I know are very own Aye was at the Restoring Honor rally in DC and I’m looking forward to hearing a report from him. Until then, an awesome speech was given by pro-life activist Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, in which she says “I too have a dream!”
Plenty more where that came from….take a look at the turnout:
And the biased MSM is a bit peeved over this turnout, and the reaction to the turnout.
They can be peeved all they want…in fact that can blow it out their a*&. The citizens of this country are pissed and will not just sit idly by as the Democrats tear this country to pieces.
Sarah Palin’s speech is a must see:
An awesome rally that I wish I could of been a part of.
A message was sent tho…..
The one can relax in his ivory tower as long as you can, but we will not stay silent forever because we will be waiting patiently until November.
More videos from The Constitution Club
All three hours and 28 minutes of the rally can be viewed at – Restoring Honor Rally
Democrats, Tea-partiers and waiting for November? Apparently it’s not about politics…
Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck
lol yep…I no doubt that the proportion of Christians in the US will continue to fall (especially those going to church) and the number of atheists/non-believers will continue to rise. I think Beck is on more solid ground attacking Obama than trying to revive people turning back to God.
I was there – in fact I just now got home. It was a wonderful event. I counted the number of times the words “Democrat” and “Republican” were spoken. Democrats were mentioned twice, Republicans once. There were no mentions of liberalism or conservatism. It was truly non-political.
But the message was clear. The values of individual responsibility, hard work, faith that you can succeed, and personal, voluntary charity to those around you that might have fallen down on their path – those values that made the US a great nation – have been ruthlessly persecuted and deconstructed over the past few generations, in favor of government controlled handouts and punishing taxation on those who create wealth and jobs.
Gaffa,
Perhaps your correct. Probably not. At least our country hasn’t surrendered it’s culture to the religion of peace. Now go find your girlfriend/boyfriend a nice black burka for the fish fry tonight.
Beck did more for the memory of Martin Luther King and the meaning of his dream than all the Sharpton race hustlers had done in 40 years.
I wonder, did people know Martin Luther King was marching against Democrats and their segregation politics? Just like the Democrats terror wing the KKK, Lots of Democrat party history has been hidden, not forgotten just hidden by the media.
Blacks took a huge step forward on 8/28. The truth will win out.
GAFFA UK: BECK IS TALKING ABOUT HONOR AND GOD’S HELP;SO TO RESTORE AND CLEAN UP ,
THE DIRT YOU AND YOUR PARTY ARE SPREADING ALL OVER AMERICA.
@Tom
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Beck didn’t specifically mention a Christian God at this rally – so surely Muslims who continue to believe in their God are completely onside with the bland and unconvincing message being touted here. The UK or Australia (where I live) haven’t surrendered to Islam. But I guess that little jibe is all part of the fear Beck likes to create on his show.
@ilovebees
I’m not a member of any political party. I presume you are referring to the Democrats but they can hardly be my party if I don’t live in the US. If people weren’t trying to carry out changes in the name of their ‘God’ for the last few thousand years – I’m sure we all be in a better state than we are now. Religion has shown little honour towards other religions and non-believers. For a start it would help if the Catholic church would honour children rather than trying to cover up scandal after scandal. Maybe religions should clean up their own dirt first before they resume lecturing the rest of us.
GAFFA UK: arent you putting ACID into the drink?: GOD is for all CHRISTIANS,
NO need to search for flaws in BECK speach: AND you can restrain from attacking any religion,because you dont beleive in GOD;
NOBODY attacking you, but yourself.
@bees
A
You don’t have to believe in something to attack it. lol. Or does that mean in your logic YOU can’t criticise islam, judaism, atheism, evolution, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy etc?
@GaffaUK
The rally, which I proudly attended, was Christian in nature. Did you miss the 240 “Black Robes” that paraded on the Memorial at the end? There were multi-racial, multi-cultural representatives including, but not limited to, Catholics, Jews, and all manner of Christians. You have missed the whole point of the rally, and I know that you are missing out on the joys of life when you apply the principals of Faith, Hope and Charity that was the whole point that Glenn was promoting.
Did you hear Dr. Alveda King’s speech? Did you notice the tears in the crowd when we stated the Pledge of Allegiance, when the National Anthem was performed (with singalong from the crowd), when the bagpipes played Amazing Grace…
God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, is the Holy Trinity, the center of Christianity. None of those names apply to Islam – they have Allah and Mohammed and a religious belief that promotes the islamification of the world – THAT is not a Christian teaching. So, having read your posts, I have decided that all you want to do is bash those you don’t agree with, you don’t know what you are talking about and have proved your irrelevance. So sad…
Thank God for Glenn Beck and for all those he honored especially our military – both living and dead!
@Gaffa – you said:
Really? If there had been no religion of any type during the history of mankind, we would all be “in a better state than we are now”??
Do you re-read the asinine things you type? Or do you just hammer things out on your keyboard that register with your far left talking points?
Have there been atrocities in the name of religion? Of course, why just look at history, ancient or even recent – 9/11 for example. One doesn’t even need religion to commit genocide, look at Nazi Germany and Hitler’s attack on the Jewish population. He did that in the name of eugenics; although one could argue that he was trying to escape his Jewish roots. Source
There has been far more good done in the name of religion than bad, and for you to condemn all religion in a sweeping generalization like you did is both lazy and quite disingenuous.
Gaffe, your quote:
might be true, providing one UNDERSTANDS it.
Allow me to use your own example:
Since you asked, I will correct you Gaffe, and hopefully educate you to the fact that Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all worship the SAME God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
You also confuse political (hijacked), Isalm, with the peaceful religion of Islam. All three religions have many differences, with obvious different ways of “getting there”, but all three worship the same God, consequently, there is no need to define “which” God when Beck speaks of bringing God back to the public square.
As for the sins of religion Gaffe, it’s getting a little old, as the debate has been made countless times of the magnitude of world atrocities made by the godless, or those who FALSELY USE religion.
Your attack against the Catholic Church “not honoring children” is both bigoted and sophomoric. Why didn’t you go after the US Swim coaches ; just askin’, being it’s the latest of a plethora of “sexual cover-up” scandals? And let’s not forget Roman Polanski, who gets celebrated for the same thing, clearly making the point that, by cultural standards, “sins” are relative.
I know you have your reasons Gaffe for your detachment from God, but your do yourself or credibility no favors when you make ignorant claims; the consequence of attacking what we don’t fully understand. By hey, you are far from alone!
The bottom line is that we live in a fallen world . Good men fall, bad men fall, and the point of religion isn’t who can make it through life with the least amount of sins. It’s about the sinners (all of us) who by God’s grace can get back up and try again, regardless of how many falls it may take to get it right.
Glenn Beck has been a favored liberal batting board for quite some time. Having just read through way too many vile liberal comments following Wapo, NYTimes and Newsvine articles, heh, he just drove them straight to Frenzyville.
Judging from crowd estimates and also take into consideration how many couldn’t attend due to “the Summer of Recovery” Glenn Beck is just a small portion of what the left need concern themselves with.
As Glenn Beck is only one in more than millions and millions considering those attending 8/28, those attending 9/12, those that were there in spirit both times, and they vote.
I was there and this was a God centered event. Salvation through Jesus was mentioned more than once and that is about as Christian and you are going to get, in DC on the Mall. We opened in prayer, prayer and songs of praise were raised through out the event, respect was given to Martin Luther King and all that he stood for, and we closed in prayer, giving thanks for the ‘hallowed grown’ where we stood, for our President, our troops and their families and our country.
It was a great day to be a God loving American. If you couldn’t be there, watch those tapes, Dr. Alveda King’s speech was good, the others should give you a good sense of what we experienced.
At the end, when the bag pipes started to play Amazing Grace, and the crowd in one voice (not prompted by anyone because the gospel singers on the stage had not started singing yet), started to sing…. I have never heard anything so powerful, so beautiful; there are no words.
Atheists make religionists look like pikers when it comes to killing the masses:
“The Death-Toll of Communist Revolutions
Modern “communistic” revolutions, according to a 1983 Foreign Affairs Research Institute report, resulted in about 140 million deaths. The report included all premature deaths from execution, man-made famine, imprisonment, deportation, slave labor, and civil and international warfare. The coalition counted 46.2 million Asian, 45 million Soviet, and 3.6 million European victims of Communism from 1917 to 1967, reaching the fairly comprehensive sum of 139,917,700 deaths.
The Chinese communist death toll far exceeds that caused by the Axis war, both before and during the Second World War. Walker (1971, p. 15) estimated as many as 63 million persons died as a result of Chinese Communism from 1927 to date.
Schwartz (1972; 1985) claims that Mao Tse-tung’s “Great Cultural Revolution” holocaust alone was responsible for some 29 million deaths and the disruption of the lives of 600 million people. Others concluded that the number was closer to 35 million. Sonam Topgyal (1984, p. 7) estimated that the Chinese murdered 1,278,387 persons during their 3 3-year rule of Tibet alone. Specifically, 174,138 Tibetans died in prison and labor camps, 156,758 were executed, 432,607 died fighting, 413,151 died of starvation, 92,731 of torture, and 9,002 of suicide. Of the more than 7,000 active monasteries present in the Himalayas before the 1950 Chinese takeover, only six remain.
Other Communist-Produced Holocausts
Dolot (1985) claims the Ukrainian communist holocaust cost 7 million lives. Dr. Schwartz’s research foundation claimed that over 2 million persons were killed by the Pol Pot Cambodian government. Facts on File (February 20, 1981) quoted a February 5th United Nations human rights panel report which concluded that the five-year-long Pol Pot regime genocide was “without precedent in our century, except for the horror of Naziism.” Once the communists took control of the country in April 1975, millions were killed, including entire villages and communes, pregnant women or women who had just given birth, old people, entire families, newborn babies, and even mental patients (February 2, 1979, Facts On File).
Hawk (1982, p. 21) places the number massacred from 1975 to 1978 at as high as 3 million. According to Sihanouk (1979, p. 77), Radio Hanoi reported that Pol Pot liquidated 3 million Cambodian men and women. Sihanouk, Cambodia’s first head of state after the revolution (he resigned on April 2, 1976), feels this estimate is exaggerated, but agrees that the number was high and that “the remaining five million Khmers were barely holding on after three years of forced labor, hardships of every variety and suffering were unparalleled in all of human history.” These “slaves,” the author reminds us, were doctors, students, or civil servants. Many of these who fled traveled through mine fields in a desperate attempt to reach the border, but barely one-tenth made it. The rest died, were captured, or were murdered. The elimination of so many competent personnel rendered the nation’s industrial and military complex virtually useless. ”
Quoted from:
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/darwinism.htm
This thread demonstrates what I was afraid could be the result of this rally… once I started to watch it.
