|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Which religion's creation story should be taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
{Please note: I am updating this string before I have looked at any of the replies to it. So I am not replying to new information; just correcting a few mistakes, and adding a stray comment or two. If you have already read this string it is not necessary for you to reread it if you don’t want to. There are no new arguments in it.}
Dear Steen, You state, REAL science disagrees with much of the Bible, and certainly with the literal reading of Genesis 1 I was wondering what you meant. I have not found any where were, if properly interpreted, science and the Bible disagree. (I.E. are in direct conflict with each other.) For example: You say that science disagrees with Genesis chapter one. The first chapter of genesis, and the Bible starts of by proclaiming that God existed before the Universe. 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1: 1 Now, we know that the universe had a beginning {I.E. the Big Bang} something or Someone had to begin it. In verse two we jump to the face of the Earth. God start off by describing the initial condition of the Earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1: 2) So, the perspective of the rest of the chapter is from the face of the planet Earth. Now, over an undisclosed period of time, light started to show through the heavy atmosphere, and God named the lightness day, and the darkness He called night. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. (Genesis 1: 3, 4, 5a) God closes out the first season of time (relative to Earth) by saying: And the evening and the morning were the first day. Over a period of time the Earth cooled enough that large amounts of water condenses in to liquid and covered the earth. 6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. (Genesis 1: 6, 7, 8a) After this process was somewhat completed God closed out the days work by saying, 8And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Genesis 1: 8b) The next day (Here again an undisclosed period of time) God parted the water from the waters and dry land appeared. He then named the land and the waters. 9And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 9, 10) After another undisclosed period of time, God creates plant life (Grass, Herbs, and trees). 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 11, 12) Then we have the closer of yet another day. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Genesis 1: 13) On the fourth day something wondrous happens {not that what has happened so far isn’t wondrous} Finally, for the first time in history the clouds brake and the sun, stars, and moon could be seen from the Earths surface. 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 14, 15, 16, 17) Please note here that the Bible is not stating that the Sun, Moon, and stars were created on the fourth day; merely that this is the first time that these phenomena would be visible to the observer on the planets surface. {Which, in this case, the only observer at this point would be God Himself. But the vantage point is still from the surface of the Earth} If you’ll note, in verse ‘16’ is says And God made not And God said let there be. The difference here is that the writer is recapping what God had done previously; this because it has to do with what He is doing at the moment. Then God closes out the day by stating. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Genesis 1: 19) Now, God, on a roll here, creates the first animals. Please take into account here that which animals He created first is not specified; only that this group comes into existence before the end of this era of time. 20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (Genesis 1: 20, 21, 22) And closing out the day, it states. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Genesis 1: 23) Now, God starts the final phase of the operation. 24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 24, 24) Here, God gets to the point to where He has everything in place; everything is ready for the arrival of man. So God sets to one of his final tasks in bringing the universe in to existence. 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them. (Genesis 1: 26, 27) Trivia Question here: Why do people talk to their pets, and even to plants? Because, we where made in the image, after the likeness, of God, and He talked to plants and animals. After creating Man He gives mankind a few instructions. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (Genesis 1: 28, 29, 30) And then He closed out the sixth day saying, 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1: 31) You also state, there is no need to lie about science; it merely makes you seem less credible. And you’re correct; and there’s also not reason to lie about the scriptures either. The Question I have is, where do you get that Geology disagrees with the Bible. Astronomy disagrees with the Bible. Physics disagrees with the Bible. Biology disagrees with the Bible. Chemistry disagrees with the Bible. And so on.? There are unproven theories and hypothesis out there that disagree with the Bible. Though, I have yet to see a provable fact of science that directly contradicts something that the Bible states is a Geological, Astronomical, Physical, Biological, or Chemical fact. There are events recorded in the Bible that go beyond our four-dimensional universe; after all, God exists and operates beyond our four-dimensions of height, width, links and space/time. This, in no way, puts the Bible at odds with science; the Bible merely deals with things and events that go beyond the grasp of our scientific study. The universe itself also has this characteristic. We know, through science that the Earth, and its’ four dimensions of height, width, links and space/time came into existence some time in the finite past. There is no scientific way to scrutinize what happened before our dimension of space/time came into existence. Instead of responding to each of your remarks I’d like to recommend that you get a copy of The Fingerprint of God authored by Dr. Hugh Ross, Promise Publishing Co., 1991. You can find it and other materials at Home - Reasons to Believe. There is also a lot of free material available on this site. Ok, before you start writing, lets take into account a few facts, this so that we are correctly interpreting what is going on here. The following has been hobbled together from other posting of mine; I believe them relevant to this posting. The definition for Day includes: 1a) the period of light between sunrise and sunset 2a) the 24-hour period (mean solar day) that it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis with respect to the sun: the civil or legal day is from midnight to midnight 4[also pl.] a period or time; era; age [the best writer of her day, in the days of old] {Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997} Now, as Americans in our hustle and bustle world, we would tend to jump to the conclusion that when this passage speaks of Day it means twenty-four hours, right? I, myself, took this stance for many years; until someone challenged my belief, and I took a closer look at the text. I then noticed two things. First, verse two {of Genesis chapter one} states that God was, as the Amplified Bible puts it, moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters. So the point of view was the face of the Earth {which at that time was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep.