Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 301 to 316 of 316

Thread: This year's version of the war on Christmas...

  1. #301
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wilton, CT
    Posts
    2,743
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2896557]Careful Plumb, you know you can't speak in absolutes....nobody knows guaranteed existance/non-existance of God. Not even Dawkins would make that claim![/QUOTE]



    I think Plumb was merely saying that Bernie's version of god doesn't exist.

  2. #302
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2893925]Scientist like all of us are biased by our faith. There are very few of us who haven't been fully indoctrinated into religion from a very young age. Perhaps if the same number of children were indoctrinated to the scientific method of looking at things in the same manner that we are indocrtinated into religion we would have better scientific answers today of how we were created?

    Faith is still faith and science is still science and I don't see any reason for teaching faith in a science class or in public schools as part of an indoctrination into religion. Religion as history is more than appropriate in the public school sector.[/QUOTE]

    I just don't have as much faith in the religion of science as someone like yourself, so we shall agree to disagree on that. The scientific method is limited, just like anything else, for us to understand our world. However, the scientific method has given us a greater insight into nature, one the bible cannot because I don't think that is what the bible is meant for. Just like science will never give us big answers to questions of the heart, for that is not its base.

    I suppose what I need to understand in all this is I am coming from this POV as a Canadian citizen. I do NOT see such a dichotomy here in Canada as Americans do. I don't have the 'deep South' up here. I suppose that is why I see such opposing views here. I never actually thought of that until now.

  3. #303
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=ReleasetheAnimal;2896562]I think Plumb was merely saying that Bernie's version of god doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]

    I think so to, but I was merely clarifying :D

  4. #304
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is only one position on faith built on logic and facts today.

    Agnosticism.

    I neither know, nor can prove, that there IS or ISN'T a God or Higher Power, so I will keep my mind open to all facts as they are found, and base my view on those facts.

    Facts, not faith.

    JMO.

  5. #305
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2896557]Careful Plumb, you know you can't speak in absolutes....nobody knows guaranteed existance/non-existance of God. Not even Dawkins would make that claim![/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg[/url]

  6. #306
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2896099]Don't get me wrong. Our constitution is a work of genius. But it was not a "product of its time" in any blanket sense. The issue of slavery had been addressed in state charters and constitutions prior to 1787 and was certainly on shaky ground by the time of the Convention. Even within the convention debates, it's quite clear that a number of the participants found slavery loathsome and indefensible.

    Your point about states becoming the oppressors is very much on point and the strongest argument for federal guarantees of protection for individuals. [/QUOTE]

    Iím not disputing the issue of slavery, or it being that 800lb gorilla in the room during the convention. However, despite being on shaky grounds, it was still woven in the social fabric of the South. The more northern southern states, like Madisonís Virginia, were willing to abolish it. But this ran counter to the thoughts of the Deep South, specifically Georgia and South Carolina, who were willing to take their toys and go home. Faced with the possibility of several states walking away from the Union, they had to confer some concessions to the southern states. Madison et al. failed to address this issue and exacerbated it with the three-fifths clause and the fugitive slave act. Not to go into great detail, but the three-fifths clause gave the south way more Electoral College votes than it deservedÖ which actually helped Jefferson defeat Adams. This clause, not a national mandate, allowed southern states to put so many in to the White House. Not having the three-fifth clause, the north would have the majority of Electoral College votes.

    I started reading up on this area a few years ago and it turned out to be much more interesting than I thought, especially the law aspect of it. Iím just disappointed that most Americans donít know their history. I think if they did, they would have a better appreciation for the political system and less disgust for it.

    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2896099]Re Christianity and politics, the bottom line is that they mix very poorly indeed in a democracy that protects all religious freedoms equally. Proselytizing religions are inevitably authoritarian and dogmatic. Once you believe you have the key to "saving" or "condemning" souls, it's very hard to be genuinely tolerant of the "faithless" and the "lost." If Christianity was to be written into our Constitution it would be a great victory for Christians and the absolute destruction of our fundamental freedoms. [/QUOTE]

