Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[ThisIsMe]

Then you didn't open the link.

I am not interested in your bad faith posting.

I clicked on your google search it just brought up a bunch of links. Which one in particular do you want me to read?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Right, as long as we all pretend to be stupid.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Simply mentioning the word God is not an establishment.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

By using the phrase "in God We Trust" does not violate the First Amendment was my point because it does not say whose God. I saw your later post that indicates we agree. Thanks.

Would the phrase “There is no God” placed on money, violate the first amendment?

 

[ding]

Saint_Ding favors leaders who believe in a Creator Being and oppose the separation of church and state.

Saint_Ding is fond of two that are white Christian nationalists of the three authoritarians listed above.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Vladimir Lenin

 

[whutTHEYsay]

i. Separation of Church and State? 240813 {post•387}. ding Aug’24 Ssocas: Are you going to make me prove that every communist regime was a regime of militant atheists? dvng 240813 Ssocas00387


ii. Separation of Church and State? 240814 {post•445}.

NotfooledbyW Aug’24 Vsocas: What does it matter if you or any head in the clouds moral instructor of life proves that every regime was a regime of militant atheists Saint_Ding? I mean, do we really need it As a matter of practical concern experience as we experience life as we know it in the here and now? nfbw 240814 Vsicas00445

 

[Foxfyre]

I know a great many Christians. Even so, that is a very small percentage. No Christian I know has any anger or resentment towards Darwin. As I've mentioned to you before, only about thirty percent of Christians take all Biblical accounts literally. In the 1970s there was a big push by one denominations (Evangelicals) for everyone to read the Bible literally, but that has since ebbed. As I have also explained, Catholics are all welcome to make their own decision about whether or not to read Biblical accounts literally. Apparently it is a big thing in your denomination or locale, but it never has been in either my denomination or locales.

And our Constitution allows every citizen to be a Biblical literalist or not, be a Christian or not, choose whatever denomination they identify with or not identify with any denomination at all, be a person of faith or Atheist, be religious or non practicing. And it also forbids the federal government from interfering with the people's expression of religious belief/faith in their societies however much the ACLU and erroneous court decisions have corrupted that intent.

I have run across a Christian now and then who thinks Darwin should not be taught in schools but such are far too rare to have any significant power in society. There are more Christians--I would be one of them--who think it is okay to include intelligent design as one theory of how we got from the beginning to now though a good science teacher will explain that we currently have no means to test that theory scientifically. Yet many scientists do accept it at least as a possibility. Spinoza and Einstein would be included among those. Such teaching is honest and in no way violates the Constitution.

In my opinion good science instruction--good religious instruction for that matter--does not tell the students what they must believe about anything but rather teach the collective body of thought of what we have learned, what we know, what is believed and encourage the student to consider all of it critically and without prejudice.

 

[Meriweather]

And our Constitution allows every citizen to be a Biblical literalist or not, be a Christian or not, choose whatever denomination they identify with or not identify with any denomination at all, be a person of faith or Atheist, be religious or non practicing. And it also forbids the federal government from interfering with the people's expression of religious belief/faith in their societies however much the ACLU and erroneous court decisions have corrupted that intent.

I have run across a Christian now and then who thinks Darwin should not be taught in schools but such are far too rare to have any significant power in society. There are more Christians--I would be one of them--who think it is okay to include intelligent design as one theory of how we got from the beginning to now though a good science teacher will explain that we currently have no means to test that theory scientifically. Yet many scientists do accept it at least as a possibility. Spinoza and Einstein would be included among those. Such teaching is honest and in no way violates the Constitution.

In my opinion good science instruction--good religious instruction for that matter--does not tell the students what they must believe about anything but rather teach the collective body of thought of what we have learned, what we know, what is believed and encourage the student to consider all of it critically and without prejudice.

I agree. Excellent post.

 

[Donald H]

I know a great many Christians. Even so, that is a very small percentage. No Christian I know has any anger or resentment towards Darwin.

Dislike, resentment, and animosity toward Darwin has been voiced on this forum but I can't gauge how prevalent it is among other Christians

As I've mentioned to you before, only about thirty percent of Christians take all Biblical accounts literally.

Where did you get your 30% figure, and does it record the % over previous decades or centuries?

In the 1970s there was a big push by one denominations (Evangelicals) for everyone to read the Bible literally,

If it's 30% now then what was it in the 70's?

but that has since ebbed. As I have also explained, Catholics are all welcome to make their own decision about whether or not to read Biblical accounts literally. Apparently it is a big thing in your denomination or locale, but it never has been in either my denomination or locales.

Of course all Christians are entitled to their various interpretations of the bibles. I wonder if you and Ding accept others' interpretations. Let's ask him?

I think we are on the verge of establishing a milestone here.

 

[Donald H]

And our Constitution allows every citizen to be a Biblical literalist or not, be a Christian or not, choose whatever denomination they identify with or not identify with any denomination at all, be a person of faith or Atheist, be religious or non practicing. And it also forbids the federal government from interfering with the people's expression of religious belief/faith in their societies however much the ACLU and erroneous court decisions have corrupted that intent.

