Post Election "high"

[H8U]

Dude, GOD IS COOL!!!!

 

[burping_boy]

Timebuilder,

My friend, I used to OWN your position.

What do you mean? I don't get it.

Now, I already told you that I won't convince you, and I'm fine with that. I even hosted a "New Age" radio show for seven years, 52 weeks a year, so I can say for certain that I have "been there, done that". What seems too "convenient" to you is just the way it is. If you want to argue, take it up with Him. I suspect that you'll get your chance someday.

I'm not New Age. New age is a spiritual system. I align more with middle-road non-spiritual Buddhism. To be specific, Shaolin.

So you admit it then? You're totally closed-minded? Well, then I have nothing further to say to you except just remember this the next time you think an Atheist is closed-minded.

Sorry, I'm not gonna get a chance to talk to something that doesn't exist. And neither will you.

Thanks for your participation in this discussion. I have, in fact, heard most of this thread before. You can't argue a matter of faith using the mind of Man.

You're welcome, but you're wrong. You CAN argue a matter of faith with someone who has an open mind, like me. However, you don't qualify. Enjoy your bubble!

 

[VFR on Top]

Whole lotta fiddlin' goin' on while God's Favored Politicians--the GOP--are preparing to torch the place, gang.

Seriously--you guys need to be focusing on the airline arbitration bill, not on who does what on Sundays.

 

[cjh]

The big four when something can't be explained:
"It's a test."
"It's god's will."
"Ours is not to question."
"God works in mysterious ways."


>>"Very shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Madelaine Murry O'Hare, we began to see a breakdown in the family. We felt justified to follow our every desire, and soon, we were completely unashamed of any chosen behavior."<<

You know, I find it interesting that religious types automatically assume that non-religious people are wanton, self-centered, and totally void of a sense of responsibility.

I personally think it's a lot harder to live your life knowing you are solely responsible for your actions. I think it makes you much more accountable when you truly believe that you have one shot (read that life) at being the best you can be. I think it demands a lot more self control if you're interested in benefiting society rather than staining it, and that desire really doesn't take a god in heaven to direct.

Seems to me an awful lot of religious types commit most every "sin" in the book, as defined by their religion, only to run to god for forgiveness. It becomes a regular and often repeated pattern. (And who sets the example better than the many TV evangelists caught repeatedly with their pants down - some literally!) Now you tell me which is the lazier, more irresponsible way to live.

I choose to instead believe that people are people, and as such have both positive traits and negative flaws. If you need god to direct your life, forgive your mistakes, and track the brownie points for your pie in the sky opportunity, terrific. I could care less whether the entity you worship is a guy or a goat. The important thing from my viewpoint is that you try to make your corner of the world a better place through your actions, and I'm not talking about proselytizing but rolling up your sleeves and helping someone less fortunate than yourself.

As a fellow pilot you can do that by conducting an Angel Flight, helping a lower time pilot catch a break, working with search and rescue groups, or volunteering with lifeguard just to name a few. Obviously there are tons and tons of ways to help that are non-aviation related.

 

[Timebuilder]

You know, I find it interesting that religious types automatically assume that non-religious people are wanton, self-centered, and totally void of a sense of responsibility.

Close. I assume that is the natural tendency of every human, no matter to what he does or does not ascribe in the area of belief.

personally think it's a lot harder to live your life knowing you are solely responsible for your actions. I think it makes you much more accountable when you truly believe that you have one shot (read that life) at being the best you can be. I think it demands a lot more self control if you're interested in benefiting society rather than staining it, and that desire really doesn't take a god in heaven to direct.

I'm glad you have a desire to be your best. How does that support your position?

Seems to me an awful lot of religious types commit most every "sin" in the book, as defined by their religion, only to run to god for forgiveness. It becomes a regular and often repeated pattern. (And who sets the example better than the many TV evangelists caught repeatedly with their pants down - some literally!) Now you tell me which is the lazier, more irresponsible way to live.

Better. I AGREE with that. Some so-called "christians" use this idea of confession as a license to behave badly. Good!

I choose to instead believe that people are people, and as such have both positive traits and negative flaws. If you need god to direct your life, forgive your mistakes, and track the brownie points for your pie in the sky opportunity, terrific. I could care less whether the entity you worship is a guy or a goat. The important thing from my viewpoint is that you try to make your corner of the world a better place through your actions, and I'm not talking about proselytizing but rolling up your sleeves and helping someone less fortunate than yourself.

