PDA

View Full Version : A Christian Interviews a Relativist... Who Wins?



Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 04:59 AM
“Harper’s” Editor Lewis Lapham Rejects God, Hates Christianity Upon Which America Was Founded


By John Lofton, Editor

“After three decades as editor [of “Harper’s” magazine], Lewis Lapham is moving on to take a very long view. He is starting a magazine on history.” – Report on “National Public Radio’s” program “Morning Edition,” 12/26/05.

I have no idea what, exactly, will be in Mr. Lapham’s new magazine. It doesn’t yet exist. But, in his “NPR” interview he seemed not overly-familiar with at least one important aspect of American history. For example, he complained that the “democratic idea” in our country is not strongly held or felt. He said, in part:”Democracy requires participation and it requires a literate, engaged citizenry. And I don’t think we have that….Democracy is about argument face to face. It’s people that come from different parts of the society and have different interests, points of view, and confront one another. But we’ve been losing that over the last 20 years.” But, of course, America is not a “democracy” – never has been, is not now. Our Founders gave us a representative, Constitutional, Republic.

But, Lapham’s obliviousness to this important aspect of American history is one of his lesser shortcomings (more about this in a few paragraphs). And hearing his voice on the radio reminded me of an interview I did with him about three years ago.

Now, three years ago, I knew then what I know now – there is a palpable hatred for the God of the Bible in our country. This is not news to any discerning observer. But seldom had I seen such God-hate expressed so blatantly and explicitly as at a forum at the Herbst Theatre in San Francisco (4/18/02), a forum co-sponsored by The Independent Institute and “Harper’s” magazine. The topic was: “Understanding America’s Terrorist Crisis: What Should Be Done?” Those participating in this discussion were: Barton J. Bernstein, History Professor, Stanford University; Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow, The Independent Institute; Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Lewis H. Lapham, Editor, “Harper’s” magazine; Gore Vidal, novelist.

At one point, when the subject of restoring our country comes up, Lapham asks: “So, what do we do, is the point.” The transcript shows these following exchanges:

Vidal ( a homosexual): “Pray.”

(Laughter.)

Lapham: “But to whom? I mean not to —.

(Applause).

Vidal: “You pick yours, I pick mine.”

(Applause).

JOHN ASHCROFT ‘close in spirit to the disciples of Osama bin Laden?’ No, not at allLapham: “I mean when we get to the position of [John] Ashcroft. We now have our Attorney General on record, as recently as last February in Nashville, talking to 6,000 religious broadcasters, and explaining to them that our freedoms did not come to us from human hands. Not a document. Not a Declaration Of Independence. Our freedom is given to us by God, and he has also explained, when he goes around to speak to universities, that the United States has only one king, and that king is Jesus. And this is the Attorney General of the United States. And he’s also on record as saying that the only verdict that he is interested in is the verdict of eternity, not history.”

Vidal: “Hmm. That’s very good. Yeah, well. He’s not getting either.”

Lapham: “He is close in spirit to the disciples of Osama bin Laden, I would think.”

Vidal: “Oh, I’d think very like. I think they understand each other….”

A little later, Lapham turns to the panel noting that “they will show us the way out. Right?”

Vidal: “Into green pastures.”

Lapham: “We have been reduced to prayer over here. So maybe Barton Bernstein can offer us a more secular notion.”

Bernstein: “Well, actually, Lewis, I was hoping you were going to offer me the mandate of leading the group in prayer….”

(Laughter).

Later on, this question is asked: “You all seem to agree the United States in some way provokes attacks like 9/11. Do you think hatred from religious extremism plays a role?”

Vidal: “Yes. Very simply, yes. And I regard the greatest disaster to ever befall the West was monotheism.”

Applause.

Lapham: “In show business, there’s a saying that you always try to find a line to walk on. And it means I don’t think you get a better one than that.”

Vidal: “Particularly if there’s water.”

Applause.

Outraged by the mocking of Christ and Christianity by these fools, I called Lewis Lapham (10/31/02), interviewed him, and here’s the way it went (with some slight editing).

Q: Are you serious when you reject the idea that our freedoms come to us from God?

A: Oh, very much so. I think that is an appallingly bad idea.

Q: Where do our freedoms come from?

A: They come from the consent of the governed, from the writing of the Constitution, from human beings. The notion that they come from God is Osama bin Laden.

Q: I thought our rights are inalienable.

A: I think the phrase ‘consent of the governed’ is from the Declaration of Independence.

Q: But this document has no force of law.

A: Well, neither does God, believe me.

Q: Do you believe there are inalienable rights?

A: No.

Q: So, how are right and wrong determined, by majority vote?

A: By moral consensus. Morality is something human beings make.

Q: So, if enough people got together and thought that putting Jews into ovens was OK it would be OK?

A: No, I don’t think so.

Q: Why not?

HOMOSEXUAL GORE VIDAL mocks prayer, as does LaphamA: Because, again, it’s not a majority vote. There are, at least in my opinion, certain moral ideas, imperatives. I think it’s bad news to put anybody in an oven.

Q: But how do we determine what’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’?

A: We uh, uh —.

Q: I agree with you about putting people into ovens because I’m a Christian and believe this is bad because God says murder is bad. Why do you think putting people into ovens is bad?

A: Because I think it is bad and evil.

Q: I understand. But what is the standard by which you judge things to be ‘bad’ or ‘evil’?

A: By my understanding of human freedom, human liberty, human beings, what I assign — I assign certainly the possibility of virtue to all people. And I think the universe is moral. I think that to act in a moral way makes people happy.

Q: But, you’re just giving me a watered-down, secular version of what the Bible says — that those who obey God are blessed, happy, and those who disobey God are cursed.

Q: But it’s another way of stating what the Greeks would say. It’s the same thing Sophocles or Aeschylus would be saying, what the Buddhists would say. In other words, when St. Paul in the Letter to the Romans says, essentially, render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, what he is saying at that time —.

Q: Actually, Jesus said this not St. Paul.

A: All right. He has a letter to the Romans in which he is trying to distinguish, he’s trying to tell the Romans that they are obliged to accept the secular authority whatever the secular authority might be at the time, right? Whatever the secular government is, obey it, right?

Q: But, not blind obedience to Caesar, no.

A: If you’ll read the letter to the Romans I think that is exactly what you’ll find.

Q: But the precise distinction Christ was making was —.

A: But this was St. Paul not Christ.

Q: St. Paul did not say ‘render unto Caesar.’ Jesus did.

LAPHAM IGNORES crimes of his fellow God-haters like Red China’s mass murderer of millions Mao Tse-TungA: I accept that. But this was the sense of [St. Paul’s] letter.

Q: But, your problem, if I may say so, is you have no answer to the questions: What is God’s? What is Caesar’s? And you have no answer because you say there is no God!

A: No, there isn’t one. I don’t think so. It’s a lovely idea.

