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.

 

[burping_boy]

TXCAP4228 and cjh,

To be honest, this is the first time I've debated in years! When you see the overwhelming urge of people on this forum to throw their religion into every thread, you just gotta say something eventually!

Anyway, I'm not gonna continue the debate much longer. I respect everyone involved, both sides of the argument (aside from the willful closed-mind of some people). But it's been so long since I've done this that I felt some practice was in order...

Think of it as me.... getting current!

 

[Timebuilder]

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.

Burping Boy:

You continue to want "independent" and "verifiable" proof to support Christian belief. I will leave you to desire that, but realize this, as a logical example: we have a system of laws in this country, and they are not fairly interpreted by a council consisting of those who agree and those who disagree with those laws. Instead, we have judges, who by the very laws they are bound to interpret, are both arbiters and defendeders of the law. So is it in this situation. Enigma may give you several references to what he sees as "evidence". You, on the other hand, will see it only as "opinion". Truthfully, if I could show you a meter or screen that met all of the "scientific" tests for "proof", I think it is likely that you would say that a believer "rigged" the information. As time moves ahead, we are slowly approaching a level of proof that you may find satisfactory. If Enigma names a fulfilled prophecy for you and provides a reference, you will dismiss him out of hand, since the proof is provided from a standpoint of a believer!

This what I meant about owning this position. You see, almost every belief received airtime over my seven year New Age radio stint. The show was an examination of beliefs, a "buffet" for spiritual seekers. Conspicuously absent were Christians. I didn't want any of them on the show. I said very much the same things as you have said here, so I am very familiar with what you want. In my opinion, you will not be satisfied.

 

[Timebuilder]

One more thing: if you consider yourself to be a debater, then discontinue using references like "closed minded". Think about it, since the same descriptor can be applied to your own beliefs.

It is truly a matter of perspective.

 

[burping_boy]

Therefore, when a teacher leads a prayer, they are not acting on behalf of the government to "establish a religion".

YES, Timebuilder, they ARE acting on behalf of the government. Teachers in public schools are government employees. Therefore, anything they do is on behalf of the government! When they try to lead a class in prayer, they are INDEED "establishing a religion" in their government-sanctioned classroom. What does the word "establish" mean? Let's take a look....

Main Entry: es·tab·lish
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English establissen, from Middle French establiss-, stem of establir, from Latin stabilire, from stabilis stable
Date: 14th century
1 : to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
2 obsolete : SETTLE 7
3 a : to make firm or stable b : to introduce and cause to grow and multiply <establish grass on pasturelands>
4 a : to bring into existence : FOUND <established a republic> b : BRING ABOUT, EFFECT <established friendly relations>
5 a : to put on a firm basis : SET UP <establish his son in business> b : to put into a favorable position c : to gain full recognition or acceptance of <the role established her as a star>
6 : to make (a church) a national or state institution
7 : to put beyond doubt : PROVE <established my innocence>

So as you can see, Timebuilder, the word "establish" contains a few meanings that coincide with mere prayer in the classroom. Therefore, establishing religion. Inciting prayer INDEED falls under "establishing religion". Or do you only choose 1 or 2 parts of the FULL definition of establish?

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.

Acutally, driving on the left side of the road IS the official law and policy, and a teacher would be doing a good thing by telling some of the kids these days to do so!

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.

Again, you are taking ONLY YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and making it an absolute truth. Just because you didn't experience it or hear about it DOES NOT mean it didn't happen. I personally have witnessed times when (even in this day of no school prayer) non-christian classmates have been harassed by christian classmates. Are you to disregard anyone else's experience but your own, just as you disregard reason, logic, and reality?


Timebuilder, will you EVER answer my question? Will you ever tell my why you can't just send your kids to one of the GAZILLIONS of religious schools in the country if you want them to pray in class?

Here's why --> You aren't concerned about free excercise. You are really just trying to force your mental disease on as many people as possible. That's why you can't just leave public school alone. Doesn't matter that outside of school ALL kids have parents or mentors to give them a belief structure. By gawd, you want only ONE prayer in school and that's a CHRISTIAN prayer.

You are a very selfish and inconsiderate individual. I don't care WHAT your bible tells you to do.

 

[Timebuilder]

You are a young man of opinions, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, Burping Boy. I think you need to refine your tecnique a little. All right, a LOT.

The fact is that a teacher doeas not make law, no matter how strident you become. That, and that alone, is what the establishment clause was written to convey.

Why not send kids to a Christian school? Many do. If and when I have some, you can rest assured that I will do so if I can. Tell you what: you return my tax money, every cent, and I will be able to afford it. I should not be forced to "pay twice" to keep someone from being offeded by a prayer. But that's not what this debate, or I should say, streetcorner argument, is about. We won't settle the truth of the Bible here, guaranteed. That said, unless you have a reasonable explanation of how a teacher makes official US policy outside of Congress, we also have a stalemate on the estaqblishment clause argument.

 

[burping_boy]

Timebuilder,

You continue to want "independent" and "verifiable" proof to support Christian belief. I will leave you to desire that, but realize this, as a logical example: we have a system of laws in this country, and they are not fairly interpreted by a council consisting of those who agree and those who disagree with those laws. Instead, we have judges, who by the very laws they are bound to interpret, are both arbiters and defendeders of the law. So is it in this situation. Enigma may give you several references to what he sees as "evidence". You, on the other hand, will see it only as "opinion". Truthfully, if I could show you a meter or screen that met all of the "scientific" tests for "proof", I think it is likely that you would say that a believer "rigged" the information. As time moves ahead, we are slowly approaching a level of proof that you may find satisfactory. If Enigma names a fulfilled prophecy for you and provides a reference, you will dismiss him out of hand, since the proof is provided from a standpoint of a believer!

All I want is something outside of the bible to verify anything you have to say. Unfortunately for you, that literary piece of trash is the be-all and end-all of any "proof" or "evidence" you might have. There IS nothing outside the bible to verify your claims. I don't care what you believe, you CANNOT use an item to verify itself! "Proof" is something that is an independant verifier. You can't use the bible to prove itself. Obviously you don't know what proof and evidence even mean.

Please, ANYTHING you have to show me outside the bible itself, give me a link, or some info. I am interested! Oh, but you'll only direct me to a book by someone who uses the bible to verify the bible!

Again, no proof. Just BS.

In my opinion, you will not be satisfied.

I will never be satisfied until you can show me literal, defined, proof. Too bad there IS nothing outside the bible, eh?

One more thing: if you consider yourself to be a debater, then discontinue using references like "closed minded". Think about it, since the same descriptor can be applied to your own beliefs.

It is truly a matter of perspective.

No. You admitted yourself that you are closed-minded. You REFUSE to consider anything outside or contrary to your established beliefs and therefore you are the textbook definition of closed-minded. It is NOT a matter of perspective.

I, on the other hand, always have and always will allow for a possibility that I could be wrong, and will seriously consider any REAL DEFINED empirical evidence presented to me. I am, by definition, open-minded.

Looks like the dictionary is absolutely meaningless to you.

 

[Timebuilder]

Again, no proof. Just BS.

If you mean Bible Scripture, I agree.

You aren't going to get what you want. I don't know why you keep at it.

Several times I've tried to explain to you that the truth of the Bible is outside of the ways of man. This angers you, since the ways of man is the "basket" where you have all of your "eggs". I was in that spot, as I said.

I think you need to switch to decaf.

 

[burping_boy]

You are a young man of opinions, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, Burping Boy. I think you need to refine your tecnique a little. All right, a LOT.

I don't care what you think. My technique is just fine, I just happen to be on the other side of the fence. I think you need to open your locked, diseased mind.

The fact is that a teacher doeas not make law, no matter how strident you become. That, and that alone, is what the establishment clause was written to convey.

I never said a teacher makes law. The fact is, a teacher is an employee of the United States government. A teacher REPRESENTS our government. No laws have to be made here, Timebuilder! If a school sanctions one type of prayer only, it gives the appearance that the US government sanctions that specific religion!

Why not send kids to a Christian school? Many do. If and when I have some, you can rest assured that I will do so if I can. Tell you what: you return my tax money, every cent, and I will be able to afford it. I should not be forced to "pay twice" to keep someone from being offeded by a prayer. But that's not what this debate, or I should say, streetcorner argument, is about. We won't settle the truth of the Bible here, guaranteed. That said, unless you have a reasonable explanation of how a teacher makes official US policy outside of Congress, we also have a stalemate on the estaqblishment clause argument.

Have you ever heard of vouchers? You don't need to pay twice nowadays to send your kid to a religious school, since the government more and more is trying to violate the 1st ammendment by funding religion. Nice try though.

Again, I never said that a teacher makes law. But an official sanctioned prayer of one religion only in public school gives the IMPRESSION of a government-sanctioned religion. And YES, if it became REQUIRED for public schools to have prayer, then a law WOULD have been passed and then it WOULD directly violate the establishment clause! BY DEFINITION.

But we all know how you feel about literal definitions.

 

[burping_boy]

If you mean Bible Scripture, I agree.

Bada-bing! We got a comedian here, folks! Ah cha cha cha cha chah!

You aren't going to get what you want. I don't know why you keep at it.

Several times I've tried to explain to you that the truth of the Bible is outside of the ways of man. This angers you, sine the ways of man is the "basket" where you have all of your "eggs". I was in that spot, as I said.

I keep at it because you keep at it. I KNOW I'm not going to get anything real from you. You keep making claims that there are "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies", but all they are are prophecies that start in the bible and end in the bible. "My bible tells me so and it's all the proof I need". And also, "the Bible is above man" or "outside of the ways of man", meaning you disregard REALITY.

You could be so much more intelligent, Timebuilder. But you totally disregard reason, logic, and even definition! You are a very mentally and emotionally challenged individual.

[EDIT] You said:

I think you need to switch to decaf.

Actually, I don't drink coffee. The ignorance of your belief system leaves a bad enough taste in my mouth, why would I want to make the taste worse?

 

[burping_boy]

Okay,

We're starting to mudsling. This thread is on the verge of becoming a flame war, so I think it's best if I stop debating. As much as I disagree with some of you, I don't want to degenerate the whole thing to that level.

Good debate all. If you all want to post some closing arguments, go ahead. I will read them, but I promise not to reply.

Take care, and safe flying to EVERYONE.