PDA

View Full Version : Pastor telling you who to vote for…



Snowman
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 07:58 AM
Churches to defy IRS on sermons (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/27/churches-to-defy-irs-on-sermons/)

If they do want to tell their congregations who to vote for I have no problem with their right to do so as long as they pay the admission price like the rest of us.

puckstr
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 08:01 AM
wow another reason to ride on Sunday instead of going to church.

Vance
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 08:20 AM
You've got to love the ongoing (if not escalating) hypocrisy of organized religious christian groups. I tell you ... the next American civil war will not be a class war or a race war... it will be a religious war. The psychotic self-involved and self-forgiving uber-conservative christian zealots who try to take over this country... against pretty much everyone else who is level headed and descent enough to understand the principles this country was founded on and stands for.

ANYWAY...

I for one would like to hear SOMEONE (maybe Biden in this week's VP debate) corner Palin on the fact she really believes people co-existed with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

Lets see how the masses of even the uninformed react to that stinky pile of pucks left by this (though I don't know how her brain generates enough intellectual capacity to actually produce the impulses to) walking bipedal poster-girl for stupidity of the GOP (or at least McCain).

Sortarican
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 08:49 AM
I talk to God all the time....she never told me how to vote.

puckstr
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 09:03 AM
Jeff tell her to STOP stalking me

Warren
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 11:23 AM
I don't have a problem with Churches telling there constituents how to vote. I do however have a problem with the idea that the government should legislate morality (unless it is in the publics best interest). I don't think that the government should be able to financially punish a non-profit group because they endorse a certain candidate.

MetaLord 9
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 11:38 AM
I don't have a problem with Churches telling there constituents how to vote. I do however have a problem with the idea that the government should legislate morality (unless it is in the publics best interest). I don't think that the government should be able to financially punish a non-profit group because they endorse a certain candidate.
I think it's more being seen as state is trying to uphold (although loosely) the seperation of church & state, but church, in this case, doesn't seem to be making the same effort.


You've got to love the ongoing (if not escalating) hypocrisy of organized religious christian groups. I tell you ... the next American civil war will not be a class war or a race war... it will be a religious war. The psychotic self-involved and self-forgiving uber-conservative christian zealots who try to take over this country... against pretty much everyone else who is level headed and descent enough to understand the principles this country was founded on and stands for.

ANYWAY...

I for one would like to hear SOMEONE (maybe Biden in this week's VP debate) corner Palin on the fact she really believes people co-existed with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

Lets see how the masses of even the uninformed react to that stinky pile of pucks left by this (though I don't know how her brain generates enough intellectual capacity to actually produce the impulses to) walking bipedal poster-girl for stupidity of the GOP (or at least McCain).

I think that once we start railing against a particular faith or sect because we disagree with their politics it's the beginning of the end. As a people, we seem to over look the fact that someone disagreeing with us doesn't make them any dumber than we are. It's easy to blame someone's personal differences for thier dissenting opinion, but once we start dismissing them and their beliefs purely because of those differences, we lower our tollerance for open debate and close ourselves to progress. I'm not saying that we should all get along because differing opnions are essential and debate is what makes the machine of government work. What I am saying is that just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them an idiot or their opinion any less valid than yours.

Snowman
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 12:13 PM
I don't have a problem with Churches telling there constituents how to vote. I do however have a problem with the idea that the government should legislate morality (unless it is in the publics best interest). I don't think that the government should be able to financially punish a non-profit group because they endorse a certain candidate.How is paying taxes punishment?

Captain Obvious
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 09:04 PM
I for one would like to hear SOMEONE (maybe Biden in this week's VP debate) corner Palin on the fact she really believes people co-existed with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

Lets see how the masses of even the uninformed react to that stinky pile of pucks left by this (though I don't know how her brain generates enough intellectual capacity to actually produce the impulses to) walking bipedal poster-girl for stupidity of the GOP (or at least McCain).


US population % by religion or none.


Christian: (78.5%) @218million

Protestant (51.3%)
Roman Catholic (23.9%)
Mormon (1.7%)
other Christian (1.6%)


unaffiliated (12.1%)
none (4%)
other or unspecified (2.5%)
Jewish (1.7%)
Buddhist (0.7%)
Muslim (0.6%)

So @ 78% of the U.S. believe in a Christian God.
Christian belief indicates at first there was nothing, then Adam and Eve and humans. It is mostly proven that Dinosaurs existed, therefore some version of cohabitation must of occurred. And if 78% of the population believe, then many of the Democratic Party also believe. Statistically there are about 3 Dems for every 2 registered Repubs, so the 78% means it is safe to eyeball at least half of the Dem party also believe in cohabitation. If they are true to their beliefs.

The Black Knight
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 09:41 PM
You've got to love the ongoing (if not escalating) hypocrisy of organized religious christian groups. I tell you ... the next American civil war will not be a class war or a race war... it will be a religious war. The psychotic self-involved and self-forgiving uber-conservative christian zealots who try to take over this country... against pretty much everyone else who is level headed and descent enough to understand the principles this country was founded on and stands for.

ANYWAY...

I for one would like to hear SOMEONE (maybe Biden in this week's VP debate) corner Palin on the fact she really believes people co-existed with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

Lets see how the masses of even the uninformed react to that stinky pile of pucks left by this (though I don't know how her brain generates enough intellectual capacity to actually produce the impulses to) walking bipedal poster-girl for stupidity of the GOP (or at least McCain).

Biden is a professed and devout Catholic, so like Palin he would also believe in Creationism.

And Vance what is there to corner someone on, especially when it's their own personal beliefs?? Whether or not she believes in Creationism has nothing to do with policy or legislation.

I for one believe the earth is roughly 6500 to 7000 years of age. I also believe that God created the dinosaurs and I also believe that man was around with the dinosaurs. So how you going to corner me?? It's my beliefs and that's that. You want to know why I believe the dinosaurs aren't around anymore? Noah's Flood, and I believe God destroyed them because of their immense size(they would be something very hard for a shriking mankind to deal with).

So there you have it, my answer to everything is the Bible, yours is Evolution and science. Poke, prod or just plain make fun of my beliefs if you will, doesn't matter and doesn't change my mind in the least.

And I hardly believe that Biden(if he's as devout as he says he is) will corner Palin on the whole "Creationism" thing. It's not like we're talking Atheist vs. Creationist, it's Catholic vs. Protestant. Two completely different situations.

As for Civil War 2.0, I partially agree. Though I believe it's going to be more of a class war with religion being a close second. Race isn't much of an issue(the first War was fought partly because of this)now.

And you say it's the "psychotic, self involved and self-forgiving uber conservative christian zealots who try to take over this country." Well isn't the radical over-dramatic immoral and heathenistic liberal left trying to achieve the same thing???

Warren
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 11:00 PM
How is paying taxes punishment?

Churches operate as a non-profit organization. I don't have a problem with pro-choice non-profit groups getting tax exempt status even though they get very involved in telling people how they should vote. I don't see why churches should lose their non-profit status for the same reason.

Warren
Mon Sep 29th, 2008, 11:03 PM
I also know for a fact that a lot of professing christians (although maybe not enough) don't give a shit how they are told to vote. They can think for themselves. Who cares what some pastor standing in front of his congregation tells them how to vote.

Shea
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 07:09 AM
It is mostly proven that Dinosaurs existed, therefore some version of cohabitation must of occurred.

<cough> what??? "Mostly proven", there's the understatement of the century...

Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. First hominid was around 3-3.6 million years ago, homosapiens about 200,000 years ago. There was no cohabitation, whatsoever.

...but then again we're all riding on the back of a giant turtle so what do I know...

Oh and Randall, taxes are a punishment whenever you have to pay them, ie every paycheck :)

Vance
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 10:47 AM
I for one believe the earth is roughly 6500 to 7000 years of age. I also believe that God created the dinosaurs and I also believe that man was around with the dinosaurs. So how you going to corner me?? It's my beliefs and that's that. You want to know why I believe the dinosaurs aren't around anymore? Noah's Flood, and I believe God destroyed them because of their immense size(they would be something very hard for a shriking mankind to deal with).


BK...
I know we've agreed on a few things here and there of late - but on some topics we fundamentally differ... so I cannot let this one rest.

HOW... I mean seriously... HOW can you explain the death of the dinosaurs with the flood myth (a myth that has been told and retold and predates Judaism's version by roughly 2-3000 years give or take) when the fact of the matter is that dinosaur bones are located in striation layer(s) of the earth far deeper than that of any human record? None whatsoever. Nothing even resembling human bones. How is that possible if everyone else died in the flood - the entire population of the earth save a handful - wiped out with the dinosaurs and the unicorns and the dragons and the other whimsical beasts of lore... but no fossil record of humans ANYWHERE corresponding to that same time period dinosaurs were around.

Hmmmm.....

But let us just forget the dinosaurs for one second...
If you believe the flood myth - EVERYONE but Noah and his coveted few died, correct?

