End of the world

[Klash]

Re: End of the world

It always amazes me the smugness and "intellectualism" exhibited by atheists. If they only realized that we as humans are like a 2-year old to our Father. Our intellectual power is like an anthill compared to Mt Everest compared to God. Jesus speaks of how some hearts are hardened and will not be able to hear the truth...they are blind and quite possibly are lost forever. They are blinded by their own confidence and assuredness in themselves, they trust in the world. Can you imagine thinking that you are totally alone in the universe? What a lonely existence. This omnipotent confidence and self-assurance is the EXACT OPPOSITE from Christian faith in Jesus Christ. We understand the we as human beings have absolutely NO control of our lives, we are weak beings, we cannot help but mess up, always a second away from death; we have put all control and faith in Jesus. See how far the atheist is from Christianity? God only asks ONE THING from us...trust Him, and yet many people cannot do that. To give up control of our lives and work together with God, and allow Him to work through us is true living. Just remember friends, sooner or later, "every knee shall bow". The muslim, hindu, buddhist, atheist, agnostic, "good guy", all other false religions shall bow down and take account of their lives to the Almighty God. Sooner or later, pay day will come.

Just for a moment try to see the atheist perception.

You are recognized as evil by Christians. Christians make up the majority of American society. Every day you are reminded you are not part of this majority by the religious symbols on buildings, religious music around the holidays, religious symbols on cars, theistic statements on currency and in the nations pledge of allegiance.
A man running for the American presidency once said: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." and then went on to be elected 41st president of the United States.

Christians imply that it is impossible to have morals without the Bible. My own Christian family asks me how I am going to teach my son right from wrong without religion.

We all hold opinions we believe are correct, otherwise we wouldn't hold them. We imply by holding our opinion that those who don't agree with us are ignorant of some vital information or thought processing skills. I may think you are lacking vital information or thought processing skills because you believe in god but people like me only make up 10% of the population. 90% of the population believe atheists are lacking vital information or thought processing skills. With that amount of questioning, perceived ignorance, perceived immorality, pity and witnessing, I think a man will develop a strong integrity and articulation of his views which could be perceived as smug to those who don't agree.

[kite]

Re: End of the world

Just for a moment try to see the atheist perception.

You are recognized as evil by Christians. Christians make up the majority of American society. Every day you are reminded you are not part of this majority by the religious symbols on buildings, religious music around the holidays, religious symbols on cars, theistic statements on currency and in the nations pledge of allegiance.
A man running for the American presidency once said: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." and then went on to be elected 41st president of the United States.

Christians imply that it is impossible to have morals without the Bible. My own Christian family asks me how I am going to teach my son right from wrong without religion.

We all hold opinions we believe are correct, otherwise we wouldn't hold them. We imply by holding our opinion that those who don't agree with us are ignorant of some vital information or thought processing skills. I may think you are lacking vital information or thought processing skills because you believe in god but people like me only make up 10% of the population. 90% of the population believe atheists are lacking vital information or thought processing skills. With that amount of questioning, perceived ignorance, perceived immorality, pity and witnessing, I think a man will develop a strong integrity and articulation of his views which could be perceived as smug to those who don't agree.

I wouldn't call you evil. I feel that you are spiritually lost, but then you feel that I'm kidding myself, lol! About the religious symbols, I'm sure that atheists and many others feel ostracized, but this country was founded on Christian beliefs.

[Klash]

Re: End of the world

I wouldn't call you evil. I feel that you are spiritually lost, but then you feel that I'm kidding myself, lol! About the religious symbols, I'm sure that atheists and many others feel ostracized, but this country was founded on Christian beliefs.

Thanks! I don't think I am evil either but you support a god whose future actions state very clearly that I am!
Just a hypothetical question. Do you (not your god) believe someone that is lost (confused), should spend eternity in torture.

Those who came to America were mainly religious but America was not found on Christian beliefs, it was found on individual freedom, partly because of religious persecution. Many of the founding fathers were Christian but many were deist. That doesn't really matter, though, because they intended to keep religion and government separate - so people, including Christians could believe and worship the way they desired.

[RevTodd]

Re: End of the world

I wouldn't call you evil. I feel that you are spiritually lost, but then you feel that I'm kidding myself, lol! About the religious symbols, I'm sure that atheists and many others feel ostracized, but this country was founded on Christian beliefs.

