Kneel!

[Meriweather]

You could have written out that intent several pages ago. As I explained several pages ago, teaching the Bible, which is teaching religion, violates the establishment clause.

And from the beginning I have been insisting the Bible can be taught without teaching religion. And every single time you have ignored this primary point.

 

[Mac-7]

Some of those versions are represented in these various threads and they represent the really angry, science loathing, knowledge fearing, kuffar hating version of Christians.

Will you admit that some democrats are bad people too?

 

[Meriweather]

That’s fine. However, others have reached different conclusions after similar experiences.

Who is the final arbiter of the ‘true” interpretation?

As the gods have chosen not to referee the match, do we add all the personal opinions, divide by the median and reach some truth?

I am not talking about "interpretation". Interpretation came in the fifteen hundreds--thousands of years after most of the Bible was written. I pointed that out early on as well. No referees needed.

 

[JoeB131]

The Founding Fathers did not tout Freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. Their history and culture was the people being required to follow the religion of its leaders. Our Founding Fathers said the leaders of America would not establish a state religion--they would make no law about religion at all.

The founding fathers also thought slavery was nifty, shit in chamber pots and thought bleeding someone was a good treatment for Strep Throat or Yellow Fever.

But as I said, this is an entirely separate discussion. Right now the idea I have presented is about teaching the Bible without teaching the religions that came later.

The problem is, you can't bring your bronze age superstitions into a classroom without giving them weight.

SO let's say we did bible study in the classroom as constructed by Atheists... pick out random stories showing God as cruel and petty, which the bible has PLENTY of. Not the Disney Shit we see in the churches.

 

[Hollie]

That’s fine. However, others have reached different conclusions after similar experiences.

Who is the final arbiter of the ‘true” interpretation?

As the gods have chosen not to referee the match, do we add all the personal opinions, divide by the median and reach some truth?

I am not talking about "interpretation". Interpretation came in the fifteen hundreds--thousands of years after most of the Bible was written. I pointed that out early on as well. No referees needed.

As the authors of the Bible are largely unknown, and Christianity has splintered into many sects / sub-sects with different interpretations of the Bible, I’m talking about interpretation.

Please identify a source for the one, true, correct interpretation of Christianity. Is it yours?

 

[Hollie]

Some of those versions are represented in these various threads and they represent the really angry, science loathing, knowledge fearing, kuffar hating version of Christians.

Will you admit that some democrats are bad people too?

I watched the Barr hearing and admit that the democrats are largely vile. But, I already knew that.

 

[Mac-7]

I watched the Barr hearing and admit that the democrats are largely vile. But, I already knew that.

Yet you support the democrats anyway

 

[Mac-7]

The founding fathers also thought slavery was nifty, shit in chamber pots and thought bleeding someone was a good treatment for Strep Throat or Yellow Fever.

Did that apply to only the founding fathers?

in fact the whole western world thought the same thing

but the founders had an ace in the whole that set them above the rest of the civilized and uncivilized world:

the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution that proclaimed liberty and freedom for all

 

[Hollie]

I watched the Barr hearing and admit that the democrats are largely vile. But, I already knew that.

Yet you support the democrats anyway

No, I don’t.

 

[Meriweather]

Please identify a source for the one, true, correct interpretation of Christianity. Is it yours?

As I mentioned before, Interpretation is a Protestant Reformation idea, that everyone can interpret the Bible for her or himself. I am not in favor of that from anyone. I favor primary sources, or as far back as it is possible to get. I want to know the perspectives of people close to the time anything occurred or was written--not how people thousands of years later interpreted those same events through the lenses and languages of their own modern day.

 

[Meriweather]

The problem is, you can't bring your bronze age superstitions into a classroom without giving them weight.

Horrors! This must mean when I told students a common superstition in the late 1800s and early 1900s was if you found a hairpin they would get a buggy ride. Who knows how many twenty-first students ran out to find hairpins in order to get their buggy ride. I suppose post itself holds enough weight for you to start searching for hairpins?

 

[Meriweather]

SO let's say we did bible study in the classroom as constructed by Atheists... pick out random stories showing God as cruel and petty, which the bible has PLENTY of. Not the Disney Shit we see in the churches.

Go for it. However, it will be important to include when Atheists started up with these interpretations. (Answer: Nineteenth and twentieth centuries, again thousands of years after the accounts were written as seen through the eyes of another culture and language.)

 

[Hollie]

Please identify a source for the one, true, correct interpretation of Christianity. Is it yours?

As I mentioned before, Interpretation is a Protestant Reformation idea, that everyone can interpret the Bible for her or himself. I am not in favor of that from anyone. I favor primary sources, or as far back as it is possible to get. I want to know the perspectives of people close to the time anything occurred or was written--not how people thousands of years later interpreted those same events through the lenses and languages of their own modern day.

