Atheism died in the 20th century

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

A slanted and fact-free response. Given that a show of piety is essential for anyone wanting the votes of the masses, I would have thought Americans might be the last people to ask about that deception.

I don't think you have claimed this exactly, but is it really important to you that there has 'never been an atheist president'?

Part of the problem is the loaded term 'atheist'. I identify with the word myself because it describes the way I live my life, but as I mentioned earlier I don't like it because it defines me in terms of others' crazy ideas. I am more than just a lack of crazy ideas (and I have other unrelated ideas that are definitely crazy). You can put many public figures who have no belief in a deity in that same category, Einstein probably being the most famous. Even Richard Dawkins resists the term somewhat, putting himself at 6 on his scale of 1-7.

Meantime, that lack of intellectual satisfaction at not having explanations for our existence makes it difficult to analyse non-belief too far into the past. How did all this stuff come to be here? A deist god is the placeholder 'explanation' until you have Big Bang cosmology and evolution by natural selection. We know that all the stuff in the universe is borrowed from the expansion of space-time, and that the living things fittest to survival and reproduction tend to pass on their ever-mutating genes, but that was all unavailable to the desperately curious before the last part of the 19th Century. So almost everyone was at least a deist.

Here is some speculation on the closeted atheist presidents, but they could have done themselves a favour by calling them the 'nones', in which category you would include most intellectually curious deists from the past, but not all.

Their list of definite (based on their analysis of blasphemous quotes) non-believers: Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and Taft.

Their suspects for closeted status, based on less compelling evidence: Harrison, Tyler, Hayes, Arthur, Kennedy, Nixon, Hoover, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.

Stuart

Lincoln was no "unbeliever". He very clearly "believed" and infact... merely removed himself from the brick and mortar establishment. If you don't see Christian Principles in Lincolns actual writing and leadership... you're deceiving yourself and believing propaganda put out by intellectual morons that have no desire to ponder what proves that they are dwarfed by a "higher power".

Abe at Fort Sumter

"“I charge the whole guilt of this war upon the ambitious, educated, plotting leaders of the South.… A day will come when God will reveal judgment and arraign these mighty miscreants.… And then these guiltiest and most remorseless traitors … shall be whirled aloft and plunged downward forever and ever in an endless retribution.”"

Oh... and Jefferson...

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

- In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia,

You are misrepresenting T.J., as well.

In full response to each person you cited as "not being a Christian"... they simply disliked attending services and thus the assumption is made that they weren't "servants" of Jesus.

These men resisted the rule of Theocracy... not Jesus. Speculation... alone... could ever say those men were "unbelievers".

 

[Stuu]

Lincoln was no "unbeliever". He very clearly "believed" and infact... merely removed himself from the brick and mortar establishment. If you don't see Christian Principles in Lincolns actual writing and leadership... you're deceiving yourself and believing propaganda put out by intellectual morons that have no desire to ponder what proves that they are dwarfed by a "higher power".

Abe at Fort Sumter

"“I charge the whole guilt of this war upon the ambitious, educated, plotting leaders of the South.… A day will come when God will reveal judgment and arraign these mighty miscreants.… And then these guiltiest and most remorseless traitors … shall be whirled aloft and plunged downward forever and ever in an endless retribution.”"

Oh... and Jefferson...

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

- In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia,

You are misrepresenting T.J., as well.

In full response to each person you cited as "not being a Christian"... they simply disliked attending services and thus the assumption is made that they weren't "servants" of Jesus.

These men resisted the rule of Theocracy... not Jesus. Speculation... alone... could ever say those men were "unbelievers".

And indeed if you read the website, they would admit there is a lot of speculation. And it's worth reading just for the brilliant anti-christian quotes from some of those old presidents.

But look at the makeup of Congress: none of the 535 members of the House and Senate identify as atheist. One calls herself 'unaffiliated' and 10 didn't declare. Obviously some of those 535 people are not admitting they are non-believers.

Many truths are concealed to get elected. A religious lack of belief is just one of them. Where I live, people really don't care, and while our current prime minister is Catholic, the previous two were religious non-believers. We have a slight undertone of mistrust of politicians who declare their religious convictions too strongly. At least that's one pretense our politicians don't feel they need to keep up.

And of course, by stupidly taking out of the running all those who claim not to believe, your electorate severely limits the pool of intelligent and capable candidates who would otherwise be well-qualified to further the interests of your crazy nation on the world's stage. I guess that can't be what the presidency, or even Congress, is about.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Oops...missed the edit post button again.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

And indeed if you read the website, they would admit there is a lot of speculation. And it's worth reading just for the brilliant anti-christian quotes from some of those old presidents.

