JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dr. Dan on December 17, 2007, 06:06:45 PM
-
???
-
How about choice #4 - Both 1 + 2
-
How about choice #4 - Both 1 + 2
that would be no fun..i want to know what the majority think is worst...Militant Athiests who want to impose athieism..or militant muslims who want to impose islam on everyone..
-
I selected option 2, but I also thought up a fourth option. What I hate the most are judges who don't automatically throw these crazy lawsuits by these fanatical atheists out of court.
-
OK,I'll go with 2 then...
-
i hate them equally, but i think athiests are more of a threat because not as many people know what they want to do...
-
Well i didn't vote 1 because i could care less what they have to say i only care what they do.
which only means that i can vote for #3 because i completely believe that number 2 and 4 should happen.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E1DA153EF934A15755C0A9649C8B63 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E1DA153EF934A15755C0A9649C8B63)
With the separation of church and state that is a major part of the first amendment that we all hide behind when it suits us it clearly states that ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' For those of you that are going to argue with me on this and state that this country was made under god you are sorely mistaken.
A law was passed by the 84th United States Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a joint resolution declaring In God We Trust the national motto of the United States. Some allege that this decision was a reaction to Communism (which was commonly associated with atheism).
Prior to this decision the national motto was "E pluribus unum" which is Latin for "Out of Many, One" which is correct with the constitution in separating religion from the state.
One nation under god was added to the pledge of allegiance about the same time and was also added for the same reason of the fear of the communists who were largely atheists.
So basically i dont really have a problem with currency saying in god we trust because honestly its just money and who cares what it says as long as i can spend it but that doesn't change the fact that one nation under god is completely unconstitutional. However being the nice atheist that i am every time i money in my wallet and have some free time i pull out the black sharpie and mark out the in god we trust part which is also completely legal in this country because i am not doing it for the reason of devaluation. I am doing it because it says something that i believe should not be on it. However this is one of those issues that i wish could be the least of our issues. If it was really worth the time and money to go and argue for the removal of in god we trust i guarantee that it would be removed.
Maybe after Ron Paul is elected we can worry about things like this.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a50/dejavu22/18m.jpg)
-
Well i didn't vote 1 because i could care less what they have to say i only care what they do.
which only means that i can vote for #3 because i completely believe that number 2 and 4 should happen.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E1DA153EF934A15755C0A9649C8B63 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E1DA153EF934A15755C0A9649C8B63)
With the separation of church and state that is a major part of the first amendment that we all hide behind when it suits us it clearly states that ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' For those of you that are going to argue with me on this and state that this country was made under G-d you are sorely mistaken.
A law was passed by the 84th United States Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a joint resolution declaring In G-d We Trust the national motto of the United States. Some allege that this decision was a reaction to Communism (which was commonly associated with atheism).
Prior to this decision the national motto was "E pluribus unum" which is Latin for "Out of Many, One" which is correct with the constitution in separating religion from the state.
One nation under G-d was added to the pledge of allegiance about the same time and was also added for the same reason of the fear of the communists who were largely atheists.
So basically i dont really have a problem with currency saying in G-d we trust because honestly its just money and who cares what it says as long as i can spend it but that doesn't change the fact that one nation under G-d is completely unconstitutional. However being the nice atheist that i am every time i money in my wallet and have some free time i pull out the black sharpie and mark out the in G-d we trust part which is also completely legal in this country because i am not doing it for the reason of devaluation. I am doing it because it says something that i believe should not be on it. However this is one of those issues that i wish could be the least of our issues. If it was really worth the time and money to go and argue for the removal of in G-d we trust i guarantee that it would be removed.
Maybe after Ron Paul is elected we can worry about things like this.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a50/dejavu22/18m.jpg)
What the forefathers of the USA had in mind was the separation of any specific theology from the state. They built this country with the spirit of Gd in their minds. However, they did not want the land of the free to be a stage for one religion to dominate over another..that's what separation of church and state means at least in this country from my point of view.
