Cerran

Yeah if it didn't come directly from the bible and I'm not sure what it stands for, or don't like what it stands for it comes from Satan. The fundamentalists movement would have all the basic freedoms given to us from the constituion taken from us if they could. There is nothing worse to a fundamentalist than to have someone question their belief structure, even if the person is another christian. Funny in a way. I never said this country wasn't founded on some Christian princilples shared with their ideals, but the idea that the founding fathers sponsered christianity is absurd. You are allowed to worship what you believe (as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same) and I sure hope it stays that way. Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity. Religion in the U.S. was meant to be a personal choice not one forced upon you by the government. Elect someone who will keep it that way. You want to convert followers? Do it the old fashioned way, talk with people about your faith.

Of course I believe that Jesus is the savior, but I'm not a noodlehead who thinks that everything not the bible in this world is the work of satan and trying to pull me from my faith. A truly faithful person can study science, history, and other religions and beliefs without fear of being pulled away from their faith. I have my faith, now I seek knowledge that my faith cannot provide in this life. Grow up people and start to think for yourselves for a change, the savior Jesus isn't about absolutism in everything else, you let Jesus into your heart and that is what matters. Study his teachings and the gospels, but also don't ignore the wealth of other information around you. The scriptures covers a very narrow period of history and the King James bible that most everyone uses is very poorly translated from the original text. Does it matter that I believe that it is possible for some potions of the scritures to be innaccurate? Not really if I still believe in the savior. After all we will all know the truth at some point. And Einstein was right.

May I remind you that Galileo was also doing "the work of Satan" 300 years ago because he found something fundamentalists thought was in conflict with the bible. Turns out Galileo was right after all.

Thank you for making my point for me. When people use this attitude not only will they almost never convert christian followers but they go directly against the way Jesus taught to covert people into followers. Jesus used gentle teachings to show the truths behind Christianity. I think as a person I can learn to appreciate his view of the world and the peaceful approach. While I think peaceful approaches do not work in many cases I can admire his idealism. As a christian I can speak with him about my views and explain them to him. But to automatically say he is doing thw work of satan is downright dumb in my opinion. To say he is doing the work of Satan reeks of a narrow minded view of the christian faith. Which is what I consider fundamentalism. Remember nother matters beyond taking Jesus into your heart as the one true savior. All else is irrelavant in the grand scheme of things. The truth will be revealed no in this lift but in the hereafter with God.

Many of the sites that have been linked are Fundamentalist propaganda and if you talk to any untainted scholar they will tell you that the founding fathers had no intention of allowing religion into government. There are numerous quotes from the founding fathers that point out that none of them believed that the fundamentalist christian movement was good for america. In fact most of the founding fathers were Unitarians or Diests. That linked article about the treaty of tripoli had a distictly fundamentalist slant on the interpretation. It pains me to see people rationalize fundamentalism and use the bible, twisting it their own ends. When you do this you end up with people who can't think for themselves and end up commiting unspeakable acts like firebombing clinics who perform abortions, the KKK, militant groups and other home grown terrorists.

To post that the Dalai Lama is a threat to christianity and is going to summon evil spirits is nuts. The Dalai lama may not share our beliefs but he's hardly a threat to christians. In fact I'd consider him to be one of the most spiritual people on the face of the planet. He works through non-violence trying to resolve the terrible injustices that were forced on his people by china. I may not share his views but I respect his character and his method of working. No wonder people hate fundamentalists. They give the rest of us a bad name.

I admit that is a problem but until they prove it was Al Queda I think it's too early to make that argument. Spain should do what they feel is in their best interest no more no less.