So how is it we have such massive diversity on this planet if everyone died?

Does that not make us all direct descendants of incest? Is incest not a sin in not only Judaism but Christianity? How does one account for that little Catch 22 in the bible hmmm?

Does that premise of the flood myth also not make the entire premise of a Native American Indian culture impossible since there is no way an entire population like that managed to make it from the renewed humanity - over to North and South America - build gigantic civilizations as the Maya, Inca, and Aztec did - free of such known animals in the middle east as horses and donkeys and such - in just what by your plausible calendar - 2000-3000 years total time? It took the Egyptians - with all their record keeping HUNDREDS of years to build an empire, and they were there the whole time - with THOUSANDS of slaves working for them.

BTW... how is that possible in the flood myth? Where did the Egyptians come from and how was their empire still growing DURING the time of this professed world cleansing flood if they all died off?

Or the Chinese who's records and oral history date back several thousands of years?

Or the Rus people?

Or...

Well -- I think you see my point to the implausibility of not only the dinosaurs living among us from just a pure rationality and logic of it --- but the flood myth as well.

Vance
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 10:55 AM
US population % by religion or none.


Christian: (78.5%) @218million

Protestant (51.3%)
Roman Catholic (23.9%)
Mormon (1.7%)
other Christian (1.6%)


unaffiliated (12.1%)
none (4%)
other or unspecified (2.5%)
Jewish (1.7%)
Buddhist (0.7%)
Muslim (0.6%)

So @ 78% of the U.S. believe in a Christian God.
Christian belief indicates at first there was nothing, then Adam and Eve and humans. It is mostly proven that Dinosaurs existed, therefore some version of cohabitation must of occurred. And if 78% of the population believe, then many of the Democratic Party also believe. Statistically there are about 3 Dems for every 2 registered Repubs, so the 78% means it is safe to eyeball at least half of the Dem party also believe in cohabitation. If they are true to their beliefs.

Religion and belief may be there ... but then again so is logic and reason.
I contest that reason and logic to that which is obvious (a non plausibility of this supposed cohabitation) overrides faith to some extent. Faith and science and logic and reason are not exclusive to each other. Most scientists who work daily on foundations of evolution and researching the big bang and all that claim to be Christian. None say it defies their religion to have logic in their lives. Curiosity is a human condition we can never escape - and THAT is why people work to either prove, or if needs be, disprove our oral traditions and mythologies - Christianity included in that pantheon of mythologies to be investigated.

Snowman
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 11:51 AM
Damn dude firing with both barrels today...

Big-J
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 12:35 PM
I for one believe the earth is roughly 6500 to 7000 years of age. I also believe that God created the dinosaurs and I also believe that man was around with the dinosaurs.

Where do you get your bad information from? :think:

bikernoj
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 01:16 PM
You want to know why I believe the dinosaurs aren't around anymore? Noah's Flood, and I believe God destroyed them because of their immense size(they would be something very hard for a shriking mankind to deal with).

So there you have it, my answer to everything is the Bible,

You actually BELIEVE that a single person built a wooden craft in the middle of a desert large enough to hold twenty million different animals that didn't eat anything for 40 to 150 days (not even your holy book is clear about that), and that after saving all these creatures Noah sacrificed half of them to God? (Wouldn't that make the species extinct?)

Wow, that's just frightening. Imagine how easy a society would be to control if they'd believe something as incredible as that! Wait a minute...

puckstr
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 02:09 PM
Well if the church goers believe the "stuff of fairy tales" the preachers belch forth, then they are easily swayed in to voting the church's WILL.

Weak minds are easily led.

"You actually BELIEVE that a single person built a wooden craft in the middle of a desert large enough to hold twenty million different animals that didn't eat anything for 40 to 150 days (not even your holy book is clear about that), and that after saving all these creatures Noah sacrificed half of them to God? (Wouldn't that make the species extinct?)"

Seems rational..... Yeah right!

rforsythe
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 02:46 PM
...after saving all these creatures Noah sacrificed half of them to God? (Wouldn't that make the species extinct?)

Technically he could have killed off all the males, assuming all females were pregnant with male young (then the male young breed with their female parent, and so on). Any deviation from this would result in extinction for a species however. Certainly explains that "down south" inbred look the Platypus has though.

Unless our little furry woodland creatures were impregnated by divine power too?

puckstr
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Technically he could have killed off all the males, assuming all females were pregnant with male young (then the male young breed with their female parent, and so on). Any deviation from this would result in extinction for a species however. Certainly explains that "down south" inbred look the Platypus has though.

Unless our little furry woodland creatures were impregnated by divine power too?


Ralph now I have this image in my head
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/SouthPark814.jpg

Devaclis
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 02:50 PM
See signature /thread

fullgrownbear
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 03:43 PM
Vance..

You need to do a little more research that's not so biased. Everything you're typing is soaked with subjectivity.

Your post's do not sound very objectively reasonable at all. In other words, it doesn't seem as though you have an opinion from "outside of the spectrum" but only within.

With that out of the way, lets look at this issue from an objectively reasonable viewpoint.

I think Warren said it well, when he said that "christians can think for themselves." I have to agree. Nobody needs their pastor telling them who to vote for. People should have enough intestinal fortitude, and honor, to go do the research for themselves.

The issue of creationism vs atheism is quite large, and I won't be able to even scratch the serface here, but I recommend you check out this book if you are interested in some hardcore disection of the topic. Here it is:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1581345615/bookstorenow56-20

The book is titled, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

This book does a great job of coming at the issue of(creationism vs atheistm/darwinism) from an objective viewpoint.

It won't answer all your questions, and I don't suppose anything will answer every question that can be generated - that's where the element of faith comes in.

Faith is simply believing something because it has been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that it's more likely something is true, than not true.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, because it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God. Particularly the God of the Bible.

It's clear there is an amazing intelligent design - and designer - behind everything, down to the smallest one celled creature.

Did you know that the smallest one cell creature contains more than 300 billion bits and pieces of information? In fact, the smallest one cell creature is so complex, it could never have been generated from anything other than intelligent design.

Without ingelligent design, there is no design. Without a creator, there is no creation.

And don't give me that big bang crap. You and I both know you can't generate something from nothing. Matter is neither created nor destroyed in the event of a chemical reaction.

Check that book out. If you want to know more about it, I'll be happy to post some more.

Devaclis
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 03:48 PM
Actually, it is not clear. If it were there would be not arguments on this subject.

Anyone can rationalize any subject they want to until they believe it. It does not make it true.

What part of carbon dating and tried, tested, and true scientific proof is not clear?

The argument is pointless because you are not going to change anyone's firm beliefs on a motorcycle forum.

rforsythe
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Did you know that the smallest one cell creature contains more than 300 billion bits and pieces of information? In fact, the smallest one cell creature is so complex, it could never have been generated from anything other than intelligent design.

This argument cracks me up every time. Look, just because the mechanism of how it came to be is not understood by our feeble human minds, does not mean there was "intelligence" surrounding it. It also doesn't mean there wasn't, but your god could have very well been hyper-"intelligent" cows sent from a far away galaxy. The FACT is that just about every theory is as likely to be true as the next, whether it's that God/Allah/etc made life on Earth, aliens, some incredibly unlikely but possible chemical reaction, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on. It's your FAITH that makes one more true than the other. It's IGNORANT to think that just because we don't understand it, that our lack of knowledge somehow begets some necessity for another intelligent being at the helm.


Without ingelligent design, there is no design. Without a creator, there is no creation.

And don't give me that big bang crap. You and I both know you can't generate something from nothing. Matter is neither created nor destroyed in the event of a chemical reaction.

Who ever said there was nothing to begin with? And if you can't generate something from nothing, then where did we all come from? "Humans obey conservation of energy but God does not"? If the Pope decreed that it shall be law that God follows conservation of energy, would we all cease to exist?

I challenge you to prove that intelligent design is any more plausible than the other arguments or theories, without going to the standard "it's just so complex that it must be intentional, ergo God" fallback. I don't buy that argument. Complexity does not inherently mean engineering created it.

dragos13
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 04:46 PM
This argument cracks me up every time. Look, just because the mechanism of how it came to be is not understood by our feeble human minds, does not mean there was "intelligence" surrounding it. It also doesn't mean there wasn't, but your god could have very well been hyper-"intelligent" cows sent from a far away galaxy. The FACT is that just about every theory is as likely to be true as the next, whether it's that God/Allah/etc made life on Earth, aliens, some incredibly unlikely but possible chemical reaction, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on. It's your FAITH that makes one more true than the other. It's IGNORANT to think that just because we don't understand it, that our lack of knowledge somehow begets some necessity for another intelligent being at the helm.