}. Second, I noticed that there is no Morning and Evening for the seventh day; and no indications from the text {other than that} that the seventh day should be any different from the first. After I understood that day could encompass eras and ages I understood that there was really no reason to take the text as 24-hour days. It is still a literal interpretation since the word Day can be used to mean an era, or age. So, taking those two things into account I was able to understand I could take out the word day from the text and put in its place, for instance, era. Thus verse five could be, just as correctly, interpreted, literally, as, And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one era. {AB modified} O’ and for those who say OK, but how about the Evening and Morning? according to the Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 each can be described respectively: Evening: 3the last period, as of life, a career, ect., Morning: 2the first or early part [the morning of life] Please do not get me wrong, there are thing about the Bible that I do not understand, and things that cannot be tested with the tools we have at our disposal today. On the other hand there are many testable things written in the pages of the Bible. If we test those, and find no error, then it goes a long way to helping us accept the un-testable things, Doesn’t it? Science does not deal in truth According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 Truth is defined as follows: 2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3 an established or verified fact, principle, ect. I find, in the same dictionary, these words and their definitions. Fact: 2a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy] Science: 1orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied. Science does not exist if there are no immutable facts. A fact is what is true. An example: Arithmetic {note that’s Arithmetic not math} is used in all fields of research, so I will use an example from there.1 + 1 = 2 If this were not a fact {I.E. True all the time, for all people, in all situation} Then your vary bases for research in erroneous. One could add to the equation, or change it in some way, but, the truth of the mater is that, one plus one will always equal two. Footnotes: Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this. 1) Correctly identify the frame of Reference.2) Determine the initial conditions. 3) Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where. 4) Note the final conditions. 5) Form an hypothesis. 6) Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations. Guidelines for Interpreting Scripture1) Establish the correct Frame of reference. 2) Make no conclusions without examining and considering the whole Word of God. 3) Accept only those conclusions that are consistent with the whole Word of God. 4) Interpret narrative passages in light of didactic, or instructive, passages and illustrations in light of principles. 5) Take any passage literally unless its context clearly indicates that it should be taken figuratively or symbolically. 6) Accept a symbol definition only if it is defined such elsewhere in scripture. 7) Recognize that many prophecies are fulfilled more than once. 8) Be prepared to draw more that one message or application from a passage. 9) Be alert to occasional problems in translation from the original languages. Resolving ParadoxesContradiction: Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared. Paradox: A seeming contradiction that can be resolved by any one or more of the fallowing means: 1) Establishing the true frame of reference, or point of view, of a given passage or passages.2) Establishing the correct definition of a given system or systems under consideration. 3) Observing over a longer or shorter range of magnitudes. 4) Observing over more or other dimensions. 5) Gathering more detailed and/or complete information. {Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxes by Dr. Hugh Ross} According to the Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 the following are defined as such: Contradiction: 2a statement in opposition to another; denial. {Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared.}Paradox: 1[Archaic] a statement contrary to common belief 2a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may be true in fact {a seeming contradiction that can be resolved.} Omnipotent: adj. [OFr < L omnipotens < omnis, all + potens: see potent] Having unlimited power or authority; All-powerful — the Omnipotent God (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997) All Scripture references are taken from the King James Version of the Bible, unless other wise stated. This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 09-25-2004 11:53 PM For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life. For God did not sent the Sonin to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world,. But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Crashfog,
