brighid

Deputy -

Here are a few quotes from our founding fathers and it is quite clear what they desired, even if some were Christian the Constitution and the Bill of Rights passed and is the law of the land. One that has been the example for many other countries who have modeled their own laws from this American model that states equality and freedom of and FROM religion.

I think you should study the writings of our Founding Fathers a bit more - even do some work on our 1st 10 Presidents - amazing how they felt about religion. Abe Lincoln's thoughts are an interesting read.

Our founding fathers and their beliefs on religion:

Thomas Paine:

<a href="http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm</a>
“It is by the exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in His works, and imitate Him in His ways. When we see His care and goodness extended over all His creatures, it teaches us our duty toward each other, while it calls forth our gratitude to Him. It is by forgetting God in His works, and running after the books of pretended revelation, that man has wandered from the straight path of duty and happiness, and become by turns the victim of doubt and the dupe of delusion.
Except in the first article in the Christian creed, that of believing in God, there is not an article in it but fills the mind with doubt as to the truth of it, the instant man begins to think. Now every article in a creed that is necessary to the happiness and salvation of man, ought to be as evident to the reason and comprehension of man as the first article is, for God has not given us reason for the purpose of confounding us, but that we should use it for our own happiness and His glory.
The truth of the first article is proved by God Himself, and is universal; for the creation is of itself demonstration of the existence of a Creator. But the second article, that of God's begetting a son, is not proved in like manner, and stands on no other authority than that of a tale.
Certain books in what is called the New Testament tell us that Joseph dreamed that the angel told him so, (Matthew i, 20): "And behold the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
The evidence upon this article bears no comparison with the evidence upon the first article, and therefore is not entitled to the same credit, and ought not to be made an article in a creed, because the evidence of it is defective, and what evidence there is, is doubtful and suspicious. We do not believe the first article on the authority of books, whether called Bibles or Korans, nor yet on the visionary authority of dreams, but on the authority of God's own visible works in the creation.
The nations who never heard of such books, nor of such people as Jews, Christians, or Mahometans, believe the existence of a God as fully as we do, because it is self-evident. The work of man's hands is a proof of the existence of man as fully as his personal appearance would be.”

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Peter Carr
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/letter_to_carr.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/letter_to_carr.html</a>
4. Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor, in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature, does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates. For example, in the book of Joshua, we are told, the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said, that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time gave resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, and the second by exile, or death "in furea"....
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.html</a>

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

Letter to the Danbury Bishops
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Independent articles
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html</a>

Brighid

brighid

Here is a very intersting piece I came across a while ago that goes to the heart of the Christian nation nonesense. I unfortunately did not save the link to it - but I hope it helps educate you a bit: It's a bit lengthy but a very valuable read.

February 23, 2001
Dear Mr. So-and-So,
First I’d like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to write me about my column concerning President Bush’s faith-based program funding. This is an issue that has captured quite a bit of national attention lately, and with good reason. Mr. Bush has boldly gone where no president has heretofore dared to go, and while I believe that he has done so in a blatant attempt to promote his own religion, I was delighted to read that members of minority religions also intend to apply for the funding. It will be interesting to see if they are successful.
I feel that a letter into which so much time and thought were invested deserves a reply, and I wish to address your comments in the order in which you wrote them for ease in reading. I hope this is acceptable to you.

The Early Founders
Let’s start with your assertion that this country was founded as a Church Relocation Project. Firstly, Jamestown, which was the first colony of English-speaking Europeans on this continent, was settled in 1609 for trade, NOT religious freedom. And while you’ll get no argument from me that SOME (actually less than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620) of the Pilgrims came to this land seeking religious freedom (sound familiar? We’re STILL seeking it, aren’t we?), these folks aren’t really known as the "Founding Fathers" since they didn’t establish the current form of government as we know it. In fact, if I recall my junior high school history lessons correctly, the early colonies remained under the yoke of England until the Revolutionary War.

