God is Only a Theory

SD,

I haven't forgotten,,, but since politics is a weak subject for me... I'm gonna have to do some homework before I respond to your last post. Hopefully this weekend. Stand by.
 
hrmwrm, how's that proof of empiricism/materialism coming? You've had a few years to develop it.
 
Hrm lives for the present...........he has no hope of everlasting life because he doesn't believe the promises which believers have put faith in.
`Shrewd is the one who has seen the calamity and hides from it' says the Bible.
The CALAMITY we should be interested in avoiding is called `the great tribulation' and STARTS with the destruction of Babylon the Great,which is WORLDWIDE false religion and includes Christendom, with its trinity and hellfire doctrines,immortality of the soul, and other pagan infusions it deviated to since true Christianity in the first century.
Ths destruction will take place as the wild beast( the UN) attacks it. Remember, the Harlot Babylon the Great is RIDING atop the wild beast and says ``I sit a Queen,and I am NO widow' . All her glory and riches will be appropriated.
This is the calamity we need to avoid as the Bible says.............`GET OUT of her my people if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins.......for her sins have massed together up to the heavens........
You get the idea......abandon false religion while there is still time.
don-ohio
 
SD,

Funny, (odd), that you should mention materialism. PBS has been doing a series on Thursday night, (in my neck of the woods), called "Closer to Truth". In the most recent program... materialism vs. consciousness,,, was the subject. Maybe I can help Wrm out with his study of the subject.

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/does-consciousness-defeat-materialism

Click on the video interview with John Searle... then jump to the video interview with Marilyn Schlitz. Actually,,, the whole series is very good... for thought provoking ideas. The Narrator of the series, (I forget his name), does a very good job of questioning science and God at the same time... while remaining for the most part,,, neutral.

Maybe here would be the best place to start Wrm:

https://www.closertotruth.com/ ,,, and then click on the top link titled "TV Episodes".... and check out the episode previews. But again WRM... you're gonna have to have your thinking cap on,,, and be wearing your "big boy pants"... to have an open mind about what you hear.

Better yet... buy the whole series from the PBS website... to get everything,,, but it won't be available until the whole series is finished.

Actually,,, you can start here:

https://www.closertotruth.com/episodes/what-would-it-feel-be-god

...and below the episode preview link,,, click on the "philosophy of religion" link. At some point,,, you might end up here:

https://www.closertotruth.com/episodes/can-the-divine-be-person.

So once again,,, I've done a bit of homework for you... so grow up and get a pair,,, and do the research.
 
Sorry Cam... I guess I was wrong. The problem is back.

QUOTE DON!!!:

"abandon false religion while there is still time"

Yeah Don... same to you!!! I told you already that I wasn't going to play nice with you anymore. So take your false angel worshiping heretical "religion",,, and just leave. Take your blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... and go back to where you came from. Your "religion" denies Jesus as God... and sees him only as an angel. When history shows that the early Christians of the FIRST CENTURY,,, understood that Jesus was "God in the flesh"... and worshipped Jesus as GOD, (not as "a god").

As I pointed out in post #175,,, about historical PROOF of Jesus... :

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

So Don... it seems,,, much to your contradiction... that First century Christians were worshipping Jesus as God the Almighty (the Tertragrammaton in the flesh). And don't forget that Jesus himself claimed to be GOD, (the Tetragrammaton).

So Don... just go away,,,, because your venom isn't welcome here!!!

Back in post #134... I said this to you:

"So it seems that the original angels who rebelled,,, are in prison. So then,,, what demons did Jesus and the Apostles cast out of people during their time on earth??? Seems that angels are still defecting,,, and rejecting God... and following the devil. Either that... or the devil is a very busy being."

So Don... I'm still waiting for your explanation. You haven't given one,,, becaue you don't have one. So keep your imperfect angel worshipping,,, false god comments to yourself!!!!!!!

Again Don.................. GO AWAY !!!

At YOU Don...

Matthew 23:15

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
 
SD,

Ok... after getting sweverely sidetracked... I'm back on target. At tis point I am not going to beable to repeat from memory,,, what I lost a few days ago.