Yeah, that's what gets me about this whole effort to eradicate public symbols of our faith heritage from American society. The USA was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and traditions. This fact is not disputable.

Yet this is also a country founded on religious TOLERANCE. And tolerance means just that... we TOLERATE other religions. This tolerance was never meant to force the conforming of our society to the whims of secularists. Religious tolerance, in its true sense, does NOT mean we should be forced to expunge our religious expressions from non-believers' awareness just because they happen to be here and don't like them. That's like expecting to emigrate to Rome and not see any evidence of Catholicism. Or going to Japan and demanding to not see a Bhudda anywhere.

The benefits of our American experiment are due overwhelmingly to the Christian roots that birthed it. The irony is that these very benefits have attracted, and allowed to thrive, people who now want to eliminate the very reason they exist in the first place.

Like you, Chris, I do not see atheists as evil in any sense that I don't see myself as evil. The only difference is that I am a forgiven sinner and the atheist is an unforgiven one. I recognize and seek to know the God I have violated, while the atheist denies that God exists and runs like the Devil (sorry for the pun, lol) to escape any reminder that he might really be there.

[ottorotvic]

Re: End of the world

I'm in Guam. With Tone. Call me when ya'll get this debate sorted out.

[T-Man007]

Re: End of the world

Yeah, that's what gets me about this whole effort to eradicate public symbols of our faith heritage from American society. The USA was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and traditions. This fact is not disputable.

Yet this is also a country founded on religious TOLERANCE. And tolerance means just that... we TOLERATE other religions. This tolerance was never meant to force the conforming of our society to the whims of secularists. Religious tolerance, in its true sense, does NOT mean we should be forced to expunge our religious expressions from non-believers' awareness just because they happen to be here and don't like them. That's like expecting to emigrate to Rome and not see any evidence of Catholicism. Or going to Japan and demanding to not see a Bhudda anywhere.

The benefits of our American experiment are due overwhelmingly to the Christian roots that birthed it. The irony is that these very benefits have attracted, and allowed to thrive, people who now want to eliminate the very reason they exist in the first place.

Like you, Chris, I do not see atheists as evil in any sense that I don't see myself as evil. The only difference is that I am a forgiven sinner and the atheist is an unforgiven one. I recognize and seek to know the God I have violated, while the atheist denies that God exists and runs like the Devil (sorry for the pun, lol) to escape any reminder that he might really be there.

Oh man, don't even get me on the tolerance soap box. Those people are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They say they want 'freedom of speech' as long as it's not religous. The same people who claim their rights are being suppressed are the same people surpressing the rights of religous people. They don't want in on TV, they don't want it on the radio, they got it out of schools already, and yet, they don't see they are in fact trying to take away my rights. There is a word for this, it's called assbackwards. That's what they are. The same people who ***** about their right to do what they want are at the front lines of fighting the rights for relgious people to do what they want. How ignorant does a person have to be to say they believe and support freedom of speech and then in the same breath say they don't want religous people to have the right to speak of religion around them. They are so blinded by their ridiculous mission that they don't see they are doing the exact opposite of what they claim to believe.

Since when has a sign violated someones civil rights? LOL That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Just how pathetic is your life, that a sign violates you? I see stuff all the time I disagree with, but that's the rights you get with this country. You don't like it, leave!

[RevTodd]

Re: End of the world

I'm in Guam. With Tone. Call me when ya'll get this debate sorted out.

Can you guys get me a souvenier? I always wanted to go to Guam... Well, not really...

[RevTodd]

Re: End of the world

I'm in Guam. With Tone. Call me when ya'll get this debate sorted out.

BTW, when I call, I'm callin' collect Otto...

[ottorotvic]

Re: End of the world

BTW, when I call, I'm callin' collect Otto...

LOL

[Klash]

Re: End of the world

RevTodd, we are at different ends of the spectrum, if something I state sounds insulting, there was probably no other way to say it without diluting my point. I don't intend to be personally insulting. I enjoy conversation more with people I don't agree with. It seems to be a catapult for introspection. Anyway, welcome!

Yeah, that's what gets me about this whole effort to eradicate public symbols of our faith heritage from American society. The USA was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and traditions. This fact is not disputable.

