The Seperation of Church and State

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Ok guys come on now you're all going back and forth just nitpicking each other's posts for no good reason. You're not really making any good points anywhere.

Oh, and Crimson Spider, you say that there being no absolute moral truth is "opinion to the core."

Now, I will assume the following statement to be true: if there is an absolute moral code then there exists a way to know or understand it. (Mind you, if this statement is false, i.e. there doesn't exist a way to know the moral truth/code, then we cannot and therefore do not know it and you have nothing to defend.)

Ok then, let's assume the [i]opposite[/i] of what I'm arguing; let's assume there is an absolute moral truth. That implies that there is some way to understand it (otherwise it can't be found and therefore for all intents and purposes does not exist, I hope that's clear enough). The source from which we can come to understand an absolute moral code (truth, whatever) has to be at a level above that of a nation's laws, or a religion's doctrine, as that's the only way to judge one [set of laws or doctrines] to be right and one to be wrong (does that make sense?). In other words, you can't say "our laws are morally right and yours are morally wrong" without anything above law to back it up. Note that the same is true of a religion's moral code, because we have nothing above holy scriptures (and various interpretations of them), to judge one against the other. The same is true of different cultures, and societies (if you consider societies to go beyond a nation's boundaries).
Even if you assume that religion is above nations (or society is above culture, etc.), to judge one level of morality, in the end you will reach some level which has dissenting moral codes and yet has nothing above it to be arbiter. (At least, in the eyes of both dissenting parties, and both have to concede the decision to an arbiter in order for it to stand.)
In short, we cannot reach an "absolute pinnacle" of arbitration to judge moral codes. Therefore, we have no way of knowing the absolute, or right, moral code. But by the assumption I made above (absolute moral code -> there's a way to understand it), we can. That leads to a contradiction.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Blade is right. Nit picking doesn't improve conversation (yes, I do it to a point) in some cases it just pisses people off. Like when everyone starts with the name calling: ie, Liar, idiot, ignorant. Or when you begin to tell people [i]I'm[/i] right and [i]your[/i] wrong since your opinions don't agree with one another. That's not adult interaction, that's grade school interaction.

Okay, short rant over with. and my migrain is slowly returning, so I'll make this quick.

I've always felt that a moral code was defined by society and concience. I don't think that religion defines morals, I feel that morals define religion. If that makes any sense (hello, migrain induced stupor over here).

You can't just automatically assume that since a person follows a certain religion that the person is automatically a good moral person. I know of plenty of people in plenty of different religions who I think have a horrid ideal of humanity and honesty. One of which I refuse to speak to since he decided to go off on me and tell me he hopes I miscarry. The other is in my family and feels that since my mother's idea of Christian Womanhood isn't hers that my mother is destined for hell. However, these people follow religions the later is supposedly a good Christian woman and the later well...I'm too much of a good witch to mention it.

Okay well, that's all I have for right now. Bye bye!

My the lord and lady watch over you all,
Chibi Horsewoman[/color]

[lea]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Why do people have to swear on the Bible in court when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in a federal building? [/COLOR]

[Transtic Nerve]

I rather nitpicking with CS. I'm sure he likes it too, or else he probably wouldn't do it. Its the best way for us to understand each other better. Maybe we won't hate each other when it comes to the end of it.

