GWB's Easter Message aka God Is On Our Side

[HDPM]

I am soooo glad this message is on the government web site I pay for. IMO this goes beyond a generic "Happy Easter" greeting with the usual innocuous stuff. Like "At this time of the year many around the worrld celbrate life/peace/ bla bla bla" This is over the top IMO, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. web page (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040409.html)


Oh well, at least the pagan eggs are on there as a symbol of a spring fertility holiday/rite. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[SossMan]

Un-freakin- believable. Isn't there something about separation of Church and State....or was there a constitutional amendment passed while we were looking the other way??

[MMMMMM]

Sossman: "Un-freakin- believable. Isn't there something about separation of Church and State....or was there a constitutional amendment passed while we were looking the other way??"


Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


It is a common misconception that the U.S. Constitution provides for "separation of Church and State", which phrase could be construed to have more broad meaning than the actual "establishment clause" of the First Amendment.

In the Easter message, President Bush is merely exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech. In that message, Congress is making no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor is anyone prohibiting the free exercise of religion (though some would undoubtedly like to do so).

[Cyrus]

"In his Easter message, President Bush is merely exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech."

In other words, since George W Bush is an American citizen, he can pretty much also say whatever the hell he personally feels like saying, even in an official capacity.

I mean, how brilliant is that. I don't think it can get more brilliant.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, since George W Bush is an American citizen, he can pretty much also say whatever the hell he personally feels like saying, even in an official capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he can, why not? Sick the ACLU on his ass /images/graemlins/smile.gif if you don't like it /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, how brilliant is that. I don't think it can get more brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The truth is what it is.

[adios]

I think it is. If you purposely and expressly leave out references to God in messages like Bush's Easter message then you're also expressing a religous preference in my mind i.e. a preference for atheism. Apparently Bush should not be allowed to issue any kind of statement about the Christian holy day of Easter whatsoever. It should be noted that I don't know if Bush published a message for Passover. Perhaps it would be a good political move for the President to recognize important days in a cornucopia of religions.

[SossMan]

I agree that he has every right to think what he wants, say what he wants, do what he wants, worship how he wants. These are basic rights that I believe should be held in the highest regard.

I don't, however, think that he should be quoting scripture on the OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE WHITE HOUSE. He should at least pretend that he's not blatently pandering to the Christian right wing under the pretense of "free speech".

Gimme a break...if Clinton would have had a message on the official white house website declaring April 10th "Blowjobs across America Day" the GOP would have an Impeachment Hearing set up by Monday.
Quoting biblical scripture on the official website is just as offensive to me.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
He should at least pretend that he's not blatently pandering to the Christian right wing under the pretense of "free speech".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where IMO you're dead wrong. Bush isn't pandering here he truly believes.

[ QUOTE ]
Gimme a break...if Clinton would have had a message on the official white house website declaring April 10th "Blowjobs across America Day" the GOP would have an Impeachment Hearing set up by Monday.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon that's an absurd statement on many levels.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
...if Clinton would have had a message on the official white house website declaring April 10th "Blowjobs across America Day"...

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton left some of his personal papers behind; I've read them. Your joke is closer to the truth than you might think. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

A person doesn't give up his right to speak his views just because he becomes President, anymore than a person gives up his right to speak his views on campus just because he becomes a student or teacher there.

http://www.flagw.com/Merchandise_Images/flag_pin2_b.jpg

[Cyrus]

OK so you seriously believe that "George W Bush can pretty much say whatever the hell he personally feels like saying, even in an official capacity".

Explain to me please if he is free to say in his Union Address that slavery abolition was a bad thing and that we fought with the wrong side during World War II.

[John Cole]

Exactly how much do you pay for this web site, HDPM? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[John Cole]

Atheism is neither a religious preference nor is it any sort of religious expression. Unfortunately, the word itself, because it contains within it the word "theist," seems to provoke this sort of illogical conclusion.

[John Cole]

I think you're offended too easily.

[Cyrus]

When George W Bush is speaking and acting, he is executing the office of the United States President.

The Constitution (the Bill of Rights) protects every American's right to free speech - even an American citizen's right to proclaim that he wants to destroy the Constitution!

If the President says that and he is serious (I mean, he is not testing the mike or something...), then he would not be penalized for saying it, because he is exercising his right to free speech. But he should be impeached as soon as possible because those views are not compatible with the faithful execution of the office of the President according to the Constitution. Not according to the oath of office.

(Of course, this is all theory. The current President walks unopposed all over the Constitution! But you folks seem not to mind too much. Guess you know better. Cheerio.)

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is neither a religious preference nor is it any sort of religious expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong John, let's examine some definitions.

Definition of Atheism:

1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

Definition of religious:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT,

An Atheist has faith i.e. a belief that God does not exist. An Atheist has no certain knowledge of this. Therefore the Atheist is manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality that God does not exist. Thus when the Atheist expresses this belief it's a religous expression. An example would be if in a public school system students were taught that God does not exist, that school system is expressing a religious belief.

[adios]

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Definition of Atheism:

1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's examine a little further as just how much influence the church has had, even in a dictionary.

Non-belief=immorality. That's a good one. If you dont believe, even though your a fantastic person otherwise, you're immoral.

b

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's examine a little further as just how much influence the church has had, even in a dictionary.

Non-belief=immorality. That's a good one. If you dont believe, even though your a fantastic person otherwise, you're immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]


HaHaHaHa what a crock! The implication is not that all Atheists are immoral. The implication is that one who has no moral code is an Atheist.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The implication is not that all Atheists are immoral. The implication is that one who has no moral code is an Atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think the church's implication was that any atheists were moral. Hence, they executed them. In fact, hereticism and atheism is one and the same to the church.

No moral code does not equal an atheist. Just as being a christian doesnt mean you have any more morals than anyone else.

Again, moral code being tied to believing in god, per the defintiion. Where do you think they came up with the definition the way it's presented? Why are 'both' of those factors involved? Happenstance? doubt it.

b

[HDPM]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

the pagan eggs

Not to mention the pagan word "Easter."

[Cyrus]

Isn't Bush, as I wrote, supposed to be "faithfully executing the office of the President" at all times? I believe he is.

Can he say then things like, for instance (I'm theorizing) slavery is good, the Constitution must be abolished, etc, and be immune from impeachment? Do you believe that his First Amendment rights as a citizen preclude any action to remove him from office ?

I believe that such pronouncements would be a gross violation of a President's oath of office and that, while he cannot be penalized as a citizen freel expressing his views, they would demonstrate that he is incapable of holding that office.

And it remains to be seen if Bush's various (real life) pro-religious proclamations and acts are in accordance or in violation of the U.S. Constitution. I am not holding my breath for citizens acting up on 'em, however.

[Cyrus]

I'm sorry, Adios, but I have to agree with John Cole here. Atheism is not a religious belief, it is the absence of a religious belief.

Defining something by what it is not, sometimes leads to such confusion. (If you are defined, for example, as a non-Japanese person, this does not imply that you are in some way related to Japanese-ness.)

