ming_on_mongo is offline ming_on_mongo Post #61  November 19,2009, 1:11pm
ming_on_mongo's Avatar

-Seattle transplant to NorCal... hmmm, sun good!

Veteran

Joined: Jul 2008

NorCal

Posts: 1,215

See profile

notyet wrote :
if you have read any of my posts- and i know you have- you would have to concede that my faith is not blind and has solid reasoning behind it.

you may not agree with my conclusions, but you must admit my faith is thought out.
Actually, I think you're more the exception there, than the "rule", Notyet. And I do respect your arguments.
 
  Reply With Quote
notyet is offline notyet Post #62  November 19,2009, 2:11pm
notyet's Avatar

Power Poster

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 5,237

See profile

ming_on_mongo wrote :
...And by any standard, the occasional atheist/agnostic/humanist rant certainly pales in comparison to the relentless evangelizing by the "saved" ("This is a Christian Nation!", "Honk if you love Jesus!", "Caution, this car will be unmanned during the Rapture!", blah-blah-blah...). So a little "turn-about" now and then is only fair play.
i would agree were it not for the a-theistic stance taken by the educational system and the efforts of the state to indoctrinate my children from an early age into "scientific-agnosticism" for lack of a better term.
 
  Reply With Quote
Rand_011 is offline Rand_011 Post #63  November 19,2009, 2:30pm
Rand_011's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2008

Anaheim

Posts: 998

See profile

notyet wrote :
i would agree were it not for the a-theistic stance taken by the educational system and the efforts of the state to indoctrinate my children from an early age into "scientific-agnosticism" for lack of a better term.
Well said notyet ... Couldn't have said it better myself ...

Reminds me of a discussion my sister in high school had with her teacher in class ... The subject of myths came up ... And the teacher used the Bible as an example for it ... Trouble with his definition of myth is that Napolean's existence would also be a myth ... As would George Washington ... Sister called him out on it ... He proceded to splutter and change the subject.
 
  Reply With Quote
ming_on_mongo is offline ming_on_mongo Post #64  November 19,2009, 7:25pm
ming_on_mongo's Avatar

-Seattle transplant to NorCal... hmmm, sun good!

Veteran

Joined: Jul 2008

NorCal

Posts: 1,215

See profile

notyet wrote :
i would agree were it not for the a-theistic stance taken by the educational system and the efforts of the state to indoctrinate my children from an early age into "scientific-agnosticism" for lack of a better term.
Putting aside for the moment that this is a "secular" nation, what sort of "stance" would you prefer? And you also realize of course, that once you go down that road, it's still never going to be enough for some folks?!
 
  Reply With Quote
notyet is offline notyet Post #65  November 19,2009, 8:01pm
notyet's Avatar

Power Poster

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 5,237

See profile

ming_on_mongo wrote :
Putting aside for the moment that this is a "secular" nation, what sort of "stance" would you prefer? And you also realize of course, that once you go down that road, it's still never going to be enough for some folks?!
but this really wasn't founded to be a secular nation. "on the 18th of april in '75..." at least eight colonies had established state sanctioned churches.

from the declaration of independence...

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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...

...We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

from the articles of confederation...

"And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union."

the above are not the words of a secular nation.

from the constitution of the united states of america...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

and yet the rights of the religious in this country are encroached upon ceaselessly.

i understand the line needs to be somewhere- but it has been pushed too far to the "a-theistic" side. the government is not neutral. it is actively hostile to the public practice of christianity. practice/flaunt whatever else you like in public, whether religious or secular- but do not dare display your christian faith in public or you will be quickly slapped down.
Last edited by notyet; November 19,2009 at 8:59pm. Reason: typo- bound to be one or two in a post this long...
 
  Reply With Quote
ming_on_mongo is offline ming_on_mongo Post #66  November 19,2009, 10:12pm
ming_on_mongo's Avatar

-Seattle transplant to NorCal... hmmm, sun good!

Veteran

Joined: Jul 2008

NorCal

Posts: 1,215

See profile

notyet wrote :
but this really wasn't founded to be a secular nation. "on the 18th of april in '75..." at least eight colonies had established state sanctioned churches......