However,,, you commented that this country was based on Federalism. Would it be acceptible to say that the U.S. was formed as a Federal Republic... but is slowly becoming a 'Unitary Republic" because the current government is trying to take control of all aspects of our life???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic

To me... the "short" definition of a Unitary Republic,,, sound an awful lot like "socialism" to me. Are we in agreement so far?
 
That seems like a fair description. I would say that, pretty much ever since the founding we have had one side of the political debate pushing use down into a democracy or something more like a unitary republic. However, culturally, we are more divided than we have probably ever been since the Civil War.
 
"Scary, isn't it?"

Yes it is Cam... but I think you and I, (and others), see it for what it is... and it's only going to get worse.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3:2-5

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3:1-5&version=NLT;KJV

1 You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. 2 For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. 3 They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. 4 They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. 5 They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!


2 Timothy 3:1-5New International Version (NIV)

1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
 
This past Thursday,,, I read the comments section in a local news paper. Some guy was making very anti-gun statements,,, and accusing people of wanting to wipe out liberals... and people of other mindsets/races. I could no longer keep silent,,, and sent my own comments to the editor. Maybe what I said will get published,,, if not deemed politically incorrect.

My response follows,,, as sent to the editor:


"To whom it may concern:

I request that you print this as is, without removing content or intent of the message. The following is in response to Mr. McComis after his publication in Readers' Forum on Wednesday, July 13th, 2016:

Mr. McComis,
I have sat back silently for months now, as tradgedies have unfolded, both in this country and others, while people have screamed for gun contol.

After reading your comments, I offer some thoughts for you to consider, and hope to open your perspective, (along with others). I am typing this from the perspective of a peson who lost their parents to murder/suicide at a very young age,,, and whose child was almost kidnapped during a high school music trip to NYC a few years back, right in front of my eyes as a chaperone. The details of both circumstances don't matter at this time.

As I am tryping this, the news of the most recent tradgedy in Nice, France... is flashing across the television. I am reflecting on incidents from Columbine... up to present day,,, and see a bigger problem than gun control. You can ban all the guns you want, and then people will use knives. Ban the knives, and people will use Baseball bats. Ban the bats, and people will use pitchforks, rocks, hammers... and even motor vehicles. The worst of the worst use exposives!

A gun is a tool, which can be used for good or evil. No different than the others I mentioned above. A computer is another tool that can be used for good or evil. If you don't believe me, use that computer to do a bit of research on child pornography... or look at it.

So where does the "banning" stop??? No amount of "banning" is going to prevent people from doing wrong to another person. So the crux of the matter comes down to a condition called "the human heart". Any evil done in this country, (or elsewhere), is done because of some misplaced thought process within the individual(s)... that is SELF serving. No amount of regulation or "control" is going to fix that problem.

There is a collection of books, called the Bible,(and others)... that mention this problem with the condition of the human heart. In the Bible, you will find a complete history of all tradgidies commited in millenia past. The cause is the condition of the "human heart". To quote the bible for a moment, Jeremiah 17:9 says: "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?".

To continue... a "liberal" can be Democrat or Republican, religious or non-religious, Christian, or of some other faith... or of no faith. One definition of "liberal" is as follows:

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I think a simpler way to describe a liberal... and their thought process... is "permissive". I.E. Everything is ok and good,,, as long as it doesn't affect me personally. This is EXACTLY the mindset that has gotten this country, (and others),,, in the situations they are now experiencing. The common thought process now is: If everything is right that doesn't harm me personally,,, then how can it be wrong. But if something affects me personally,,, then it is not right. This is not the proper thought process if a person were to take time and reason through everything from a Biblical perspective.

In the end, I hope to keep my guns... in hope of protecting my country and all of my friends and loved ones,,, "against all enemies both foreign and domestic". Isn't that why we pledge allegiance to the United States? Sadly... as the lines have blurred due to permissiveness,,, the enemy is harder to see for who they are.

Name and location not given to protect the innocent."
 
So0 Wrm... there you go! A breif bit of my life history,,, and why I believe in the ONE TRUE GOD. When my parents died by murder/suicide... I, (as an infant), was found approximately 3 days later,,, with no food or water... and am alive to talk about it.