Many non Religious Fiscal Cons felt betrayed by the Bush policy of “Compassionate Conservatism”, and are still gunshy about the intersection of Religion and Politics.
Beck started as the Voice of anti Progressive America… someone who was fighting against Big Government, but recently has brought more and more “Faith” into his TV shows, and now this rally.
The one thing that could destroy the Fiscal Con movement, is the fight between Non religious Cons, and Social Cons…
@Romeo – You said:
How can one be a Non religious Conservative? If you believe that our rights come from a higher power, from God and that no man or government may take them away or grant them; then by definition you believe in a God, do you not?
anticsrocks,
I consider myself one of those “Non religious Conservative”. I have no use for bible-thumpers and anti-abortion zealots.
But at the same time, the Founders were wise to emphasize the concept that there is a higher power than government – even a democratically elected one. Call it God, nature, natural morality or whatever, The existence of an authority higher than a government is critical to the continued existence of a free society. America’s founders understood that when they repeatedly mentioned “The Creator,” “providence”, “inalienable rights”, and so forth in their public and private documents and letters. This emphasized the powers, laws and rights that no ruler or government should ever presume to usurp. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence specifies that any government that does so looses its legitimacy to govern.
God, in the context of government, is a level of accountability.
@Anticsrocks
Pretty simple… our Rights are based on the fundamental fact that we are thinking creatures, who can decide for ourselves. Whether we got there through Evolution, Divine Plan, or some guy with a White Beard who cloned a Woman through taking a bone sample of a guys rib… is immaterial.
We ALWAYS have Freedom of choice, even if the consequence is death… and the Constitution was written to ensure that the Government admitted we have choice, and to take the Governments coercion out of our choices, whenever possible, by taking away the Govs ability to punish us for said choice.
I ALWAYS have Freedom of choice… its a fundamental nature of Man… and thus God is immaterial to my Rights.
But Government, left to its own devices, tends to grow without limits. Without the concept of inalienable rights, the decline of a democracy to tyranny (of course cloaked in “caring for people”) is slow but certain.
@Dreadnoght 19
Yep… we get to the same place, just by different means. I subscribe that you cannot effectivly take away a persons ability to choose… although you may make the consequences of said choice really bad… thus its a fundamental attribute of Man… one that needs to be Acknowledged as it cannot be changed.
So, whether its an Inalienable Right granted by a creator, or just somthing fundamental about Man himself, the Founders were Genius’s to put those Rights in… because only by acknowledging those Rights can you end up with a stable society.
Notice, that we are currently the OLDEST Government on the planet? That has not changed form? Thats becaue our Founding Documents were based on how Man IS… not like the Communists or Socialists, who base Gov on how they want Man to be…
Funny… they just had the Natural Right debate on Judge Napolitano on Fox… LOL
Gaffa,
Don’t walk around in fear all the time and you won’t surrender your entire culture to the ‘religion of peace’.
Sorry, but I take at look at the once great UK and celebrate my ancestors leaving that island.
Oh, BTW, your wrong. YOUR quote mentioned ‘Christians’.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
FedUp
Hmm – same God – different rules. lol. right – even though historically Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same roots – historically and even today – many believe those who believe in a God outside of their religion (even outside their own demonination) is worshipping a false God. Doesn’t really matter as it’s all make believe anyway – like Thor, Zeus etc. Funny how some social conservatives use a degree of logic politically but through away all reason when it comes to religion. That’s why they call it faith I guess – you don’t need to use your brain – just believe in what you’re sold.
@Anticrocks
Of course you don’t need religion to commit genocide. Never said that. Although Hitler wasn’t an atheist but he wasn’t driven by religion. Stalin probably was but he didn’t kill in the name of atheism. However how many tyrants have killed in the name of atheism?
@pdill
lol – you are comparing swimming coaches from one country and one individual with the Catholic Church systemic and global abuse of children & cover up! Surely you can see that is ridiculous if you took a moment to think about it. The catholic church is deeply hypocritical on this.
@Suek
Except none of those were done because they were atheists. Those who committed such crimes may have also liked the music of Frank Sinitra – but that doesn’t mean liking Frank Sinitra music makes you a genocidal psychopath. Whereas things like the crusades and the abuse committed by missionaries, jihadists etc etc were done in the name of God and inspired by their holy books. I don’t think there are comparable genocides where atheists have killed those for simply believing in God.
@Tom
Fortunately I don’t walk around in fear. Yes apparently in the UK everyone wears a Burka and gets stoned to death if they commit adultery. I wonder when one cheesy stereotype of bowler hats, London Fog, cobbled streets etc got replaced by this new idiotic lies & exaggeration by the hard right? Oh that’s right – it’s our old friend the MSM. You read one or two silly stories (probably via Daily Mail) and suddenly that becomes the percieved reality. However for those who believe UK has gone to the dogs are usually the ones scaring themselves stupid watching Glenn Beck and believing that the US is going the same way in a few years.
At the end of the day the best thing about the US is the separtion of state and religion – and the freedom to practise religion or be a non-believer. If you try to reinvent yourself as some imposed theocractic monoculture then you’ll end up as democratic as Iran.
@Romeo – You said:
You pick up the argument after the fact that this right to choose you speak of comes from a higher power. A convenient way to sidestep the issue.
@Gaffa – You said:
Why do those of you on the left constantly strive to keep score? Bottom line is you stated that if all religion were taken out of the history of man, we would be “in a better state than we are now.” How can you not realize the absurdity of your statement?
@anticsrocks
Side stepping the argument? or acknowleding that I don’t know?
One of the truly interesting things about the religious is their ability to stop thinking as soon as you cross one of their religious boundaries.
If you are so arrogant to say that you know all the eternal truths, because some book written by a bunch of people 2000 years ago has all the answers? When they could ONLY write things within their own conception of how the world works (little things like physics, or evolution…)… Beleive as you wish…
I explained my basis for my view of Natural Rights, through the way Man is… if you don’t wish to accept it… its not my problem…
but my premise remains, you can explain Natural Rights, without having to rely on religion, which YOU had a problem accepting.
OH… and “I” did not say it came from a higher power… but MAY have come from a higher power…. or from evolution…. you read what you wished to see, not what I wrote…
@Romeo – You are the one getting all upset about this, putting words in my mouth, not me. My premise is simple, our rights come from our Creator, just as the Founding Fathers stated so eloquently when they gave us the Declaration of Independence.
I can accept that you have a right to any view you wish, I was merely asserting that our rights come from our Creator, you seem to want it both ways. You want to say man has the right to choose, but you stop short when it comes to admitting where that right comes from.
No need to get pissy about it.
Sarah Palin is a genuibly gorgeous, intelligent, and ‘very nice’ lady; I mean the word ‘Lady’ literally. There are not many -Ladies- on the left.
\This rally was also meaningful in its own right to ‘stop the use of our armed forces’ in the dirty politics of the left.
It was about time, that our armed forces received tthe respect so clearly deserve. Sarah Palin in particular was kind to remind us all, that behind every uniformed person is a mother, father, brother, or sister. The left has a ‘hate’ towards those armed forces, which I can never get myself to accept.
As all the different awards were given to a few, it was a silent message to those on left, that the disrespect for our armed forces has began to be confronted.
I have to say, that it took uncommon courage, for MLK’s niece to speak at Beck’s rally, and skip the Rev. Sharpton’s. She is sure to receive doses of hateful flak over that perceived ‘snub’. The thing that is funny, and yet so bothersome, is that Sharpton’s rally supposedly ‘honored’ MLK, and it was done with divisive racist rhetoric, the very kind that MLK fought against.
Another thing about Beck’s rally. The placement of it was perfect. Done from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the pool, surrounded on all sides by memorials to the fallen heroes of several of our nation’s wars, facing the towering monument to Washington himself. Perfect.
@anticrocks
To ask how many tryants have killed in the name atheism is a perfectly reasonable question – as it seperates the key difference between those who do evil where their belief or non belief is not the motivation for their action and those who do. And if you took religion out of history you would still get wars etc but it would be one less thing for mankind to fight about.
@Gaffa – One less thing for man to fight about? THAT is all religion is to you? I truly, truly pity you.
You said:
What I think you’re trying to say there is that unless someone is committing atrocities in the name of religion, they are motivated by….what? Nothing? Insanity? Only non religious people can be insane? Maybe you just worded it poorly, but it really isn’t clear; at least not to me.
The things you say make no sense. Religion is far more than a reason to go to war or commit horrific atrocities, it greatly contributes to the civil society, for without it, there would be no civil society.
Okay, we disagree about religion, and that is okay; but to say it is only a motivation for war is, well childishly simplistic and asinine.
@Anticrocks
No that isn’t ALL that religion means to me nor did I say that was ALL it meant to me. I’m agnostic/borderline atheist who feels historically religion has been more corrosive than positive.
Come now – I can think of lots of reasons why wars could be started which are for non-religious reasons – such as grabbing more land, grabbing more resources, pre-emptive strike based on faulty intelligence on WMDs etc etc. I just don’t know of a war that was committed in the name of atheism – do you?
Of course religion is a far more than a reason to go to war – and it has played a positive role in human development as well as a negative depending on which people, which events etc etc. But to believe without it there would be no civil society is ridiculous. Do you believe we only have a moral compass because of some invisible guy with a beard? Do you believe atheists have no sense of morality or civility?
Question – where did I say it is ONLY a motivation for war? Did you misread my post or are you purposefully trying to distort my comments by inserting your own qualifiers?
GAFFA UK: HI, WE know just about all religions’s sources;
WHEN and WHERE are the beginning of AGNOSTIC and ATHEIST?
do they have anything to do with the finding of EVOLUTION by exploraters, who have been proven wrong on many facts of their arguments along theses CENTURYS . bye
@ilovebees
Are you refering to when historically agnosticism and atheism began or what atheists believe was the start of the universe?
And which facts are these?
GAFFA UK: hi, I was asking when and where the IDENTIFICATION of those 2 movements began,
ALSO all over the world came suspiction , from diffrent groups experts in their own field, RELIGION,
the DARWIN LITTERATURE and exploraters who came after him too, ecetera.