You are making some assumptions here, but they are widely held assumptions. Truly, if this world as we know it was indeed "it", that is, all there is and we are all alone, an accident of nature, then we are left to our own devices to write the script, make the rules, and do what we like. However, without the variable of "proof", we don't have enough information to argue this using only our own logic and ability. Regardless, God, whether you believe in Him or His plan or not, is making this world a better place, one life at a time. However, to butt heads on this point is as valuable as the proverbial question from centuries past about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

As a fellow pilot you can do that by conducting an Angel Flight, helping a lower time pilot catch a break, working with search and rescue groups, or volunteering with lifeguard just to name a few. Obviously there are tons and tons of ways to help that are non-aviation related.

Most legitmate Christian ministries, along with a whole bunch of secular groups, are involved in some form of "service" activity.

A great many people, yourself and Burping Boy included, want to define this disagreement in a conventional manner, by human argument, asking for proof, and are disrespectful of a person who does not agree to that standard. Is that frustrating? I'm certain it is. I can't change that, as I attempted to explain before. Is it "convenient"? If you see it that way, then "right on", brother. But know this: saying that my position is without merit because it fails to meet your standard, the human standard, is an observation that is not relevant.

A hanful of pilots won't settle this, no matter what we believe.

 

[TXCAP4228]

We can however, debate the constitution and the intention of the founders. Somewhere it was mentioned that the right to freedom of religion and the establishment clause amount to a separation of church and state. I suppose there is some support for that idea. The problem I see is that the establishment clause is currently being interpreted in a way that the founders could never have expected or intended. As I see it, there is a tremendous difference between naming "an official religion of the United States", which was the meaning which was intended by the founders (it is very clear, and unambiguous) versus the idea that a teacher leading her class in prayer constitutes making that an "official" endorsement of a particular religion, which is NOT what was intended. The teacher and the students have as much right as anyone in our country to the free practice of religion. Many may not like that, but that is what was intended. A Christmas tree on a public area is not a sactioning of an official religion. If it were, you could be routed from your homes and forced to stand around it and sing.

If I had a flying job I might have more time to spend looking through these posts. Maybe someday I will make the career change.

While I agree with burping boy, I have tried to steer away from the pure religion debate and keep my disagreement focused on the govenrment aspect. So, timebuilder, I will respond to what you said above.

Once you decide that there is in fact an appropriate separation bewteen church and state and that this does NOT in fact infringe on anyone's right to practice the religion of their choosing, then you and I are on the same page. Let me reiterate where I think the rift comes into play.

A teahcer lead prayer in a school that is sanctioned by the school (ie government) as part of the curiculum and part of the school day exceeds the establishment and free exercise clauses. Doing it during free time or as part of a club would not.

Further, it does not infringe on a teacher's free exercise of religion to prevent him or her from praying as part of their class any more than it infringes on my freedom of speech to prevent me from standing on my desk here at the office and singing the latest Backstreet Boys song at the top of my lungs. When one is employed to do a job one should do their job. A teacher's job is to teach, not to preach. I've always thought that the argument that not allowing prayer in school infringed on the TEAHER's free exercise was ridiculous.

Burping boy, I look at you and see myself ten years ago. I agree with you that if theists can wear their religion on their sleeves then non theists should be able to do the same. But finally, I ran out of energy to argue about it and now I just move on - except where it may affect my freedom to continue in my non belief.

 

[enigma]

Evidence to support your faith.

To those who support the faith on faith alone. I encourage you to look beyond faith in one small way. You see, I have spent time studying the reasons why a Christian can trust his faith and I have found more material than one can read in his lifetime. The book that I mentioned earlier by Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict subtitled Historical Evidences For The Christian Faith, is one such work. Don't take me wrong, I am in 100% agreement with you of faith, but the Evidence is with you. The doubters would have us believe that the Bible and our salvation are based entirely upon a "blind" trust. Not so. Here are just a few areas that can support your faith.


I

1. The Pentatuch, the Law and the Prophets, were written before Christs birth. That is a fact that is scientifically verifiable, according to the people who study ancient manuscripts. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls was only the icing on the cake.

2. Those Hebrew writings were approximately 30% prophecy. As of today the vast majority of that prophecy has been fullfilled. That is fact.

