|
Posted on 12/23/2004 8:37:38 AM PST by NYer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Catholic League is the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization. It defends individual Catholics and the institutional Church from defamation and discrimination. |
|
|
|
|
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Blood of St. Januarius
The Tilma of Guadalupe
Incorrupt bodies of the saints
Fatima
Shroud of Turin
Sudarium of Oviedo
Nothing in the entire article clearly points the Christianity is the one true religion without being a true believer already. There is no emperical evidence that Peter puts forth that is worthy of discussion.
There is either one all powerfull God (Judeo/Christian) or no God. The polytheistic belief is illogical.
But where are the words, "Seperation of Church and State?"
More importantly, where is the apparent requirement to forbid public displays of religious beliefs, like creches in the town square? It ain't there. In fact quite the opoposite is there despite the tangled legal logic of the past several decades that has turned a positive into a negative.
Creches in the town square are an expression of faith, the prohibition of which is strictly and explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. We did not establish the first secular state, we established the first state that was not sponsored by a particular religious denomination, like Episcopalianism.
But, then again, you are free to believe what you wish, no matter how wrong you may be. The Constitution gurantees it.
I need no external authority to believe that commandments 5 through 10 describe in principle what must happen if people want to live together in a community. I evaluate based on my belief that a community cannot exist without rules, but I do not believe that those rules must come from God in order for them to be true.
The quality of our lives here on earth is increased by coming together as a society. Division of labor, economies of scale. That sort of thing. Hence, coming together is a good thing.
I have no idea how many virtues there are, and I don't see what connection that has to our discussion.
Again, it is not you or your ideas that are ridiculous, it was your definition of atheism I was calling ridiculous.
I think christmas has been co-opted by secularists the same way the christians successfully co-opted the popular pagan celebration long ago. Almost 100% of people celebrate the secular santa version of christmas with lights, presents, decorations, christmas trees, parties, food and candy canes. Christmas has about as much religious significance as halloween. A fun time of year to have some fun, excuse to party, give gifts and spend money. Christmas has evolved and if it ever was a real reglious holiday, it isn't anymore.
I don't know why they don't just declare the federal holiday secular so everyone is satisfied. If various religions want to celebrate their gods on the same day so be it.
No. The Constitution established the first state whose authority to govern was not ordained by God (any God, take your pick) but by the People who were to be governed. That step, away from the divine right of governmental power, was extraordinary.
I must move on to other things right now, but I must confess that I am confused by your responses.
I will be consoled by the fact that you acknowledge faith.
As for your physics degree, your reponse seems to be that you believe in atoms only because such a belief validates your degree. I would assuume that you believe in atoms because you think there is evidence for their existence.
Basically, as I see it, you have made my points.
To decide you are an Atheist, one would be well advised to investigate thoroughly the evidence for and against Atheism.
Many have done so and have come away believers in Christ. Many exceedingly intelligent people, including Michael Faraday, were very devout fandamentalist Christians.
But, again, do not take my word for it. Instead investigate it for yourself.
Assuming that their is a God, polytheism is really monotheism. As for calling both illogical, I don't think you understand logic. Logic has premises as a starting point. Both atheism and Christianity have different premises. Neither is superior logically. Both are based on the observors evalution of the evidence.
The reason polytheisim is illogical is because it self contradicts. On the one hand it declares many Gods while on the other it declares a body working as one. If theism is to exist it must be one all powerful God. If there are multiple God's, either one has to reign supreme which results in there being one God or all have to work together like the cells in the human body, which results in one God. So, polytheism is either describing many gods acting as one or many gods ruled by one.
Jesus claimed to be God, that He is "the Way, the Truth and the Life." Therefore, He is either Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Clearly He was not a lunatic. And there are plenty of ways that He could be proven a liar, since He claimed to be God. Did He demonstrate any singular supernatural powers? See below.
Check out the miraculous phenomena I posted above that are associated with the Church that claims to be Christ's Church.
Jesus claimed to found a Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against. The historical record clearly evinces a Church that traces Its origins to Jesus' time. This Church posesses a non-contradictory body of doctrine and an unbroken line of leadership. There is no remotely comparable institution in human history.
The list of miracles is compelling, isn't it?
A NOTHING SONG
Copyright by Ken Bierschbach
This is a nothing song, it’s not too important it’s not real long
It doesn’t have a message, doesn’t take a stand
It doesn’t have anything to say that’s grand
This is a nothing song, it doesn’t make a point, doesn’t right a wrong
It’s easy to play and it’s not hard to sing
It really isn’t much of anything, so
Sha la la la la do do do, hey na nee na nee, be bop a lu
Hey bop a re bop, wop bam boom
And that’s the chorus of this nothing tune
This is a nothing song, it’s has no direction it’s not real strong
But it was somethin’ to do at a quarter past two
Feel free to sing along on the do do do’s
(chorus)
There’s ob-la-di and ob-la-da, there’s cold-cuts in the fridge
The abadaba honeymoon was really somethin’
That was the bridge
This was a nothing song, it’s almost done, yea it’s almost gone
If you should wonder what it was about
You know nothing is the answer now let’s all shout
Actually they have all been refuted, but take my leaving as an indication that you won if you want. Until the next religious post, later.
LOL, sounds good to me. Why do they want to mess up our Christmas Holidays? Have their own day to celebrate or pout about - whatever.
Your need was not what I was addressing. I simply was trying to understand your basis for your assertions. You seem now to be responding that you need no basis. But what is your basis for that?
My point is that you have an underlying faith whether you want to admit it or not. The burning question, then ought to be whether it is your faith and is it correct? You certainly would not want to be basing your whole life on something that is false, as you may believe I am doing, would you?
But only you can answer this question.
I am now off to celebrate Christmas, which commemorates the time when God became Man and dwelt among us and then suffered and died to forgive all of our sins, mine included.
I will pray for you, my friend. And I mean that with utmost sincerity.
May God bless all of you posters out there today.
May God touch your hearts so you may know His Love and His Comfort.
It is real, and it is available to all who ask.
What have you got to lose except your dependence on your own feeble selves?
Which tidbits are those? (Except for the date.)
The Constitution is a remarkably secular document. Unlike the Constitutions of nearly all of the States, it does not invoke God in the preamble (or, indeed, anywhere in the text.) It does not include "so help me God" in the President's oath of office. It never requires any oaths, in fact, always offering the alternative of an "affirmation." And it forbids any "religious test" for federal office, at a time when most states limited officeholders to Christians (in some states, to Protestants). Plus, there's the First Amendment.
You're right: I used to write a column for a Skeptics magazine and had a similar problem. It's not necessary at all for a Skeptic to be an atheist (I concentrated on mocking bad science, quack medicine, supernatural claims, televangelist "healers", etc., but considered people's personal religious faith to be their own business). However, there was a contingent of vocal atheists who read the magazine. I once gently made fun of them for pulling one of their counterproductive, over-the-top PR stunts (trying to keep some people from having their traditional dawn Easter gathering in a public park) that accomplished nothing except to make the atheists look like hateful, petty a-holes. They responded by writing me a lot of snotty hate mail, demanding to know "whose side I was on?!" My response was that I was on the side of rationality and basic human decency, which they might want to try sometime.
I think atheists who get this radical are really just as zealous as any devout Catholic or Muslim; they've just put all their faith in the existence of a deity called "NoGod," and they'll mindlessly attack anyone who dares to point out that it's really no more "provable" than any other religion.
I liked Skeptic magazine but then they got Junior Skeptic in there, which is a bit lame.
Thanks for posting that.
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.