.......the above are not the words of a secular nation.

from the constitution of the united states of america...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

and yet the rights of the religious in this country are encroached upon ceaselessly.

i understand the line needs to be somewhere- but it has been pushed too far to the "a-theistic" side. the government is not neutral. it is actively hostile to the public practice of christianity. practice/flaunt whatever else you like in public, whether religious or secular- but do not dare display your christian faith in public or you will be quickly slapped down.
Oh boy, I was afraid you were going to resort to that old argument! And I'm not sure it's an "atheistic" side, as much as it's simply "secular" (i.e. "Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body."). Although unless they've started going door-to-door in the 'burbs, and ripping out all the private manger scenes, your last statement still seems just a bit excessive re: any perceived "repression".

But just for the sake of argument, let's say we changed all the stuff that currently gives you heartburn.... then what would that look like, exactly (and still not violate the first amendment)?
 
  Reply With Quote
rix is offline rix Post #67  November 20,2009, 5:15am
rix's Avatar

is now Mr. Librarybabe.

Veteran

Joined: Mar 2008

Cascadia

Posts: 1,387

See profile

blessedinNC wrote :
We aren't "responsible" for the current generation of souls...
As for the "problematic" question - No, it is not problematic that God created such a place. It is mercy and grace and unfathomable love that He created a way that we do not have to end up there.
Then, you are obviously not familiar with your own scriptures. Evangelical author Dallas Willard refers to this as "The Great Omission."

As for the second part; it is highly problematic that you do not find it problematic! Imagine if someone in a position of power created a horrible concentration camp with unimaginable suffering, but told them they could avoid it by certain acts; would they not still be responsible for conceiving of such a place?

C.S. Lewis reminds us that the traditional doctrine of hell "is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked as barbarous and the goodness of God impugned."

Revivalist Jonathan Edwards described it this way: "The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much in the same way as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire... Consider this, you that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without pity... you shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb...There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery... So that your punishment will indeed be infinite."

Therefore, in light of this "revelation," philosopher Hans Kung asks: "What would we think of a human being who satisfied his thirst for revenge so implacably and insatiably?"

Clark Pinnock further adds: "the idea that a fully conscious creature would undergo physical and mental torture through endless time is plainly sadistic and therefore incompatible with (the idea of ) a God who loves humanity... In terms of justice, the traditional view of hell is simply unacceptable. It is a punishment in excess of anything that sinners deserve... Besides, no purpose is served by the unending torture of the wicked except vengeance...

Pinnock continues: "Is it not plain that sins committed in time and space cannot deserve limitless divine retribution? Hell is the ultimate big stick to threaten people with... What human crimes could possibly deserve everlasting conscious torment? Surely the idea of everlasting conscious torment raises the problem of evil to impossible heights...Any doctrine of hell needs to pass the moral test."

The problem is further compounded by the belief that hell was "created for the devil and the fallen angels." However, the popular conception as highlighted by John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress (second only to the Bible as a Christian book) notes: "The Devils are the Almighty's agents and just executioner of his deserved vengeance against sinners" (Visions of Heaven and Hell). Therefore, the belief is that hell was "created for the devil and the fallen angels." Yet, "unredeemed humans" are the recipients of the worst form of everlasting conscious torment by demons who are both jailers and tormentors carrying out the Almighty's bidding. And you do not find any of this problematic?
Last edited by rix; November 20,2009 at 5:20am.
 
  Reply With Quote
rix is offline rix Post #68  November 20,2009, 5:59am
rix's Avatar

is now Mr. Librarybabe.

Veteran

Joined: Mar 2008

Cascadia

Posts: 1,387

See profile

Anyways, forgive me for interrupting the current flow of energy and exchange. I do not want to disrupt the current feng shui flow of the thread, but the previous response was crying out for a reply.

And, as for the current discussion, and everybody appealing to the founding fathers to support their position, it is significant to note that the founding fathers were hardly "evangelical Christians." True, they appealed to "nature's God," but they viewed this "God" as "the watchmaker"- who basically set the created order in motion, but who does not intervene in anyway once the whole "clock" was set in motion. Hardly, the God of Judeo-Christendom who directly intervenes in the affairs of this world. They were products of their time. They were men of the Enlightenment. They were known as deists (simply the Roman word for God, so they would not be confused with "theists"). And, in a world where kings governed by "divine right" and "the grace of God," what the founders of the colonies put forth was radical and revolutionary for it's time. Of course, the ideas of the Enlightenment were taken to the next level culminating with the French Revolution.