I'm just starting to scratch the surface about my life,,, and how I KNOW that God is real... and does exist. There is another thread,,, where I have talked about this... and much more of circumstances in my life. It's over 300 posts long. If you are interested in reading it,,, PM me... and I will send you a link.
 
SD,

Hopefully the links I share here,,, are neutral enough... and show a contradiction between what was understood back when this nation was founded,,, and what the liberal news media is saying today. I guess maybe I need to clarify my thoughts about this nation being founded as Christian. While the federal government at the time of this nations founding MAY have been neutral,,, this country was still founded as a Christian nation due to the majority of basic "beliefs" of the individuals at the time... that founded this country and government.

So I guess my "ideal" of this nation being founded on Christianity,,, is based on the fact that the indiviuals responsible... were for the most part "Christian"... or accepting of Christian principles. (maybe I'm repeating myself a little here) To a degree,,, because of Christian influence during the founding of this nation... this country was also actually in part,,, a Theocracy... similar to the origins of Mosaic Law found in the Old Testament.

Does that sound a little better?

Links here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_David_Hall

and in contrast,,, this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/living/america-christian-nation/

In the above link... there is a part that says the following:

" The founders purposely created a nation that based its legitimacy on popular will, not on some higher power."

This statement I vehemently disagree with,,, but then again the above link comes from a secular/liberal news source... and is the current beliefs and path this country is taking, ("popular will").

As far as Barton and others... of course they have an agenda,,, but people of opposite thought also have an agenda to disprove God's influence on the founding of this nation,,, in an attempt to create a completely "secular" society in this country. This country is now facing the dilemma of God vs no God, (something that was not an issue when this country was founded),,, and if "no God" wins, (as Wrm would like)... then as seen throughout the history of the Old Testament,,, this nation will crumble.

Over a decade ago,,, I was telling people that this country was starting to follow the ways of the Greeks and Romans of centuries past, (being lovers of "little boys")... and to look at the history of those countries as to what they are now. A former shadow of what they were. Again... the Old Testament shows what happens to a nation when it walks away from God.

I'm not challenging you... but if you can provide other links, (that are neutral), that show the original intent of of the founding fathers... as to whether or not this nation was founded on Christianity,,, I would be willing to look at them.

I did some other searches...

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=did+biblical+law+influence+constitutional+law

... and found some interesting sites that "twist" intent towards "popular will",,, as stated in the CNN article:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...mmandments_really_the_basis_for_our_laws.html

The contrast the above link with this one:

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

As a last comment... all I can say,,, is that it appears that there were some things that were a "given" when this country was founded... that no longer appear to be relevant.
 
SD,

As far as the "Nation State" thing. I still hold my ground that this country was formed with the ide of being a nation state. Same as unified Germany became. Also the same thing the E.U. was,,, until the recent "Brexit"... and what Netanyahu wants Israel to become. If Israel becomes a "Nation State" (even though Obama has tried to deter that), you will have a unified Israel... even though there are different forms of practicing Judaism within the country. Same for the U.S when founded. There were different forms of practicing Christianity... but they were unified under "One Nation". So yes... the U.S. is,,, or at least was... a Nation state at one time.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nation-state

When viewing the U.S. as a "Nation State",,, this puts the idea of "separation of chuch and state" in a different context... as I originally said.
 
In the above link to the definition of a "Nation State",,, this can be found:

"The Future of the Nation-State

In recent years, the nation-state's claim to absolute sovereignty within its borders has been increasingly criticized, especially where minorities do not feel the ruling elite represent their interests. Civil war and genocide among and between national groups within states has led to numerous demands that the United Nations abandon its charter, which holds state sovereignty sacred, and send in peace-keeping troops to resolve internal conflicts. These demands escalated after the collapse of the Soviet Union brought the end of the bi-polar world order beginning in the 1990s.

A global political system based on international agreements, and supranational blocs characterized the post-war era. Non-state actors, such as international corporations and trans-national non-governmental organizations, are widely seen as eroding the economic and political power of the nation-states. Some think this erosion will result in the extinction of the nation-state.[8]"

Yes Cam... it's scary,,, because this seems to be the direction the Nation State of the U.S. ,,, is heading. The "powers that be" in this country, (and other influences)... have studied what Hitler did. First he unified the country,,, then took away rights... then let the criminals turn the country upside down... only to form a totalitarian dictatorship to criminalize those that stood against him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

Now the above link... is very scary.
 