-
but G-d still limits it to a specific theology... It limits it to religions that believe in G-d meaning that they are denouncing religions that do not believe in the classical Christian/Jewish/Mormon G-d. It excludes people who believe in Atheism, Scientology, Neopaganism, Hinduism, Kardecist Spiritism, Buddhism or Shinto or thousands of other religions that do not necessarily believe on only one or any G-d.
The same reasoning that you used above was how slavery and womens rights were held down in the past. Well they meant all men are created equal but it really means all white men. so.... must be male and white.
-
but G-d still limits it to a specific theology... It limits it to religions that believe in G-d meaning that they are denouncing religions that do not believe in the classical Christian/Jewish/Mormon G-d. It excludes people who believe in Atheism, Scientology, Neopaganism, Hinduism, Kardecist Spiritism, Buddhism or Shinto or thousands of other religions that do not necessarily believe on only one or any G-d.
The same reasoning that you used above was how slavery and womens rights were held down in the past. Well they meant all men are created equal but it really means all white men. so.... must be male and white.
Wrong...Hindus believe in Gd, Scientologists believe ina type of Gd, Atheists believe in the lack of Gd basically indicating that they really do belive in some type of nonGd, in this country there are like 2 kardecist Spiritism..so who cares about them? Buddhists beleive in a type of Gd and Shintos also...It doesn't have to be Hashem or Allah..but still they believe in a higher being...I think you're wrong.
-
I said the first - but the second one is close behind. Although now that I think about it... that sound is kinda like the one (American) Indians make - which is kinda like the one Sephardi women make - so maybe I change my mind... :-\
-
Hindus do not believe specifically in one god, many gods or even any gods.
Hinduism is an extremely diverse religion. Although some tenets of the faith are accepted by most Hindus, scholars have found it difficult to identify any doctrines with universal acceptance among all denominations.[12] Prominent themes in Hindu beliefs include Dharma (ethics/duties), Samsāra (The continuing cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth), Karma (action and subsequent reaction), Moksha (liberation from samsara), and the various Yogas (paths or practices).
Although i will concede that they do seek to find god or atleast divinity in every day life.
______
Shinto believes that all of the souls of the departed become the gods of a certian place however they make no explanation for creation.
______
I guess you can say that Scientologists believe in god because they believe that they were enslaved by a an evil overlord named Xenu who trapped Thetans on earth and that the church is allowing for its members to escape from the enslavement and cross "the bridge" although i have yet to hear where the bridge goes.
______
Athiests dont believe in god... they believe in random luck. There is no higher power we are just here.
______
Buddhists do not have a god, it is a set of moral philosophies to achieve enlightenment.
Heres a copy and paste of Buddhist core beliefs.
The Noble Eightfold Path
The eight-spoked Dharmacakra. The eight spokes represent the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism.
The Noble Eightfold Path is the way to the cessation of suffering, the fourth part of the Four Noble Truths. This is divided into three sections: Śīla (which concerns wholesome physical actions), Samadhi (which concerns the meditative concentration of the mind) and Prajñā (which concerns spiritual insight into the true nature of all things).
Śīla is morality—abstaining from unwholesome deeds of body and speech. Within the division of sila are three parts of the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Speech—One speaks in a non hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way (samyag-vāc, sammā-vācā)
2. Right Actions—Wholesome action, avoiding action that would do harm (samyak-karmānta, sammā-kammanta)
3. Right Livelihood—One's way of livelihood does not harm in any way oneself or others; directly or indirectly (samyag-ājīva, sammā-ājīva)
Samadhi is developing mastery over one’s own mind. Within this division are another three parts of the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Effort/Exercise—One makes an effort to improve (samyag-vyāyāma, sammā-vāyāma)
2. Right Mindfulness/Awareness—Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness (samyak-smṛti, sammā-sati)
3. Right Concentration/Meditation—Being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion. (samyak-samādhi, sammā-samādhi)
Prajñā is the wisdom which purifies the mind. Within this division fall two more parts of the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Understanding—Understanding reality as it is, not just as it appears to be. (samyag-dṛṣṭi, sammā-diṭṭhi)
2. Right Thoughts—Change in the pattern of thinking. (samyak-saṃkalpa, sammā-saṅkappa)
The word samyak means "perfect". There are a number of ways to interpret the Eightfold Path. On one hand, the Eightfold Path is spoken of as being a progressive series of stages through which the practitioner moves, the culmination of one leading to the beginning of another, whereas others see the states of the 'Path' as requiring simultaneous development. It is also common to categorize the Eightfold Path into prajñā (Pāli paññā, wisdom), śīla (Pāli sīla, virtuous behavior) and samādhi (concentration).