CAN you tell me where you think the conscience on HUMAN BEEN who give them the knowledge
of right and wrong came from. AND can you tell me where the human BRAIN ACTIVITYES started ON the MOTHER EARTH. where does WISDOM come from?. bye
@Gaffa – you said:
I have already pointed out how absurd and childish this statement is.
Yeah, right. 75% of Americans identify as Christian. Worldwide, Christianity is thriving, as well:
Of the approximate 2 billion Christians in the world today, 648 million (11% of the world’s population) are Evangelicals or Bible believing Christians. Evangelicals have grown from only 3 million in AD 1500, to 648 million worldwide, with 54% being Non-Whites.
Source
I know of no religion that says to worship outside their denomination is worshiping a false God. In other words, Catholics recognize that the Baptists and Methodists are worshiping the same God they do. This is another one of your attempts to be a bomb thrower and make a statement based on your own twisted outlook and not based in reality.
Here you flip flop and say that religion is positive:
Now to rebut this silly statement, I shall turn to our Founding Fathers:
Really? Then in our Declaration of Independence and other founding documents, I guess our Founding Fathers were just relying on man to grant rights, and offer the basis for a civil society.
John Adams – “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Benjamin Rush – “[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”
Noah Webster – “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.”
James Wilson – “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”
And here, I think another quote from Webster really ties it up nicely –
“The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
It is if he is speaking to you, Gaffa. He is basically pointing out that those religious wars you speak of that were carried out in the name of God are no such thing. You can have any despot who wants to wage war and might say it is in the name of a religion, but the bottom line is that if someone wants to go to war and has the resources to do so, they will.
@Anticsrocks
If you could answer my previous question below and I’ll happily answer your new questions…
@Ilovebees
According to Wikipedia…
Atheism
Although the term atheism originated in 16th-century France, ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic are documented from the Vedic period and the classical antiquity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#History
Agnosticism
Since Huxley first used the term, several writers have defended agnosticism as a philosophical viewpoint. A number of earlier thinkers and writings have explored agnostic thought. Agnostic thought, in the form of skepticism, emerged as a formal philosophical position in ancient Greece. Its proponents included Protagoras, Pyrrho, and Carneades. Such thinkers rejected the idea that certainty was possible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#History
Well religion is superstition as it’s not based on reason. Explorers – maybe be superstitious or maybe not – depends on which explorer. Darwin’s theory on evolution isn’t superstitious as it’s based on scientific research.
I believe our conscience is part innate and part environmental (that is taught by our parents etc).
As human have evolved there is no one point in time or place which you can pinpoint where human brain activities started on planet earth.
I would say wisdom is stored in the brain and is based on experience among other factors.
Ariticles on the science and evolution of morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
btw – still waiting for you to let me know which facts of evolution have been proven to be wrong…
Why do people think that evolution and God can’t co-exist? Heck, the Pope, the Patriarch and the Rabbi’s in Israel are OK with it, and that pretty-much covers the whole of the Bible-writers!
It is pretty much just the American-based Evangelicals that take the whole Bible literally, and I never have figured out why they spend so much time and effort on the Old Testament…AKA Judaism.
GAFFA UK: HI, thank you for elaborating the subject, it’s very interesting to read. as for where
I found the fact of EVOLUTIONIST being proven wrong, I say that I have read it along my lifetime but I forgot where, I suspect the EXPLORATER who went the same road after DARWIN,not quite sure; SO if my word is not good enough for you to beleive, IT’s not my fault: but I have my beleif and I’m not trying to change yours, just trying to destabilyze your certainty of beleifs,
EXACTLY as you are doing here, on this post about a RALLY that where very succesfull,
and many thousands of people turn their prayers to GOD. wasnt it a bit arrogant from an atheist to critisize religion at this timing. bye
@Gaffa – you said:
If you re-read my post, number 37 you will see that I show where you actually flip flopped on this issue. But nice try to avoid having to defend your statement about the moral order or civil society.
The idea of the civil society, or moral order is one that our Founders held dear. You should read up on it. To question the idea of God as “some invisible guy with a beard” is again childish and immature. Do I believe atheist have no sense of morality or civility? No, I never said that. But that is altogether different from the idea of THE civil society.
@Anticrocks
Where’s the flip flop? Where did I change positions? Because I criticised religion and believe on the whole that we are better without it you ASSumed therefore I believe there is nothing positive about religion. That is simply not the case. That is like believing if someone (e.g. a Republican) criticised George Bush about his immigration policy then therefore that person must think there is nothing positive about George Bush’s policies – or if someone criticised Obama policies and believe things would be better if Obama wasn’t US President that Obama has never done anything positive as President. Up to that point because I had not mentioned that there are positive bits to religion please don’t ASSume that therefore I believe there aren’t any positive aspects to religion. That’s poor logic on your behalf. I simply elaborated my position. So clearly there is no flip flop.
Therefore your distortion that I said that religion was ONLY a motivation for war – still stands as a gross distortion on your part. If you were man enough you would see that you inserted the ‘ONLY’ and at concede that you had either inadvertently or purposefully distorted what I had said. Again I never said that religion was ONLY a motivation for war.
Christianity isn’t thriving in the US – there used to be more than 75% of Americans who identified themselves as Christians in the US. In 1948 it was at 91%. So it’s a fact that there are proportionally less people in the States who identify themselves as Christians. Meanwhile atheists/non-believers have are up from 4% to 12%. That’s still a big gap but the trend is definitely downwards for Christianity and up for non-believers. In a lot of the countries of the developed world the proportion of Christians are dropping much faster than the US. I expect over time that the developing world will also follow this trend. Whether evangalists numbers are rising is irrelevant if the total number of Christians are dropping.
http://gawker.com/5208182/happy-easter-christianity-is-dying
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
Really? There are those who accuse Catholics of idolatry for worshipping Mary
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/blasp102.htm
http://www.atruechurch.info/catholicism.html
Founding fathers thoughts on religion
…
Benjamin Franklin
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Religion may have been a neccesity early in mankind history when humans knew little about the universe and the underlying science of how things came about. Therefore they invented Gods and creation myths which helped them to explain things. This may have had a role to play in creating control on other people (for good and bad). But now as species we are much stronger in our knowledge – we don’t need to put down to things we don’t understand down to a mysterious God or Gods. Governments today don’t need to have one religion imbedded into their system and they can seperate church and state – irrespective whether religion played a role in establishing a country centuries ago. Theocracies should be a thing of the past – same as monarchies. They played a role but now we can do without them.
@Gaffa – You do know how to beat a dead horse, don’t you? You may not have said that religion was only a motivation for war, but you very well intimated that. What other purpose could you have had when you said that mankind would have been better off without it?
It doesn’t matter. If your assertion that your claim the world would be better off without religion, period was only half true, then so be it. You can’t have it both ways, either religion is so bad that the world suffered as a whole because of it, or it isn’t.
As for your Founding Father quotes, well you simply point out their views on Theocracies. You have yet to discuss the Transcendent Moral Order.
You say Christianity is on the decline and you even quote ARIS. Or rather you cite a website that quotes ARIS. Hmmm, so do I and the ARIS study I found clearly shows that in 2001 all U.S. respondents who identified as Christian (no specific denomination) rose from 14.1% in 2001 to 15% in 2008.
As for your asinine statement that Christian religions claim that only their denomination worships the one, true God, well that is simply absurd. You then try to prop up your rash statement by citing two websites that seem to agree with you. Tell me, did you do a WHOIS to see who owns those websites?
I did and in both cases they are owned by individuals, NOT by churches. So you say that a RELIGION or denomination within a religion calls into question the existence of a God outside their faith, but you offer up websites as “proof” that are owned by individuals. Laughable, but nice try. The only thing you have proven is that you have a cursory grasp of how to use Google.
@Anticrocks
Nope – that’s the ASSumption you made which I have corrected for you. War is done for many reasons.
There is no contradiction here. Religion has done good and bad – I suspect few would dispute that. It isn’t binary. It depends on which people, which events, which specifics etc. On the whole I believe if you add up all the good things and all the bad things – then I believe the bad things are worst and so society would be better off with religion. Is that a hard notion for you to grasp?
These quote stem from my belief that the a civil society doesn’t need religion – again as Jefferson say ‘ A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not’
Hmm you seem to have a cursory grap on how to read and comprehend the English language. Let’s look at my statement again.
“Right – even though historically Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same roots – historically and even today – many believe those who believe in a God outside of their religion (even outside their own demonination) is worshipping a false God.”
Now I didn’t say “Many RELIGIONS believe those who believe in a God outside of their religion (even outside their own demonination)is worshipping a false God”. Clearing I’m refering to individuals here and all I have to do is give a few examples of this which I have. Yet again you made a foolish ASSumption without thinking or reading the quote. Funy how you like to throw around words like asinine but the own ass here is yourself. lol:D
GAFFA UK, I say that I beleive GOD is the ULTIMATE CREATOR,
RELIGIONS some are bad and offensives, some are rules by LUCIFER, some are man made in effort to adapt with their business and call it RELIGION,
BUT CHRISTIANS TRUE religions that AMERICA follow from their founders are obeying GOD,
HIS SON JESUS and THE HOLY SPIRIT, and IT work for hundreds of years. and ,
the AMERICANS WANT IT THAT WAY TO CONTINIUE for always.
@Ilovebees
Some questions for you….
* Do you believe in evolution?
* Do you believe the earth is over 4.5 billion years old?
* Which religions are ruled by lucifer?
* Do you believe Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God?
* Do believe that if Jews, Christians and Muslims follows their religion as perscribed they will all go to heaven?
* IF an evil person, like Hitler repented and begged for forgiveness for his sins before he died would he go to heaven?
* Do you believe non-believers will go to hell?
* Do you believe everything in the Bible is literally true?
@Gaffa – Well after I waded through the sarcasm and lame insults, I see that you have once again contradicted yourself.
Here is your original quote (misspells and all) about some denominations of Christianity calling other denominations’ God a false God:
Yep, you said MANY. Not individuals, not some people, but MANY. Yet here you claim otherwise:
So which is it? MANY or INDIVIDUALS? I have detected a pattern with you. You first make some stupid, rash statement while making sure you have some “wiggle room” for what you think is plausible deniability. Then you troll the internet to find off the wall examples to prop up what you said.
That is sad, really; pathetic, even.
