Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was a known agnostic at the church that my family attended. I helped out quite a bit with logistics and other things for the church. The pastor once said that I was more Christ-like than many "christians" he knew.
I can understand that. You "served", and that is a good quality, and it is "Christ-like". I commend you for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
It's not the belief that makes one Christ-like but attitude.
It's both. You have half of it right; now, what about the other half? What's holding you back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
BTW, I'm a fiscal conservative AND an agnostic.
Well, at least there is something we can agree on!
But why agnostic? Is it so difficult to believe that there is something larger than ones self?
For me, a creator God is the only thing that makes any sense. There are far too many questions that man will never understand, and far too many complexities that "evolution" just doesn't suffice for an answer.
I am perfectly willing to accept my postition as a created being on this Earth, and to praise God for the beautiful creative work of His hand. God is awesome! That's all.
Science is a wonderful thing, and has made our lives much easier. But it is not the answer to all things.
You're basing your analysis of the Bible "on historical events". You're trying to prove that Jesus existed and that all of the events of the Bible must've occurred because of the accuracies of some of the historical events in the Bible. Could we not make the same argument that Rhett Butler existed and that he didn't give a damn because Sherman's March is an accurate account of the Civil War?
If I wanted to press it further, I could provide a list of events in the Bible that did NOT occur, diminishing the credibility of the Bible entirely.
But I'd love to know what you come up with on that list, and I'm willing to bet that someone has an argument against your list of non-events.
You are no different from many others who borrow from this religion or that and make a religion of their own. But you cannot argue a position using Christian beliefs as a basis for that position when you know virtually nothing about it. Your argument quickly falls apart, and you raise huge questions in the minds of Christian readers (who think you are coming from a Christian perspective) when you make nonsensical statements, as you did mine.
I would hope that one day you might be interested enough to find out what it's all about.
As for this forum, I think we're done, because people are weary of me discussing the subject.
In my defense, I have to respond to some things in the best way I know how, with what I know to be right, especially with moral judgements as in the abortion debate. I am forced to state my position and also to state why I believe I am right. Suddenly, we're discussing religion.
I don't see that as any different form the atheists or so-called agnostics, or the evolution crowd arguing their point based on their belief system. That is their religion. Christianity is mine.
Obviously there is a double standard on this forum.
You don't have to defend yourself with me. I accept you as a man who posts what he sincerely believes.
I wish you nothing but the best, and look forward to reading your future posts.
Need I point out that this is not UNSCR 687, the document that you have twice now claimed to give the US special unilateral rights, but which in actuality does not? Are there no arguments that are simply too feeble to be resorted to on your end?
This authorization enables the use of US armed forces in the event that the US was ever authorized by the UN to do any of this enforcing. It never was. The US has no presumptive right to unilateral enforcement of Security Council resolutions via military means. That right can only come from the Security Council itself.
Hogwash. UNSCR 687 extends no unilateral rights of enforcement to anyone, Coalition member or not. You seek to establish your claim merely by repeating it. The claim is entirely false no matter how many times you present it.
LOL! "Hogwash." You obviously will never accept information and facts so it would be useless to continue with this. I knew it was a waste of time from the start!
I will add one last thing though... if the U.N. actually enforced the resolutions they had against Iraq, maybe that country wouldn't have been invaded.
Hates racial profilling but loves affermative action
Michael Savage was right...liberalism is a mental disorder!
Now who's profiling? Not everything is so extremist. In fact, most of the hard-line stances I hear are from Republicans who back up their points with Biblical references.
Now who's profiling? Not everything is so extremist. In fact, most of the hard-line stances I hear are from Republicans who back up their points with Biblical references.
What could you possibly mean by that?
Newsflash: People in biblical times smoked pot. George Washington grew it, and more than likely smoked it too. Pot isn't a liberal/conservative thing. It's pretty universal, kinda like alcohol except it DOESN'T KILL YOU, or cause brain damage.
The human brain has THC receptors that it fits like a key. Alcohol pummels brain cells until they die. Why is it legal?
Please. Katrina. School buses. Government response:
An all too typical evasion. The point at hand was the baselessness of your prior evasion in asserting blind faith in government as against a long record of criticism of government, this as part of attempts to cover up the gross misstep of claiming spirituality as the private reserve of the religious. As for resort to the not-relevant-to-the-discussion school buses themselves, you are merely parroting the lameness of the right-wing disinformation media. The school buses were not owned by the city, there was no role for them included in the emergency plan, and by the time any potential role arose, all the available drivers had evacuated the city. To repeat, the need for means to evacuate those with no access to personal transportation had been discussed with FEMA the week before the storm. FEMA was to supply that means. They failed to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
The diminishment is all yours, if you are suggesting that the Founders were little more than real estate speculators and that religious faith was not and does not remain a central concern to the citizens of a democratic republic. If the words "by their Creator" were so laughably objectionable, then why were they used? Why not "endowed by their intelligence or "endowed by their Sovereign", or even -- to follow your logic "endowed by Parliament"? To argue that something aside from cold-blooded greed is a fatuous way to live one's life is one thing; to content that that something expresses in some way a reduction in one's humanity is quite another.
Lots of smoke, no fire. Not even the hint of a fire. Read the opening paragraph of the Declaration. It concludes with these words...
...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The opinions of mankind? Who do you think the authors are talking to here? Why are they bothering to do that? What was it about the context of the times and the impending effort of revolution that would have led the authors to include such words? At this point, you don't know, and you don't care. You're content it seems with the Beavis-like response "He said Creator", and off you go like some trained seal into an assumption that this is some sort of expression of devout religious faith. If trained seal is as much as you ever want to be in this world, then you're doing a heckuva job, Brownie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
The range of contortion and confabulation to which you refer encompasses attempts to apply quantifiable and rational explanations for phenomena which lie outside the ken of such explanation: a child's innocent smile; the light in the eye of a woman which inspires our lifelong devotion; the compassion we feel for the plight of those less fortunate than us. No one knows what the question is, but the answers are what mark us as angels, and identify us as something more than rational self-interested bipeds...
Feminine wiles and children's smiles are quite a good deal less than a license to suppose without further evidence the most fantastic things imagineable. Only those with very, very low standards of proof are going to buy into any religion on such a basis. The desire to see oneself as more than what one actually is is understandable. Utterly caving in to that desire is not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
