they created a system that can change, designed in planned inefficiencies, and put the greatest power in the Supreme Court who also serve the longest terms. If you really believe that I have ocean front property in Arizona I can sale you real cheap. The three branches of government (President, Congress, and the Supreme Court) were to be an even distribution of power (Executive power in the President {Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States Of America}, Legislative power in Congress {Article I, Section 1}, and Judicial power in the Supreme Court {Article III, Section 1}); so no one person or group had total control. Also note that the making of changes to the Constitution of the United States of America requires that two thirds of both houses of Congress must aggress to any proposed changes (or two thirds of the several states); and then, for it to be ratified, it must have three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress {Article V} Note here that neither the ‘President’ nor the ‘Supreme Court’ has any say in this procedure. So changing the ‘Constitution’ was not supposed to be easy, and the ‘Supreme Court’ is not the branch of our government that is charged with making changes to our ‘Constitution’. Thank you for your time and interest,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So changing the ‘Constitution’ was not supposed to be easy, and the ‘Supreme Court’ is not the branch of our government that is charged with making changes to our ‘Constitution’. Changing the Constitution is not easy and fortunately, the SCOTUS has never changed the Constitution. BUT... what does any of that have to do with :Which religion's creation story should be taught?" Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I am really not sure how you think TJ's 1st inaugural supports your view. Maybe you can 'splain.
How about this line from the same speech.
quote: Does this support your view too? If so, how? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Bikerman,
Bikerman writes: you don't have to believe the evident, you simply have to accept it. I don't 'believe' in evolution, for example, it is evident, therefore I accept it. ‘AcceptingA’ and ‘BelievingB’ are two sides of the same coining. You must accept something to believe in it; and you must believe in something to accept it. ‘Evidence’ must be believed; if you do not ‘believe’ the ‘evidence’ it dose you no good. I’ll use your own logic against you.
‘You don't have to believe the evident, you simply have to accept it. I don't 'believe' in Intelligent Design, for example, it is evident, therefore I accept it.’ ‘I don't 'believe' that the United States was founded on Christian principles, it is evident, and therefore I accept it.’ My point here is ‘just because someone says something does not make it so’. Just because you believe/accept something as trueC does not make it true.
Bikerman writes: I don't see how any ambiguity could now remain in the mind of any honest person. This is explicit, completely clear and entirely unambiguous. The problem is not that what he said is not explicit, completely clear and entirely unambiguous.; the problem is that what our Founding Fathers have said and did has been twisted to mean things that thy themselves never intended. I’ll give you an example from the document you yourself quoted. Madison writes: I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own pockets. This is a portion of the first paragraph of the same document you pulled your quote from. If you’ll note here there was no question, or argument, over whether or not clergy should be offering prayers at the opening of the Congressional preceding (a tradition, may I add, that started with the first Congress, and continues to this day); the contention was whether or not the clergy should be paid from the public coffers (the treasury) or contributions made to the clergy from the pockets of members of Congress themselves. May I add here that I agree with Madison on this issue. I’ll close with this quote I gave Dr. Adequate: No amount of evidence will sway a man, convinced that he is correct, if he is not willing to admit he could be wrong Thank you for your posts,JRtjr A. Accept — verb (used with object)
1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal. 7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism. B. Believe —verb (used with object)2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to. 3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person). 4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border. C. True - adjective, truer, truest, noun, adverb, verb, trued, truing or trueing.—adjective 1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story.2. real; genuine; authentic: true gold; true feelings. 3. sincere; not deceitful: a true interest in someone's welfare. {Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Theodoric,
Where to start; O’ where to start.
Theodoric writes: the Declaration is not a US legal document Never said it was. However, It is a Federal Government document that was written and signed {at peril for their lives, may I add} by the Founders of our Nation to give their reasons for declaring independence from England; so, in that respect, I would say that ‘yes’ it is a legal document.
Theodoric writes: the use of "creator", is not a reference to the christian god. This and the other terms used in the declaration like Nature’s God, and Divine Providence were terms used in the deism that was common among many of the founding fathers. Just looking at the beliefs of the writer of the declaration will show that it is in no way a reference to the Christan god. It could be a reference to any deity and no deity. That is the beauty of the founding fathers. They did not set much in stone. Give me a minute, I have to stop laughing. ;-} O.K., I’m better now. Let’s see; the Term ‘"creator"’ is, as you say not a reference to the christian god However, the term {capital ‘C’} ‘Creator’ {used in ‘The Declaration of Independence’} most defiantly is referring to the ‘Creator God’ of the Bible. That fact is so well documented that it is literally laughable that you would suggest otherwise. Also, ‘ the deism that was common among many of the founding fathers’ is the ‘Christian Faith’. Check out Signers of The Declaration of Independence Note here that there were 2 x Anglicans, 11 x Congregationalists, 2 x Deists, 14 x Episcopalians, 11 x Presbyterians, 1 x Quaker, 1 x Roman Catholic, 1 x Unitarian, and only 13 signers whose religious affiliation is un-known; and wouldn’t you know it, all of the ones mentioned are Christian denominations. That means that at least (at bear minimum) a full 75% of the signers of ‘The Declaration of Independence’ were of the Christian persuasion; so I think, on that fact alone, you could safely conclude that the ‘Creator’ ‘God’ ‘Divine Providence’ that they were referring to was the God of the Bible. Thank you for your response,JRTjr Edited by JRTjr, : Corrected a misquote.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024