As for your bastardization of what the Founding Fathers said about THE Civil Society or Transcendent Moral Order, well you just keep proving that you haven’t the foggiest notion as to what I am talking about. Even though I defined the Transcendent Moral Order, you still try to wiggle out of the debate by calling it “a civil society”, as if the Transcendent Moral Order isn’t an easily definable and specific belief. Edmund Burke thought very much of the TMO and he didn’t take it lightly. Burke never separated religion and liberty; rather, he maintained that liberty is only possible when it is part of the eternal and Transcendent Moral Order. One of his biggest concerns was that freedom should never be confused with license. That instead, true liberty must always be understood as ordered liberty.
The idea of a TMO came about because the Founding Fathers were fighting against the tyranny of England. This is why they opposed a theocracy so vehemently.
Well unless you have something new to add, I am ending this debate for I am finding out that debating on a logical basis with you is like trying to put a saddle on a cow, you spend a lot of time to do it, but what’s the point?
Now it is your turn to throw another insult or two (lame as they are) and then make some attempt at saying that I misinterpreted what you said.
Go ahead – you have my permission.
@Anticrocks
*sigh*. Nope I didn’t deny I said MANY (as you falsely claim) – I denied that I’m refering to a religion AS A WHOLE. And again let’s go through that statement.
For start MANY doesn’t specify the religion as a whole, nor the hierarchy of that religion, nor even a majority of individuals. I believe that there are many people – e.g. Christians who may believe that Muslims or Hindus (or vice versa) are worshipping a false God. Of course there are others that believe religions (particularly those of abrahamic religions) worship the same God. However in brackets I stated – that I believe here is a subset of those people who ‘even’ believe that those who are in the same religion but not of the same demonimation worship false god.
So question: What is the difference between MANY and INDIVIDUALS? Do you really believe they contradict? If so please let me know how many people are in MANY and how many people are in INDIVIDUALS? lol. You can’t – as individuals is plural as is many – and both are not specificed in an amount. But again I guess you made an ASSumption and used poor logic – again. What’s pathetic – is someone like yourself who distorts someone else points of view and then gets upset when those assertions are backed up and proves to you that there aren’t any contradictions.
If want to find contradictions then please read the Bible – you’re find plenty there. Oops you made have read, using your own perculiar internal logic, ‘plenty’ as meaning that the bible has ONLY contradictions. Or that if I dare to criticise the Bible in having contradictions then surely I must mean that the Bible doesn’t have anything good to say. lol
WRONG – you somehow have got Christian mixed up with those failing to indictate a religious identity. lol
Page 2 – http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
In that report…
Do you still want to deny that data?
As for Transcendent Moral Order – if there is a moral order from a God then please show me scientific evidence that such a God exists.
As for lame insults – you started those with such dullish insults as ‘childish, immature and asinine’. Why don’t you grow up – if you can’t have a reasonable discussion without resorting to insults and then bleating when I give it back to you. Now run away if you must…lol
GAFFA UK: hi, I can say this; YOU see what you’r missing, by not beleiving in GOD,
I dont pretend to know all the answers: BUT you would have just to ask GOD
to enlighten your soul, and the answer would be found in your brain.
bye
@ilovebees – Well said. You have, as usual, showed compassion and a sense of wisdom. I applaud you.
@Gaffa – I knew you wouldn’t let me down. And just for the record, I am not the one who is upset about this…
@Anticrocks
Well you should be embarrassed over the lies and distortions you have made on this thread and the sheer hypocrisy over your comments about my insults to you. And let me guess – you consider yourself a Christian!
@ilovebees
Sorry – I rather believe in credible things which have been proven rather than by any mystical mumbo-jumbo. Some people may believe that wishing upon a star will give them want they want, or finding a 4 leaf clover gives them good luck. That’s superstition. God isn’t found in the brain – he’s a construct given to us by our ancestors.
GAFFA UK: hi, WHO MADE up YOUR FIRST ANCESTOR?.
OKAY, you dont have to answer, monkey, I prefer my SUPER GOD.
SPECIALY when I’m happy or sad. bye
I say OH GOD and YOU SAY OH MONKEY
@Gaffa – You said:
In random order:
1. You call me a Christian like it is a bad thing, it is not a bad thing at all.
2. It is not I who should be embarrassed, I have told no lies. I have not made rash statements that I then had to hastily try and defend by changing the context in which I said them.
3. When I began posting on FA, it was you who, very early on started insulting me. I am just not inclined to look it up; you would merely attempt to deny it anyway.
4. If you keep saying that I am a hypocrite, it won’t make it true.
5. Trying to have a logical debate with you brings two old sayings to mind which actually remark on the spoken word, but I think even you can get the gist of their meanings:
* It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.
and
* Light travels faster than sound, this is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Look Gaffa, I really don’t care what you think about me and you shouldn’t care what I think about you. I attempted to point out that you made a very stupid statement and you got defensive and resorted to denials and flip flopping on the subject. That is fine. If you argument can’t stand on its own, then that really says something.
Have a nice day.
@Anticrocks
Monkeys (or a species similar to monkeys which is the common ancestor to man and monkeys) were not man’s first ancestor – evolution goes back further than that to a point in the tree of life where all living organisms have a common ancestor. Unlike God – there is scientific evidence for evolution so by all means carry on believing in the make believe.
I don’t think being a Christian is a bad thing necessarily – but surely your tone and insults in unbecoming of Christian teaching.
You have told falsehoods…
1) You claim that I said religion it is only a motivation for war. NOT TRUE
2) You claim that I said a religion within a religion calls into question the existence of a God outside their faith. NOT TRUE
3) You claim that a ARIS study clearly shows that in 2001 all U.S. respondents who identified as Christian (no specific denomination) rose from 14.1% in 2001 to 15% in 2008. NOT TRUE.
I haven’t changed the context – I have merely elaborated on my position when I have caught you out on making assumptions – see points 1 & 2 for examples. I will solidly defend my position when someone makes foolish assumptions.
Clearly it has been you on this thread who started the insults. If I have insulted you elsewhere first on this website then prove it. As a rule I try not to insult people using name calling unless they done to me. Therefore your allegation is baseless.
You comment on my insults to you but I find this hypocritical when you started it. If you don’t want the silly name calling then please stop it and I will happily do the same – as I find debates are much better had without them.
As for logic – well as I have said there is no contradiction in…
1) Many or Individuals – as you imply.
2) Saying that religion can have postive and negative impacts
As for flip-flopping – again I have gone into detail about your baseless accusation. There has been no flip flop. Right from the start I have not claimed that religion is all bad. Later I add that religion has a positive side – that isn’t a flip flop at all. I still feel that society would be better off without religion as the negative impacts in my opinion outweight the positive ones. How is that a flip flop? Or would you prefer just to keep saying flipflop ad naseusm rather than actual listen and directly reply to the logical statement I have made on this matter. Do you understand what flip flop means?
btw – let me know when you have reread the 2008 ARIS study and admit you got it wrong. Looks like my ‘cursory grasp of how to use Google’ in finding the report has trumped your ability to read and comprehend English. lol
Page 2 – http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
As for quotes – here’s some you may recognise…maybe you could learn something from them?
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Do not accuse a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm”
“A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger ”
“And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful ”
“Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your lips”
“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen”
“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger; brawling and slander, along with every form of malice”
“Do everything without complaining or arguing”
“If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer”
“Whoever spreads slander is a fool ”
“The Lord detests lying lips but delights in men who are truthful”
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is certainly not the same as Allah. People that say that are ignorant of what the Bible teaches. He is either one or the other, but cannot be both.
Actually, unless the theory of evolution has changed since I attended school, man is considered ascended or descended from apes not monkeys, the major difference being the tale of the tail. Apes and hominids don’t carry tails, but man is often anxious to make up for it by carrying tales, monkeys are a different species altogether.
Twenty years ago, I attended a lecture by a Professor Voorhees from the University of Nebraska. He had recently worked on the excavation of an old lake bed that was covered by a layer of volcanic ash in a few seconds of catastrophic explosion. The explosion wiped out the usual collection of camels and other assorted beasts; but they also found the bones of Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merychippus, and the modern horse. This was very interesting, because these different species of horse were all used to explain the process and proof of evolution; however, there was one problem, millions of years of evolution died within a few seconds and on the evolutionary clock, a million years is but a second and now one of the main tenets of evolutionary theory was consequently destroyed by actual scientific proof.
Perhaps many of you can recall the illustrations of Eohippus, a three toed horse that was about the size moderate sized dog and the development of more modern horses until you achieve the modern horse. Sorry folks, at the very least, that is all a pipe dream, but it helped explain evolutionary theory to generations. I don’t argue for or against evolution, but like the Global Warming Hoax, I hate to see manufactured BS presented as scientific fact.
Many sanctimonious and pious BS artists present the Evolutionary Theory solely as a means to discredit religion with less scientific grounding than religion itself, at least religion has historical reference.
Evolution promoters like to find a portion of a jawbone in the gravel of Olduvai Gorge in Africa and swear that this one fragment explains a major portion of the missing details of the evolutionary development of man. The fact that they might have one of millions of evolutionary dead ends, in their hands, that must exist for the theory to function, doesn’t occur to the man heading up the dig. He has found the one and only piece of the puzzle. Of course, there wont be a lecture tour and stipends if you don’t find that one missing piece in the puzzle, in one of the few places on the face of the earth that will fossilize just the fragment that you need for fame and fortune. Just why did early man or our antecedents so love this one Gorge, when circumstantial evidence identifies man as the perpetual wanderer?
Evolution like religion requires a great deal of faith in the creativity of others and this is what this debate is about, lesser people believing in the creative abilities of others. I know it sounds faintly like religion, but we will discount that for now. Personally, I think relying on the theory of a 19th Century scientist to explain all life, displays a lack of creativity: yet Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Keplar, Aristarchus, and Pythagoras have all developed theories that were well beyond their times, but unlike Darwin they used mathematics to prove their theories, not supposition and faith, at least Global Warming Hoaxsters had the temerity to present false data.
Many of us are still waiting for the mathematical proof of evolution and will allow for the use of the computer, something most of the great minds of science did not use. But in your bewildering explanations of evolution, please, no more horse fairy tales or is it tails?
SKOOKUM: THANK YOU: I am wondering sometimes, WHAT you DONT know;
THIS was very credible,even by GOD [TEASING you here].