Wasn't really directing the truth toward you,04,since you don't care what's the truth and are drinking Babylon's Kool-Aid WILLINGLY.
I just hope someone lurking in the shadows recognizes the ring of truth from Revelation and gets out of established false religion.
I'll leave the VENOM to you,04.............you have the fangs to spray it.
Remember what a `problem' Jesus and his disciples were for the proud Pharisees? Well,you act like a Pharisee. They claimed Jesus was making himself God too.
`......having a form of godly devotion but PROVING FALSE to its power.' don-ohio :)^)
 
I would most certainly not call the United States anything close to a Theocracy at any time in it's history. Yes, it was a nation created largely by Christians, but they were very clear about their intentions regarding the 1st Amendment and the relation of the Federal government.

the problem is, there has been a lot of mythmaking with regards to this relationship, which ties into the bigger false narrative going back to the early days of the country concerning the nature of the Union (going back to the days of Joseph Story and John Marshall). Most of the typical right wing sources by into both these interelated myths (Heritage, for instance). The Left certainly has their own myths with regards to the 1st Amendment, religion and the state, and the Founding of the nation (the "popular will" thing, for instance), but those don't really seem to be in dispute here.

I mentioned Kevin Gutzman earlier. With very good reason, he is one of my "go to's" on these type of matter. Here is an excerpt from an article he wrote for WaPo in reaction to Stantorm, in the 2012 election, discussed JFK's 1960 speech concerning the separatation of church and state:

The chief craftsman of America’s tradition of church-state separation, Madison, disagreed with Santorum. He developed at great length over more than 50 years his belief in religious freedom. Never again in America should Virginia whip Baptists or Massachusetts hang Quakers. The church should form no part of the state.

With that in mind, Madison at the tender age of 25 coined the phrase “free exercise of religion” for the Virginia Declaration of Rights — America’s first such declaration. He pushed the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to passage, officially separating church from state in the Old Dominion.

Madison also played the lead role in drafting the U.S. Constitution, whose Article VI bans religious tests for office-holding. He led the way in drafting the First Amendment, which paired “free exercise” with a ban on congressional legislation “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Madison’s point was not to exclude believers from politics. That would have been impossible in Madison’s day, when virtually every American believed in God, just as a huge majority of us do now.

Santorum says that, “Unfortunately on that day President Kennedy chose not to dispel fear. In fact, what he chose to do was expel faith.”

This is simply inaccurate. Kennedy invoked Madison in explaining that presidents should neither impose religion nor be accountable to religious figures — in Kennedy’s case, the pope.

For Madison, the separation of church and state was simply that: not that John Jay, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, or any of the other devout politicians of the Revolutionary era must abandon politics, but that they must not impose their religion on others through the instrumentality of the state.

Santorum’s confusion on this score came out in his recent statement that he looked forward to an opportunity as president to lecture Americans on the dangers of contraception. One simply cannot imagine James Madison taking what is so transparently a position dictated by Santorum’s religion, stripping it of its theological foundation, and hectoring his fellow citizens about it.

Santorum seems to think that the president is our official bishop, rabbi, or imam, and that his election would amount to a secular ordination.

“The idea of strict or absolute separation of church and state,” Santorum said, “is not and never was the American model.” What does he mean by that?

Madison explained in his “Memorial and Remonstrance: Against Religious Assessments” (1785) that laws establishing state churches had harmed both government and religion. Profoundly revolutionary in his day, this idea has gained ground since. In our own time, the Roman Catholic Church has banned priests from political service, forcing some to quit Congress.