Great post Ralph. Its all old school belief where people needed to make sense of everything. Thats why the Greeks believed gods thru lighting and made it rain. Now with the advancement of the human race, we can explain alot of it thus removing the need for "intelligent" creation.

fullgrownbear
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 05:18 PM
This argument cracks me up every time. Look, just because the mechanism of how it came to be is not understood by our feeble human minds, does not mean there was "intelligence" surrounding it. It also doesn't mean there wasn't, but your god could have very well been hyper-"intelligent" cows sent from a far away galaxy. The FACT is that just about every theory is as likely to be true as the next, whether it's that God/Allah/etc made life on Earth, aliens, some incredibly unlikely but possible chemical reaction, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on. It's your FAITH that makes one more true than the other. It's IGNORANT to think that just because we don't understand it, that our lack of knowledge somehow begets some necessity for another intelligent being at the helm.



Who ever said there was nothing to begin with? And if you can't generate something from nothing, then where did we all come from? "Humans obey conservation of energy but God does not"? If the Pope decreed that it shall be law that God follows conservation of energy, would we all cease to exist?

I challenge you to prove that intelligent design is any more plausible than the other arguments or theories, without going to the standard "it's just so complex that it must be intentional, ergo God" fallback. I don't buy that argument. Complexity does not inherently mean engineering created it.


LONG...

First of all, you missed the point of what I was trying to say. I didn't in anyway imply that because we don't understand the way it came to be, means that there is a God.

Second of all, It does make more sense than not, that intelligence is behind design.

A simple coca-cola can took intelligence to create. A mouse trap took intelligence to create. This discussion takes intelligence to create.

Listen, This very convesation presupposes that god exists. How so? Because reasons require that this universe be a reasonable one that presupposes there is order, logic, design, and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchangeable objective source and standard of such things.

To say something is unreasonable, you must know what reasonable is. To say something is not designed, you must know what designed is. To say something is not true, you must know what true is, and so forth.

Like all nontheistic worldviews, you're borrowing from the theistic worldview in order to make your own view inetelligible.

Why, by the way, are you presupposing that an intelligent cause is impossible? By doing so, you're saying that the natural laws are the only game in town. Likewise, if a creationist rules out natural causes beforehand, then he also risks missing the right answer. But a scientist who is open minded to both natural and intelligent causes can follow the evidence wherever it leads. By the way, science doesn't really say anything, scientist do. Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of evidence, they do exactly what they accuse the religious people of doing.


To go back to the first part of my quote, quoted by you. In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote something miraculous. His quote is as follows: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Well Mr. Darwin, we now know that there are many organs, systems, and processes in life that fit that description. Remember, even in darwin's day, the single "cell" was a black box of mystery. Even at the molecular level it's immeasurably more complex than darwin ever could've dreamed. Like a mouse trap, a removal of any one part of this system(the cell), would cause the entire system to fail immediately.

This principle is called Irreducible Complexity(ir·re·duc·i·ble http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ˌɪrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪˈduhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngbəl, -ˈdyu-/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-doo-suh-buhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, -dyoo-]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.not reducible; incapable of being reduced or of being diminished or simplified further: the irreducible minimum.
2.incapable of being brought into a different condition or form.


A car engine is an example of an irreducibly complex system. If a change is made in the size of the pistons, this would require simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling system, engine compartment, and other systems, or the new engine would not function. Living things are irreducibly complex, just like a car engine.

Systems that are so complex such as life forms, could in no way have developed in the gradual darwinian fashion. Why? Because intermediates would be nonfunctional. As with a car engine, all the right parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be any function at all. You can build an engine part (and that takes intelligence) but you can't drive to work with only a partial engine under the hood. Nr could you drive to work if one essential part of your engine were modified but others were not. In the same way, living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece.

There is no way life can come into existence by the darwinian method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time. Darwinism is akin to natural forces -- without any intelligent help -- producing a running car engine (i.e., an amoeba) and then modifying that irreducibly complex engine into successive intermediate engines until those natural forces finally produce the space shuttle (i.e., human being). Darwinism can't explain the source of the materials to even make an engine, much less how this complex creation came to be in the first place!

After all, we see that there is some weight to the complexity of things. Complexity takes intelligence to design. To believe that a mindless process is responsible for the changing of such complex entities, that my friend, is absurd.

fullgrownbear
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 05:44 PM
Why is it not worth the argument? If indeed there is a creator, then there indeed are moral implications. This means there is a possibility of being held accountable for your actions.

Thankfully, God made a provision for forgiveness through sin by the sacrifice of his own son.

See? This makes sense. It's logical, and it coincides with reason.

dragos13
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 05:48 PM
Honestly, I believe in evolution and what has been proven with science. There is no proof of a "creator" only faith that it is true. To say something makes sense is no more then just saying it fits with your opinion. Who is right and who is wrong, we will find that out in the end.

Does science not prove the steps of evolution? Does carbon dating not prove the length of existance for our world? How can you overlook suck info just to have faith in a very old book?

CYCLE_MONKEY
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 05:53 PM
I talk to God all the time....she never told me how to vote.
I never talked to God.......but I saw Him a couple of times this last trip!:shocked:

CYCLE_MONKEY
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 05:54 PM
This discussion takes intelligence to create.
You are giving us FAR too much credit......:)

fullgrownbear
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 06:11 PM
Honestly, I believe in evolution and what has been proven with science. There is no proof of a "creator" only faith that it is true. To say something makes sense is no more then just saying it fits with your opinion. Who is right and who is wrong, we will find that out in the end.

Does science not prove the steps of evolution? Does carbon dating not prove the length of existence for our world? How can you overlook suck info just to have faith in a very old book?

Evolution is not science. Science is something that can be re-created and observed. Evolution cannot be recreated and observed, thus, you must have faith in this theory just as much as I have faith in my more plausible theory of creation.

Evolution has not been proven, nor has any evidence of evolution been observed.

Continuing on, Evolution: From the goo, to you, via the zoo. What an amazing theory. Not really. It's the belief that all life forms have descended from a common ancestor, the first one celled creature, and all of this happened by natural processes without any intelligent intervention. God as not involved. It has been a completely blind process.

So this happened by natural selection, right? But the term natural selection is a misnomer. Since the process of evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no "selection" at all going on. It's a blind process.

Consider a so called example of natural selection (evolution). Consider what happens to bacteria when attacked by antibiotics. When bacteria survive a bout with antibiotics, and multiply, that surviving group may and does have a resistance to the antibiotic. The resistant, surviving bacteria, possessed the genetic capacity to resist, or a rare biochemical mutation somehow helped it survive (rare because mutations are nearly always harmful). Since the sensitive bacteria die, the surviving bacteria that are resistant multiply, and are now dominate.

Darwinists (evolutionists) say that the surviving bacteria have evolved. Having adapted to the environment, the surviving bacteria provide us with an example of evolution. Fair enough, but what kind of evolution? The answer is critical. In fact, evolution is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation-evolution controversy. This is where Darwinian (evolutionist) errors and false claims begin to multiply like bacteria if not checked by those who believe observation is important to science. Here's what the observation tells us: The surviving bacteria always remain bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution, which has never even been observed to create new types (species.)

So - Observation of a scientific experiment is one of the most critical steps. If there is not an observation process in the experiment, how can we be sure of any theory at all? It remains just that, a theory.

Evolution has never been proven, because it has never been observed.

Here are a couple of definitions, the two types of evolution. (probably should've given these earlier)
Mircoevolution: Within a type. (within a species)
Macroevolution: Across types (across a species)

First of all, you must understand, there are genetic limits. Darwinists say that microevolution within types proves that macroevolution has occurred. If these small changes can occur over a short period of time, think what natural selection can do over a long period of time.

Unfortunately, genetic limits seem to be built into the basic types. For example, dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they intelligently attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may range in size from chihuahua to great dane, but despite the best attempts of intelligent breeders, dogs always remain dogs. Likewise, despite the best efforts of scientists to manipulate fruit flies, their experiments have never turned out anything but more fruit flies, and usually crippled ones at that. This is especially significant because the short life fruit flies have allows scientists to test many generations of genetic variations in a short period of time.

Like I said, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. There is more evidence for intelligent design, and God, than not.

Captain Obvious
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 07:22 PM
<cough> what??? "Mostly proven", there's the understatement of the century...


Well, I was trying to be subtle, but as we all know, sarcasm doesn't always translate via text. Guess i should stick to the obvious huh? :)


I chose to only post several factual numbers to show the shortsightedness of correlating faith and a political party.

I typically choose not to enter the debate of religion as it is driven by faith. You see, faith is like herpes, you either have it or you don't.

jbnwc
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 07:57 PM
I usually would take the time to write a logical post on these types of topics, but this one started out from the start as a Christian bashing fest. Those of you who think you are tolerant but then openly and agressively attack one group for their beliefs are more hypocritical than even the worst of Christians. You wonder why Christians are agressive towards you? You blindly attack them and what would you expect them to do?? If you can't treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve, then why would you expect any in return?

zetaetatheta
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 08:13 PM
Creationism is a myth! Myth--a sacred narrative in the sense that it holds religious or spiritual significance for those who tell it, and it contributes to and expresses systems of thought and values. Use of the term by scholars implies neither the truth nor the falseness of the narrative. To the source culture, however, a myth by definition is "true," in that it embodies beliefs, concepts, and ways of questioning and making sense of the world.