    Iím with you on thisÖ

    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2896099]An interesting question for our Christian brethren: If the NT was followed precisely in creating a government, what do you think it would look like? Would Sackdance99 be the Grand Vizir, the Chief Executioner, of merely the Grand Inquisitor? How would dissent from the chosen word be dealt with? Would we have a standing army, or turn the other cheek? Would we support celibacy above all else, and merely tolerate marriage (or burn) as Paul said? What about slavery? Certainly accepted within the Bible. What about the sharing of wealth? Giving alms? Would women have equal rights, or would men be in their proper place as heads of household and state? What about holy crusades against unbelievers? What about religious tests for the holding of political office? What about those pesky demons that would be assumed to possess anyone who doesn't toe the dogmatic line? Big business for exorcists. On the plus side, we would need only one TV station with 24 hours of evangelical ranting interspersed with warnings about the coming apocalypse. Libraries too would be vastly reduced. No need for firewood. All those unChristian scribblings would heat a lot of homes. It would be an interesting place indeed. But you could be assured of kreshes in every churchyard and prayers in every school and woe be to those who do not repent. Yeah, nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there. [/QUOTE]

    The issue is that Christians donít only use the NT in isolation. It seems to me, most of the oppressive behavior comes from misinterpretations of the OT. I could be wrong and Iím sure Steve will set me straight on this.

    I believe looking at the Vatican City would be a good starting point for this question. Iím curious if their government structure was influenced by the NT or influenced by practical political science, law, and history.

  7. #307
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2896664][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg[/url][/QUOTE]

    Tyler, I cannot listen to You Tube stuff, so I am going to presume he is saying he thinks absolutly there is no God.

    Well...
    1) he would be contradicting himself in his own writing.
    2) he would be wrong...

    As Warfish pointed out, Agnosticism is the logical, based on fact, best route to go....you can neither know for sure either way.

    However, while this is true, Kierkegaard would not agree. The very fact we cannot know or know for sure is the exact reason for faith. We need a 'leap of faith' in either direction.

  8. #308
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2896545]Joey: HOw are you, first of all? I do not discredit what you are saying, but the very fact that Christianity is STILL prominent, even within the governement now, is proof enough to show you that, while all you are saying is true, people are just not seeing what is obvious that religion played a part...it could not NOT play a part, given the circumstances.[/QUOTE]

    I'm doing well. Start my field season this January and looking forward to getting back out in the field with the wolves.

    But... I think you're missing the interaction aspect of the relationship. It's not mutual. Our founders made a purposeful attempt to not incorporate Judeo-Christian dogma into the formation of our government. Just because Christians have made up the majority in this country doesn't mean we have a Christian government. The Bible and it's teachings was not integrated for a reason... the People are the supreme legitimacy and first principle to our government. Not God.

    Using your example, I could argue that the Theory of Evolution is a Christian concept because it was legitimized by Darwin, a Christian. It is the major biological advancement made by Western Civilization, which is Christian. And many scientists who advance it today are Christian. Therefore, given the circumstances, Christianity played a part in the Theory of Evolution. Hence, it should be mandated to be given some time in church on Sunday.

    Hope all is well with the family...

  9. #309
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=finlee17;2896679]

    The issue is that Christians donít only use the NT in isolation. It seems to me, most of the oppressive behavior comes from misinterpretations of the OT. I could be wrong and Iím sure Steve will set me straight on this.

    I believe looking at the Vatican City would be a good starting point for this question. Iím curious if their government structure was influenced by the NT or influenced by practical political science, law, and history.[/QUOTE]

    Joey, any oppressive behaviour comes from mininterpretation of the entire bible, in my opinion. The idea of the bible is for its words to change you, not for you to change the words and use it as 'proof' to push your own agendas and beliefs.

    TWO POINTS....
    Here are some thoughts of Michael Foster, which I agree with:

    a) There never would have been science if not for the Christian doctrine of creation; this theory is reacquainting science with religion
    b) Science is deductive because it comes from the assumption that nature is not created. Properties are deduced by reason to discover their essence.

    Food for thought...

    THOMAS TORRANCE
    a) Theologians presume that God is to fit into my realm of perception or understanding. It could be rescued by paying attention to science (especially Einsteinian science)
    b) According to the nature of the object, my understanding needs to conform to reality rather than the other way around. So too must theology conform this way. For instance, if science shows us something that contradicts our ideas, we need to adjust our ideas.

    Remember Athanasius' response to Arius and the Arian controversy which led to the Council of Nicaea, "who are you to say what God can and cannot do."

    Food for thought...