Q: What fascinates me about people like yourself is that even though you reject God and His Word you still have your list of commandments, your idea of what’s right and wrong and good and evil. But, when I press you on where right and wrong and good and evil come from, you have no answer that goes beyond your personal opinion.

A: It also comes out of history, observation, you know.

Q: But ‘history’ is such a mixed-bag of everything it does not tell us what’s right, wrong, good or evil. It’s like citing ‘nature.’

A: OK. I’ll take [Thomas] Paine’s position for which he was pilloried by John Adams. He (Paine) said God is in my own mind.

Q: Right — in your own mind. Walt Whitman call your office.

A: I’ll go with that.

Q: God is in your own mind. That sounds like Son of Sam. He had a little voice in his head telling him to murder people.

A: I’m sorry. You’ve got to face the differences between people.

Q: By the way, you should read Charles Norris Cochrane’s “Christianity And Classical Culture.” He documents in detail how Christianity triumphed and those Greeks failed miserably because they were Godless and tried to achieve permanent peace, freedom and security through politics.

A: I still think that’s the only way to do it. And the Christians were a thousand years of bloodshed. I would hardly say the Christians succeeded. I mean, that to me is insane.

Q: You mean they did not overcome and triumph over the Roman Empire?

A: Into what? Into a long record of massacre?

Q: The bloodiest century in recorded history was the 20th century. And the big blood-shedders were not Christians. They were Mao Tse-tung, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot — tell me which ones were Christians.

ADOLF HITLER ‘a Christian?’ Yep, that’s what Lapham says – and he’s seriousA: I think you got a Christian with Hitler.

Q: Oh, really?!

A: I think he would have thought of himself as a Christian.

Q: Well, now that’s a very different thing. Just because Hitler might of thought of himself as a Christian doesn’t mean he was one. The Lord said that Christians will be known by their fruits, by their actions. And He said that it will be known that one is a Christian if he obeys Christ’s commandments!

I can’t think of a whole lot of Christ’s commandments obeyed by Hitler….

A: We also killed three million Cambodians. The American Air Force did.

Q: Really?! Where did you get that number?

A: It’s a fairly common number.

Q: I thought there were only about three or four million people in Cambodia and Pol Pot killed about half of them.

A: I think we killed more than Pol Pot managed to kill.

Q: But where do you get the figure three million?

A: I’ve used that number many times.

Q: (laughing derisively) Then it must be true because you used it!

A: No, because anything I use in the magazine is checked for its source.

Q: It seems to me that the fatal flaw in your reasoning — for a nation, a family or an individual —

is that if, as you say, our freedoms come from human hands, then human hands can take them back.

A: Yes, they can. And often do.

Q: But, I don’t believe that. I don’t believe our freedoms are given to us by the State. Freedom and liberty do not come from the State! You really believe that?!

A: I really do. I believe freedom and liberty come from our State, from our politics, not from God. That’s the greatness of the American Constitution and the American idea. That’s the greatness of the Enlightenment.

Q: You mean the Constitution that was signed in the year of our Lord?

A: I don’t call it the year of our Lord.

Q: But the Constitution does. It says it was done “in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.”

A: All right. Fine. But the point is that the glory that was Greece —

Q: Right. The glory that was Greece: Homosexuality, infanticide, suicide.

A: The Catholic Church is far worse.

Q: I’m a Reformed Protestant defending Biblical Christianity.

A: It’s a long record of murder. The Spanish Inquisition —..

Q: We were victims of that.

A: The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.

Q: Again, that was us.

A: The butchery that was done in the Name of the Christian God —.

Q: But, I just pointed out to you that the greatest butchery of all times was done in the 20th century by anti-Christians !

A: It was a bloody century.

Q: Did you grow up in a Christian family?

A: Nominally. I never went to church. My parents were Episcopal.

Q: And from the beginning you believed there is no God?

A: Yeah. Though I took it very seriously in college. I was obsessed with the notion of the Christian religion. I read a lot of John Donne’s sermons. I got very much into the 17th century.

Q: A very important century for our freedoms.

A: At Cambridge my tutor was C.S. Lewis.

Q: Really?

A: I entertained — there is a beautiful fairy tale quality about the Christian idea particularly —.

Q: No, no.

A: I think there is.

Q: I know you think this. But, what’s a fairy tale is when people like you invent your own religion.

A: I don’t make up a religion.

Q: Look, all of us are, at our core, religious beings.

A: No, I would say all of us are spiritual beings.

Q: Fine. But when you read the Scripture —.

A: Beautiful language.

Q: But it’s much more than beautiful literature. It’s obviously not a fairy tale made up only by humans. If you want to see a phony, made-up, man-made fairy tale, it’s what those Greeks believed.

When I note that God is withdrawing His hand of protection from the United States, Lapham laughs saying: “It depends on where you were in the United States. If you were on the frontier in the 19th century, you were not protected from these kinds of attacks. The Cherokees could have come across the prarie in a moment. The idea that we are somehow protected by a special Providence is b— s—.”

Me: “Really? So, you think that the Bible-believing Christians who founded our country, and believed in Providence, were just under some sort of mass delusion? I saw a replica of the Mayflower near Plymouth, Massachusetts. Have you seen it?”

A: Yes, I have.

Me: It’s so dinky. I wouldn’t get on it to go across a big lake. Where do you think the folks who got on the Mayflower got the guts and faith to do this, cross an ocean and hack a civilization out of a hostile wilderness? You think that a stupid fairy tale would sustain such people?

A: Yeah.

Me: I don’t think so….

At this point, Lapham mentions the Koran saying it is really crazy like Scientology.

Me: But the Koran is much more dangerous.

A: Christians have been pretty dangerous themselves.

Me: And God is pretty dangerous to those who mock Him and who say He does not exist.

Q: Why wouldn’t you say that in believing what Ashcroft says he believes that he is a Christian? Why would you say instead that he’s closer to the spirit of Osama bin Laden?

A: Because [bin Laden] assigns to the will of allah a sovereign power, a sovereign truth, right?

Q: Well, to the extent that bin Laden does believe in a god (God?) Who is sovereign, he’s not all wrong.

A: I think that’s a very dangerous, Messianic, appalling idea….

Q: If I may say so, I don’t think you realize the danger of what you’re advocating which is Godless government. Do you really want a Godless government where everything is rendered to Caesar? Because this is what you’re advocating. If you don’t believe the State must be restrained by God, then you’re making the State to be God! If there is no God, then what is to limit civil government?

A: Now, you get into a distinction between good government and bad government.

Q: As a Puritan, I would say the distinction is between Godly and unGodly government. Incidentally, our word “good” comes from an old English word meaning “God.” So, a “good” government would be a Godly government.

A: OK. Then I mean government that results in happiness, justice.

Q: Justice?

A: Yeah. I mean, in prosperity.

Q: But what’s to limit the State?!

A: Intelligence.

Q: Oh. But, Hitler was elected, wasn’t he?

A: Oh, sure.

Q: Well, so much for “intelligence” limiting the State.

A: That turned out to be a misfortune in government.

