Posted on 08/09/2009 6:29:20 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814
...according to Myers and at least one of my other sources that attended, aside from joking to each other about the ridiculous nonsense in the “museum”, no one misbehaved. But that didn’t seem to stop “museum” officials from harassing individuals and eventually kicking a few people out of the “museum” for imaginary infractions.
Essentially, it seems the “museum” feels that merely disagreeing with its “science” and mocking it to one’s friends is grounds for having visitors removed from the property. This is absurd. Could you imagine if the American Museum of Natural History ejected visitors for being creationists? Or if the Museum of Modern Art ejected visitors for critiquing the art or mocking Jackson Pollack’s work quietly with their friends? It would never happen. That’s because REAL museums are tools for education and don’t try to control how its visitors think.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The masculine gender of the Hebrew word "Khoog" is used in Isaiah 40:22; therefore, it means a circle, a sphere. You suggested that a circle and a sphere are two different things. They are sometimes different, but Webster says that a circle is "...formed on the surface of a sphere by the intersection of a plane that passes through it." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.200) A circle is formed on the surface of the spherical earth. Could God not sit above this circle on the spherical earth?
Once you get to the word that was used in the original writings, you find that God did, indeed, state in the Old Testament that the earth was round. No ignorance there whatsoever.
As far as the people then were concerned, we already had a world government, the Romans.
Is that what they were talking about? So everyone in the known world at that time had a mark on their person which they had to have in order to buy or sell, there was a one-world dictator who was worshiped by the world, and this dictator had the ability to round up every human being who refused to swear allegiance to him as god and behead them? This all happened during the Roman Empire? That's fascinating! How is it that you are the only person in the history of the world who has this information?
We had it back then, too. It's called a tattoo. That is if you still insist on only mundane power being used by Satan in the takeover of the world.
So you can keep track of every single human on the planet through their tattoos? How is that done? Is there some computer database somewhere now where every bit of information on every single person who has a tattoo is stored? Can a person's tattoo be read by a device that communicates with a computer which can determine if that person has enough money in his account to cover his purchases, or if the tattooed person's account has been overdrawn, or has been closed?
Don't be absurd.
On the whole, quite well. We've had a few hiccups, but then have theological forms of government.
Finally, a Barack Obama fan on Free Republic! I didn't think it was possible!
Which part of Obama's secular presidency do you like the best? The fact that his secular policies have put your country a trillion dollars in debt? Maybe you like his obsequious bowing to a devout Muslim (religious) Saudi King, or maybe you like his cold, hard, secular health care legislation that will result in the deaths of God knows how many people.
Yep, that godless secularism is really something to cheer over. Until, that is, you find that you're on the wrong side of 65.
That one's just funny. The Bible merely regulated the accepted institution of slavery, never even attempted its abolition. The abolitionist movement really didn't kick off until the 1700s. Luckily the morals of the people changed from that in the Bible, so they realized slavery was an institution that could not be tolerated.
Let's have a little Bible lesson, shall we?
The concept of slavery in ancient Israel and many ancient near eastern cultures is quite different than the type of slavery practiced in the Southern United States during the early 1800's. The term slavery was much broader then, since a king's subjects may be referred to as his slaves. Slaves were understood to be human beings instead of mere chattel. Slaves could own land and property - something that was illegal in the modern western version.
Also, we need to remember that slavery in those ages was an aspect of the economic conditions of the day. In fact, most slave situations were not primarily due to a person being taken against his will, but because poor people either sold themselves or their children into slavery. Slavery was designed to pay a debt to a debtor, and once the debt was paid, the person was free. A slave could buy his own freedom from the profits of his selling his property.
It is noteworthy that many people became bond-slaves (pledged to remain in his master's household for life) because their situation was better as a slave than as a free person. We sometimes assume a modern frame of reference when we talk about these things, but one must remember that life was extremely hard during these times, and to be free meant you had no guarantees that you would have enough food to eat or even a decent house to shelter your family. Add to that taxes from the ruling governments, no protection from raiding parties or foreign invaders and the expense of buying tools to accomplish tasks and you can see how being part of a larger organization could be inviting. You would share in the collective efforts of many people and have access to the resources of a rich master - much the same way the feudal serf system was constructed in the Middle Ages.
One of the great things about the God of the Bible is that He provides a realistic approach to the issues of the times. Slavery is definitely not the optimal form of relationship for individuals, but for most of the world's history it is a reality. Therefore, the Bible addresses slavery and provides certain safeguards to make sure that slave are not mistreated and that their humanity will be respected. For example:
"If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
"If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)
So you see, you are wrong about God yet again. And, again, it was not Christians who legalized and advocated for slavery in the United States. In fact, it was "secular" Africans who sold other Africans to slave traders.
A little education goes a long way.
