Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 125

• 0%

  stephen-johnson1 year, 1 month ago

  From the article:

  We should not be surprised. It was Jefferson, after all, who insisted upon the Bible as part of the curriculum at the University of Virginia, Jefferson who approved federal funding for a Catholic priest to serve the Kaskaski Indians, and Jefferson who once said, "I am a Christian in the only sense in which he (Jesus) wished anyone to be." True, he was far from theologically orthodox, he expected most of the young men in his day to end their lives as Unitarians and he angrily despised the clergy of his day. Yet, contrary to the secular dreams of an influential few today, Jefferson envisioned a government that would encourage religion while neither submitting to nor erecting a religious tyranny.

  Reply

  7 Replies

  • 0%

    crespi1 year, 1 month ago

    Too bad this administration perverted that dream.

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      SonOfTheMask1 year, 1 month ago

      Interesting comment. You know what they say...opinions are like...well, I can't say that here, but you know.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        atypicalguy1 year, 1 month ago

        Yes you can. A$$holes. F.uck censorship.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          crespi1 year, 1 month ago

          Dude!

          Reply
    • 0%

      djrevelky1 year, 1 month ago

      I'm really curious about just how the Bush administration destroyed the "seperation of church and state" that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Go ahead, find the phrase in the Constitution and I'll give you $100.

      But anyway...just what has Bush done? I don't see any of you paying taxes to support Churches. Last I checked you don't have to pay a special tax because you aren't a Christian. (Go to Saudi Arabia and see what taxes you pay if you aren't a Muslim.) I don't see any other religions banned or everyone forced to carry a Bible. (In Saudi Arabia all religious text but the Quran are banned from being seen in public.)

      Just how has bush broken down your freedom of religion?

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        vor1 year, 1 month ago

        Faith based initiatives, abstinence education, I suppose that is what is referred to here. We are a long way from the Taliban. But it is the holes in the dykes that worry some.

        Just as with the Second Amendment you have to determine intent. Gun advocates read that as an all-inclusive right to bear arms. Yet the only personal firearms at the time were single shot muskets, not AK-47's with 40 round banana clips. Read literally it says that the public should be prepared to form a militia at any time and should be allowed to bear arms for that purpose. Read the third amendment, often ignored because it has little relevance to the world of today. Does the 2nd have relevance either? Is it not badly misrepresented?

        No matter how you read the First Amendment its intent seems clearly to keep Government disinvolved from the business of Religion. Jeffersons statements from outside these works make his intentions pretty clear.

        Reply
  • 0%

    mr-thoughtful1 year, 1 month ago

    Thomas Jefferson once ordered the Gospels in Greek, Latin, English and French, and then snipped out all the references to Jesus's divinity and miracles. He laid out each version, side by side, with the edits.

    He ended up with a compelling story of Jesus's sayings. It came to be known as "The Jefferson Bible" and was used to swear in presidents of the US until the 1920's.

    He blamed all the references to divinity on the fact that the first Christians were ignorant men, and that the story was corrupted by 'priestcraft.'

    Reply
• 0%

  PaganGodess1 year, 1 month ago

  A very appropriate post SJ! I will be back but must get some work done. = D

  Reply
• 0%

  rockman0691 year, 1 month ago

  Excellent find, Steven. It is very unfortunate that this country which has been built on the backs of humble God-fearing people are now being trampled with the same words that were placed in our nation's founding documents. Our nation was built as a refuge for the religiously oppressed, for those looking for a freedom unknown at the time.

  Times have changed...

  Reply
• 0%

  Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

  The majority of the founders were deists, Jefferson included.

  This article paints a somewhat skewed picture because it leaves out many other important Jeffersonian quotes. These men stood staunchly for freedom and tolerance of all viewpoints.

  But here are some important Jefferson quotes that were left out that need to be understood for the honest appraisal of his views.

  "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

  -Thomas Jefferson,1782

  "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

  -Thomas Jefferson,1787

  Reply

  13 Replies

  • 0%

    Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

    The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

    In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

    -Thomas Jefferson, 1814

    Reply

    8 Replies

    • 0%

      Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

      Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

      -Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

      To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

      -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

      Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

      -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

      In his day, his biggest opponents were the clergy. They accused him of being an infidel. His response was "They are right".