Check the philosophical and literary definitions of the word "religion" to see this more clearly.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry Cyrus, but I think it would be more accurate to say that agnosticism is the absence of a religious belief.

As adios pointed out, atheism is, at least in part, a faith that God does not exist, since the evidence for such a contention is less than conclusive.

The atheist takes a negative position regarding the question of existence of God. The agnostic takes a neutral position, or at least a position that is not at one pole or the other. If someone is, say, 85% convinced that God does not exist, I think that person would be by definition an agnostic rather than an atheist.

[MMMMMM]

"Thus when the Atheist expresses this belief it's a religous expression."

Well, this is so (since it is scientifically unknown whether there is a God or not), but that does not make John Cole's comment entirely wrong, since John wrote: "Atheism is neither a religious preference nor is it any sort of religious expression."

I think atheism is a religious preference due to the fact that it does imply a faith that God does not exist, as you pointed out, yet this belief has not been confirmed scientifically.

I think atheism is not a religious expression because a belief is not an expression until something is expressed /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

At any rate it is debatable whether leaving out religious references in an Easter greeting could be rightly construed as atheism. I rather think it couldn't, but requiring Presidents to leave religious references out of their public greetings might correctly be construed as a governmental endorsement of atheism or agnosticism.

[Drunk Bob]

Yes he is.

[Drunk Bob]

You posts are tiresome to read. Back to poker.

[glass]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Cyrus, but I think it would be more accurate to say that agnosticism is the absence of a religious belief.

As adios pointed out, atheism is, at least in part, a faith that God does not exist, since the evidence for such a contention is less than conclusive.



[/ QUOTE ]

"I believe there is no evidence for god. I have no belief in god."

I dont think anyone can reasonably suggest that the above beliefs require any relgious faith. If you agree with these statements then you are an atheist, not an agnostic, you believe that god does not exist. Otherwise agnosticism is meaningless.

"I believe there is no evidence for Father Christmas. I have no belief in Father Christmas."

Again these beliefs dont require any relgious faith. If you hold these beliefs does it follow that you believe Father Christmas does not exist? Theres no other reason to believe that FC does not exist other than the lack of evidence.

You can apply the same reasoning to an infinity of supernatural beings. How about Steve the Super Squirrel? I just created him. The only reason to believe he does not exist is the lack of evidence but to be agnostic about his existence would be silly.

You dont need religious faith to believe there is no evidence for god, whether or not this belief is right or wrong.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont believe, even though your a fantastic [moral] person otherwise, you're immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

An excellent point, and one that has been made before. For this and other reasons, I have always preferred the term rationalist (and have mentioned this in other previous threads), as atheist steers the reader to a specific idea - god. Whereas, rationalist is a better overall term to accurately describe a worldview or outlook. Even the term agnostic, as defined by Huxley, is hinged and somewhat tied to the idea of god - At least by tradition. Though Huxley did say that he thought of agnosticism as a method - not a creed or faith but a method and that that method corresponds, more or less, to the exclusive use of reason; perhaps better phased for today’s audience as the scientific method. See Thomas Huxley's original essay titled, 'Agnosticism' first written in 1889.

A Dictionary is put together and written by humans, and can, and often does, show human prejudice and bias.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

I agree complete. Which is why it is sometimes wise to steer clear of the use of 'atheist'. It is a too specific term for what I would classify as a worldview or outlook. I prefer the term rationalist.

By the way, do you know about John M. Robertson? He is probably as unknown today as Robert Ingersoll even though both we giants in the ‘Free Thought Movement ‘ of the later 1800’s and into the early 1900’s. John Robertson wrote a 3-volume history of free thought along with a great number of other works. He also wrote a brilliant essay called Godism. I recommend it highly. The only place I have every come across it is in a book called, ‘An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism’, edited by Gordon Stein. The book is put out by Prometheus Books and is well worth having on your bookshelf. I bet even Andy Fox does not have a copy of this book, though he should. In addition this book contains an excellent short introductory essay about the meaning and/or different meanings of Atheist and Agnostic and how the meanings have been interpreted and perceived. I may have to quote from the essay before this thread is done with.

-Zeno

[John Cole]

Adios,

I never use the word "atheist" since "theist" is contained within it. If asked whether I believe in God, I simply reply, "I'm smart." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Zeno]

Agnosticism is more properly a theory about knowledge, as the Greek derivation of the term implies. It is only because our culture and society is so inebriated by theism (or Godism) that the term agnostic came to be used almost exclusively in reference to the idea of 'god' - whatever that phrase or sound is suppose to mean or is implied to mean. Whereas, agnosticism is more of a method, in the original Huxley sense, that can be applied to more than just one specific idea.

-Zeno

[John Cole]

Bob, you're drunk. Go to sleep.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know, John, but given that the universe almost surely contains other intelligent life in a number of places in its incredible vastness, and given that our part of the universe is on the relatively youngish side, it would seem pretty likely that somewhere there exist beings at least as much more intelligent than we are as we are compared to insects. That doesn't mean they're gods, but it does mesh with the idea that what we do not know, or do not imagine, is probably far greater than what we do know or imagine. Given that, I too would say "I'm smart", but the question is, compared to whom or to what? And...if there are beings that much smarter than us, why couldn't there be beings that much smarter than them...and we are quickly out of the range of what we can even begin to imagine, even in our wildest dreams.

[Zeno]

We only speak of faith when we want to sustitute emotion for evidence. - Bertrand Russell

Faith: An illogical believe in the improbable. - H.L. Mencken

There are those how scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said, 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so.' - Mark Twain

[andyfox]

Our president has said he doesn't read the newspapers, but he does read the bible every day.

[MMMMMM]

Our president has said he doesn't read the newspapers...

He get his news from more direct sources, doesn't he?


..., but he does read the bible every day.

So, how do you feel about that?

[andyfox]

"e get his news from more direct sources, doesn't he?"

I don't know. He says he doesn't read the newspapers. Even Reagan read the comics.

"o, how do you feel about that?"

Depends what he gets from it. It seems one of the things he gets from it is that he believes we're a destined country, God's chosen people, and that God is on our side in our battles against evil. I don't feel good about that. Pretty dangerous stuff. Bin Laden has gotten the same thing from the Koran.

[MMMMMM]

Well, doesn't the President get daily briefings on news and developments around the world and in the U.S.? At least that's my impression; not sure why. If you got briefed for, say, an hour (or often hours) almost every day, I'll bet you might skip the newspapers too.

"It seems one of the things he gets from it (reading the Bible) is that he believes we're a destined country, God's chosen people, and that God is on our side in our battles against evil. I don't feel good about that. Pretty dangerous stuff. Bin Laden has gotten the same thing from the Koran."

bin-Laden has gotten a lot more than that from the Q'uran.

By the way, if two opposed sides each think they are battling evil, do you think it possible that one side might actually be more correct than the other side--or do you just discount any such possibility and not even think of bothering to put it all under a microscope for dissection and analysis??

Consider this: Hitler thought he was battling evil and the Allies thought they were battling evil in battling Hitler. So...just because each side thought they were battling evil did NOT make each side equally correct. From this simple example can be seen the fallacy of dismissing such notions with blanket presumptions.