I apologies for putting off replying to your postings, I have started responding to several strings. Another reason I have, as of yet, not responded to your rebuttals is that your argument do not run along a logical line of reason I can respond to in a logical manner. For instance: I stated: "Actually, I doubt that anyone is wasting their time trying to figure out whether or not the law of gravity, or any of the other basic laws of physic is still true/factual." You respond by stating: Do you think that, if they changed or stopped working for an hour, no one would notice? Which has no bearing on whether or not the law of gravity is true/factual. Buy the way; I am sure that everyone would notice immediately if the laws of gravity all-of-a-sudden changed. But the point I was making is that the laws of gravity are unchanging and therefore true/factual; we can depend on them. As you have noted, I do repeat things from previous posting, because the material is relevant to the subject I am on. To refute someone’s arguments you have to be able to give evidence that what that person has said is incorrect. You stated in a previous strings, facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us. If this is true (which is what I was refuting) then, again, as I have stated before, there is no way to be sure, after all we can’t know facts. Can we? If facts where forever inaccessible to us, then there would be no way for us to know that they where inaccessible because that it itself would be a fact. Only if there are facts, and we can know them (at least some of them) can one position be correct and the other incorrect. Otherwise there are no correct or incorrect positions. Please, do not be offended, but with out being able to present facts there is no way to determine who is right, and what is wrong. I am here to present the facts, if you want to rebut what I state as a fact, then, by all means, give me evidence that contradicts what I have said. You may find something that I have missed or miss understood. If reality where unreal, how would we know it was not so. Refute: 1to prove (a person) to be wrong. Rebut: 1 to contradict, refute, or oppose, esp. in a formal manner by argument, proof, ect., as in a debate. (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997) John3: 16, 17
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Crashfrog,
I downloaded, printed, and reread everything you have written in response to my postings as of 9/12/4'. In your posting dated 09-12-2004 07:20 pm, you say, you repeat these refuted arguments as though you haven't even read my posts. The problem is not that I haven’t read your posting, it is that you keep insisting that, in your words, facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us. (Taken from your posting dated 08-08-2004 06:20 pm) You state that, and us it, as if it were a fact. "{Since we can never know the facts, why are we talking about them?}" (Taken from the same posting dated 08-08-2004 06:20 pm) If, in fact, it were a fact (that we cannot know facts), then we could not know that it was a fact, because we would be incapable of knowing facts. Only if we could know facts could we know we can’t know facts, so if we know facts then we must be able to know facts, because, after all, if we could not know facts, we would be unable to know we did not know them. Oooo, my heads starting to spin. Ok, where were we, O’ ya. I have given ample evidence that we can, and do know facts. We may not know fully all-ultimate facts. But, as I’ve said before, there are facts; we can know them. So, to answer your question, we are still talking about facts because science deals in facts, and if you want to talk about science you have to deal in facts. Please note here, I did not say, science is the search for facts. What I am saying is that science has to have facts to do what they do so well. You state, quite correctly, that science deals in models. However, modals are based on observations of the thing(s) you are modeling. If you do not have facts about the thing(s) you’re modeling then how would you model it? Take for instance a Seven-Forty-Seven. If I wanted to make a model of a Seven-Forty-Seven, and have it anywhere near accurate, I must know a few facts about it. For instance:What is a Seven-Forty-Seven? What is its wingspan? How many engines does it have? And so on and so forth; these are facts about the 747. Now, you support your hypothesis by stating, "But nobody's saying that absolute truth doesn't exist. It's just that we can't know it. The fundamental truths of the universe are not directly accessable to our minds, partially because of the nature of thought itself, and partially because sophistry cannot be refuted. It might not exist, though. That's the point of sophistry. There's no way to tell if we live in an actual reality or just a perfect simulation. But the scientific method - the search for the accurate model - works no matter if sophistry is true or not, because it doesn't purport to find the truth, just the most accurate model." Please note that this is not Philosophy class; this is Science One-O-One. Philosophy is one web page over, and down the hall. :-) Science does not deal in what might be found in the future. That’s left up to the philosophers and the fiction writers. If you’ll look at the definition of Science (given below) Science deals in making sense of the data we have here and now. Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying that science does not look forward and try to figure out how to do new things. What I am saying is that science does not, or rather should not, base its models on what we think may, one day, be proved or disprove. Good science looks at the evidence, forms a hypothesis based on that evidence (evidence available there and then), and then tests the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations. After that, adjustments are made to fit any new facts observed/uncovered or any facts overlooked. After the scientist has, somewhat substantiated his finding they are then retested by other scientist to see if they get the same results. Once refined and tested exhaustively, if the general principle(s) still holds water (fugitively not literally) it is then set up as a law. (I.E. the Law of gravity, the laws of physics, and so on) When they get to this point there is usually no more experimentation done on them, though from time to time there may be adjustment made in light of new discoveries. These laws become the bases for testing other ideas and hypothesis. Please note here, I’m not saying that once something is considered a Law that there will be no room for refining our understanding of that law. We will never fully know all the facts in all their glory, this side of creation. 9For our knowledge is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect), and our prophesy (our teaching) is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect). 10But when the complete and perfect (total) comes, the incomplete and imperfect will vanish away (become antiquated, void, and superseded).(I Corinthians 13: 9 — 10 The Amplified Bible) But that, in no way, means we cannot know facts in part. No, we cannot see, understand, and know all things in their fullness. However we can see, understand, and know some, even a lot of, things in part. Also note, if you will, that just because our understanding of a law or a truth changes, this, in no way, change’s the fact itself. For instance, lets go back to the Seven-Forty-Seven. What I do or do not know about it now, in no way alters the facts I can learn about it in the future. If I go online and look up the dimensions for a typical Seven-Forty-Seven and it states that the wingspan is 37 feet. (just a guess) Then I go to an airport and measure the wingspan of a specific 747 and it come to 36’ 11 7/8. Is the encyclopedia wrong? Of course not, it’s just imprecise. I can still state that the wingspan is 37 feet, and be telling the truth. If I said that it was exactly 37 feet, on that particular plain, then I would be telling an untruth (I.E. I would be lying) Science helps us refine our understanding of the unchanging facts that are all around us. It also helps us uncover more facts. {Please note here: Our understanding of the facts (of this universe and how it works) changes; not the facts themselves.