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

        Jefferson was a true renaissance man. A man of science, and a deep philosophical thinker. He personally felt organized religion and half the bible was bunk. There is a Jefferson Bible, in which he attempts to discover the philosophy behind the mumbo jumbo. He removes all references to anything irrational, which he felt was added by evil feeble minded clerics and despots to further their personal gains. Trying to rewrite history and paint these men as supporters of any particular religion would be a crime. They stood for freedom, including freedom of, and from religion. This is the truth.

        Reply

        6 Replies

        • 0%

          Unashamed1 year, 1 month ago

          One person can find 100 quotes of Jefferson that are critical of religion and the Bible. Another can find 100 quotes of him praising religion and the Bible. It is irrelevant how many of either kind can be cited. Jefferson is not THE ONLY FOUNDING FATHER! His words are not LAW! His opinions, if anyone can really figure them out, carry no more weight on Constitutional issues than anyone elses. The same goes for George Washington, John Adams, and Engleburg Humperdink!

          BTW, the idea of separation of church and state did not originate with Thomas Jefferson. "In the year 1524, Anabaptists in Zurich advocated the practice of the separation of church and state." "In 1631 in America, Roger Williams advocated that the Puritans "separate church from state in their colony."

          It was a Baptist religious doctrine which may be why Jefferson used that phrase in a letter to Baptists. Taken as it has in recent years, the 1st Amendment is a violation of itself!

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            Unashamed1 year, 1 month ago

            Roger Williams was also the founder of the first Baptist church in America and was the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, which included in its charter a provision for religious freedom (aka separation of church and state). The only other colonies advocation separation was William Penn's (a Quaker) Pennsylvania, and Maryland (a catholic colony named for Mother Mary) which promised religious freedom because they feared there were not enough catholics to populate a colony by themselves.

            Reply
          • 0%

            david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago

            Ulrich Zwingli pushed the concept of separation of church and state up to the point of his death in Zurich in 1531. He firmly believed that no church should ever have the power to rule over the state. He was rather angered by the Catholic Church and the Vatican holdings. Of course, no surprise there since he was mostly against the DiMedici family in Florence which had corrupted the Popes in Rome.

            Reply
        • 0%

          SonOfTheMask1 year, 1 month ago

          I hope your avatar name doesn't mean what it appears to possibly mean.

          I enjoy your comments, but if that is what you meant, you "SUK".

          Hopefully, there's another explanation.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            crespi1 year, 1 month ago

            Nigerians?

            Reply
          • 0%

            AmericanIdiot1 year, 1 month ago

            What else could it be?

            Reply
  • 0%

    zaph221 year, 1 month ago

    "The majority of the founders were deists" Are you sure? I only ask because as I understood it the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence only two were Deists, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and both of them were associated with the Church of England. Of the 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, only one was a Deist while 47 were Christian. Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention only one was a Deist, with 54 Christians. Even the most noted and quoted of Deists, Thomas Jefferson, said "The reason Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." Ben Franklin said "the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs the affairs of men." ...

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      zaph221 year, 1 month ago

      President John Adams proclaimed, "The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." Another founding father, Patrick Henry, said "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

      Perhaps it was because the founding fathers were nearly all Christians that they provided Constitutional guaranteed that all men should be free to worship as they choose?

      Reply
  • 0%

    mr-thoughtful1 year, 1 month ago

    Then as now, no politician could acknowledge skepticism of religion and survive in politics, but virtually everyone with education was a deist secretly. There is significant evidence in their correspondence. They were influenced by The Enlightenment, a profoundly anti-religious movement.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      zaph221 year, 1 month ago

      "virtually everyone with education was a deist secretly."

      If they were secretly deists how do you know about the secret? Any reliable sources for us to check these "facts" for ourselves?

      Reply
• 0%

  toph19731 year, 1 month ago

  Why should there be Religion taught in public school? There are many Christian, Baptist, Catholic etc., etc., etc. that teach this type of curriculum. If you want that type of education in school go to one of those. It needs to be kept out of public school. I sure don't wany my kids being taught this. Why is it that Christianity must attempt to force everyone to believe what they do? Disgraceful.

  Reply

  32 Replies

  • 0%

    zaph221 year, 1 month ago

    Why should Christians be forced to have their children taught evolution, and pay taxes to do it. And you're right, there are many Christian schools, and Christians children could, and probably should, go to them. The question then becomes why should Christians who are sending their children to private schools have to pay taxes to support the public schools? Get the vocher system so that people that want to send their children to private schools don't have to pay twice for their childrens eduation and your point would be valid.