now they do however worship the man that wrote this religion but they do not consider him a god.
-
Hindus do not believe specifically in one G-d, many gods or even any gods.
Hinduism is an extremely diverse religion. Although some tenets of the faith are accepted by most Hindus, scholars have found it difficult to identify any doctrines with universal acceptance among all denominations.[12] Prominent themes in Hindu beliefs include Dharma (ethics/duties), Samsāra (The continuing cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth), Karma (action and subsequent reaction), Moksha (liberation from samsara), and the various Yogas (paths or practices).
Although i will concede that they do seek to find G-d or atleast divinity in every day life.
______
Shinto believes that all of the souls of the departed become the gods of a certian place however they make no explanation for creation.
______
I guess you can say that Scientologists believe in G-d because they believe that they were enslaved by a an evil overlord named Xenu who trapped Thetans on earth and that the church is allowing for its members to escape from the enslavement and cross "the bridge" although i have yet to hear where the bridge goes.
______
Athiests dont believe in G-d... they believe in random luck. There is no higher power we are just here.
______
Buddhists do not have a G-d, it is a set of moral philosophies to achieve enlightenment.
Heres a copy and paste of Buddhist core beliefs.
The Noble Eightfold Path
The eight-spoked Dharmacakra. The eight spokes represent the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism.
The Noble Eightfold Path is the way to the cessation of suffering, the fourth part of the Four Noble Truths. This is divided into three sections: Śīla (which concerns wholesome physical actions), Samadhi (which concerns the meditative concentration of the mind) and Prajñā (which concerns spiritual insight into the true nature of all things).
Śīla is morality—abstaining from unwholesome deeds of body and speech. Within the division of sila are three parts of the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Speech—One speaks in a non hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way (samyag-vāc, sammā-vācā)
2. Right Actions—Wholesome action, avoiding action that would do harm (samyak-karmānta, sammā-kammanta)
3. Right Livelihood—One's way of livelihood does not harm in any way oneself or others; directly or indirectly (samyag-ājīva, sammā-ājīva)
Samadhi is developing mastery over one’s own mind. Within this division are another three parts of the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Effort/Exercise—One makes an effort to improve (samyag-vyāyāma, sammā-vāyāma)
2. Right Mindfulness/Awareness—Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness (samyak-smṛti, sammā-sati)
3. Right Concentration/Meditation—Being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion. (samyak-samādhi, sammā-samādhi)
Prajñā is the wisdom which purifies the mind. Within this division fall two more parts of the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Understanding—Understanding reality as it is, not just as it appears to be. (samyag-dṛṣṭi, sammā-diṭṭhi)
2. Right Thoughts—Change in the pattern of thinking. (samyak-saṃkalpa, sammā-saṅkappa)
The word samyak means "perfect". There are a number of ways to interpret the Eightfold Path. On one hand, the Eightfold Path is spoken of as being a progressive series of stages through which the practitioner moves, the culmination of one leading to the beginning of another, whereas others see the states of the 'Path' as requiring simultaneous development. It is also common to categorize the Eightfold Path into prajñā (Pāli paññā, wisdom), śīla (Pāli sīla, virtuous behavior) and samādhi (concentration).
now they do however worship the man that wrote this religion but they do not consider him a G-d.
Anyone who has a religion I don't care what, believe in a type of god or something bigger than themselves...