} In your posting dated 08-11-2004 01:34 pm. You state, We can know which ones are wrong; we can't know which ones are right. If we can know which ones are wrong; then, by process of elimination, we can come to know which ones are right. In the same posting you state, If you think you "know" these facts to be true, you're overreaching. If you think that these are not facts (and that we cannot know facts), then your not facings the facts. By the way, I do not live in Sophistry’s universe; we live in a universe designed and created by The Great I Am (Exodus 3: 14), The Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1: 8). In this universe there are facts, we can know them, they are measurable, confirmable, and provable. Here again, we cannot know all of the facts fully, but as you state, Don't make the mistake of assuming that because we don't know everything, we know nothing. This is true, not just for knowledge in general, but for facts as well. In your posting dated 08-13-2004 03:19 pm you state, How can we know anything for sure if our conclusions are based on fallacies? Well, the obvious answer to that one would be, ‘you can’t’. However, you’re committing the fallacy of assuming that the conclusions are based on fallacies in the first place. One final thought, you state in your posting dated 08-11-2004 01:34 pm that, Because everything you observe about reality may not be real; it might simply be hallucination. It might be an illusion created by a demon to confuse you. It might be that you're in the Matrix. It might be any number of other things besides reality that you experience; that's why truth is inaccessible to us. I would have thought this was obvious. Well ya, we might all be turkeys thinking we’re chickens, we might all be hogs thinking we’re dogs, we might all be Goa’ulds, we all may be dreaming. This whole universe could be one man’s nightmare on Elm Street, or we all could be part of a test to see who will chose well, and who will chose poorly. The question is, if reality isn’t real, then what is reality? Or, if you assume reality is not real, and it turns out to be real, then what justification are you going to have for living as if it were not? Philosophy can be a lot of fun, however science and man’s philosophies do not play well together. Also, if you strip away all that we know about the universe, and deny that we can know the true facts thereof then anyone could come up with the stupidest most asinine-cockamamie stories and no one would be able to prove them wrong. Only with verifiable, provable facts can you correctly state that anything is wrong, or right for that matter. So, if someone lives their life as if they can’t know facts, and they therefore decide anything’s permissible (after all who could correctly tell them that they were wrong?), what are they going to say when they stand before the Creator of the universes to answer for their life? O’, a, well, a, Sir, I, well, I didn’t believe it was true!? I do not know who Sophistry is, but I think I’ve just proven him wrong. Footnotes Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this. 1) Correctly identify the frame of Reference.2) Determine the initial conditions. 3) Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where. 4) Note the final conditions. 5) Form an hypothesis. 6) Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations. Resolving Paradoxes Contradiction: Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared. Paradox: A seeming contradiction that can be resolved by any one or more of the fallowing means: 1) Establishing the true frame of reference, or point of view, of a given passage or passages.2) Establishing the correct definition of a given system or systems under consideration. 3) Observing over a longer or shorter range of magnitudes. 4) Observing over more or other dimensions. 5) Gathering more detailed and/or complete information. {Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxes by Br. Hugh Ross} Definitions According to the Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 the following are defined as such: Contradiction:2a statement in opposition to another; denial. {Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared.} Paradox:1[Archaic] a statement contrary to common belief 2a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may be true in fact {a seeming contradiction that can be resolved.} Omnipotent:adj. [OFr < L omnipotens < omnis, all + potens: see potent] Having unlimited power or authority; All-powerful — the Omnipotent God. Truth:2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3an established or verified fact, principle, ect. Knowledge:1the act, fact, or state of knowing; specifically, a) acquaintance or familiarity (with fact, place, etc.) b) awareness c) understanding 2 acquaintance with facts; range of information, awareness, or understanding. Know:1to have a clear perception or understanding of; be sure of or well informed about [to know the facts]. Fallacy:3a false or mistaken idea, opinion, ect.; error 4a) an error in reasoning; flaw or defect in argument b) Logic an argument which does not conform to the rules of logic, esp. one that appears to be sound. Fact:2a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy]. Science:1orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied. According to the Webster’s II New College Dictionary, 1999 the following are defined as such: Real:1Not imaginary, fictional, or pretended: ACTUAL. Reality:The quality or state of being actual or true In the definitions given above, the definition in brackets like these {} are taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxes by Dr. Hugh Ross. Also, the reason for the two different Dictionaries is that I was in a different place when I looked the last two and could not get to my regular dictionary. For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life. For God did not sent the Sonin to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world,. But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Crashfrog,
quote: I was using things from your other posting to answer your question in the posting I replied to.