Question for Dad: What "Conservative Heritage" are you referring to? If he appoints Judges that will initiate changes for the better rather than keeping the status quo I far prefer that. Look at the positive changes for racial equality that have taken place over the past 30 years spurred by "Liberal Judges" This country was founded on the ideal that religion and state are to be divided because having religion involved in the state causes major problems. (Take a look at history and the Middle east, I can cite specific examples if you want) The founding fathers wanted nothing to do with a state sponsored religion because they saw the probelms it has cause across europe and wanted to avoid the same trap. Fundamentalist christians waged unceasing war through europe during the middle ages because the religion was tied to governments. They saw religion to be a personal choice to be seperated from the government, and I agree with them. While I believe in the salvation of Jesus and my obligation to bring it to people willing to listen, I have no right to force it on anyone either. If gays want to get married I don't agree with it, but it's not my buisness based on the constitution to tell them otherwise. If you believe otherwise I suggest you take a look at the Consitution and the founding fathers again. I do not sponsor Euthenasia in any form. I do not believe Kerry stands for big government just because he's a democrat, in fact he wants to repeal the Patriot Act and that is a step in the right direction. I refer to the Treaty of Tripoli which was unanimously ratified (only the third time a vote was unanimous) in congress in 1797 by christians and non-christians alike: States in Article XI: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Very untrue a President can wage war for 60 days without approval from congress it's called a "military action". Vietnam was not an official war it was a military action. I agree, oust Bush and his lies, his systematic destruction of civil rights via the Patriot act and his lies to the American republic. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry but I like Bush even less. Bush was elected via electoral vote, but Gore won the popular vote, it has happened before in the past.

I don't believe that a flat tax system would work. The idea is to charge someone a propotional amount of tax to their cost of living compared to the poverty line. Take me for example I make as a mechanical engineer out of college with a wife and a son about ~35,000 per year. My living expenses, saving for retirement eat up about 28000 of that. I pay about 5,000 in taxes per year not including property tax and sales tax. if you were to remove 100% of my taxes the government would be out 5000 dollars but I would likely spend 4000 of that back into the economy. Now take the person making ~1,000,000 per year. Unless they are living so far above their means it's ridiculous I doubt their living expenses (non disposable income) exceeds $250,000 per year. If they pay 40% taxes that means they have $350,000 of disposable income to work with. It is likely that a small life crisis like needing major car repairs or medical bill would not be a problem for this person. However, for me making $35,000 per year it becomes a huge problem especially with a family. Taxing the person with 350 times the disposable income another 5% isn't going to hurt them as much as it hurts joe average making ends meet. Making a lot of money also comes with greater social responsibilty and I think this was the general idea behind taxing rich people more.

Question: How do you explain all the different versions of the bible over the past 1500+ years that can be historically tracked? They can't all possibly be right and be the infallible word of god.

The horrible thing is that the war in Iraq was based off a false premise. A lie is a lie and a good deed doesn't make it right. Bush lied about WMD, and lied about the intentions behind the war. Regardless of the outcome that makes him despicible in my mind. Spain is within their rights to pull their troops if they feel that the continuing occupation isn't worth it. I pray our troops remain safe and God willing come home safely.

Muslims never killed christians by the millions and I challenge you to provide proof of that with facts not supposition. In fact Islam was a very tolerant religion until some of the fanatical groups got involved and started corrupting their religion. You obviously have no idea about muslins and their beliefs. Sure some are violent but so are some christians. In many cases the christians in the crusades sacked christian cities and that is a fact. Christians in the crusades were invading the homeland of another group and claimed it was in the named of god, when in fact it was a war driven by economics and greed. Being a christian and a believer in god is a great thing but the minute you use it to justify killing you are no longer following the teachings of Jesus. Just take a look at the ten commandments and remember number six. Belief in god and Jesus is not an excuse for intolerance.

All religions can be corrupted from their original meaning. It has happened to christianity and is called the KKK. Islam has the Taliban and other sects and we even have people who bomb abortion clinics and kill people in the name of the lord. I think it is wise to study other religions because you can understand why they think the way they do. It gives you insight into other beliefs and prevents atrocities arisen from ignorance such as the crusades.