A: I mean, there was a wonderful period in Greece —.

Q: You just can’t stop worshiping those Greeks, huh?

A: No, there are grand periods of government which I would consider good which would be measured by happiness and prosperity.

Q: By all those who were not slaves in Greece, you mean.

A: Yeah, by the non-slaves. And there are long periods of misrule.

Q: But, what is it, according to what you believe, that must limit the State other than “the people,” or some kind of vote or “intelligence”?

A: Well, this is called the Constitution of the United States. It’s called checks-and-balances.

Q: But all of this came from Christianity!

This came about because the absolutism of the Tudors and Stuarts was defeated by the Puritans and all those Christians you despise! They are the ones who fought and defeated the idea of the divine right of kings!

A: I understand. But the idea of kings came from God, right? If you’re going to stay with God’s Law, this gave us the Stuarts.

Q: No! On the contrary, the king got his head chopped off because, among other things, the bastard violated God’s Law and was a murderer. Because the king violated God’s Law he was, correctly, thought to be an illegitimate — unGodly — ruler.

A: Under those rules, I could behead George Bush.

Q: George Bush is not, and has not been charged by anybody, with being a murderer.

A: He will be.

Q: You mentioned the book of Romans earlier. Well, read it closely. St. Paul, in chapter 13, says civil government is established by God and those who hold offices in it are to administer God’s Law.

A: The government it was talking about was Nero.

Q: He was writing about all civil governments for all time — Nero and all civil governments.

A: But he allows for the possibility of democracy.

Q: Hogwash — not if by democracy you mean “the people” determining [what civil government

can and cannot do].

A: Yes, that’s exactly what I mean.

Q: No. The role of civil government in Romans 13 is extremely limited. And it’s limited to administering God’s Law, period! It’s limited to a word you have used, “justice” — a word which in the Old Testament is the same word as “righteousness.” So, the way we know we have a “just” government is if we have a “righteous” government, a government limited by God’s Law.

A: What you want is a theocracy.

Q: Yes! I want Godly rule! Amen!

A: And I think that is just appalling.

Q: Well, we have Godless government now. How do you like it? You don’t, do you?

A: (laughing) No, I don’t.

Q: I don’t either.

A: But we’ve had Godless government for quite a long time in this country.

Q: We have.

A: But, government is never particularly good, is it?

Q: Not when you can’t define “good,” no.

A: I can define good as not a lot of people in jail, not a lot of people getting murdered in the streets.

Q: But, why is murder wrong if there is no God? I can tell you why. Because God says so and people are made in His image. But, you think that’s a big joke.

A: I don’t think it’s a joke. But I don’t think it’s a God (sic). I think there is a possibility of nobility in the human being.

Q: But because your view is relativistic I can say —.

A: No, it is not relativistic. It is secular.

Q: Yes it is relativistic because it is not absolute.

A: No, it is not.

Q: It is not true for everybody all the time. And if I had a gun pointed at your head, and you were telling me why you think someone should not murder another person, all you could say was you were just giving me your opinion. My Christian belief, because itis transcendant, is not relativistic.

A: You can carry that one to Heaven after they have shot you in the head.

Q: My belief came from Heaven!

A: (laughing) Then you can go back there and they’ll patch up that hole in your head. And you’ll be fine and live forever.

Q: Our souls do live forever.

A: Well, that’s wonderful.

Q: But it’s not wonderful for those living forever in Hell eternally separated from God, with wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth in the lake of fire.

A: I’m sure it’s very bad down there.

Q: No, you’re not. You think it’s a big joke.

A: I do.

Q: You do. You’re just like the world before Noah. He was mocked and ridiculed. Crazy old Noah, building that big boat. Ha-ha — until that first drop of rain fell. Then the flood. And suddenly things were not all that hilarious for those in the water.

A: We got a lot of people coming back from Hell with first-hand reports, right? How the hell do you know that? You don’t.

Q: Christ in the Scriptures speaks more about Hell than He does about Heaven. And if He says there’s a Hell, I believe it. Oh, ye of little faith.

A: Christ is a figure of the literary imagination.

Q: You mean He never existed in history?

A: Yeah, but we don’t know who He was?

Q: You mean, you don’t know!

A: That’s true. I don’t know.

TOP NAZI Hans Frank said, correctly, that rejecting Christ led to the rise of Hitler and Nazi atrocitiesI conclude by reading Lapham a statement made by Hans Frank (1900 1946), a Nazi war criminal who was hanged after a trial at Nuremberg. Frank was a jurist, a Member of the Reichstag, and head of the legal department of the Nazi Party. In a final plea at Nuremberg, Frank said, in part:

“At the beginning of this long way of ours we did not think that the turning away from God would have such disastrous deathly consequences and that, as a matter of course, we might one day be involved deeply in this guilt. At that time we could not have known that so much faith and so much will to sacrifice on the part of the German people could have been so badly administered by us.

“Thus, by turning away from God, we have come into shame and we had to perish. It was not because of technical deficiencies and unfortunate circumstances that we have lost this war, nor was it misfortune and treason. God, most of all, has passed sentence on Hitler and carried it out against him and the system which we served, far away from God as we were. Thus may our people be called back from the road on which we and Hitler have led them.

“I beg our people that they may not come to a standstill in this development, that they may not proceed in that direction, not with one single step; because Hitler’s road was the way without God, the way of refusing to believe in Christ, and, in its final point, the way of political foolishness, the way of disaster, and the way of death. His walk, more and more, became the walk of a frightful adventurer without conscience, without honesty, as I know it at then end of this trial.

“We, the former bearers of power, call upon the German people to return from this road which, according to God’s justice had to lead us into disaster and which will lead into disaster every one who would try to walk on it, or continue on it everywhere in this whole world….God’s eternal justice will be the force under which our people will flourish and to which alone I submit.”

Amen! And so it shall be for our country and every nation. As God command us in Psalms 2:12: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=504&PHPSESSID=5ec4be9bf21efff7a14b7309d1efaee1

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 05:01 AM
Relativists are the scurge of the earth. Morality is whatever pleases them. Good and evil are determined by popularity. It would take long for these people to destroy the earth if in charge.

Christianity wins the interview, by volumes. The relativist sounds like an imbecile.

Psychoblues
07-06-2007, 05:17 AM
Obviously you can join that "scurge" or did you mean "scourge"?



Relativists are the scurge of the earth. Morality is whatever pleases them. Good and evil are determined by popularity. It would take long for these people to destroy the earth if in charge.

Christianity wins the interview, by volumes. The relativist sounds like an imbecile.

Answering your own posts makes you look rather weak, pr. It's as if I didn't already know.

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 05:24 AM
Obviously you can join that "scurge" or did you mean "scourge"?

Answering your own posts makes you look rather weak, pr. It's as if I didn't already know.

I wasn't answering shit dimwit... did I spell that right?

I was merely giving my opinion ahead of anyone else. It makes you look like an idiot when I have to explain such simple actions. But, I already knew you were an idiot.