3. There were 24 major prophecies (and hundreds of minor prophecies) predicting Jesus Christ and detailing most every aspect of his birth and life. Scholars have calculated that the odds of someone man meeting all of those specifics at over 10 Billion to one. Jesus met them all.


4. Jesus was a verifiable historical figure according to Roman records, and according to archeological evidence from the region.

5. His resurrection is more provable than disprovable.


More later.

regards,
8N

 

[cjh]

>>"now I just move on - except where it may affect my freedom to continue in my non belief."<<

That's actually the way I feel about it. I think it's sad to see so much energy wasted on literal interpretation of mythology, but to each his own. In my "everyday life" the subject rarely comes up, and since it's exhausting to debate a subject that can only survive by falling back on faith as an explanation, I rarely bring it up. The exception would be people who feel they must shove it down my throat, but since I don't hang out with such zealots it rarely impacts my life adversely.

Now the downside to such a laissez faire attitude is the potential for my freedoms to be trod upon by the so called moral majority types who are not happy unless they're imposing their views on the rest of us. That one bothers me since this country of late seems to be evolving into a nation that is less and less tolerant of diversity, and such narrow minded views only add to the problem.

 

[burping_boy]

What, Enigma, no credit for passing your "scientific challenge" with flying colors?

Now it's time for prophecy talk, eh? Allrighty then...

1. The Pentatuch, the Law and the Prophets, were written before Christs birth. That is a fact that is scientifically verifiable, according to the people who study ancient manuscripts. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls was only the icing on the cake.

Doesn't matter. The mere existance of ancient manuscripts means absolutely nothing, as far as supporting your beliefs go. That's the same thing as saying "I'm right because the bible exists and it's the inspired word of god and blah, blah, blah...."

2. Those Hebrew writings were approximately 30% prophecy. As of today the vast majority of that prophecy has been fullfilled. That is fact.

What prophecies? Name some prophecies that have been fulfilled, please! In fact, name ONE prophecy that has been fulfilled that can be verified outside the boundaries of the bible.

3. There were 24 major prophecies (and hundreds of minor prophecies) predicting Jesus Christ and detailing most every aspect of his birth and life. Scholars have calculated that the odds of someone man meeting all of those specifics at over 10 Billion to one. Jesus met them all.

Again, give me one single source OUTSIDE the bible that agrees with this statement. You can't use the bible to prove the accuracy of the bible! "Well, the bible SAYS there were these prophecies and that they have been fulfilled" doesn't cut the mustard, friend.

4. Jesus was a verifiable historical figure according to Roman records, and according to archeological evidence from the region.

So show me this evidence. Show me some NON-bible records.

5. His resurrection is more provable than disprovable.

Then prove it. Don't just say it.

Waiting....

 

[Timebuilder]

TXCAP, we will have to agree to disagree.

Obviously, there is an entire group of ways in which one may interpret the "establishment clause". As a strict constuctionist, I think it means that the government cannot name an "official religion of the US", because that it what the constitution says. Everthing else, no matter how much it might be annoying to a citizen, is unaffected. A teacher is not empowered to make any policy for the United States of America; only the Congress can do that. Therefore, when a teacher leads a prayer, they are not acting on behalf of the government to "establish a religion". If I, as a teacher, tell my class that everyone in the US should drive on the left side of the road, that does not establish driving on the left side of the road as the official policy.

Since praying was a very frequent activity to the founders, and it happened in ALL of their own schools, they put nothing into the constitution that would regulate where prayer would occur, or who might lead that prayer. In the schools, the teacher lead the prayer.

This policy continued into my own youth, and it was supported in three ways: the teacher wanted to do it, the kids were either positive or neutral about it, and the parents thought it was a good thing. It was elegant in its simplicity; if you didn't want to pray, you didn't. If you wanted to, you did. In four years of public school, I never heard a student being sanctioned by the teacher for not praying, and contrary to what has been posted previously in this thread, no fights or divisions occured among students because of praying or not praying.

Perhaps the bottom line is this: in the constitution, there is no restraint on annoying, discomforting, boorish, rude, or irritating behavior. This includes no provision for being annoyed by hearing someone else praying. While the Supreme Court is a group of well trained jurists, they had to make a mighty stretch back in the sixties to, in effect, write something into the constitution that isn't really there. As humans, they certainly have the capacity to be wrong. IMHO, this is one of those mistakes.