If you are rejecting interpretation of the Bible then are we to accept the literal text as true?

How does anyone accept a 6,000 year old planet, a literal global flood, an Ark cruising the seas, men literally living to be 900 years old, talking snakes, etc.?

Or, do we accept your interpretation as explaining what the Bible really means. That would seem to put us back into that feedback loop of interpretation / shuffling explanations are needed to interpret the needed interpretations.

 

[Meriweather]

How does anyone accept a 6,000 year old planet, a literal global flood, an Ark cruising the seas, men literally living to be 900 years old, talking snakes, etc.?

Already asked and answered previously. A refresher:

1. The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth, let alone a six thousand year old earth. Bishop Ussher came up with that in the late 1800s.

2. Study the original language and usage. Zeros were added to make a point that the people of that day understood.

 

[Hollie]

How does anyone accept a 6,000 year old planet, a literal global flood, an Ark cruising the seas, men literally living to be 900 years old, talking snakes, etc.?

Already asked and answered previously. A refresher:

1. The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth, let alone a six thousand year old earth. Bishop Ussher came up with that in the late 1800s.

2. Study the original language and usage. Zeros were added to make a point that the people of that day understood.

1. A common interpretation of the Biblical age of the planet is 6,000 to 10,000 years. If that is wrong, why is it wrong? How do explain a literal Genesis account? Is the Ark fable a literal account? How can the flood fable be a literal rendering of history when the facts of earth history don’t support the fable?

2. I find nothing to support your comment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

So Muslims should be allowed to live by Sharia Law in the US?

I do so appreciate you proclaiming your ignorance on a daily basis.....otherwise, folks wouldn't believe how truly dumb you Leftists are.


Sharia is not consistent with the US Constitution.
A simple test, according to Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” is to ask if the subject of questioning supports the following:

Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion

Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions

Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys

Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax

Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur

Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days

Kill gays

Beyond the secular Progressive view that every group should and must remain separate and distinct, there is an active campaign by Muslim extremists to destroy Western civilization from within- quietly, peacefully, and even legally. Not only is this segment of the American Muslim population not willing to be part of this culture....but their design is to topple and replace it with one beholding to sharia, and ruled not by the Constitution, but by the Koran.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all. Sharia is part of Islam.

Gads, you're a moron.
If the 'religion' is about human sacrifice.......you're down with that, huh?


Keep posting......you're my best weapon against the Democrats/Liberals.

Just so you can attack me properly, I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem.

I wasn't the one who guaranteed freedom of religion, and in effect Sharia Law in the US. That was a really dumb move. It should have read "Freedom FROM religion".

I said you're a moron.

Any religion must be consistent with the Constitution.

Your religion, Militant Secularism, gets in under the wire.

You really don't know much about the Constitution:
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ..."

Maybe you're thinking of the North Korean Constitution?

"American Citizen Accused of Blasphemy Shot Dead in Pakistani Courtroom

American citizen Tahir Ahmad Naseem, 57, was shot six times and killed in a courtroom in Peshawar, Pakistan, on Wednesday, the New York Times reported.

A 19-year old gunman shot Naseem in a courtroom where the former Illinois resident was being tried on charges of claiming to be a prophet. Video of the shooter circulated widely on social media. The killer, only identified as "Faisal," claimed he had received a command from Muhammad in a dream to kill Naseem."

American Citizen Accused of Blasphemy Shot Dead in Pakistani Courtroom

American citizen Tahir Ahmad Naseem, 57, was shot six times and killed in a courtroom in Peshawar, Pakistan, on Wednesday, the New York Times reported. A 19-year old gunman shot Naseem in a courtroom where the former Illinois resident was being tried on charges of claiming to be a prophet. Video...

freebeacon.com

 

[Taz]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

So Muslims should be allowed to live by Sharia Law in the US?

I do so appreciate you proclaiming your ignorance on a daily basis.....otherwise, folks wouldn't believe how truly dumb you Leftists are.


Sharia is not consistent with the US Constitution.
A simple test, according to Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” is to ask if the subject of questioning supports the following:

Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion

Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions

Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys

Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax

Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur

Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days

Kill gays

Beyond the secular Progressive view that every group should and must remain separate and distinct, there is an active campaign by Muslim extremists to destroy Western civilization from within- quietly, peacefully, and even legally. Not only is this segment of the American Muslim population not willing to be part of this culture....but their design is to topple and replace it with one beholding to sharia, and ruled not by the Constitution, but by the Koran.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all. Sharia is part of Islam.

Gads, you're a moron.
If the 'religion' is about human sacrifice.......you're down with that, huh?


