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 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.
There are 2000+ sects of Christianity. It never ceases to amaze me how some of them twist Bible verses up like a pretzel in order to justify their particular beliefs. Most Evangelicals, who start with the premise that the Bible is the inerrorant word of G-d, have come to similar conclusions to what I have.
>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 disagree, the problem is Human Evil which grows out of our sinful nature, which is why the World's condition continues to deteriorate. This deterioration has been dramatically accelerated is the last 100+ years because of the efforts of a group of people who are promoting their religion, Secular Humanism. They took over the educational system and began miss educating one generation after another.
I cannot change anyones mind about their beliefs. I can tell you what wonderfulDr. Storms quotes a poorly written article in the " Nation" , an AP/CBS interest
You have to understand Ed, that the main stream media is bias against us. If you want to hear the other side of the argument, I'd like to recommend that you listen to a speech given by Judge Roy Moore. I'll arrange for you to listen to it if you want to.
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.
Modern history books which were written by people who are suffering from the brain disease of Liberalism. In 1890 the Supreme Court issued a decision on the matter, after ten years of study, they concluded that America was a Christian Nation.
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.
That is the conclusion that most Evangelicals have reached. This conclusion is based on studying the Bible starting with the premise that it is the inerrorant word of G-d.
Perhaps the greatest hindrance to the advancement of science is the habit of lying to oneself, not to others.
Yourself is the very worst person that you can lie to. `
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 le who suggest that the system is broken?
This thread has delved into Natural Philosophy which is the basis of science.
Perhaps answers to these questions can not be given. In which case, I apologize for the bother.
Regards. Ed StormsRichard
It's been a marvelous chance to vent.
