I have a question for some of the Political forum regulars....

[IPorange]

Fair enough.

Jefferson was deist.

There, are we all happy now?

Not completely. It's worth noting that "deism" was as far removed from Christianity as you could be without getting ostracized or tarred and feathered at that time. Also, at that time & place science and rationalism was in it's infancy. It was almost inconceivable to imagine the world even functioning without a "God" somewhere having set it up.

Now, we understand more and more of the inner workings of Earth, the Solar System, and the universe every year. We haven't found a thumb screw or winding key yet.

 

[droski]

I think agnosticism is a transitional state. You'll fall on one side or the other if you really pushed the issue. But I think most agnostics are thus because they DON'T push it. At least, that is how it was for me.

i respect religion and religious people, but i cannot for hte life of me be positive god exists. nor can i even remotely be positive god does not exist. it is true that i've gone over more to one side or another over time, but i doubt i'll ever be able ot definitely say i'm an athiest or christian or whatever.

 

[tigervol9802]

Not completely. It's worth noting that "deism" was as far removed from Christianity as you could be without getting ostracized or tarred and feathered at that time. Also, at that time & place science and rationalism was in it's infancy. It was almost inconceivable to imagine the world even functioning without a "God" somewhere having set it up.

Now, we understand more and more of the inner workings of Earth, the Solar System, and the universe every year. We haven't found a thumb screw or winding key yet.

And for the most part we're still theorizing on what caused everything to begin with anyway.

 

[volconomist]

Two things we agree on.....

:dance2:

Do you feel it?

I just got the warm fuzzies.

 

[IPorange]

And for the most part we're still theorizing on what caused everything to begin with anyway.

Which is more reasonable than just saying "God did it" and walking away. We wouldn't have learned anything if we had all stuck to that plan.

 

[J-P]

but kept the basic teachings/ideas that he viewed as important. You can still view him as important without believing he was the messiah

So he was important in about the same way as Jim Jones or David Koresh were? Sort of the "lying to people so they commit their eternal destiny to me" kind of liar, but otherwise quite the nice guy? Or perhaps he was just misquoted by most of his folowers?

(I can't believe I'm jumping into this never ending VolNation Political Forum argument again, but I guess I just couldn't let this one pass by... :dunno:

 

[tigervol9802]

Which is more reasonable than just saying "God did it" and walking away. We wouldn't have learned anything if we had all stuck to that plan.

Not necessarily. Many of the "earliest" scientists were also Christians, such as Copernicus. I'll argue God never intended for man to sit there and gave us the ability to understand nature and science.

 

[IPorange]

Not necessarily. Many of the "earliest" scientists were also Christians, such as Copernicus. I'll argue God never intended for man to sit there and gave us the ability to understand nature and science.

Great, so you'll quit discrediting the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, and the geologic age of the Earth. Glad that is settled.

The Church persecuted the crap out of those medieval and Renaissance scientists, Christian or not, for going against the then-important dogma of the Christianity, such as Earth being the center of the universe. That seems silly now because of it's anachronism, but it is no different than people denying evolution or the geologic age of the Earth now. No different at all.

 

[IPorange]

So he was important in about the same way as Jim Jones or David Koresh were? Sort of the "lying to people so they commit their eternal destiny to me" kind of liar, but quite the nice guy? Or perhaps he was just misquoted by most of his folowers?

(I can't believe I'm jumping into this never ending VolNation Political Forum argument again, but I guess I just couldn't let this one pass by... :dunno:

Didn't he teach us to pray "Our father, who art in heaven...?" Weren't we all the children of God, according to him? He could have not been the literal son of God, and never lied. He could have just been misunderstood. Of course, that would mean there was no immaculate conception and all that. But that doesn't seem to be that big of a stretch for that to not be true, since young couples have been trying to play that card forever.

Are you familiar with the Gnostics? They had a very different take on Christianity, but were wiped out as soon as the mainstream Catholic Church came into power. Funny, that.

 

[utvolpj]

So he was important in about the same way as Jim Jones or David Koresh were? Sort of the "lying to people so they commit their eternal destiny to me" kind of liar, but quite the nice guy? Or perhaps he was just misquoted by most of his folowers?

(I can't believe I'm jumping into this never ending VolNation Political Forum argument again, but I guess I just couldn't let this one pass by... :dunno:

Don't really know since I never got a chance to ask TJ his real thoughts. Take a glance at the Jeffersonian Bible if you're interested

 

[tigervol9802]

Great, so you'll quit discrediting the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, and the geologic age of the Earth. Glad that is settled.

The Church persecuted the crap out of those medieval and Renaissance scientists, Christian or not, for going against the then-important dogma of the Christianity, such as Earth being the center of the universe. That seems silly now because of it's anachronism, but it is no different than people denying evolution or the geologic age of the Earth now. No different at all.

I love how you always just go straight for the evolutionary and geologic age of the earth as if to prove your argument every time.

First, I don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I'm not sure how old it is, but I also realize it's a lot older that 6,000 years old. I really don't know what circles of Christians you come in contact with, but it's not nearly as close to 100% of us believing in the young earth as you think.