quote: Thank you, I’ll try it when I post this, so, since your reading it now, you’ll know whether or not I figured it out. By the way, I use quotation makes to show that I am quoting something someone else wrote. I know, it’s old fashioned, but, what can I say.
quote: I’m not simple repeating my argument. If you’ll read my last posting a little closer, I am expounding on the point, not just repeating what I’ve said earlier. Also, I am still on this subject because you keep repeating, in one form or fashion, that, facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us. And Since we can never know the facts, why are we talking about them?. And, by the way, I never said that because I wanted to know facts, I must be able to know them. Please, forgive my bluntness here; however, your argument is the one based on what you want to believe, and what might be, maybe, someday, some how. My argument is based on things like logic, the scientific method, word definition, and what is here and now. I have provided evidence; things that can be observed, cataloged, tested, and verified.
quote: Yes, it does, you argue, facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us. You’re wining about me repeating myself, and yet we can’t seem to get past the fact that there are facts; we can know them. This is why I took so long to respond in the first place. (As I have already stated in my previous string.) Since your notion that facts are forever inaccessible to us is the basses of all of your other comments, it is only logical to deal with this one first. If we could get past this point, then we could start on other points of interest. I do not wish to be rood, and yet, I am not going to deny the fact that we can know facts, and it appears you're unwilling to except that fact, so what more is there to discuses? We all believe in, trust in, cling to, and rely on certain ideas and ideals to our gain, or our peril. If you are secure in your belief, and chose to live and/or die by it, there is no reason for me to argue with you over it. It is not my mission in life to make you believe the facts, only to show them. For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life. For God did not sent the Sonin to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world,. But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Chocolate,
As far as I know there are only three ‘Creation Stories’ that people claim are scientific. All of these Creation Accounts have ties to the Bible. For arguments sake, I’ll call the first two ‘S C’ and ‘L C’. That is ‘Short Creationism’ (S C); which purports that an intelligent creator brought out of nothing the Universe created Earth, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and all life on Earth in six twenty-four hour days. And ‘Long Creationism’ (L C); which purports that an intelligent creator brought out of nothing the Universe, that our solar system came into existents some time after the ‘Big Bang’, and that the Creator intervened at strategic times and in specific ways to setup not just this Earth but the universe as a whole for the creation of life on Earth. Also that the six creation days of Geneses are six periods of time (eras) after the stars, our sun, and the Earth were already in place. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that brings us to a total of four hypotheses about how the universe came into existence, and progressed to its current state claming to be ‘scientific’. These are Natural Evolution (N E), Theistic Evolution (T E), S C, and L C. N E: The hypotheses that all phenomena from the Big Bang to the present can be explained using only the natural conditions and laws we can quantify. (I.E. we do not need an intelligence intervening in, and through, the course of history to explain the universe around us. ) T E: The hypotheses that an intelligence brought it to existence this universe and ether left it to its own devices, or intervened in the natural course of the universe vary rarely. I’d like to state here, just for the record, that there are many variations on each of these hypotheses; some may even overlap. However, for our purposes these basic hypotheses should serifs. You state,
quote: To make the determination of which one(s) should be taught in science classes would require us to decide which one(s) come closest to fitting all of the available scientific facts, and evidence; would it not? Not just a statement of an opinion. Unfortunately, we are told from the time we enter school until we graduate collage that Evolution is the only scientifically plausible explanation for the existence of everything we see. We also know that if you tell a lie long enough most people will eventually believe it; and children are more susceptible to believing lies then adults are. So even when a scientifically plausible explanation comes along, and is presented, more often then not, it is rejected out of hand. Not on its lack of scientific plausibility; rather because it does not fit the ideas and notions already accepted by peers of the establishment. This goes doubly for anything that people dislike personally. Yes, scientists try to be unbiased and impartial; however these are people we’re talking about here, and people tend to cleave to their own personal biased whether or not they makes sense, whether or not it can be proven wrong. The sad fact is we all are more likely to believe something if it is what we want to hear, and less likely to believe it if its something we do not want to hear. This is one of those universal facts (truths); it applies to all people everywhere. I know, I’m wandering from the point. O.K. so lets try to determine which, if any, of these hypotheses fits the most facts. Well that could probably fill volumes. So, how about trying to disprove the basic tenant of each. For instance the idea that species evolved from other species over periods of time; this is one of the basic principles of both N E, and T E. Adaptation, although it is often called microevolution, is well with in the purview of all four of the hypotheses we’re testing; and only works for traits already in the gene pool of that species. So, we’re not talking about a moth population that goes from mostly white moths with a few black ones, to mostly black moths with a few white ones. Evidence shows that some 4.25 billion years ago a body at least the size of mars collided, almost head on, with Earth1. So life would have had to begin at some point after that event. Life seams to have started on Earth some 4 Billion years ago.2; so, is it scientifically plausible that life could come into existence and ‘evolve’ to the point it is at now, in a sort 4 billion year time span? It sounds like 4 billion years would be plenty of time for life to