Atheists Holy Day

[Coreece 190]

Quote

> The old testament is not what is to be followed but the new is. Its that simple.

>>Unfortunately Jesus disagrees with you.

John 1:17 - For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

John 10:35 - "The Scripture cannot be broken."

Matthew 15 - Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’

Luke 16:17 - "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail."

Matthew 5 - "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

I feel it necessary to add some context... Jesus condemned the Scribes and Phariees for tying to obtain the righteousness of God through works of the law. They failed to understand that if the law was broken in any sense they were to be condemned. Not only did they not recognize that, but they also failed to recognize that they even broke the law. When Jesus told them that He was the Son of God and that the only remedy for this was faith in Himself, they shouted BLASPHEMY! and ripped their clothes off....(lol)...and is ultimately the reason they killed him. They thought that he was trying to abolish the law by putting their faith in Him, which is why Jesus had the need to tell others that listened to the Scibes and Pharisees "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law." Jesus fufilled the Law by being the only one to completely abide by it...The Scribes and Pharisees were considered the most righteous people at that time....so Jesus says that unless your righteous exceeds the righteosness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. How do you exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees? By Faith in Jesus who actually is truly righteous, unlike the Scribes and Pharisees whose righteousness is actually self-righteousness fueled by pride.

Jesus was not buddies with the Scribes and the Pharisees...They hated him for saying he was God, and for making somewhat sarcastic remarks like "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees..."

This is the epitome of the Christian faith outlined in the doctrine of grace by faith...not works

I reckon that the relationship between the Scribes, Pharisees and Jesus somewhat resembled the relationship of the far left and far right...in the sense of their rehtoric and sarcasm...just a bit more serious however.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 3,008]

>Jesus condemned the Scribes and Phariees for tying to obtain the
>righteousness of God through works of the law.

Actually, he condemned them for _claiming_ to keep with the law (i.e. the Scriptures) but not really honoring them. They preached it but did not live it; instead of following Scripture they followed the "commandments of men." From Matthew 15:

" . .you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "

>This is the epitome of the Christian faith outlined in the doctrine of grace by
>faith...not works

Again, Jesus says the opposite. From Matthew again:

So Jesus said, "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man . . ."

So it is a man's words and actions, rather than what he _claims_ to follow, that condemn him.

Jesus is more explicit in James 2:

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

Faith without works is dead, and men are justified through their works. That seems pretty clear.

Matthew 7:

"Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."

Men are judged by the "fruit they bear" (i.e. what they do and say.) Again, seems pretty clear.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Faith without works is dead

True...if you just say you have faith, but there is absolutely no evidence in your actions of that faith, then there are seriuos reasons to re-evaluate the situation and ask yourself...Do I really believe?

I believe it is the manifestation of faith that brings one to display genuine faith through works....

You need faith...the works are evidence of that faith.

Sorry I left that out....thanks.

You are a very interesting and unique individual Billvon.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

Quote

Faith without works is dead

True...if you just say you have faith, but there is absolutely no evidence in your actions of that faith, then there are seriuos reasons to re-evaluate the situation and ask yourself...Do I really believe?

I believe it is the manifestation of faith that brings one to display genuine faith through works....

You need faith...the works are evidence of that faith.

Sorry I left that out....thanks.

You are a very interesting and unique individual Billvon.

One thing all 6 Billion of us have in common is our uniqueness.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,008]

>I believe it is the manifestation of faith that brings one to display genuine
>faith through works....

>You need faith...the works are evidence of that faith.

I would tend to agree. But I'd go a bit further and say that the ultimate goal are those good works. Faith in Jesus is one way to get there; faith in Yahweh, or Buddha, or Vishnu, or Allah are other paths to get there. Not all roads lead to the same place, but a great many do; and it is our best attempt to reach that destination that matters, not which road we choose.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Many theologians would disagree. Faith is its own purpose, and its own reward.
Certainly these people believe that God or whoever want them to do good works (feed the poor, prostelatize the good news, kill the fags, stone rape victims, whatever), but certainly faith is the necessary if not the sufficient condition to enlightenment/salvation.
There are many people who do not go to church, do not pray, but if asked will honestly say they believe. I do not doubt them. I would accuse them of intellectual laziness, but I would not doubt that they honestly accept the basic concept of the almighty.

[billvon 3,008]

>Many theologians would disagree.

I think it's safe to say that almost all theologians would disagree!

