Post Election "high"

[310]

The morals issue does not apply when it comes to salvation.....

"For all have sinned" Noone can expect to go to Heaven based on being a good person- it is not humanly possible- but the Blood of Jesus Christ can cover our sins if we 1- believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God and (2) Repent. That is to turn away from our sinful ways and turn towards God and attempt to do as he would have us live.

Salvation is through faith, not by works. The works will come after salvation because we love God and wish to please Him. (The works do not keep us saved.) Salvation by faith in He that was blameless and sinless... yet He died on the Cross for all mankind so that thru him life everlasting can be enjoyed. Jesus Christ was the willing sacrifice of God of Himself so that our sins may be washed away and we may join Him in everlasting life.

How one can say as in one of the posts that God is cruel and evil is so off-base considering that God sacrificed His only Son so that we may live. The death and destruction written about in the Bible should be viewed as the evil brought into the world by man not living as God would have... but rather doing as Satan would have man do.

Those that say they are atheist always have alot to say about God and religion.....So much as to prove they really are not atheist but are squirming in their own dread of want they know is to come for themselves. God is loving and will forgive all if only a person will accept the gift of salvation- the gift being Jesus. All one has to do to recieve this gift is "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

We need no other intercessor betwen us and God other than Jesus Christ. We need no priest, pastor or pope to interceed for us with God. Jesus Christ's blood covers all our sins if we will only accept the gift of salvation. ( This is not to say we should not worship at church services led by a Bible believing pastor)

It is God's will that none should perish- no not one.... but it is up to us to accept the gift of life.

None of this implies that a christian will not die an untimely death- maybe even in an airplane- the laws of physics still apply to these mortal bodies- God may help us stay alive sometimes- maybe even keeping unbelievers alive so they can repent later- but I don't suggest tempting God by doing a base to final uncoordinated stall just to see.

 

[H8U]

"A donation fer yer salvation"- GTA2

 

[burping_boy]

Timebuilder,

It's been a long day, and I'm finally home from BTR and IAD. I'm impressed that there are so many here with so much to say. Since we have veered into the Bible, and the truth of God, there is an important aspect to consider: there is no proof. That's right, no proof at all. Why? Because scripture tells us that God doesn't require a follower who KNOWS his truth because he has seen it and had it "proved" to him. Instead, he requires one who TRUSTS, one who has FAITH. I can't convince cjh that God is his creator, or that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or that the gospel lays out the only plan of salvation. So, if this is what we are arguing now, we can say our peace and sit down.

See, that is very convenient for theists. You refuse to examine your beliefs from a third-person perspective. Under the guise of "no proof needed" and "faith", you will disregard any and all pertinent information that could show flaws in your belief system. All you have to do is tell yourself, "any flaws, contradictions, etc. in my bible or beliefs are just there as a test from god, or a temptation from satan". And PRESTO! End of discussion. You remain in a state of ignorant bliss.

And as a result, you are lost. You create such a cushion in your beliefs that no matter HOW absurd they become, you will not question them. Your mind becomes COMPLETELY CLOSED.

Men cannot change hearts, only God can do that. He can use a man to begin the job, but it is God who always seals the deal.

So you admit, only God can decide who believes in him. Therefore, anyone who does not was created that way, and is screwed from day 1. How lovely of this "Omnibenevolent" creature of yours.

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.

Again I say to you, not sanctioning a teacher-led prayer in a public school is NOT repressing free practice of religion. Students are 100% free to pray on their own, or in their own organized groups. Why don't you understand this? A class is a captive audience, and when you force them to experience one set of beliefs only then you are crossing the line, and NOT merely practicing the "free excercise" of religion.

As far as the Christmas tree and even Christmas go, if you truly studied then you would know that Xtianity STOLE Xmas from the pagans. The holiday was formerly known as Winter Solstice, and to help "cure" the pagans of their "spiritual ills", the church adopted this holiday and used the 25th of December to celebrate thier "savior". Too bad he was really born in July (if he even existed to begin with)!

The Christmas tree is a very secular and commercial icon of Christmas. To us atheists, Christmas is a time of family. We've taken one flawed and stoled holiday and liberated it for all to enjoy!