WE learned more of EVOLUTION, and know it still happening,
THE real fact is that we havent comprehend yet, the MYSTERYS of the UNSEEN,
BUT many know it’s there, our gutts feeling does’nt lie, since so many choose to sway and lean
toward
beleiving in GOD. bye
GAFFA UK; hi, I was thinking, that in history, there was many THINKERS discovering
ALL kinds of theorys or gadgets or weapons ecetera. BUT they all had limited BRAINS,
AND some tryed to push their knowledge to beyong the limits of brain power, and end up
with a deviation of their brains, and being honored by humanity circling around them,
ready to beleive more of ,end up following the continue false rethoric from that sick brain,
and pass it along the generation ladder. bye
Skookum
Well if you check carefully I didn’t claim man was ascended from monkeys – although we do share a common ancestor.
As for Dr. Michael Voorhies – I did some research. I believe the site you are referring to is the Ashfall fossil beds. It is estimated that the volcanic ashfall happened 12 million years ago. The remains included five genera of horse – Cormohipparion, Protohippus, Pseudhipparion, Neohipparion and Pliohippus. However this did not include the modern horse, equus. The five genera of horse all existed at the same time so it’s no surprise that their remains were found together. This doesn’t destroy a main tenet of evolution – it is further evidence against a specific theory of evolution called Orthogenesis which had been abandoned at least a decade or more before the finds of Ashfall were examined in the 1970s. Darwin didn’t believe in Orthogenesis and Darwinism is a separate theory which still prevails today and clearly Dr. Voorhies also believes in evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
http://www.netnebraska.org/extras/wildhorses/wh_origin/wh_origin.html
Hyracotherium (popularly called Eohippus) did exist and is the modern ancestor of the modern horse. However there are many branches between the modern horse and hyracotherium and the modern horse is only branch that survived.
As for science, it is process where scientists come up with a theory for example, based on their observations and experiments. However scientists (apparently unlike the Pope or Bible!) are not infallible. There may be later theories which adapt or completely overhaul existing accepted theories which have stronger evidence and/or prove the other theory false. That’s the beauty of science.
Origin of the Species was written over 150 years ago and apparently over 99.85% of US scientists believe in the theory of evolution – according to Newsweek in 1987. That’s a solid scientific consensus.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth
As for Oldupai Gorge – there is no such thing as the one missing piece or the missing link as evolution is a gradual non-linear process – every bone of every animal that ever lived is part of the puzzle. Lumping creatures into genus and species is useful for classifications purposes but as evolution is gradual and incremental – you wouldn’t get a situation where there was a point in history where a Homo heidelbergensis gave birth to a Homo Sapien. So finding a fossil from branch that died adds to evolutionary theory – it certainly doesn’t disapprove it. However where do these fossils fit within the Bible? Carbon dating these fossils can prove that they are in some cases millions of years old. And yet even today, even in a first would country, like the US – there are religious people who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Evolution is nothing like religion. Evolution is based on science and evidence whereas religion is based on blind faith. Theories in science adapt whereas holy books make get reinterpreted & to a degree reedited but essentially remain the same – outdated folklore based largely on myths. By the way the theories of Galileo (perscuted by the church for believing that the earth orbited the sun), Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Aristarchus and Pythagoras – had in the main, based their work on earlier theories and in turn had their work also built on in the same way Darwinism has been adapted. You don’t need mathematics to prove evolution. Evolution already has lots of evidence including fossils, DNA & carbon-dating among others.
Can maths prove there is a God? In fact it doesn’t have to be maths – show me any scientific evidence that there is a God?
Talking of BS. Do you believe the universe was created in 6 days? Do you believe God created Eve from Adam’s rib? Do you believe that Noah gathered all the animals onto an ark? It’s this sort of BS that is paraded as ‘the truth’ as told to children all around the world.
GAFFA UK: hi, you want MATH to prove GOD EXIST?
I say, only SOUL would give you proof of GOD,
LOOK into your soul, if you can find the WONDER OF GOD. bye
@ilovebees
And is this a Christian God? You could look into your ‘soul’ and find Allah, Thor, Bhudda, Zeus, Yahweh, Vishnu, Ra or any little voice talking in your head. Which God you find isn’t found by looking in your soul but can more likely be traced to what religion your parents were.
btw…Would you buy a second hand car from this guy?
So why should I believe in a Christian God because someone like you tells me I can find God in my soul over a someone like L.Ron.Hubbard who believe 75 million years ago, an evil dictator alien called Xenu brought billions of his people to earth, positioned them around volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs – who essence today can bring us harm. lol. Neither of you give me evidence.
Both christianity and scientology is unsubstantiated tosh. Instead I suggest you read Richard Dawkins ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ and marvel at how spectacular life in reality is and how the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It’s a shame Glenn Beck isn’t promoting reason rather than God.
GAFFA UK; HI, I like my stepson horse,his name is THOR, I just today read SUEK’S link, and yes THOR look like a nice creature in the fantasy world; but no one can compare to GOD for me,
I never go half way in my choice of who I follow; IT has to be the TOP one
AND THE ONE’s ON TOP. every one else is very far below GOD.
AS you see GOD is unseen, and untouchable, that’s why he is the ultimite GOD of the UNIVERSE.
bye
@ Gaffa – You ARE tiresome, but none-the-less, you said:
Evidently I am unable to read and comprehend the statistics on this table by ARIS which states in part:
You want me to prove that you sling insults anytime you are presented with facts that negate your position? I am sure that I am not the only one on this board that is aware of your M.O. No need to prove the obvious.
So, right from the start you said religion isn’t all bad?
From GaffaUK #6 –
Hmmm, hard to find anything good that you had to say about religion in that statement; and THAT was your first mention of whether the world would have been better off without it. You even started this thread out making fun of Christianity. Just look at GaffaUK #1.
You go from saying that mankind would be better off without religion to saying that there are SOME positive aspects of it. Flip flop? It is in my book. I think that the world would have been better off without Nazi-ism. If I were to then turn around and say that there were SOME positive aspects to it, then I would be flip flopping. Evidently YOU don’t know what flip flopping means.
Finally to this stupid point you are attempting to make that I refuse to answer your question about what you did and did not say about religion and wars. You are saying that I state you SAID religion was the ONLY reason for war. Well you did not, in this thread type the words ONLY and RELIGION and WAR in the same sentence in the context that the only wars fought were holy wars. That being said, your statement that I referred to in GaffaUK #6 sure as hell implies that you think that that is all religion is good for and it further states that mankind would be better off without it.
Funny that you are insulted by my perceived snub of your question when you have failed to respond to anything concerning the Transcendent Moral Order which has been spoken to throughout the ages by Aristotle, Cicero, Montesquieu, Locke, Burk, Smith and our Founding Fathers. They all addressed it in some fashion or another, they all believed in the idea of a Transcendent Moral Order passed down from our Creator to form the basis of our Civil Society. And THAT is the bedrock of our country.
GAFFA UK: I forgot to say, GLEN BECK is doing very well, and he know the AMERICANS
ARE hurting and that’s why he acheve to bring many thousands to gatherd and listen to him
and others talk of GOD,IT was A great success, AND let be no doubt to anyone,
this is only the beginning to get AMERICANS together waiting for NOVEMBER,
JUST like an APPETIZER before a GARGENTUOUS DINNER. bye
@anticsrocks:
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Just a reminder:
AYE CHIHUAHUA: thank you for this good advice, I still owe you. bye
Gaffa: I commend you for reading Wiki: I merely attended a lecture in the mid-eighties. I must admit, I tend to read your posts at hyper speed and misread your quote concerning the monkey.
Remember that science has the advantage of ‘evolving’ with new evidence and new fossil evidence and of course it should. It also becomes necessary to rewrite history now and then. As a University student of the late 60′s and early 70′s, that worked on several digs, I can attest to the fact that Orthogenesis was at that time accepted as fact; thankfully, my professor, a major leader in his field, who drank himself to death at an early age, explained the nature of being published for the Lilliputian type professors, for whom he had no respect. (He had a 12 page bibliography.) The need to identify fossils as the ‘one’ to settle all disputes and the need to advance theories that were merely hypothesis waiting to be developed. It was from this professor that I learned that all is not harmony among those who write the theories that you and others like you accept as fact. How funny and silly it seems now, but this was an actual man of science, not a pulp fiction writer, who needed to satisfy the curiosity of faculty administrators and a gullible public. I have been much deeper into academia than the superficial musings of wiki.
Yes, it was not me, but the Leakey family who considered every piece of skull and jaw fragment a part of the evolutionary line towards man. (No I didn’t mention the Missing Link Theory). A process that continues today, every fragment is displayed on popular literature and examined as part of a line that must have included millions of branches that ‘died out’.
Of course, you realize after turning to wiki, that there is no DNA present in fossils and that Carbon dating can be unreliable due to several factors including contamination from intrusions in situ: you must also realize that numerous aspects of Darwin’s Theory have been abandoned, just as all science must evolve to fit the data. Like you, many scientists who have really never studied Darwin or ‘current theory’ on Evolution, will say, “Yes of course, I believe in Evolution” without even reading the basic premises except in superficial reports that are a little more in depth than Wiki.
I never argue for or against religion or evolutionary theory: to avoid being a bore, I would never consider attacking someone’s religion, but it is fun to point out the faith based segments of evolution. When someone holds up two skull fragments and says this was man three million years ago and this was man two million years ago and these two fossils are conclusive evidence. I must laugh at him like you laugh at people who base their life on faith.
The appearance and disappearance of species is a major factor that can’t be argued by the evolutionist except with blind faith. There is no fossil record or evidence to explain this blip on their screen. To assume that we evolved from the same single cell is a bit of a stretch of faith, but then it is only a theory that is waiting to be proved or disproved. Yet unlike other theories, this theory is accepted on blind faith as gospel.
Keplar wrote music that he said was produced by the planets in their orbits, of course he was mad, but who is to say that the music isn’t out there. Just as to say there might be antecedents to man and maybe man just appeared one day, like many other species seem to have accomplished, who knows, not me; but you have that spark of faith in the musings of others and evolution has replaced your need for a spiritual connection.
I am sorry for messing up your monkey correction, but I thought the tale of the tails to be clever for a spur of the moment musing, just as this post has been a spur of the moment musing, relying on previous readings that are 40 years old. If I become desperate, I could call on Wiki: if I needed pinpoint accuracy, I would never use Wiki. Wiki is a faith based initiative.