But look at the makeup of Congress: none of the 535 members of the House and Senate identify as atheist. One calls herself 'unaffiliated' and 10 didn't declare. Obviously some of those 535 people are not admitting they are non-believers.

Many truths are concealed to get elected. A religious lack of belief is just one of them. Where I live, people really don't care, and while our current prime minister is Catholic, the previous two were religious non-believers. We have a slight undertone of mistrust of politicians who declare their religious convictions too strongly. At least that's one pretense our politicians don't feel they need to keep up.

And of course, by stupidly taking out of the running all those who claim not to believe, your electorate severely limits the pool of intelligent and capable candidates who would otherwise be well-qualified to further the interests of your crazy nation on the world's stage.

Stuart

Excellent Response! Fair and Honest points! As for the pool of intelligent and capable candidates... I would have voted for Chris Hitch as Pres., before he passed on and learned that there is a God.

- Grinning... but sincere. I know he didn't run or anything and he was a Brit... but he had a good head on his shoulders... other than the theological placement of his head in his rump.

God works through even men and women that think He doesn't exist.

I'm just saying... Yes Stuart.. there is a Santa Claus of the Universe.

 

[Stuu]

Excellent Response! Fair and Honest points! As for the pool of intelligent and capable candidates... I would have voted for Chris Hitch as Pres., before he passed on and learned that there is a God.

- Grinning... but sincere. I know he didn't run or anything and he was a Brit... but he had a good head on his shoulders... other than the theological placement of his head in his rump.

I think Hitchens made some fans by recasting himself as a kind of neocon, and supporting the invasion of Iraq. That must have caused some head-scratching in the GOP.

God works through even men and women that think He doesn't exist.

I'm just saying... Yes Stuart.. there is a Santa Claus of the Universe.

...but one that is just as likely at giving cheap presents (why did I get an appendix likely to inflame, burst and kill me??) as at lighting the fire and throwing people in after it has climbed down the chimney!?

Stuart

 

[nikolai_42]

Shops made a point and you quoted it, then went on to attempt to disprove his point. I just dropped scripture that binds to Islam and explains why his statement about Christianity being prevalent and Islam only now beginning to gain global momentum... thanks to the crusades... was correct.

I wasn't jumping in on any other aspect of your post... but scripture is very clear about the consistent use of the "Crescent" ornament by a force that is present all throughout scripture.

edit to come...

Acts 19 (Riot at Ephesus) 21Now after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” 22And having sent into Macedonia two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.

23About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way. 24For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen. 25These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said, “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. 26And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

28When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”​

Do you know who "Artemis" was?

She is associated with the "Goddess of the Moon"... if you follow the Acts Narrative... you can easily see that many demons were connected to her worship. The Apostles were extremely busy casting demons out in the chapter that I quoted.

Moon... Moon worship... Surely you see my point?

Revelation 12:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

If you were a Dispensationalist... you would understand that the woman is National Israel... funny that she has the "moon" "under her feet". That's seen all throughout scripture as a sign of power over something. Kind of like when Jesus put the serpent under His "heal".

Just a quick fact... the Crusaders initially got angry when the Holy Land... AKA Israel (Palestine at the time) was overrun by ... Drum Roll... Islamic Turks.

This was the "First Crusade" and brought Jerusalem out of Islamic control around 1099 A.D.

I think I do see your point, but mine was one of justifying method because it has been done before with great affect. The disciples wanted to do that and got a severe rebuke. When Peter cut off the ear of the High Priest, Jesus healed it. The point is that the crusades of old don't justify banning Islam outright on American soil today - not that military action against Muslim countries and tighter immigration controls on home turf isn't justified.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I think Hitchens made some fans by recasting himself as a kind of neocon, and supporting the invasion of Iraq. That must have caused some head-scratching in the GOP.


...but one that is just as likely at giving cheap presents (why did I get an appendix likely to inflame, burst and kill me??) as at lighting the fire and throwing people in after it has climbed down the chimney!?

Stuart

Care to carry on a casual, philosophical discussion on why the "alleged Creator" didn't desire or gift you that... starting tomorrow?

 

[nikolai_42]

Revelation 12:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

If you were a Dispensationalist... you would understand that the woman is National Israel... funny that she has the "moon" "under her feet". That's seen all throughout scripture as a sign of power over something. Kind of like when Jesus put the serpent under His "heal".