Yes, times have changed a great deal from when I was in the fourth grade compared to a fourth grader in the 1990's. I think there is a direct connection between the departure of our nation from the moral moderating force of faith and the negative changes (from a Biblical perspective) in our society. 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. Slouching Toward Gommorah, by Robert Bork, will give you a firm foundation in understanding this trend. It explains the breakdown of the moral and cultural restraints that helped to guide our daily behavior for most of our country's history.

What you THINK and what the FACTS are are 2 very different things. Did you totally disregard what I said about pre- and post-prayer school violence? I guess not. As for your book, why can't you theists use a book from someone who DOESN'T base their every thought on the bible? A book like that is meaningless to me, and I think the more people who free themselves of your religion the better! It's nice to see so many people start to think for themselves.

So, if we decide to steer this thread back to a more civil, less strident tone, like we had earlier, I may have more to add. At this point, I'm emphatic that no one will be convinced in our current attempts to prove or disprove scripture. There are lots of website where there are attempts to dissemble scripture, saying "ah HA! You SEE? This is obviously wrong, and you are a fool to believe!!" What people fail to realize is that Satan is VERY clever. Although he is not God's "equal" he is much more clever than we are, and he will use that cleverness, that apparently "perfect sense" argument, to mislead as many people as possible. You can beware the dark side, skywalker, but there is no need to beware "Luke".

Again, hiding in your impenetrable cushion. No matter WHAT, anything that would discredit your beliefs are the spawn of satan. You are totally lost in your dogma. You have a closed mind, and won't for a second examine your system from outside the circle. "All I have to do is have faith, doesn't matter HOW wrong my beliefs might appear to be". Must be nice to live in such a bubble of ignorance, completely oblivious to logic.

Is there any more futile an act than to spend more than a minute trying to convince an atheist that God exists? Okay, maybe it's more futile to try and pull a Skyhawk with a hand towbar down the runway, expecting it to fly, but the God argument is a really close second.

Acutually, I think trying to reach someone as lost as you is much more futile! At least with us atheists, we examine ANY AND ALL theories, facts, flaws, beliefs, before we make our decisions. If you fundies present us with something to consider, we look into it. YOU, however, stay in your bubble and think that any possible flaws with your system are tools of satan meant to lead you astray. You throw logic and reason completely out the window in the name of the *warm fuzzies* you get from blind faith. But, I digress...


Anyway, Timebuilder, you are a very nice and friendly person. I don't mean to insult with anything I've said, but I really think you need to peek outside of your bubble. You are only fooling yourself and causing yourself harm if you disregard everything else in the name of blind faith.

 

[Timebuilder]

My friend, I used to OWN your position.

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.

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.

 

[burping_boy]

310,

How one can say as in one of the posts that God is cruel and evil is so off-base considering that God sacrificed His only Son so that we may live. The death and destruction written about in the Bible should be viewed as the evil brought into the world by man not living as God would have... but rather doing as Satan would have man do.

What is way off-base is to say that Jesus (part of the so-called trinity and therefore GOD HIMSELF) even died! Since when does your god die? What a joke. Not to mention the flaws with the whole "virgin birth" myth. Some parts of the bible have Jesus as the NATURAL son of Joseph (not just step-son). Do you disregard these parts?

Your god is by far the most cruel, vengeful, and OUTRIGHT EVIL being that has ever graced the works of man. What were the creators of the bible smoking when they wrote the OT? Lets see --

2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God.

GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.

EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7 The purpose of the devastation that God brings to the Egyptians is as follows:
to show that he is Lord;
to show that there is none like him in all the earth;
to show his great power;
to cause his name to be declared throughout the earth;
to give the Israelites something to talk about with their children;
to show that he makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt.

Beautiful creature, this god of yours. Makes me want to join up and start groveling today! You want to see a whole truckload of these? go here --> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml

Those that say they are atheist always have alot to say about God and religion.....So much as to prove they really are not atheist but are squirming in their own dread of want they know is to come for themselves. God is loving and will forgive all if only a person will accept the gift of salvation- the gift being Jesus. All one has to do to recieve this gift is "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Atheists HAVE TO have alot to say about this stuff. When one of you find out we're atheist, you stop at nothing to force your views on us and then it's work work work all the time!

In other words, we have to defend ourselves from your incessant bantering. Go on, keep telling yourself that we really believe what you believe, and we're merely "denying" god and angry with him. Keep wallowing in your own insecurity and ignorance!

Makes no difference to me.

 

[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.