Evolution is a Theory! IMO Ed Pearlstein bests explains what a theory is, I quote:

"Only a theory" is what creationists like to say about evolution. And that seems to carry great weight with some people.

Such people don't understand what that word means to a scientist.

As used in science, "theory" does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday life. A theory is not a guess, hunch, hypothesis, or speculation. It is much more full-blown.

A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another.

Construction of good theories is a major goal of science.

Yes, a scientific theory can be wrong, as shown by experiment or observation, since one of its hypotheses might be wrong or the reasoning might be flawed or new data might come along that disagree with it. Or its validity might be limited (as are some of those listed above). So in science, a wrong theory gets modified, discarded, or replaced. This has happened, for example, in physics with the caloric theory of heat and the theory of the luminiferous ether, and in chemistry with the phlogiston theory of combustion.

In physics, which is my field, theories such as classical mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism are thought to be on excellent ground in both evidence and reasoning, but each of them is still "just a theory". Other theories, such as in cosmology and elementary particles, are still being developed, and do get changed as new evidence and reasoning come in. The fact that theories are subject to improvement is the great strength of science.

Supernatural creation is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Considered in a scientific sense, it has a fatal flaw: it is sterile. If someone asserts that there is a creator-god, one can ask "So what?" Nothing follows from it; it leads nowhere. Some religions have additional hypotheses, such as: only one creator-god, a great flood, the sun standing still, a virgin birth, a trinity, a resurrection, the efficacy of prayer; but no one of these is logically demanded, or even suggested, by the others. They are just added on.

Anti-evolutionists sometimes say that evolution has not been "proven". In a strict sense, no theory is ever proven in any field, with the possible exception of pure mathematics, since new data might come along that require a change, and there are always details that haven't been tested. Sure, there are things not yet understood about evolution, as in many other fields; but that is why scientists do research! I have encountered the statement - meant as a put-down - that scientists don't know everything. Well of course not, but we expect to know tomorrow more than we know today.

I’m with this dude, but I must admit that seeing Dr. Frankenstein create his monster (especially Mel Brook’s version), has me wondering, especially since Mel is a Jewish writer—kind of like those others in that other book.

The Black Knight
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 08:21 PM
I usually would take the time to write a logical post on these types of topics, but this one started out from the start as a Christian bashing fest. Those of you who think you are tolerant but then openly and agressively attack one group for their beliefs are more hypocritical than even the worst of Christians. You wonder why Christians are agressive towards you? You blindly attack them and what would you expect them to do?? If you can't treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve, then why would you expect any in return?

You know I totally agree with you jbnwc, after reading all of the looking down the nose pot shots and vitriol here on the board. I've had it. I was going to respond to Vance's post and questions he had with a good post. But after reading all the BS spewing forth. I'm done

I don't even care at this point. I realize that I believe what I believe and I don't have to explain myself to anyone, let alone some people on a internet forum that I've never met in my life.

At this point, after the day I just had today. I really don't care about having to explain my religion, my beliefs and my life to a bunch of nobodies on the internet.

dirkterrell
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 08:24 PM
Darwinists (evolutionists) say that the surviving bacteria have evolved. Having adapted to the environment, the surviving bacteria provide us with an example of evolution. Fair enough, but what kind of evolution? The answer is critical. In fact, evolution is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation-evolution controversy. This is where Darwinian (evolutionist) errors and false claims begin to multiply like bacteria if not checked by those who believe observation is important to science. Here's what the observation tells us: The surviving bacteria always remain bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution, which has never even been observed to create new types (species.)


I would recommend doing some research and your own thinking on the topic of evolution rather than just cutting and pasting from creationist literature (and without attribution (http://books.google.com/books?id=PCGhbTrI9QoC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=%22the+surviving+bacteria+provide+us+with+an+ex ample+of+evolution%22&source=web&ots=9Baf0lMWP7&sig=82s83CToYizQP21yJDjC5N8PG2E&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) I might add). It might open your eyes.

Dirk

fullgrownbear
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 09:12 PM
That's the book that I've been using for my entire reference. See my first post. Anyway, I'm done. Pointless. People only hear what they want to hear. And the only thing that really needs to be opened here is some very closed minds.

rforsythe
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 09:26 PM
LONG...

You weren't kidding! :lol:


First of all, you missed the point of what I was trying to say. I didn't in anyway imply that because we don't understand the way it came to be, means that there is a God.Point taken.


Second of all, It does make more sense than not, that intelligence is behind design.

A simple coca-cola can took intelligence to create. A mouse trap took intelligence to create. This discussion takes intelligence to create. Perhaps, but you're assuming that intelligence came before existence. It's plausible (not fact) that we all came out of the primordial soup, evolved, and developed our own intelligence to where we could make coke cans, mouse traps, airplanes, bridges, wheels, beer, and even have rational conversation beyond clubbing each other with big sticks. It's also plausible (not fact) that an entity more intelligent than ourselves waved a big hand in the sky and out we popped.


Listen, This very convesation presupposes that god exists. How so? Because reasons require that this universe be a reasonable one that presupposes there is order, logic, design, and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchangeable objective source and standard of such things. I see where you're going with that, I just disagree. I think that you and I can think logically and converse, is just how we're wired, built, grown, or whatever nomenclature you prefer. Whether that trait is passed down by God or a physiological or learned thing, depends on your view of how we all came to be. It does not, however, presuppose the existence of God all by itself. It positively supports both sides of the argument however.


Like all nontheistic worldviews, you're borrowing from the theistic worldview in order to make your own view inetelligible.

Why, by the way, are you presupposing that an intelligent cause is impossible?Likewise, you missed the point of what I was trying to say. I never said intelligent cause was impossible. I just pointed out that without faith steering your closely held belief towards one side or the other, it's really a crap shoot because we as humans really know very little. We believe a whole shitload of stuff though. The beliefs, not the facts, are what guide most people through what they "know". Study theism in general (not just one religion) and that will become pretty apparent.


By doing so, you're saying that the natural laws are the only game in town. (snipped, char limit)Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of evidence, they do exactly what they accuse the religious people of doing.I agree completely. But I didn't say natural law was the only game in town. I wouldn't say that, because I don't necessarily believe that. Fact is I never stated in any way what I believe, and have the open mindedness to understand that no matter what I believe, it's just that -- a personal belief. I could be right, I could be completely wrong. I can still have a very objective discussion on the subject however.



To go back to the first part of my quote, quoted by you. In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote something miraculous. His quote is as follows: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Well Mr. Darwin, we now know that there are many organs, systems, and processes in life that fit that description. Remember, even in darwin's day, the single "cell" was a black box of mystery. Even at the molecular level it's immeasurably more complex than darwin ever could've dreamed. Like a mouse trap, a removal of any one part of this system(the cell), would cause the entire system to fail immediately.

This principle is called Irreducible Complexity(ir·re·duc·i·ble http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ˌɪrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪˈduhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngbəl, -ˈdyu-/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-doo-suh-buhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, -dyoo-]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.not reducible; incapable of being reduced or of being diminished or simplified further: the irreducible minimum.
2.incapable of being brought into a different condition or form.


A car engine is an example of an irreducibly complex system. If a change is made in the size of the pistons, this would require simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling system, engine compartment, and other systems, or the new engine would not function. Living things are irreducibly complex, just like a car engine. Hm. Car engines are not irreducibly complex in my opinion. People are finding ways to remove and simplify components every day. Even if a change in one area requires changes in another, it doesn't mean the system is so complex that we can't understand it. In fact compared to life in general, a car engine is an incredibly simple assembly.


Systems that are so complex such as life forms, could in no way have developed in the gradual darwinian fashion. Why? Because intermediates would be nonfunctional. As with a car engine, all the right parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be any function at all. You can build an engine part (and that takes intelligence) but you can't drive to work with only a partial engine under the hood. Nr could you drive to work if one essential part of your engine were modified but others were not. In the same way, living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece. You assume that many iterations of life didn't fail to be simply because the "next step" wasn't complete. I'm not arguing the complexity - far from it - but how it got to that level is the issue. Perhaps it was intelligence, but maybe biological intelligence, at a genetic level (which we also don't understand). Another thing to remember is that life adapts at amazing levels. Even our own bodies reconfigure nerves, cells, etc to rebuild when damaged or parts go missing.


