Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 2:58 AM
23 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Interesting quiz
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 61 of 79 (283796)
02-04-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
02-03-2006 6:51 PM


Re: Bunch of crap

Or maybe you just got angry that the notions of US history and the basis of our government are not based in Christianity like you thought they were.

No where in any of my posts have I claimed that, but yet you keep thinking that I do.

Stop it.

We are a Christian nation, because we are made up of mostly Christians.

Which by the way means nothing to me, because I do not even feel that most of these so called Chriatians actually behave like Christians, or really make an attempt to.

But one thing is for sure, and that is that the nation was not formed on atheistic values. They believed in God, and wanted freedom of religion. They wanted government and religion to be separated so that religious leaders could not legally tell you what to do. The religious leaders of the day were IMO POS. Sound familiar?


You do know that those questions were all factual in basis, right?

What does that have to do with the price of butter?

Post modern rationalizing is a dying fad schraf, give it up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 02-03-2006 6:51 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2006 9:23 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 02-04-2006 2:35 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 64 by nator, posted 02-04-2006 7:24 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 79 (283841)
02-04-2006 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by riVeRraT
02-04-2006 12:32 AM


Re: Bunch of crap
But one thing is for sure, and that is that the nation was not formed on atheistic values. They believed in God, and wanted freedom of religion. They wanted government and religion to be separated so that religious leaders could not legally tell you what to do. The religious leaders of the day were IMO POS. Sound familiar?

Yeah. It's a philosophy known today as "secularism."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by riVeRraT, posted 02-04-2006 12:32 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 63 of 79 (283926)
02-04-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by riVeRraT
02-04-2006 12:32 AM


more of crap?
quote:
But one thing is for sure, and that is that the nation was not formed on atheistic values.

What in the world are "atheistic values"?


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by riVeRraT, posted 02-04-2006 12:32 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 79 (283999)
02-04-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by riVeRraT
02-04-2006 12:32 AM


Re: Bunch of crap
quote:
But one thing is for sure, and that is that the nation was not formed on atheistic values.

The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are based upon the humanistic values of the Enlightenment. That is, it was based upon secular values.

I am not sure what "atheistic values" consist of.

quote:
They believed in God,

Most of the Founding Fathers did not believe in the Christian concept of God.

...which means that most of them were not Christians.

quote:
and wanted freedom of religion.

Correct.

quote:
They wanted government and religion to be separated so that religious leaders could not legally tell you what to do.

Close.

They wanted separation of church and state so that;

1) there would be no requirement to be a member of the state religion in order to hold public office,

2) the government would not endorse any religion, as they came from a government in which this was the case and they saw the inappropriate and corrupting influence that church leaders had, and

3) they believed that which religion a person chose, if any, was personal and should be free from government interference.

You do know that those questions were all factual in basis, right?

quote:
What does that have to do with the price of butter?

You got angry and seemed threatened and upset when presented with the facts.

That's why it is relevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by riVeRraT, posted 02-04-2006 12:32 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by riVeRraT, posted 02-05-2006 12:45 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 65 of 79 (284002)
02-04-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by riVeRraT
02-04-2006 12:27 AM


Re: Bunch of crap
quote:
Yes, half that stuff is governed.

Which stuff?

Can you please point out the specific laws that you believe regulates what brenna described?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by riVeRraT, posted 02-04-2006 12:27 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 02-05-2006 12:46 PM nator has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 66 of 79 (284136)
02-05-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
02-04-2006 7:24 PM


Re: Bunch of crap

You got angry and seemed threatened and upset when presented with the facts.

I am not angry at the facts, but angry at a possible hidden agenda, which some have agreed that there might be one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 02-04-2006 7:24 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 02-05-2006 1:19 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 67 of 79 (284137)
02-05-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by nator
02-04-2006 7:28 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
In R and D, can you just do what ever you want?
Or are there ethical laws that determine just what you can get away with.

FDA, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by nator, posted 02-04-2006 7:28 PM nator has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 68 of 79 (284145)
02-05-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by riVeRraT
02-05-2006 12:45 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
The hidden agenda was not very well hidden. It was an attempt to point out that most folk don't have a clue of actual history.

Take some time, if possible, and go back through the test. Look at each question and then tell us what your objection is to the question and perhaps we can discuss its merit.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by riVeRraT, posted 02-05-2006 12:45 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 69 of 79 (284161)
02-05-2006 2:56 PM


17
Only because of somethings I've learned here.
  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 79 (284220)
02-05-2006 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by macaroniandcheese
02-02-2006 10:40 AM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
Not really sure what you are referring to. My point is that the idea of separation of Church and State is a decidedly anti-Catholic idea.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 10:40 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-05-2006 6:14 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 71 of 79 (284221)
02-05-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Silent H
01-31-2006 5:09 AM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
Holmes, we have 2 definitions of "secularists". I don't use the word as you suggest because I think most people understand it to mean something akin to the government being secular, which is wrong. The government is not suppossed to be "secular" or non-secular. If anything, it should to being pro-religion in general, but non-coercive and non-sectarian.

I think people use the claim of "secular" to propose secularism as the official religion/ideology, and so a secular hero, for example, can have a statue or something secular in a courthouse or public grounds, but anything connected to religion is suspect. Imo, that's wrong, and that's not what the Anabaptists, Baptists and others were talking about when they advocated separation of Church and State.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 01-31-2006 5:09 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 02-06-2006 9:18 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 72 of 79 (284222)
02-05-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by arachnophilia
02-01-2006 1:03 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
By the way, churches do not need a 501C3 determination but are automatically exempt, period.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 02-01-2006 1:03 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by arachnophilia, posted 02-05-2006 6:58 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 73 of 79 (284223)
02-05-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by macaroniandcheese
02-02-2006 10:42 AM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
Brenna, can you show where the Puritans talked of freedom of religion as a principle?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 10:42 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-05-2006 6:13 PM randman has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2101 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 74 of 79 (284224)
02-05-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by randman
02-05-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
they came to america seeking freedom from persecution. but they did anything but allow the same to others.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 02-05-2006 6:07 PM randman has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2101 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 75 of 79 (284225)
02-05-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
02-05-2006 6:00 PM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
well, apparently it's a decidedly anti-christian idea.

you know. like forgiveness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 02-05-2006 6:00 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019