In retirement, deep consideration of his principle led Madison to conclude that neither Congress nor the U.S. military should have chaplains. He apparently decided that it had been an error for him as president to encourage Americans to pray for victory in the War of 1812, because such blandishments, “seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious [sic] idea of a national religion.” The government, he thought, should neither tax people to pay a minister nor set out particular religious observance that Americans ought to follow.​

Certainly the ideas behind the founding of the nation were, in large part, derived from Christianity, in some fashion (Natural Law). But this is far from establishing a "Christian" nation, especially in anything approaching a theocratic sense of the term. In fact, that idea was explictly rejected in the Constitution. And this rejection was, itself, derived from Christianity just as is the idea of Natural Law expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
 
don-ohio said:
Wasn't really directing the truth toward you,04,since you don't care what's the truth and are drinking Babylon's Kool-Aid WILLINGLY.
I just hope someone lurking in the shadows recognizes the ring of truth from Revelation and gets out of established false religion.
I'll leave the VENOM to you,04.............you have the fangs to spray it.
Remember what a `problem' Jesus and his disciples were for the proud Pharisees? Well,you act like a Pharisee. They claimed Jesus was making himself God too.
`......having a form of godly devotion but PROVING FALSE to its power.' don-ohio :)^)
Click to expand...

I've read this thread from beginning to end. To date, my conclusion is that what "don-ohio" writes indicates that he is a religious fanatic. I don't know him personally, and perhaps he is a good person, but I worry about our society because of his type of inflexible personality.
 
Tijoe,

Don is a Jehova witness. I went round and round with him in another thread,,, until people got tired of the BS... and the thread was closed. He thinks he can EARN his way toward God's acceptance of him... by proselytizing other people to his beliefs. Sadly he doesn't see that that the faith he follows... is a false religion.
 
Don...

Again... spend some time in the trenches of life,,, instead of knocking on doors.

I have a neighbor that has become a severe alcoholic,,, to the point he can't keep a job. His wife attends the same church I do,,, and she told me today that she had the house covered for one more month... until he got in the account and spent money on beer. So now the check won't clear for the house payment. This has been going on for close to a decade,,, and she is finally planning on getting out.

The worst is that now the guy is becoming controlling,,, and wants to know her every move. He's losing it... and I fear for her life!!! Actually,,, so does she! I've talked to the guy about God for a few years now,,, and he says he plays cards with Jesus every Thursday. I have no doubt he's talking to someone... but it ain't God.... and he won't listen to me. Wanna guess who it might be that he is talking to???

You are doing the same thing you did in the other thread. When you can't answer a question... you dodge it and accuse or twist things. The pharisees didn't claim that Jesus was making Himself God... they completely UNDERSTOOD that Jesus was CALLING Himself God, (in the flesh).

Don't forget the historical account of Pliny the Younger,,, that I have mentioned twice in other posts. He reacords that the early Christians worshipped Jesus AS GOD. This HISTORICAL account predates the formation of the Jehova witnesses,,, by centuries!!!

Thankfully Tijoe has seen you for what you are. As I said in the other thread,,, people will see you for what you are... and they did.

Bye bye Don.

Sorry Cam,,, I had to one last time. Won't beat my head against this brick wall again, (hopefully) :)
 
Oh,,, By the way Don...

I forgot to mention that over the years I have helped these neighbors out immensely. (that I won't get into).... to the point I was buying meals for the wife after church... just to make sure she had at least one good meal a week. I have also given her money to help make the house payment in the past... to make sure she had a place to stay. I have borrowed her "WI-FI" in the past... and severely overpaid her,,, just to make sure she had some money in her pocket. I was waiting for her to come to her OWN conclusion,,, that she wasn't in a "healthy relationship"... and needed to get out.

I'm not blowing my own horn,,, but the intent of what I am saying to you... is THIS is how the GOSPEL is meant to be preached. Helping someone out in need... until they understand the life they are living is a dead end. Don't beat them over the head with some sort of Biblical rhetoric.

Don... look at Acts 17:16-29 for an example. The Apostle Paul didn't brow beat anyone... but met them on THEIR terms!!! When he taled about the "unknown God".

16While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

29“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.


Tijoe... I hope I am not coming across as a fanatic also.

Sorry Cam. BTW,,, thanks for the support over the last few months. Good to know someone is in my corner.
 
SD,

Okay... I'm reading your last post,,, and I'm going to break it down into parts... and discuss them separately to a degree.

"I would most certainly not call the United States anything close to a Theocracy at any time in it's history."