There is no way life can come into existence by the darwinian method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time. Darwinism is akin to natural forces -- without any intelligent help -- producing a running car engine (i.e., an amoeba) and then modifying that irreducibly complex engine into successive intermediate engines until those natural forces finally produce the space shuttle (i.e., human being). Darwinism can't explain the source of the materials to even make an engine, much less how this complex creation came to be in the first place! I'll concur that we don't know of a way that it could have happened, but that doesn't mean there is "no way that it did". Darwinism can't explain the material source, but other theories can. And again, it's purely a matter of faith as to which THEORY you believe. Christianity at its core, is nothing more than a theory. It's one that people have killed each other over for millenia, but like every other religion, it's based on the acceptance of an idea that is not fully supportable by fact. Likewise, any other theory of evolution is in the same boat, though science weighs heavily on it (even though science has been used many times to prove certain pieces of religious/biblical lore, or disprove them).


After all, we see that there is some weight to the complexity of things. Complexity takes intelligence to design. To believe that a mindless process is responsible for the changing of such complex entities, that my friend, is absurd.Again, I never said the process was mindless (or really, what I think that process even is). But to believe as fact that a mythical omnipresent being that knows your thoughts and made you out of nothing is, to some, equally absurd. I'm simply pointing out that in an objective view of existence, many theories offer equal potential. Again, it's your faith that steers you one way or another. And that's ok! I just feel that as a truly intelligent theist of any religion, you must accept that your belief is what you "know", but that it may not be fact, and most definitely is not to many other people. You should be able to acknowledge it without having to prove everyone wrong. That deficiency is all too present in so many deeply religious people that it astounds me. To be intelligent, no matter what your belief, is to be content in your path but open minded to learning how others see the world.

To the other comments about "Christian bashing" and what have you, I hope those weren't directed towards me. If I came off that way, it wasn't my intent. My beliefs don't matter here, I'm simply trying to engage in an open discussion on various points. I hope that can continue.

rforsythe
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 09:27 PM
That's the book that I've been using for my entire reference. See my first post. Anyway, I'm done. Pointless. People only hear what they want to hear. And the only thing that really needs to be opened here is some very closed minds.

See my last post. I'm saying this in the nicest way possible, but perhaps this goes both ways?

fullgrownbear
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Thanks for taking the time to post back - I read your post and I have to say that we must agree to disagree at this point! I spent about all of the time I currently have available posting - and don't think I can continue on like that much longer.

Anyhow, if you'd like to read more about where I get my ideas and thoughts check out that book. It's a good read if nothing else. Highlight the question areas for yourself - and do some counter research. I've done both and this is where I stand.

fullgrownbear
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 09:31 PM
And that statement wasn't directed toward you - I mean people in general are very stubborn at heart. We all are.

BeoBe
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 09:33 PM
is this really suprising?

rforsythe
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 09:53 PM
Anyhow, if you'd like to read more about where I get my ideas and thoughts check out that book. It's a good read if nothing else. Highlight the question areas for yourself - and do some counter research. I've done both and this is where I stand.

I'll do that.

dirkterrell
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 10:23 PM
and do some counter research. I've done both and this is where I stand.

I'm not here to argue faith issues, as that is pointless. But when someone says "evolution is not science", that is something that can be intelligently discussed. When you say such things, it is very clear that you do not understand even the most basic things about both the theory and fact of evolution (and yes, it is both). I hate to see intelligent people being misled by ignorant (or worse, intellectually dishonest) writings.

Dirk

fullgrownbear
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Evolution is a fact? Wow. The last time I checked something that has never been scientifically observed wasn't considered a fact, but a theory.

And just curious, what about that book is intellectually dishonest?

James

dirkterrell
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 10:43 PM
Evolution is a fact? Wow. The last time I checked something that has never been scientifically observed wasn't considered a fact, but a theory.


Well, you make my point right there about how little you understand about evolution, and science in general. Scientists use the word theory in a way that is very different from the colloquial meaning of "a guess." Read this very well-written essay about evolution as fact and theory (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html). And evolution (in the fact sense) has been extremely well observed.



And just curious, what about that book is intellectually dishonest?


I wasn't referring specifically to that book as I haven't read it. I'm referring to other things I have seen creationists do (like continuing to argue that the second law of thermodynamics refutes the theory of evolution).

Dirk

fullgrownbear
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 11:20 PM
How little I understand about evolution? I understand it perfectly. From the goo, to you, via the zoo.

If that's your gig, so be it. I don't understand "little" about evolution, in fact, I am probably more educated than the general public concerning this issue.

It's a faith based system, just as creationism. However, it takes quite a bit more faith, and quite a bit less common sense to believe in evolution.

Anyhow - I will read the article later. Tired of going back and forth. Night.

DanFZ1
Tue Sep 30th, 2008, 11:28 PM
...but then again we're all riding on the back of a giant turtle so what do I know... :)

American physicist Richard Feynman was giving a lecture back in 1955. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."

Feynman asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"

To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down.":)

I have always loved that story. I think it says to me that science is really built on testable, proveable hypotheses, but which are still hypotheses none the less. And what people really want is some wiggle room in their truth. People would rather paint with the broadest brush strokes imaginable so as not to paint themselves into a corner.

...but anyway...

:turtle:

zetaetatheta
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 06:34 AM
It's a faith based system, just as creationism. However, it takes quite a bit more faith, and quite a bit less common sense to believe in evolution.


Evolution is backed by hard evidence--not faith. Creationism is not backed by anything other than faith. The common sense lies with the fact-based and not the faith-based.

Snowman
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 08:01 AM
Being a free country they have every right to never let facts come between them and their beliefs.

But back to the topic…
Should people who are exempt from supporting our government (through taxes in this case) be coursing their congregations into voting a certain way?

I.E. “If you do not vote for “X” you are not a good “what ever”. “

This isn’t just a problem with these pastors. After all how do you think the president of Iran won office.

jbnwc
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 08:52 AM
Politics has shoved their nose into religion, so why shouldn't religions have something to say about politics? If people always made up their own mind without any outside input, then why even post on this forum?? Most of the stuff on here is just opinion; heck, many of the posts in this thread are trying to sway other people to the "right" side of whatever the argument is. If people don't like what their pastors say, they can always leave; no one is forcing them to listen.

I don't want my pastor heavily involved in politics, so I attend a chruch that doesn't talk politics from the pulpit. Not everyone is exactly like me, however.

dirkterrell
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 08:55 AM
How little I understand about evolution? I understand it perfectly. From the goo, to you, via the zoo.

If that's your gig, so be it. I don't understand "little" about evolution, in fact, I am probably more educated than the general public concerning this issue.


James, you're a cool guy and I like hanging with you but take this as honest criticism: you obviously do not know much about the scientific picture of evolution. You have clearly read a lot of misleading creationist literature. Now, if this is a faith issue for you, that's fine and I won't presume to argue with you about that. But you are making claims like "evolution is not science." To a scientist like myself, that is complete and utter nonsense and we can discuss why intelligently.



It's a faith based system, just as creationism. However, it takes quite a bit more faith, and quite a bit less common sense to believe in evolution.


No, it is not faith-based. The theory of evolution could very easily be falsified. Find dinosaur fossils and modern human fossils in the same undisturbed stratigraphic layer and the theory of evolution is toast. Contrast this with creationism: what could we observe that would show that the Bible's version of the origin of man is wrong?



Anyhow - I will read the article later. Tired of going back and forth. Night.

Please do. It is a very good explanation of some concepts that many non-scientists do not understand.

Dirk

jbnwc
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 08:58 AM
Another thing...

Why are you all so concerned about chruches and what the do or think? If you don't go there, how do you even have any right to comment on what happens there? How would you like it if the people you are talking about came to this forum and debated whether or not you have the right to talk about anything outside of motorcycles? I think it is none of our business what churches do unless we are part of that church or faith. As long as they are not harming you, you have no right to harm them.

Snowman
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 09:01 AM
Another thing...

Why are you all so concerned about chruches and what the do or think? If you don't go there, how do you even have any right to comment on what happens there? How would you like it if the people you are talking about came to this forum and debated whether or not you have the right to talk about anything outside of motorcycles? I think it is none of our business what churches do unless we are part of that church or faith. As long as they are not harming you, you have no right to harm them. Not a problem with any of that. However why should they not pay taxes?

dirkterrell
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 09:05 AM
Why are you all so concerned about chruches and what the do or think? If you don't go there, how do you even have any right to comment on what happens there? How would you like it if the people you are talking about came to this forum and debated whether or not you have the right to talk about anything outside of motorcycles? I think it is none of our business what churches do unless we are part of that church or faith. As long as they are not harming you, you have no right to harm them.

I don't think that the issue here is what churches care to talk about. It's whether or not they deserve tax-exempt status when they become political organizations. My opinion is that they shouldn't be tax exempt in the first place because they are members of society and should participate as such. And it leads to situations like the one we are discussing: the government must then monitor what they are doing to ensure that they aren't political entities. I would think churchgoers would find that a bit disturbing.