happen, under just the right conditions, and then progress to the place we see it to day. That is, until you take into account all that has happened from that time to now. I’ll give you an example from both before life existed and after. The, a for mentioned, body probably a rough planet had to have been of just the right size, and composition to blow away just enough of Earths atmosphere to allow the just right amount of light and cosmic rays to come through in the future for life to exist and flourish on Earth at some future point. Not only that, but this rough planet, also had to strike the Earth at just the right angle to throw just enough atmosphere and debris out into space to form over hundreds of millions of years a moon of just the right size and composition to create just the right tidal conditions to support a future ecosystem. All of these events as astronomers have found out have vary small margins for error. That is, if any one of these variables where out of whack, by just a little, the whole ball game would have been lost. This could be likened to a watch, if one of the pieces is missing, broke, or just worn out the watch will not keep proper time. All this and I haven’t even mentioned the fact that our sun, and the Earth itself had to be of just the right type, size, and distance from each other, and other phenomena, for this future ecosystem. Now, after all of that happened, Life began, and began again, and again several times in the last 4 billion years. The fact is life has started over after several life extinction eventsA. Each time new species and some of the previous species have come into existence at some time long after the event; when the planet could again support life. These new species that appear are more suited for the new environment that they find themselves in. Both of these would seam to argue against a purely naturalistic explanation for life; not only on Earth, but also anywhere in the universe. The funny thing is that what I have mentioned here are just a small samplings of the things, and conditions that had to happen at just the right time, in just the right way, in just the right place for life to exist and thrive anywhere in the universe. The shear number of Just Right conditions necessary for life to exist belies N E. Even laying all that aside, if evolution were so prevalent, would we not see it happening today? After all evolution would have had to been fast a furious in the past to keep up with the changing ecology. So, with no known reason or mechanism for all of a sudden stopping the ongoing quick paced evolution of species, it would seam that if evolution where true we should see plants, and animals going through evolutionary changes in the relatively resent past. There should be ample transitional forms in the fossil record; not only in the distant past but also in the relatively recant past. Nether exist. Didn’t even Darwin admit if transitional forms could not be found in the fossil record then evolution did not happen? How about T E, well, the idea that a creator would go through all the trouble to create a universe and then just start life and leave it alone seams inconsistent. I mean this creator taking the time to create a universe of just the right side making sure that just the right types, and amounts of chemicals, and elements are present, not to mention that this creator took some 4 trillion years to do it, would see it through to the end. Would he not? So, whether or not you credit a creator for it, evolution’s basic tenants are erroneous at best. The universe, our solar system, and Earth itself show unmistakable signs of being designed by an intelligence, specifically for life to grow and flourish here on Earth. Life itself shows intelligence design. Since the universe, our solar system, and Earth itself almost scream ‘There is a creator’ It would seam ridicules to say that there is no creator; from a purely scientific perspective. I.E. if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has all of the other characteristics of a duck, science would say it’s a duck. This brings us to the two ‘Creation’ accounts. According to S C, the creator brought out of nothing the Universe created Earth, the Sun, Moon, and Stars all in six twenty-four hour days. This is called the Appearance of Age theory. I.E. The universe only looks 4 trillion years old, its actually a few thousand years old. This breaks with science since it requires a ‘Blind Faith ’ that is not open to testing. (See duck law above) So, that seams to leave only the L C theory. An Intelligence brought this universe into existence some time in the finite past, it (The universe) expanded to just the right size for life to exits, and advanced life to manipulate and create civilization at some distant future point from that creation event . After three or four generations of stars were born and died a star was born in just the right place in the universe and of just the right size, and type to allow just the right types, and sizes of planets to form so that at some point in the distant future this Creator could bring about just the right conditions to make life possible on this blue marble we affectionately call Earth. The Creator then painstakingly created life, and culled it repeatedly over vast periods of time to get the Earth suitable for the introduction of man. You say, hold it, how can you say that this Creator was specifically getting all of creation ready for man ? Glad you asked. If man had been created earlier than 8 to 24 thousand years ago we would not have had a plentiful supply of crude oil, limestone, salt deposits and other essential elements to support the civilization we enjoy now. In a vary short time from now many of the resources we have now, even if they had never been touched, will degrade to the point that we could not use them. Take Crude oil for example. This strongly suggests that the Creator designed the universe, specifically so that you would have a place to live and breath, and enjoy His creation around you. Still not convinced, Ok, try this: We know that many animal species have language; we know that several use simple tools; we also know that many posses complex social structures. Scientist have spent decades, and billions of dollars to show how alike we are to the animals we see around us, and I do not dispute that record. However, there are drastic differences that set us uniquely apart form the animal kingdom. For instance; we are the only creatures that:
