Re: Fw: Role of God in government
Given the questions raised by Ed Storms and Leaking Pen in particular, I decided to answer them. Dear Ed; I'd like to make five challenges to you. These papers will give you some insight into our beliefs, BTW, Prager, Satinover and Singer are religious Jews. One, take the Dennis Prager Are you a Liberal? quiz, www.dennisprager.com , two, read Is Liberalism a Brain Disease? which you can link to from Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's website, www.satinover.com , while you're there, take a look at his credentials , three, listen to Roy Moore's speech, Is America a Christian Nation? four, as Isaac B Singer said, consider a watch. The watch implies a watchmaker. It's not only that the web of life is way more complicated than the watch, two half worn out organisms can get together and make a perfect little organism. It's called sexual fusion, and if you think that the rest of the process is complicated, AFLIK, it's the one of the few mechanisms I know of that reverses the Second Law, and we have even less understanding of it than we do about how the rest of the system works. Five, there is the 1890 Supreme Court decision that I mention near the end of the post. Ed posted It is obvious that several contributors to Vortex hold very strong opinions about the Christian religion. It is also obvious that such opinions are shaping national policy in ways that are not beneficial to the general population. We went to war based on the lie that Iraq had WMD, the social security system is being changed based on several lies, we send our work overseas based on the lie that this is good for our economy, we now have the largest debt of any nation at any time in history based on a lie that this does not matter, and now the fundamental relationship between religion and government is being changed based on a lie. I'm interested to know how people who support the present government justify this approach and how this tendency to lie squares with their understanding of the Christian religion. If a person supports obvious lies, how can anything they say be trusted? My response; I don't like much of what the Bush Administration is doing. With regards to the WDM, there were two ships which left Iraq just before the invasion. There was a convoy of trucks which went across the Syrian boarder a short time later. There were Syrian Army bulldozers waiting for them. They dug trenches and buried them. It doesn't take an MBA to realize that's not business as usual. I heard both stories on talk radio, other than that, I don't think that there in the media. I'm going to have dinner with Hugh Hewitt, www.hughhewitt.com on Thursday. I'm going to enjoy recounting this conversation with him. Hugh is looking for educated Liberals like you, he likes to have them call in to his radio program. We had no alternative but to vote for Bush, Senator Flip Flop's only consistent position was for pro abortion. We regard the abortatoriums as America's holocaust. As for the economy, what choice did W have? He had to make the economy grow short term or he and the Republican Party were history. Hugh and I think that Dean's election to the DNC Chair is just hilarious, the lunatics have solidified their control of the asylum. As for your other questions, I cover them in the rest of the post. Later Leaking Pen Posted; ed, you've gone exactly where i was about too. the neo-cons currently running our country don't believe in science. its a simple fact. but it gets worse than that. if you've read some of the old documents from PNAC, you'd know that the neo-con agenda is a rather simple one. they are trying to actively bring about armageddon and the rapture. My response; Typical Leaking Pen nonsense. You've decided that because they question some of your conclusions they don't believe in science, this is a classic Leaking Pen nonsequitar. As for bringing on Armagedon, what part of divinely ordained don't you understand? Ed Storms posted; and RC Macaulay responded: The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to Dr. Storms post quotes Ben Franklin. as for Jesus of Nazareth.. is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it That is a most revealing statement. At least Franklin had the wisdom to defer an opinion because he didn't know the subject. Of the men who presided over the writing of The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, there were a few, less than five, deists. The rest of them were what would today be called Evangelicals. I find it very disingenuous for people take the beliefs of that small group and draw the inference that America was not a Christian country. What do people find that is offensive in Jesus teaching? No, not what people say that Jesus taught.. BUT.. what Jesus taught.. His words. I doubt that anyone rejects the words of Jesus. In any case, that is not the issue. The issue is the teachings of certain religious sects that have been
Re: Fw: Role of God in government
wow. screw drinking the kool aid, youve been bathing in it. have already seen all the above links. fail to see how they matter. as for your other points, kerrys positions were rock solid, but when you take things out of context, like removing the word NOT before a stament (done on 4 seperate occasions) you can make anyone sound like flip flopping. as for the economy, even with the bursting dot com bubble, the economy WAS still growing at a decent rate until those tax cuts kicked in. as for dean, hes actually very centrist, the only really liberal opinion he held was being very anti war, and the only thing that hurt him was the screaming bit, which, if youve seen teh video, instead of just listening to the tape of his single noise cancelling microphone, youd know that he was in a packed auditorium of over a thousand screaming cheering people, and had to scream like that into the mike to get himself heard. once again, the liberal media. if you think thats a nonsequitor, id suggest taking a look at the pnac website. they have issued statements on several occasions condeming scientists and science in general, claiming that to attempt to understand how the universe works is inherently blasphemous. THEY have stated, on more than one occasion, that they dont believe in science. evangelical? the majority were of the belief that forcing religion was wrong, hence the no state relgion part of the bill of rights. and sorry, no. the majority of the signers were non christian, however outspoken they may have been on religion. those that could compare with falwell were in the minority, same as today. they are simply a LOUD minority. i take great offense that someone would draw from that small group