Another group of reasons why I believe the bible isn't the word of God. ...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... (Luke 3:23) According to Morris (Many Infallible Proofs p. 62) it is Jewish custom to consider one's father-in-law as a father, which would explain Joseph's two fathers. I find this somewhat lacking, however, because we see that the lineage converges further up at King David, which would indicate that Joseph and Mary were related. I've also heard that one of the lineages describes the line of Mary, while the other describes the line of Joseph. Strangely, though, they both end in Joseph. So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5) (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out...) (Acts 1:18) One reconciliation of these passages is that he tried to hang himself, but was unsuccessful, so he jumped off a cliff that was on his property. (Or that he hanged himself near a cliff, and the rope broke.) But the first passage doesn't say that he tried to hang himself, and mentions nothing of his body bursting open. Likewise, the second passage says that he fell head first in a field, not down a cliff. Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1) Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1) Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:12) Do not repay any one evil for evil. (Romans 12:17, likewise Matthew 5:39) I have heard the explanation that a person who is harmed should not harm another in return, but rather the community should serve the punishment. And the Romans commandment is for personal affairs, while Exodus is a community law. But the second passage makes no qualifications. I can think of another simple command: "...love your neighbor as yourself..." (Leviticus 19:18). Can this statement also be conditional? ... Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, ... (2 Samuel 21:19) .. Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, ... (1 Chronicles 20:5) Morris says, One possible solution to this problem would be to assume there were two giants named Goliath, one of whom was slain by David. The other was then slain by Elhanan, who also slew his brother. There were two Elhanans of Bethlehem (II Samuel 23:24), so why not two Goliaths of Gath? ... It has been argued very effectively by Old Testament scholars that the apparent discrepancy in this case with II Samuel 21:19 arose by a copyist's error in the latter. One other possibility, with some support in Jewish tradition, is that Elhanan was another name for David and Jair another name for Jesse. In any case, there is certainly no proof of a contradiction. (Morris Many Infallible Proofs pp. 225-226) Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46) When he received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:30) The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, ... (1 Corinthians 2:15) Therefore judge nothing... (1 Corinthians 4:5) Christian response: Finish the second quote "...before its appointed time." These two can be reconciled as, "The spiritual man judges all things, but not before their appointed time." They were also the chief officials in charge of Solomon's projects -- 550 officials supervising the men who did the work. (1 Kings 9:23) They were also King Solomon's chief officials -- two hundred and fifty officials supervising the men. (2 Chronicles 8:10) Factual Errors A bat is not a bird. Note that this isn't just an arbitrary classification that the Western and European world has created. A bat is a bird as much as a Cocker Spaniel is a cat. These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat (Leviticus 11:13-19) You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-17) Rabbits do not chew their cud (bring up previously swallowed food to chew). They do eat their own dung, but I have heard that there is a Hebrew word for that which would have been used if that was the meaning. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; ... (Leviticus 11:6) Insects, as part of their definition, have six legs. (Spiders are arachnids, not insects.) All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: ... Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper. (Leviticus 11:20-22) Snakes don't eat dirt. So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." (Genesis 3:14) Camels have split hooves. There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:4) However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [1] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7) The earth isn't stationary as once thought. ... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1) ... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5) Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12) Note that the first reference to "world" may mean "the way things are", and that in the last reference "earth" may mean "land". In the context the writer discusses clouds, winds, waters, and mountains, which seem to support this view. These passages were used by the Church to convict Galileo of heresy. The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?) ... he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12) After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, ... (Revelation 7:1) Oh Lord, ... to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth... (Jeremiah 16:19) ... and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11) The first quotation is rendered as "four corners" in the King James Version. I have heard that this is a mistranslation of the original Greek.

I believe god is an all powerful creator but I don't believe he meant the bible to be taken literally or he would have said so. The bible never claims to be the word of god. In fact the bible various so much from the orignial text found in the dead sea scrolls it's amazing. The King James version of the bible was assembled in the 1600's and leaves out some texts that were in the original works. And if the bible were written by god, it would have no contradictions like it does. I believe the bible to be an inspired work, but by it's very nature as being written by man it is fallible.