    Reply

    31 Replies

    • 0%

      Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

      God forbid children should be taught science in a science classroom.

      The freedom all private schools enjoy and I might add their merits come from, is the freedom from constraints and bureaucracy that oversees the public schools. You really best think twice about that voucher system if you value private education. The money is ALWAYs tied to following the wishes of politicians, bureaucrats, and profiteers.

      Reply

      14 Replies

      • 0%

        zaph221 year, 1 month ago

        I never said science shouldn't be taught. I was replying to what toph was saying, in that context why should Christians be forced to send their children to private school, and still pay to support the public school.

        And if you're honest, no one can prove evolution anymore than they could prove God exists, it all depents on where one's faith if placed, what they choose do believe, so why is it that only evolution should be taught in public schools? And back to the original point, toph says those people should send their children to a private Christian school, again I'll ask, if they have to do that to see their children have the education they'd like them to have, why do they still have to continue to support the public schools that their children do not attend. Why should the Christian not also have the freedoms you mention.

        And I don't know if others appreciate the irony in "God forbid children should be taught science in a science classroom." but it made me laugh.

        Reply

        13 Replies

        • 0%

          Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

          To be free to teach as you wish instead of the constraints put on public schools. As I said, funding ALWAYS has strings attached. A private school in my neighborhood brought the "milk" program in and abandoned it after a year because the free milk wasn't worth the dealing with the bureaucracy to get it. Be careful what you wish for, believe me you might get it.

          And it would end all the positive things about private schools.

          Reply

          11 Replies

          • 0%

            zaph221 year, 1 month ago

            Maybe better than the vocher system would be to allow those who want to send their children to private schools to opt out of paying public school taxes so they can use the money to send their children where they prefer. My point is why should those people have to pay twice for their childrens education. And again, in reply to toph saying those people can just send their children to Christians schools, it toph willing to pay for it for all the take toph's advice?

            My other point, and you didn't address it, when it comes right down to it, we can't prove God or evolution, so why is one ok and not the other in a public school? Why can there not be science teaching evolution, and a theology class? And as you know many Christians believe in both God and evolution...

            Reply

            10 Replies

            • 0%

              zaph221 year, 1 month ago

              Back to toph's comment "Why is it that Christianity must attempt to force everyone to believe what they do? Disgraceful." Toph asks this as they don't seem to have a problem with evolution being forced on those that don't believe it. Yet forcing that view, since toph agrees with it, isn't disgraceful?

              Reply

              7 Replies

              • 0%

                sanctusvia1 year, 1 month ago

                Maybe that is because evolution is, you know, science, and abounds in evidence to support it as such. And creationism is, you know, not science. I have no problem with kids being taught theology. At home and in church. Not in publicly funded schools. A comparative religion class, however, would be fine with me, as a part of sociology.

                Reply

                5 Replies

                • 0%

                  SonOfTheMask1 year, 1 month ago

                  I have a similar opinion on macro-evolution. I really hate feeling guilty enjoying your posts, considering the possible interpretation of your avatar name...maybe you can clear that up?

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  Redneck1 year, 1 month ago

                  "abounds in evidence to support it (evolution)" This statement is untrue. There is more evidence to disprove evolution than support it but it is the dogma of those who do not believe in God. There is not one shred of true evidence to support the "THEORY" of evolution. As a theory it is merely a quess about origins.

                  Recent science has been tearing it apart as a viable theory both in physics and in the study of DNA and animal genomes. The conclusions being reached is that any mutation to "adapt" has destructive consequences of such magnitude that the descendants will cease to exist in a very few generations. BUT the scientific community refuses to address the implications honestly. And certainly those who base their rejection of a Creator and elevate man to the level of diety reject it as well and refuse to address it as well.

                  BUT we are still forced in government education to teach our children a false theory which is being disproved.

                  Reply

                  3 Replies

                  • 0%

                    mr-thoughtful1 year, 1 month ago

                    Redneck, indeed!

                    Evolution is not a "theory" the way you'd use the word--to mean a 'guess.' In science "theory" means a body of knowledge. (The 'Theory of Gravity' does not suggest that scientists doubt it as true.)