I respectfully disagree. If you take a look at the Old Testament... they had a Theocracy set up by God... through Moses. The Israelites/Jews were given the 10 Commandments millenia ago... and as Jesus entered humany history,,, and as Christianity was formed... those tenets were continued as part of the forming of this nation. So yes... this country was formed and based, (for the most part), on Theocractical beliefs.

This is not mythmaking,,, if the Bible and past recorded history are to be considered as accurate.

As far as the 1st Amendment. Again... it was formed because of a tyrannical England at the time (1600's)... which was moving toward a dictatorship formed by by the religion of the day. All things mentioned in the 1st amendment... were repressed by "the (controlling) curch" at the time in England... and the founding fathers of this country wanted to ensure the same thing didn't happen here.

Jefferson may have been a Deist, (one of the rare times E comes before I,,, when there is no C), but even Deists believe in God. So even questionable forms of Christianity... allowed for God and the 10 Commandments,,, to be part of the founding of this nation.

- - - Sidebar - - - For those that don't know what a Deist or Deism is... the basic explanation is that God set everything into motion,,, and then took His "hands off",,, to let man decide his own fate.

I disagree with Deism vehemently also,,, because I have seen God intervene in many peoples lives over the years. If Deism were true,,, then there would have been no need for Jesus to die on the cross for mankind. Deism and Universalism are cousins. One says that the whole thing with God and man, (and the devil), was an experiment,,, so the end result doesn't matter. The other one says that even though people reject the idea of God,,, or God/Jesus Himself... it won't matter because everyone goes to heaven in the end.

I haven't dug deep enough into the history of George MacDonald yet to know the answer,,, but I suspect that the Universalim that George MacDonald believed in and adopted... was a "reformed" version of Deism. Either way... both Lewis and Tolkien disagreed with Mac Donald.

I did a bit of research on the ideas of JFK.... and found this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SsVpkh5yvE

I listened to it a few times... and it seems to a degree,,, that nothing has changed since the time of his speech. However... I caught a few things around the 6:30 - 9:30 minute mark... and listened to it more closely,,, several times.

Part of that is blended together below.

"For which our forefathers did die"... "less favored churches".... with respect to other countries wholly opposed to the "state" (nation state), being used by any religios group , to compel prohibit or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion.... any time,,, in any country".

Keep in mind that JFK was the first Cathoilc President,,, and that he was ensuring that all (Christian) religions would be accepted in this country,,, and that there would be no discrimination of Christians in this country,,, or from other countries... despite there denomination. Kennedy was ensuring that just because he was Catholic,,, that he would not discriminate against any other Chrisitian religion... the same way the "founding fathers" guaranteed the same centuries before.

Notice Kennedy didn't mention Muslims/Isalm, Buddhism, (or others), because such notions in this country weren't even thought of at the time Kennedy was running for President. So is seems that even during the Kennedy era... Christianity was the given and understood faith.

Soo... do you really want to quote or mention Kennedy.

BTW... I found the above video when I did a Google search:

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=jfk's+version+of+separation+of+church+and+state

I always try to mention references... to make known the source of what I talk about.

I'll check into the rest of what you mention... and get back to you.
 
I wasn't arguing that theocracies have never existed. Just that America was not, in any way, founded as such. The fact that there was a theocracy set up by God in the old testement is irrelevant to that claim; a red herring. Also, citing the Isrealites in the Old Testement as an example for other nations is a mistake. The Israelites were a very specific cirumstance, and it was in the Old Testement. Neither is generally applicable to today, epecially in the rhelm of politics, whereas the bible is largely apolitical. There are plenty of opportunists on both sides of the aisle who will pervert God's word to fit their own agenda, but it is mostly a political. This is not to say that religious views don't (or shouldn't) inform someone's political views, but you can't argue that Jesus was a socialist any more than God expects or endorses theocracy. "Don't immanentize the eschaton!" :)

The mythmaking I was referring to was in regards to America's past and the nature of the Union. The history contained in the bible is, again, irrelevant to that.

Jefferson being a Diest and Deists belief in God does, in any way, confirm theocracy. Theocracy is a very specific type of political system that was rejected by the 1st Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 263 (members: 1, guests: 262)
Back
Top