While I believe strongly in god and I believe the bible is generally a good account of history before and after th time of Jesus I refuse to believe it is the word of god. If it was meant to be the word of god he would have said so at the preface of the bible. I repeadely hear from fundamentalists poor unsubstantiated arguments of why things are and why the bible is right. The problem is, they never come up with a sound argument that isn't full of holes. At least with science they are willing to accept that their ideas are theories and subject to change as new information presents itself. I'm with James Madison when he said: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." To believe that the bible is without error and not subject to the whims of men who had an agenda is foolish at best. The bible is a great story and a good account of history but it is hardly the word of god. The teachings of Jesus are definitely worth reading, but much of the book is so contradictory it's not worth believeing that it's the word of god. As for your reply you are basing your knowledge off of a paltry 3000 years of written human knowledge. The theory Evolution on the grand scale takes tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. You are also forgetting that gene coding changes slightly with each animal that is born. If DNA were identical than every dog would be identical and they aren't. Again your argument doesn't hold water.

Your argument is based on absolutely no fact and in fact I can point out the fallacy in your argument using your example. If you start out with a breed of dog and slowly breed characteristics which are good for certain functions you are evolving the animal. As we know evolution is supposed to take place over thousands of years or more. So in that thousand years we have created several different variants of dogs that are good for doing different things. Terriers make good rat hunters because of their small stature and long snout, hounds make great tracking dogs because of their well deveolped sense of smell and greyhounds make great racing dogs because they are lean light and agile. People have evolved dogs from their original form to all the different variants of dogs you see now. That is evolution at work. Evolution is the changing of animals to adapt to their surroundings. You are not producing any facts here at all. At least make an attempt to back up your claims with specific examples. Where is it ever recorded that god puts limits on what animals can do?

Wrong, dogs haven't evolved as domesticated animals because there hasn't been a need to. Using dogs as an example against is wrong because the breeding has been largely human controlled to get characteristics they found desirable. Better find a better argument than that. "I admire people who seek the truth and fear people who claim to have found it"

Evolution from a scientific perspective is known to be factual. The evolution of man is debatable but we know with current data that animals adapt to their surroundings through biological changes over time and that is the basic crux of the theory of evolution. I pity people who say that evolution is without merit because the bible says it happened differently and here is why. "It is a dedication to the truth, that enables human progress. This is because humility is the basis of all intellectual advancement, spiritual or scientific. The ability to admit that you are wrong is the absolute prerequisite to gaining understanding. The presumption that the answer is revealed, and must then be supported by seeking evidence, is a sure way to lead civilization down the blind alley of arrogant egotism and the institutionalized error that prevented the Catholic church from admitting for three centuries that Galilleo was right about the sun being the center of the solar system, even though the church was obviously wrong and everyone knew it. I therefore call upon fundamentalists who read this to adopt that basic, fundamental prerequisite attitude for true learning and genuine scholarship -- the humility to be able to admit that you are wrong, and examine the evidence on the basis of its quality, rather than whether it fits your desired preconceptions. The Bible is not necessarily inerrant. It is not the exclusive, divine word of God, but rather is the product of more than five score writers, editors and translators, many quite unqualified for the work they were undertaking, many with conflicting objectives, each with a serious religious and/or political axe to grind. The church of which you are a part came into being largely by the fiats of a Roman emperor who knew and cared little about the religion his edicts were shaping. And the god Jehovah (or in the original form, Yahweh) you worship is directly descendant from Philistine and Babylonian pagan deities your own scripture now defames. To pretend otherwise is to make the same mistake the Catholic Church made with regards to Galileo. And you risk ending up looking just as foolish." - Taken from Scott Bidstrup The bible is a great book, teaches great lessons but by it's very nature is fallible being written by so many authors. to deny the theory of evolution solely on the basis of it differing from the bible is absolute lunacy. I consider myself a christian but I have never ascribed to the idea that the bible is the unfallible word of god. I believe in god but I also refuse to ignore evidence that is blatently obvious like so many fundamentalist christians tend to do. I believe in evolution and I think the theory of evolution is a work in progress. It has a lot of merit but is far from unfallible just as the bible is.