All of these require the ability to work with abstract ideas — we can train a dog to do tricks for its supper, but teaching it about morality or quantum physics is beyond its abilities. The Oil deposits mentioned earlier fuel our advanced technologies; from the gas in our cars to the plastic that our milk comes in. Had this deposit been much smaller our entire industrialized civilization would grind to a halt when the crude ran out. As it is there is enough to sustain our civilization until the Creator comes and closes shop on this universe. The Creator introduced mankind in to this universe precisely at the right time so that we would have an abundance of materials to work with when we needed them. 1 — Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question (1998), Pg. 32. 2 — Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question (1998), Pg. 27. Home - Reasons to Believe A — Please note here that, microorganisms may have survived, and a few member of a few different specie. However, the food chain would have collapsed, and there would not be a large enough population to survive, much less evolve. We can see this today, when man destroys or changes the environment many species numbers are reduced to an unsustainable level and the species ceases to exist. So when I say Life extinction event, I’m speaking of advanced life, not necessarily microbes, bacteria, or even some insects, or small rodents; just anything and everything larger then these. For more information on what I have termed Long Creationism you can go to Home - Reasons to Believe. This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 10-22-2004 01:33 AM For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life. For God did not sent the Sonin to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world,. But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Administrator,
I apologies for the length of my postings; I try to be through, and seem to lack brevity. However, I do believe that my last posting, for the most part, stayed on the subject at hand. I.E. the question of ‘which theories should be taught in school science classes?’. Did it naught? This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 10-22-2004 02:04 AM For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life. For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Steen,
Thank you for responding to my posting. I would, however, request that you take a second look at my posting. I am afraid that you have overlooked a few things. For one, I do not claim scientific evidence for the "S.C. I said there are only three ‘Creation Stories’ that people claim are scientific. On the subject of Long Creationism, I could probably write volumes about how science is constantly discovering more and more evidence that support this mode; however I don’t have to, there are already many books out there that show the scientific evidence for what I have termed Long Creationism. If you’re really interested in this evidence you could start with these two books. The Genesis Question by Hugh Ross Navpress 1998, and The Fingerprint of God also by Hugh Ross Promise Publishing Co. 1991. Both are available at Home - Reasons to Believe. Or you could just go to the website and poke around a bit.
For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life. For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jazzns,
I was looking over some of the strings I posted to that never got a response and found your statement in response to:
LDSdude writes: It is not impossible to teach creationism in school while keeping the first amendment. (Message #97 01-25-2005) I also noted that no one ever responded to your post. If you do not mind, I would like to point something out. The case you referred to calms that:
the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment States, in part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Since the U.S. Congress is the only Federal body that can constitutionally create Federal Law in the United States of America the Supreme Court overstepped its bound by making up a Separation of Church and State rule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jacortina,
Thank you for joining in on our little discussion.
Jacortina writes: The Constitution itself names the Supreme Court as the ONLY body which can interpret the meaning of the Constitution. I agree with you 100%. What gets me, though, is how they came up with this Separation of Church and State rule. The key word here is Interpret. The Supreme Court is to ‘Interpret’ the U.S. Constitution not ‘redefine’ it. Have you read any of the founding documents? I would suggest you read what President Thomas Jefferson actually said about a ‘Separation of Church and State’. It was meant to keep the State out of religious affairs, not to keep religion out of the State’s affairs. Also, as explained below, the 1st Amendment restricts the Government not religion. As a mater of fact the 1st Amendment expressly states, in no uncertain terms, that religious expression may not be restricted by the Federal Government at all. No matter what was said or implied by our founding Fathers; The 1st Amendment is quite clear no law may be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!; however, this is exactly what is being done under the guise of ‘Separation of Church and State’. Consider these:
Daniel L. Dreisbach writes: Jefferson’s trope emphasizes separation between church and state, unlike the First Amendment, which speaks in terms of the non-establishment and free exercise of religion. (Although these terms are often conflated today, in the lexicon of 1802, the expansive concept of ‘separation’ was distinct from the institutional concept of ‘non-establishment.’) the very nature of a wall further re-conceptualizes First Amendment principles. A wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil state and religion, unlike the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on civil government only. The First Amendment, with all its guarantees, was entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress. The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press; rather, it was designed to protect a free and independent press from control by the federal government. The Heritage Foundation | The Heritage Foundation David Barton — David Barton writes: the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.The Separation of Church and State - WallBuilders So Congress, by redefining what Jefferson said, has made up a ‘rule’ and used it (or should I say misused it) to trump (if not to replace) established Constitutional Law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Izanagi,
I am afraid that this is ‘off topic’. However, I would love to discus this with you; if you’re interested put your comments in to a new string and e-mail me and we can pick up where we left off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Dear Rrhain,
Thank you for your response to my posting; I apologize for not responding sooner.