The Founding Fathers
When I hear the term "Founding Fathers," I think of men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison and—of course—George Washington. Certainly Patrick Henry played his part, and along with the quote you cited in your letter, he also said, "That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."
George Washington

Regarding George Washington and Deism: apparently, fundamentalist Christians have relied heavily upon the word of one Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who not only invented the cherry tree myth but also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity. Washington belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But apparently this was practically required if one wished to advance in the world of politics (rather like the situation today). Mr. Washington once said, "Every man conducting himself as a good citizen and being accountable to God (NOT Jesus-mm) alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." On pg. 82 of his book Washington and Religion, Paul F. Boller, Jr., quotes a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green, another Presbyterian minister who had known Mr. Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green "Often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."

Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison and Paine
John, though you quote Daniel Webster regarding the "religious character of our nation," I can only wonder if you have read the words of the TRUE Founding Fathers, most of who worked to draft the Constitution under which our country operates today.

Thomas Jefferson said these things about Christianity:
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
"I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor."
And, one of my personal favorites: "No man can conform his faith to the dictates of another."
John Adams said:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
"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."

And then he signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which stated: "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;"

Benjamin Franklin, another esteemed Founder, wrote:
"Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist."

"I have found the Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

James Madison spoke more truly than anyone realized when he said:
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?"
No doubt in this day and age he would have amended that statement to include other religions as well.

Thomas Paine simply wanted nothing at all to do with religion:
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
I’ll bet he’s spinning in his grave over Mr. Bush’s "faith-based program" funding!

Revisionism
So, in view of the above statements made by the men who crafted our country’s Constitution and Bill of Rights and helped shape the nation, exactly who is the revisionist? The Christian who states with no evidence at all that this is a "Christian nation," or the literal historian, who knows better? After all, history speaks for itself---as it always has---and as the saying goes, those who do not learn from it are doomed to repeat it. I personally believe that religious wars can never be won; a quote I read recently said "the world will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." True, it’s a little extreme, but it makes one think.

Naturally, anyone who tries to say that the Holocaust never happened doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. But then, neither does the person who says that the earth is flat.

The ACLU
So-and-So, whether or not you care to admit it, the ACLU is there for your protection as well as everyone else’s. The alternative to their promoting separation of church and state is to allow religious tyranny to perpetuate in this country. Think about what you’re saying for a moment. Let’s say that you, a Christian, have a Jewish boss who doesn’t happen to like your religion. One day he decides he’s had enough of looking at your cross necklace, or maybe he hears you talking with another Christian co-worker about what happened in church last Sunday. Bam! He fires you. In a country without the ACLU, you’d be nothing more than just another sad statistic in the long history of religious discrimination. Believe it or not, this happens every day; but as long as the ACLU exists, they’re there to protect ALL people of ALL races and religions. I hope they last as long as bigotry and discrimination does!

Separation of Church and State
Naturally, this phrase gets religious people in a huff because it’s true that it is not in the Constitution. However, when we read the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," we can see that the clear intent was to prevent government not only from establishing a religion, but also from endorsing any. It’s just a shame that they didn’t add the word "endorse" to the sentence.

President Bush’s faith-based program funding initiative
Every member of every "minority" religion in this country knows that his or her religion is not even going to come close to Christianity in the amount of funds received. Since Christianity has the largest number of followers of any of the religions practiced in this country, this is to be expected. Unfortunately, it’s also the reason why this plan is so flawed. Since tax dollars (a.k.a. government funds) are to fund these programs, it amounts to no less than government endorsement of religion.

In addition, the faith-based groups will have license to practice discrimination based upon religion, and to also demand that anyone receiving their services attend religious services and/or participate in prayers regardless of whether or not the person is a member of that religion.

Religion and Morality
In your letter, you express the opinion that this country needs to get back its moral compass that once made us a GREAT NATION (gee, I thought we still were!) I presume that you intend this statement to mean that we should adopt Christianity as our national religion. Also, aside from my arguments above, I would also like to point out that despite misguided opinions to the contrary, religion is NOT the author or even the foundation of morality, nor can it be assumed that one cannot exist without the other. There are many religious people with the morals of an amoeba as well as many non-religious people who lead exemplary lives, and I believe that environment and upbringing have a lot more to do with that than religion ever could.

Regarding your comment that this country is paralleling the Roman Empire: aside from the fact that they were a lot more barbaric than we are, you may just have a point there; after all, the rise of Christianity was the beginning of the end for Rome. Even more reason to keep it out of our government!