                    While there are some specific questions about evolutionary stages, no one with any credibility in science doubts its truth. And, regarding DNA, I just read a book by the director of the Human Genome project, a conservative Christian, who states categorically that it is a mistake to challenge evolution, and that DNA contains proof that evolution is true.

                    Reply

                    2 Replies

                    • 0%

                      sanctusvia1 year, 1 month ago

                      Thank you, Mr. Thoughtful. You beat me to the punch. I would also like to add that if someone thinks gravity is also "only a theory" then by all means, go to the top of the tallest building you can find and step off. I'm sure god will keep you from falling.

                      Reply
                    • 0%

                      Redneck1 year, 1 month ago

                      Author? Who? Without knowing to whom you refer I must say that first they may be "conservative" in their politics and they may claim to be a Christian. But some Christians are screwed up in their theology and do not believe the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. And "conservative" can be a broad relative term. I would say that is probably the case with the person you mention.

                      Evolution is anti-Biblical. If man evoluted then the Purpose of God as revealed in the Bible is a joke. Evolution is a theory. It is the biggest unsupported "guess" known to have survived this long without positive proof. "Scientists" have fashioned lies to support it. The so called "evidence" can be interpreted to support other hypotheses which supports the Biblical account.

                      Darwin was amazed that the scientific community considered his "guessing" seriously! I am amazed as well that intelligent people still cling to it.

                      Reply
              • 0%

                dwemm1 year, 1 month ago

                I don't support the war in Iraq. Does that mean I get a refund on the taxes the Bush administration has spent there? Can I invalidate the bonds sold to China if I disagree with them holding so many American dollars in their hands?

                Sorry, I grew up in the parochial school system, and I know that they would vacuum in the tax dollars, if they could. But only for Christian schools. If a Shinto school in Hawaii wanted tax dollars, would you support it?

                Reply
            • 0%

              Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

              Talk to your local school board. They can have bible classes if they choose. There is a bible as literature class in my town's high school. You just can't call it science.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                crespi1 year, 1 month ago

                Zaph22-

                The name of the school you're thinking of is Sunday School.

                Reply
        • 0%

          smithichie1 year, 1 month ago

          Evolution is proven each flu season.

          Evolution is proven with each new herbicide and pesticide that need to be developed.

          SOME xians may not support what is being taught in public schools and they are free to go to private schools or homeschool but should still have to support public schools since we all receive the benefits.

          Reply
    • 0%

      toph19731 year, 1 month ago

      I guess that I should have stated my post differently. I would not have a problem with ID or creationsim taught in public school. It cannot be taught as a science or history class. It must be an elective taught under mythology/theology.

      Evolution is a widely accepted theory, one that has an Everest sized amountain of evidence to support it. How do you explain evolution on a microbiological level? What evidence is there for Creation or ID? As far as I know there isn't a shred of evidence. To put these two ideas in with science would be a detriment to the education in this country.

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 0%

        zaph221 year, 1 month ago

        My issue with you, and I believe it was clear, was that you seemed to want to force Christians to go to private schools, and at the same time you seemed to have no problem with your point of view being forced on others. And with as much evidence as there is, evolution can still not be proven, any more than the existance of God can. And how many times has there been a mountain of evidence that has gotten an innocent person convicted of a crime they didn't commit? That is my point, there is no proof of either evolution or God. And I know viruses mutate, but that doesn't mean they mutated into multi-celled creatures. Note, I don't deny evolution, or God, I can easily believe both. Some people can't, I get that too.

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 0%

          toph19731 year, 1 month ago

          I just think that if you have a problem with evolution being taught in public schools, you have no business asking that Creationism or ID should be taught as science in those schools. If you don't like it you have every opportunity to go to a private school that teaches the beliefs you want. I'm not attempting to force anyone to go to a private school. Christianity has almost no basis as science and I surely don't want children in this country learning christianity's version of things taught as science.

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            johnnyt1 year, 1 month ago

            do i get to take the money that is taxed from me for the purpose of supporting public education to use it for the private christian school?

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              toph19731 year, 1 month ago

              What about me that has no Children and will never have any children. Do I get that tax money back? No. My answer to you then is the same No.

              Reply
          • 0%

            Redneck1 year, 1 month ago

            Parents are responsible for the education of their children. Before government began to take over the local schools to control them and use them as indoctrination centers parents in counties controlled the circirrulum through their school boards. It should still be that way.