[QUOTE=Crimson Spider]Let me guess who told you: the media? According to the media (atleast 9/10ths of it in the western side of America), it is compeletly Bush's fault for the attack of 9/11.
Don't forget to take into consideration the people themselves. In NV, power companies raise up the prices of power right before summer, and end it right before winter. One can say that they need the money, but in fact they don't. They raise up this money because they want change in their pocket. The media doesn't tell you that.[/quote]
Actually, no. I rarely watch the news, rarely read up on news websites, I don't even read the paper. What I do know is that I have a lot of friends in High School. Lots of those friends aren't going to summer school this year. Lots of those friends didn't go last year because only certain amounts of schools were holding summer school sessions. Then i did some resarch on Jeb Bush's education policies. When Bill McBride ran last year, most of his campaign was on how Jeb Bush's education policies were ruining the education system in Florida. He used valid points and facts about Jeb Bush's educations policies. I will admit that some of the information did come from media sources, but not MSNBC or the Orlando Sentinel or anything like that. Theres a guy on the radio here that talks alot about politics, like Rush Limbaugh... He has no political affiliation and likes to rant about everything wrong in Orlando/Florida regardless who does it. (just for exmaple sakes, he has it out for the mayor of Orlando, and the mayor is a democrat)
[quote]True that we didn't find actual WMP, but we did find a dozen different funded and in-action programs that were trying to manufacture chemical and nuclear weapons.[/quote]
Yes, but Bush's administration said that Iraq HAD Weapons of Mass Destruction... and they didn't. Thats the point. Not that they had anything else, but that they didn't have what Bush's administration said they had.
[quote]He wasn't the first one to claim that WMP were in Iraq. Other intelligences claimed*that, and he re-fed the information givin to him to the public. He wasn't lying, because he himself was lied too. If I remember many of his speaches correctly, the word "suspect" and "believe" were thrown everywhere. Remember to pay attention to what he says, not what others who possibly don't like him percieve of what he says.[/quote]
I remember Donald Rumsveld (sp?) saying on several occations, smiling while he said it, that Iraq HAD Weapons of Mass Destruction. I agree the President was fed inadequate information, but it is his job, or the job of his administration, to make sure the info is correct. They failed to do that. It was Bush's idea to go to war on this theory of weapons of mass destruction, therefor I blame Bush and his adminstration for the war on Iraq. I also know other claimed to the same thing, but if we were talking about them, I'd say the same thing. Whether it is the CIAs fault, the FBIs failt, whoevers fault it may have been, the President will always and always has been blamed for them. Thats his position. Thats the connection the government has to the people, and that connection will be the one who gets all the dirt thrown at them. He should know that, he signed up for the job.
[quote]The enviroment thing was the only thing I agree with. That's his flaw. And HE doesn't TAKE away rights. The president actually is just the final, over-throwable word. If he veto's a bill, it goes back to the House and Senate where they revote on it. If they vote it to be passed, it gets passed against his will, and he gets the blame for it. "Bush Administration" is just the whitehouse with the word Bush slapped in front of it.[/quote]
I know HE doesn't take away rights (I did say his administration in that comment you referred to) Like I said, he is the connection to the people. He's the top of the government, anything that is passed, said, done, whatever during his time in office will be looked upon as something HE did.
If you'd like I'll stop refering to things done by Bush and start saying Bush's adminstration.... or the government... whichever. Makes no difference. All leads back to one man people will think about.
[quote]I remember you laughing at the accusations of another person that you were arrogant in other topics. [/quote]
I wouldn't doubt that. Doesn't mean I denied my arrogance.
[quote]Where did you get the opinion that I can't see that someone isn't ignorant in some places and smart in others?[/quote]
By the way you were posting, you insinuated that I was being ignorant and you weren't. When infact we both were, probably on equal levels at some point.
[quote]I'll gladly point out the very obvious implication.[/quote]
When i said I never claimed to be anything, I meant I never claimed to God or anything like that.
[quote]Througout the topic, you've been upholding the idea that you are absolutely right, and I and others are absolutely wrong (which ususally was your first statement)[/quote]
Of course I would. What kind of debate would it be if i didn't think I was absolutely right. I'll just post topics with random things and say "eh, I'm probably wrong but......" Thats no fun. Certainly doesn't give my character anything possitive to work with. The idea of debating is to prove you're right.... if I don't think I'm right, how can I prove it?
[quote]Prove me wrong :smirk:[/quote]
See thats the spirit!
[quote]Even a simple "I don't know" is better than silence when someone points it out.[/quote]
Depends on the person. For you perhaps a simply I don't know would be fine, but to someone who strives on perfect, often like me, I don't know rarely cuts it. Plus, honestly. You write these huge responces, just look at the last one. I usually just glance over them picking out certain things that stand out. Responding to a few things like this isn't bad, but massive amounts of this that and the next... I don't have time for that. I have 3 papers and 2 final projects due in the next 3 weeks, I can't go around looking for everything you say.
[quote]O.K. The more recent question of:"Why else do you think that YOU are the only one who has to engrade insults?", you claimed that you were braver than the people here after not answering it for awhile.[/quote]
Because I can i guess. I honestly don't know why anyone else doesn't want to engrade insults, even though the only ones I gave were on MyOtaku and that was a rant. When i rant, I use language to intensify the feeling given. I suppose it can be a style of writting almost. I like using "bad" words and insults when I am mad and when i write about being mad cause it makes the reader feel what I'm feeling. That and I was really pissed at you.
[quote]Then there was: "I never said that they became popular because they were in isolation. Where did you get that from?"[/quote]
That was the way I interpreted what you said. Perhaps I missinterpreted. Perhaps I read someone elses comment in the mist of it all. I dunno, that was like 2 days ago.
[quote]Then there is the question inclosed in this post of: "Where did you get the opinion that I can't see that someone isn't ignorant in some places and smart in others?".[/quote]
I think I answered this one in this reply.... yes... yes I did.
[quote]O.K. A person that can be classified as a "leader" is a person that basically thinks for themselves. While many people claim that they think from themselves, they actually aren't. An example would be many of the fashion trends of today. The person that came up with it was a leader, and the rest who adore it are followers. But if a person were to come up with an outfit that nobody openly liked, then they would be a leader without any followers. A follower consists of those that follow leaders, or the general populace. A follower without a leader is someone who doesn't know what to think, and often thinks of nothing, or stammers in responses. If that person were to be asked about the specific outfit and respond "I don't know... it's... it's kinda nice." are often times followers without a leader. Not everything is about definition. [/quote]
While I understand your point, I believe a change in terms would have made that much clearer. Leader is defined as [i]someone who leads or guides, who is in command of others[/i]. Others being the key word there. Leaders, by deffinition cannot lead anything if they don't have anyone to lead. That would be more like an originator. Like in your example. Someone who creates a fashion trend no one likes... not really the leader of the fashion trend.... that would be the originator or creator of the fashion trend.
Now a follower is defines as [i]one who subscribes to the teachings or methods of another; an adherent[/i] Another being the key word here. You cannot have a follower who does not follow someone or something. I believe a better term here would be a vagabond or a wanderer.
You're right, not everything is about definition, but it certainly helps to use words which fit much better when trying to make a point. As much as your annologies looked good on paper, they didn't make any sense to me, which is why i asked about them. If you used creator and wanderer, I probbaly would have understood it a little bit better. Although it probably would have helped had you cleared that up int he original post.
[quote]Three weeks was the analogy, not the fact.[/quote]
Yes, I believe that's what i said... I said 2 days if I'm not mistaken.
[quote]The agreement and manipulation of opinions could be considered enlightement. In a debate, not everyone thinks of the same arguement. When the arguement is brought fourth, one can agree with it, even if that persons original statement was on the line of what the other person said.[/quote]
I don't think I've ever changed your opinion. Have I CS? You never changed mine. I don't expect to change others opinions. Usually opinions are a personal thing, not easily swayed. I didn't precieve my little rant would have honestly changed anyones personal feelings about you that they might not have already had.
[quote]Logical reasoning. I usually listen to angry rock/metal music to vent. Reality check answer: the moral population of society often looks out for others self interests. [/quote]
I usually rant about things I don't like when I want to vent. We all have our ways. I can't think of alot of people who look out for my self interests. Myabe thats just me. And who is to say what is and what isn't the moral population of society. Morals are a matter of opinion, there is no absolute truth in morals.
[quote]Good ole reversal. What I define as fact is what I percieve as fact. I was using the logic in your statement to rebuke it.[/quote]
I know. Reversal is a tactic in debating....You know what its all about I'm not wasting time going into detail.
[quote]I remember a thread a while ago that had a lot of sceintifical theories about a persons soul and spirit. One of them said that hell was a state of mind, since it takes up no space in the phyiscal dimensions that we are in today, and since it does not, it does not experience temperature, but rather the emotion of a burning pain. But that was another person, and not me. [/quote]
Interesting theory. I tend to think, personally, that our life on earth is hell, and that when we "die" we either go to heaven or whatever you may call it or stay on earth where our body rots in the hell we once lived... just a theory of course.
[quote]One can and often states that these theories and opinions are absolute fact. I was just doing the what the norm debater does.[/quote]
I certainly wouldn't think that. Scientists don't think theories or opinions are absolute fact. As a debater, I believe you should use opinions but you shouldn't use them if you're trying to prove the factual basis of something. You have to use facts to prove facts. Its kinda hard to use a bunch of opinions to prove something. Unless ofcourse you have done an experiemnt, developed a hypothesis, you know the scientific method I'm sure.
[quote]It has to do with opinion. If one does not agree with something, they will deny it because they don't like it.[/quote]
Yes, but how does asking a factual based question on whether or not John Adams signed the declaration or agreed to it or whatever you said have to do with an opinion? It seems more on the lines of a 'yes or no' than a 'maybe, maybe not' type of question.
[quote]So correct me, and I'll interpret them right. I try to inform you of the mis-interpretations that you make of my statements.[/quote]
I thought thats what I was doing?.....

[quote]Orignally posted by Lea2385
Why do people have to swear on the Bible in court when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in a federal building? [/quote]
You don't have to as far as I know. I believe it is choice to place your hand on the bible while raising your other hand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth yadda yadda. They obviously can't make you swear on something you may not believe in.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I rather nitpicking with CS. I'm sure he likes it too, or else he probably wouldn't do it. Its the best way for us to understand each other better. Maybe we won't hate each other when it comes to the end of it.[/quote] Actually I'm not too big of a fan of it.

[quote]Actually, no. I rarely watch the news, rarely read up on news websites, I don't even read the paper. What I do know is that I have a lot of friends in High School. Lots of those friends aren't going to summer school this year. Lots of those friends didn't go last year because only certain amounts of schools were holding summer school sessions. Then i did some resarch on Jeb Bush's education policies. When Bill McBride ran last year, most of his campaign was on how Jeb Bush's education policies were ruining the education system in Florida. He used valid points and facts about Jeb Bush's educations policies. I will admit that some of the information did come from media sources, but not MSNBC or the Orlando Sentinel or anything like that. Theres a guy on the radio here that talks alot about politics, like Rush Limbaugh... He has no political affiliation and likes to rant about everything wrong in Orlando/Florida regardless who does it. (just for exmaple sakes, he has it out for the mayor of Orlando, and the mayor is a democrat)[/quote]Wait wait wait where did you get the information about McBride from? Kinda reminds me of the political accusations going on right now. The republican party claims that Kerry plans to raise taxes up a total of 900 billion (a twisted information number itself), and the deocratic party denys this, and says that Kerry will raise certain taxes to help the deficit the government is in. Well, I guess Jeb isn't perfect then. But you have a VERY interesting way of getting information.