of people the inference that America WAS a christian nation. (works both ways.) most evangelicals state that the bible is the inerrant word of god, but only those parts they like. at the end, ive attached a little letter to the president. its quite funny. you'll like it. then well see how innerrant you think the bible is. so, you get to define evil and sin? see, this is why we have the first ammendment. RELIGION WILL NOT EVER DEFINE RIGHT AND WRONG IN AMERICA. the moment it takes over that fully, the country that i love will be dead. it is unfortunetly in the er right now with a serious head trauma, about to slip into a coma. no, the media bias is in favor of two things. money and sensationalism. the money is on the right, which is why the media repeated the lies about al gore lieing about the internet, love canal, and love story, while ignoring dubyas drug and alchohol problems, and conviction for drunk driving. yes, the supreme court of the time did. they were a group of extremists at that time, and that doesnt make it true. in fact, there have been 4, Countem FOUR rulings against that ruling since then. heres that little letter. everyone, pass it around, please. Dear Mr. President, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law as described in the Bible. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. For example, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination...end of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them. 1. In Leviticus 25:44 it is stated that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? Though I know you understand why owning Mexicans is acceptable. 2. Also, I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? Would Ebay be a viable option to get the highest bid for her? 3. Sadly, I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them or leave that to the U.S. army? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? 7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
Re: Fw: Role of God in government
RC Macaulay wrote: Interesting subject - Original Message - From: RC Macaulay mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Christian Fellowship mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:21 PM Subject: Re: Role of God in government The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to Dr. Storms post quotes Ben Franklin. as for Jesus of Nazareth.. is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it and think it needless to busy myself with now, Franklin had the insight to admit he could not express an opinion because he had NOT studied the words of Jesus Christ. That is a most revealing statement. At least Franklin had the wisdom to defer an opinion because he didn't know the subject. Today, our nation has an entire cadre of learned educators that have no qualms about expressing their opinions without knowing their subject. What do people find that is offensive in Jesus teaching? No, not what people say that Jesus taught.. BUT.. what Jesus taught.. His words. I doubt that anyone rejects the words of Jesus. In any case, that is not the issue. The issue is the teachings of certain religious sects that have been created based on their understanding of the Bible. These sects are based on conclusions that are not universally accepted and are damaging to the general public when they are put into policy. I am a believer, I am a servant / follower of Jesus Christ. I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in voluntary prayer in schools and in government. I do not believe it should be mandated. If everyone had this approach, the problems would not exist. I cannot change anyones mind about their beliefs. I can tell you what wonderful things that God has done for me . You have the freedom in this great nation to make up your own mind. After all, you are the one that is betting your life on your decision. Dr. Storms quotes a poorly written article in the Nation , an AP/CBS interest which hardly compares with Paul's writing in Romans 1st chapter. Compare them for yourself. Paul's writing is an accurate portrayal of what happens to people that lie to themselves. Poorly written or not, a reading of any good history book shows that the founding fathers did not believe that Christianity should be the basis for the US government. The point of the article is that the Bush administration is giving the impression that this is a Christian nation in which the other religions are tolerated. Therefore, he feels free to impose policies that is based on what certain Christians believe. For example, that homosexuality is a sin, that life begins at conception, and that the Rapture is a real event. All of these beliefs are unique to certain Christian sects and not to religion in general, yet the beliefs are being supported with enthusiasm by the administration. Perhaps the greatest hindrance to the advancement of science is the habit of lying to oneself, not to others. Perhaps, but eventually people who lie to themselves also lie to others. Also, two kinds of lying people exist. Some people lie because they can not help it. They base their view of reality on their unique understanding that is unmodified by experience. On the other hand, people lie for personal gain. These people know they are lying and are only intent on gaining power and advantage over other people. Politicians are noted for being this kind of liars. For those of you who think this thread has gone too far from an accepted subject for Vortex, let me propose that the attitude of government plays a significant role in the creation and solving of problems. Science can not do everything, especially when the insights of science are ignored. For example, as a previous thread has argued, ignoring global warming may require creative solutions that may not work. Would it not be better to have a government that saw the danger and stepped in before such solutions are required. The question is, why does the US government and the Christians who support it fail to recognize obvious problems, the example above being only one of many? Why do they accept obvious lies and policies that are clearly harmful to the general population? What makes Christians so blind? Science in the US would have fewer problems to solve if such blindness did not exist. Also, to be practical, science would have more money to solve the unavoidable problems if the policies were not so wasteful. Why are conservatives and Christians not up in arms and on the street demanding that changes be made rather than ranting against people who suggest that the system is broken? Perhaps answers to these questions can not be given. In which case, I apologize for the bother. Regards. Ed Storms Richard