Atheists won a great victory here in 1962 Engel v. Vitale, The Leftists got what they were really after. State sponsored prayer in government schools is outlawed in a controversial and dubious decision that was at odds with American history. If there was any doubt that professing one’s faith was no longer a God given right, the 1992 decision Lee v. Wiseman banned high school invocations and benedictions. Justice Kennedy found Constitutional protection for non-believers from “public pressure as well as peer pressure.” Thus, Scotus invented the right to not feel uncomfortable because of public expressions of faith by others.
By such reasoning our Declaration of Independence may not be taught because it contains the phrases, “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and “. . . endowed by their Creator.”
American Christianity proselytizes. It does not spread by the sword, and unlike Atheists it does not soil our Constitution and traditions by trying to eliminate Christianity from the public square.
Spare me your misdirection.
Your claim was that Christians [not Americans only, not time-limited] don’t force their religion on others.
Your claim was false, and your post a distraction from your false statement.
Here is one,
1236 C.E.
France Forced Conversion/Massacre
Tsk, Tsk. Phillip the Fair expelled Jews for the same reason he exterminated the CATHOLIC Knights Templar. For money.
For another, it was the same reason England's Henry VIII persecuted Catholics and confiscated church lands and wealth.
Oh, the Spanish? They kicked out Jews and Moslems for the same reason. Secular, money.
The persecutors these days are once again those in the secular state, in America of all places where religious freedom is supposedly a right.
Opinions differ as to motives of Spanish or whomever, fact is they (Christians) forced their relgion on others, which disproves your statement. Moreover, given that your dispute but one of literally a hundred examples, an inconsequential point.
Your lies put your purported advocacy of Christianity to shame.
(And why are you bringing up secularists? I’ve never defended them and certainly disagree with them. I only take issue with your lie that Christians have never forced their beliefs on others.)
Wrong. The Catholic church disassociated itself with the Spanish Inquisition.
Christianity is force for good and it is a pity that Atheists have the upper hand.
Lies? Shove it dirtbag.
You mean "chuwg" right? It's a circle. The language can be a bit ambiguous though, which is why I mentioned that this is only one of many pieces of evidence that point to the Bible describing a flat earth. You also using modern geometry to defend the ancient words of people who had no grasp of geometry is kind of entertaining.
Is that what they were talking about?
There is a Christian view that holds this, and the mark was on the money, Caesar's head, his name synonymous with 666.
So you can keep track of every single human on the planet through their tattoos?
I'm sure Satan could accomplish that. Either that or he's not as scary as Christians say he is.
Finally, a Barack Obama fan on Free Republic! I didn't think it was possible!
Bible literalists are the nastiest people I've ever conversed with, always the first to lay personal insults. The country will survive Obama.
So you see, you are wrong about God yet again.
Thank you for verifying that the Bible regulated slavery instead of condemning it as we do today.
And hundreds of years after they had been Christianized. Seems Christianity again didn’t quell the barbarism.
I would hope not. After all, which "God's version" should be taught in government schools? Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Amerindian...? Better to simply stick to the scientific consensus.
On the other hand, evolution is far, far from a proven fact, yet the theory of evolution is taught as gospel truth in the public school system. I would bring up hypocrisy, but, again, in the godless country we live in, I don't expect God to get a fair shake.
You're confusing the common definition of the word "theory" with its scientific definition. Things can be theories and facts at the same time. Look at the theory of relativity, for instance. There isn't the slightest doubt that it's true, and it's still a theory.
Reference was made to a Muslim school since, to my knowledge, Muslims haven't opened anything like the Creation Museum.
Given that they're outnumbered in this county by Christians by more than a hundred to one, that's not surprising.
The fact is, atheists have no problem going into a privately-owned operation
One which invites the public and charges admission...
run by people who believe in the Biblical account of creation, and attempting to force their beliefs on the people there by creating a ruckus.
The vast majority of the atheists didn't create any sort of ruckus, as per the statement of the museum officials.
These same atheists wouldn't dare go into a mosque or a school run by Muslims because the Muslim "god" doesn't quite have the tolerance for unbelief that Christ does.
Not analogous, mosques and schools don't invite the public to tour their facilities at $30 a pop. In any case, until a Muslim version of the Creation Museum appears, you have no way of knowing whether or not these people would go there. Also, we're speaking of the tolerance of followers of Allah and Christ, not Allah and Christ themselves.