Second, I don't believe that man evolved from apes, but there's also enough support to show that man and all species have changed over time. But I do believe that man was created by God separately and independently from other creatures.

 

[IPorange]

I love how you always just go straight for the evolutionary and geologic age of the earth as if to prove your argument every time.

First, I don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth. I'm not sure how old it is, but I also realize it's a lot older that 6,000 years old. I really don't know what circles of Christians you come in contact with, but it's not nearly as close to 100% of us believing in the young earth as you think.

Second, I don't believe that man evolved from apes, but there's also enough support to show that man and all species have changed over time. But I do believe that man was created by God separately and independently from other creatures.

You don't believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, but you are "not sure how old it is." Why resist what empirical evidence has shown about the age of the Earth?

You believe species change over time, but humans are special. Why must humans be special?


Both of these are borrowing from science, but resisting the implications because they are not in keeping with matters of faith. It's choosing faith and tradition over observation and fact. I just don't understand it. Like I said, it isn't much different from how Christianity treated the discoveries made 500 years ago.

 

[gsvol]

And to TS, while I actually think you make some decent points and I agree being PC has gone to far you are freaking out over something that has about a .00000000001% chance of happening. I makes me realize that indeed the terrorist have won this war and totally corrupted the minds of many Americans. You seem to totally omit the crusades from history in your post, when you say no one has ever killed in the name of God. I'm not "taking up" for Muslim's because if they wanted to fix several of this issues they could, but I can not fathom in my mind that almost 2 billion people all hate America and want to murder all Christians.

"A .00000000001% chance of what happening???

If you want to see a currupted mind, look in the nearest mirror.

You can read about the Crusades in posts 276 or 278 of this thread, my reply to the last person, probably you, who tries to compare the Crusades to contemporary islamic jihad.

The cruelty of islam just in India during the twentieth century overshadows any wrong that may have been done during the Crusades.

Of the 2 billion people of which you speak, very few do not believe every word of the koran and other islamic teachings and no matter how they go about it, it is their duty to convert or eliminate all infidels unless those infidels admit defeat and subjagation to islam and pay special taxes.

Whether you like it or not, whether you believe that or not, thems the facts infidel.

The hypocrisy in this thread is killing me.

Sometimes you have to step outside your bubble.

Don't worry, you'll step outside your bubble someday when it bursts, you will have no choice then.

The OP is kind of littered with exaggerations and paranoia. Someone was spot on earlier when they said that paranoia like this was a sign of victory for those who wish to destroy us -- from both the inside and outside.

Atheists and agnostics have just as much right to debate religion and its cultural influence because we DO have a stake in it. Religion has its roots in just about everything we encounter in our day-to-day activities. To say we don't have much right to discuss religion when it affects public policy, social norms, and personal relationships simply because we choose not to believe in a deity we can neither hear nor see is simply asinine.

I don't blame a particular religion for convictions involving violence, as most of the major world religions have resorted to killing in the name of their respective deity multiple times. I simply blame mankind's organization of religion, as many religious and non-religious folks would agree that the church is the worst thing that happened to religion.

That's my 2 cents.

Your 2 cents is so typical of Americans, espeically young Americans today that it's difficult to comprehend.

Approximately ten million Christians were slaughtered in the name of islamic jihad during the twentieth century, how do you compare that with Christian violence during the twentieth century??

Wait, so have you personally known a Muslim who has taken jihad to the extreme?

What about abortion clinic bombings? Abortion doctor assassinations?

Check some of these out (I know it's wikipedia, but I'm not writing a collegiate essay here):

Army of God: Army of God (USA) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lambs of Christ: The Lambs of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concerned Christians: Concerned Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Not to single out Christians, but it just seemed like the anti-Islam argument was in no need of reinforcement on this board.

You compare a few abortion clinic bombings over an extended period with 10,000+ violent muslim jihadist attacks, just since 9/11????

Sort of comparing one lady bug to a plague of locusts.

Wiccanpedia is for morons anyway.

 

[tigervol9802]

You don't believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, but you are "not sure how old it is." Why resist what empirical evidence has shown about the age of the Earth?

You believe species change over time, but humans are special. Why must humans be special?


Both of these are borrowing from science, but resisting the implications because they are not in keeping with matters of faith. It's choosing faith and tradition over observation and fact. I just don't understand it. Like I said, it isn't much different from how Christianity treated the discoveries made 500 years ago.

It's a billion years old, 3 billion, whatever. I don't know how old it is but it's MUCH older than 6,000 years.

I believe humans have changed over time and will continue to change. I just don't think we evolved from another species.

There is too much design and detail in nature for me to believe everything happened out of chaos without some sort of design in place and that we are all lucky products of something happenign at the exact right nano-second to create life without something causing that.

If that is putting faith over reason, then guilty as charged. I have observed and witnessed too much to believe otherwise.

 

[J-P]

Oh heck... see, I knew I should have refrained, because now I'm in it and I'm pretty busy here at work today.