Do you feel the American government should support Islamic ideals or proclaim "In no god we trust"? If your willing to support your view with tradition and heritage, then how would you argue against tradition or heritage to oppose slavery and women not having the right to vote? For America truly was built on those traditions!

Yet this is also a country founded on religious TOLERANCE. And tolerance means just that... we TOLERATE other religions. This tolerance was never meant to force the conforming of our society to the whims of secularists. Religious tolerance, in its true sense, does NOT mean we should be forced to expunge our religious expressions from non-believers' awareness just because they happen to be here and don't like them. That's like expecting to emigrate to Rome and not see any evidence of Catholicism. Or going to Japan and demanding to not see a Bhudda anywhere.

I agree with you here but the difference is, America intended to separate religion and state not ban it. I saw a guy driving down the interstate the other day in a pickup that he had modified to be a Christian billboard. I have no problem with that. What I oppose is government endorsing religion.

The benefits of our American experiment are due overwhelmingly to the Christian roots that birthed it. The irony is that these very benefits have attracted, and allowed to thrive, people who now want to eliminate the very reason they exist in the first place.

I do not think you can give Christian roots overwhelming credit or even any credit for the success of America. I think most would attribute it to the consequences of the Age of Enlightenment along with the protection of individual liberty. With all do respect, the reason it was considered the great experiment is because of the unobstructed individual liberty only limited by the equal rights of others. No country had ever tried it - theocracy, thats been done.

Like you, Chris, I do not see atheists as evil in any sense that I don't see myself as evil. The only difference is that I am a forgiven sinner and the atheist is an unforgiven one. I recognize and seek to know the God I have violated, while the atheist denies that God exists and runs like the Devil (sorry for the pun, lol) to escape any reminder that he might really be there.

I do deny your god and I say Christians believe atheists are evil because they support a belief that we will be tormented forever (that's longer than a year) . If you do not think the denial of god is evil, then how do you support a god that places eternal torment on a non-evil (good) entity. It seems your god does see unbelief as evil, more evil than murder, rape, slavery and genocide for it is possible for those that have committed those atrocities to enter your heaven - it is not possible for a nonbeliever to enter your heaven.

[pigmeat]

Re: End of the world

Oh man, don't even get me on the tolerance soap box. Those people are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They say they want 'freedom of speech' as long as it's not religous. The same people who claim their rights are being suppressed are the same people surpressing the rights of religous people. They don't want in on TV, they don't want it on the radio, they got it out of schools already, and yet, they don't see they are in fact trying to take away my rights. There is a word for this, it's called assbackwards. That's what they are. The same people who ***** about their right to do what they want are at the front lines of fighting the rights for relgious people to do what they want. How ignorant does a person have to be to say they believe and support freedom of speech and then in the same breath say they don't want religous people to have the right to speak of religion around them. They are so blinded by their ridiculous mission that they don't see they are doing the exact opposite of what they claim to believe.

Since when has a sign violated someones civil rights? LOL That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Just how pathetic is your life, that a sign violates you? I see stuff all the time I disagree with, but that's the rights you get with this country. You don't like it, leave!

Hell Yeah! Fu ck them dumb assed bastards!!!!they piss me off!!!

[RevTodd]

Re: End of the world

RevTodd, we are at different ends of the spectrum, if something I state sounds insulting, there was probably no other way to say it without diluting my point. I don't intend to be personally insulting. I enjoy conversation more with people I don't agree with. It seems to be a catapult for introspection. Anyway, welcome!

Thank you… And as I’ve told others before you, I am very hard to offend, lol!

Please also be assured that my comments, while at times spirited, are likewise never meant to be insulting.

Do you feel the American government should support Islamic ideals or proclaim "In no god we trust"? If your willing to support your view with tradition and heritage, then how would you argue against tradition or heritage to oppose slavery and women not having the right to vote? For America truly was built on those traditions!

I believe that America was built on Christian concepts. Again, I don’t think this is arguable, though I am sure you will continue to argue with it, lol.

Our nation was not founded on the principles of any religion outside the Judeo-Christian tradition, be it Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, or Baal-worship. So no, I don’t believe the government should endorse those faiths. If you want to live in a society whose roots are Islamic, move to Arabia. Neither was America founded on atheism or secular-humanism.

