Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 331 (573456)
08-11-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by JRTjr
08-10-2010 11:16 PM


contradiction
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by JRTjr, posted 08-10-2010 11:16 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by JRTjr, posted 10-26-2010 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 331 (588554)
10-26-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by JRTjr
10-26-2010 2:23 PM


Re: Contradiction!?!?
Great to hear from you; I am sorry, however, I just answered you question in Message #214.
If you have any other questions or comments I would love to hear them.
Alrighty... none of this has anything to do with the topic, but here you go:
In Message 214 you wrote:
Purpledawn writes:
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.
If that is so then the Supreme Court has no grounds to demand the removal of a Bible sitting in a display case
See, the Supreme Court seams to think that having these displays constitutes the exercise of the Christian religion. Since they use (or should I say misuse) the First Amendment to explain why they are forcibly removing these icons of Americas history.
No, you're mistaken. Legallly requiring Bibles in court would be the establishment of a religion, not the exercise of it.
And removing the Bible is not preventing anyone from exercising thier religion.
The law is that religion shall not be established, nor prevented from being exercised.
A Court House should be adorned as the citizens of the community or state wish it to be adorned. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to say how the buildings and grounds of local governments may or may not be used.
And that goes both ways... the Bible could certainly be Constitutionally removed.
If you actually go back into this counties history you’ll probably find out that for an extremely long time a large portion of our court houses not only double as schools but as the local Church as well.
Also, I guess you have forgotten that, until recently, when a witness was sworn in at any court proceedings, in any court in this land, they placed their right hand on a Bible and swore to tell the Truth, the hole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Not only that, but the end of that oath was So help me God.
Yeah, the times... they are a changin'. BFD.
If I go to a Court House, and am speaking to an individual about how this Country’s laws and heritage are Christian (are of Christian origin), and the Federal Government has forcibly removed all references of that Christian heritage then, yes, I have been hindered from worshiping my God because part of my Worship is to speak the TruthA.
Huh? Can you run me through the logic on that one? How are you being prevented from speaking the truth, and thus hindered from worshiping your god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by JRTjr, posted 10-26-2010 2:23 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 9:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 331 (588688)
10-27-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by JRTjr
10-27-2010 1:36 PM


Wow, I don't find that convincing at all.
I mean, even granting that some wording in the DoI looking like similiar wording in the Bible meant that it took inspiration from it, the quotes you provided don't really even look to be similiar at all.
And everybody know's that "Nature's God" is not a reference to the Christian God but instead to a Deistic god. Sheesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by JRTjr, posted 10-27-2010 1:36 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 9:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 317 of 331 (606961)
03-01-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by JRTjr
02-28-2011 9:48 PM


Re: Deistic god?
Hello JRTjr,
You don't seem to be trying very hard to make a good post, but instead have concentrated on answering everybody. I think I can speak for everyone when I say we'd prefer the opposite. You're repeating a lot over many posts to different people, but we can all reply to one really good post that explains yourself better.
From Message 294:
Where is the law that religion shall not be established?
THe First Amendment to the US Constitution... It is even called The Establishment Clause <-- clicky
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
Its quite clear.
In Message 308 you wrote:
Ya, I’ve quoted the First Amendment (repeatedly). I know it by heart.
The first Amendment says nothing about forbidding an ‘establishment’ of anything.
It is, however, a clear declaration that the Government is not to restrict religious expression. I.e. if we have a cross on our states seal the Federal Government can not force us to take it off.
This is totally incorrect.
I explained this in Message 222, that you replied to, but didn't acknowledge this part:
quote:
No, you're mistaken. Legallly requiring Bibles in court would be the establishment of a religion, not the exercise of it.
And removing the Bible is not preventing anyone from exercising thier religion.
The law is that religion shall not be established, nor prevented from being exercised.
Removing a cross from a seal does not prevent anyone from exercising their religion. If you wanted to legally require the cross on there, then that would be the establishment of religion and unconstitutional.
What part of this do you have a problem with?
From Message 296:
Catholic Scientist writes:
everybody know's that "Nature's God" is not a reference to the Christian God but instead to a Deistic god.
Everybody knows Santa Claus lives at the North Pole to; that does not make it so. ;-}
That does not make your argument any more convincing.
Your Deistic god theory would hold water if most or all of the signers were modern day Deists;
How so? That doesn't even make sense.
However, as I pointed out in post #231 at least 75% of the signers were Christians. So, unless you can provide substantial evidence to the contrary I stand on the evidence that says it is the Christian God being spoken of.
But you're wrong. Unless, its impossible for a Christian to write about a god that is not the Christian God.
If a Christian writes about "Nature's God", then he is most likely writing about a deistic god regardless of his personal religious beliefs.
But all in all, it doesn't really matter. We have the establishment clause and it says what it says. You're just plain wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 9:48 PM JRTjr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022