However, the founding fathers of this land were hardly the "men of God" that evangelicals conceive them to be. Thomas Paine who wrote the pamphlet Common Sense that sowed the seeds for the American Revolution, also wrote about the nature of "Christian mythology" in The Age of Reason. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the miracles and supernaturalism found in the Bible. Therefore, he edited his own Bible, reducing it to basically the Sermon on the Mount and the moral sayings of Jesus, devoid of all supernaturalism. And, Benjamin Franklin, was not even ranked among his deist peers- Washington, Jefferson, Paine, and others, he was actually more of a skeptic. The Tripoli accords would later sum up the spirit of the times by noting that "The United States was not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." The structure is basically Greco-Roman mixed with elements of freemasonry and Iroquois notions of democracy. That is why we have a senate instead of a sanhedrin!

Yet, it is a mystery as to why the "rational religion" of deism did not really survive and thrive beyond the period of the Enlightenment. It seemed to have all but died with end of the "Age of Reason." Very few wear the mantle of deist today. One notable deist is former Czech playwright and dissident turned president of the new Czech Republic- Vaclav Havel.
Last edited by rix; November 20,2009 at 6:08am.
 
  Reply With Quote
ming_on_mongo is offline ming_on_mongo Post #69  November 20,2009, 10:20am
ming_on_mongo's Avatar

-Seattle transplant to NorCal... hmmm, sun good!

Veteran

Joined: Jul 2008

NorCal

Posts: 1,215

See profile

Thanks, Rix, and I wasn't aware of that quote from the Treaty of Tripoli (Article 11), which BTW, was signed by no less than that revered icon of Conservatism, then President John Adams!

 
  Reply With Quote
notyet is offline notyet Post #70  November 21,2009, 10:31pm
notyet's Avatar

Power Poster

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 5,237

See profile

rix wrote :
...Pinnock continues: "Is it not plain that sins committed in time and space cannot deserve limitless divine retribution? Hell is the ultimate big stick to threaten people with... What human crimes could possibly deserve everlasting conscious torment? Surely the idea of everlasting conscious torment raises the problem of evil to impossible heights...Any doctrine of hell needs to pass the moral test."...
i am unfamiliar with pinnock. but he needs to read his bible. and perhaps this thread...
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« How are you obedience to God in your dating, and how has that produced abundant life? | Christian Singles | Zero replies from my matches »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“It's important to understand the way a site works. Rigidly assuming / insisting that eH works likes all the others you're used to isn't utilizing the site functions to your best advantage. No.... ... ” –  Wiseman2

Join the “First contact on eHarmony, smile, questions, email?” discussion

“ If you have yet to meet, you don't know him or whether you two will form a connection. Connections formed over e-mail tend to be fantasies. You will see this echoed over and over by experienced ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “How do i recoonect with him again?” discussion

“ Then it's a bit premature to worry about being friend-zoned. The first step is to go out on dates! What specific steps did you try? How many women did you ask out in person? Did you buy a ... ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “For women to answer: How to avoid the friend zone” discussion

“ This is an old thread. She asked this in 2010. By now they are likely very exclusive or very over. ” –  shapeShifter79

Join the “is there a reason to ask if we're exclusive?” discussion

“ I'm sure he wouldn't get that. And I can't be sure that was the actual message. But it sems kind of likely to me.” –  boomer_gal

Join the “Why am I not successful?” discussion

“Hi eccemuliere and welcome to eHA.On an internet forum like eHA, you're going to get a wide variety of responses; some you'll like and some you won't. It's best to focus on the ones that speak to ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Being blown off, or something else?” discussion

“ Although I have ignored my gut at times, in hindsight it's always been right, in terms of recognizing bad choices. QUOTE] But once we realize our past mistakes, we can use our reason to clue us ... ” –  eccemuliere

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:51pm.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0