As for the red herrings of slavery and women’s suffrage, I assume you know as well as I do that our county was not perfect at its beginning and that certain compromises were made in order to establish our very shaky union. Those chickens came home to roost for the slavery issue in a little scrap we call the Civil War. Those who used the Bible to justify slavery used a deceptive and highly selective hermeneutic to arrive at that conclusion. These things in no way detract from my core assertion that America’s founding principles were Christian, a fact which remained virtually unchallenged for over 150 years.

I agree with you here but the difference is, America intended to separate religion and state not ban it. I saw a guy driving down the interstate the other day in a pickup that he had modified to be a Christian billboard. I have no problem with that. What I oppose is government endorsing religion.

The purpose of the First Amendment (religion clauses) is very clearly to protect the people of the United States from a national church monopoly like the Church of England. No more, no less. It was never meant to sanitize any public forum from expressions of our Judeo-Christian heritage. A very simple and straight-forward reading of the text in its historical, cultural and political context leads to no other rational conclusion, IMO.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

This amendment does two simple things, and only those two things…

1) Restricts CONGRESS (the FEDERAL, legislative body) from setting up an official national church, or other religious institution.

2) Likewise restricts CONGRESS from taking any legislative action that would PROHIBIT someone from practicing their own religion (within reason, of course; you can’t practice human sacrifice, lol). This does NOT mean that if I’m offended by it, you have to stop saying a prayer in school. If I don't like it, I don't have to listen. Practices such as these DO NOT PROHIBIT ANYONE from freely exercising their own religious beliefs. Neither are they mandated by congressional legislation.

The First Amendment says Congress can’t establish a national religion. However, it doesn’t say, never said, and was never meant to say, that Judeo-Christian principles could not be acknowledged and even encouraged in the public square. In fact, the historical record reveals just the opposite.

The US government ‘endorsed’ Christianity from the beginning… Christian congressional chaplains, Christian prayers at nearly every government function (including presidential inaugurations), the Ten Commandments posted at nearly every courthouse (including the US Supreme Court), Bibles used for public oaths and as public school textbooks, Christian symbols and citations on numerous public buildings and monuments, “In God We Trust” on our very currency… etc, etc. None of this was seen as violating the 1st Amendment. Anyone who tries to honestly argue against this point will find himself buried in a mountain of historical documentation to the contrary.

I do not think you can give Christian roots overwhelming credit or even any credit for the success of America.

I don’t even understand how people can make statements like this. Have you read or been exposed to the founding fathers’ documents? Declaration of Independence? Anything from the Federalist Papers? The Virginia Declaration of Rights? The Mayflower Compact? Williams Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation? The Massachusetts Body of Liberties? The Virginia Charter? The Massachusetts Bay Charter? … … …

An examination of these documents reveals that there were mainly two explicitly stated purposes for the exploration and settling of America by European peoples…

1) Taking the Christian faith to the New World
2) Exercising that faith according to conscience, without opposition from the ‘state church’

You can quibble about whether you think these were good reasons, or about whether they lied and it was really all about gold. You can dispute a lot of things, but what you can’t reasonably assert is that these were not stated purpose of the early colonists and colonizers. If you do the facts simply crush you. You further can’t reasonably argue that their faith did not undergird the eventual genesis of this nation and its laws and institutions. References and allusions to that faith permeate the historical record.

I'll note here just one example (there are myriad) of the common knowledge we have always held about our Christian underpinnings. It was occasioned by an 1852 petition before the US Congress to ban congressional chaplains, ostensibly due to the church/state separation you attempt to invoke. Each house of congress took up the issue, and each issued their report.

In the House Report on March 27, 1854, it is noted:

There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. [Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854).]

The House Judiciary Committee therefore concluded:

Whereas, the people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty. [Id.]

On January 19, 1853, the Senate Judiciary Committee delivered its report:

The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. . . . If [the use of chaplains] had been a violation of the Constitution, why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the government, who were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oath, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioner to be unfounded. . . . They had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. [The Reports of the Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853)]

Interestingly, a century later, the U. S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, declaring:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. [Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 312-314 (1952)]

I think most would attribute it to the consequences of the Age of Enlightenment along with the protection of individual liberty. With all do respect, the reason it was considered the great experiment is because of the unobstructed individual liberty only limited by the equal rights of others. No country had ever tried it - theocracy, thats been done.

