Posted on 02/17/2007 6:23:04 AM PST by NYer
Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt either. I don't know whether global warming is caused by human activities or not, but many people believe both ways depending on the sufficiency of evidence for them.
I believe that the most coherent and logical theory of the beginning of the universe is the Big Bang Theory. But I certainly don't know for sure, because the evidence isn't conclusive.
The evidence that the Earth is about 4 billion years old is pretty substantial, but I don't know it for certain.
So just as you confuse belief with faith, you confuse the verbs "to believe" with "to know".
So it is with issues of religious belief. There are the "believers" who depend on "faith", and the atheists who also depend on faith (since one cannot prove a negative). Both sides do so because they have no evidence either way, but still have that belief. I distinguish them from those who believe something based on empirical evidence.
But I repeat that oft asked question: "What is your point in all this"?
OK...you aren't actually seriously offering that as an example, are you?
Allow me to add this to what Mrs. Don-O has deftly pointed out:
1. I see in the First Amendment a prohibition on Congress making any law regarding religion. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution a passage that reads anything like "Congress shall make no law in respect to nookie for pay." Can you point that out?
2. Can you show me any effort by a Founder or Framer to ban prostitution or repeal any similar social law?
3. If a city can't ban prostitution because Jefferson was very open-minded on religion, then why would a city be able to have an ordinance for disturbing the peace? If the city shouldn't care what diseases might be spread around, then why should they care if I play my stereo in your ear all night?
Yes.
My point is that you are very sure of what you believe, as I am.
We cannot both be right, and, since I am, you must be wrong.
Does not the above sum up what you think about me?
Therefore, we BOTH report what we think is correct, the lurkers can decide for themselves.
I believe that the most coherent and logical theory of the beginning of the universe is the Big Bang Theory. But I certainly don't know for sure, because the evidence isn't conclusive.
So just as you confuse belief with faith, you confuse the verbs "to believe" with "to know".
I confuse nothing, as your two sentences above prove.
No, there is a distinction between empirical evidence and pure faith, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Nor am I aware of exactly what you believe. If you believe that God created man but used the evolutionary process then we probably have little to debate, and our differences are mainly philosophical. If, as many fundamentalists believe, your particular version of the Bible is the exact word of God and therefore everything was created in seven days a few thousand years ago, then yes, we have great differences, that have little to do with philosophy. That is where pure faith must ignore the tremendous empirical evidence to the contrary. That represents our differences.
But as I said earlier, I'm not sure what you think because rather than put forth your own theory, you have merely made a futile attempt to pick apart mine...using only a dictionary.
I confuse nothing, as your two sentences above prove.
Huh? Do you have any relevant point to make at all...about anything?
Ah, that explains it then. Other than arguing semantics, I could never figure out what her (his?) point was.
"a dynamic and more progressive faith" Gee... I wonder what they are going to call it?
Next time I'll type slower.
You might have missed 337
The Constituion defines a national government of limited, enumerated powers. If you want Congress to make laws with respect to "nookie for pay" you have to show where among those enumerated powers is the one that authorizes it. If the power isn't enumerated, then Congress doesn't have it.
Arguments that place the burden on proving that Congress does not have a particular power are in direct conflict with the intended purpose of enumerating those powers in the Constitution.
I didn't realize the "Religeous Right" had an era.
Somehow I missed that complete explanation of where you were going concerning "belief" and "knowledge".
/s
That should help. You might also add in a tad of coherence.
I was 'going' nowhere. I stated it all right there. I even posted dictionary definitions to pinpoint the exact meanings.
I can do no more.
No...I'm sure you can't.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=special.display&item=050124_JWblog
I find this interesting about my former denomination:
February 4 - Chicago
This morning I spoke to 1,000 pastors from the Evangelical Covenant Church, and it turned into one of the real highlights of this tour so far. My good friend, Glenn Palmberg, is the President of the Covenant, which I find to be one of the most interesting denominations in America - genuinely evangelical and with a genuine social conscience, something that should be natural but has been all too rare. Like Glenn himself, the denomination serves as an important bridge between the conservative and liberal sides of the American church. I spoke about how ideology is one of the "principalities and powers" (from Ephesians chapter 6, the text of their conference). Ideology has polarized and paralyzed politics in America which now fail to ever solve our most pressing social crisis. Bitterly dividing us into left and right, ideology actually prevents us from finding solutions. But ideology has not only crippled our political discourse, it has also seduced religion.
By squeezing it into narrow political categories it has created ideological religion and deprived us of prophetic faith. And a more prophetic faith could actually help the nation to find paths to the common good - a conversation and commitment almost entirely missing in Washington.
I was unprepared for the response. I appreciated the enthusiastic standing ovation, but the talk at the book signing table afterward convinced me that something new was happening. I suppose I was hoping that this book and book tour would help to mobilize and energize the "non-Religious Right" in America. But I didn't expect several Covenant pastors to tell me with great feeling things like:
"You talked about your conversion, but I had my conversion this morning. I have been a member of the Religious Right and I see now how my religion has become so ideological. I don't want to do that anymore"
"I have been on the Religious Right in this denomination, but understood this morning how I have narrowed by concerns to only one or two issues. That's not right or biblical and I want to change my whole approach."
Glenn told me that one of the most conservative members of the denomination told him "I almost stood up in the middle of Jim's talk and said to the whole denomination, 'I repent.'" Glenn also reported another pastor's reaction from the left side of the church. He said he had been so frustrated with the church's timidity on social justice that he was close to leaving, but after the morning talk was sure that this was his denomination too. The Covenant, like most denominations, has experienced real tension between its left and right factions (the divisions that ideology makes) but this morning, Glenn told me, the whole denomination came together around a vision of faith and action that united them all. "I can't tell you what you have done for this church this morning," he gratefully told me. Organizing the non-Religious Right was one thing, seeing conversions from the Religious Right is something I frankly did not expect. I guess my faith is still too small and God might be doing something in this country beyond any of our expectations.
Now, there is an Elizabeth Palmberg on the board at Sojo and I can't figure out if she is any relation to Glenn Palmberg. Just the fact that Jim Wallis and Glenn are also both on the board of Call to Renewal with panentheist/emergent Tony Campolo should be enough to cause a massive exodus from the E Covenant. But people have their heads in the sand. Campolo and wife are heterosexual activists for homosexual causes. Brian Mclaren also spoke at the same midwinter conference that Jim Wallis spoke at. If only people would research, I think the E Cov would lose half their membership in a very short time. They're already suffering major church fights because of their whole-hogg adoption of PUrpose Driven, which effects people feel at the grassroots level. The other apostate teachings they are promoting however can be minimized at the local level and the donations will keep pouring in to the head of the beast.
Would that be the 'moderate Islam' that Rick Warren was touting about Syria?
What HISTORY says about real revival is the people don't go around predicting it or setting out to make it happen. They just stay faithful to the message, which Jim Wallis has for decades completely corrupted. If any 'movement' comes out of this, it'll be more like mob mentality than revival.
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.