Looking deeper is often very important.

[andyfox]

"If you got briefed for, say, an hour (or often hours) almost every day, I'll bet you might skip the newspapers too."

You'd lose that bet. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, etc., are pretty important opinion-makers. Would be nice to know our president was reading
them. And if I was the president, and wasn't reading them, I wouldn't brag about it.

"By the way, if two opposed sides each think they are battling evil, do you think it possible that one side might actually be more correct than the other side--or do you just discount any such possibility and not even think of bothering to put it all under a microscope for dissection and analysis??"

Of course. But when both sides are getting the insight that they are battling evil from their daily reading of their bible, I say they're both full of crap. Hitler was evil; it didn't say so in the bible.

A Bush family member told authors Peter and Rochelle Schweizer that "George sees this as a religious war. He doesn't have a PC view of this war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and ferocity than they will ever know."

Shortly after 9/11, Bush read Proverbs 21:15: "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers." Soon after, he began calling the terrorists "evildoers."

I have no doubt Bush's religious impulses are heart-felt and genuine. And dangerous.

[adios]

Again, as an example, if a public school system starts teaching that god does not exist IMO they've crossed a line. It's the same line that a public school system would cross if they held that Jesus Christ was our lord and savior. I was going to go into a long diatribe about how a human's knowledge of the world is limited but I won't (it is, rest assured). I'll just say that rational thought does not explain how the universe was created or was it?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Can he say then things like, for instance (I'm theorizing) slavery is good, the Constitution must be abolished, etc, and be immune from impeachment?

[/ QUOTE ]

No because it probably violates his oath of office.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that such pronouncements would be a gross violation of a President's oath of office and that, while he cannot be penalized as a citizen freel expressing his views, they would demonstrate that he is incapable of holding that office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh we're in agreement but his Easter message was far away from being equivalent to supporting slavery and such. I think it's a tad insenstive to not acknowledge other religions if he's going to acknowledge Christianity however.

[ QUOTE ]
And it remains to be seen if Bush's various (real life) pro-religious proclamations and acts are in accordance or in violation of the U.S. Constitution. I am not holding my breath for citizens acting up on 'em, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I stated earlier, a wise political move would be to acknowledge more than one religion.

[Cyrus]

"If a public school system starts teaching that god does not exist IMO they've crossed a line. It's the same line that a public school system would cross if they held that Jesus Christ was our lord and saviour."

The schools should be teaching Man's current state of knowledge about the world. The curriculum points out to the possibility of God existing being strictly a matter of personal belief and not supported by any scientific evidence.

This is why fanatical Christians and other zealots do not want "too much Science" in the class room. This is why they insist for a "balanced Science" to be taught -- and they mean that they want NON-scientific crap taught, such as Creation, which is completely unprovable scientifically (it actually has no shred of evidence, not even as a credible alternative theory).

There is no serious teacher who will pronounce that "On the basis of scientific knowledge, God does not exist" but the students, if left alone to judge for themselves, may arrive at such a conclusion. Or they may not. But this free choice is anathema to the religious fanatics currently running things in the United States administration.

[Cyrus]

"No [Bush cannot] say things like, for instance, slavery is good because it probably violates his oath of office."

I am glad to see that you agree with me on this.

"[The President's] Easter message was far away from being equivalent to supporting slavery and such."

Yes, that's right. I agree.

But you've said that Bush could say whatever he wanted in his Easter message because it was his free speech right to do so. My objection was that the First Amendment does not protect a President from getting impeached for saying things that violate his oath of office. Whether Dubya's Easter message constituted such a violation or not, should be examined on the content of the message itself, and not as a First Amendment issue.

"I think it's a tad insensitive [for Bush] to not acknowledge other religions if he's going to acknowledge Christianity however."

I do not think that political considerations, such as being "sensitive" or "insensitive", should be the criteria of what is correct and what is not. I believe that commingling religion with politics violates the U.S. Constitution.

When you say that Dubya should acknowledge also other religions besides Christianity, you begin to realize the slippery road this leads to. What about the American Hindus? The Buddhists? The Native Americans who believe in the Sun? The atheists? Isn't every American equally entitled to have his religious beliefs acknowledged by the Prez as much as the Christians?

Wouldn't it be far more legitimate, if not "sensitive", for George W Bush to avoid the religious references altogether and keep his religious (or non-religious) beliefs to himself?

[MMMMMM]

"A Bush family member told authors Peter and Rochelle Schweizer that "George sees this as a religious war. He doesn't have a PC view of this war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians..."

Well the radical Muslims ARE trying to kill Christians...and Jews...and secular Muslims.

"Shortly after 9/11, Bush read Proverbs 21:15: "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers." Soon after, he began calling the terrorists "evildoers."

err, andy,...don't you agree that the terrorists are evil-doers?

I think you may be reacting more to tone than content...

[andyfox]

Bush believes God is on our side. Bin Laden believes God is on his side. They both base their opinion on their readings of their bible. Tone, shmone, they've both said as much.

[MMMMMM]

Look, andy, this is precisely where you need to not short-prune the tree of your analysis.

You also haven't answered my question.

Hee's a little nudge to get you off that tree stump of disgust you have momentarily parked you mind on: Has Bush said anything even remotely equivalent to bin-Laden's "Kill and plunder Americans wherever you can find them"? Has Bush told the Middle Eastern countries to convert to Christianity of face further attacks?

Look deeper, andy, look more incisively; you are too accustomed to wasting your analytical abilities.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Wouldn't it be far more legitimate, if not "sensitive", for George W Bush to avoid the religious references altogether and keep his religious (or non-religious) beliefs to himself? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> Not necessarily, to the degree that religion for the most part teaches moral concepts that we want our citizens to practice I don't think acknowledging different religions is necessarily bad or evil. As far as free speech is concerned a caveat to his message stating that it was strictly his opinion would have sufficed. </font>

[John Cole]

One scientist defined intelligent life as the ability to, at least, understand the electromagnetic field. I hope he was speaking for the species.

[John Cole]

Our God is the correct God. God bless you and God bless the United States. [End speech]

[Repeat as often as necessary]

[Cyrus]

"To the degree that religion for the most part teaches moral concepts that we want our citizens to practice I don't think [that the President] acknowledging different religions is [doing] necessarily [anything] bad or evil."

If this was about morality, then George W Bush could have very well acknowledged and spoken about those moral concepts without a reference to a specific religion.

Because, if he does address Christianity (as he did), then he should also address each and every religion practiced by Americans! Otherwise, this would show that he believes there are no valuable redeeming aspects (or moral concepts, as you put it) in other religions.

"As far as free speech is concerned, a caveat to his message stating that it was strictly his opinion would have sufficed."

If this was about his personal opinion only, then Dubya should not have used his official capacity as the United States President to speak out and address his fellow Americans the way he did, but he should have spoken as citizen Bush. You will recall that he placed his Easter message on the White House website -- not on some personal homepage.

[MMMMMM]

Not quite sure what you are getting at there, at least at first glance.

Now it appears like water and perhaps bacterial life may have existed on Mars.