Just a quick fact... the Crusaders initially got angry when the Holy Land... AKA Israel (Palestine at the time) was overrun by ... Drum Roll... Islamic Turks.

This was the "First Crusade" and brought Jerusalem out of Islamic control around 1099 A.D.

I hesitated in posting this since we may be getting off topic, but you will note that the imagery in Rev 12:1 is strikingly similar to that found in Genesis 37:9 where Joseph has the dream wherein the sun, moon and stars bowed to him. The only point being that the moon god connection as specifically identifying Islam is a bit of a hit and miss proposition.

As to the dispensational aspect...well, that woman is in heaven - so can it really represent earthly Israel? Further, why allegorize (or spiritualize) that but not Revelation 8 where a third of the sun, moon and stars are darkened? And if that is allegorized, too, on what grounds?

But I think I'm swerving into a different thread here.

 

[Nick M]

Indeed the particular strength of your nation is its secular constitution and the freedom it provides people to practice the religion of their choice, and not to be subjected to any one religion gaining privilege.

Stuart

God's government as told by our apostle Paul, the real "Pope" is indeed "secular" in the way you mean it. Authorities, as they are authorized by God to act in his name, are to wield the sword of justice. Not to see forced worship, which God does not accept.

 

[Stuu]

God's government as told by our apostle Paul, the real "Pope" is indeed "secular" in the way you mean it. Authorities, as they are authorized by God to act in his name, are to wield the sword of justice. Not to see forced worship, which God does not accept.

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

Sounds pretty forced to me.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

A slanted and fact-free response. Given that a show of piety is essential for anyone wanting the votes of the masses, I would have thought Americans might be the last people to ask about that deception.

I don't think you have claimed this exactly, but is it really important to you that there has 'never been an atheist president'?

Part of the problem is the loaded term 'atheist'. I identify with the word myself because it describes the way I live my life, but as I mentioned earlier I don't like it because it defines me in terms of others' crazy ideas. I am more than just a lack of crazy ideas (and I have other unrelated ideas that are definitely crazy). You can put many public figures who have no belief in a deity in that same category, Einstein probably being the most famous. Even Richard Dawkins resists the term somewhat, putting himself at 6 on his scale of 1-7.

Meantime, that lack of intellectual satisfaction at not having explanations for our existence makes it difficult to analyse non-belief too far into the past. How did all this stuff come to be here? A deist god is the placeholder 'explanation' until you have Big Bang cosmology and evolution by natural selection. We know that all the stuff in the universe is borrowed from the expansion of space-time, and that the living things fittest to survival and reproduction tend to pass on their ever-mutating genes, but that was all unavailable to the desperately curious before the last part of the 19th Century. So almost everyone was at least a deist.

Here is some speculation on the closeted atheist presidents, but they could have done themselves a favour by calling them the 'nones', in which category you would include most intellectually curious deists from the past, but not all.

Their list of definite (based on their analysis of blasphemous quotes) non-believers: Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and Taft.

Their suspects for closeted status, based on less compelling evidence: Harrison, Tyler, Hayes, Arthur, Kennedy, Nixon, Hoover, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.

Stuart

Biased data. There are a good number of letters between seminaries and Einstein where he is rather clear, especially later in life, about theology. He struggled, as I have said, with the Holocaust, looking for God to intervene. God did intervene but the tragedy was loss. Stopping it was good. Too late? "Not as some count slowness." I'd always rather be an optimist, than a pessimist.

When it comes down to it, it is about attitude first. Truth is important, but both are necessary for a happy life else you watch the news and grow bitter. Who is that possibly doing damage to? Me? The blind kid in our school was very grumpy. I 'tried' to be a friend and bring good to his life. He spurned it. After that, I may make a passing comment, but this kind of thing was in him, is in you. You carry it with you wherever you go. An atheist president, I expect, would be interested in his/her 1or3%. We have a gay mayor in Seattle. He is interested and promotes it. Seattle and all of WA where I live is a liberal state and so it absolutely carries liberal concerns and is less family-friendly because of it. Good for movie and television production. There is a trade-off, but I'm interested in family. It is about the only wholesome place left. Families values tend to voice the best of us because of the organic nature as well as more committed forms of devotion and love. While we may complain against nonfamily concerns and adverse or disconnected pursuits, what we actually stand for are good things. I'd rather see more of that, less of TOL by contrast, but I think it not too bad that we talk about other issues in connection to any harm done. In that respect, even the theology section is political/sociological. I'd suggest my politics, perhaps sociological expressions might not be as good as my actions and face-to-face interactions, at least it is the endeavor.