"One Nation Under God"
Was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress at the instigation of President Eisenhower in 1954. Though I understand he was a pretty good leader, he was no Founding Father, and has often been criticized for altering the Pledge in this manner (sorry, I just had to set the record straight on this!)

Evolution: State Religion?
I am a proud former attendee of public school, as are my husband and two children. I can say absolutely that I do not recall any discussion whatsoever in any of my science or history classes about evolution OR creationism, and they have said the same thing. The scientific method, yes, but not evolution.

I will say that even if schools today DO teach evolution, it is probably presented only as theory and not fact. I’m sure that this is probably not the case in churches that teach creationism to their Sunday school classes, even though there is less proof of THAT theory being fact than evolution, (but then again, their stock-in-trade is faith).

By the way, you mention that you desire "proof" that evolution is a valid theory. An Internet article on that very subject just came to my attention. The URL is: <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/534127.asp?cpl=1" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/534127.asp?cpl=1</a>

Conclusion
If you’ve stuck with me for the duration of this little article, I thank you for your time. A great part of my life is spent in writing and Z’Fax is not the only forum for it. I have been a freedom fighter and activist for years, because I believe that, as Thomas Jefferson said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Long ago I vowed that I would never, ever cease fighting any and all attempts by religion (and I mean any religion) to integrate itself into government.
Thanks again for writing and for reading my column in Z’Fax. I appreciate your input.
Mrs. Monitor

Brighid

2tadpoles

Deputy, I'd just like to say that paragraphs and capital letters are a GOOD thing. Your posts are very hard on the eyes.

brighid

DEPUTY -

Please rest assured that a majority – I would say an overwhelming majority of the atheists, agnostics and skeptics that frequent this forum, discuss and argue the points of religion, specifically Christianity have studied the Bible in depth. I would also say that in most cases the atheists, etc. have studied the Bible more thoroughly than the majority of Christians in this nation or any other. We have studied its history and those of the civilizations at the time of each books creation. We have studied its languages and we are lucky to have members who understand the Greek and Hebrew quite well. We have taken the Bible apart bit by bit and examined it as objectively as possible. Most of us did so in an attempt to find Christianity correct, but instead found it to be utterly lacking in moral fiber and often time absolutely repulsive in its moral dictates. Many of us possess multiple copies of the Bible in different translations and most of us were indoctrinated into Christianity from birth and are all too familiar with its creeds, dogmas and traditions. We examine the Bible the same way we examine other historical texts from any culture of civilization. We do our best to be objective even though most of us harbor resentment toward the religion that in so many cases has abused our human dignity. Still, we are vigilant in our quest for the truth even when this puts us at odds with society, causes us to suffer discrimination and sometimes, even violence.

We are not fools nor do we lack a substantial knowledge of the Bible or of Christianity. We have done a thorough and often times exhaustive search in an attempt to find a speck of truth or originality within the alleged “divinely inspired texts” of the Bible and we find it sorely lacking. Even though there is some lovely poetry within the Bible and some points that are compatible with the respect of each beings dignity and equality we cannot accept it as divine and must disregard volumes of it in order to be in sync with our own consciences and our moral character.

We find it unfortunate that so many others fail to apply such stringent standards to their own quests for truth and beauty. However, this is not the failing of the atheist, the agnostic, the free thinker or the skeptic. It is the failing of those who seek truth with blinders on and who have been taught from birth not to question, to have faith and simply believe even when it goes against all reason.

If this path in the pursuit of truth brings us to a point where we cannot believe in your myths or adhere to your dogmas and traditions then it is the will of your god. Although it is our own will to do so.

I have had discussions in many Christian and Catholic forums and none of those forums allow for the freedom of dissention or questioning of their beliefs. After a while one is banned and if you desire to see bashing, allow an atheist to openly discuss issues in one of your forums and see what happens.

Certainly, Christianity takes a beating in this forum but if Christianity is true it then must withstand any barrage of reasoning or falsity. If it falters or crumbles under the examination of logic, reason, science, and history then it proves itself to be false.