Psychoblues
07-06-2007, 05:41 AM
You're such a silly dipshit.



I wasn't answering shit dimwit... did I spell that right?

I was merely giving my opinion ahead of anyone else. It makes you look like an idiot when I have to explain such simple actions. But, I already knew you were an idiot.

You did indeed respond to your very own post and now try to blame it on me? But, I reluctantly agree. You didn't answer shit. The original post is definately shit. So, what are you answering now? Are you by chance upset?

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 05:50 AM
You're such a silly dipshit.

You did indeed respond to your very own post and now try to blame it on me? But, I reluctantly agree. You didn't answer shit. The original post is definately shit. So, what are you answering now? Are you by chance upset?

You flatter yourself as someone I give a shit about... :laugh: - - :fu:

So first you say I "answered" my own post, which is wrong to do why? But I try and straighten you out and tell you what I really did, which was give my "opinion" before anyone else did, which is wrong why?

So now your second attempt to spin this cluster fuck you've concocted is to say I "responded." My God Pb... can you fling shit any further? You going for a record on dumbest shit dreamt up to start an argument? Talk about trolling.

Give it rest mutton head. Unless you truly enjoy looking and sounding like a FOOL!

You've said NOTHING about my post. You only try and start shit with me. That tells me you're fresh out of anything intelligent to say. Ppphht... big surprise there.

LOki
07-06-2007, 05:54 AM
Relativists are the scurge of the earth. Morality is whatever pleases them. Good and evil are determined by popularity. It would take long for these people to destroy the earth if in charge.

Christianity wins the interview, by volumes. The relativist sounds like an imbecile.Relativists are indded the scourge of the earth--particularly the ones who demand that their relativism is validated by their imaginary invisible uber-dad who lives in the sky.

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 05:58 AM
Relativists are indded the scourge of the earth--particularly the ones who demand that their relativism is validated by their imaginary invisible uber-dad who lives in the sky.

You contradicted yourself.... you just don't know what you're talking about, or what?

Psychoblues
07-06-2007, 06:03 AM
I haven't said one thing about "me" in this thread, pr.



You flatter yourself as someone I give a shit about... :laugh: - - :fu:

So first you say I "answered" my own post, which is wrong to do why? But I try and straighten you out and tell you what I really did, which was give my "opinion" before anyone else did, which is wrong why?

So now your second attempt to spin this cluster fuck you've concocted is to say I "responded." My God Pb... can you fling shit any further? You going for a record on dumbest shit dreamt up to start an argument? Talk about trolling.

Give it rest mutton head. Unless you truly enjoy looking and sounding like a FOOL!

You've said NOTHING about my post. You only try and start shit with me. That tells me you're fresh out of anything intelligent to say. Ppphht... big surprise there.

I've only wondered why you expect such a response in your self flagellation. Are you sure you haven't shit your pants instead of only wet farted?

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 06:14 AM
I haven't said one thing about "me" in this thread, pr.

I've only wondered why you expect such a response in your self flagellation. Are you sure you haven't shit your pants instead of only wet farted?

Most everything you say is embedded with narcissism.

And now, you've degenerated into nothing more than preschool type insults.

Get a life you moron.

Psychoblues
07-06-2007, 06:44 AM
Pants-shitters like you give me a life.



Most everything you say is embedded with narcissism.

And now, you've degenerated into nothing more than preschool type insults.

Get a life you moron.

Thank you. Wanna buy a used car?

LOki
07-06-2007, 07:38 AM
You contradicted yourself.... you just don't know what you're talking about, or what?Really? I'll just bet you're prepared to demonstrate, yet somehow I suspect that you're just going to present an unsubstantiated opinion as irrefutable fact. Yes? Because let me tell you, I can't wait to see how you're going to demonstrate that morality based in a religion, even your Christian religion in particular, is based on anything remotely absolute; and that morality based on the rational principles of an objective reality is not.

I'm not too terribly worried that you'll accomplish this, because the moment you realize that Christianity has no more objective validity than any other religion, mythology, or superstition, is going to be the moment you start knowing what you're talking about--and you'll stop pretending your religion provides anything resembling morality based on an absolute anything.

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 07:50 AM
Really? I'll just bet you're prepared to demonstrate, yet somehow I suspect that you're just going to present an unsubstantiated opinion as irrefutable fact. Yes? Because let me tell you, I can't wait to see how you're going to demonstrate that morality based in a religion, even your Christian religion in particular, is based on anything remotely absolute; and that morality based on the rational principles of an objective reality is not.

I'm not too terribly worried that you'll accomplish this, because the moment you realize that Christianity has no more objective validity than any other religion, mythology, or superstition, is going to be the moment you start knowing what you're talking about--and you'll stop pretending your religion provides anything resembling morality based on an absolute anything.

I said you contradicted yourself, and you did.

As for your other point, I know when I may as well slam my head against a brick wall, and when not to. You don't believe in God, and you're not a Christian as I am. You appear to get great pleasure out of trashing religion, any religion, although you also appear to be one of the "bashing Christianity is in" crowd. I won't spend any time at all trying to make you believe anything I do. I have better things to do than to waste my time like that. You religon hating, relativists are growing increasingly militant. Your hate for God and the people of faith looks more like the work of the devil than ever before. You're a pawn being used by the forces of evil, and you don't even know it.

Well, I can play this game as well. In fact, since most of everything ever written or done in American history is steeped in the Christian religion, I challenge YOU to show ME how your Godless, relativity, and self grandiose regulation and morality is BETTER than that handed down by God.

Go ahead... I'm so looking forward to this... because as soon as you realize you're not a fraction as smart as you think you are, you'll realize that religion in general is the master of the universe, not you and your narcissistic notions.

LOki
07-06-2007, 09:59 AM
I said you contradicted yourself, and you did.Just as I predicted--an unsubstantiated opinion as irrefutable fact.


As for your other point, I know when I may as well slam my head against a brick wall, and when not to. You don't believe in God, and you're not a Christian as I am.Just because I'm not the same Christian that you are, does not mean that I don't believe in God, or that I'm not a Christian.


You appear to get great pleasure out of trashing religion, any religion, although you also appear to be one of the "bashing Christianity is in" crowd. Correction: I get a great deal of pleasure out of exposing the retarded demands of retards who insist that their particular superstitions are objectively less superstitious than the superstitions of others.


I won't spend any time at all trying to make you believe anything I do. I have better things to do than to waste my time like that.That's wise, considering that I'd have to be you to manage the trick that makes your faith work for you. I just hope you can manage this practice to the benefit of everyone else.


You religon hating, relativists are growing increasingly militant.You're not talking about me, since I like religion, I'm not a relativist, and if there's any militancy in me it's regarding the influence that the thoughtless have on my enjoyment of those liberties bestowed upon me by my creator.


Your hate for God and the people of faith looks more like the work of the devil than ever before. You're a pawn being used by the forces of evil, and you don't even know it.You must be speaking for yourself, and your bloodthirsty and sadistic religion of guilt and human misery that celebrates death and human sacrifice as divine virtues.