Athiests have the believe in something and that something is nothing...but it still something...
no athiest can take control of my theology..nor can anoyone of my belief system do the same to an atheist..since this country was built with Gd in mind...He is part of our culture...PERIOD
-
wrong if god was supposed to be there he would have been mentioned when we were made. Does it mention god in the Constitution or the declaration of independence? No. Why then? I don't think that they forgot about him :::D
-
Actually Dejavu, in the Declaration of Independence, the Creator is mentioned:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-
Actually Dejavu, in the Declaration of Independence, the Creator is mentioned:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
BOOYA!
-
their creator does not equal god. i consider my creator my parents.
-
their creator does not equal G-d. i consider my creator my parents.
and who created your parents?
-
wow this is going to be a fun game.... their parents.
-
wow this is going to be a fun game.... their parents.
and who created their parents? Just keep going....I'm curious to know your answers.
-
The thing is that everyone technically has a creator even if they do not consider that creator to be god that is why the word creator was used.
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
As for the declaration of independence the word god was used once and also the word creator were used once. I will admit this one was a mistake but still it does not mention any relationship between the church and state it only mentions "Nature's God" and also the creator line that you posted. It in no way connects god to the state.
-
The thing is that everyone technically has a creator even if they do not consider that creator to be G-d that is why the word creator was used.
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find G-d in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "G-d," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
As for the declaration of independence the word G-d was used once and also the word creator were used once. I will admit this one was a mistake but still it does not mention any relationship between the church and state it only mentions "Nature's G-d" and also the creator line that you posted. It in no way connects G-d to the state.
However it does not deny that with Gd's help, the USA was founded...and the proper respect is to have it in the Pledge of Allegience and in the currency amongst maybe several things.
However, no one theology should take control of the state...because if we were to allow that, guess what woudl happen next? Shariah woudl become the law, Gd forbid.
Here is the problem though. i'm all cool with this separation...But it must be implemented without double standards. I can promise you that in Michigan int eh public schools, the Muslims get to have their prayer time and nobody makes a squeak about it...But if someone says, "Jesus" in the school, there is a huge fire storm and demonstration and a big huge deal...
So if our politicians are going to implement this separation they avhe to do it in every regards left and right.
except, I have no trust in these current politicians...with illegal immigration being legitimized and nobody following the law, what faith can I have on anyone even on the separation of church and state? Guess what? it's chaos..now we have to fight fire with fire and take control back!
-
wow this is going to be a fun game.... their parents.
and who created their parents? Just keep going....I'm curious to know your answers.
his dad and a sheep... this is pointless.
At some point i do believe that we evolved from a single cellular organism. Where did this single cell organism come from? If you put the right materials together in the right quantities something is bound to happen. Where did the materials come from? Hydrogen. Where did hydrogen come from? A large explosion.
I don't pretend to know all the answers. I admit that what i think may have happened is probably wrong. I just strongly believe that because i cant figure out how it happened, that that necessarily means that there is a higher power. I am blissful in knowing that i am ignorant to the correct answer because i have an open enough mind to realize that none of the answers have reasonable support under a microscope.
I am not saying that i am right and you are wrong... I am saying you think this and i don't know but i don't believe what you believe.
-
The thing is that everyone technically has a creator even if they do not consider that creator to be G-d that is why the word creator was used.
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find G-d in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "G-d," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
As for the declaration of independence the word G-d was used once and also the word creator were used once. I will admit this one was a mistake but still it does not mention any relationship between the church and state it only mentions "Nature's G-d" and also the creator line that you posted. It in no way connects G-d to the state.
However it does not deny that with Gd's help, the USA was founded...and the proper respect is to have it in the Pledge of Allegience and in the currency amongst maybe several things.
However, no one theology should take control of the state...because if we were to allow that, guess what woudl happen next? Shariah woudl become the law, Gd forbid.