One interesting thing about the concept of life in other solar systems or galaxies is that the distances in space are so immense, that a civilization could have developed and existed for hundreds of thousands of years yet their messages may not reach us for countless light-years. There could be a million-year civilization somewhere and we haven't yet heard about the birth of their star;-) And by the time we do receive the first light from their star, ...

[andyfox]

"don't you agree that the terrorists are evil-doers?"

Is that the question you want me to answer? Yes, terrorists are evil-doers.

This has nothing to do with my point. Perhaps I'm not explaining it clearly. I'll give it another try.

Bush says God is on our side. He has said it repeatedly. He says his greatest inspiration is Jesus Christ. He does not read the newspapers, but he does read the bible everyday, his own admission. His family members say he sees the war on terror as a religious calling. He is obviously affected by his bible-reading, as he started using a term from the passage he had been reading shortly after he read it.

And yes, Bush has called for the destruction of all those who are our enemies. He has said if you're not with us, you're against us. There is no place for neutrality. He will seek out the evil-doers in every corner of the earth.

Of course, Bin Laden's brand of religion is crazier and deadlier and more brutal. But Bush's brand is still crazy and can lead to death and brutality.

I want my president to use his analytical abilities, not to be guided by biblical notions of the supremacy of our god, as Bin Laden is.

I hope that's incisive enough for you.

[MMMMMM]

I agree that there seems to be an overly simplistic mindset at work on both sides. However, the mindset at work on the other side is less tolerant of our mindset, than we are of theirs. That, IMO, is the essential problem.

[MMMMMM]

OK, that is more explicit. Thank you.

[MMMMMM]

"Because, if he does address Christianity (as he did), then he should also address each and every religion practiced by Americans! Otherwise, this would show that he believes there are no valuable redeeming aspects (or moral concepts, as you put it) in other religions."

No, it would likely show that he wanted to keep his Easter message short and sweet--and to the point, since Easter is after all a holiday in the Christian tradition.

If he were to post a short and sweet Hanukkah message, do you think there would be anything wrong with that, or that he should then laboriously list all the other religions he could think of as well?

Granted, he probably won't post a Hanukkah message;-)

[andyfox]

My guess is they do post a Hanukkah message. I saw Bush at a Hanukkah candle-lighting ceremony. I would think all presidents want to make nice to all numerically significant religions in the country.

[MMMMMM]

Glad to hear it.

[Cyrus]

Can't you please, for once, address the issue being discussed?

Go back and read what I wrote. You even have it inside quotation marks, for pete's sakes! Yet you don't realize that you are giving an irrelevant answer? Amazing.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus: "Because, if he does address Christianity (as he did), then he should also address each and every religion practiced by Americans! Otherwise, this would show that he believes there are no valuable redeeming aspects (or moral concepts, as you put it) in other religions."[/i]"

M: No, it would likely show that he wanted to keep his Easter message short and sweet--and to the point, since Easter is after all a holiday in the Christian tradition.

Cyrus: "Can't you please, for once, address the issue being discussed?

Go back and read what I wrote. You even have it inside quotation marks, for pete's sakes! Yet you don't realize that you are giving an irrelevant answer? Amazing."

I specifically addressed the second sentence in the cited Cyrus quote, dear Cyrus--see it now?

I did not address the should in first sentence in the cited Cyrus quote because, well, I didn't agree with it but I also saw no merit in arguing that point. Your second sentence I thought more objectively wrong (the show is wrong; it wouldn't necessarily show what you claimed it would), so I took issue with it.

The rest of my post was just gravy.

[adios]

If it does please let me know. Science doesn't teach morality, at least not that I know of. Again human's perception of the world is limited. Science in many ways is a tool (a great one I might add) to provide a logical explanation of the world but it can't and doesn't provide a complete body of knowledge regarding all things that happen in the world.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Science in many ways is a tool (a great one I might add) to provide a logical explanation of the world but it can't and doesn't provide a complete body of knowledge regarding all things that happen in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least it's better than just believing a fairy tale. Religion doesnt explain it either. Just because something cant be explained scientifically, doesnt mean there 'has' to be an answer to all questions.

The answers just havent been discovered. Yet some will think the cure for the common cold is found through christ.

b

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
At least it's better than just believing a fairy tale.

[/ QUOTE ]

What fairy tale are you referring to?

[ QUOTE ]
Religion doesnt explain it either

[/ QUOTE ]

All regions or just a few? Sure religions explain it where have you been? Being able to explain something is a lot different than offering proof. To be fair neither science nor religion offers conclusive proof and my original statement should have been worded as such but space requirements in posting are a drawback.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because something cant be explained scientifically, doesnt mean there 'has' to be an answer to all questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally /images/graemlins/smile.gif. IMO Cyrus was offering up science as the be all and end all for explaining everything.

[ QUOTE ]
The answers just havent been discovered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt if the question as to how the Universe came into existence will ever be answered conclusively. Perhaps not to you but to me it's a mind boggling endeavor.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet some will think the cure for the common cold is found through christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be irrelevant to me.

[Cyrus]

"Rational Thought Does Not Explain How the Universe Came Into Existence. If it does please let me know. "

Yes, all we have is science and our minds to work with. (Fortunately, "rational thought" does not adequately describe how our minds work! If you are still stuck in Cartesian prejudices, the world has moved on, you should know.)

In case, you have something else, let us know.

"Science doesn't teach morality, at least not that I know of."

Absolutely correct. (But you do seem to have a simplistic definition of science in your mind. Perhaps, by "science" you refer to Man's body of knowledge about the physical world? I must inform you that this "science" has informed our sense of morality a great deal. As the latest example, and a very humbling one at that, I will give you Goedel's strictly mathematical endeavours which have had a profound effect in modern philosophy. Check with BruceZ for details.)

"Science doesn't provide a complete body of knowledge regarding all things that happen in the world."

Absolutely correct, once again.

But are we supposed then to adopt religious beliefs as a better or equally valid source of information? This would be like the gambler who sees the Blackjack dealer sweeping all the table's money for ten consecutive rounds, asks how can that happen, gets no explanation and accepts that the game is rigged!

[Cyrus]

"IMO Cyrus was offering up science as the be all and end all for explaining everything."

Your O is spectacularly wrong. I did no such thing. I would actually consider it a hubris!

Believing in science's power and rejecting positivism are not mutually exclusive. One can strive for reason, while accepting that Man's reason is limited. One can strive for the Truth, even when knowing that Truth is unattainable. One can accept Man's inherent failings and still try for perfection. (Give some thought to all this, please.They are essential points. I am speaking as constructively as possible.)

"Sure religions explain [how the universe came into existence]. Being able to explain something is a lot different than offering proof."

That's just great. In other words, since I don't know how the World Poker Champion is able to fold when he holds KK to my Aces, I must accept the "explanation" offered to me by the railbird, that the Champion has X-ray vision. After all, explanation is different than offering proof, right? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

What are you saying, man?

And please explain to us, if you can, how exactly a religious tract, describing a holy man's life (such as Christ's) is different from a fairy tale. (I am not using the term "fairy tale" in any derogatory sense at all.)