Dirk

puckstr
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 09:08 AM
Tax the churches, they are a business.

Shea
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 09:13 AM
Is it the church supporting a candidate or the pastor? Can you only have an opinion if you pay taxes?

Seems to me that anytime anyone with faith enters the political arena, the left wing of this country screams bloody murder that the walls seperating church and state are under assault. "We're one step away from a theocracy" as Randall implied with his Iran comment.

I don't believe the absence of any sort of belief in government was the context in which Jefferson coined the phrase nor the original intent behind the first amendment.

Snowman
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 09:23 AM
Is it the church supporting a candidate or the pastor? Can you only have an opinion if you pay taxes?

Seems to me that anytime anyone with faith enters the political arena, the left wing of this country screams bloody murder that the walls seperating church and state are under assault. "We're one step away from a theocracy" as Randall implied with his Iran comment.

I don't believe the absence of any sort of belief in government was the context in which Jefferson coined the phrase nor the original intent behind the first amendment.
“Any sort” I agree is impossible to remove from government. Every person has a difference in belief even if they are the same religion or even go to the same church.

However, when someone in the position of power tells others how to vote or as in this instance “you are not a good christian.” over stepping a line?

rforsythe
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 12:28 PM
Another thing...

Why are you all so concerned about chruches and what the do or think? If you don't go there, how do you even have any right to comment on what happens there? How would you like it if the people you are talking about came to this forum and debated whether or not you have the right to talk about anything outside of motorcycles? I think it is none of our business what churches do unless we are part of that church or faith. As long as they are not harming you, you have no right to harm them.

The beautiful, and sometimes damning thing of this country, is that we all have a RIGHT (not just a privilege) to comment on anything we choose, even if it pisses everyone else off or the person saying it is talking out of their ass. Be very careful about suggesting limitation of speech when related to religion or church; that concept in and of itself has started wars.

To counterpoint: If what churches do has an effect on the direction of our government or other choices we're allowed to make in life, then we absolutely have the right, and the responsibility, to discuss it and question it every step of the way, whether we attend said church or not. The fact also remains that nobody here is a part of every faith out there (it's impossible), but many people can speak intelligently on the subject's various points. You can learn about a faith, or faith in general, without necessarily subscribing to the subject in which you're educated.

It's OK to read other ideas and try to understand their point of view. A lot of deeply religious people (and this is a broad stroke, not directed at any one faction in particular) don't grasp that point. They are so married to "my faith is the only way it could be, the absolute truth all else be damned" that it actually prevents them from even accepting that other ideas exist, let alone can they expend the effort to study them or understand them. I don't know what causes that. I have my theories, but they're loosely based on my own observation, and nothing more.

One of the great things about our country is that while 70-some percent or whatever of our populace might be of a certain religion (which may or may not imply the same statistical variation in our leadership - I don't think it does), even the minority gets to have their voice heard. Dissenting views get to be discussed and debated, regardless of "who has more numbers". And THAT is why religion should not be used to direct our government's laws, because to do so in effect legally stifles the views of the minority. Morals can (and should!) be legislated without it becoming religious doctrine.

Sortarican
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 02:06 PM
If you don't go there, how do you even have any right to comment on what happens there? ...

Hate to answer a question with a question (bad debating etiquette).
But if the churches don't pay taxes how do they have the right to comment on politics?


Not a problem with any of that. However why should they not pay taxes?

I don't think churches/religous organizations should pay taxes.
It would put too much potential leverage power in the governments hands.
Much like the justice system, better to ere on the side of tolerance and let a guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent one.


I don't believe the absence of any sort of belief in government was the context in which Jefferson coined the phrase nor the original intent behind the first amendment.

OMG (pun intended) I have to agree with Shea here.
The concept of seperation of Church and State was designed more to protect of religous freedoms than keep them out of politics.
Having come mainly from a country that had a King replace an entire religous branch with one better suited his murderous desires I believe they meant to insure the same type of thing couldn't happen here.
(Though Henry VIII did have the bible translated into English, which was a pretty cool thing.)


Seems to me that anytime anyone with faith enters the political arena, the left wing of this country screams bloody murder that the walls seperating church and state are under assault.

THANK GOD!
I can go back to totally disagreeing with Shea's right wing agenda.
(Whew!....For a minute there I think we were both nervous.)

Remember when the churches came out in support of civil rights, or against a war, or for migrant workers rights,
or against US support of foreign countries that blatantly disregard human rights?

The Right Wing screamed bloody murder and played the Church and State card too.

Shea
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 04:10 PM
“Any sort” I agree is impossible to remove from government. Every person has a difference in belief even if they are the same religion or even go to the same church.

However, when someone in the position of power tells others how to vote or as in this instance “you are not a good christian.” over stepping a line?

We allow it all the time from our government. Where's the difference? Just because there is religion involved we need to get all worked up about it?

DanFZ1
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 04:15 PM
THANK GOD!
I can go back to totally disagreeing with Shea's right wing agenda.
(Whew!....For a minute there I think we were both nervous.)

Remember when the churches came out in support of civil rights, or against a war, or for migrant workers rights,
or against US support of foreign countries that blatantly disregard human rights?

The Right Wing screamed bloody murder and played the Church and State card too.

Don't forget to add nuns protesting the death sentence and nuclear weapons. The so-called compassionate conservatives like to think that they are having a "field day" with that. They just don't get it. They would rather follow their own examples, instead of following the examples set by Christ.

As for me, I believe that the only fair tax is a use tax. I don't currently believe a church should have to pay property tax, but I am open to suggestions as to why people think they should.

Let's not forget that people do pass the collection plate on Sunday Morning.

Interesting aside; the Scotts gave 300 times more money to the church, willingly, than the crown was ever able to take by force. The Scotts are quite a meticulous people when it comes to record keeping.

Post Script - Here's something that's not really coming across in this thread. Many people are scientist yet still believe in God. Many people go to church on Sunday just to be sociable and friendly and cannot give you a definition of God. So I don't think one really precludes the other.

I believe that science and religion have the same purpose in common.

Seek the truth, then speak the truth.

p.s.s. - I hear there's a new movie with Bill Maher in it coming out this weekend? It should be riot. Especially if the CSC shows up.:)

Shea
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 04:18 PM
THANK GOD!
I can go back to totally disagreeing with Shea's right wing agenda.
(Whew!....For a minute there I think we were both nervous.)

Remember when the churches came out in support of civil rights, or against a war, or for migrant workers rights,
or against US support of foreign countries that blatantly disregard human rights?

The Right Wing screamed bloody murder and played the Church and State card too.

It's a stupid, pathetic arguement whoever makes it. Churches, faiths and people thereof will always have an opinion. They do not dictate public policy (one of the main points of the first amendment). They may have a slight influence but Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddists or Xenu-ists are not a monolithic voting bloc.

Fear-mongering nonsense from the "all religion is shit" crowd. Who cares...

rforsythe
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 04:30 PM
It's a stupid, pathetic arguement whoever makes it. Churches, faiths and people thereof will always have an opinion. They do not dictate public policy (one of the main points of the first amendment). They may have a slight influence but Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddists or Xenu-ists are not a monolithic voting bloc.

Slight influence? Some of the issues Bush has declared more than once that he'd like to make law, come directly from his religious background.

It doesn't have to be a monolithic voting bloc. You just need enough to swing a majority one way or another.


Fear-mongering nonsense from the "all religion is shit" crowd. Who cares...

Or ignorance from the "head in the sand" crowd.

The extremes go both ways, my friend. History is not pretty when it comes down to religion dictating or heavily influencing public policy, however.

Shea
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 05:00 PM
Slight influence? Some of the issues Bush has declared more than once that he'd like to make law, come directly from his religious background.

It doesn't have to be a monolithic voting bloc. You just need enough to swing a majority one way or another.

All candidates have positions of faith that they would like to be made into law. There always has been and always will be. What's your point? If they are Christian ideals, they are evil and bad? If they come from the atheistic/socialist/humanist wing of the country they're cool?

Ralph we all have opinions, desires and morals. Where they are derived is irrelevant.




Or ignorance from the "head in the sand" crowd.

The extremes go both ways, my friend. History is not pretty when it comes down to religion dictating or heavily influencing public policy, however.

A church pastor using his position to state his opinion is not "OMG the sky is falling and we are moving to a religious civil war!!!!!". Not anymore striking then Rev Wright and some of his more incendiary comments.

But continue to beat that drum if it makes you feel better. When they start sending Buddists to concentration camps, feeding Catholics to lions and making Jews wear "pieces of flair", I will be more then happy to take up arms against the tyranny. Until then this is just more election year stoopidity for the ignorant masses to feed on...

DanFZ1
Wed Oct 1st, 2008, 06:19 PM
It's been said that when you add religion to politics, what you get is politics.

For people who are actually searching for spiritual guidance, and expect to actually find it through their church, to instead be subjected to political opinion can be quite disheartening.