Here is the problem though. i'm all cool with this separation...But it must be implemented without double standards. I can promise you that in Michigan int eh public schools, the Muslims get to have their prayer time and nobody makes a squeak about it...But if someone says, "Jesus" in the school, there is a huge fire storm and demonstration and a big huge deal...
So if our politicians are going to implement this separation they avhe to do it in every regards left and right.
except, I have no trust in these current politicians...with illegal immigration being legitimized and nobody following the law, what faith can I have on anyone even on the separation of church and state? Guess what? it's chaos..now we have to fight fire with fire and take control back!
When was the last time you were in a school every morning during the announcements there was a moment of silence where everyone was able to think whatever they needed to to get through the day. Prayer or otherwise. When i was in high school there was a bible club that had about 30 members that met every morning before school and had their own mass type thing in the auditorium.
-
The thing is that everyone technically has a creator even if they do not consider that creator to be G-d that is why the word creator was used.
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find G-d in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "G-d," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
As for the declaration of independence the word G-d was used once and also the word creator were used once. I will admit this one was a mistake but still it does not mention any relationship between the church and state it only mentions "Nature's G-d" and also the creator line that you posted. It in no way connects G-d to the state.
However it does not deny that with Gd's help, the USA was founded...and the proper respect is to have it in the Pledge of Allegience and in the currency amongst maybe several things.
However, no one theology should take control of the state...because if we were to allow that, guess what woudl happen next? Shariah woudl become the law, Gd forbid.
Here is the problem though. i'm all cool with this separation...But it must be implemented without double standards. I can promise you that in Michigan int eh public schools, the Muslims get to have their prayer time and nobody makes a squeak about it...But if someone says, "Jesus" in the school, there is a huge fire storm and demonstration and a big huge deal...
So if our politicians are going to implement this separation they avhe to do it in every regards left and right.
except, I have no trust in these current politicians...with illegal immigration being legitimized and nobody following the law, what faith can I have on anyone even on the separation of church and state? Guess what? it's chaos..now we have to fight fire with fire and take control back!
When was the last time you were in a school every morning during the announcements there was a moment of silence where everyone was able to think whatever they needed to to get through the day. Prayer or otherwise. When i was in high school there was a bible club that had about 30 members that met every morning before school and had their own mass type thing in the auditorium.
you're asking the wrong guy..I was in elementary school and highschool in the 80's and early to mid 90's...So back then it was much different than it is now. So i can't answer that question.
-
Here's what our Founding Fathers had to say about the Ten Commandments and the Bible:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
James Madison, 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia
“ The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery
and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
Noah Webster. History. p. 339
However, the Founding Fathers did not want a state established religion, like the Anglican Church. But these are example of America being founded on Judeo-Christian principles
-
wow this is going to be a fun game.... their parents.
and who created their parents? Just keep going....I'm curious to know your answers.
his dad and a sheep... this is pointless.
At some point i do believe that we evolved from a single cellular organism. Where did this single cell organism come from? If you put the right materials together in the right quantities something is bound to happen. Where did the materials come from? Hydrogen. Where did hydrogen come from? A large explosion.
I don't pretend to know all the answers. I admit that what i think may have happened is probably wrong. I just strongly believe that because i cant figure out how it happened, that that necessarily means that there is a higher power. I am blissful in knowing that i am ignorant to the correct answer because i have an open enough mind to realize that none of the answers have reasonable support under a microscope.
I am not saying that i am right and you are wrong... I am saying you think this and i don't know but i don't believe what you believe.
So where did that large explosion come from? I think you can think of one answer that might make the most sense...and if you are thinking what I'm thinking, it's a start...and that's all I'll give you...I have no desire to steer you into any theology..that all depends on you.
There is a much larger force out there..call it what you want...but you aren't your own maker...something else is involved in sorting out the cards. that somethign else for me is Gd..for you...I'll wait to hear your anwer.