[quote]Yes, but Bush's administration said that Iraq HAD Weapons of Mass Destruction... and they didn't. Thats the point. Not that they had anything else, but that they didn't have what Bush's administration said they had.[/quote] I find what they found to be close enough. Like if a person says that they have a black car, where they actually have a dark blue.

[quote]I remember Donald Rumsveld (sp?) saying on several occations, smiling while he said it, that Iraq HAD Weapons of Mass Destruction. I agree the President was fed inadequate information, but it is his job, or the job of his administration, to make sure the info is correct. They failed to do that. It was Bush's idea to go to war on this theory of weapons of mass destruction, therefor I blame Bush and his adminstration for the war on Iraq. I also know other claimed to the same thing, but if we were talking about them, I'd say the same thing. Whether it is the CIAs fault, the FBIs failt, whoevers fault it may have been, the President will always and always has been blamed for them. Thats his position. Thats the connection the government has to the people, and that connection will be the one who gets all the dirt thrown at them. He should know that, he signed up for the job.[/quote]The administration was doinng it's job. They kept searching, and found more and more info both for and against the weapons. The "for" outweighed the "against" during that time. And it wasn't Bush who decided to go to war. We had been fighting Saddam for awhile. Clinton relied on aerial strikes. While safer, they killed more civilians. The administration was tinkering around with the idea of having soldiers land in Iraq. Then 9/11 came around. Bush just O.K.ed the idea of sending in soldiers. Despite the unfortunate position that the president is in that gives him the blame for everything, it does not make it right.

[quote]I know HE doesn't take away rights (I did say his administration in that comment you referred to) Like I said, he is the connection to the people. He's the top of the government, anything that is passed, said, done, whatever during his time in office will be looked upon as something HE did.
If you'd like I'll stop refering to things done by Bush and start saying Bush's adminstration.... or the government... whichever. Makes no difference. All leads back to one man people will think about.[/quote]Lets just call it the "White House" since if I'm remembering correct, the same people that are in the House now were the same with the previous president. But I'm probably wrong on that.

[quote]I wouldn't doubt that. Doesn't mean I denied my arrogance.[/quote]It does have the extreme implication of denile of the statement. Such as when you laughed about considering the opposite side of being right.

[quote]By the way you were posting, you insinuated that I was being ignorant and you weren't. When infact we both were, probably on equal levels at some point.[/quote]Could you point out some isntances of how I was posting to back up the firstly made statement?

[quote]When i said I never claimed to be anything, I meant I never claimed to God or anything like that.[/quote]I never claimed to be God, yet you decided to make it sound like I did.

[quote]Of course I would. What kind of debate would it be if i didn't think I was absolutely right. I'll just post topics with random things and say "eh, I'm probably wrong but......" Thats no fun. Certainly doesn't give my character anything possitive to work with. The idea of debating is to prove you're right.... if I don't think I'm right, how can I prove it?[/quote]It's not that you think that you are right, it's that you flaunt it rudely and needlessly at the beginning of a good some of your previous posts.

[quote]Depends on the person. For you perhaps a simply I don't know would be fine, but to someone who strives on perfect, often like me, I don't know rarely cuts it. Plus, honestly. You write these huge responces, just look at the last one. I usually just glance over them picking out certain things that stand out. Responding to a few things like this isn't bad, but massive amounts of this that and the next... I don't have time for that. I have 3 papers and 2 final projects due in the next 3 weeks, I can't go around looking for everything you say. [/quote]I right huge responses because I have a lot to say. When I make those friggin big posts, half of them were nothing but quote from the 2 or 3 people I'm talking to, each having their own section usually marked by a "contestant No. 2" or something to that effect. Whenever I don't elaborate, people tend to not see where I come from.


[quote]Because I can i guess. I honestly don't know why anyone else doesn't want to engrade insults, even though the only ones I gave were on MyOtaku and that was a rant.[/quote]The constant reference to the lack of knowledge and ignorance are insults, too.
[quote] When i rant, I use language to intensify the feeling given. I suppose it can be a style of writting almost. I like using "bad" words and insults when I am mad and when i write about being mad cause it makes the reader feel what I'm feeling. That and I was really pissed at you.[/quote]Just as an "I don't know" isn't your type of response, some people just don't like to go down to the level of insults.

[quote]While I understand your point, I believe a change in terms would have made that much clearer. Leader is defined as [i]someone who leads or guides, who is in command of others[/i]. Others being the key word there. Leaders, by deffinition cannot lead anything if they don't have anyone to lead. That would be more like an originator. Like in your example. Someone who creates a fashion trend no one likes... not really the leader of the fashion trend.... that would be the originator or creator of the fashion trend.
Now a follower is defines as [i]one who subscribes to the teachings or methods of another; an adherent[/i] Another being the key word here. You cannot have a follower who does not follow someone or something. I believe a better term here would be a vagabond or a wanderer.
You're right, not everything is about definition, but it certainly helps to use words which fit much better when trying to make a point. As much as your annologies looked good on paper, they didn't make any sense to me, which is why i asked about them. If you used creator and wanderer, I probbaly would have understood it a little bit better. Although it probably would have helped had you cleared that up int he original post.[/quote]I'm not the one who came up with the saying, or it's definition. I'm re-feeding you what I remember. Kinda like how it's a boxing ring when it's a square.

[quote]I don't think I've ever changed your opinion. Have I CS? You never changed mine. I don't expect to change others opinions. Usually opinions are a personal thing, not easily swayed. I didn't precieve my little rant would have honestly changed anyones personal feelings about you that they might not have already had.[/quote]Followers usually have ideas that coincide somewhat with what the leaders say. That's why they follow them. But the exact idea is changed.

[quote]I usually rant about things I don't like when I want to vent. We all have our ways. I can't think of alot of people who look out for my self interests. Myabe thats just me. And who is to say what is and what isn't the moral population of society. Morals are a matter of opinion, there is no absolute truth in morals.[/quote]No absolute truth of morals in [i]society[/i]. Each religion tells the purpose for it's morals, which is defined as an absolute truth.

[quote]I certainly wouldn't think that. Scientists don't think theories or opinions are absolute fact. As a debater, I believe you should use opinions but you shouldn't use them if you're trying to prove the factual basis of something. You have to use facts to prove facts. Its kinda hard to use a bunch of opinions to prove something. Unless ofcourse you have done an experiemnt, developed a hypothesis, you know the scientific method I'm sure.[/quote]How I wish that were true. Science is like playing a dart game in the dark. When someone hits something that sounds like the board, they all throw their darts in that direction.

[quote]Yes, but how does asking a factual based question on whether or not John Adams signed the declaration or agreed to it or whatever you said have to do with an opinion? It seems more on the lines of a 'yes or no' than a 'maybe, maybe not' type of question.[/quote] What the statement was saying was that IF John Adams didn't support the war, he would deny many of the statements that the colonial leaders would use to make themselves sound better, or to favor a specific group.

I'll edit this post later.

EDIT: I'm baaaaaack!

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Ok guys come on now you're all going back and forth just nitpicking each other's posts for no good reason. You're not really making any good points anywhere.[/quote]There's a half decent reasons: we don't like eachother.
[quote]
Oh, and Crimson Spider, you say that there being no absolute moral truth is "opinion to the core." [/quote]I was saying that "You're talking about a moral truth. Well here's a wakeup call: there is no moral absolute truth. None. I've already said it's whatever makes a society work. That's why some societies have different laws than others, and differrent attitudes towards life. And not all of those societies are "god-fearing."" was an opinion statement.