Now, after exposing my history, I must work with some horses to retain my sanity.
@ Aye Chihuahua:
Thank you!
@ Skookum:
Thank you, as well!
SKOOKUM: hi, ONE thing I always wonder about the INDIANS being here before anyone else: DO we know how long they where here before us, I wonder if they might have A knowledge given from generation to generations as they did pass their custom way of life in many ways. bye
@Anticrocks
I’m glad you have come to realise that your assertion that ‘all U.S. respondents who identified as Christian (no specific denomination) rose from 14.1% in 2001 to 15% in 2008’ was factually incorrect – and instead it was those who didn’t specific a religion which actually rose from 14.1% in 2001 to 15% in 2008. These are the sum total of agnostic, atheist and individuals who stated no religion!!
I want you to prove that I have used name-calling on this thread or any other thread before you started it whilst engaged in debate with you. As you are unable to do this (even though apparently it’s my MO – so surely there would be lots of examples) shows to me it’s a fallacy.
Hmmm – compared these sentences…
GaffaUK
Anticrocks
Please – can you seriously not understand the difference in the above?
Definition of flip-flop
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flip-flop
I haven’t changed my position. I could quite easily post my thoughts on the Nazi’s and all of it could be damning – although not necessarily exhaustive. However if later I choose to put in what I thought they did positive – or if someone asked me whether I thought they did anything positive – and I replied that the building autobahn system was a good thing (as I do) – do you really think that really negates my position or represents a reversal or ‘flip-flop’???? Of course not. I’m sure there are plenty of Christians who happen to be good people, or who are motivated to do good things due to the Bible teachings – or may even be trying to buy their way into heaven by doing good things. That’s all fine and dandy. But in my personal opinion – weighing up all the good and bad things that are caused by religion – I would still rather have no religion – as I believe we would be better off without it. No flip flop there.
Nope – that is the implication you saw that wasn’t there. Wars are caused for various reasons and religion can have variety of good aspects. Few if any non-believers would dispute that. You made a rash assumption on what I believe and I have corrected you on that.
Did you miss the below…? #49
Btw – Aristotle also believed that the central part of the universe was composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water and that the earth is the centre of the universe. Lol. I don’t expect people to believe in evolution because Darwin believed in it or because 99.8% of scientists believe in it – but because of the evidence. Whereas if you show the scientific evidence of a Transcendent Moral Order as uncovered by Aristotle, Cicero, Montesquieu, Locke, Burk, Smith or your Founding Fathers then please show me otherwise it’s just made up theory.
Also Norse mythology used to be central to the Swedes but fortunately they grew out it and now only about 23% believe in God.
@Gaffa: I think you actually tried that time. Tried but failed. Your tactics are tiresome and predictable and very lame.
You want scientific proof of the Transcendent Moral Order. You want measurable proof of a belief. First of all, who in the blue hell are you to demand proof of anything faith based? You scoff at all us silly believers, looking down your nose at us, thinking that your insults put you on a higher plane.
I pity you Gaffa, I truly do. It is sad that you have no better life than trolling blogs and making fun of any and everyone who disagrees with you – Sad.
You ramble on about things that aren’t even the topic of the OP thinking that proves you’re an intellectual – Sadder.
I attempted to end this before, and then decided to continue using you as my foil. But for now, I have had my fill of you.
Just mark it down to my unwillingness to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed person.
@Anticrocks
Ah I see you finally ran out steam now that I used facts and evidence against you and all you have is petty insults. What’s wrong with wanting proof? Of course – you have none. You didn’t even attempt to give one lame piece of ‘evidence’. I guess some Christians are happy to criticize other religions and non-believers but then suddenly get thin skinned and ultra sensitive when someone dares to criticise their religion. Boo hoo. Your sheer hyprocrisy when you whine is breathtaking. If you are christian maybe you should try and at least follow the teachings – some of which I posted above for your benefit. Yes I guess when you yourself are witless (the ARIS report in particular) you can’t have any battle of wits with anyone. Sad really. But still I leave you to run away.
@Skookum
Wikipedia – like google – is great:) If any of the points I put across where I reference wikipedia are incorrect then please let me know. Compared to such encyclopedias such as Britannica – Wikipedia doesn’t rate too badly. However with your lecture in the mid-eighties I felt compelled to point out an error you made that the modern horse (equus) was found in the old lake bed. I recommend checking wikipedia as it could help with your memory;)
Meanwhile let me know if you dig up any scientific evidence for God…
Gaffa – Talking with you is like banging one’s head against a brick wall; at some point you realize that it isn’t getting you anywhere. When I present facts, you try to distort them.
I went back and looked at that ARIS chart I quoted and I see your point. I read the table wrong. When I saw No Religion Specified, I took that to mean non-denominational. When I am wrong, I am big enough to admit it.
So I looked at my other sources which I did not quote.
Christianity is on the rise in the world.
Jesus in China: Christianity’s rapid rise
As for the United States –
You were wrong about religion making mankind worse off.
You were wrong about “a” civil society.
You were wrong about the Transcendent Moral Order not needing or coming from our Creator.
If you think my ending this was an admission of anything you are wrong yet again. You do not seem to be able to discuss things in a logical manner, yet you cry about insults that get directed back at you. Then you try to cloud the issue with facts that are not germane to the discussion, e.g. “Also Norse mythology used to be central to the Swedes but fortunately they grew out it…
Then you take two quotes, one from me and one from you and try to compare them. I went back and re-read your first comments on this thread and showed that you started off bashing religion and God and then made the asinine comment about the world being better off without religion.
THAT is you starting off with the point that religion is so bad that it should never have happened. Yet you take a comment that you made AFTER I called you on it and try to use that as your base line.
Your FIRST comments on religion on this thread:
Tell us, where in those first comments are you saying that religion isn’t all bad? Stop being disingenuous and just own up to the fact that you shed no positive light on religion in this thread.
I admitted my mistake and owned up to it. Do you have the temerity to do the same?
Now now…
Gaffa is a missionary for atheism. Obviously, he has a certainty that there is no God. I’m not sure how he can prove that, any more than any of us can prove that there _is_ a God, but I’m sure he can offer _some_ proof. Otherwise, why would he be so certain that atheism is so good for humankind? I offered numbers in the millions of murders done by atheists just within the 20th century, but he says that although they may have been atheists, it wasn’t done “in the name of atheism” so it doesn’t count. Ok…I find that a bit bizarre, but ok.
So…what does atheism have to offer to us in way of improving our lives, or giving us direction in how we interact with one another? What guidelines for morality does it offer?
@Anticrocks
Ah good – you have come back to discuss the points rather than purely making ad hominen attacks.
Hurrah – finally! How many times did I have to point this out to you on this thread until you actually looked at it properly again?
Except I was saying it is in decline in the US. I reckon the developing world will see a high and like the developed world will also in time decline.
The insults started with you. Why don’t you take responsibility for that? I’m more than happy to lay off any personal attacks of you if you are capable of doing the same thing. All you have to do is not make ad hominen attacks on your next reply and I will do that same.
That was a direct reply to your comment that a Transcendent Moral Order is the bedrock of our country. The pilgrims may be considered the bedrock of what would become the US – but now the percentage of protestants continues to decline. Things change.
*sigh* Let’s take this slowly for you…
Questions…
1) ‘Right from the start I have NOT claimed that religion is all bad.’
(Not is capitialised to help your comprehension) Is that true or false?
If false where did I say this?
2) Have I claimed that at the start of the thread that I stated that I believe religion isn’t all bad?
Yes or No? If yes – where did I say this?
3) Can someone criticise something e.g. the Nazi’s and still believe they made have done something positive? Yes or No?
4) If someone make criticisms of a subject (e.g. Obama)- does that therefore automatically mean that they cannot believe there are any positive aspects of the subject of their criticism unless they immediately state those positive aspects in their original criticism? Yes or No?
5) If someone criticises a subject (e.g. Obama) and then later adds what they believe are the positive aspects of that subject does that automatically mean that is a reversal of position? Yes or No?
You seem to deal in absolutes – either something is all black or all white – which fogs your ability to think logicaly. When I criticised religion it seems you ASSumed that therefore I believe religion is ALL bad and when I later said that religion does have positive aspects you think that this is a reversal of position! lol. You give an example of the Nazis – and yet I shown that it is perfectly possible to criticise the Nazi and later give an example where they did something positive which clearly is not a flip-flop. Do you believe the autobahn system wasn’t a positive development for the people of Germany? Do you believe everything the Nazis did was negative?
As for absurd Transcendent Moral Order do you believe the husband has authority of his wife?
@Suek
I’m not certain that there is no God – that is why I call myself an agnostic/borderline atheist. I don’t see how anyone can be absolutely certain that there is a God or that there isn’t a God. However as I don’t see that there is any credible scientific evidence for a God or Gods and that throughout history mankind has a prospensity to come up with Gods to explain things they didn’t understand (a lot of which we do understand today) – then chances are there isn’t a God.
How do you prove a negative in this context? Can you prove that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster in the universe?
So do you believe that any mass-murder or tryant’s religion is always the motivational factor for their deeds? It’s perfectable possible for people who are religious or non-religious to do good and bad deeds irrespective whether they are religious or not. That’s not bizarre. It seems you are treating communism as being synonymous with atheism.
It doesn’t. Atheism is simply rejects that there is one or more God. However you don’t need religion to have your own set of morals or choose to belong to wider movements such a secular humanism.
@suek: Well said!!!
@Gaffa:
I KNEW you didn’t have the cojones to admit you were wrong. Bottom line is, you said religion was evidently so horrendously bad that mankind would be better off without it. Now if something is so bad that we are better off without it, then just how is that statement saying something positive?
You have yet to answer that, but I will do it for you.
It isn’t. Period.
I also knew you would make more personal attacks and throw a few insults. It matters not, I could not possibly care any less what you think. I have proven my point.
By the way einstein (with a small “e” on purpose), the Transcendent Moral Order has nothing to do with a husband having “authority” over his wife. You have just shown how little you know about the subject.
One wonders how you can get about in your sad little life with one foot in your mouth all of the time…
So if that is true, which is most certainly is not; what sets one person’s morals apart from the next person’s? How is one to decide which is right? What if the fellow next to you says that his morals that come from his simply being human tell him that it is okay to murder people named GaffUK? If there is not TMO, then how can a society say that it is wrong to murder, lie, cheat, steal? What are the moral codes a society conducts itself based upon, then? If everyone has their own set of morals based on whatever the hell they want to base them on, who is right? Why does society have the right then to force you to live by the next guy’s morals?