-
i graduated from high school in 1998 and went into the Marines. I served proudly and went to Afghanistan in late 2001 and most of 2002. Luckily when i got home i was allowed to get into the IRR and out of active duty. After more 4 years in the IRR as far as i know now they have no ability to ask for me to go anywhere. Now i believe that what we were doing in Afghanistan was completely justified and that we should have done what we needed to and gotten back out. The war in Iraq is a complete unprovoked farce. That is why i am so interested in politics and that is why i believe so strongly that RP is the one who understands what needs to be done to restore the country that we are willing to give our lives for. I would proudly give my life for my country but there is no value in a first strike unless their first strike is imminent.
I argue the way i do because i still have a lot of friends that are over there giving their lives for a cause that almost none of us believe in anymore.
I don't believe that things have changed much in schools since i graduated except a lot more use of computers in classrooms.
-
wow this is going to be a fun game.... their parents.
and who created their parents? Just keep going....I'm curious to know your answers.
his dad and a sheep... this is pointless.
At some point i do believe that we evolved from a single cellular organism. Where did this single cell organism come from? If you put the right materials together in the right quantities something is bound to happen. Where did the materials come from? Hydrogen. Where did hydrogen come from? A large explosion.
I don't pretend to know all the answers. I admit that what i think may have happened is probably wrong. I just strongly believe that because i cant figure out how it happened, that that necessarily means that there is a higher power. I am blissful in knowing that i am ignorant to the correct answer because i have an open enough mind to realize that none of the answers have reasonable support under a microscope.
I am not saying that i am right and you are wrong... I am saying you think this and i don't know but i don't believe what you believe.
So where did that large explosion come from? I think you can think of one answer that might make the most sense...and if you are thinking what I'm thinking, it's a start...and that's all I'll give you...I have no desire to steer you into any theology..that all depends on you.
There is a much larger force out there..call it what you want...but you aren't your own maker...something else is involved in sorting out the cards. that somethign else for me is Gd..for you...I'll wait to hear your anwer.
I dont pretend to know what that something else is... I'm just not going to back myself into a corner and say that it was god. It could be god it could be something else. It doesn't have to be god thats my point. If it was created by god then who created god... your same argument puts your argument down as well.
-
I chose #2!
-
wow this is going to be a fun game.... their parents.
and who created their parents? Just keep going....I'm curious to know your answers.
his dad and a sheep... this is pointless.
At some point i do believe that we evolved from a single cellular organism. Where did this single cell organism come from? If you put the right materials together in the right quantities something is bound to happen. Where did the materials come from? Hydrogen. Where did hydrogen come from? A large explosion.
I don't pretend to know all the answers. I admit that what i think may have happened is probably wrong. I just strongly believe that because i cant figure out how it happened, that that necessarily means that there is a higher power. I am blissful in knowing that i am ignorant to the correct answer because i have an open enough mind to realize that none of the answers have reasonable support under a microscope.
I am not saying that i am right and you are wrong... I am saying you think this and i don't know but i don't believe what you believe.
So where did that large explosion come from? I think you can think of one answer that might make the most sense...and if you are thinking what I'm thinking, it's a start...and that's all I'll give you...I have no desire to steer you into any theology..that all depends on you.
There is a much larger force out there..call it what you want...but you aren't your own maker...something else is involved in sorting out the cards. that somethign else for me is Gd..for you...I'll wait to hear your anwer.
I dont pretend to know what that something else is... I'm just not going to back myself into a corner and say that it was G-d. It could be G-d it could be something else. It doesn't have to be G-d thats my point. If it was created by G-d then who created G-d... your same argument puts your argument down as well.
When one gets to the point asking who created Gd, it shows how small each of our mental capacity to understand all of this as you are indicating...It's so complex that to even understand what He does or what He is makes you think, "Wow..that's really huge!"
So I'll end my Gd's existance debate here...
I think you do acknowledge there is something out there..how you decide to personify is really up to you. You said you were agnostic and not an atheist which means that you dont' believe in a theology, but believe in something much larger and more powerful than each one of us. You just choose not to personify how it's done and I have no desire to tell you how you should...That's for you to figure out based on your life experiences.