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Science in many ways is a tool (a great one I might add) to provide a logical explanation of the world but it can't and doesn't provide a complete body of knowledge regarding all things that happen in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't it - just because we havn't worked it all out yet doesn't mean it can't be put in nice mathimatical equations. Maybe we are still pretty stupid, I'm sure you've seen enough evidence of that.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Believing in science's power and rejecting positivism are not mutually exclusive. One can strive for reason, while accepting that Man's reason is limited. One can strive for the Truth, even when knowing that Truth is unattainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

[ QUOTE ]
One can accept Man's inherent failings and still try for perfection. (Give some thought to all this, please.They are essential points. I am speaking as constructively as possible.)

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a universal definition of perfection?

[ QUOTE ]
That's just great. In other words, since I don't know how the World Poker Champion is able to fold when he holds KK to my Aces, I must accept the "explanation" offered to me by the railbird, that the Champion has X-ray vision. After all, explanation is different than offering proof, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another obfuscation of the point I was making. Par for the course.

[ QUOTE ]
What are you saying, man?

[/ QUOTE ]

Refer to my post you're obfuscating.

[ QUOTE ]
And please explain to us, if you can, how exactly a religious tract, describing a holy man's life (such as Christ's) is different from a fairy tale. (I am not using the term "fairy tale" in any derogatory sense at all.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked what fairy tale he was referring to. What part of Christ's life to you believe was a fairy tale?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't it - just because we havn't worked it all out yet doesn't mean it can't be put in nice mathimatical equations.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does a dog perceive the world for instance? How could a human describe such a thing in anything other than human terms?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
But are we supposed then to adopt religious beliefs as a better or equally valid source of information?

[/ QUOTE ]

Supposed to? No.

[ QUOTE ]
This would be like the gambler who sees the Blackjack dealer sweeping all the table's money for ten consecutive rounds, asks how can that happen, gets no explanation and accepts that the game is rigged!

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't follow this analagy. Here's a better one, if a guy beats your quad Kings on the river when an Ace hits the board I doubt very seriously if God is punishing you and/or your karma is bad /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[superleeds]

I don't know, but I'm not conceited enough to think it will always be unknowable

[adios]

Why is it coceit?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it coceit?

[/ QUOTE ]


con·ceit

1. A favorable and especially unduly high opinion of one's own abilities or worth.
2. An ingenious or witty turn of phrase or thought.
3.
a. A fanciful poetic image, especially an elaborate or exaggerated comparison.
b. A poem or passage consisting of such an image.

4.
a. The result of intellectual activity; a thought or an opinion.
b. A fanciful thought or idea.

5.
a. A fancy article; a knickknack.
b. An extravagant, fanciful, and elaborate construction or structure: “An eccentric addition to the lobby is a life-size wooden horse, a 19th century conceit” (Mimi Sheraton).


tr.v. con·ceit·ed, con·ceit·ing, con·ceits

1. Chiefly British. To take a fancy to.
2. Obsolete. To understand; conceive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, mind, conception, from Anglo-Norman conceite, from Late Latin conceptus. See concept.]

Synonyms: conceit, egoism, egotism, narcissism, vanity
These nouns denote excessive high regard for oneself: boasting that reveals conceit; imperturbable egoism; arrogance and egotism that were obvious from her actions; narcissism that shut out everyone else; wounded his vanity by looking in the mirror.

Taken from dictionary.com

To think you know something will forever be unknowable is an especially unduly high opinion of ones own ability to predict, just so you are clear on which usage I am applying it here.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Can't you guys ever stick to the original topic of the post?????? /images/graemlins/mad.gif

First of all Bush can say whatever he wants whenever he wants. The reason why he doesn't though is because he doesn't want to deal with the political backlash. If on Easter or Christmas he wants to give a message talking about the Christian faith, he can, so tough [censored] to everyone out there who doesn't like it. He does not need to bit his tongue on Christian Holidays or walk on egg shells as to not offend atheist or non christians. He is not imposing his religious view on anyone. Is the problem that this is one the official white house web site???? Well thats his official website. Does there need to be a GeorgeWBush.com website for him to say what he wants??? If you think that your absurd.
He is free to say what he wants where he wants whenever he wants, just like I am. If you don't like swear words and I say [censored] [censored] bitch ass, that might piss you off, so what!!!

I like to criticize the president, as do most of you, but the difference is, you guys actively look for things to complain about, and I let them come to me. Ya'll sound like a bunch of babies. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
That's just great. In other words, since I don't know how the World Poker Champion is able to fold when he holds KK to my Aces, I must accept the "explanation" offered to me by the railbird, that the Champion has X-ray vision. After all, explanation is different than offering proof, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

heh heh. I like that. Great analogy.

[ QUOTE ]
And please explain to us, if you can, how exactly a religious tract, describing a holy man's life (such as Christ's) is different from a fairy tale. (I am not using the term "fairy tale" in any derogatory sense at all.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It helps if the railbird is well-known and well recieved (church's case: well feared) for his opinions. After all, there are many people who hang on jerry falwells every word.

Forgot to add how the religious explanation was also an exercise in gain in political power through manipulation and 'creative' editing. I think science may at least be a little more honest about why they're doing it. It has been religious boofs who have tried to suppress scientific discovery. Just ask galileo. (If you could /images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

b

[baggins]

thanks for the consistently intelligent posting, MMMMMM.

[MMMMMM]

"He does not need to bit his tongue on Christian Holidays or walk on egg shells as to not offend atheist or non christians. He is not imposing his religious view on anyone."

This is exactly right. Expressing one's religious views should be of no offense to anyone, and anyone who is thereby offended is WAY too easily offended. City councils who prohibit public manger displays at Christmastime because they say it may offend Muslims or Jews or those of other faiths are looking at things backwards. The Bill of Rights explicitly protects freedom of religious expression. People need to stop being offended at nothing and get a grip and get a life.

Bush might have phrased it more inclusively or more sensitively somehow, I suppose, but he didn't phrase it offensively or badly in any way either. I'm sick of all the people claiming they get offended at anything that even remotely approaches topics of race, religion or culture. Maybe they should get offended 100 times over until they learn that they do not have a right to be protected from being offended.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
What fairy tale are you referring to?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's start with genesis and end with easter.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO Cyrus was offering up science as the be all and end all for explaining everything

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, it is conceivable. Though not in our lifetimes. The more science uncovers, the less relevant religions will/have become.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt if the question as to how the Universe came into existence will ever be answered conclusively. Perhaps not to you but to me it's a mind boggling endeavor.


[/ QUOTE ]

i agree here, for the most part. Seeing a pic of a galaxy feeding on another galaxy kind of put alot into perspective. It's wild to even comprehend the magnitude of that happening.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet some will think the cure for the common cold is found through christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This seems to be irrelevant to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very relevant when comparing science with religion. There are people who will fore go scientific medical help because their religion says to 'pray' to make it better. In fact i think this just happened not too long ago.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bill of Rights explicitly protects freedom of religious expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless it's funded by public tax money.

b

[MMMMMM]

...and good luck on your adventures;-)

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless it's funded by public tax money.