My point was not about Jefferson, I couldn't really care less what he believed about Jesus Christ. My point was more about those who seem to pick and choose among the things that He said. According to his followers' records about Him and His claims, He left no doubt that He considered Himself to be the Messiah, one with the Father, the great "I Am". As a matter of fact, there is a recorded account where the Jews clearly understood His claim and became so angry that they intended to stone Him to death for blasphemy. Read the Gospel accounts for yourself, His followers clearly understood him to be the Messiah, God incarnate.

Bottom line, I feel that you either have to accept all of what His followers recorded, or none of it, because if some of it is lies, then there is no way to know what is a lie and what is not.

Personally, I have considered what they wrote and what we know about them from history and how they changed after following Jesus, and decided that they are reliable witnesses. eace2:

 

[gsvol]

Very interesting indeed.

As you've correctly mentioned before, and most people seem to get completely wrong, nearly all of the founding fathers were Deists. They believed in the great clock winder.

Count yourself among those who get it completely wrong.

Read these statements and point out to me any mention of a great clock winder.

 

[J-P]

Great, so you'll quit discrediting the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, and the geologic age of the Earth. Glad that is settled.

There is no "overwhelming scientific evidence" of macro evolution, the evolving of one species gradually into a completely new and different species. If there is, I'd be interested to read about it. As far as I have been able to find, there is only evidence of micro evolution, minor changes and adaptations within the species.

 

[IPorange]

It's a billion years old, 3 billion, whatever. I don't know how old it is but it's MUCH older than 6,000 years.

I believe humans have changed over time and will continue to change. I just don't think we evolved from another species.

There is too much design and detail in nature for me to believe everything happened out of chaos without some sort of design in place and that we are all lucky products of something happenign at the exact right nano-second to create life without something causing that.

If that is putting faith over reason, then guilty as charged. I have observed and witnessed too much to believe otherwise.

Fair enough. I just think the universe is perfectly reflective of chaos and randomness. Here we are on a far arm of the Milky Way, on one random pinwheeling galaxy amongst many many MANY, in a universe that isn't just expanding, but actually accelerating.

Seems random.

 

[IPorange]

There is no "overwhelming scientific evidence" of macro evolution, the evolving of one species gradually into a completely new and different species. If there is, I'd be interested to read about it. As far as I have been able to find, there is only evidence of micro evolution, minor changes and adaptations within the species.

There are many examples. This blog lists several:

THE EVOLUTION LIST: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence

Dramatic macroevolution takes a lot of time, more time than we have been around and been paying attention. Saber tooth tigers to mountain lions have happened within the time humans have been around, but we didn't get to "see" it because we weren't looking for it. Same with several species of bear, and other sorts of fauna coming from the last ice age to the present.

It's like saying glaciers can't form, because we have never actually SEEN one form. Yet obviously they can and do because all the mechanisms necessary for them to do so have been observed, and lots of evidence of them forming, receding, and reforming exist as well. It's the same with this.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Didn't he teach us to pray "Our father, who art in heaven...?" Weren't we all the children of God, according to him? He could have not been the literal son of God, and never lied. He could have just been misunderstood. Of course, that would mean there was no immaculate conception and all that. But that doesn't seem to be that big of a stretch for that to not be true, since young couples have been trying to play that card forever.

Are you familiar with the Gnostics? They had a very different take on Christianity, but were wiped out as soon as the mainstream Catholic Church came into power. Funny, that.

What does the immaculate conception have to do with Jesus?

And gnostics have been around for quite some time. They even survived in large numbers going well into the Middle Ages. Are you claiming gnostics were wiped out around 400?

 

[gsvol]

He believed in Jesus, but not in his divinity. He also had issues with people blindly following a faith. That's where his quotes about questioning God come from. It doesn't mean that he didn't believe there was a God, just that the God he believes in must respect more the homage of reason not blind faith.

His problem with religious leaders who used religion
for their own ends, he had no problem with the
doctrine of Jesus Christ and praised it highly.

yet he didn't believe JC was the son of god. Can you be a Christian and believe that?

Not so, according to a letter he wrote to a friend
on that topic, he appologized for delaying an answer
to his friend's questions and point blank said that he
considered himself a Christian and that he accepted
that Jesus was the Son of God.

yes he was our first Muslim President

 

[utvolpj]

hard to get sarcasm when you don't live in the real world huh gs?

 

[tigervol9802]

hard to get sarcasm when you don't live in the real world huh gs?

I always thought it was George Washington through a super secret alliance between the Muslims and the Masons.

 

[IPorange]

What does the immaculate conception have to do with Jesus?

And gnostics have been around for quite some time. They even survived in large numbers going well into the Middle Ages. Are you claiming gnostics were wiped out around 400?

I meant the virginal birth thing, my bad. It's been awhile on those terms.

The gnostics and their literature were virtually wiped out in the 5th century. That isn't my opinion, that is historical fact. There are new "gnostics" and "gnostic reawakenings," but the original movement was nuked by the newly Christian Romans.


I am not going to play the 20 questions game with you in this thread, fyi. I know you don't like having to ever stand on anything and only attack. I won't just go in circles and circles with you on this.

 

[DC Vol]

hard to get sarcasm when you don't live in the real world huh gs?

His horde of cats can be very distracting.