That said, the more empathetic fellow for office/least bipartisan. I think our good presidents have bridged gaps. Atheism? He/she will not relate or participate well with the whole country. He/she won't offer a prayer of convocation or thanksgiving in November. Won't attend the prayer breakfast. Perhaps will not raise the Christmas tree, Might try to remove signs of our actual historical faith as a nation, etc. Yeah, I'd wonder if he/she had about 70% of our best interest at heart. We had a guy that recently about did that to us as a nation, following global trends, making global trends. The whole world starts and ends with family. We need somebody interested in that, as foremost and primary. I about guarantee anybody coming to office, that touts that, will make it into office. In the U.S., the government has been tearing at our base since 1963 in an effort to cater to the minority. I think we should treat the minority well, but not overtly as the only reason government exists. Government cannot tear at the foundation of itself, in Brittan, Germany, Australia, or the U.S. Seeking the best for its family and what they value, is also important, if not more important of time, interest, effort, and resources. We can get along because families are strong, but a nation that treasures it greatest resource, will be among the strongest and most admired governments in the world.

Some of this, by attempt, to bridge the hefty gap and answer your question, perhaps meaningfully.

 

[Lon]

The whole idea that a modern country is tied eternally to the beliefs of it's founders is nonsense.

My nation was founded by the Anglo-Saxons who believed in Wodun and Thunor, and elves, dragons and nicor. Should we have stuck with that when the Germanic Christians arrived on their boats, and told them to go back where they came from because our country was founded on paganism and faeries?

Values mean something and they sustain the core of us, our families. Without them, there is no nation, nothing to hold a nation together. Some countries are atheist, and the turmoil that besets them is evident. No country 'can' last that destroys itself. Whatever values we share better be shared across all citizenry or we are no longer citizenry, but sparring factions of meaninglessness and not longer a nation united, but subnation factions of unrest and loss of value. The Christian ethic, so strong, unifies and created these United States. Without a binding of core values, we will be less united, and more states. Regan knew this. Other presidents knew this. Without those commonly held core values, there is no strength. Every nation that has failed, failed upon this. Because we are still very much a nation of Christians, you are that faction of unrest working against the whole for your minority self-interests against love of your neighbor. There comes a point when even you must see the atheist agenda is but self-serving and really doesn't serve the interests of others. If we were to become a nation of atheists, and that was the identity, we'd all suffer, again, as every atheist nation has. People become meaningless. Values, themselves are eschewed, heathen fulfillment is all that is left and there are huge lines for one kind of loaf of bread and a handful of beans. You were better off before you tried killing off the rest of us....

 

[Stuu]

When it comes down to it, it is about attitude first. Truth is important, but both are necessary for a happy life else you watch the news and grow bitter. Who is that possibly doing damage to? Me? The blind kid in our school was very grumpy. I 'tried' to be a friend and bring good to his life. He spurned it. After that, I may make a passing comment, but this kind of thing was in him, is in you. You carry it with you wherever you go. An atheist president, I expect, would be interested in his/her 1or3%. We have a gay mayor in Seattle. He is interested and promotes it. Seattle and all of WA where I live is a liberal state and so it absolutely carries liberal concerns and is less family-friendly because of it. Good for movie and television production. There is a trade-off, but I'm interested in family. It is about the only wholesome place left. Families values tend to voice the best of us because of the organic nature as well as more committed forms of devotion and love. While we may complain against nonfamily concerns and adverse or disconnected pursuits, what we actually stand for are good things. I'd rather see more of that, less of TOL by contrast, but I think it not too bad that we talk about other issues in connection to any harm done. In that respect, even the theology section is political/sociological. I'd suggest my politics, perhaps sociological expressions might not be as good as my actions and face-to-face interactions, at least it is the endeavor.

That said, the more empathetic fellow for office/least bipartisan. I think our good presidents have bridged gaps. Atheism? He/she will not relate or participate well with the whole country. He/she won't offer a prayer of convocation or thanksgiving in November. Won't attend the prayer breakfast. Perhaps will not raise the Christmas tree, Might try to remove signs of our actual historical faith as a nation, etc. Yeah, I'd wonder if he/she had about 70% of our best interest at heart. We had a guy that recently about did that to us as a nation, following global trends, making global trends. The whole world starts and ends with family. We need somebody interested in that, as foremost and primary. I about guarantee anybody coming to office, that touts that, will make it into office. In the U.S., the government has been tearing at our base since 1963 in an effort to cater to the minority. I think we should treat the minority well, but not overtly as the only reason government exists. Government cannot tear at the foundation of itself, in Brittan, Germany, Australia, or the U.S. Seeking the best for its family and what they value, is also important, if not more important of time, interest, effort, and resources. We can get along because families are strong, but a nation that treasures it greatest resource, will be among the strongest and most admired governments in the world.