[JackC 0]

Quote

I would tend to agree. But I'd go a bit further and say that the ultimate goal are those good works. Faith in Jesus is one way to get there; faith in Yahweh, or Buddha, or Vishnu, or Allah are other paths to get there. Not all roads lead to the same place, but a great many do; and it is our best attempt to reach that destination that matters, not which road we choose.

If the ultimate goals are those good works, then what need for religion? You don't need religion to do good things or be a good person and there are enough pitfalls in any religion so as to lead you down the wrong path entirely. Why complicate a simple thing (do good) with a doctrine that is easy to interpret in a malevolent way as many people have? It seems to me that religion is as much of an obstacle as it is an enabler.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It also defines the separation of church and state, so I truly hope that while you were defending that document, you were NOT doing it as an 'act of God' or perhaps 'doing God's work', because that would be wrong

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - care to show where it defines that separation you're mentioning?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tkhayes 348]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

I could find other references I am sure but that would be a waste of my time and yours I expect, since you already know this.

Read the part about the Supreme Court, which gets to say the 'final' interpretation of the Constitution (at least until a newer or different ruling), which has time and time again 'separated' church and state, especially in the rulings in the last century.

so yes, I restate: There is separation of church and state, even though those words are not written exactly in the Constitution.

So my statement earlier,

Quote

....so I truly hope that while you were defending that document, you were NOT doing it as an 'act of God' or perhaps 'doing God's work', because that would be wrong

still stands as correct.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Wow! I don't know why I keep expecting educated or logical responses when I have yet to get one. I can present facts, logical arguements, and even references yet continually recieve simple statements such as "crap". Is all this really that threatening?
I should really quit wasting my time.

Very sorry but you haven't presented any facts. Just say that something is true does not make it so.

If the Old testament is no longer relevant, why is it still included in the Bible and quoted?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

While your thought is mostly correct, your application is not.

From Everson vs. Board of Education (Judge Black):

Quote

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

THAT is the purpose of the Amendment - to prevent the establishment of a national religion (Church of England, anyone?) and to ensure that nobody is prevented from worshipping as they see fit (not doing so well in that regard).

In more recent years, certain demographics seems to think the overriding idea is 'freedom FROM religion' and not 'freedom OF religion'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Butters 0]

Quote

THAT is the purpose of the Amendment - to prevent the establishment of a national religion (Church of England, anyone?) and to ensure that nobody is prevented from worshipping as they see fit (not doing so well in that regard).

You don't believe that Christianity is the established national religion ... what religion are the majority of national holidays based on?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

THAT is the purpose of the Amendment - to prevent the establishment of a national religion (Church of England, anyone?) and to ensure that nobody is prevented from worshipping as they see fit (not doing so well in that regard).

You don't believe that Christianity is the established national religion ... what religion are the majority of national holidays based on?

It doesn't matter what religion the majority practices (freedom of religion clause), what matters is that there is no law saying that Christianity (or any other religion) is the national religion of the country (establishment clause, the Church of England is an example of what they were trying to prevent).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

While your thought is mostly correct, your application is not.

From Everson vs. Board of Education (Judge Black):

Quote

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

THAT is the purpose of the Amendment - to prevent the establishment of a national religion (Church of England, anyone?) and to ensure that nobody is prevented from worshipping as they see fit (not doing so well in that regard).

In more recent years, certain demographics seems to think the overriding idea is 'freedom FROM religion' and not 'freedom OF religion'.

Your summary is woefully incomplete. The ruling you've quoted goes far beyond simply prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, it prohibits the government from aiding, influencing or being influenced by any religious organisations to any degree.

The idea of freedom from religion is just as explicitly stated as freedom of religion.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[philh 0]

The big bang has been verified by multiple lines of evidence inluding Hubbles's observation of the exapnding universe, theoretical implicaitons of relativity, the measurements of the cosmic microwave background raditation and measurements made by CObE

Evolution has been verified by multiple lines of evidence including the distibution of fossils, the distribution of pseudo genes, accurately predicting the fusion of ancestral chromosones, amino acid fuctional redudnacy, the distribution of endogenous retor viruses etc. etc

Your claim that god is pure and there is enteral life after death is backed by what???

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't believe that Christianity is the established national religion ... what religion are the majority of national holidays based on?

It doesn't matter what religion the majority practices (freedom of religion clause), what matters is that there is no law saying that Christianity (or any other religion) is the national religion of the country (establishment clause, the Church of England is an example of what they were trying to prevent).