In closing I provide you with the words of Robert Ingersoll. I encourage you to take the time to examine the wealth of knowledge available in the library of this forum. It will educate you aptly in the views of atheism so that you can purge yourself of the ill conceived notions you may hold, as taught by Christianity and allow you the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding and respect for 27 million Americans (and many more in our Global Community) thereby bringing you closer to the principles of compassion and love (thy neighbor as thy self) that your beloved Savior professes to be necessary for a good Christian life:

You may ask, and what of all this? I reply: As with everything in Nature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each reader. Is then, the Bible a different book to every human being who reads it? It is. Can God, then, through the Bible, make the same revelation to two persons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who reads it is the man who inspires. Inspiration is in the man, as well as in the book. God should have "inspired" readers as well as writers.
You may reply, God knew that his book would be understood differently by each one; really intended that it should be understood as it is understood by each. If this is so, then my understanding of the Bible is the real revelation to me. If this is so I have no right to take the understanding of another. I must take the revelation made to me through my understanding, and by That revelation I must stand. Suppose, then, that I do read this Bible honestly, carefully, and when I get through I am compelled to say, "The book is not true!"

Respectfully,

Brighid

CX

I generally have little interest in such discussions since my participation at II is pretty much limited to BC&A on academic points of interest WRT text criticism of the NT. That being said you make a number of assumptions here which you should examine. I am an atheist and an agnostic. I have read NT in its inentirety in English and done a fair amount of lexical work with the Greek texts. So I have "read the freaking thing". I've read it both as a believer and as an unbeliever. The more I read it the more convinced I am of the truth of my position. It is a common ploy amongst the faithful to assert that one has read with a rebellious heart and having read has nonetheless not understood. Certainly there are scriptural references for this. Even so the argument does not hold up. I understand perfectly what the bible says most of the time (some extremely difficult readings in the greek are troublesome for even the most knowledge expert of Xianity and Koine Greek). I know that I have understood because my own exegesis agrees with that of religious scholars far more capable than myself who are for the most part believers.

In addition my atheism did not come primarily, at first anyway, from some misunderstood bible verse. It came first and foremost from my observation of how the world seems to work coupled with years of amateur study of comparitive religion, ancient word history and science. When I began to really question god's existence I decided to, with an open heart and mind, study what the bible had to say in earnest including taking the time to gain a rudimentary understanding of Koine Greek so I could, with the help of a good concordance and lexicon as well as a mentor lettered in the study of biblical languages, read the texts in their original language. What I found was not the fingerprint of god inspiring man, but rather cultural mythmaking of human origin not startingly dissimilar from other cultures I have studied. It is naive and foolish to suggest that as rule atheists have not read the bible. Most have and in many cases more studiously and critically than most believers. My father is in his 3rd year of seminary and yet knows very little of the Greek texts or the text critical problems (like the synoptic problem) studied by mainstream biblical scholars because he like many Xians is not interest in critical study of the bible, but in fostering and nuturing his own faith (and the faith of those he ministers to).

Lastly your comment about using a study bible is on point, but that alone is insufficient. Most study bibles are published by people with a particular theological point of view not terribly amenable to dispassionate study. One is better off with a good English translation, a concordance, a lexicon of NT Greek and an interlinear as well as careful reading of a few good commentaries and/or intro texts (like those by Udo Schnelle and Raymond Brown). Better still is to get a good critical text with a robust textual apparatus like UBS4 or NA27. A careful study of the history of the canon and early Xianity might also be in order for anyone interested in finding real answers.

MortalWombat

Even if you assume this is correct, what does it say about the fact that the words "God", "Christ", "Christian", or "bible" are to be found NO WHERE in the constitution whatsoever? I find it very telling that whatever the beliefs of the founders and writers of the constitution, they felt it necessary to leave Christianity completely out of the constitution.

Ron Garrett

Point taken that this text is a relatively minor difficulty. I have also seen it mentioned here almost not at all. On the other hand I have seen a lot of text here critiqued in good order and with a high degree of sound scholarship that outside of academia I see very little among Christians, who are almost universally ignorant of their own scriptures and history. No one reads the Bible with more unfounded preconceptions than an American Evangelical Christian of college age in my experience. As to "rebellious spirits" you essentially mean that anyone that thinks your supersitition is plainly nonsense is not doing so from honest evaluation, but either out of evil hostility toward your god, your religion or its adherents. But many here, myself for one, have been devoted Christians active in ministry, and fomrally trained, for more years than you have been alive.