These are all questions that prove your premise is short sighted at best and ill thought out at any rate.
Is life black and white… absolutely. Either something is or it isn’t. I call this binary logic. Even with regards to shades of gray… either it is a particular shade of gray or it isn’t.
Can one prove the existence of God? Does proving the existence of God matter to anyone other than the holder of the viewpoint. Contrary to what Obama espouses, salvation is not a communal event. I’m wondering what flavor of Christianity he actually practices to come up with the idea of communal salvation to begin with. My salvation is not dependent upon anyone’s belief system or actions but my own.
To thine own self be true… and to everyone else…. f’off.
@Anticrocks
I see you are incapable of answering my 5 simple questions.
Easy – do you think the US would be better off without Barack Obama as President? If you do then do you believe that he has done nothing positive absolutely as President? Again you can only deal in binary black and white. My position remains prefectly intact.
I have answered that several times now – but I’m not going to be bullied into having you say I said something when patently I didn’t. Again you have problems with English if you cannot see the difference between ‘Right from the start I have not claimed that religion is all bad’ which what I said and ‘So, right from the start you said religion isn’t all bad?’ which you claim.
If your point is that you are an unchristian-like hypocrite – then yes well done.
Re-read your post #42
If a husband having authority of his wife has nothing to do with Transcendent Moral Order then why did you mention this??? lol.
You seem to do pretty well when you use the rise of atheists, agnostics and individuals who stated no religion as proof that the number of Christians on the rise! lol:D
Most people have their own set of morals. If you take two people from the same religion I doubt if they would share identical morals. They are probably influence (heavily or not) from their religion – but we all live and cope with different set of morals.
How do you decide which religion is right? You make your own choice.
Most countries have this concept called laws. Something can be deemed by representative government (or by dictatorship, monarchy etc) as unacceptable and is made illegal. Somethings can be considered immoral but legal.
Do you mean if there wasn’t a God people wouldn’t be incapable of deciding that it wouldn’t be in their best interest to outlaw murder and stealing? Plenty of religious people still lie & cheat – or/and break the law.
A society is quite capable of creating it own laws and as I say morals aren’t shared by all.
If it’s not illegal – then that is the situation we have now when it comes to morals with a multiculture which has more than one faith. Even within a monoculture – there will be differing views on morals. And we cope fine.
Again if it’s not illegal – society can’t force you to live by an unwritten set of morals.
So unless there is a God that created you and this universe – would you suddenly become immoral? Would you cheat on your wife, would you covet your neighbour’s ass, would you steal, would you commit murder, would you disrespect your parents etc etc? Is God the only thing that keeps you moral? If so then I deeply pity you – for clearly you are in a child-like state where you only know right and wrong as dictated by a religious text.
@Anticrocks
btw here’s some of the morality which appears in the Bible…
* Noah’s ark – wiping out entire human race including children – except Noah & his family
* Exterminating Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Again include children.
* Mass murder of the first born of Egypt
* 42 little children murdered by two bears as a result of a curse from Elisha
* Israelites stoned and burned Achan’s sons, his daughters, his animals and his tent for the sins of Achan.
* Mass murder of the Midianite children
* Mass murder of Babylonian babies
* Murdering people for looking at the Ark of the Covenant
* Murdering a person because she looked the wrong way
* Murdering people for taking a census ordered by God:
* Murdering people for worshiping another God
* Mass murder of men involved in inter-faith relationships
* Murder of 450 priests:
* Murder of those who do not follow Jesus
* Killing the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah including children
* God killed Onan because he avoided his cultural duty to impregnate his sister-in-law:
* God killed Jews at Taberah:
* God killed Jews at Kibroth-hatta’avah
* God sent a plague which killed 14,700 Jews
* God killed 250 Jewish leaders and their families:
* God permits a human sacrifice:
* Instruction to murder religious leaders of other faiths:
* Instruction to murder any of your relatives or friends if they spread other religious faiths:
* Instruction to murder persons of other faiths, by stoning:
* Beating and killing slaves
* Noah laids a curse of Canaan and enslaves his descendents due to his son’s sinful act.
* Tamar is ordered to be burnt alive for being without a husband and pregnant
http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl2.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/intol_bibl1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_trans.htm
This is the sort of cruel morality I don’t want my kids accepting
@Gaffa: Once I dug through all the hogwash and incoherency that you put forth in your last two posts, I felt that you came close to making one point –
Yes they do. Tell me, where do most countries’ laws come from? From what are they derived?
I will answer for you, in a manner that you find it impossible to do; hence I will be A. succinct and B. honest.
Most countries derive their laws from religious values.
And BTW, the Transcendent Moral Order is quite different from what Aristotle proposed. The TMO actually came to fruition as a result of those early philosophers’ work. Only in relatively modern times (as compared to Aristotle’s era) does one find the completed philosophy or belief of the Transcendent Moral Order. It has much more to do with the way a society functions as related to its government, rather than the familial dynamics Aristotle wrote about.
Have a nice day.
@Gaffa: You ask:
I already answered this. When you said, “Right from the start I have NOT claimed that religion is all bad.” You had already claimed it was so horrendously awful that mankind would be better off without it. Therefore you cannot start your rant with the premise that religion is so bad we would all be better off without it and then turn around LATER, after I called you on it and claim you never said that.
Let me refresh your VERY SELECTIVE memory.
From GaffUK #1:
In your first comment you are making fun of God, religion and Christianity in general.
From GaffaUK #6:
There, I have yet again answered your first two questions.
To your insipid questions number 3-5:
3. So you are unable to say that Nazi-ism was all bad? Hmmm, that speaks volumes. Or were you just using that as an analogy?
Yes, it is possible to say something was 99% bad and 1% good. But then that wasn’t your initial premise, now was it?
4. That is just your way of giving yourself some wiggle room on your first inflammatory comment about religion being so bad mankind would be better off without it.
5. Yes, that constitutes a flip flop; which is what you started doing once I called you on it.
LOL, it is like pushing buttons with you. I write something and you go off on not only one tangent, but several.
Have a nice day, if that is possible for you dear Gaffa. BTW, appropriate name you chose.
anticrock: hi, I am amase of your patience, tolerance, and intelligence and writting skil.
bye
GAFFA UK: hi, I have visit your blog some times ago, and I have read that you favor the DEMOCRATS: NOW, would I be wrong to think that YOU took this post HOSTAGE bye pounding
from NO1 all the way down to discredit PURPUSLY the UGE and SUCESSFUL RALLY OF GLEN BECK
and SARAH PALIN AND MISS KING,plus others DITINGUISH GUESTS
for pushing the cause of your favored PARTY. And your allegance to ATHEIST group.
You wrote
“3. So you are unable to say that Nazi-ism was all bad? Hmmm, that speaks volumes. Or were you just using that as an analogy?
Yes, it is possible to say something was 99% bad and 1% good. But then that wasn’t your initial premise, now was it?”
Here’s another way of looking at this….
I’m Italian American so I’ll use this analogy
If I a make a perfectly fresh, homemade pot of pasta sauce, all the best ingredients, home made meat balls, saugage & then added just a little cat shit from the litter box, would you still eat it?
that would be the Christian point of view. Even just a little bad, is still bad.
Istell3: hi, WOW you had me hungry, until the last ingredient, bye
@Anticrocks
I said
And you turn that into so HORRENDOUSLY AWFUL and that I claim religion is ALL bad! I didn’t say horrendously awful nor that religion is ALL bad. But keep saying it anyway you will probably believe in your own lies. lol. I feel if you weigh up the pros and cons of religion that on balance we would be better off without it. Have you thought about a career as a gutter tabloid journalist as you are able to tell such exaggeration, assumption and out right lies.
I also see that you use the word ‘so’ bad. Yes I do think religion is ‘so’ bad we would be better off without it. Didn’t deny that. I am denying that I said religion is ALL bad.
lol yep…I no doubt that the proportion of Christians in the US will continue to fall (especially those going to church) and the number of atheists/non-believers will continue to rise. I think Beck is on more solid ground attacking Obama than trying to revive people turning back to God.
Nope – I’m making fun of Glenn Beck in that comment. But I have and will continue to make fun of Christianity and criticise it. Free speech y’know. Plenty of comments on this forum where people of Christian, Muslim and othe faiths + non-believers may find insulting. And you use this quote to prove that I have said religion is ALL bad? Do you have problems reading?
So I ‘ll ask you again – show me where I said religion is ALL bad. Not ‘so’ bad.
My initial premise was that Glenn Beck was wasting his time. Later I said ‘If people weren’t trying to carry out changes in the name of their ‘God’ for the last few thousand years – I’m sure we all be in a better state than we are now.’ So that gives me PLENTY of room IF I wanted to later say religion was 51% bad and 49% good OR that religion would be overall good if they didn’t try to change things in the name of their God. That’s not just wriggle room – that’s MASSIVE gap compared to your ASSumprion that I belive religion 100% bad just because I have the temerity to criticise religion. If I hear someone criticise their partner I don’t ASSume that therefore they must hate their partner 100% and believe there is nothing positive about their partner.
As I have demostrated above I have a massive amount of room here. I can claim that I believe religion is 49% good IF I wanted. So answer the question please.
Except I’m the one trying to focus you on taking responsibility for your comments and trying to get you to think logically without making ASSumptions. Example – see how long it took for you take responsibility for misreading the ARIS 2008 report. What gaffe on your part…lol
antics
plural noun
clowning, tricks, foolishness, silliness, buffoonery
rocks
plural verb
To disturb the mental or emotional equilibrium of
A mentally disturbed buffoon describes you perfectly
btw – still waiting for that scientific proof that God or a TMO exists. I guess that one got you stumped. Oh I know – you can’t answer that because you know that no such proof exists.
Anticrock: hi, GAFFA want the last WORD, you may as well give it to him,
HE’s a SPOILED BRAT, and is having a TANTRUM, if he does’nt get that last WORD. bye
@ilovebees: Yes, you are right. Every time I hit him with facts and present him with his very own words, he just tries to distort the issue and that way he can fool himself into thinking he won the argument or scored some points of some kind.
You see I recognize what Gaffa is trying to do, but I don’t let him get away with it. He is employing two of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
#5 Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
- and –
#11 If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counter side.