[quote]Now, I will assume the following statement to be true: if there is an absolute moral code then there exists a way to know or understand it. (Mind you, if this statement is false, i.e. there doesn't exist a way to know the moral truth/code, then we cannot and therefore do not know it and you have nothing to defend.)[/quote]Seems true.

[quote]Ok then, let's assume the [i]opposite[/i] of what I'm arguing; let's assume there is an absolute moral truth. That implies that there is some way to understand it (otherwise it can't be found and therefore for all intents and purposes does not exist, I hope that's clear enough). The source from which we can come to understand an absolute moral code (truth, whatever) has to be at a level above that of a nation's laws, or a religion's doctrine, as that's the only way to judge one [set of laws or doctrines] to be right and one to be wrong (does that make sense?).[/quote]Wait wait wait... could you define "Above"?
[quote] In other words, you can't say "our laws are morally right and yours are morally wrong" without anything above law to back it up.[/quote]Religion is above law, if I'm perceiving it right.
[quote] Note that the same is true of a religion's moral code, because we have nothing above holy scriptures (and various interpretations of them), to judge one against the other. The same is true of different cultures, and societies (if you consider societies to go beyond a nation's boundaries).
Even if you assume that religion is above nations (or society is above culture, etc.),[/quote]Definition of above just got murky again.
[quote] to judge one level of morality, in the end you will reach some level which has dissenting moral codes and yet has nothing above it to be arbiter. (At least, in the eyes of both dissenting parties, and both have to concede the decision to an arbiter in order for it to stand.) [/quote]That is, of course, the concept of finding the one true religion, and other offshoots from it. The one true religion has the arbiter that determins what is right or wrong, and the other has itself another belief as opposed to the absolute moral code issued in the original, or another perception that may not be the correct perception.
[quote]In short, we cannot reach an "absolute pinnacle" of arbitration to judge moral codes. Therefore, we have no way of knowing the absolute, or right, moral code. But by the assumption I made above (absolute moral code -> there's a way to understand it), we can. That leads to a contradiction.[/QUOTE]If we were to find the true religion, that would be the "absolute pinnacle". Regardless of any morals, there would be those who would not adheive to it. Their refusal to except the code would not invalidate the code.

Very complicated statement. :applause:

EDITING AGAIN: WELL, I'M BACK AND... (takes of caps).

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman]Blade is right. Nit picking doesn't improve conversation (yes, I do it to a point) in some cases it just pisses people off. Like when everyone starts with the name calling: ie, Liar, idiot, ignorant. Or when you begin to tell people [i]I'm[/i] right and [i]your[/i] wrong since your opinions don't agree with one another. That's not adult interaction, that's grade school interaction.
[/quote]Right now it seems that the determinant for the lable of adult or grade school interaction is murky, but lets move on.

[quote]Okay, short rant over with. and my migrain is slowly returning, so I'll make this quick.[/quote]I know how you feel. I once got a splitting migrain during my health exam last year. At first, I was like "cool. I can't see the guy next to me". Then after staring at the pretty spots for about 5 min, the... pain... came. With the nausia, and the constant lack of vision... I was like "Woah".

[quote]I've always felt that a moral code was defined by society and concience. I don't think that religion defines morals, I feel that morals define religion. If that makes any sense (hello, migrain induced stupor over here). [/quote]Religion's have morals. They don't really define them. But this statement holds ground.

[quote]You can't just automatically assume that since a person follows a certain religion that the person is automatically a good moral person. I know of plenty of people in plenty of different religions who I think have a horrid ideal of humanity and honesty. [/quote]kinda like me. But a person following or "practicing" a religion isn't the same as being pious. Tendancy has a play here.
[quote]One of which I refuse to speak to since he decided to go off on me and tell me he hopes I miscarry.[/quote]That sick bastard.
[quote] The other is in my family and feels that since my mother's idea of Christian Womanhood isn't hers that my mother is destined for hell.[/quote]Boy do I know that. My father uses religion almost exclusivly for a sword. He literally forces me to believe what he does (when I actually don't), and contradicts himself by saying I'm going to hell.
[quote] However, these people follow religions the later is supposedly a good Christian woman and the later well...I'm too much of a good witch to mention it.[/QUOTE]I believe that the concept of "witch" was brought about during the mideivel times as a purpose for actions.

But the point (dramatic music): is that there are quite a few good people in the Church. While there are those who condemn others of the same faith, often times they still hold to the beliefs that their specific religion states. Like how since I'm not exactly the model christian man, It doesn't mean that I'm not a christian. Same beliefs. Same book. Different personalitiy.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Crimson Spider]
If we were to find the true religion, that would be the "absolute pinnacle". Regardless of any morals, there would be those who would not adheive to it. Their refusal to except the code would not invalidate the code.this statement holds ground.[/QUOTE]
I can give you nearly the same argument as I gave with "absolute moral truth" concerning "the true religion." We have no way of knowing what "the true religion" is (yes, you can have faith, blah blah, but there's no way of [i]knowing[/i]). And faith does not qualify as proof nor a basis for anything logical.

[Shinken]

I think this quote from [i]The Order[/i], starring Heath Ledger, may be somewhat relevant to the current discussion:

[b]"Knowledge is the enemy of faith."[/b] I see it this way: Nobody can actually [i]know[/i] whether or not their faith is the "true religion".

(I'd post more, but I've got a lot of stuff to do! )

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]A government which adopts one religion to govern over all its people no matter how efficent will soon fail since not all its people are being properly served. Am I right or what?

You can't expect everyone to accept one set of beliefs simply because that's what has been accepted for 2000 years by a ruling majority. Besides, at one point the ruling majority was the minority. We just have to wait another 2000 years then eh?

I still don't understand the whole morally acceptable ideals. If you really want to get into it- the Bible has many ideas whih are extremely outdated. Some great examples of this are
Exodus 21:7 Sanctions selling your children into slavery

Exodus 35.2 Says that you can kill someone for working on the Sabbath. (Of
course, it doesn't say if the Sabbath is Saturday or Sunday)

OF course I feel the most screwed up book is Leviticus home of the verse declaring homosexuality an abomination (for Lady's sake people, Brittany Spears is much more threatening to the sanctity of marriage than any Tina and Mary wanting to get married. You tell me why you can get married straight and drunk but not gay and sober and make a good point of it and I'll declare you my God!)

25:44 states you may own slaves provided they are purchased from neighboring nations (this one was used to allow slavery in the states)

15:19-24 prohibits contact with a woman during her period. Now how the Hells are you going to find that out?

I have a few more, but I don't think it's necessary to put them up to make my point.

You can follow your religion all you want, but don't try to turn it into a law.[/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]I can give you nearly the same argument as I gave with "absolute moral truth" concerning "the true religion." We have no way of knowing what "the true religion" is (yes, you can have faith, blah blah, but there's no way of [i]knowing[/i']). And faith does not qualify as proof nor a basis for anything logical.[/quote]
Actually, there is. What the true religoin is is far more than just faith. It can be proven scientifically. You could also take the white-sheep-out method that professional test-takers have and eliminate the wrong ones to see what comes out as right. Unlike how Shinken said
[quote]"Knowledge is the enemy of faith." I see it this way: Nobody can actually know whether or not their faith is the "true religion". [/quote]I find that to be quite the opposite. If they do fossil records and isotope mesurements to find that there was a very large flood in a certain large area that can be classified as nation-sized and formitable dimensions of area to modern perception of what a large nation would be, then that means something. Knowledge can prove and back faith.

Second unexpected contendor:

[quote]A government which adopts one religion to govern over all its people no matter how efficent will soon fail since not all its people are being properly served. Am I right or what?[/quote]Anyone knows that. That is why we must not allow agnostic or aethiestic people to completely controll the government. What I'm argueing for is the consideration of religion and church in the actions that the government takes.

[quote]You can't expect everyone to accept one set of beliefs simply because that's what has been accepted for 2000 years by a ruling majority. Besides, at one point the ruling majority was the minority. We just have to wait another 2000 years then eh?[/quote]I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Not just you, but it seems like a lot of people seem to miss where I'm comeing from. You see, we are NOT forcing our beliefs onto another person. That just happens to be where we sampled the laws, and eventually cultivated our modern day morals from. Having a law of "thou shalt not kill" doesn't force christianity. I'm not even saying that the church should have itself a seperate branch of the government where it gets to say what it wants (many churches preferances aren't the same as one another). I'm saying that religion should play a role in the decision making of the government. Not just christianity, either. Time is of no concept in this matter of defining what works and what does not.

[quote]I still don't understand the whole morally acceptable ideals. If you really want to get into it- the Bible has many ideas whih are extremely outdated. Some great examples of this are
Exodus 21:7 Sanctions selling your children into slavery

Exodus 35.2 Says that you can kill someone for working on the Sabbath. (Of
course, it doesn't say if the Sabbath is Saturday or Sunday)[/quote]The sabbath was Sunday. You see, over time the original Jewish writings were messed up for peoples own preferances. When Jesus came, almost everything he did messed up their added-on rules, also by breaking them. That is one of the reasons that the pharacies and the sagicies didn't like Jesus. He exploited the corruption that was in the changed up "Old Testimate" and fixed all of it. Take this for example: The sabbath was seen as such a holy day that one should not even make mud to make bricks. It was also against the law to heal someone on the Sabbath. Jesus came about, and on one of the Sabbath's, he spat onto the ground, made mud, rubbed it into a Blind man's eyes, and then cured him of his blindness. He could've done it another way, but he was rubbing in how messed up their laws had become.

[quote]OF course I feel the most screwed up book is Leviticus home of the verse declaring homosexuality an abomination (for Lady's sake people, Brittany Spears is much more threatening to the sanctity of marriage than any Tina and Mary wanting to get married. You tell me why you can get married straight and drunk but not gay and sober and make a good point of it and I'll declare you my God!)[/quote]Are you really challanging me to this semi off-topic arguement? I'll respond if you will me so. But I'll start with this: Just because someone marries you, doesn't make it right.


[quote]25:44 states you may own slaves provided they are purchased from neighboring nations (this one was used to allow slavery in the states)

15:19-24 prohibits contact with a woman during her period. Now how the Hells are you going to find that out?

I have a few more, but I don't think it's necessary to put them up to make my point.

You can follow your religion all you want, but don't try to turn it into a law.[/quote]I already commented on this. Over time, people add in things that Jesus never said, nor anyone really said, into the Bible to suit their own personal preferance, and often times don't input it at all and just use religion as a shield for their actions. You can usually spot these out because they are obviously contradictory and do not go along with the rest of what the book is saying, such as how predestination was input by John Calvin in the 1200s, and people believe it no matter how much it screws things up. Some of these things are so obvious that they couldn't be law it would be rediculous, such as the latter of the mentioned scripts (I do not believe that the term "period" was a referance to a woman's monthly in the original greek/latin texts, and is possibly your perception alone on what the writing is saying).

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Crimson Spider]Actually, there is. What the true religoin is is far more than just faith. It can be proven scientifically. You could also take the white-sheep-out method that professional test-takers have and eliminate the wrong ones to see what comes out as right. Unlike how Shinken said ...[Shinken's post]...
I find that to be quite the opposite. If they do fossil records and isotope mesurements to find that there was a very large flood in a certain large area that can be classified as nation-sized and formitable dimensions of area to modern perception of what a large nation would be, then that means something. Knowledge can prove and back faith.
... [W]e must not allow agnostic or aethiestic people to completely controll the government. What I'm argueing for is the consideration of religion and church in the actions that the government takes.[/QUOTE]

Dude you're gonna get so much crap from people about all this, I'm not even going to add much more myself other than the following:

Eliminating the wrong choices does not leave you with the right choice. That is completely BAD science. It's not the scientific method, and you should know better than to write something that stupid. And don't even try to argue with me on this, you are dead wrong and that's that. No scientific theory has been validated by "process of elimination" in the history of humankind. Others have been refuted, that is all.

You bringing up the scientific evidence that points to a "Great Flood" is not an example of knowledge "proving and backing" or even supporting faith. The Bible says that God had it rain for 40 days and 40 nights and there's the Noah story and so forth. The story of the Great Flood, as it is told in the Bible, [i]that[/i] is the object of faith. Whether there was or was not a catastrophic flood on the Earth a few thousand years ago, that is not the object of faith, and nobody who is educated questions it. They either know or they don't know. Kind of like the eruption of Vesuvius is not an object of faith. Yes, there is evidence that the natural dam between the Mediterranean and Black Seas collaped a few thousand years ago, and there are accounts of it across multiple cultures. That explains the origin of the story of the Biblical Great Flood, but it does not suggest anything divine. The point is that faith did not lead to this scientific investigation, nor did the investigation validate any faith. Don't try to claim that it did, because you'll only look stupid. I'm serious.

That last statement I quoted up there is just ridiculous. I won't comment on it further.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Second unexpected contendor:[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Unexpected hmm. That's quite interesting.[/color]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Anyone knows that. That is why we must not allow agnostic or aethiestic people to completely controll the government. What I'm argueing for is the consideration of religion and church in the actions that the government takes.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Which is why we shouldn't let extremists of [i]any[/i] religion to completely control the government. I sometimes feel that maybe a person who doesn't believe in any set religion would be a much better choice for a leader than someone who is so stuck in his beliefs that he wishes to control everyone elses beliefs on thesubject. So don't say you agree with me then take my words out of context.[/color]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Not just you, but it seems like a lot of people seem to miss where I'm comeing from. You see, we are NOT forcing our beliefs onto another person. That just happens to be where we sampled the laws, and eventually cultivated our modern day morals from. Having a law of "thou shalt not kill" doesn't force christianity. I'm not even saying that the church should have itself a seperate branch of the government where it gets to say what it wants (many churches preferances aren't the same as one another). I'm saying that religion should play a role in the decision making of the government. Not just christianity, either. Time is of no concept in this matter of defining what works and what does not.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Some people could say the same thing about you since you don't seem to understand where other people are coming from.

Paganism predates Christianity by a few thousand years-infact so does Judeism. Many civilazations were already in exhistance prior to Jesus's birth. They had laws, therefore morals and a way of doing things long before their people were forced to convert.

Thou shalt not kill was listed in the 10 commandments that Moses gave to the Hebrews in the first testement. Christians didn't think it up in the first place.. I'm stopping here for this one[/color]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The sabbath was Sunday. You see, over time the original Jewish writings were messed up for peoples own preferances. .[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Okay, Sabbath comes from the Hebrew word Sabbat. The Jewish people had their Sabbath on Saturday, they still do. Interestingly enough, The book of Exodus is in the Old Testement, which was written pre-Christ. Which means that you're probnably wrong about that.[/color]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Are you really challanging me to this semi off-topic arguement? I'll respond if you will me so. But I'll start with this: Just because someone marries you, doesn't make it right.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Well, if you really want to go there you could PM me on the subject. I'd welcome it since I really want to get into the whole MA thing right now. as for being off topic, I was siting sections from teh Bible, Leviticus is a book in the Bible. Therefore, I wasn't off topic.

As for someone marrying me not making it right-according to GW's version of Marrige, mine's right because it's between a man and a woman. Chew on that.[/color]


[quote name='Crimson Spider']I already commented on this. Over time, people add in things that Jesus never said, nor anyone really said, into the Bible to suit their own personal preferance, and often times don't input it at all and just use religion as a shield for their actions. You can usually spot these out because they are obviously contradictory and do not go along with the rest of what the book is saying, such as how predestination was input by John Calvin in the 1200s, and people believe it no matter how much it screws things up. Some of these things are so obvious that they couldn't be law it would be rediculous, such as the latter of the mentioned scripts (I do not believe that the term "period" was a referance to a woman's monthly in the original greek/latin texts, and is possibly your perception alone on what the writing is saying).[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]The whole Bible is contradictory. I really wish I could find the missing writings and original translations. As for personal preferences, I always was told that the Bible was written by peoplewho knew Jesus, so how does that whole thing fit in?

Leviticus is in the old testement anyway, which means that it was written prior to Jesus. No, they didn't use period, they used menstral uncleanliness. This meant that a woman in the middle of her cycle was unclean. It' snot my perception alone as you put it. I just found it easier to write period than menstral uncleanliness.

As for it not being a lwa because it was ridiculous...how come to this day in the Methodist faith women aren't allowed to clean the alter while on theiir cycle? And since ancient times women were forbidden from entering the temple while on their cycle.

Okay, I've said what I cared to. I hope you have fun with this.[/color]

[Mamma Vash]

[FONT=Ltahoma] We all have been hogtied by our current politicos, and quietly shanghied. Religion is an intensely emotional and PRIVATE affair. American history is about keeping religious and state affairs separate. This includes spending federal monies on programs like the Christian rehab that Jeb Bush dreamed up.( It wouldn't matter if the rehab was based on the mythologooogy of the Ancient Greeks-- exclusionary is exclusionary ! It doe not matter if the prisoner are volunteers, they are receiving indoctrination in one religion, being funded by the American taxpayer. We can all learn to be better people from a wide variety of resources, including a claasical education where philosophy, sociology, logic, and ethics are taught. None of these is dependent on a singlephilosolophy, but shared concepts. Using ethical priciples would help all of us to have more respectful, peaceful relations with others. Religions are powerful, and one's normal abilities to question are impaired when we are confronted in the language of religions. Lets face it folks, leaders clothe themselves with representation of the proper religious affiliiation, they get more powerful.

READ THE CONSTITUTION==BILL OF RIGHTS== COMMON SENSE BY pAINE, and THE FERDERALIST PAPERS ! Write letters to the editory, speak up and express yourself. The path to destruction is often preceded by good intentions.Question, ,don't swallow whole.! [/FONT]

[Mamma Vash]

[FONT=Tahoma]To Crimson Spider-- science was never meant to demonstrate proof of religious themes. Yes, scientists can find out if an are of a certain sized was ever flooded, when, and whethere the waterloogging was quick or slow. But divinity cannot be proven-- only inferred. Why does faith have to be proven, why is there a singular correct? Variety IS the spice of life. Anime is an eexample of shared things only getting better-- take W. Disney drawings with large eyes, lend this to Japan with a unique art style, and then you have 2 good things to enjoy. Same fo r spaghtti-- let Marco Polo visit Asia, bring home the concept of noodles, then WHAM--- SPAGHETTI.
Lets all remember to be decent to each other. I hope everyone has a great week.
[/FONT]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

You know, I wasn't going to post here, but ScirosDarkblade has in an oddball, unexpected, and unffiting way inspired me to.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Dude you're gonna get so much crap from people about all this, I'm not even going to add much more myself other than the following:[/quote]I've been prepared for the crap for awhile.

[quote]Eliminating the wrong choices does not leave you with the right choice. That is completely BAD science.
[/quote]But it DOES leave you with the wrong choices. Once you've eliminated what is wrong, it makes finding what is right a lot easier. I only mentioned the test-taking strategy as part of the arguement that there is a true fact, and that others that claim to be fact can be wrong.
[quote]It's not the scientific method, and you should know better than to write something that stupid.[/quote]
The scientific method is different for each classroom. Some expand on it, and some keep it to the bare minimum. Would trial-and-error with experomonets to find the truth be considered part of the scientific method, since you do studies and find them to be inconclusive?
[quote]
And don't even try to argue with me on this, you are dead wrong and that's that. No scientific theory has been validated by "process of elimination" in the history of humankind. Others have been refuted, that is all.[/quote](takes a breath). Hello? I'm still living! While no scientific theory has ben validated, the refuting of others makes the validation of the correct theory a lot easier.

[quote]You bringing up the scientific evidence that points to a "Great Flood" is not an example of knowledge "proving and backing" or even supporting faith.[/quote]
Learn to read my post. I specifically said
[quote][b]If[/b] they do fossil records and isotope mesurements to find that there was a very large flood in a certain large area that can be classified as nation-sized and formitable dimensions of area to modern perception of what a large nation would be, then that means something. Knowledge can prove and back faith.[/quote]
I did not claim that they did find knoweldge of it. I am using it as an [u]example[/u].
[quote]The Bible says that God had it rain for 40 days and 40 nights and there's the Noah story and so forth. The story of the Great Flood, as it is told in the Bible, [i]that[/i] is the object of faith. Whether there was or was not a catastrophic flood on the Earth a few thousand years ago,
[/quote]specifically the exact same time period that this would've occured.
[quote] that is not the object of faith, and nobody who is educated questions it.
[/quote]It just backs it[quote] They either know or they don't know. Kind of like the eruption of Vesuvius is not an object of faith. Yes, there is evidence that the natural dam between the Mediterranean and Black Seas collaped a few thousand years ago, and there are accounts of it across multiple cultures. That explains the origin of the story of the Biblical Great Flood, but it does not suggest anything divine.[/quote]I would like to point out how you said "evidence". "Evidence" is not good enough. There is "evidence" for every little frikken thing in existance out there. "Evidence" proves almost nothing. And it DOES suggest something divine. You see, many of the stories of the flood were twisted, kinda like the claim that it covered the whole earth whereas it actually was local. How can we be sure that the breaking of the mediterranean and the black sea be what the flood came from? How are sure that [u]that[/u] was the actual flood, and did not cause the raining for 40 days and nights? You cannot, because you were not existing in that time. Everything becomes mere speculation from the eye of the beholder. If it is claimed in a book that an act of god caused an area to be flooded, and we do studies to find out that the area was indeed flooded at the same time the book claims it so, then that does say something. Faith sparked or not, it says something. Similar to how the faith of aetheism and agnostic have their own little "scientific studies" to back their beliefs.
[quote] The point is that faith did not lead to this scientific investigation, nor did the investigation validate any faith.[/quote]Unbased and wrong. First of all: prove it. Second of all, it validates a faith that there was a great flood at that area in that time. [quote]Don't try to claim that it did, because you'll only look stupid. I'm serious.[/quote]Your making phantomly backed statements, rather than logical reasoning. Guess what? TN shut up about his claims that I was dumb awhile back in this topic, and he had the same mentality that you have in the above quoted statement. He's not saying that now, now is he? Psychological theory: You are frustrated, so you lower the intellectual level of your post to vent.

[quote]That last statement I quoted up there is just ridiculous. I won't comment on it further.[/quote]
If it is so rediculous, prove it wrong. I often find people belittle statements that they don't like to try to avoid it.

"In announcer voice" and Racer 0 pulls up to Racer 2 to in the effort to excede her in the debate!
[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman]
[color=darkviolet]Which is why we shouldn't let extremists of [i]any[/i] religion to completely control the government. I sometimes feel that maybe a person who doesn't believe in any set religion would be a much better choice for a leader than someone who is so stuck in his beliefs that he wishes to control everyone elses beliefs on thesubject. So don't say you agree with me then take my words out of context.[/color][/QUOTE]Someone who doesn't have any set beliefs that wants to force what they think on another person is no better than any religious person. In fact, they [u]can[/u] be called worse since their beliefs wouldn't have any back to them. There is little that can determin the difference between aetheistic and Agnostic because "I don't believe there is a god." is a machine-response.

Little side not here: I love to twist peoples own statements and use them to my advantage.
[quote][color=darkviolet]Some people could say the same thing about you since you don't seem to understand where other people are coming from. [/quote]I try to. Like how I see what Sciros is trying to get at. I just don't agree with him.

[quote]Paganism predates Christianity by a few thousand years-infact so does Judeism. Many civilazations were already in exhistance prior to Jesus's birth. They had laws, therefore morals and a way of doing things long before their people were forced to convert.[/quote]Of course they did. Look at this perspective: when Adam and Eve were banished from the garden of Eden, what religion was out there? There wasn't one. A religion gets itself a name when a number of people believe in a certain thing. I acknowledge that Paganism (a phantom religion itself, since I seem to not ever see anything on paganism itself, since the Pagan kingdom had adopted another religion) and Judeism exist before Jesus birth. That does not invalidate christianity. You see, the faith and beliefs that were labeled christain were only LABLED christian after Christ came. The religious beliefs of christianity prior to Christ still existed. The lable of Christian comes from someone from a certain faith from a certain faith from another certain faith that had the faith that Jesus Christ was the son of God. We are all a big branch.

[quote]Thou shalt not kill was listed in the 10 commandments that Moses gave to the Hebrews in the first testement. Christians didn't think it up in the first place.. I'm stopping here for this one[/color][/quote]Of course christians didn't think if it. Christ hadn't came around then. But he was forseen to come from the very same faith, and that is what counts.

[quote][color=darkviolet]Okay, Sabbath comes from the Hebrew word Sabbat. The Jewish people had their Sabbath on Saturday, they still do. Interestingly enough, The book of Exodus is in the Old Testement, which was written pre-Christ. Which means that you're probnably wrong about that.[/color][/quote]Then I guess I know a couple of Jews who are going to be disappointed in their belief. But alas, Jesus was a Jew.

[quote][color=darkviolet] Well, if you really want to go there you could PM me on the subject. I'd welcome it since I really want to get into the whole MA thing right now. as for being off topic, I was siting sections from teh Bible, Leviticus is a book in the Bible. Therefore, I wasn't off topic. [/quote]I said semi-off topic. We are talking about the seperation of church and state, and you begin to talk about the view of which is correct marriage or not.

[quote]As for someone marrying me not making it right-according to GW's version of Marrige, mine's right because it's between a man and a woman. Chew on that.[/color][/quote]Call me sasquatch, but who is GW. George W? The whole man-woman thing is only for homosexual marriages, not marriages as a whole. What is defined as a correct marriage goes much farther than between a man and a woman.

[quote][color=darkviolet]The whole Bible is contradictory. I really wish I could find the missing writings and original translations. As for personal preferences, I always was told that the Bible was written by peoplewho knew Jesus, so how does that whole thing fit in?[/quote]Actually, it's not. The contradictory comes from the views of people who don't like it in the first place who use incorrect semantics to try to justify their dislike and non-belief of it, or try to push the definition of a translated word from a translated word from yet another translated word redone the second time around to claim it's contradictory, and from people screwing with it in the first place. Yes, the Bible was written by people who knew him. But did you know that there are 23 seperate non-biblical writings that speak of Jesus, what he stood for, what he did, and all the little "magic tricks" that he did? Eeerily their almost the same.

[quote]Leviticus is in the old testement anyway, which means that it was written prior to Jesus. No, they didn't use period, they used menstral uncleanliness. This meant that a woman in the middle of her cycle was unclean. It' snot my perception alone as you put it. I just found it easier to write period than menstral uncleanliness. [/quote]Like I said, the book gets screwed with over time. Jesus was a Jew, and he knew of the book of Leviticus. Similar to how people tried to hold Jesus on trial for not upholding the law from Abrum (can't...splell), and he stated that Abrum couldn't of had a law, because the "law" was givin when Moses was around. They cited the book, and he told them how screwed up it was.

[quote]As for it not being a lwa because it was ridiculous...how come to this day in the Methodist faith women aren't allowed to clean the alter while on theiir cycle? And since ancient times women were forbidden from entering the temple while on their cycle.[/quote]I don't know. I don't know what the Methodist church does and does not allow. Can I ask you what "lwa" means. I'm having trouble deciphering the word. I find predestination the be rediculous, and yet people believe that. Just because someone enforces it, doesn't make it valid. I don't see any reason why a woman on their cycle wouldn't be allowed to clean an alter themselves.

And for some new blood.
[quote name='Mamma Vash][FONT=Ltahoma'] We all have been hogtied by our current politicos, and quietly shanghied. Religion is an intensely emotional and PRIVATE affair. American history is about keeping religious and state affairs separate.[/quote]
Quite contrare. While many religions may be private (such as wiccan), not all of them are. Christians like to make themselves known, like to be open about their faith. That is why you always hear of us. And America history isn't about keeping religion and state seperate. I actually don't find too much having to do with religion in American history. The seperation from church and state isn't even in the constitution, because no one took it into consideration when they made it.
[quote] This includes spending federal monies on programs like the Christian rehab that Jeb Bush dreamed up.[/quote]Dreamed up, or was it proposed to him and he signed it? A lot of the stuff that our goveners and mayors and Presidents do isn't their own thinking.
[quote]( It wouldn't matter if the rehab was based on the mythologooogy of the Ancient Greeks-- exclusionary is exclusionary ! It does not matter if the prisoner are volunteers, they are receiving indoctrination in one religion, being funded by the American taxpayer.[/quote]Actually, it does matter. You see, under the statement you are making, the government has the right to shut down all the Churches everywhere, because they are receiving indoctrination in one religion, which had funding from the American tax payer. The seperation between church and state isn't about excluding the existance of the two completely, but rather not forcing a religion onto anyone.
[quote]We can all learn to be better people from a wide variety of resources, including a claasical education where philosophy, sociology, logic, and ethics are taught. None of these is dependent on a singlephilosolophy, but shared concepts. Using ethical priciples would help all of us to have more respectful, peaceful relations with others.[/quote]The 49 something or others that Jeb is teaching is a shared concept among the most. He just go them from a very easy source to get them. He is enforcing morals from christianity, and not christianity itself.
[quote] Religions are powerful, and one's normal abilities to question are impaired when we are confronted in the language of religions. Lets face it folks, leaders clothe themselves with representation of the proper religious affiliiation, they get more powerful.[/quote]They get more respect and belief amongst the people. They aren't getting more powerful. It's like saying that someone who clothes themselves in lether and chains and plays fast hardcore rock music gets more powerful. I find myself often not-agreeing with these religious leaders. If someone were to speak against them, that person would be condemned because of the sheep-like qualities people have, such as people speaking against Howard Stern get condemned.
[quote]

READ THE CONSTITUTION==BILL OF RIGHTS== COMMON SENSE BY pAINE, and THE FERDERALIST PAPERS ! Write letters to the editory, speak up and express yourself. The path to destruction is often preceded by good intentions.Question, ,don't swallow whole.! [/FONT][/quote]
The seperation of church and state isn't in the Constitution or the bill of rights, and there is no set definition for "common sense" which is itself a rather fickle thing.
[QUOTE=Mamma Vash][FONT=Tahoma]To Crimson Spider--
[/QUOTE]I take it (she?) is talking to me.
[quote] science was never meant to demonstrate proof of religious themes. Yes, scientists can find out if an are of a certain sized was ever flooded, when, and whethere the waterloogging was quick or slow. But divinity cannot be proven-- only inferred.[/quote] A whole lot of things can only be inferred. Remember, even if scientists cannot explain it, and the only possible explanation for something is God, they will refuse to except it, as stated by a certain indevidual which my sisters class decided to point out. Since they will refuse to accept it, they call it "infered" and leave it at that while their own personal belief is actually inferred. Second, there is something called Religious Scientists. They use sceince to back and prove faith, so science can be meant to demonstrate proof of religious themes. And dynomite was never meant to be used for military purposes, but that's not what happened either.
[quote]
Why does faith have to be proven, why is there a singular correct?
[/quote]Faith doesn't have to be proven. That is why it's faith. We get something called a disagreement. I know plenty of Agnostics who downright look down upon and Insult religion, just because it's not their belief. I am one of many who do not stand for this. They adhieve to the unloyal science, and since they refuse to see things in our manner, we are lowered to the 2-dimensional thinking that they have. Personally, religious people seek to prove their faith solely for this purpose. Agnostics seek to prove their faith because they are unsure, and thus this is why the whole thing got started. And the nature of religion has that there IS a single fact, a single correct, because they cannot coincide with eachother.
[quote] Variety IS the spice of life. Anime is an eexample of shared things only getting better-- take W. Disney drawings with large eyes, lend this to Japan with a unique art style, and then you have 2 good things to enjoy. Same fo r spaghtti-- let Marco Polo visit Asia, bring home the concept of noodles, then WHAM--- SPAGHETTI.
Lets all remember to be decent to each other. I hope everyone has a great week.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]Variaty is a good spice, but condemnation (probably not a word) is the unfiltered wastes of this spice. Sure, I let Wiccans, Muslims, Catholics, and Bhuddists go on believing what they believe despite what I believe. But when they don't do the same is when there is a problem. It messes the delicate seasoning of life up.

EDIT: Proofread a few times

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

You have said several very questionable and, in fact, wrong things in the above post, such as referring to atheism/agnosticism as faiths and things like "'evidence' doesn't prove anything" and so forth.

Basically this means that I might as well be talking to a wildebeest. I will leave you to your own devices, Crimson Spider. May you find happiness in this life.

Sciros out.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Isn't like you've done better. Your statements are based off of sheer rhetorics and ideals that only you have, and are often times off of something I wasn't even saying.

O.K. Prove to me that "Evidence" proves something. You would be proving Christainity, Hinduism, Islamic, and Wiccan relgion to be correct along with evolution. "Evidence" is twistable towards any ideal. What can be classified as "evidence" is every frikken thing in existance.

Atleast this wildebeast knows how to read someone's post.

[Dan L]

Crimson Spider, I only have a few things to say here,

1- Stop trying to be clever. By that I don't mean that you're not- what I mean is stop arguing in order to try and come out on top. If you really do follow Jesus then you ought to know that it's in him that you find security- and that means that you don't find security in whether or not you win this argument.

That and the Bible clearly says two things. One is that God's wisdom is foolish in the eyes of man, and the other is that no-one can see the father other than through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This petty arguing is a complete other means than "through Jesus and the Holy Spirit", so no-one is going to find God through it. You can prove the feasability of your beliefs, but then if it doesn't seem so foolish to the average man then by the first statement you're clearly not operating in God's wisdom. So give it up.

2- Stop judging others and defending yourself. Jesus said do not judge, so do not judge. He never said "do not judge wrongly", he said "do not judge" as in, completely. When you say something like "Isn't like you've done better. Your statements are based off of sheer rhetorics and ideals that only you have, and are often times off of something I wasn't even saying." you are judging this person, regardless of how right or wrong you may be. Thus when you judge someone on that, you open yourself up to the same judgement.

It may be right to say what you just siad, but it is just as right to say "Crimson Spider is a sinner and doesn't deserve salvation"- but you were saved out of grace. If you really believe that your sins have been overlooked, then don't judge the sins of others. Otherwise your own sins will be judged, because you can't ask for mercy on yourself and justice on others, it has to work the same both ways.

3- Try to be slightly humbler. That doesn't mean you have to be meek and mild like a soft furry animal, but try to avoid seeing your argument as an absolute authority that you have to prove. It struck me when you said ""In announcer voice" and Racer 0 pulls up to Racer 2 to in the effort to excede her in the debate!". It struck me with sheer arrogance. You have nothing to prove here, and you have no-one to exceed. In fact, you are commanded to serve others, not to try to exceed their standards.



And believe me, you know very little about faith considering how much you ramble on about it. Jesus knew a whole lot about faith- more than you or me- and he didn't get in any arguments like this. He got into a fair few discussions, and people either loved him or hated him- but those who hated him always walked away without much of a comeback to what he was saying. You, in contrast, seem to be acting as though you have the source of knowledge that these guys need to be made aware of, and yet your arguments aren't really given any credibility. Perhaps that means you need to find out a little bit more about this stuff before you argue about it?

Let me give you one example:

[quote]Like I said, the book gets screwed with over time. Jesus was a Jew, and he knew of the book of Leviticus. Similar to how people tried to hold Jesus on trial for not upholding the law from Abrum (can't...splell), and he stated that Abrum couldn't of had a law, because the "law" was givin when Moses was around. They cited the book, and he told them how screwed up it was.[/quote]

This comes from a misconception that the book of leviticus itself was screwed up as time went on. Actually, the book of leviticus as it is is exactly as it should be. Otherwise it would never have been included in the Bible. The "screwing up of the law" is actually to do with the pharisees, who scoured the whole of scripture to find new laws that they could add to their collection. They scoured the Torah, the psalms, the prophets- anything they could for even the most obscure thing that could be turned to the law. It was this law of the pharisses that was messed up, NOT the book of leviticus. Leviticus only seems weird to us today because our culture is so radically different.

Jesus never said the law was screwed up or anything to that effect- he said that the people were screwed up in that they never showed mercy. Jesus never got rid of the law either- he said that we could, rather than have law, have grace- but also that in order to recieve it we must give grace to others. You can be completely exempt from the law, but in order to be so, you have to grant others the same exemption, but the Law still stands. It was only the pharisaical law that was truly messed up.

Reading through stuff that you've said, I can see that very little of it comes from experience so much as stuff that you've just thought up or gotten from somewhere else without too much credibility either. I reckon maybe you should work on that before trying to open people's minds up.

[Mamma Vash]

[FONT=Lucida Console]To Crimson Spider, when I referred to Common Sense, I punctuated wrong-- it is the leaflet written by Thomas Paine prior to the Revolution. Again, in referring to separation of church and state, I do not subscribe to exclusion ofor abolishment of religion-- but government hands off- no official religion, no monetary government support of specific religious doctrines, individual freedoms of association and speech. Theocracy cannot work on a large and varied population, Regarding your quote of "the scientific method" being trial - and error experiments that do not "prove" anything-- the method (yes, it is codified) begins with hypothesis generation using the set point of the null hypothesis. The word "proove" and "proof" , are in this sense expressions of logic (ie mathematical). Just wanted to let you know where I was coming from. Beautiful day to all.


[/FONT]