Many people seek solitude and sanctuary and wish to be left in peace. So, they can get a bit unsettled when preachers and priests that they used to trust and have faith in, begin to talk politics from the pulpit.

This is why more and more people refer to themselves as being spiritual but not religious. As those congregations change demographically (because people won't go to a church that gets too political, typically) the real damage to the pulpit is that preachers and priests wind up preaching to the choir, instead of giving spiritual guidance to those who wish to understand more about God.

In effect, these churches become political organizations which spend more time spewing political dogma than giving Sunday morning sermons.

Just think, instead of listening to Fox News or CNN, you could just eventually wind up going to Church and let the Govt. tell you what to think in that manner. What could possibly be more inspiring that a Federally Certified Sermon?

It got so bad and so political in Ireland during the IRA years that most of the churches were typically empty. People wanted sermons, not one individuals B.S. take on what amounts to political opinion.

It's been said that when you add religion to politics, what you get is politics.

puckstr
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 08:08 AM
The preacher told me to.....


http://votingforjesus.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-shopping-cart/product_images/vote_sticker.jpg

KSR
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 09:30 AM
To the individuals who think churches should pay taxes:
Quit complaining and initiate non-profit tax reform. Do something.

To the individuals who have misquoted the Bible:
Read the Bible and gather correct information before you post or draw conclusions on creationism OR evolution. (example: there were 7 of the clean animals)

To the scientists that have brought us the sub-atomic particle smasher, human genome mapping, and the 4 hour errection:
Please use your 200,000 years of facts, data, evidence, and observations and (re)-create a self replicating single cell animal so that we can further discuss the facts of evolution. Shouldn't be a problem -should it?

puckstr
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 09:48 AM
And thank you to Relegious ZELOTS that quash

STEM CELL research, so we can go on saying
"too bad your paralized, but hey God loves you".

dirkterrell
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 10:12 AM
To the scientists that have brought us the sub-atomic particle smasher, human genome mapping, and the 4 hour errection:
Please use your 200,000 years of facts, data, evidence, and observations and (re)-create a self replicating single cell animal so that we can further discuss the facts of evolution. Shouldn't be a problem -should it?

Not at all. It just takes some time, but possibly as short as 7 million years (reference here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x84px67704425887/)). But, that wouldn't be relevant to a discussion of evolution which deals with how organisms change over time, not how they arise. That is the field of abiogenesis.

Dirk

Shea
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 10:51 AM
To the scientists that have brought us the sub-atomic particle smasher, human genome mapping, and the 4 hour errection:
Please use your 200,000 years of facts, data, evidence, and observations and (re)-create a self replicating single cell animal so that we can further discuss the facts of evolution. Shouldn't be a problem -should it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/

Conversly, shall I ask your god to conduct a series of miracles to prove his existence? Or how about Jesus coming down and having dinner with me? Got some questions I need to run past him...

puckstr
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 10:54 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/

Conversly, shall I ask your god to conduct a series of miracles to prove his existence? Or how about Jesus coming down and having dinner with me? Got some questions I need to run past him...

I personally don't allow Hippies in my house

Hozerking
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 06:31 PM
I don't have a problem with Churches telling there constituents how to vote. I do however have a problem with the idea that the government should legislate morality (unless it is in the publics best interest). I don't think that the government should be able to financially punish a non-profit group because they endorse a certain candidate.

agree :hump:
-al

Hozerking
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 06:57 PM
To the individuals who think churches should pay taxes:
Quit complaining and initiate non-profit tax reform. Do something.

To the individuals who have misquoted the Bible:
Read the Bible and gather correct information before you post or draw conclusions on creationism OR evolution. (example: there were 7 of the clean animals)

To the scientists that have brought us the sub-atomic particle smasher, human genome mapping, and the 4 hour errection:
Please use your 200,000 years of facts, data, evidence, and observations and (re)-create a self replicating single cell animal so that we can further discuss the facts of evolution. Shouldn't be a problem -should it?

agree :hump:

As for the science part of it check out this podcast: http://twit.tv/FIB

Its the best source of info I have found on where the cutting edge of Biotech is; insanely neat stuff, but genome was just the beginning.

-al

rforsythe
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 08:38 PM
If they are Christian ideals, they are evil and bad? If they come from the atheistic/socialist/humanist wing of the country they're cool?

I never said that. So are you trying to ask a vaguely relevant rhetorical question, make a point, or try to put words in my mouth?


Ralph we all have opinions, desires and morals. Where they are derived is irrelevant.Yes we do. No it isn't. Well, at least I don't care where your morals and ethics come from, the same as you probably don't care about the origin of mine, so far as what we do doesn't affect each other. Where it becomes relevant, is when someone's morals, derived from nothing more than a belief structure, become dictated to a whole lot of people who might have other views on life. It's one thing to think differently than the guy standing next to you. It's entirely another to say "I'm right and you're wrong just because my [insert belief] says so, and therefore you will do what I say". I don't care if it's Christian-derived, Muslim, Buddhist, or anything else. I do care if whatever it is ends up being rammed down my throat involuntarily. You should too.


A church pastor using his position to state his opinion is not "OMG the sky is falling and we are moving to a religious civil war!!!!!". Not anymore striking then Rev Wright and some of his more incendiary comments.I don't disagree here. I never said the sky was falling. I did however point out, correctly I might add, that in a society where you have a vast majority leaning towards one religious central point, the potential exists to get enough of them to cause a policy shift simply by listening to those they trust (in this case, pastors).


But continue to beat that drum if it makes you feel better. When they start sending Buddists to concentration camps, feeding Catholics to lions and making Jews wear "pieces of flair", I will be more then happy to take up arms against the tyranny. Until then this is just more election year stoopidity for the ignorant masses to feed on...And continue to spout the "keep beating that drum" rhetoric. You've used that line before, which is ironic. Yeah a fair bit of it is election fodder, and more than likely this pastor will have no real effect on voting outcomes at least outside of his circle. But the fact is that religion is taking more of a visible role in public policy than perhaps ever before in our nation's history. We may not be feeding people to lions (not that a few don't deserve it) but that doesn't mean it won't affect you.

jbnwc
Thu Oct 2nd, 2008, 09:07 PM
But the fact is that religion is taking more of a visible role in public policy than perhaps ever before in our nation's history.

Ha! - Did you forget the 80's? Religion nowe does not have near the pull it had with the Reagan administration. That kind of comment is why everyone thinks you are 'beating the drum'.

I've only had religion 'shoved down my throat' by Jehovah's Witnesses, but no other religion. I have on several occasions had non-believers attack my opinions and beliefs simply because mine do not line up with theirs. Even Dirk, who is a generally nice guy, has attacked people on this very thread and called them ignorant because of their beliefs. Are we not entitled to our beliefs?

rlb454
Sat Oct 4th, 2008, 01:08 AM
So since this horse aint quite dead yet, figure I'll give it a shot, I deleted my post in the beginning because I figured this thread would go this way...I think I said something to the effect of it turning into a Jr High School level name calling battle of personal attacks and un backed/not proven opinions...hmm.

So here's my take,

Churches telling their congregations how to vote: didnt that article mention only 33 pastors joining in? out of how many thousands of churches? If any of you have ever jumped thru the hoops to get a non profit status for an organization, you know it takes the better part of a year going back and forth with the gov. I have done it. I also would not jeopardize that standing, by defying it. If these pastors want to tell their congregations about the moral condition of the candidates, why does this bother some of you so much? If you go to one of these churches and dont like it, leave. They have the right to do as they please, and will suffer the consequences.
Why does it bother you that churches are tax exempt? Just what is it about being tax exempt that pisses you off so much? I dont think a lot of you understand how churches are tax exempt. So we dont pay property tax or have to pay tax on our paper plates for our pot lucks, big deal, neither do schools. If given the chance, I would bet the family farm that any of you would jump on the opportunity to avoid property tax. If any of you knew the inner workings of how a church can opperate with all the city and county codes, you would be more than happy to give them a break from some tax. Lets not forget about the paid staff, I believe most are under a self employed status, my pastor and all our church staff is, which means they pay MORE tax that most of you. So they get a housing allowance, big deal, they still pay more tax than most.

