Bill Snedden

Perhaps its "unpopularity" is due in part to its falsity.

Few of the men we recognize today as "founding fathers" were Christians. However, even if they were, their creation of the first amendment makes it quite clear that they had no intention of creating a "Christian nation".

Frankly, I've always found it somewhat amusing that many Christians insist that Democracy is somehow ordained by their god when their entire worldview is essentially one of a totalitarian dictatorship.

While there is some debate over Washington's beliefs (the evidence is mixed; however, if he was Christian, he was most likely not orthodox), all available evidence indicates that Franklin, Adams, & Jefferson were Deists, NOT Christians.

See the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/index.shtml" target="_blank">church-state section</a> of the SecWeb library for references and details if you're interested.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

waxm

Deputy- anger, while a natural emotion isn't usually viewed as being the best human emotion nor is it beneficial in most cases. anger leads to vengeance and reprisals.

Wax- Perhaps true, but anger does have its place. Frustration may have been a better word to use.

Deputy- no two people see the same event....
the mere fact that there are different accounts of the same event hardly prove that event did not occur.

Wax- Yes I totally agree. But the problem for Christianity is this: If the Bible is nothing more than a personal impression of what might have occured, then your faith is based on mans interpritation of events, and not devine inspiration.
Susan Atkins truely believed that Charlie Manson was a God, so she did as he asked her to.
Is that how we should view Christians as well then?
In your version of events, you would have us believe that because there was a burrial chamber, and because the body of Jesus was not there, then God must exist and if we don't worship him, we will suffer for an eternity of pain and damnation.
I would say that because the witnesses don't agree, we can not come to a conclusion.

Deputy- everyone knows this feeling after coming home from college and mom and dad and everyone around treat you like a 5 year old.

Wax- Really?
Imagine being the little sister of Jesus, you don't think that her mother might have mentioned that her brother was the son of God?
Maybe it would have come up at supper? "Why can't you be more like your brother? The holy son of God over there. You know, we are only rich because when he was born, three great kingly wise men showered us with gold and expensive spices, we didn't get anything for having you!"
One would think that it would be the talk of the town, yet you would have us believe that his own family would not be informed, that his life would have been normal after such an event.

Deputy- i don't know

Wax- And that is my point, no one does. Yet Christians would have us believe that faith can be obtained by ignoring the obvious, and pretending the impossible.

Deputy- i agree this scripture is freaky. i wont insult your intellect, i don't know what these mean. although i read the bible, i am by no means a scholar as you are.....its why i started this thread

Wax- Then why would you attack non-believers for being uninformed?
If I accuse someone of something publicly, it is my responsibility of knowing what I'm talking about.

Deputy- im sure you realize women the world over were considered subordinate 2000 years ago.

Wax- Sure I do! But then we come to the same point in the formation of your faith.
If Paul was simply spewing out uninformed opinion based on his contemporary culture, then he was not receiving any devine messages from God to base his writings on.
If one portion of the Bible is unreliable as the devine word of God, then all parts are subject to skeptical review.
If your arguement is correct, then Christians don't have a leg to stand on.
And claims such as the existance of God, or even Jesus himself, are no different than any other religion.
In fact, one could say with confidence that there is more evidence of abduction by alien spacecraft, or the existance of such monsters as the Loch Ness Moster, or bigfoot, than there is of God.

Hondo

Why disagree (bash is way to harsh) with Christians? Would it be because of the garbage you expect us to swallow?

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, practically perfect being in everyway would not need us.

2. This perfect being had his first creations go bad. An obvious argument against perfection.

3. The loving god of the bible, then proceeds to curse all of his creations for the rest of time. That's true love for you!

4. This loving god proceeds to drown all of his creations except for a chosen (perfect few?)

5. Even after destroying mankind in the flood, he still doesn't get things right. So his chosen people must travel the desert and suffer untold degradations, while at the same time enjoying God's support forrape and mass murder(the parts about the women and children are especially loving).

6. Despite all his perfect intentions his beautiful creation is still all fucked up so he decides to sacrifice himself. Ah the horror an all everything God sacrifices himself. Wow.

7. Now god has given his children a new message, a new covenant, yet this new message horrifies his chosen people. Imagine being a jew in the supposed time of Jesus when he proclaimed all of the things he did, that were diametrically opposed to all they had known from their bible. There was no way god's chosen people could support his new ways.

8. On top of god's self sacrifice, he comes up with a wonderful new concept, eternal damnation, HELL. How lovingly beautiful.

9. So to summarize: perfection creates imperfection, perfection kills off the imperfection, that doesn't work so perfection kills perfection, and just in case that doesn't work, perfection will torture your imperfect ass (that he created and loves) for eternity.

You ask us to ride on the side of your beautiful loving God?

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Deputy42:
<strong>this passage shoots to the heart of the roles of men and women. paul instructs women to ask their husbands instead of speaking out in church not because paul was a mysogenist, but because asking for spiritual advice from other men publicly would speak ill of the guidance and knowledge of the women's husband.</strong>

I'm curious - what would happen if the woman's husband also did not know the answer to a question she asked? Would she then be allowed to ask for advice publicly, or would she have to wait until the husband asked the teacher and the information was passed down the chain of command, so to speak?

What if a woman didn't have a husband (or a father)?

<strong>of course you know that men are called to be the leaders by bible, not only for themselves but for their families. </strong>

What does "called to be the leaders by the bible" mean, exactly? Are you saying that verses such as 1 Timothy 2:12 ("And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence") are justified?