I guess so, although I have yet to see the reports about Christians invading and crashing an atheist convention or loudly making spectacles of themselves in the evolution section of a museum. I think the atheists are a few steps ahead of the Christians in trying to force their beliefs on others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McxGZyBBXMY
It seems that creationists are making regular tours at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science in which they give lectures about how everything in the evolution section is incorrect. This is certainly far more of a "spectacle" than some people talking amongst themselves. Any complaints from Christians at the Creation Museum that hearing opposing viewpoints ruined their visit would apply all the more to these creationists, given that they're actually lecturing, wouldn't you agree? Here's more:
"U.S. museums are preparing for increasingly vocal challenges to evolution exhibits, including those of the Washington-based National Science Foundation. Museum lecturers and docents say they are being frequently confronted by small groups of creationists eager to vocally challenge evolution, The New York Times reported Tuesday."
www.physorg.com/pdf6622.pdf
As far as I can tell, the atheists didn't confront the staff, but simply mocked the material amongst themselves. It's seems it's the creationists who are, in fact, a few steps ahead of the atheists in this regard.
It's certainly far easier to be an open atheist these days. While there is still societal disapproval from some quarters, it's rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
And, based on the experiences of other godless civilizations, I really don't think that's something to jump for joy about. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I'm openly atheist, in the sense that the few times someone has asked me my religion I've told them the truth. I don't bring it up otherwise. As far as I can tell, I've haven't suffered any negative consequences as a result of this openness.
What negative consequences do you think I should have suffered?
Absolutely. God never forces anyone to pray or worship Him, but He does allow the consequences of unbelief to play out in the life of a person or in a nation.
I'm curious, what consequences have I suffered in my life as a result of my unbelief?
I disagree. We still have our religious freedom for now, but we are about to see legislation enacted, for example, that criminalizes any speech, based on Biblical truth, that condemns behavior that in this godless, secular society has become accepted, tolerated, and celebrated. And that is just one example.
Please provide documentation of this legislation that would make a criminal act two people having a discussion condemning such behavior.
We now have laws in this country which makes criminals out of those who refuse to rent property to people because of certain lifestyle choices, we have students being expelled from school because they brought a Bible to read-the list goes on and on.
Please provide documentation that students have been expelled from public school because they brought a Bible to school.
This nation is almost completely secular,
When asked their religion, only 16% of Americans answered, "none". While countries such as Sweden could be described as "almost completely secular", to apply such a label the United States is simply inaccurate. You may not like the way religion plays out in this country, but it's still there.
and, the more secular we become, the more we decay and deteriorate. We now have a "president", proudly secular and godless,
Waitaminute...I thought he supposed to be a secret Muslim, not an atheist!
My opinion (which is nothing but sheer speculation my part) is that he believes in God in a "warm, fuzzy" kind of way, but that religion should stay in the church...unless it's advancing a left-wing social agenda, of course.
who is destroying our freedoms as fast as he can, and who is about to see his precious health care legislation enacted into law that will legalize the murder of certain people in this country who are deemed old and useless. Just like every other secular nation in recent memory.
But the atheists should be joyous. God is out of America and Barack Obama is in.
This atheist certainly isn't joyous, given that I'm an economic & foreign policy conservative. While I may agree with him on an occasional subject such as the teaching of evolution in public schools, my disagreements with him regarding the far more important subjects of the economy and the war against Islamic Fascism far out-weigh anything with which he and I would be in accord.
Which is why I always vote a straight Republican ticket.
We are a Nation founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ, by the testimony of the founders. Thus there is no question.
"Better to simply stick to the scientific consensus"
Since you are not a scientist, you can use the oxmoron "scientific consensus." Science has no consensus; it seeks deeper truth every step of the way, and has never had any consensus.
quit showing your a$$
What is it with you and the personal BS,
Knock it off!!
Don’t like it? Tough.
Your turn. Troll.
I didn't realize you were completely insane.
Spare me your misdirection.
No, you spare me your misdirection.
Shove it dirtbag.
Isn't it wonderful how the discussion of religion brings people together...? ;-)
Luckily, there isn't the slightest chance that Biblical mythology will take the place of science in public schools. The best solution that has even the smallest realistic chance of passing would be vouchers, of course. Then parents could afford to send their children to the school of their choice.
Since you are not a scientist, you can use the oxmoron "scientific consensus." Science has no consensus; it seeks deeper truth every step of the way, and has never had any consensus.
Yes, there's never a "scientific consensus" as such. All theories are open to challenge. However...try conducting a poll amongst scientists regarding the following:
1)Stars shine because of thermonuclear fusion
2)Continental drift
3)Evolution explaining genetic diversity amongst life on Earth
Is there the slight doubt that the number supporting these things would be well in excess of 99%? That is a practical consensus.
Ah, insults. The last resort of the liar.
“The Catholic church disassociated itself with the Spanish Inquisition.”
LOL. Yes, they were just following orders.
Anyone that considers evolution to be fact is either too stupid to pay attention to, or too biased to be employed in a responsible position.
Case closed.
BTW, only mythical people think that there is mythology in the Bible.
Nix the pings clown
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.