The concept of individual human liberty, at least as expressed by our founders, is based on the fact that man, being made in God’s image and ultimately subject to his authority, possesses “unalienable rights” that cannot be superseded by kings, parliaments, dukes, earls, barons, etc. The Declaration very clearly and unambiguously states that these rights -- and hence the justification for the colonies’ independence from British tyranny -- are bestowed, not by legislative authority, royal fiat, or even a vote of the majority, but by “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

If man is not invested with these basic human rights by divine authority, then why should he have them? Who is to say that one people can't by force of arms conquer and enslave another as has been done all down through the centuries? The very concept of 'human rights' as we know it is inherently Christian. Without God, who says men have any rights at all, save the right of MIGHT?

I do not deny that enlightenment ideas played a role in the philosophical evolution of thought leading to the revolution. But you seem to want to deny that Christianity also played a major (I would assert, dominant) role. This is just flatly false.

BTW... NOBODY (at least no rational person) is currently advocating the USA is, was, or should be a theocracy. If you seriously believe that to be the case, I respectfully submit that you probably don't fully understand the term. IRAN is a theocracy. OT Israel was a theocracy. Use of this term, IMO, is just an example of fear-mongering.

What people like me are saying is that we as a nation should acknowledge and embrace the Christian precepts that formed and maintained our cultural identity for nearly two centuries, and that we should celebrate Christianity's contributions and extol its virtues, while also allowing ("tolerating") those of other faiths to freely exercise their beliefs without fear of persecution, marginalization, or ostracism. I think it's clear that this is what our founders intended from the beginning. We have no business trying to systematically expunge every vestage of Christian expression from all public venues.

I do deny your god and I say Christians believe atheists are evil because they support a belief that we will be tormented forever (that's longer than a year) . If you do not think the denial of god is evil, then how do you support a god that places eternal torment on a non-evil (good) entity. It seems your god does see unbelief as evil, more evil than murder, rape, slavery and genocide for it is possible for those that have committed those atrocities to enter your heaven - it is not possible for a nonbeliever to enter your heaven.

Of course I think denial of God is evil. I think what you may be missing from my earlier comments is that Christians think EVERYONE is evil, not just atheists. I am just as evil as you. In fact, I used to be an atheist, much like you. So you see, I was a God-denier too. The only difference is I came to recognize my evil for what it was, realized I could not escape that evil or its consequences on my own, and I then embraced the one whose provision makes it possible for me to effect that escape.

Man through his sin has separated himself from God, and the only possible means of reconciliation is what Christ accomplished by his incarnation, death, burial and resurrection. This is the Christian message. So yes, according to Christian doctrine, anyone who rejects this free offer of salvation chooses eternal separation from God and opts to pay their infinite sin debt personally, rather than accepting that Christ paid it for them.

You and I are drowning in the same ocean… I just choose to grasp the life preserver, while you have yet to do so. This doesn’t make me any better than you on my own merits. Christ is infinitely better than us all, and I am clothed with his righteousness because of his mercy, not because I am good. You could wear the same garment if you so chose.

[PL456]

Re: End of the world

Just for a moment try to see the atheist perception.

You are recognized as evil by Christians. Christians make up the majority of American society. Every day you are reminded you are not part of this majority by the religious symbols on buildings, religious music around the holidays, religious symbols on cars, theistic statements on currency and in the nations pledge of allegiance.
A man running for the American presidency once said: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." and then went on to be elected 41st president of the United States.

Christians imply that it is impossible to have morals without the Bible. My own Christian family asks me how I am going to teach my son right from wrong without religion.

We all hold opinions we believe are correct, otherwise we wouldn't hold them. We imply by holding our opinion that those who don't agree with us are ignorant of some vital information or thought processing skills. I may think you are lacking vital information or thought processing skills because you believe in god but people like me only make up 10% of the population. 90% of the population believe atheists are lacking vital information or thought processing skills. With that amount of questioning, perceived ignorance, perceived immorality, pity and witnessing, I think a man will develop a strong integrity and articulation of his views which could be perceived as smug to those who don't agree.

A few points...

--I do not believe atheists are evil..they are lost, blinded by the world--their perception is impaired.

--The fact that you feel left out by the majority opinion (judeo-christian ideologies) indicates that you perhaps feel as though you are missing something, not doing what you should...you are.