Well, I can play this game as well.No you can't. You're monumentally ill-equipped. You're hopelessly held back by your insistence that your beliefs, substantiated in evidience or not, are what validate reality.


In fact, since most of everything ever written or done in American history is steeped in the Christian religion,...Agian, just as I predicted--an unsubstantiated opinion submitted as irrefutable fact.


...I challenge YOU to show ME how your Godless, relativity, and self grandiose regulation and morality is BETTER than that handed down by God.Since there is nothing about my morality that is neccessarily godless or relativistic, I'm afraid that I can't oblige you. But my morality is better than one handed down by your superstituous notions of what God demands, because where morality based in faith is the supreme example of what defines a relativistic morality, mine, which is based in the rational principles derived of an objective reality, is not subject to the self contradictions, and paradoxes appurtentant to those who demand that what they feel is right is what makes what they feel right.


Go ahead... I'm so looking forward to this... because as soon as you realize you're not a fraction as smart as you think you are, you'll realize that religion in general is the master of the universe, not you and your narcissistic notions.Ironic that you now consider yourself an authortity on how smart I think I am. It's indicative of the monumental narccissism required to assert that your unsubstantiated beliefs are the master of the universe, and the absolute truths upon which the value and morality of all things are to be judged.

Hagbard Celine
07-06-2007, 10:38 AM
Too long to read at work. Post a link to the audio.

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 10:46 AM
Just as I predicted--an unsubstantiated opinion as irrefutable fact.

Just because I'm not the same Christian that you are, does not mean that I don't believe in God, or that I'm not a Christian.

Correction: I get a great deal of pleasure out of exposing the retarded demands of retards who insist that their particular superstitions are objectively less superstitious than the superstitions of others.

That's wise, considering that I'd have to be you to manage the trick that makes your faith work for you. I just hope you can manage this practice to the benefit of everyone else.

You're not talking about me, since I like religion, I'm not a relativist, and if there's any militancy in me it's regarding the influence that the thoughtless have on my enjoyment of those liberties bestowed upon me by my creator.

You must be speaking for yourself, and your bloodthirsty and sadistic religion of guilt and human misery that celebrates death and human sacrifice as divine virtues.

No you can't. You're monumentally ill-equipped. You're hopelessly held back by your insistence that your beliefs, substantiated in evidience or not, are what validate reality.

Agian, just as I predicted--an unsubstantiated opinion submitted as irrefutable fact.

Since there is nothing about my morality that is neccessarily godless or relativistic, I'm afraid that I can't oblige you. But my morality is better than one handed down by your superstituous notions of what God demands, because where morality based in faith is the supreme example of what defines a relativistic morality, mine, which is based in the rational principles derived of an objective reality, is not subject to the self contradictions, and paradoxes appurtentant to those who demand that what they feel is right is what makes what they feel right.

Ironic that you now consider yourself an authortity on how smart I think I am. It's indicative of the monumental narccissism required to assert that your unsubstantiated beliefs are the master of the universe, and the absolute truths upon which the value and morality of all things are to be judged.

I can take this whole block of crap you posted and treat it as one post. You bash, belittle and berate through the whole thing. You approach this subject as though somehow you are above everyone else, as though we're all morons for being Christians, and your only form of dealing or talking with us is condescending. You REEK of condescension. Basically, that's the trait of someone that doesn't really believe what they're saying, so they resort to smart ass to try and give the impression they're right. Well nothing could be further from the truth here. You've shown your hand, and it ain't shit. So far, you've had diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of ideas.

America's founders were Christian, and almost everything they did was based in Christianity. I've posted quite a few things PROVING that here in the past few hours. Read it.

Abbey Marie
07-06-2007, 10:52 AM
...
You religon hating, relativists are growing increasingly militant. Your hate for God and the people of faith looks more like the work of the devil than ever before. You're a pawn being used by the forces of evil, and you don't even know it.
...


I can't speak to any particular individual, such as LOki, but this is dead on, Pale. Wish I could rep you. :clap:

Missileman
07-06-2007, 10:52 AM
America's founders were Christian, and almost everything they did was based in Christianity. I've posted quite a few things PROVING that here in the past few hours. Read it.

And yet, when the opportunity presented itself, they created a secular government whose cornerstone principle is contrary to Christianity...go figure!

LOki
07-06-2007, 11:03 AM
I can take this whole block of crap you posted and treat it as one post. You bash, belittle and berate through the whole thing. You approach this subject as though somehow you are above everyone else, as though we're all morons for being Christians, and your only form of dealing or talking with us is condescending. You REEK of condescension. Basically, that's the trait of someone that doesn't really believe what they're saying, so they resort to smart ass to try and give the impression they're right. Well nothing could be further from the truth here. You've shown your hand, and it ain't shit. So far, you've had diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of ideas.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection#Common_definitions">Seek help.</a>


America's founders were Christian, and almost everything they did was based in Christianity. I've posted quite a few things PROVING that here in the past few hours. Read it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion#Psychiatric_definition">Really.</a>

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 11:32 AM
And yet, when the opportunity presented itself, they created a secular government whose cornerstone principle is contrary to Christianity...go figure!

Oh... is that why "IN GOD WE TRUST" is on practically everything about the government? Is that why the Ten Commandments are laid in stone in the Capitols rotunda? Is that why when witnessing in our courts you "swear to tell the truth" with hand on Bible? Go figure...

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 11:38 AM
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection#Common_definitions">Seek help.</a>
How about you take some of your own medicine.


<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion#Psychiatric_definition">Really.</a>

Really. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=85687&postcount=10)

Missileman
07-06-2007, 12:38 PM
Oh... is that why "IN GOD WE TRUST" is on practically everything about the government? Is that why the Ten Commandments are laid in stone in the Capitols rotunda? Is that why when witnessing in our courts you "swear to tell the truth" with hand on Bible? Go figure...

Then perhaps you can reconcile the contradiction of the First Amendment and the First Commandment.

LOki
07-06-2007, 12:44 PM
How about you take some of your own medicine.Agreed. I'll stop considering you capable of understanding a rational argument; and you'll stop considering me capable of understanding an irrational argument.


Really. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=85687&postcount=10)<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=85718#post85718">Really.</a>

avatar4321
07-06-2007, 03:34 PM
well its an interview i wouldnt think anyone would win. but the relativist looked rather silly.

Good and evil are irrelevant in a relativist viewpoint. thats whats so dangerous about it.

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 07:43 PM
Then perhaps you can reconcile the contradiction of the First Amendment and the First Commandment.

Why should I. I like it the way it is, and understand completely why it's that way.

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 07:52 PM
Agreed. I'll stop considering you capable of understanding a rational argument; and you'll stop considering me capable of understanding an irrational argument.
There ya go again, thinking you're all that, when quite the opposite is true. Isn't your arm getting sore from being bent around patting yourself on the back yet?