Open your eyes ... Christianity is the national religion (and this is the reason individuals are fighting to be free from religion).

PS: Are Rastafarians allowed to practice their religion freely?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[diverborg 0]

Quote

One thing all 6 Billion of us have in common is our uniqueness.

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile."

sorry I couldn't help but think of fight club when I saw this

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The big bang has been verified by multiple lines of evidence inluding Hubbles's observation of the exapnding universe, theoretical implicaitons of relativity, the measurements of the cosmic microwave background raditation and measurements made by CObE

Evolution has been verified by multiple lines of evidence including the distibution of fossils, the distribution of pseudo genes, accurately predicting the fusion of ancestral chromosones, amino acid fuctional redudnacy, the distribution of endogenous retor viruses etc. etc

Supported, not verified.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

While your thought is mostly correct, your application is not.

From Everson vs. Board of Education (Judge Black):

Quote

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

THAT is the purpose of the Amendment - to prevent the establishment of a national religion (Church of England, anyone?) and to ensure that nobody is prevented from worshipping as they see fit (not doing so well in that regard).

In more recent years, certain demographics seems to think the overriding idea is 'freedom FROM religion' and not 'freedom OF religion'.

Your summary is woefully incomplete. The ruling you've quoted goes far beyond simply prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, it prohibits the government from aiding, influencing or being influenced by any religious organisations to any degree.

My summary is fine - your question was inadequate. If you wanted to discuss the ENTIRE gamut, you should have framed your question in that light.

Quote

The idea of freedom from religion is just as explicitly stated as freedom of religion.

Prove it - kindly provide something OUTSIDE of the 9th Circus, thanks in advance - I don't want to have to dig through all the reversals of their decisions.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't believe that Christianity is the established national religion ... what religion are the majority of national holidays based on?

It doesn't matter what religion the majority practices (freedom of religion clause), what matters is that there is no law saying that Christianity (or any other religion) is the national religion of the country (establishment clause, the Church of England is an example of what they were trying to prevent).

Open your eyes ... Christianity is the national religion (and this is the reason individuals are fighting to be free from religion).

Then you should have no problem showing me the law proclaiming such, now should you?

Quote

PS: Are Rastafarians allowed to practice their religion freely?

Sure they are - show me the law that states that the practice of Rastafarianism (damn, that's a mouthful) is illegal.

And yes, I know where you're going with that - the Indians are fighting the same battle in regards to peyote. They don't let the Mormons (legally) have multiple wives, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

My summary is fine - your question was inadequate. If you wanted to discuss the ENTIRE gamut, you should have framed your question in that light.

Question? What question? You talk of imaginary things, sir.

Quote

Prove it - kindly provide something OUTSIDE of the 9th Circus, thanks in advance - I don't want to have to dig through all the reversals of their decisions.

I was talking about what is stated in the decision that you quoted.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Open your eyes ... Christianity is the national religion (and this is the reason individuals are fighting to be free from religion).

Then you should have no problem showing me the law proclaiming such, now should you?

Blah, blah, blah ...

Quote

Quote

PS: Are Rastafarians allowed to practice their religion freely?

Sure they are - show me the law that states that the practice of Rastafarianism (damn, that's a mouthful) is illegal.

And yes, I know where you're going with that - the Indians are fighting the same battle in regards to peyote. They don't let the Mormons (legally) have multiple wives, either.

So we don't have freedom of religion. We have freedom of some religions (and the government has given the most freedom to ... Christianity).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

My summary is fine - your question was inadequate. If you wanted to discuss the ENTIRE gamut, you should have framed your question in that light.

Question? What question? You talk of imaginary things, sir.

I beg your pardon - Butters' question.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Open your eyes ... Christianity is the national religion (and this is the reason individuals are fighting to be free from religion).

Then you should have no problem showing me the law proclaiming such, now should you?

Blah, blah, blah ...

Quote

Quote

PS: Are Rastafarians allowed to practice their religion freely?

Sure they are - show me the law that states that the practice of Rastafarianism (damn, that's a mouthful) is illegal.

And yes, I know where you're going with that - the Indians are fighting the same battle in regards to peyote. They don't let the Mormons (legally) have multiple wives, either.

So we don't have freedom of religion. We have freedom of some religions (and the government has given the most freedom to ... Christianity).

Translation - you can't PROVE it, but you feel that it is. That's fine, just don't confuse your feelings with legal reality.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706