[/ QUOTE ]
and only when it pertains to Christianity.
I am sick of seeing Christianity blasted in the public forum. Things about this, in Public schools today they let kids learn all about islamic and jewish holidays, but Christian ones... whoah!!!! let them thing Christmas is about presents and Santa Claus, and Easter is about Candy and the easter bunny.

When I was in 1st grade we learned about hanakhah, even played games that Jewish children play, not to mention eating traditional Jewish cuisine. You know what we learned about Christmas? Nothing, they were not allowed to discuss any of the religious aspects of Christmas.
Seperation of Church and State is a joke, it only pertains to Christians because they are the easiest group to target.

[MMMMMM]

M: "The Bill of Rights explicitly protects freedom of religious expression."

bernie: " Unless it's funded by public tax money."

Where in the First Amendment do you see that, bernie?


Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I see nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that supports your contention, and further, the idea that local communities' tax monies could not be used for such displays is even further removed--because federal monies don't even come into that picture. Even federal monies being used are not the same as CXongress making a law respecting the establishment of religion (an example of a law respecting the establishment of religion would be: that Christianity is the official religion of the United States).

[MMMMMM]

Complete separation of Church and state was not the intention, nor is it the wording, of the First Amendment: what it says, it means.

When I was a kid we sang Jewish songs in school, nobody thought that was bad and the songs were pretty and it was fun.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
and only when it pertains to Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, it actually pertains to all religious sects.

[ QUOTE ]
let them thing Christmas is about presents and Santa Claus, and Easter is about Candy and the easter bunny.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is about right on target with the christians belief in christmas.

[ QUOTE ]
Seperation of Church and State is a joke, it only pertains to Christians because they are the easiest group to target.

[/ QUOTE ]

It couldnt be because they are one of the biggest groups and the fact many advocates are still trying to ram the religious right agenda down everyones throats. The backlash against christianity is deserving, IMO.

b

[bernie]

Actually in the constitution. The bill of rights isnt the only thing we use in this country.

Though someone had a good idea of sending our constitution to Iraq and letting them use it. Since we dont seem to want to use it anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
and further, the idea that local communities' tax monies could not be used for such displays is even further removed--because federal monies don't even come into that picture

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding right?

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, it actually pertains to all religious sects.

[/ QUOTE ]
of course it is suppose to pertain to all religious sects, but in actually the seperation of church and state is used more frequently against christianity, especially in public schools.
Learning about islam, or judaism, or buddhis, or hinduism is deemed appropriate because it is looked as expanding the students understanding of other religions. However they don't teach any thing about Christianity, which is probably why some many people associated it with Santa Claus and presents.

BTW, the easter bunny is not what most Christians think of Easter. Most, if not all, think of Easter as the day when Christ resurected. Don't confuse the beliefs of non-believers or candy companies with those of Christians.

Secondly most Christians associated Christmas with the birth of Christ, however many of their children do not. One reason, however not the only one, is that they don't learn anything about it. These same children though learn all about the 11 days(sorry to my Jewish breathen out there if this is wrong) of Hanakha(or if the spelling is wrong /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[ QUOTE ]
It couldnt be because they are one of the biggest groups and the fact many advocates are still trying to ram the religious right agenda down everyones throats.


[/ QUOTE ]
Because they are the biggest that is precisely why they are targeted. BTW, there are not many people trying to ram their agenda down your throat, there are a few, and its unfortunate that they have some much media access, but remember those people are for the most part are not politicans, they are evangelicals.

There is this vast paranoia in this country that Christians are trying to force you to behave a certain way. You know what in this country you can call God a fuckin dirt bag if you want, and atleast here that won't get you killed. You guys really need to put this in perspective.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
numerically significant religions in the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Numerically significant being the key phrase. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[MMMMMM]

No, I'm completely serious.

What are you saying, that your contention is supported somewhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? If so, where?

[MMMMMM]

I think some politically involved Christians are indeed trying to get laws passed that would force others to behave in certain ways. However that doesn't mean the Constitution or Bill of Rights should be trampled in backlash.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's start with genesis and end with easter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you're referring to the Old and New Testaments. Really the whole thing? Well I readily admit from a personal standpoint that I have my doubts about at least some of what's in the Bible although I'm certainly not a Bible scholar.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, it is conceivable. Though not in our lifetimes. The more science uncovers, the less relevant religions will/have become.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see I don't think it necessarily has to be that way i.e. science vs. religion.

[ QUOTE ]
i agree here, for the most part. Seeing a pic of a galaxy feeding on another galaxy kind of put alot into perspective. It's wild to even comprehend the magnitude of that happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok good.

[ QUOTE ]
It's very relevant when comparing science with religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily IMO. Somehow I can conceive of a religious individual who would believe in an all powerful God and also believe that a common cold rememdy would have to be discovered by scientific effort.

[ QUOTE ]
There are people who will fore go scientific medical help because their religion says to 'pray' to make it better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally but methinks it's rather unfair to paint all religious people with the same brush so to speak.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact i think this just happened not too long ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

It probably happened five minutes ago /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[adios]

Then by your criteria if you believe no one will ever be resurrected from the dead you're conceited /images/graemlins/smile.gif. If you don't believe it's possible at some point for someone to transform themselves into a dog you'd be conceited as well by your own criteria.

[adios]

I found it very interesting how the notion that claiming that God doesn't exist is an act of faith would bring up so much resistance and in some cases hostility. I also found it interesting that some made it a point to put down religion in their replys to me. I haven't set foot in a place of worship for at least 15 years and to be honest I can't remember the last time I did. As far as science is concerned I would guess I respect, adhere, and have it's principles guide me as much or more so than anyone else on this forum. However, to say that humans have limits to their perceptive capabilities isn't conceited in the least, it's self evident. All creatures in this world do. To me it's conceited not to recognize this. Just because humans are at the top of the food chain doesn't make them all powerful and all knowing. Actually studies of Orca's and their behavior imply that their intelligence rivals or even surpasses that of humans. If you think humans are all knowing and all powerful just look what's going on the world today and then tell me why you believe that it's true.

I'm also fairly certain that those that support the ACLU in it's never ending quest to eliminate religios practices and teachings from public schools (mostly a good thing IMO)really have an agenda to promote atheism (a bad thing).

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, it is conceivable. Though not in our lifetimes. The more science uncovers, the less relevant religions will/have become.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the world will far worse off if everything was based upon scientific proof, or statistical analysis. I am sorry to say, but a society devoid of religion would be a cold calculated world, and if you don't know what I mean think about it. Most of the decisions made would probably be based upon scientific evidence or statistical evidence. The term collateral damage would be used more frequently. There would be acceptable levels of crime, death, disease. Do you see what I mean.
Not to mention how medicine would be affected. While I do agree that there are plenty of good things that come from scientific advances, part of me cringes at the thought of scientists playing God(any form). The are altering nature, life and death, something about distrubs me.

I guess my point here though is Religion gives people hope, artificial it may be, but its still hope. It makes people more compassionate(I hope). If life is essentially meat and potatoes, things like culture are the side dishes and deserts that turn that meat and potatoes dinner into a true feast.