  10. #310
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=finlee17;2896698]But... I think you're missing the interaction aspect of the relationship. It's not mutual. Our founders made a purposeful attempt to not incorporate Judeo-Christian dogma into the formation of our government. Just because Christians have made up the majority in this country doesn't mean we have a Christian government. The Bible and it's teachings was not integrated for a reason... the People are the supreme legitimacy and first principle to our government. Not God.

    Using your example, I could argue that the Theory of Evolution is a Christian concept because it was legitimized by Darwin, a Christian. It is the major biological advancement made by Western Civilization, which is Christian. And many scientists who advance it today are Christian. Therefore, given the circumstances, Christianity played a part in the Theory of Evolution. Hence, it should be mandated to be given some time in church on Sunday.

    Hope all is well with the family...[/QUOTE]

    All is well with the family. Again, you could argue this till the cows came home, and yes, doctrine I would say they tried to keep out. However, the idea of a 'supreme legitimacay and first principle (of) our governement' is a secular invention (which is probably the point), and perhaps an error in judgement. God, of course to me, is higher.

    Now, I still believe that in the heart of hearts, the constitution is by nature, Christian, and again, we still need to then answer why it says "in God we Trust," if there is no Godly influence.

  11. #311
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,140
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2896654]There is only one position on faith built on logic and facts today.

    Agnosticism.

    I neither know, nor can prove, that there IS or ISN'T a God or Higher Power, so I will keep my mind open to all facts as they are found, and base my view on those facts.

    Facts, not faith.

    JMO.[/QUOTE]

    A rather hopeless outlook, isn't it?

  12. #312
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2896702]Joey, any oppressive behaviour comes from mininterpretation of the entire bible, in my opinion. The idea of the bible is for its words to change you, not for you to change the words and use it as 'proof' to push your own agendas and beliefs.

    TWO POINTS....
    Here are some thoughts of Michael Foster, which I agree with:

    [B]a) There never would have been science if not for the Christian doctrine of creation; this theory is reacquainting science with religion
    b) Science is deductive because it comes from the assumption that nature is not created. Properties are deduced by reason to discover their essence.[/B]
    Food for thought...

    THOMAS TORRANCE
    a) Theologians presume that God is to fit into my realm of perception or understanding. It could be rescued by paying attention to science (especially Einsteinian science)
    b) According to the nature of the object, my understanding needs to conform to reality rather than the other way around. So too must theology conform this way. For instance, if science shows us something that contradicts our ideas, we need to adjust our ideas.

    Remember Athanasius' response to Arius and the Arian controversy which led to the Council of Nicaea, "who are you to say what God can and cannot do."

    Food for thought...[/QUOTE]

    Both points are absurd and frankly idiotic. Christianity clearly opposed scientific progress. Were it not for the re-discovery of classic Greek texts thanks to Arab scholars, we would probably still be under the thumb of the Pope and the Inquisition. Christianity has been an absolute albatross around the neck of science and still is. The world would have progressed far further without Christianity in the picture. It is a regressive religion.

    Science is not deductive. Science is inductive. It is founded in experiment and empiricism. I don't know who that idiot Foster is, but he should go back into his cave. He seems to be completely out of touch. Someone like Acquinas could be defined as a deductive thinker. But he wasn't a scientist. And in the end he rejected his own writings as "nothing but straw."

    P.S. What happened to Arius, CanadaSteve? Arius was right of course that God and Jesus were not co-equal. Jesus was simply a mortal man. Christianity is the longest running illusion, an invented faith that exploited a Judean mystic for purposes he never intended and so distorted his message that it is all but unrecognizable. To me Paul is one of the greatest villains of history. We would all be much better off if he had simply disappeared from the face of the earth. He destroyed the true message of Jesus.

  13. #313
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;2896725]A rather hopeless outlook, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

    What makes you say that? Is Religion the only source of hope in the Universe?

    I have a deep hope, and desire to see good things happen. For me, my loved ones, and the world in general. I'm a realist, but I would say a hopeful one.

  14. #314
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    I was hopeful the Jets could make a run at the Super Bowl two weeks ago, tonight.. not so much

  15. #315
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,558
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Jets actually won a Superbowl...
    Miracles do happen...
    Therefore, there must be a God.

  16. #316
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wilton, CT
    Posts
    2,743
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jetswinbaby!;2899361]The Jets actually won a Superbowl...
    Miracles do happen...
    Therefore, there must be a God.[/QUOTE]


    With this reasoning, how can anyone say otherwise? :D

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us