And then there is the "Christians are a bunch of mindless sheep, just fallowing what they are told" camp. Hmm, lets start with me:
I made Christ my Lord 23 years ago. Why? Because I was challenged by a believer to look into it myself, and actually read the bible. Lets just say that I was my own person and didnt take crap from anyone. So I started to read for myself and the rest is history. Oh yah, and still no one gives me crap.
Then there is my pastor, a retired of 20 years Lt. Col. in the US Air Force. His job? a rescue helicopter pilot.
Another friend of mine was in the Air Force during the Korea and Viet Nam era. He did things like help develop the defensive radar system on F4 fighter jets and was one of the authors of the F4 radar manual. he finished off his USAF career teaching radar school at Lowrey AFB. He is like my dad, and one of the most brilliant men I know.
Another guy that I had the privilege of meeting retired from the Jet Propulsion Lab at NASA in Ca. You might have heard about some of his work, it is orbiting Saturn right now. He led that project.
Ok, one more guy, Dave Nutting. He now lives in Grand Junction. He was once one of the most respected evolutionists in the nation, he was even on the Johny Carson show (I think I remember him saying johny's show) when he was only a teenager because he was already teaching college level evolution. As he got older and more experienced with the whole evolution gig, he saw that it was impossible to find facts to back any of it up, so he started looking into intelligent design/creation. He now has a organization called Alpha Omega Institute, and teaches creation working closely with the Institute for Creation Research. (I have heard of several evolutionists going to the creation side, but never the other way around)

Evolution, some of you are screaming that it is FACT, where is this fact? Havent some of the most solid evidences for evolution turned out to be hoaxes? you might not have heard about these because I believe they were removed from the text books.
You also say that we Christians only believe in a one true God because that is what we were taught, sort of like how those that believe in evolution were?
What if the missing link was found, what if the Ark was found? From what I understand, there are satellite images of what might be the Ark on top of Mt. Ararat? and the missing link? I think it is still missing. The possibility of finding remains of Noah's ark are far greater than that of the missing link,my opinion again.

Dinosaurs? doesnt the bible give reference to what we believe to be dinosaurs in the book of Job, ie, Behemoth, and in other books, Leviathan? I believe in them suckers co existing with us. As far as no bones of humans and dinosaurs being found together, leading some to believe it was an entirely different time period, so? I know for a fact, yes fact, that you can dig up dinosaur bones here in Western Co. in shallower levels than you can dig up a set of human bones at the graveyard.

So on the topic of dating methods, arent the dating methods used subject to atmospheric conditions? Billions of years old? No way we can determine that one, I dont care how scientific you think you are, there are no hard records what so ever going back more than a few thousand years. Some of the most common dating methods that are thought to be most accurate, put shallower layers of strata in the Grand Canyon as being older than deeper layers.
Also take a peek at Mt St. Helens. Since its eruption in 1980, the events that took place there have turned a lot of evolutionists theories upside down. Millions of years? that mountain has proven that in a very short period of time, that petrification, forming of canyons, re growth, strata layers that appear to have taken millions of years to form, can happen in just a couple of decades given the right conditions and catastrophic events. Check out a documentary by Steve Austin on it produced ten years ago, very good.

And when some of you lump all Christians into a group of mindless sheep, think twice, it would be like saying that all motorcyclists are a bunch of un safe hot rod idiots because I have a friend that told me he saw one riding with out a helmet doing a wheelie down Colorado Blvd with his girlfriend on the back wearing only a tank top, shorts, and flip flops.

If some of you want to debate subjects like this with sarcasm and personal attacks, using only your opinions and hearsay, good luck getting folks to jump on your bandwagon, they were probably in Jr. High School already.

I havent posted on this site in quite while because it seems like always the same crap. It goes from a club about bikes to a slam fest. I have made a couple friends on this board and I'm great full for that, I hope it continues, but you prob wont see my funny little squirrel sig that often.

On a side note, it is sorta odd how that when times get unbearable, someone passes away, we need help, medical issues, etc., seems people from all sorts of beliefs drop to their knees in prayer, and call on the Great Almighty, the Living God.

As for the believers on this board, right on :up: Lord bless ya. As for the anti God folks on this board, ride safe, good luck, and I hope you will take the time to read the bible for YOURSELF and discover your answers, and may the Lord bless you too. As for me and my house, I will serve the Lord!

Ok, one more thing, as far as the combination of religion and politics, the two most popular US presidents in history were men of faith in one true God, and changed history based on their convictions. #1, Ronald Reagan, #2, Abraham Lincoln.

See what happens when you cant sleep,

RLB out,
cheers

dirkterrell
Sat Oct 4th, 2008, 10:17 AM
Why does it bother you that churches are tax exempt? Just what is it about being tax exempt that pisses you off so much?


Speaking for myself, I'm not pissed off about it.



I dont think a lot of you understand how churches are tax exempt. So we dont pay property tax or have to pay tax on our paper plates for our pot lucks, big deal, neither do schools. If given the chance, I would bet the family farm that any of you would jump on the opportunity to avoid property tax.


Not me. I believe in paying my fair share. My beef with the current system is that it has become so complex and cumbersome (mainly due to endless specialized exemptions and loopholes) that it unfairly penalizes individuals and small businesses who don't have the resources to keep up with all the details. One big reason I decided to sell my business about ten years ago was because I was tired of wasting my energy keeping up with all that crap instead of doing what I should have been doing, growing my business.



If any of you knew the inner workings of how a church can opperate with all the city and county codes, you would be more than happy to give them a break from some tax.


Under a simplified system, everyone would pay a lower rate. I would rather see everyone pay a little rather than the current system which requires all of the wasted effort determining who is eligible for what exemption. As I said earlier, churches are members of society and should participate as such. And your analogy with schools (public ones) is flawed because those are funded by taxes. It makes no sense to tax them.



Lets not forget about the paid staff, I believe most are under a self employed status, my pastor and all our church staff is, which means they pay MORE tax that most of you. So they get a housing allowance, big deal, they still pay more tax than most.


Pay more than who? Private businesses?



Evolution, some of you are screaming that it is FACT, where is this fact?


I posted a reference. Did you read it? Haven't heard back from James about whether he read it.



Havent some of the most solid evidences for evolution turned out to be hoaxes? you might not have heard about these because I believe they were removed from the text books.


I assume you are talking about Piltdown Man? If so, it is a beautiful example of how the scientific process weeds out fraudulent claims. At first PM seemed like the "missing link" but as more hominid fossils were discovered, it was clear that it didn't fit with the new finds like Australopithecus and Homo Erectus. It was seen as perhaps some side branch before it was finally exposed as a hoax. At the time of its "discovery", it superficially seemed like an important find but when scientists looked at the details, it made no sense. Science, despite the weaknesses of the humans that undertake it, is designed to uncover falsifications like this (or much more commonly, honest mistakes).



As far as no bones of humans and dinosaurs being found together, leading some to believe it was an entirely different time period, so? I know for a fact, yes fact, that you can dig up dinosaur bones here in Western Co. in shallower levels than you can dig up a set of human bones at the graveyard.


Note that I said "undisturbed" layers earlier. Yes, through geologic processes, lower levels can be upturned. I sit in my office every day and see the Flatirons which are now nearly vertical at the top of a mountain when they were once the sedimentary bed of a sea.



So on the topic of dating methods, arent the dating methods used subject to atmospheric conditions? Billions of years old? No way we can determine that one, I dont care how scientific you think you are,


Now that's some open-minded thinking. :) I'm assuming you're talking about C14 dating. And yes, it does depend on the production rate of C14 in the atmosphere. Perhaps you know enough about the process to tell us how it's calibrated?



there are no hard records what so ever going back more than a few thousand years.


Define "a few thousand".



Some of the most common dating methods that are thought to be most accurate, put shallower layers of strata in the Grand Canyon as being older than deeper layers.


Got a peer-reviewed reference for that?



Also take a peek at Mt St. Helens. Since its eruption in 1980, the events that took place there have turned a lot of evolutionists theories upside down. Millions of years? that mountain has proven that in a very short period of time, that petrification, forming of canyons, re growth, strata layers that appear to have taken millions of years to form, can happen in just a couple of decades given the right conditions and catastrophic events. Check out a documentary by Steve Austin on it produced ten years ago, very good.


I'd like some real details on these claims. Catastrophism and it's effects on evolutionary processes is a mature field of research. Does he have a web site outlining these claims?



I hope you will take the time to read the bible for YOURSELF and discover your answers


I have indeed done so. And I certainly didn't lack for exposure to Christian beliefs growing up in the South with fundamentalist parents. :)



Ok, one more thing, as far as the combination of religion and politics, the two most popular US presidents in history were men of faith in one true God, and changed history based on their convictions. #1, Ronald Reagan, #2, Abraham Lincoln.


Both of whom I admire very much. But the argument here isn't that people of faith can't serve. The argument (and nature of the First Ammendment) is that government itself should not be involved in enforcing or prohibiting religious belief.

Dirk

Captain Obvious
Sat Oct 4th, 2008, 10:54 AM
Creation vs. Evolution aside, why SHOULD churches be exempt from taxes?

I am not talking about the small congregations that are limited to a small building with <100 people in service every Sunday and struggle to make ends meet, but the large churches that clearly have no fiscal shortages and take in millions of dollars annually.

And it is not just the church itself that is exempt, but the employees can be. Clergy are exempt from federal taxes on housing and can opt out of Social Security and Medicare withholding.

Gonna guess they do not have fiscal problems.
http://www.sthelenchurch.org/images/photo-large-church.jpg