Rrhain writes: "Separation of church and state" isn't a law for it does not make anything happen. It only makes sense in the light of a law that exists...and that is something that only Congress can do. If the law that Congress passes violates the First Amendment's protections, then it is the duty of the Supreme Court to strike it down for they are the only ones who can. You are correct that Separation of church and state" isn't a law per say; your also right in that it is the Supreme Court that is suppose to be making sure that the laws of our land are in accordance with the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’. However, when the Supreme Court makes a ruling that is 180 degrees opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ states they are ‘in effect’ making up law. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof According to the ‘First Amendment’ to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ the Government cannot make laws that prohibit, forbid, ban, bar, exclude, make illegal, proscribe, or disallow the free exercise of religion 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’. As you yourself have stated, there is no separation of Church and State clause it the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’; and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation. Thank you for your interest; I promise to respond much sooner this time if you choose to comment on my posting, JRTjr P.S.
Rrhain writes: "Separation of church and state" isn't a law for it does not make anything happen. Requiring Crosses, manger scenes, Bibles, etc be taken off public property, buildings, etc. is making something happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Dear Dr. Adequate,
Thank you for your response.
Dr. Adequate writes: Perhaps this is true in Opposite World, but back in the real world it is putting these things up that violates the Constitution. Is your position so weak you have to resort to belittling your opponent?
Dr. Adequate writes: the Constitution specifically empowers a body to determine what the Constitution means in cases of potential ambiguity, namely the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, therefore, they're right about this just because they say so. This answer reminds me of my mother when I was a little kid. I would ask a question that my mother really did not have an answer to so she would just say Because I said so! With that said; I only have one small problem with your assertion that the Constitution specifically empowers a body to determine what the Constitution means in cases of potential ambiguity, namely the Supreme Court. Article III of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ does not empower the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means. It says: judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority The ‘small’ point I am making here is this: the Supreme Court is not the Final authority on what the Constitution says; the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is the final authority on what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says. So, 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.
JRTRjr Wrote:
... and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation. Dr. Adequate replied:
You seem to rewrite history with the same ease and fluency with which you rewrite constitutional law. Now, ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black? O.k. let me give you a few examples: click this link - Legal Information Institute Please, note here that this is not a right-wing religious website. Hope to hear from you soon, JRTjr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear bluescat48,
Thanks for joining our discussion; hope you enjoy our dialogue. First, let me say that I am not an Attorney nor am I a paralegal.
bluescat48 writes: Which means that no one can do this. The free exercise of religion A in no way can interfere with the free exercise of religion B. That is the Gist of the statement freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. The banning of religious symbols is just that, freedom of religion. This is the ‘interpretation’ that the Supreme Court has used for the last thirty or so years; however, there are a few problems I see with this, so called, ‘interpretation’: First of all is the Constitutions language. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. (Fist Amendment) If this phraseology was intended to keep ‘religion’ out of government and ‘religious’ expression off of government property then why: On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, did the First Congress of the United States also pass the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: ‘Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’ (Emphases added) Why: On September 25, 1789, did the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, ‘a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.’ (Emphases added) Even On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: ‘The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each otherhostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; so help me God in our courtroom oathsthese and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: God save the United States and this Honorable Court. (Emphases added) These are just a small sampling of the mountain of evidence that show that the Separation of Church and state idea is not what the framers of the Constitution intended for the ‘First Amendment’ or the Constitution as a whole. Their intension was to keep the government from interfering with the free exercise of ‘religious expression’ not to insulate the government and thus the public from religious ideas and ideals. Also, as Justice William O. Douglas pointed out, the idea of making ‘Government’ and ‘religious expression’ mutually excusive is, in itself, a ridicules concept. I’ll close with this question: How does a Bible, sitting in a display case, in front of a court house prohibit the free exercise of an atheist’s religion?; Or a Muslim?; Or Buddhist? God bless us, everyone,JRTjr P.S. As a mater of fact; I do not recall any other religious groups (out side of Atheist’s ) trying to get all Christian references removed from government domains (Here in the United States ).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Coragyps,
Thank you also for joining our discussion; hope you to enjoy our dialogue.
Coragyps writes: Yes, I've noticed how often our Constitution mentions gods.......once. In the phrase "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." That's some real "weaving," all right.... Well thank you for noticing; however if you dig a little deeper — and read more of our founding documents- I’m sure you’ll find more direct and in-direct reference to God, His providence, the Bible, and commonalities between our founding documents and principles found in the Bible. You might start off with the ‘Preamble’. God bless us, everyone,JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Purpledawn,
Thank you as well for joining our discussion; hope you too enjoy our dialogue. The answers to most of your posting are in my responses to Bluescat48 and Coragyps. So, I hope you will read them and give us your take on what is said.
Purpledawn writes: What does the exercise of the Christian religion actually entail? I assume here that you’re asking this as it relates to the founding of the United States of America, and the founding documents that are at the center of this discussion. In that respect; the exercising of the Christian faith requires the truth be told (Exodus 19: 5, 23: 1-2) of the events of our past. 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) our monuments and historical documents are fraught with references to our faith and our God. To tear down these references; and hide there significance is to partake in a lie. God bless us, everyone,JRTjr
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024