<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=85718#post85718">Really.</a>
I'm going to find a brick wall and go bash my head against it. That makes more sense than to argue with a Godless, Christian hating, secular progressive psychotic like you.

Here's some free advice, believe whatever the hell you want, because hell is where your beliefs come from. But don't come crying and sniveling to me when your made up rules in your made up world no longer suit your needs. Man can not institute his own brand of morality. It's been tried. It failed. Miserably. Every time. And if you're incapable of learning from the past, you're doomed to repeat it. And you thought you were smart... ppphht... why don't you act like it?

Missileman
07-06-2007, 08:04 PM
Why should I. I like it the way it is, and understand completely why it's that way.

This answer makes absolutely no sense. Are you suggesting that, as a Christian, you advocate discretionary adherance to Biblical principles, namely the 10 Commandments? If that's the case, why shouldn't we all be allowed to cherry-pick our way through it and simply discard those parts we don't like?

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 08:22 PM
This answer makes absolutely no sense.
To me it does.


Are you suggesting that, as a Christian, you advocate discretionary adherance to Biblical principles, namely the 10 Commandments?
Yes.


If that's the case, why shouldn't we all be allowed to cherry-pick our way through it and simply discard those parts we don't like?
What do you mean "why shouldn't we?" That's what you liberals do isn't it? Take abortion for instance. Abortion is murder, yet one of the commandments is "thou shalt not kill/murder."

Missileman
07-06-2007, 08:32 PM
What do you mean "why shouldn't we?" That's what you liberals do isn't it? Take abortion for instance. Abortion is murder, yet one of the commandments is "thou shalt not kill/murder."

If you have no problem with people violating the Ten Commandments, as you just said you didn't, then why do you care? As a matter of fact, since you just said that cherry-picking the bible is okay by you, then why do you give a shit about people ignoring those parts of the bible that call homosexuality an abomination?

Pale Rider
07-06-2007, 08:40 PM
If you have no problem with people violating the Ten Commandments, as you just said you didn't, then why do you care? As a matter of fact, since you just said that cherry-picking the bible is okay by you, then why do you give a shit about people ignoring those parts of the bible that call homosexuality an abomination?

WHOOOOAAAAA WHOO WHOO there pard, I said no such thing... I said "YOU LIBERALS DO IT," and that is NOT saying we CONSERVATIVES do it, or that I do it. "I", personally, do my damn straight best to live by the ten commandments. Sometimes I find it all but impossible in this day and age, but, at least I try, and know I'm fucking up when I break one.

Missileman
07-06-2007, 08:53 PM
WHOOOOAAAAA WHOO WHOO there pard, I said no such thing...

I said, "Are you suggesting that, as a Christian, you advocate discretionary adherance to Biblical principles, namely the 10 Commandments?"

To which you replied, "Yes".

LOki
07-07-2007, 05:14 AM
<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=86093&postcount=8">You contradicted yourself.... you just don't know what you're talking about, or what?</a>

<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=86126&postcount=13">You don't believe in God, and you're not a Christian as I am. You appear to get great pleasure out of trashing religion, any religion, although you also appear to be one of the "bashing Christianity is in" crowd.</a>

<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=86126&postcount=13">You religon hating, relativists are growing increasingly militant. Your hate for God and the people of faith looks more like the work of the devil than ever before. You're a pawn being used by the forces of evil, and you don't even know it.</a>

<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=86126&postcount=13">Go ahead... I'm so looking forward to this... because as soon as you realize you're not a fraction as smart as you think you are, you'll realize that religion in general is the master of the universe, not you and your narcissistic notions.</a>

<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=86189&postcount=16">You bash, belittle and berate through the whole thing. You approach this subject as though somehow you are above everyone else, as though we're all morons for being Christians, and your only form of dealing or talking with us is condescending. You REEK of condescension. Basically, that's the trait of someone that doesn't really believe what they're saying, so they resort to smart ass to try and give the impression they're right. Well nothing could be further from the truth here. You've shown your hand, and it ain't shit. So far, you've had diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of ideas.</a>

<a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=86408&postcount=26">Here's some free advice, believe whatever the hell you want, because hell is where your beliefs come from. But don't come crying and sniveling to me when your made up rules in your made up world no longer suit your needs. Man can not institute his own brand of morality. It's been tried. It failed. Miserably. Every time. And if you're incapable of learning from the past, you're doomed to repeat it. And you thought you were smart... ppphht... why don't you act like it?</a><blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection#Common_definitions">In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them.</a></blockquote>

You see Pale, I'm not the one so confident I know everything, that I'd presume to know what another person thinks--that's you.

I'm not the one here making false and unsubstantiated accusations against other people here--that's you.

I'm not the one here who demands that my unsubstantiated beliefs are the master of the universe, and the absolute truths upon which the value and morality of all things are to be judged--that's you.

Your accusations against me, are all about you Pale Rider.

Pale Rider
07-07-2007, 05:17 AM
I said, "Are you suggesting that, as a Christian, you advocate discretionary adherance to Biblical principles, namely the 10 Commandments?"

To which you replied, "Yes".

Wrong again kemosabee... you said...


This answer makes absolutely no sense. Are you suggesting that, as a Christian, you advocate discretionary adherance to Biblical principles, namely the 10 Commandments? If that's the case, why shouldn't we all be allowed to cherry-pick our way through it and simply discard those parts we don't like?

To which I said...


What do you mean "why shouldn't we?" That's what you liberals do isn't it? Take abortion for instance. Abortion is murder, yet one of the commandments is "thou shalt not kill/murder."

You ask why shouldn't you be able to cherry pick, and I answered with an example that you LIBERALS already do. LIBERALS!!!

You'll have to follow along better than this Mm, if I'm to continue debating with you. You're really off track here, and in a matter of two posts. How the hell you get so lost so fast?

LOki
07-07-2007, 07:52 AM
Wrong again kemosabee... you said...



To which I said...



You ask why shouldn't you be able to cherry pick, and I answered with an example that you LIBERALS already do. LIBERALS!!!

You'll have to follow along better than this Mm, if I'm to continue debating with you. You're really off track here, and in a matter of two posts. How the hell you get so lost so fast?Translation: http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/1600/denialyq4.th.jpg (http://img68.imageshack.us/my.php?image=denialyq4.jpg)

Missileman
07-07-2007, 08:53 AM
Wrong again kemosabee... you said...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=86420&postcount=28

I'm wrong? Don't think so.



You'll have to follow along better than this Mm, if I'm to continue debating with you. You're really off track here, and in a matter of two posts. How the hell you get so lost so fast?

I took the high road and didn't make comments about you being an illiterate boob or suggesting I might need to dumb-down my posts for you and you post this condescending shit. I suggest you invest in a dictionary and a couple "English as a second language" classes before you start calling me "lost".

Pssst! Discretionary adherance means the same thing as cherry-pick. Advocate means be in favor of.

Pale Rider
07-07-2007, 12:16 PM
Translation:

Your off in left field, and completely wrong.