Keep posting......you're my best weapon against the Democrats/Liberals.

Just so you can attack me properly, I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem.

I wasn't the one who guaranteed freedom of religion, and in effect Sharia Law in the US. That was a really dumb move. It should have read "Freedom FROM religion".

I said you're a moron.

Any religion must be consistent with the Constitution.

Your religion, Militant Secularism, gets in under the wire.

You really don't know much about the Constitution:
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ..."

Maybe you're thinking of the North Korean Constitution?

"American Citizen Accused of Blasphemy Shot Dead in Pakistani Courtroom

American citizen Tahir Ahmad Naseem, 57, was shot six times and killed in a courtroom in Peshawar, Pakistan, on Wednesday, the New York Times reported.

A 19-year old gunman shot Naseem in a courtroom where the former Illinois resident was being tried on charges of claiming to be a prophet. Video of the shooter circulated widely on social media. The killer, only identified as "Faisal," claimed he had received a command from Muhammad in a dream to kill Naseem."

American Citizen Accused of Blasphemy Shot Dead in Pakistani Courtroom

American citizen Tahir Ahmad Naseem, 57, was shot six times and killed in a courtroom in Peshawar, Pakistan, on Wednesday, the New York Times reported. A 19-year old gunman shot Naseem in a courtroom where the former Illinois resident was being tried on charges of claiming to be a prophet. Video...

freebeacon.com

So what does that copy&paste have to do with our Constitution? Anything at all?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

So Muslims should be allowed to live by Sharia Law in the US?

I do so appreciate you proclaiming your ignorance on a daily basis.....otherwise, folks wouldn't believe how truly dumb you Leftists are.


Sharia is not consistent with the US Constitution.
A simple test, according to Tawfik Hamid, in his book, “Inside Jihad,” is to ask if the subject of questioning supports the following:

Killing of Apostates, those who decide to leave the religion

Beating of women, and stoning them to death for infractions

Calling Jews Pigs and Monkeys

Declaring war on non-Muslims either to convert them, or to have them pay a second-class citizen tax

Enslave and rape female war prisoners, as in Darfur

Fight and kill Jews as preparation for the end days

Kill gays

Beyond the secular Progressive view that every group should and must remain separate and distinct, there is an active campaign by Muslim extremists to destroy Western civilization from within- quietly, peacefully, and even legally. Not only is this segment of the American Muslim population not willing to be part of this culture....but their design is to topple and replace it with one beholding to sharia, and ruled not by the Constitution, but by the Koran.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all. Sharia is part of Islam.

Gads, you're a moron.
If the 'religion' is about human sacrifice.......you're down with that, huh?


Keep posting......you're my best weapon against the Democrats/Liberals.

Just so you can attack me properly, I'm a Libertarian, not a Dem.

I wasn't the one who guaranteed freedom of religion, and in effect Sharia Law in the US. That was a really dumb move. It should have read "Freedom FROM religion".

I said you're a moron.

Any religion must be consistent with the Constitution.

Your religion, Militant Secularism, gets in under the wire.

You really don't know much about the Constitution:
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, ..."

Maybe you're thinking of the North Korean Constitution?

"American Citizen Accused of Blasphemy Shot Dead in Pakistani Courtroom

American citizen Tahir Ahmad Naseem, 57, was shot six times and killed in a courtroom in Peshawar, Pakistan, on Wednesday, the New York Times reported.

A 19-year old gunman shot Naseem in a courtroom where the former Illinois resident was being tried on charges of claiming to be a prophet. Video of the shooter circulated widely on social media. The killer, only identified as "Faisal," claimed he had received a command from Muhammad in a dream to kill Naseem."

American Citizen Accused of Blasphemy Shot Dead in Pakistani Courtroom

American citizen Tahir Ahmad Naseem, 57, was shot six times and killed in a courtroom in Peshawar, Pakistan, on Wednesday, the New York Times reported. A 19-year old gunman shot Naseem in a courtroom where the former Illinois resident was being tried on charges of claiming to be a prophet. Video...

freebeacon.com

So what does that copy&paste have to do with our Constitution? Anything at all?

I must keep you posting: you are my best weapon against what Democrats/Liberals are.

 

[Taz]

So what does that copy&paste have to do with our Constitution? Anything at all?

I must keep you posting: you are my best weapon against what Democrats/Liberals are.

So you don't know either. Got it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what does that copy&paste have to do with our Constitution? Anything at all?

I must keep you posting: you are my best weapon against what Democrats/Liberals are.

So you don't know either. Got it.

I love it.

I point out that Liberals/Democrats have only two modes:

Ignorance or lying.

And you prove it.


Don't ever change.