            Parents have a right to determine what their children are taught. If they oppose evolution taught as fact instead of as theory they should have that right. They may legally request their children be excluded from "sex classes". Why not exclusion from "Evolution classes?" I certainly think they should be allowed to exclude their children from indoctrination that promotes homosexuality as "alternative lifestyle" !!!

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              smithichie1 year, 1 month ago

              Why not exclude children from math classes?

              The bible says pi is equal to 3, my child's math book say's the bible is wrong.

              I think I should be able to pull my kid out of that biology class that is trying to fill my kids head with the idea that bats are mammals not birds like the bible says, not to mention the way they keep telling him locasts have 6 legs like all insects not like the 4 the bible says.

              Reply
        • 0%

          cleare1 year, 1 month ago

          zaph - just because you don't accept the "everest of evidence" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

          there is plenty of proof of evolution, you are just unwilling to accept it.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            rockman0691 year, 1 month ago

            I will wait for the avalanche of "evidence" to hit me. That is only scientific. 'Til then I wait for the Theory of evolution to become a natural law.

            It seems several people have the misunderstanding of what a theory is and a natural law. It is the natural law that is irrefutable. A theory is just that, a strong speculation based on SOME data that corroborates a point of view. However, there are still many data that disproves evolution--keep both evolution and creation in school and there is equality.

            The problem is that creation is something that many scientists are afraid of... what if it is true? Then everything they have fought for, and received funding checks for, goes up in smoke.

            Also, evolution is not species adaptation. There is a major difference between the two.

            Reply
    • 0%

      cantfoolme1 year, 1 month ago

      Zaph22. I asume you also believe christians are forced to learn maths and English language if you think they are forced to be taught evolution? I personally don't mind religion being taught at schools, all religions that is (including opposing views to religion such as atheism etc) but it should never be considered as science and hence kept seperate from the likes of evolution. Besides how callous to deny youngsters the thrilling study of evolution.

      Reply
    • 0%

      david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago

      Because evolution is valid scientific theory whereas the Bible is religious dogma and literature, which had no business in a science classroom.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        rockman0691 year, 1 month ago

        Who said it had to be in a scientific class? Create a separate class that deals with theology.

        Personally, I think they should be taught simultaneously, but by someone who understands both sides and can provide an objective view on both. That would allow budding minds the opportunity to evaluate and decide.

        Reply
    • 0%

      david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago

      Why should gay people without children have to pay taxes which go to support public schools? Because (and this logic applies to both groups) schools teach considerably more than just science. We teach a wide variety of subjects, such as mathematics, world languages, English, social studies, and a variety of other subjects. Even science classes have plenty of other material to teach than the evolution of humans. For example, physics, chemistry and a wide array of biology principles. The amount of time devoted in any school curriculum to evolution is minimal at best.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        Redneck1 year, 1 month ago

        I agree that teh teaching of evolution is "minimal at best." The problem is that it is cited in all other scientific classes as a vital element. If it is true then man is merely another animal which has evolved to a higher level of intelligence and knowledge. Man is just an animal.

        Man then has no obligation to a Creator. Many things are impacted for the worst from this worldview. Example: animals are cited for their "homosexual behavoir" as a basic for assuming that it is just as right for humans to engage in it as well. Sex is an "animal instinct" rather than an act of expressing love between two people. You understand the point.

        IMO evolution is a debasing philosophy in our society. The impacts are now being felt in the culture. The devaluation of human life and the elevation of animals to having "rights" are symptoms.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          Daylight1 year, 1 month ago

          Redneck

          Well said.

          Reply
        • 0%

          smithichie1 year, 1 month ago

          You are under the false assumption that there are no redeeming values to be found in other animals besides humans. This is not the case, all of our morals evolved and can be seen in degrees outside of our species.

          Gibbons are often more monogamist than humans, the couple sing to one another and a widow or widower will many times sing no more.

          A female chimp may carry a dead offspring for weeks.

          Vampire bats share food with 'friends' more than 'non-friends'.

          Given a chance to get food by pulling a chain-that also delievers an electric shock to a companion, Rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for days.

          Then of course there's the countless stories of dogs saving human lives, traveling incredible distances to find owners, etc.

          Reply
• 0%

  Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

  Zaph, I appreciate your point of view about having to pay for public schools. But even people without children pay taxes and a fair percentage is for schools. I believe all are entitled to an education in this country, I think it is best for you and I in the long run that kids whose parents are not responsible enough or able to provide an education for their kids have the opportunity to get one anyway. But Education is a purchasable commodity, Some TV's are better than others right?