Pale Rider
07-07-2007, 12:18 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=86420&postcount=28

I'm wrong? Don't think so.

I took the high road and didn't make comments about you being an illiterate boob or suggesting I might need to dumb-down my posts for you and you post this condescending shit. I suggest you invest in a dictionary and a couple "English as a second language" classes before you start calling me "lost".

Pssst! Discretionary adherance means the same thing as cherry-pick. Advocate means be in favor of.

I apologize if I came off as an asshole, but you really did somehow get something out of what I posted that isn't what I meant.

But here's the thing Mm, back up, you said why can't we cherry pick from the Ten Commandments, to which I answered, you "Liberals" already do. Now however you got a "I said yes" out of that, I don't know. But that's where the confusion is coming from here.

Missileman
07-07-2007, 12:53 PM
I apologize if I came off as an asshole, but you really did somehow get something out of what I posted that isn't what I meant.

But here's the thing Mm, back up, you said why can't we cherry pick from the Ten Commandments, to which I answered, you "Liberals" already do. Now however you got a "I said yes" out of that, I don't know. But that's where the confusion is coming from here.

I got "Yes" from the question before that when I asked if you advocate discretionary adherance to the 10 Commandments.

Pale Rider
07-07-2007, 02:41 PM
I got "Yes" from the question before that when I asked if you advocate discretionary adherance to the 10 Commandments.

Well there's where we got off track. I guess my answer is still yes... to that.

Now... "should we cherry pick which commandments to adhere to?" That was your next question, and my answer to that was, "you liberals already do," and my example was abortion, which disobeys the commandment, thou shalt not kill/murder.

We should be straight now.

Missileman
07-07-2007, 03:11 PM
Well there's where we got off track. I guess my answer is still yes... to that.

Now... "should we cherry pick which commandments to adhere to?" That was your next question, and my answer to that was, "you liberals already do," and my example was abortion, which disobeys the commandment, thou shalt not kill/murder.

We should be straight now.

They both mean the same thing...we're not straight yet.

Pale Rider
07-07-2007, 03:38 PM
They both mean the same thing...we're not straight yet.

Well I am, but if you're still confused, explain what you're confused about.

Missileman
07-07-2007, 05:02 PM
Well I am, but if you're still confused, explain what you're confused about.

I'm not confused at all. I asked if you think it's okay for people to violate the 10 Commandments with this question: "Are you suggesting that, as a Christian, you advocate discretionary adherance to Biblical principles, namely the 10 Commandments?"

To which you replied, "Yes".

Based on your response to a couple other questions, it appears you misunderstood the first question and you believe that the 10 Commandments should be complied with. Is that accurate?

Pale Rider
07-07-2007, 05:05 PM
I'm not confused at all. I asked if you think it's okay for people to violate the 10 Commandments with this question: "Are you suggesting that, as a Christian, you advocate discretionary adherance to Biblical principles, namely the 10 Commandments?"

To which you replied, "Yes".

Based on your response to a couple other questions, it appears you misunderstood the first question and you believe that the 10 Commandments should be complied with. Is that accurate?

Yes. But I also pointed out, "after you asked," that if commandments should be "cherry picked" as to which ones to be obeyed. To which I replied, "you liberals already do, as in thou shalt not kill/murder." Liberals endorse abortion.

Missileman
07-07-2007, 05:35 PM
Yes. But I also pointed out, "after you asked," that if commandments should be "cherry picked" as to which ones to be obeyed. To which I replied, "you liberals already do, as in thou shalt not kill/murder." Liberals endorse abortion.

I will offer no argument that each and every one of the 10 Commandments takes a beating daily. By whom and through what actions are fodder for another discussion.

Back to the point...do you suppose our founders, being Christians, also believed that the 10 Commandments should be followed? Would they have approved of cherry-picking?

Pale Rider
07-07-2007, 06:07 PM
I will offer no argument that each and every one of the 10 Commandments takes a beating daily. By whom and through what actions are fodder for another discussion.

Back to the point...do you suppose our founders, being Christians, also believed that the 10 Commandments should be followed? Would they have approved of cherry-picking?

I don't believe so. Not two hundred years ago. They were, for the most part, puritans. Our world has changed dramatically... for the worse. Everyone is guilty, daily, including myself. I'm sure I break something. You too.

Missileman
07-07-2007, 06:16 PM
I don't believe so. Not two hundred years ago. They were, for the most part, puritans. Our world has changed dramatically... for the worse. Everyone is guilty, daily, including myself. I'm sure I break something. You too.

So ask yourself this: Why would puritanical Christians, if they were intending to establish a government based on Christian principles, codify the concept of "freedom of religion" when doing so would be, or at a minimum facilitate, a clear violation of the First Commandment?

Pale Rider
07-07-2007, 06:23 PM
So ask yourself this: Why would puritanical Christians, if they were intending to establish a government based on Christian principles, codify the concept of "freedom of religion" when doing so would be, or at a minimum facilitate, a clear violation of the First Commandment?

Because they never intended to "force" anyone to worship "only" Christ. They wanted people to be free to worship whatever God they wanted. But that does NOT take away from the fact that the founders were "themselves" Christian by and large.

Abbey Marie
07-07-2007, 10:50 PM
So ask yourself this: Why would puritanical Christians, if they were intending to establish a government based on Christian principles, codify the concept of "freedom of religion" when doing so would be, or at a minimum facilitate, a clear violation of the First Commandment?

Pale's point is well taken, but I would also add that they fervently believed that a nation whose laws were based on the guiding principles of Christianity would be a strong one, and one that God blesses. In addition, many of these men were well versed in history, and knew well what happened to countries that turned to immorality.

That is far different from trying to establish a theocracy; far from forcing anyone to be worship the Christian God.

Missileman
07-07-2007, 11:14 PM
Pale's point is well taken, but I would also add that they fervently believed that a nation whose laws were based on the guiding principles of Christianity would be a strong one, and one that God blesses. In addition, many of these men were well versed in history, and knew well what happened to countries that turned to immorality.

That is far different from trying to establish a theocracy; far from forcing anyone to be worship the Christian God.

A government founded by Christians is a far cry from a government founded on Christian principles, especially when you consider they intentionally left out what has to be considered the most important Christian ideal...the First Commandment. Without it, there is no Christianity.

Any suggestion that freedom of religion is a Christian concept is laughable. Without the restraint of man's law Christianity would be just as tyrannical as any other religion that's achieved too much power.

Abbey Marie
07-07-2007, 11:21 PM
A government founded by Christians is a far cry from a government founded on Christian principles, especially when you consider they intentionally left out what has to be considered the most important Christian ideal...the First Commandment. Without it, there is no Christianity.

Any suggestion that freedom of religion is a Christian concept is laughable. Without the restraint of man's law Christianity would be just as tyrannical as any other religion that's achieved too much power.