I came to my conclusions through years of study, personal and academic, including a conservative but academically rigorous seminary, and practical exeperience in the pulpit. Your assumption that anyone that diasagrees with your beliefs is ignorant, uninformed or spiritually tainted is offensive, arrogant, naieve, and perhaps wishful thinking. In any case, your question regarding hostility toward your faith is best answered by reading your words. Most Christians of my acquaintance take a smorgasboard approach to the text, see a passage they think is potentially useful, immediately judge its meaning incorrectly, and go from there to using the passage as a proof-text for abusing their fellow Christians and making unprovoked attacks on their fellow citizen's character and moral worth. I submit that if you had studied the "freaking thing" with all the earnestness you encourage, we would not be having this exchange. Actually many study Bibles present some of the most apologetic and academically indefensible views of scripture and Christian history on the market today. I would recommmend an academic overview of the New Testament first before delving into the propaganda for the faithful that comprises the bulk of the resources in Thompson's, Ryrie and other "Study Bibles." Spare us. Your post was offensive, dismissive, insulting and patronizing. I realize this passes for love among many Christians in their interactions with skeptics and one another, but most of us here have a higher standard than the god of Numbers 31.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Does your god have the characteristics of a "father" - namely a penis and testes? As for Jesus being a man, he couldn't have accomplished much in a patriarchal culture were he a woman. I'm afraid that "this tradition" is a tradition of suppressing women, not so much a tradition of upholding men as the Fountains of All Knowledge.

Consistent with the subjugation of women, yes. And for the flimsiest of pretexts - namely "our god is male, therefore all males are more qualified than females".

I'm curious. If your god described Itself as female (and perhaps had a daughter), would that automatically mean that all women were better qualified than men to be teachers?

Actually, women add genetic material of their own (carried in eggs) and also a large quantity of mitochondria before "incubating" the egg. In other words, women do a great deal more.

And this analogy applies to real life how? Are you saying that men always initiate sex?

"In that a man and a woman form one flesh" - does this mean that if a woman is not married, she doesn't have to be led by a man? She can do her own thing, perhaps ask questions in church?

Do you believe that men have the (divine) right to tell their wives what to do, just as parents have that right with their children? What happens if husband and wife do not agree on something? Is it always the wife who has to give in?

No; please elaborate what the "sacrifice" of your god has to do with the equality of men and women.

Yes, consistently outdated.

What is that supposed to mean? How can one not believe in thought?

"Almost that time"? Is that a reference to the end times? People have been talking about the approaching end times for over 2000 years - there's another consistency in your belief.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Deputy42

all apologies to those of you who have read and studied the bible. i am very new to these forums and wasnt aware of the extent of scholarship here. The purpose of this thread was just to probe some of your minds regarding the subject. obviously you have reasons for being atheists, i was curious. the last thing i wanted was to come off insulting dismissive patronizing or offensive. i must say however that many posts are very angry in nature.

regarding the "dont believe in thought" i'm sure you all know about other traditions, being scholars, and as such i was making a reference to yogic traditions. it seems that excessive argument leads to more anger and misunderstanding. the truth very often only comes to me during stillness, where thought ceases. if one were to not believe in thought, he would go into the woods and live as a yogi. (sounds like fun )

i knew talking about the roles of men and women would be dangerous given the fourm. i'll try to clarify. most asuredly, if we grew up in a female dominated society and religion, women would be leaders and spiritual advisors.

the main problem with symbology is that it is largely subjective. the point of the discussion here was only to provide insight into pauls dictate that women not talk in church. it was a sign of the culture of the times, not proof of the falibility of the bible, imo.

again, apologies to those whom i have offended in anyway.

Queen of Swords

Dangerous how? Do you feel in danger right now? I don't.

And this would be no less unjust if women tried to prevent men from becoming teachers and leaders (as Paul is doing in the bible, and as you are defending). Or do you consider such sexual discrimination fair?

Then could many of the dictates of the bible be regarded as "signs of the culture of the times", rather than instructions as to how we are to behave now, or what we are to believe now?

And are you going to address my comments on your approach to the biology of men and women, i.e. the man plants the seed, the woman incubates it?

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>