[Cyrus]

"What part of Christ's life to you believe was a fairy tale?"

I will try and make up a definition of what is a fairy tale for me. It is a tale told by a homosexual ...No, wrong, let's start again!

A fairy tale is a story without a historical grounding, except sometimes as a partial composite of historical and/or mythological persons and/or events, a story that usually has some moralistic theme but is also entertaining. OK that's as close as I can make it, and excuse any imperfections, "I'm co-operating here"...

Let's see. Jesus Christ is not a historical figure. A lot of the various events depicted in his "life's" story (miracles, resurrection, etc) contradict everything we know about the physical world. Christ's teachings (as they have been passed on by the writers of Gospels and his alleged disciples, and despite the various re-workings they have demonstrably gone through) are of great value in terms of morality. At the time of Christ, there were historical figures of similar teachings and predicaments, so His story is not too unlike a composite of sorts. Plus, the Testaments make for entertaining reading. (A lot of that reading should be at least R-rated, of course, but oh well That's Entertainment!)

So, voila, fairy tale.

(And not half as bad, as fairy tales go either! In my opinion, the Testaments and the whole Christian religion’s corpus are of significant value, in more ways than one.)

"Another obfuscation of the point I was making. Par for the course."

You didn't appreciate my analogy with the X-ray vision of the World Poker Champion? Too bad, I thought it was very apt. Tell you what. Don't write any more inanities such as "explanation is different than offering proof" and I will not be rubbing your face in 'em. Deal?

Oh and in case you are starting to feel rally pissed off about the turn of this debate, let me explain further : An explanation without any justification (or "proof" as you say) is no explanation at all. It is equal to saying "This is the reason for phenomenon XYZ because I says so!"

But this is like getting yer explanations about the world from the Mob. (Or the Church.)

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Then by your criteria if you believe no one will ever be resurrected from the dead you're conceited .

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it depends what you call dead, people are often ressurected in Hospital Emergency Rooms. But I take your point, it works both ways. I believe science has proved that ressurection in the christian sense is not possible but you are right I will almost certainly never know for certain.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't believe it's possible at some point for someone to transform themselves into a dog you'd be conceited as well by your own criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're getting there. How many kids plop themselves down with a video game and really are DeathNinja or JohnnyNuke-Scurge of the streets, etc. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ is not a historical figure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only truely idiotic people think this. There is more than enough historical evidence to prove that a man named Jesus Christ lived in the middle east around that time. Whether or not you believe he did what he did is another story, but to deny his existence is to deny your own stupidity.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ is not a historical figure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only truely idiotic people think this. There is more than enough historical evidence to prove that a man named Jesus Christ lived in the middle east around that time. Whether or not you believe he did what he did is another story, but to deny his existence is to deny your own stupidity.

[MMMMMM]

So Cyrus, you are postulating that Jesus Christ did not exist at all, but was rather an imaginary composite?

Well, I've never heard that one before. This is the second surprising belief I've recently encountered regarding Jesus' life. The other was when I read, in an online article, that Muslims generally believe that Jesus, when he was in the garden of Gethsemane praying that if it be God's will to lift this cup from him...that God instantly then removed him up into heaven, and he was never crucified, but that someone else was cruficied in his stead and the people were made to believe that that person crucified was Jesus. A Catholic friend of mine, when I related this, laughed and was amazed, and said that there were 500 witnesses to the crucifixion.

Anyways it never occurred to me to doubt that Jesus existed in the first place. I'm also now curious to know if you think Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) was a historical figure, or a "fairy tale", who lived (or was imagined) about 600 B.C.?

[bernie]

I think he was real, though i have a totally different take on him.

But for debate, there isnt alot of historical proof of his existence. What proof are you referring to?

Much of the biblical events involving him were lifted from other religious stories, not involving him. Others were edited to help political aspirations of Constantine. So in that respect, scripture itself is suspect.

Or are you relying on your faith in your church that they are telling you the truth about him?

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

I am not sure what you are questioning. His teachings? or his miracles?
I do believe that the teachings of Christ are genuine and actually said by him. His miracles are a different story. I think there is probably some sort of basis for them, but I don't think they happened like the Bible says. Turning water into win??? doubtful, but watering down wine, possible. Walking on water? doubtful, maybe it looked like he did. My point being, his teachings and works of good were probably genuine, the miracles who knows, its hard to know for sure because it was so long ago.

[ QUOTE ]
So in that respect, scripture itself is suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think scripture is as suspect as you think, however I do think a lot of the newer stuff(ie revelations) is suspect. I think some of you guys should take a course in Biblical history and its writers, you may be surprised by some of it.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the easter bunny is not what most Christians think of Easter. Most, if not all, think of Easter as the day when Christ resurected. Don't confuse the beliefs of non-believers or candy companies with those of Christians.

Secondly most Christians associated Christmas with the birth of Christ,

[/ QUOTE ]

No sht. I think im more than qualified to know what easter and xmas means to christians. Even though christmas isnt even christs actual b-day. No one knows what actual day that was.

As for easter, that story was ripped from another religion and used by the church in the bible.

[ QUOTE ]
There is this vast paranoia in this country that Christians are trying to force you to behave a certain way.

[/ QUOTE ]

They've been doing it for 1700 years. Have you ever studied the history of christianity and what they've done? Even in modern times?

Take a gander at laws in the bible belt and how they enforce them. Some of them are just plain ridiculous.

What's really kinda funny is that they can do it for that long, but when the heretics/free thinkers finally lash back and say to leave them alone without fear of persecution, then it's wrong. That's a nice double standard.

I dont blame all christians, btw. Many christians i know are pretty cool. Many early christians died protecting heretics from christians working in the name of christianity.

But i dont see many christians standing up today, as they did then and died for it then, for the freedom of other religions/free thought. Only their own. Kind of interesting.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some politically involved Christians are indeed trying to get laws passed that would force others to behave in certain ways. However that doesn't mean the Constitution or Bill of Rights should be trampled in backlash

[/ QUOTE ]

This goes both ways as far as people forcing agendas.

I think we agree on this.

b

[bernie]

Not everyone would be developed intelligence wise enough to be cold and calculating and use only statistical evidence. Many dont do that now with stuff that is supported by stat evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
There would be acceptable levels of crime, death, disease. Do you see what I mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

There already are acceptable levels of these.

[ QUOTE ]
While I do agree that there are plenty of good things that come from scientific advances, part of me cringes at the thought of scientists playing God(any form). The are altering nature, life and death, something about distrubs me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of agree here. In the wrong hands, who knows. That is a scary thought. But i think it's an equal trade off with something else using manipulation and intimidation to get their way.

Here's another thought. In a billion(s) years, the earth will be uninhabitable. There is no way it will last forever.

Long way off, but worth thinking about.