Can you show me a bible passage where Jesus stated that people should be forced to worship Him? You cannot. In fact, the whole of Christianity is based on man's free will to choose to worship Him or not. No true Christian would ever dream of incorporating the 1st Commandment into our nation's law. To do so would be to prove de facto that you are not a follower of Christ. To try to say otherwise is indeed laughable.

Missileman
07-07-2007, 11:30 PM
Can you show me a bible passage where Jesus stated that people should be forced to worship Him? You cannot. In fact, the whole of Christinaity is based on man's free will to choose to worship Him or not. No true Christian would ever dream of incorporating the 1st Commandment into our nation's law. To do so would be to prove de facto that you are not a follower of Christ. To try to say otherwise is indeed laughable.

"Thou shall have no other god" is a direct contradiction to "worship who you choose".

nevadamedic
07-08-2007, 02:47 AM
"Thou shall have no other god" is a direct contradiction to "worship who you choose".

I was just about to post that. :)

avatar4321
07-08-2007, 03:12 AM
"Thou shall have no other god" is a direct contradiction to "worship who you choose".

Funny how no one who actually believes in the ten commandments agrees with you. Take Joshua for example:

"15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

Now here we have the words of a man taught directly by Moses and also by the Lord. Obviously there was no contradiction for the Israelites a generation later. Why then should this interpretation be rejected for your own?

The Lord doesnt force anyone into anything. He gives us a choice. So choose this day whom you will serve.

LOki
07-08-2007, 06:38 AM
"Thou shall have no other god" is a direct contradiction to "worship who you choose".Abbey and Avatar4321 are apparently unfamiliar with the term <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion"><b>COERCION.</b></a>

Pale Rider
07-08-2007, 07:01 AM
"Thou shall have no other god" is a direct contradiction to "worship who you choose".

When refering specifically to religon, you're right. When refering to a government, you're wrong. Seperate the two... remember... "seperation of church and state?"

Pale Rider
07-08-2007, 07:02 AM
Abbey and Avatar4321 are apparently unfamiliar with the term <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion"><b>COERCION.</b></a>

It is you, grasshopper, that is confused.

LOki
07-08-2007, 07:39 AM
It is you, grasshopper, that is confused.Still making shit up from nothing but your imagination I see. Bravo! :clap:

Pale Rider
07-08-2007, 10:40 AM
Still making shit up from nothing but your imagination I see. Bravo! :clap:

My reality is based here on earth, in America. It is your's that appears to be off somewhere else. Andromeda perhaps?

LOki
07-08-2007, 11:03 AM
My reality is based here on earth, in America. It is your's that appears to be off somewhere else. Andromeda perhaps?I suppose you find this distracting from the reality of having no actual game--I'll enjoy your return.

Abbey Marie
07-08-2007, 02:08 PM
"Thou shall have no other god" is a direct contradiction to "worship who you choose".

Geez, I wouldn't have thought his needed to be explained, but here goes. God gave us free will to worship Him, or not. If you choose to worship Him, there are rules He wants you to follow, including, that you shall have no other "god's" before him. The Jews of the time needed to hear this message, btw, as they were following Moses into the promised land, yet falling back into worshipping other "gods".

So, since we are discussing Christianity, I will repeat, can you show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says that God is coercing us to worship Him? In fact, Jesus says that if you ask Him into your heart, He will enter. Dose that sound coercive to you?

LOki
07-08-2007, 02:58 PM
So, since we are discussing Christianity, I will repeat, can you show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says that God is coercing us to worship Him? In fact, Jesus says that if you ask Him into your heart, He will enter. Dose that sound coercive to you?Abbey, check into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion"><b>COERCION</b></a>, reread your Bible, and then deny there's not threat involved.

Missileman
07-08-2007, 03:33 PM
Geez, I wouldn't have thought his needed to be explained, but here goes. God gave us free will to worship Him, or not. If you choose to worship Him, there are rules He wants you to follow, including, that you shall have no other "god's" before him. The Jews of the time needed to hear this message, btw, as they were following Moses into the promised land, yet falling back into worshipping other "gods".

So, since we are discussing Christianity, I will repeat, can you show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says that God is coercing us to worship Him? In fact, Jesus says that if you ask Him into your heart, He will enter. Dose that sound coercive to you?

I didn't use the word coercion.

I said that freedom of religion isn't a Christian ideal, it's a purely secular one. Even the different denominations are often embroiled in conflicts about how to practice Christianity, let alone recognize the belief in another deity.

Missileman
07-08-2007, 03:40 PM
Funny how no one who actually believes in the ten commandments agrees with you. Take Joshua for example:

"15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

Now here we have the words of a man taught directly by Moses and also by the Lord. Obviously there was no contradiction for the Israelites a generation later. Why then should this interpretation be rejected for your own?

The Lord doesnt force anyone into anything. He gives us a choice. So choose this day whom you will serve.

Stray under penalty of death you mean...some choice. Submit or die.

16When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you. (Joshua 23:16)

You'll have to do better than plucking one small verse.

glockmail
07-08-2007, 03:43 PM
Abbey, check into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion"><b>COERCION</b></a>, reread your Bible, and then deny there's not threat involved.

I coerce my children to do the right thing all the time. What's wrong with that?

glockmail
07-08-2007, 03:44 PM
My reality is based here on earth, in America. It is your's that appears to be off somewhere else. Andromeda perhaps? I agree the woman is surely delusional.

Abbey Marie
07-08-2007, 03:49 PM
I agree the woman is surely delusional.

Which woman?

LOki
07-08-2007, 04:28 PM
I coerce my children to do the right thing all the time. What's wrong with that?You can tell me, I have not asserted it's wrong; or if you prefer, tell me what is so right about coercion.

avatar4321
07-08-2007, 05:39 PM
Abbey, check into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion"><b>COERCION</b></a>, reread your Bible, and then deny there's not threat involved.

You keep using that word coercion. I dont think it means what you think it means.

LOki
07-08-2007, 06:11 PM
You keep using that word coercion. I dont think it means what you think it means.If it doesn't mean:<blockquote>"Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to involuntarily behave in a certain way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may typically involve the actual infliction of physical or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."</blockquote>...then, enlighten me.

Psychoblues
07-09-2007, 01:12 AM
The "I don't hink it means what you think it means" bs is tired and worn out from these embeciles, LOki.




If it doesn't mean:<blockquote>"Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to involuntarily behave in a certain way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may typically involve the actual infliction of physical or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced."</blockquote>...then, enlighten me.


They have no other explanation or clarification for their thoughts and think that one will make things more objective for the casual reader. Even then, the casual reader thinks they are very ignorant or at least obfuscating using that excuse not to answer.

Dig it?

glockmail
07-09-2007, 07:57 AM
Which woman? LOki (sex unknown).

glockmail
07-09-2007, 07:59 AM
You can tell me, I have not asserted it's wrong; or if you prefer, tell me what is so right about coercion.

Coercion trains my children to know right from wrong. I also intimidate, threaten, and inflict corporal punishment when neccesary, me being the jury as well as sole judge.