--what one individual who claims to be a Christian says about others should not taint your own belief. God wants YOU. people say stupid things every day. the Bible and God's word is never-changing. See, atheists listen to people..true Christians listen to God and read His never-changing word. Base your opinion on Christianity on God and His word..not people's statements.

--Christian belief guides us in the choosing of our opinions. These opinions are based on a solid moral framework..that is the love of God and His son Jesus Christ and the tenets they taught. A life based on anything but these guidelines plus the faith will be flawed. The world is so pervasive, that if you choose to live for yourself and by your own thoughts, desires, and beliefs, you will undoubtedly be swayed by the world in your opinions and beliefs. Humans are not strong enough to resist. When I was saved and began to study the Bible in earnest, my life became black and white. Issues that confused me or ones that I was not sure of a position on suddenly became clear. Atheists believe that the individual can solve their problems and handle situations..this is a false belief.

--Christ proved His divinity by fulfilling over 500 prophecies made hundreds of years before His birth. He also appeared to many people after His death. God chose to do this to prove to even the hardest of hearts in His son's identity. You deny this?

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: End of the world

Our nation was not founded on the principles of any religion outside the Judeo-Christian tradition, be it Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, or Baal-worship. So no, I don’t believe the government should endorse those faiths. If you want to live in a society whose roots are Islamic, move to Arabia. Neither was America founded on atheism or secular-humanism.

Your missing Klash's point. Our country was founded on the basis of Freedom from religous persecution AND seperation of church and state. THIS MEANS RELIGON HAS NO PLACE IN GOVERNMENT! Why do you think it is right for your religon to be sponsored by government but not anyone else's religon? Is it the fact that your religon is a majority that makes you think your religon deserves precedense over the rest? Where do other people's rights step in?

Which takes me to my next gripe where tmann was complaining about freedom of speach. Claiming all people of the party that oppose you are hypocritical (or azzbackwards) is hardly true. Democrats believe in protecting our rights and freedoms whereas your party always tries to create new laws to follow your religous guidelines.

We are not saying that you don't have a right to have your religon or speak of it. What you don't have the right to do is teach everyone's children YOUR religon without taking into consideration that their beliefs may be different from yours. If you want your kids to learn about Christianity, then send them to a catholic church. You nor your party have a right to delegate which religon my kid learns! That's my business and my decision! PERIOD! That's what's called FREEDOM!! If you delegate what religon is to be learned that is no longer freedom because you are not giving people a choice.

Now I know your going to say if they don't like it they don't have to go there. WELL.......That's why it's called a PUBLIC school. It's for the public. Not for a majority, not for a minority, but for everyone. Religon belongs in an institution not government funded delegated to it's own beliefs so not to infringe on the rights of others.

As for taking things of off the dollar bill like "In god we trust" is garbage. Every relgion has A god so that isn't catering to anyone's specific religon. So that one is ridiculous.

We today are giving up way to many freedoms and liberties with trust that our government knows what it's doing. If that's what our ancestors meant for us to do, then they would not have written the Constitution and wouldn't have fought for our freedom. So why we american's so easily let our freedoms get taken away is beyond me!!

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: End of the world

--Christian belief guides us in the choosing of our opinions. These opinions are based on a solid moral framework..that is the love of God and His son Jesus Christ and the tenets they taught. A life based on anything but these guidelines plus the faith will be flawed. The world is so pervasive, that if you choose to live for yourself and by your own thoughts, desires, and beliefs, you will undoubtedly be swayed by the world in your opinions and beliefs. Humans are not strong enough to resist. When I was saved and began to study the Bible in earnest, my life became black and white. Issues that confused me or ones that I was not sure of a position on suddenly became clear. Atheists believe that the individual can solve their problems and handle situations..this is a false belief.

Wow for once I agree with you PL! I do believe that christian beliefs are definitely a good moral way to live your life. I personally plan on teaching my son the bible and all of the stories in the bible, not because I believe them as text, and that they actually happened. But because they are good lessons and a good way to live your life. It's not to say that all stories in the bible are false as that would be an ignorant statment. But they are definitely misconstrued over the ages. Plus people never take into consideration that people do exaggerate, and stories change as it goes from person to person.

Regardless I agree with your point there.