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    zaph221 year, 1 month ago

    Yes, some tv's are better than others. But of those tv's no one it trying to force anyone to buy a particular brand, not the way toph wants to force Christians to pay for a private school so toph can force their views on others, while at the same time saying it's Christians trying to force their views on toph. My whole poing all along has been how amazing it is when someone criticizes others for doing something, then doesn't see it when they are doing the same thing they criticize in others. Disgraceful isn't it?

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      crespi1 year, 1 month ago

      Christians say you "Go to Hell" if you disagree.

      Christians say you are "an abomination" if you don't fit in.

      Christians hope and pray for the Earth to go up in flames to fulfill prophecy.

      Scientists say, you disagree with the theory and ask you to prove your side.

      Scientists say, "how can we fix the problem?"

      I'll take those nasty old scientists over the wonderful ultra-religious.

      Reply
    • 0%

      dwemm1 year, 1 month ago

      You can live, for a while, on food stamps or WIC. You won't live well, and you'll buy the foods that are on a list, and you won't have steak, but you can live.

      If you have the money, and you wish to buy the steak and top it with A-1 sauce, no one is stopping you from spending your money that way.

      Public schools are run to provide the best education that works for everyone. Extra stuff like religious courses that please a small sector of the public and not others get left off.

      Reply
• 0%

  Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

  Evolution can be observed, for instance when a doctor prescribes an antibiotic, the bacteria that survive the dose will reproduce and create a new strain that is immune to the anti-biotic. That is natural selection. I don't see why anyone who understands evolution thinks it is against religion, no one thinks gravity is anti religious. There is nothing that says God went POOF and all things poped into existence, there are mechanisms involved in most things, the mechanism does not disprove god right? What's the problem?

  Reply

  13 Replies

  • 0%

    zaph221 year, 1 month ago

    I believe I said many Christians have no problem with evolution. I simply said there is no definate proof, of either, that it is all a matter of faith. What one chooses to believe, creationism, evolution, or that they co-exist, are all a matter of one's faith. And forcing evolution on someone is no better than what toph says Christians do. And being a Christian myself, I know that's bs. Since I can ask anyone to show me where I have ever tried to force my religion, or religious view on them, knowing that no one can show that. And the same would apply to a great many Christians.

    And of course there is no problem with science and religion, that's why if you really look, I beleive it was one of Heisenberg's theories that essentially says miracles are possible

    Reply

    9 Replies

    • 0%

      crespi1 year, 1 month ago

      You're trying to force it right now...

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Redneck1 year, 1 month ago

        Good grief! Get a life! This is a "discussion" not a concentration camp! You can opt out at any point!

        Reply
    • 0%

      Dionys1 year, 1 month ago

      Heisenberg's uncertainty principal supports Buddhist philosophy, thought and religion a lot more than Christianity and miracles. Ockham's Razor also, unfortunately, tends to not support the idea of miracles.

      That said, isn't it about time that you start embracing Christ's life as example and instead of attacking your enemies, embrace them and love them as Christ would have?

      It's fascinating to me how the majority of loud, self-proclaimed Christians tend to focus on the OT ten commandments and Leviticus while ignoring Christ's life as example. Embrace the poor, embrace poverty, love your enemy and treat others as you would be treated yourself.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        zaph221 year, 1 month ago

        Who did I attack. Now if you think not being in agreement with someone is an attack, that is your perception problem. I'm not even attacking you right now. And as far as attacking my enemy? Who is my enemy here, I haven't seen any. Just because someone doesn't see things the way I do doesn't make them my enemy. Once again, that is your perception, not mine. I don't even see you as an enemy, just someone a bit confused and making poor assumptions abouit me. Did it look like I considered Radiofreeeuropa an enemy? I think the conversation has been pretty civil, so again I'll ask, who is my enemy, I don't see one here.

        Reply
    • 0%

      cleare1 year, 1 month ago

      zaph -

      we keep telling you and you keep blowing it off...

      not only is there "definate" proof of evolution, there is definitive proof.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        zaph221 year, 1 month ago

        stop telling me and show me the proof.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          cleare1 year, 1 month ago

          i guess you missed a lot of high school biology class

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            zaph221 year, 1 month ago

            no, nor did I miss my zoology, chemistry, or physics classes in high school. Didn't miss any science classes in college either.