Deputy42

d-again the inspiration of the passage i think was entirely positive. it is a unique situation, because it shoots directly to the roles of the sexes. in that tradition, and in many other cultures man is the leader. admittedly, there are other cultures where women own property, hunt, do the physical labor, but this was not that culture. i will agree that a belief in christianity tends to breed a strong ethnocentric ethic and perspective. ultimately however, the law of moses serves only as a background and cultural roadmap for the emergence of christ. the son of god appearing out of nowhere without a cultural context would be meaningless and impotent.

st. paul aside from being a saint and writer of 14 books of the bible is ultimately a man. all men are to some extent defined by the culture in which they live. as such, paul was not perfect, nor would it be reasonable to assume that he would be omniscient or talk about computers. does that mean that a teaching aimed at increasing the order and peace in the church is not inspired by god?

Deputy42

god is referred to as the father. jesus was a man. in this tradition males are the teachers and the sources of enlightenment. whether you agree or not, the stance is consistent. i know i'm going to get into trouble here but i will continue

men plant a seed, and women incubate that seed. neither would function without the other, but the sower always intiates any seed/field relationship, at least symbolically. in the same way men are called to be leaders in that a man and woman form one flesh. the relationship between parents and offspring and that of husband and wife can be thought along parallel lines.

god and christ are equall, in fact one. in revelation christ is depicted as the lamb, or a sacrifice to the father. the lamb drains its life and gives of its body for the sake of mankind(children of god??). it can be taken much farther but i think you all see the point.

this form of monotheism is a pretty consistent method of thought. if you don't believe in thought, then go chill out with shiva. its almost that time anyway

Tomije

I'm still fairly new to this message board, and I find catching up with all the posts in all the threads to be a major pain in the ass. I've done my best to read what everyone had had to say in this thread. So forgive me, if I tread old ground on my way to new ground.

Why Bash Christians?

Clearly, the topic starter is a Christian. I would argue that a topic grounded in reality would be "Why Bash Atheists?"

Polls have been conducted in this country (the US) that clearly show that there are some folks who are more likely to be elected to the office of the Presidency. Groups in front of Atheists: Jews, Black Men, Women, Black Women. The list goes on and on. Lord help you if you are a Black Women Atheist.

And yet, Christians are being bashed? There has never been a Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem, or Atheist Senator or Governor. Who is being repressed? We've had exactly one non-Protestant President, and that was Kennedy (whose daddy bought him the election, for heaven's sake).

Get real. If you are Christian and you feel you are being bashed in America in any way, you have no idea what the real world has to offer, in terms of being "bashed". Atheists will never tell you that you are doomed for not believing what they believe. Christians do it all the time. I've been told, to my face, that I was going to hell, for doubting the whole Adam and Eve claptrap.

Christians are bashed? They like to think so. They do get off on the whole persecuted notion. But they never live up to their ideals. Our President is a devout Christian, and he sanctioned more death penalties than any other governor is history. That doesn't sound like turn the other cheek to me.

So, Christians who support the death penalty are obvious hypocrites. Christians who make money from human suffering are obvious hypocrites. Like every religion, the followers of the founder have failed the teachings.

Buddhists have failed Buddha; Jews haved failed Abraham. But only Christians don't feel bad about failing their teachings. There are Christians who support the Death Penalty. That doesn't make sense, period.

phlebas

As this topic doesn't have much to do directly with the existence of God, it's been moved to Misc. Pers. Complexes.

(Oops! Sorry. Typo. I meant Misc Religion Discussions.)

sighhswolf

I submit these quotes for your consideration,

He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
-Thomas Jefferson

"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 blind-folded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
-- Thomas Jefferson

It is a false assumption that because of religious
persecution by the church of England, our ancestors created this nation as "christian".
Our forefathers first came here to establish a nation free from religious persecution.
To establish a nation without a "State Religion"
does not mean to establish a nation of christians.
Please read Thomas Paine, James Madison and others
who we part of the creation of a new nation.
The mandate that the forefathers made was that
there would be no formal state sanctioned religion
in the US. Congress can make no laws favoring religion in any way or favoring one religion over another.
Read the treaty of tripoli.
Wolf

hezekiah jones

That is irrelevant to whatever point you're trying to make, since, like many amateur christian historians of America, you're confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. It's astounding that all you disciples of David Barton continue to perpetrate this sophomoric error. But you're right: The Constitution has nothing to do with the Bible.

The U.S. Constitution: READ THE FREAKING THING! (Read some Supreme Court decisions while you're at it.)

So what? That's irrelevant. There is a prohibition on religious tests in the Constitution. The meaning of that particular clause, unlike certain others, is unequivocal. The Establishment Clause is also unequivocal, despite christian apologists' attempts to interpret it as allowing certain actions by Congress. "No Law" means "No Law."

What? Descartes was a rationalist; Locke an empiricist. These are two distinct strands in Western thought. Aside from his epistemology, Locke wrote two treatises on government. The first is a lengthy repudiation of the so-called divine right of kings. The second has to do with natural rights, property, and modern democratic principles. Yes, it influenced Jefferson greatly. It's got nothing to do with either the Bible or Christ.

Haha! What would make the Bible archaic then? And which parts of the Bible were "written" by 2000 BCE, pray tell? Not even the !!!!!Extreme Teen Bible!!!!! places the authorship of Genesis at such an early date.