I've always said, if religion/beliefs makes one a better person. More power to em. But just because it helped one, doesnt mean it has to be the only way to help everyone else.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you're referring to the Old and New Testaments. Really the whole thing? Well I readily admit from a personal standpoint that I have my doubts about at least some of what's in the Bible although I'm certainly not a Bible scholar

[/ QUOTE ]

Start with the untranslated version. 25% of all the words in the text are in dispute for interpretation. Now whisper that in someones ear, translating as you go and 1000 people later what do they come up with? (ever done this trick? You whisper a phrase in someones ear and they in turn whisper it in another. Go through about 20+ people and the last person will say something completely different than what was started with)

[ QUOTE ]
You see I don't think it necessarily has to be that way i.e. science vs. religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldnt be. The christian church is the one that threw down the gauntlet on that one. Still do. They've mentioned many times they will suppress truth if it would be damaging to the foundations of the church. Translation of the dead sea scrolls was the last time i saw this blatantly mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are people who will fore go scientific medical help because their religion says to 'pray' to make it better.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree totally but methinks it's rather unfair to paint all religious people with the same brush so to speak.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aimed primarily at religious leaders, not followers who are heavily influenced by these leaders. And no, i dont think all religious people think this way.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think scripture is as suspect as you think, however I do think a lot of the newer stuff(ie revelations) is suspect. I think some of you guys should take a course in Biblical history and its writers, you may be surprised by some of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you ought to study how the bible was put together, the factors that went into choosing which book was included, along with the pop culture of that time. You're the one who may be very suprised. Try and use the unbiased version. Not the propogandized version.

As far as a class on biblical history and its writers, i went to parochial school for 8 years and was forced to study it. Alot more than a sunday school does. Then i studied it on my own quite a bit. Still am. The more i learn, the more i see it for what it really is.

It goes well beyond just the bible itself.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also fairly certain that those that support the ACLU in it's never ending quest to eliminate religios practices and teachings from public schools (mostly a good thing IMO)really have an agenda to promote atheism (a bad thing).


[/ QUOTE ]

What would your opinion be if there was a Satanic group that wanted to practice it's teachings in a school? (btw..not all satanic ritual teachings are what many believe. Many parallel other religious beliefs, just different icons) Im sure that would go over well. Or does it depend on 'which' religion is being precticed there?

How would a christian kid feel going to a school where he is forced to stand and recite part of the Koran every day? Im sure his parents would really stand for that in a public school. Put yourself in the other persons shoes. The one who is different. If they dont like it, they should find another school, right? Sorry, it's a public school. There's a reason they have private schools.


That's where a main problem lies. The only real solution is to make public schools secular. That ends the problem right there.

I think the ACLU is trying to make it a neutral zone for all religions, thereby, not condoning/condemning any of them nor putting them in scrutiny of the microscope of a public school system that is governmentally funded.

I think there are people of different religious sects in the ACLU, and not all athiests.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

Bernie Bernie Bernie, I don't like arguing with you cuz I met you and your a nice guy.
Anyways.... and this is my opinion the only sections of the bible worth anything are the gospels and psalms, but I am not some super christian.

I also went to a Catholic school from grades 4 through High school so I too and familiar with the bible and the church. I also constantly got in arguments with my teachers, so believe me when I say I definitely don't have some sort of blind faith here.

BTW, what is the unbiased version and which one is the propagandized version?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Bernie Bernie Bernie, I don't like arguing with you cuz I met you and your a nice guy.



[/ QUOTE ]

Im not trying to put you down for your beliefs, that's not my intent, but based on your posts in this thread, it really doesnt seem like youve looked beyond what the school taught you for information. That's the way it comes across.


[ QUOTE ]
Anyways.... and this is my opinion the only sections of the bible worth anything are the gospels and psalms, but I am not some super christian.

[/ QUOTE ]


The gospels are the most hotly debated. The only one that they claim is eye witness account was written about 70 years after the fact. (johns) How accurate could it be. The others are all basically heresay.

Propagandized version is the version/translation the church advocates. Translations/studies written with their own interest in mind. Along with some classes that teach biblical stuff with the religious agenda in mind. It is tough to find a theology class taught by an unbiased person. It would be a great conflict of interest for a christian teacher to teach a heretical view of early christianity.

There are many books out that have explored the beginnings of christianity that shed alot of light where the church would like it to still be dark.

The gnostic gospels are a good start. But even those arent accurate, though they may give you a very different view than what was taught in school. The only difference in signifigance was that they were not 'selected' to be in the bible even though they have the same qualifications. Some, by some theological experts, are even more qualified than some of the books that were included. The agenda didnt include them. Why not? The answer is very intriguing.

b

btw...

I think you're a cool guy also. We'll have to play againt sometime.

[MMMMMM]

Check this out...an extensive source of information

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[Cyrus]

I must have touched a nerve. This seems to happen a lot these days, on this forum. Ah well.

"If Cyrus only had a brain."

Thank you for this most thoughtful and Christian offering. It will sure make me re-evaluate my position and perhaps view religion and Christianity with more enthusiasm. Sure looks like a religion of tolerance an' love!

"Only truly idiotic people think [that] Jesus Christ is not a historical figure. There is more than enough historical evidence to prove that a man named Jesus Christ lived in the middle east around that time."

Then it should be relatively easy for you to point out to me at least two independent, i.e. non-Christian, historical texts from the period, whereby the life of Jesus Christ is related or mentioned in the same (or approximately the same) details as the Testaments.

The ball is in your court to prove that Christ is a historical figure (and that I'm lacking a brain).

[Cyrus]

See? You can be constructive if you want to.

Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/)

[Cyrus]

"You are postulating that Jesus Christ did not exist at all, but was rather an imaginary composite?"

I'm saying that there is a greater probability that the religious figure of Jesus Christ is based on one or (possibly) more historical figures that lived around that time, and not necessarily at the exact chronology, rather than that Jesus Christ is a historical figure whose existence and life is as documented as, say, Julius Caesar’s. I base this assessment on the complete lack of historical evidence towards a historical Jesus. (This position is irrelevant to how I value Christian teachings.)

"A Catholic friend of mine ... said that there were 500 witnesses to the crucifixion."

They didn't leave a record.

It is different for "common people" (as Jesus of Nazareth was, if he existed as such) to have their lives recorded as rulers did at the time, I accept that. But, still, there is an undisputed lack of independent (i.e. non-Christian) historical substantiation -- which should not detract at all from our appraisal of the religion's texts as such.

"Muslims generally believe that Jesus ... was never crucified."

All the Muslims I have encountered were deeply respectful of the Christian religion and particularly the figure of Jesus Christ. In fact, they were all very respectful of all other religions. (My sample is admittedly small, consisting of some thirty to forty individuals.) As a matter of fact, whenever a Muslim spoke of Christ, he spoke as they do of Mohammed, adding the words "...blessed be His name" after the name of Jesus.

[MMMMMM]

Of course Muslims are generally respectful of Christ (just, sadly, all too often not of Christians and Jews;-).

Anyway the article related how Muslim students went to see Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ and were afterwards interviewed by the writer. The students' reactions ran quite a range, generally positive and inquisitive, but one notable reaction was that they as Muslims knew that Christ himself was never crucified, having been taken by God up into heaven directly from the garden of Gethsemane, while another was crucified in his stead whom the people were made to believe was Jesus. I thought I'd post it here in case anyone has more light to shed on this purported belief.