            Reply
        • 0%

          Daylight1 year, 1 month ago

          zaph22

          stop telling me and show me the proof.

          I would love to see that proof, if they can produce. My book tells me the same thing, "produce your proof if you are truthful."

          Reply
  • 0%

    crespi1 year, 1 month ago

    WE ARE DEVO(lution)

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      zaph221 year, 1 month ago

      whip it, whip it good.

      Reply
  • 0%

    david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago

    Perhaps the problem is not that more genetic diversity does occur, which is an observable phenomenon, perhaps the problem is that your understanding of the theory is flawed. Re-evaluate the theory and come back to the table.

    Reply
• 0%

  Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

  I certainly am not suggesting you are forcing your views on anyone Zaph, but I am suggesting that if you want more than what public schools are able to provide it is worth paying for, your local district can not count the students who don't attend their schools in their funding numbers so you are not paying for those particular students anyway. Yet the district will provide transport, special ed, and remedial programs to private schools. (at least that's how it is here in Jersey).

  As I said, the taxes for schools are paid even if you have no children. There are some vocal and very politically active "Christians" who do loudly advocate a lot of non sense that whips up support from the highly un-educated. It makes it all look bad to outsiders. Perhaps if more reasonable Christians spoke out against the likes of the "Ted Haggards" and "Jim Jones" of the world there would be less friction.

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago

    But regarding evolution, it's not based on faith but observable natural selection. I suppose you mean that man is involved in natural selection isn't provable.

    Well there's an awful lot of fossil and DNA evidence that strongly suggests it to be so. It is a much harder case trying to prove god exists because there is no record or DNA to examine. I'm just saying that it's not a reasonable comparison. Got to go, nice chatting with you!

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      zaph221 year, 1 month ago

      I enjoyed the chat too. Take it easy.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago

        Zaph, though I disagreed with a number of your posts, I have to say you are by far the most civil and respectful of all the Christians on Netscape who express their opinions. I am impressed by your tone and appreciate your side. Thank you for sharing your insight.

        Reply
    • 0%

      crespi1 year, 1 month ago

      What's with the name? We're all going to eye you sideways until we hear it...

      If it's National Gentlemen's Rectal Society Southern United Kingdom or something like that, we won't make fun of it.

      But we gotta know...

      Reply
• 0%

  ru4me1 year, 1 month ago

  The homosexual community and anit-christian mindset on the rise in America will bring this nation down! The Hand of Protection that we have enjoyed for over 200 years will be removed. We say we are the most powerful nation in the world, the greatest nation. Yet that has been said concerning other world powers and they fell!

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 0%

    crespi1 year, 1 month ago

    I gave you a positive for your open honest homophobia.

    You are not afraid to show the world that even though Democracy says let someone be free, YOU will openly defy that till your dying day.

    Bravo

    Freeedom In Christ to be a slave to hateful Neocon ideology forever!

    Goooooooo Jesus!

    Reply
  • 0%

    PaganGodess1 year, 1 month ago

    Here's a news flash for you ru4 - homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man. I don't see that this issue has even remotely brought any nation down. I won't even speak to the anti-Christian mindset issue. If you want to point fingers and blame someone for the downfall of this country try starting with your local senators and representatives. Operators are standing by and they are waiting to hear from you. =D

    Reply
  • 0%

    cleare1 year, 1 month ago

    what will bring this great nation down is the failure of our educational system to bring some intellectual enlightenment to people like you.

    religious prejudices are far more likely to bring down a society.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      PaganGodess1 year, 1 month ago

      Hey! Nice to see you, girl! =D

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        cleare1 year, 1 month ago

        back at ya, pg

        Reply
• 0%

  ru4me1 year, 1 month ago

  Study a little history. When the powerful nation began to permit and then accept the homosexual lifestyle - it fell!

  I am not a homopobic. I do not hate homosexuals. I wouldn't want to see one hurt, or abused in any way.

  I have several friends that are gay, and they know how I feel, and we are still friends. I pray for them, and for their families, and needs just as I do for many people.

  As a matter of fact I have read angry comments and haeful arguments against Christians and many justify their opinions in different ways. It seems OK to bash Christians, but it doesn't seem OK for Christians to comment at all.

  So this is my last post...I know when I am not wanted!

  Reply

  7 Replies