Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Oh really?
How do you know this: "Our founding fathers were deists and a few Unitarians. They didn't believe in the Bible or the God of the Bible"?
This is definitely news to me. Why should they not believe in the God of the Bible, since the God of the Bible is the self-same Creator acknowledged in the DoI as the source of man's unalienable rights?
You can cherry pick the literature to your heart's content, tearing items out of context as it suits you.
But what you cannot do is rewrite American history to fit your reimagined, "culturally-updated" version of it. America is what it is, unique among nations. And what it is, is a Christian nation philosophically, i.e., without taking the doctrines of sectarian religious belief into effect.
The Framers to a man whatever their sectarian differences believed that we are a nation under God.
If you don't understand that, you do not understand America.
JMHO, FWIW
Well jeepers, kosta He doesn't need my permission to do that.
You wrote: "I can not be 100% certain that God exists or that he doesn't exist. To declare that I do I would lie to myself and to the whole world that I am all-knowing."
Well that's funny; I can say without doubt: God exists. But this is not to make me "all-knowing," just discerning. After all, the evidence is there for those willing to look.
That’s funny :)
But, G, you have as much proof that there is, as he does that there isn't a God; zilch. Neither belief can be (dis)proven. Faced with doubt, people make a choice. That doesn't mean their choice reflects the truth.
If you are 100% certain than considers yourself delusional, by all means. :)
than=then
All one needs is to be used just ONCE in someone's life as the instrument through which He chooses to work in a way that CANNOT be denied, to put that question to rest.
He doesn't care about Bachmann anymore than he despises Palin.
He's not a conservative because he's an agnostic/atheist, simple as that.
It's not just because he doesn't like Palin. Plenty of people have yet to be convinced that Palin could be president, but I guess she'd have to announce that she intended to run for President first, wouldn't she?
These libs around here just play right into her hands. She's got them in an ooda loop, and they're just firing into their own fuselages. Fact is, like the MSM, Sarah Palin lives in the minds of liberals here on FR rent free, even as they do out in all their other liberal enclaves.
Fact is too that liberals are most scared of Palin and atheist jerk-offs who infest Religion Forum threads on FR continue to prove this every time.
He says he doesn't kiss any one's "a$$," but that's probably because his lips are so firmly planted on his own, that by doing so it is likely that he may have encountered his only true ally on the forum.
Atheists are such pathological liars.
You know, metmom, "kosta-booty50" called Sarah Palin a "redneck." What color do you suppose his neck is in that picture?
Remember the old Wisk laundry soap ad? You try soaking it out, you try scrubbing it out and you still get -- ring around the collar ----- ring around the collar!!!
Imagine what it must be like for him to try to puff on his bong up there. I mean, sure, we've all heard the barb, "Aw, c'mon, ya know he's just blowing smoke out his a$$," but this takes it to an entirely new level. Have you noticed that he still tries to balance that doobie on his booger finger when he types and he still wonders why the keys stick!
Can you believe a thread like this has gone on for almost 3000 postings already?
Way too much fun playing with the Darwinist atheists today!
FReegards!
Precisely. In the end you believe, I think, that it will be his will no matter what you or I think. So, don't preoccupy yourself much with his business.
Well that's funny; I can say without doubt: God exists. But this is not to make me "all-knowing," just discerning.
I am sorry, that's no different than someone saying "without a doubt Zeus exists."
After all, the evidence is there for those willing to look. Then prove that God exists.
It makes you wonder why there are so many different interpretations...if it's as simple as "dumb as a box of rocks." :)
All one needs is one bit of evidence to prove something exists, whereas, you need to knew everything, everywhere, for all time and eternity, IWO to be God, to prove that He doesn't exist.
BB is right. Open your eyes. If the complexity of what you see staring back at you from the mirror every morning, doesn't convince you that God exists, nothing will.
Plugging your ears and closing your eyes and singing *La, la,la,la,la,la,laaaaaaaaaaaaa....... I can't hear you.......* doesn't cut it.
So many people ask how there can be a God when there's so much evil in the world, as if evil disproves the existence of God. Considering the prevalence of evil and the depths of depravity men so easily slide into when left in a no God society, the real question is where good them comes from.
People left to their own devices to not tend towards good.
My travels to asia and europe tells me that seeing things purely through the prism of Western eyes can be wrong. The Hindus in India complain of “why are Christians given an easy time in the media compared to Hindus” — the Moslems in Islamic lands don’t because they don’t have a democracy
Ah, very eager -- yet when anyone asks YOU to prove what you state, why do you hide behind "it's a personal question!" screech?
one who says things like Jesus Christ was persecuted and died - that is the only focus for a Christian
only a Moslem or another who denies Christ was God would forget that for a Christian, the fact that Jesus Christ died, ROSE FROM THE DEAD and ascended into Heaven is the focus. Not just a dead Christ
I realise that it is difficult for the non-Christians like no-no to acknowledge that, but it is the central mystery of our Christian faith which is not only that Christ DIED, but more importantly that HE TRIUMPHED OVER DEATH, He rose again from the dead, He IS/WAS/will always be GOD
Non-Christians cannot acknowledge this fact of Jesus's resurrection and that Jesus Christ is God.
That’s marvellous, in post 2970 you complain of “personal attacks” and in the following one you launch one yourself!? Marvellous inconsistency!
Get behind us Satan.
Of course God wants us to be involved with His business. That's what He gave us Scripture for. That's why He sent the Holy Spirit to empower us for. That's why He chose to use man as the primary medium for spreading the Gospel to the world so that all men might be saved.
Just what business do you think that God has that we shouldn't preoccupy ourselves with anyway?
It's all about the redemption of mankind, using men as the means.
No wonder you reject what you think religion is. It is so screwed up as to be meaningless gibberish. I'd reject what you believe as true also.
So get over it and let it go and find the real God instead of hanging onto your delusions and nursing your grievances against God.
Honestly, all you atheists remind me of characters out of CS Lewis's "The Great Divorce*. You're like the dwarves in *The Last Battle*, so afraid of being taken in that they can't be taken out of the prison of their own making that is all of their minds. Nobody is going to fool them again. The dwarves are for the dwarves and bah humbug on anyone who tries to tell them differently.
And just what would you do then?
Let's see -- in your comments I see only attacks on everyone else. Your comments have liberal usage of the terms "troll", "noob", etc. and propound nothing besides that they hate everyone else's faith...
What's that matter? It's sad that your posta are mostly based on hating others
However, the Resurrection is a point that is the main stumbling block.
If theres such a thing as evil, you assume theres such a thing as good.
If you assume theres such a thing as good, you assume theres such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.
If you assume theres such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver,..
..... ‘but thats whom they are trying to disprove and not prove’.....
Because if theres not a moral law giver, theres no moral law.
If theres no moral law, theres no good.
If theres no good, theres no evil...... What is their question?
Why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law?
The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person..... That is, you can never talk of morality in abstraction..... Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question.
In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner......
So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into person-hood,.... which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued....... And that person can only be God......( speaker..Apologetics...Ravi Zachariah's)
“I am that I am”..saith the Lord.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.