I have run across a Christian now and then who thinks Darwin should not be taught in schools but such are far too rare to have any significant power in society. There are more Christians--I would be one of them--who think it is okay to include intelligent design as one theory of how we got from the beginning to now though a good science teacher will explain that we currently have no means to test that theory scientifically. Yet many scientists do accept it at least as a possibility. Spinoza and Einstein would be included among those. Such teaching is honest and in no way violates the Constitution.

In my opinion good science instruction--good religious instruction for that matter--does not tell the students what they must believe about anything but rather teach the collective body of thought of what we have learned, what we know, what is believed and encourage the student to consider all of it critically and without prejudice.

I.D. was tested in a court of law and it was found to not be legal to teach in the schools. I.D. challenged science with pseudo-science and science won. [\b]

There was a way to test it! But religion just continues to persist with the lie that is now deliberate.

Meriweather tells us that Christians are free to believe the bible is literal or not. The ID'ers obviously don't accept that.

 

[BreezeWood]

That is your opinion. Noted and dismissed with prejudice.

provide the tablets claimed to be etched in the heavens by the liar moses or remove those that are there, false commandments - as not to live in torment as moses for their crime against the heavens.

 

[Meriweather]

I wonder if you

....

accept others' interpretations.

Speaking for myself: All my life I have appreciated all the different insights. Went to Catholic school and we spent some time in religion class discussing the different views Saints had on the Bible; extended family life included Protestants, atheists, and Buddhists, so naturally there were different perspectives, even among those in the same denominations. And that's why my astonishment when you expect everyone to all have the same cookie stamp insights into Biblical accounts.

 

[Meriweather]

Meriweather tells us that Christians are free to believe the bible is literal or not. The ID'ers obviously don't accept that.

Keep in mind many who accept evolution still hold the belief it is by God's design. Many of us do not hold the belief that God acted as a Genii blinking everything into existence. God is described as Creator, and in our existence we can see in our own lives, that creation goes step by step.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have known many Christians in my lifetime, some well informed, some not so much, some quite dogmatic and some more informed and less likely to demand dogma. I have never met a Christian of ANY stripe who was as bigoted, judgmental, uninformed, hateful and malicious as your post here. Do have a lovely evening.

and what might that be, the faith of others ...

your denial of the recorded history for the desert religions, persecution and victimization of the innocent ...

does not make their history any different than what has transpired and for christianity the direct link of their 4th century bible and the crimes they commit to the present time is without dispute.

 

[Donald H]

....

Speaking for myself: All my life I have appreciated all the different insights. Went to Catholic school and we spent some time in religion class discussing the different views Saints had on the Bible; extended family life included Protestants, atheists, and Buddhists, so naturally there were different perspectives, even among those in the same denominations. And that's why my astonishment when you expect everyone to all have the same cookie stamp insights into Biblical accounts.

Haven't I readily accepted different cookie stamps? I accept that Christians are widely divided on what they believe.

I can now add that IMO they're too much divided to present a theory.

 

[Donald H]

Keep in mind many who accept evolution still hold the belief it is by God's design.

I do keep that in mind, but I might not accept it on all the questions. If I'm tested then I hope I can give an appropriate answer. For one example I would use the I.D. theory and provide a reason why it's not acceptable. As another example I would refer to the Jonah story, but understanding that not all Christians don't believe it's literally true.

Many of us do not hold the belief that God acted as a Genii blinking everything into existence. God is described as Creator, and in our existence we can see in our own lives, that creation goes step by step.

Yes, and I believe that you're putting your beliefs to the test on this forum. In essence, we're all doing the same.

Maybe I can just say that for all your examples, science will continue to search for one correct answer.

You're telling me now that you have found the answer but it's not the correct answer for all Christians.

I'm going to accept that.

My answer is not the same.

 

[Donald H]

God is described as Creator, and in our existence we can see in our own lives, that creation goes step by step. Many of us do not hold the belief that God acted as a Genii blinking everything into existence.

With all due respects on what you believe, those statements represents a milestone achieved.

Maybe you've been saying that all along? Would you care to provide an explanation on your belief that your god didn't blink everything into existence? It could take us at least halfway to finding agreement.

 

[Meriweather]

Maybe you've been saying that all along?

Yes. For decades.

 

[Donald H]

I think we owe it to Meriweather to say that a civil and polite discussion brings acceptance and results for everyone.

And exactly to the contrary with Ding and his attitude that he can gain something by insulting those with beliefs that differ from his.

 

[Donald H]

Yes. For decades.

Yes, creation going step by step and your god not blinking everything into existence, can be interpreted by this atheist as saying that we're at least halfway to finding agreement.
That might take you all the way on finding common ground with Deists?

 

[Foxfyre]

I.D. was tested in a court of law and it was found to not be legal to teach in the schools. I.D. challenged science with pseudo-science and science won. [\b]

There was a way to test it! But religion just continues to persist with the lie that is now deliberate.

Meriweather tells us that Christians are free to believe the bible is literal or not. The ID'ers obviously don't accept that.

And whatever courts ruled that it was illegal were in error. I think those capable of critical thinking, logic and reason do not look to the courts for what is right and wrong.