Gaffa is quite an enigma, on the one hand he spews just enough information to appear to be quasi-intelligent, but then he cannot resist himself and he lets loose with some asinine comment that reveals he is just a moonbat. A drone, if you will; he is simply a far lefty with the usual ultra liberal agenda.
I toy with him at the expense of nearly taking it too far, but it can be fun. I almost know what he is going to say before he makes his next entry in the thread.
But thank you for the compliments, ilovebees. You are full of wisdom and wit in your own right.
@lstell3: LOL you hit the nail on the head with that one!! Good analogy.
@Ilovebees
Well you must have a very bad memory as I haven’t written anywhere on my blog that I have favoured the US Democrat party. I did support the UK Liberal Democrats which is a completely different party and who aren’t spreading dirt all over America. lol
You have a problem with free speech? And again I haven’t pushed the cause of the UK Liberal Democrats on this page. Btw – the Liberal Democrats are currently propping up the Conservative Party in the UK in a centre-right coalition – having pushed out the socialist Labour Party which I’m very happy with.
I haven’t given my allegance to any atheist group.
Still I’m happy to clear up any confusion you clearly have.
lol – so when you post your posts that’s fine but when I do – I’m somehow a spoiled brat? I see like Anticrocks you are incapable of having a debate without lame insults.
@Istell3
The Christian point of view really depends on which random quote from the Bible you happen to cherry pick.
A Christian might make their own cat shit pizza and serve that back up as revenge to the cook.
Or the Christian may be delighted at the lovely gift of a cat-shit pizza and give the cook a big sloppy kiss.
Or if the Christian may get angry at the cat-shit pizza and stone the cook to death.
Or if the cat-shit pizza was forced upon the Christian they might submissively eat it and ask for another one.
Or maybe Jesus could pop by and feed 5000 Glenn Beck followers with the cat shit pizza.
I see that Gaffa continues to prove what a class act he is by repeating the word sh*t over and over. His mother must be so proud.
BTW, I am happy to be compared with ilovebeeswarzone; I consider myself in fine company.
@Anticsrock
lol- you find the word catshit so bad you have to stick an asterisk in it? lol
Here’s another quote for you…
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged.”
Going by the lame ad hominen attacks you try to aim at me – seems like you can’t even follow the morality of your own religion
GAFFA UK: hi, YOU know, YOU’r showing your qualitys as you go,
even if you dont want to, and one of them is never give up.
JUST to say, that YOU are showing US to never give up also,
And you’r still a good buddy of the group. bye
Gaffa…. quoting the Old Testament as Christian doctrine proves your ignorance on the subject of Christianity.
99….
Woohoo…. 100 I win… this thread is now closed
I see that the resident amateur agnostic/quasi-atheist theologian continues to try and pontificate on matters of scripture and, while in the process of doing so, demonstrates a remarkable level of intellectual dishonesty and/or outright willful and arrogant ignorance of the subject matter.
@Aye…
I do believe the boy is cherry picking scripture…. Perhaps he should take a look at the next verse.
DONALD BLY: YOU beat me BY one LIGHTNING, THAT must be EARL”S WIFE, HURRICANE here,
I had a thunder right above my head, my dog jump on me like a maniac ,
I fell down the chair with him on top of me, that’s my german sheffard;
pouring rain horizontaly with a eastern wind blowing toward west ,
congratulation, I can say, you where lucky this time, but not anymore.
@Donald Bly:
You are quite correct. That is indeed what he is doing.
The “judge not” passage is one of the most often misunderstood, misquoted, and misapplied passages in the Bible.
It is used by both believers and non-believers as a means by which to ignore or get away with whatever that particular person is choosing to do.
Further study of the entire passage reveals that the instructions are being given to a hypocrite, one who is judging the behavior of others while engaging in similar behaviors.
If Gaffer were truly interested in what the scripture says about judging others, I would suggest that he read Matthew 7:15-16, John 7:24, 2 Peter 2, Galations 2:11-14, 1 Corinthians 2:15-16, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 John 4:1.
Of course, as an amateur agnostic/quasi-atheist theologian, Gaffer is not able to understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14), therefore his postings here on this subject matter are not all surprising.
RODGERS marine remains was honored bye A MAJORITY in GEORGIA ,roads block with trafic stop to honor and respect his death for FREEDOM. in GRIFFIN
Once again, proving what a class act he is…
I stand by my remark that his mother must be SO proud.
I consider myself a Christian, however, I do not hold to the idea that the New Testament “Bible” is the infallible word of God. The books that make up the New Testament were chosen by men at the Council of Nicea – convened by a newly converted Emperor Constantine who had a political agenda.
I’d like to get my hands on Thomas Jefferson’s book that only contains the words of Christ. This is the kind of Christianity to which I profess. My own personal feelings are that too many people place the doctrine of Paul ahead of that of Christ. I am not a Paulist. This philosophy creates a tempest of accusations from those that believe the New Testament as compiled by the men at the Council of Nicea is to be believed without question.
But then again… my salvation is not dependent upon anyone’s belief system but my own.
@Donald
And what did Jesus say about this….
Matthew 5:17-20
Maybe Jesus was ignorant then as well? lol
Of course you can pick and choose which bits of the Bible you wish to accept or reject in a la carte fashion if you wish but Jesus words weren’t directly written by him – they were written down many years later by others – so not eactly reliable and if the quote by him is true Jesus demands that people follow the Jewish laws and prophets.
@Aye
Exactly my point – Anticrocks has been judging and hyprocritical on this thread.
Boy I must really get to Gaffa, he can’t even make a post without mentioning me.
anticrocks: hi, YOU know, I ‘m not sure but usualy, It means, love,
YOU describe it perfectly. bye sh sh YOU dont want to wake up the little brat.
@Gaffa
In 5:17 Christ tells us he has come to fulfill, not destroy the law.
In 5:18 Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law… but which law?
5:19 tells us which law… the Commandments. The only law written by the hand of God.
Subsequent passages through to the end of the chapter further refine the 10 Commandments so we can be certain that taken in context, the law Christ was describing was in fact the 10 Commandments.
Really Gaffa…. if you stop cherry picking and actually read the full passage you might someday begin to get an understanding, but only if you are truly seeking understanding.
@Donald
Clearly Jesus is going beyond the Commandments and that the law he is refering to is the Mosaic law which includes the commandments but also includes a lot more things. If it was just the 10 commandments then why mention divorce, oaths, eye for an eye, love thy neighbour? Why mention Law and not just mention Commandments? Why mention Prophets & Pharisees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_law
Gotcha ilovebees, lol!!
@Gaffa
The 10 Commandments are in reference to which “law” he was talking about. This is further evidenced by the verses following.
To further bolster the idea that the “law” to which he was referring was not past traditions of Judaic law one can point to his admonitions concerning those subjects as evidenced by Matthew 5:38-39
Concerning Prophecy… a prophet is a prophet, the coming of Christ in no way negates the validity of their prophecies.
Additionally… Orthodox Jews perform no work at all on the Sabbath… they won’t even turn on a light switch yet Christ says in Matthew 12:11-12:
But… bottom line.. I’m not really here to debate biblical interpretation as that ultimately boils down to one’s individual relationship with God and God’s revelations to the individual of what is required of him by God as revealed through that relationship. Religion is an institution of men, spirituality is the inter-relationship between an individual and God. This in turn brings me back to the 10 Commandments which were the only laws so important to mankind that God wrote them in stone with His own finger so that there would be no misinterpretation.
DONALD BLY: hi, YOUR 2 last line above, are telling me
That GOD started the FIRST BLOG with only his finger.
bye
Bees… you have such a wonderful way of looking at things…. I imagine one could describe the Ten Commandments as God’s first Blog.
Ten Commandments = God’s First Blog Rules
@Donald
Unfortunately Christians can’t even decide amongst themselves the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expounding_of_the_Law
No misinterpretation – Really? Seem there’s plenty of misinterpretation…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
You may claim the 10 commandments were written by God but even Jesus starts reinterpret them. And even Jesus can’t be consistent or avoid being a hypocrite…
Matthew 5:22
“Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?”
Matthew 23:19
and
Matthew 5:44
Luke 19:27
That’s fine if people kept their ‘God’ to themselves rather than trying to push it onto others. However plenty of Christians (along with people from other religions) vocally condemns others and try to change laws so it follows their religion. Nations should seperate Church and State irrespective on whether their country was built on one particular religion or not.
As for Glenn Beck – who wants you all to turn to God how would he fare?
Matthew 19:23-24
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924348-3,00.html
Gaffa… looks like you have no trouble at all pushing YOUR non-belief at other and most amazing use the bible to try and justify your position… a futile exercise….
And I don’t think Glenn Beck will have any trouble with his God… You however seem to be unable to do anything but cherry pick scripture leaving out the relevant verses to fit your notions…
Concerning Glenn’s chances as a rich man…. Matthew 19:23-26
This is like dueling with an unarmed opponent!
@Donald
I think discussing such issues on a forum is quite different from knocking on doors, telling people they are going to hell if they don’t believe, trying to get religion into the science class room and changing laws etc etc. And why not use the Bible to show how ‘holey’ it is. How can anyone follow the Bible without cherry-picking – due to the contradictions?
Lets go back a bit and add 21-22 and see what Jesus recommends…
Reckon Beck will be selling his possessions anytime soon?
I see you didn’t arm yourself with any scientific facts that prove the existence of God. Why should anyone believe in any God? And yet science which has evidence of evolution etc remains controversial by many religious people who are happy to swallow creation myths and fairytales without any credible evidence.
I see you kept quiet on my assertion that Christians cant even agree amongst themselves on the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount nor the 10 commandments. And that Jesus is a hypocrite – where he advocates one thing and later contradicts himself.
GAFFA UK: hi, JESUS did not say to the rich to be stupid,
WITH their wealth, RICH, employ many to carry on the multiple tasks
they need done to carry on their business, THIS is a way to share their WEALTH,
even if it’s a need for them.so JESUS MEANT many things in one sentence, IT’s for the beleiver to use wisdom to understand and use logic.
Wisdom and logic are traits seldom exhibited by progressives. I’ll leave it to Gaffa to describe Christ as a hypocrite.
LOL, maybe we should also provide scientific proof of sub-atomic particles, or anti-matter. Both those things I just listed are taken as fact by the scientific community, but there lies no actual proof that they exist.
However, since Gaffa is intent on needing some scientific proof, well we should turn to Godel: