What is the source from which we derive our rights as stated in the declaration of Independence? The government? Or God?

the people

Game, set, match.

thank you very much....***dont trip while rounding the bases, dont trip, dont trip, dont trip, dont trip***

As stated, "all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Firstly, 'Creator' is very religion neutral, and can be ascribed to nearly any religion and not just Judeo-Christianity. Secondly, the theme of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is not a big Bible theme. Thirdly, the Declaration of Independence is not a part of our system of government.

So, according to some though, Creator means 'the people.' Interesting. Man becomes god.

Declaration of Independence set forth the foundation of why we could create our own system of government. Your post makes it sound like a useless waste of time.

No, but it was written by that esteemed Christian activist Thomas Jefferson, who also once wrote:

"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter."

The last time I checked, God didn't write the Declaration of Independence, ratify the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights...

Dola --

No doubt the right to slave ownership was divinely inspired too...

Our governemtn derives its right from the people...when the government exceeds those rights than at that time we would have the right to change the government. Our government is there to "serve the people at the behest of the people." Dont try to put words in my mouth, Im as transparent as they are and Im not blurred by rhetoric or religion. I think for myself, thank you, and dont need you to think for me.

WAIT -Jefferson wrote things that bump Christiantiy. Bubba surely will say that that doesn't apply. At what point does someone so steeped and controlled by their faith, become enlightened enough to know that perhaps, perhaps, they might not be right and thus they should not try to force their beliefs on others.

Its overwhelming when there are so many different sources of information vs. one

As a foundatin for government, the DofI is a waste of time. But that isn't its purpose, it's purpose was to give a rationale for breaking political ties with England. But let's assume that our system of government comes from the Declaration of Independence. You still have the first two points to contend with: that the phrasing is religion neutral, and that those themes are not big in the Bible.

I'm sorry, but what gives the people the 'right' to do all that? Thought so.

This was covered long ago in another thread. Your in the slow class, a dollar short and a day late.

Well, you can make that argument concerning anything regarding God, and if He did do those things then you wouldn't need faith, now would you?

At some point this discussion just beomes like Clinton's famous phrase about "...depends what your definition of the word is, is." Just alot of hagling over definitions and such. I'm out, but continue to have fun here.

I have faith that you are a massive tool.

Thought that you liked 'tools." ;)

Locke?

"Belief is a virus and once it gets into you, its first order of business is to preserve itself, and the way it preserves itself is to keep you from having any doubts, and the way it keeps you from doubting is to blind you to the way things really are."

- PHYLLIS RAPPAPORT, an abrasive CNN reporter (a character in a new book by Philip Caputo: "Acts of Faith")

Yes, but you can say the same thing about anything, including democracy. Some folks believe that democracies are a failure and Monarchs or benign despots would be more 'efficient." Broad generalizations are as bad as quibbling about definitions.

Fixed that for you.

Rousseau?

I'm sorry, are you really bashing everyone with any sort of religious faith?

I can picture you sitting there, thin, wire-rimmed glasses, wispy thinning hair covering your receding hair-line, red-in-the-face with a tight grin tapping one-fingered on your laptop thinking that your are just the wittiest person on earth. Who knows, maybe you are. :rolleyes:

Damn, you couldn't have been more wrong. That's kind of typical for you though.

Big guy. No glasses. Got a haircut today (no shit) - it may be graying, but it's still very thick. I'm dark already, so I don't get red in the face. And I took typing in High School over 20 years ago and know how to use asdfjkl;. Or, if you prefer, "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog".

You did get one thing right. I am the wittiest person on Earth. :)

Bubba, from one Christian to another:

SHUT THE HELL UP!

*sigh*

Gee, I wonder why people think Christians are blindfolded idiots that look down on others. :rolleyes: :( :rolleyes:

Camus can do, but Sartre is smarter.

Joey Bag-O-Donuts, huh?

No, that's not my intention.

I believe that most things that can be described can be done so along a scale. On the scale that describes religious faith, on one end you have those with absolutely no religious faith; on the other end you have those that are so consumed by their faith that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill other "heathens". Most people of religious faith fall well short of that extremism.

What that quote describes, in my reading of it, is what happens as you get close to the religious extremist end of that spectrum. From my observations of his posts, Bubba is consumed enough by his religious belief system that he is unwilling to accept evidence that contradicts his religious beliefs - he will go to great lengths to find ways to ignore or "disprove" these facts.

Now, before anyone misinterprets me, I'm not suggesting Bubba is so far on the spectrum that he'll kill for his religion, merely that his faith is far enough along that spectrum as to trump scientific evidence that contradicts his religious beliefs.

What's your problem? The principles discussed here you can either agree or disagree with, the rest are all personality issues. Those attacking all Christians because they don't like me are every bit as bigoted, closed-minded and hateful as they claim others to be. That's pretty evident. So relax, you don't have to answer for me or feel involved in how I put forth anything.

Religious faith can't be described by a scale. It's far more complex than that.

Not last time I checked. But I appreciate your concern and I'll keep you updated if I decide to let myself go.

Do you want to elaborate a bit on that point?

And remember that a scale doesn't have to be 2D or a straight line. What I think Dawg is trying to say is there are varying degrees of religious fervor - and Bubba's all-consumed with HIS interpretation of his (supposed) religion.

Of course it is. The scale I described is measuring intensity of one's religous beliefs. You could come up with an infinite number of scales to describe all the various components that go into religious faith (as with just about anything that isn't a simple binary situation).

flere diagram i suppose would work.

UIC post of the day. "We shouldn't be specific, and we shouldn't be general either!"

Bubba, God told me to tell you that you need to learn the difference between Deism and Judeo-Christianty, because he's getting irritated that you're blaming him for work he didn't approve.

I'm trying to elaborate it to myself ... it's not such an easy thing to put into words, even for me, for whom religious faith (my own and those of people both like and unlike me) is more or less my life's passion.

Give me a bit of time to think about it.

dola

My biggest problem with the concept is the idea that depth of religious faith equates with closed-mindedness. Often the people with the deepest, most settled religious faith are more open to new ideas than people who call themselves agnostics. Faith is not the same thing as knowledge (it is in some ways the opposite of knowledge - a sense of wonder, perhaps), and those who experience faith understand the difference.

It's very difficult to write about this without sounding stupid.

Interesting. You slam me for supposed contradictions in what I've said (without example), then you proceed to commit the same error yourself in the next sentence. Care to elaborate?

I thought you were done with this thread?

Today I started a unit on Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism with my 10th graders, public high school. They got into it, no fears of being converted, etc.. I came to the realization that Christianity today, this country, has moved from Buddhism to Confucianism. We've gone from infinite love and harmony to regulated faith, in other words Christianity has reverted back to the Pharisees. While Bubba is a small example, the preachers denying membership are far worse. Insisting on words, laws and doctrine as a measure of faith is just devotion to a false idol.

Sure. You're incapable of being educated. You're uninterested in challenging your beliefs (even to find further evidence for them), and so any discussion in which you are involved is pointless. Not to mention the fact that you're so woefully misinformed about your positions that most of our effort is spent trying to get you to recognize simple things, rather than moving on to more complicated issues. Elaborate enough?

Yeah, I should be. Things keep coming to mind, though. For instance, interesting that for all the closed-minded criticism I get, I am the only one who stated earlier that I am still learning. None of the experts have made that claim, some would probably even say they do already know it all.

You made a point earlier. New information contradicts Darwin's claim that genetic material must have been added previously (it wasn't) and you then slam me for seeing Darwin as still relevant to the discussion. But how do you reconcile Darwin's present irrelevance to the Scopes Trial? After all, it was his information that was presented in the Scopes Trial that opened the door for evolution to be taught in school in the first place. But you admit that information was erronious. So shouldn't we then have a new Scopes Trial with relevant new info?

I would just add that I do believe that God does want us to know the truth about evolution/creationism. But you have to present real information on both sides to get at it. For instance, in one case recently a public school system in Missouri (i think) just wanted to put a sticker stating Evolution is a Theory inside the cover of its science textbooks. Isn't it a theory? Federal court threw that action out with some convoluted reasoning that making that statement was somehow 'opening the door to religion in schools." Now how does that further discussion and knowledge about the subject?

So Christianity, which is based upon a faith in Christ, His life, His teachings and His principles along with those of the prophets and apostles doesn't fit your ideals of what Christianity should really be about? If you don't agree with Christ and His teachings, make up your own religion. Seems to be what your advocating.

In your opinion.

At the risk of tainting you with agreement considering how toxic I apparantly have become, that is an excellent observation. And I do not hold myself up as an example of that, but there are many good ones out there. Ignore them at your own (eternal) risk.

ID arguments in their present state are so bad that, quite frankly, it makes everyone dumber by teaching them. So why do it? I mean really, we don't teach that the Universe revolves around the Earth anymore. So we should not be teaching that the Earth is 10k to 100k years old. I would have no problem with ID if they taught theories that might actually be true, like that a higher power put the Big Bang into motion, or set the fundamental values of the Universe like the charge of the electron. But since there is no evidence for any of that, it really does not belong in a natural science class but rather in a philosophy class.

See, you can't do that. You already make baseless assumptions that are false about science/bible related things to begin with. And you don't even have to bring the Bible into it, just start with the common story of creationism and explain why you don't think that it can be literal. Contrast the two but don't gloss over the criticisms of evolution to suite your own agenda.

Catholic Church (and I love the Catholics, used to be one myself) taught the sun revolved around the earth not the Bible. And the Bible clearly states in Psalms that the earth is a 'SPHERE", so it was not supporting the flat-earth folks.

I can't do what? The story can not be literal because there are mountains and mountains of evidence to the contrary. And just because the story can not be taken literally does not invalidate the entire Bible. There are all number of things in the Bible that even fundamentalists don't follow (ban on makeup and shellfish, divorce, slavery, etc).

To address your edit:
It's dumb to contrast the two. One is backed up my mountains of scientific evidence, the other is backed up by arguments of ignorance ("I don't understand it, so it's impossible") and an old book. If you would like to share your misgivings about evolution, I would gladly talk about it.

the slippery slope that you advocate beginning in Natural science classes as opposed to philosophy or religion classes is that you open the door for any theory started by any religion or faith, or not, be taught as equivalent to that which has been "proven". If ID were to be taught as more than justa theory in Philosophy class and instead be taught in Science class then ALL theories proven or unproven need to be taught as well and Im sure I can think of some crazy one's : Ie, Jewish people are naturally more evil than the rest of the human species. (obviously a crock of crap but I can find some books [some written right before the '40s] to back up my point) SO why not teach JE in science class...you could analyze the brain, use examples of Jewish serial killers throughout time, etc. You have to draw the line somewhere...I know where you want the line drawn (no evolution, creationism [you'd want that but societal pressures have led faith based people to move towards ID in the hopes it would make it in]).....

What about those that dont believe in anything....Nihilists. If you're not careful they'll attack you anywhere!! outside of bowling alleys, in the tub. They probably have some ideas that would sound wonderful (to them) in science class.









The problem i have is that you want your religion taught to everyeone in Public spaces. Its not right, its scary, and some of the theories are not supported by scientific evidence but a faith....Again, send your kids to private school. DO NOT profess that America should be ONE religion, it shouldnt....perhaps you'd like to go to another land (on a boat) because the King wants you to beliewve one thing and one thing only. Keep your religion on Sundays, usually there is no school on Sundays unless its taught by a religious leader.

Christ was not devoted to any particular teachings. His teachings, principles, sacrifice, miracles were just byproducts of a Spirit-filled being. If one claims to have Christ in their heart, a spirit-filled being, then what comes out of them also has to be Christ, regardless of its ability to adhere to a particular doctrine. The teachings of the Bible are not boundaries of faith, rather they are examples, powerful and true, of their faith filled life.

That sounds exhausting.

I have stated many times that I am learning new things. As one who finds the principles of scientific inquiry to be above reproach (as distinguished from how science is always practiced I should note) I am always in a state of challenging my views and beliefs. It's a belief survival-of-the-fittest - those beliefs that hold up to scrutiny and challenge when confronted with new ideas remain; those that don't are either modified by the new evidence or completely removed in favor of new beliefs, based on the evidence at hand.


I simply don't have the time to argue with you on this - you've already been shown to be wrong in your interpretation of the issue of "new" genetic material and yet you persist with this point of view, so I'm not going to waste the effort of debating with you on this point.

Does science know everything about how natural selection and mutation work within the parameters of the theory of evolution? No. There is still room for further growth of our knowledge and perhaps some major modifications to current accepted theory.

But whereas the theory of evolution is a scientific inquiry relying on observation and testing to determine evidence, creationism is speculative.


If all scientific theories were labeled in a similar manner in school textbooks then at least there would be some consistency in application. Short of that, putting such a sticker in the textbooks is obviously a pointed attack on the theory of evolution. And what would the primary reasoning for such an attack be? Religious fundamentalists who want to promote creationism.

So what is the difference, if any, between freedom and license? Is sin a real concept? Jesus talked more about hell than He did about heaven, any relevance in that? Is being 'spirit-filled' enough in itself without needing the Bible or any written record of Christ? You open up more questions than you anwer.

how did you only pick that out to retort....jeez, I swear you miss half of everything.

Mountains of evidence vs. little or slanted....I see the light at that point. Doesnt mean youre worng about ID...just means it doesnt belong in Science class.

DOLA:

an excerpt from our new history book -

Napoleon Bonaparte
Perhaps the aspect of Bonaparte's blessed life that most captivated his contemporaries and historians follow was his humble beginnings after G-D created him in his mother's womb. Here, like some Biblical tragedy, is the story of the rise from the bottom of a strong-willed, image of God, brilliant man whose flaws, like Man's, eventually cause him to fall from power. The reality, of course, is much more complex than the romance associated with the story, like the romances in the Bible. Napoleon's rise to power was, indeed, impressive, and was predicated on both his military capabilities and his strength of will, but he needed to believe in Jesus Christ and that was one of his faults. Other forces were at work, however, as they were at work in his downfall as well. Let's not forget, that Napoleon's humble beginnings were, though real, largely a creation of the personal mythology he built around himself and this false idolization was why G-D eventually smote him.

He was created in Corsica—an Italian— in 1769; France had annexed Corsica in 1768, so he was officially a French citizen under G-D. Although his parents were not extremely wealthy, they were nobility. While Napoleon built up around himself a mythology of low origins, he was still higher up on the social scale than the overwhelming majority of Europeans.

Are you answering for your brother now? Or are you really the same person? Was not directed to you. Speaking about reading something.

Why not let him make his own argument?

Is being filled with the Holy Spirit enough? Yes.

BW, you talked before about wanting to talk about substance and not semantics. I am offering you the opportunity to attack evolution and show why ID is better. Just let me know what problems you have with evolution, and we can discuss it.

When I was first born-again, I studied alot about Kenneth Hagin. His experience was of almost dying 3 times, his mother prayed him out of hell the first two. Hagin claims to have seen and spoken to Jesus on a pretty regular basis. The striking thing about this is that regardless of whatever this appearance would say to him, Hagin always compared it to the Word of God, tried it, spoke it in response. The Bible is our protection against deceit. Pretty interesting life-story if anybody is interested in it.

Satan can appear as an angel of light. Bible says Heaven and Earth will pass away before the Word of God does. John calls the Bible Jesus Christ in print. Logos. Spoken the Word of God is called Rhema.

You are not only wrong in your assumption, but teaching that to others will cause yourself great pain in the future. Bible warns specifically about teaching falsehoods to those in your care.

Worth looking up: 2 Ti. 4.3 For the time will come when they shall not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

I felt led to give you that one.

This was a response not even about the evolution/creationism thing. How two different people jumped in and attached this to that is beyond me.

:rolleyes:

I was "led" to give you that one.

Not very witty. Pretty lazy, actually.

No sir

what is lazy is to continually try to promote the bible and its teachings, have it become the fabric of our country, by using the bible as the argument. That si lazy, intolerant, aggressive, and the reason why people are scared of the Religious part of the right.

You sure your responding to the right post this time? ;)

Bubba,

Help me out here. I looked Kenneth Hagin "founder of the World-Faith movement" up, and it seems that he has a few detractors from within the born-again movement. Are these valid criticisms of Haigin's ideas? Is there debate within the movement? The entries below look pretty biased, but it seems to indicate that Hagin's brand of theology is considered cult-like within the overall born-again Christian movement.

Here are the links I looked at:
hxxp://www.apologeticsindex.org/w00.html#wordf
hxxp://www.biblebb.com/files/WRDFAITH.HTM

Interesting stuff. Maybe some element of truth in it. Everybody, though, has a different 'ministry' in the body of Christ. Hagin believes he has been called as a prophet (according to the new testement offices teacher, apostle, evangilist, prophet, pastor.) Kenneth Copeland, among many, is associated with Hagin in not directly linked.

Point to what I posted though, was exactly what this same detractor of Hagin's would himself say. Judge everything according to the Word of God first, regardless of how good it looks or sounds. For instance, the Word of God is the very thing that they are basing their own criticisms of Hagin on in the first place. It is your own relationship with Christ that is supposed to be paramount to this. If you feel right about something after praying about it and it lines up with the Word, then you can feel comfortable about following it.

Fair enough, thanks for the reply. It does humanize the born-again movement for me in that I didn't previously know that there was as much theological debate within movement...

So if God told me to do that, then God is lazy?

On the issue of mutations, it looks like some people should read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

That is, if they want to learn about them....

Gotta say I'm pleased as punch to hear that you do not agree how I will be teaching children in the public schools for the next 30 years. :)

I can't believe you actually threaten (warned) me with hell. If you believe in Christ in order to get to heaven or stay out hell then more power to you, hope you get to which ever one you desire. Just know that the "New Day" Christ that sacrificed for is here and present, and it exist through the Spirit in grace and joy.

bro, instead of using Bubba Wheels as your example, I would go look at SkyDog's thread on what he's doing with youngsters of today through YoungLife. Shouldn't the time and effort be spent on encouraging someone like him in his ministry instead of ridiculing others?

There's time for both. :)

Isnt Bubba Mrs. Kippy?

Mrs. Lippy

Still waiting for a response. :rolleyes:

No, and I always thought it was Mr. Skippy. Maybe you just need yourself a good woman! (Or you have a mamma's complex ;) ) Maybe that name is like the old woman/young woman picture. You see what you want to in it. Domineering mother? Mrs. Kippy! See Kangeroos? Mr. Skippy! Take your pick!

All I ever do is point out Christian doctrine, and then I get shelled for it. Hell is a real place. Jesus talked more about it than He did about heaven. Revelation also states very plainly that those who would add or subtract from any of God's Word bring a curse upon themselves. This could happen before death, hence my speaking about you bringing 'pain' upon yourself you assumed to mean hell...do you make alot of 'assumptions' when you teach?

Hold your breath. I'll get back to you.

7 pages later, he still can't support his initial assertion. What a surprise!

If you dont intend to get back to him have you just committed a sin...wishing him to "die" waiting?

Dont add/subtract from gods word...i dont think he talked about sarcasm.

Would you care to provide some documentation on this point? There is no question in my oppinion that their is a Hell and I don't think that anyone would find it to be a nice place, but I don't see where Jesue spoke more on Hell than heaven.

Of course it is. Go to Newark, NJ near 18th and you'll find this place.



Step inside.

Should be easy to prove or disprove, just go through the New Testement and count the number of times Jesus spoke of 1. Heaven and 2. Hell. Pretty simple.

Why is it always up to someone else to prove YOUR claims?

When it comes to the Bible, he doesn't know it well enough to prove his own claims.

So what your saying is, its too hard to fact-check what I've stated? I made the claim and cited the evidence, your the one claiming the opposite without doing the work.

Feel free to correct me on any point if you have something to cite for the contradiction...but the fact is that nobody on this board makes more drive-by accusations without sources or evidence than you do.

With apologies to brother Buc...
If I were to "count" the heaven and hell references by Jesus that you mentioned I, or more importantly you, would include Matthew 5:22,29,30.
However it is as likely (according to radicals like the NIV) that the hell mentioned here, from its Greek roots, is a ravine in Jerusalem where human sacrifices were offered as mentioned in Jeremiah 7:31-32.
Therefore, would your addition to the meaning of this word "bring a curse" upon you?

No, all you did was make a claim. You presented no evidence and did no work. If Jesus talked more about Hell than Heaven, then show it. Don't say "Well, just go read the bible." That's not presenting evidence or work.


If it's so easy, then DO IT. And then tell us the exact number of times he mentions both. It is not up to anyone to do your work for you since you are the making the claim.

In fact, if you are making such a claim, you should already have the number of times he mentions both on hand (or else you'd be making the claim before actually doing the work. And that would just be stupid.). So just post them.

Well, if you want to really get technical, the original word for 'heaven' is (as I understand it) actually 3 different words that consider 1. atmosphere where we live 2. Where the stars/planets ect..., exist above that and 3. The dwelling place of God. But to answer your question I would just count them all up (which I admit I have never done, I am going by other sources(S) that state this) so here's a great chance for you to prove me wrong.

Hell, BTW, is actually two different places (and two different original words) the first being the "holding cell' that souls go to before judgement, the second being the Lake of Fire.

LOL.

:rolleyes: Are you one of your 'brother's' students?

That's really, really funny but you wouldn't know why.

Your secret is safe with you.

BTW, my main point earlier was about hell being real...here is one source for answering questions I ran across for those interested http://www.gotquestions.org/eternity_archive.html

In particular http://www.gotquestions.org/hell-eternal.html This may be where the 'legalists' got me on one point. The Bible does say more about hell than heaven, and I may have gotten that one admittedly wrong when I stated that Jesus mentioned it more than heaven. So sue me.

So purgitory is the same as "hell"?

Oh please. You made a claim before actually doing any research to see if it was actually right. You got called out on. Now you're going to try to play the part of the victim? Absolutely pathetic.

Prove it. :D