Some of this, by attempt, to bridge the hefty gap and answer your question, perhaps meaningfully.

Just a few questions in response:

* Why is having a liberal state with a gay mayor incompatible with 'family'? Surely gay people grow up in families, and they more than most need the support of that social unit.

* Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist president would not be interested in providing for safe family environments? What do you fear would be unsafe?

* Why do you need to have a prayer breakfast? The breakfast was established (I use that word with purpose!) in 1953, and it came along with the same wave of god-bothering that included 'In God We Trust' as your motto and on your quaint cash in 1957 (did you know that US currency is attracted by a magnet because the ink contains powdered iron?). It just sounds discriminatory, and the regular congressional prayer breakfasts look farcical.

Who is winning the piety contest here?

Why don't they save time and just sacrifice a goat?

Stuart

 

[gcthomas]

Values mean something and they sustain the core of us, our families.

Yup.

Because we are still very much a nation of Christians, you are that faction of unrest working against the whole for your minority self-interests against love of your neighbor.

I no more work for my self interests than you do, Lon. We've discussed this before.

The Christian ethic, so strong, unifies and created these United States. Without a binding of core values, we will be less united, and more states. Regan knew this. Other presidents knew this. Without those commonly held core values, there is no strength. Every nation that has failed, failed upon this.

Please, what are these Christian values that drive your oh so wonderful ethics that are not widely held human values? List them, if you will.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I hesitated in posting this since we may be getting off topic, but you will note that the imagery in Rev 12:1 is strikingly similar to that found in Genesis 37:9 where Joseph has the dream wherein the sun, moon and stars bowed to him. The only point being that the moon god connection as specifically identifying Islam is a bit of a hit and miss proposition.

I never identified Islam.. but bound the existence of "pre-Islamic roots" that persecuted National Israel in scripture... and showed you that the Crescent Moon symbol has marked Satan's path all throughout scripture. I even showed you the moon goddess huntress in Acts and showed you that many demons were there. You ignored Zeeba and Zalmunda ... ahem... the CRESCENT ornaments around their camels necks... and Psalm 83 connecting the very territory of Islam in conjunction with the quote I gave you from Judges earlier.

You're looking for the leaps and missing the actual... biblical baby steps you conveniently "overlooked" earlier. Maybe you should reread the previous posts.

As to the dispensational aspect...well, that woman is in heaven - so can it really represent earthly Israel?

No. The woman is seen by John, but she "gives birth to the "child". She gives birth to Jesus!!!... moments after that exact quote. Supersessionist error on your part..., but... just to make my point...

Revelation 12:12 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.
​

Are you now arguing that the BOC "gave birth to Jesus"? That would place the BOC under the Law... are you willing to go there? Are you saying Mary wasn't of the sheep of Israel, but now the BOC?

3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.​

Again... in recognition of order of events... Satan attempts to "devour the CHILD"... but ends up thrown out of heaven. Note that the order is after the CHILD Ascends... Your Supersessioninsm is waxing old.

6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, ....​

If you're going to argue that the BOC fled... you are officially ignoring the literal dominance of Christianity for the last 2000 years that is only now fading away.

Israel disappeared until the 40's ... But... um er... The BOC? :idunno:

Further, why allegorize (or spiritualize) that but not Revelation 8 where a third of the sun, moon and stars are darkened? And if that is allegorized, too, on what grounds?

You're now ready to declare dragons... as in Revelation 12... where I got the scripture from "aren't allegory"? I want you to put it in writing that you believe in seven headed hydras and dragons.

Nope :nono: smacked down... I bound territory and crescent moon to the Devils agents with scripture and followed through.

Come right when you answer and note that you are closing your eyes to certain facts that I have scripturally provided.

But I think I'm swerving into a different thread here.

The author of this OP brought the point up in the first place and I'm backing them. I'm sure we're okay.

And... ahem... [MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] ... you tagged in with a like. You're answers are expected as well.

Evil.Grin.<(I)>

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

Sounds pretty forced to me.

Stuart

Not hardly... the wicked aren't what "church... brick and mortar" define. God's actual "smiting" has always been towards people that actually practiced child saccrifice and such. You can quote the hardcore verses, but if you tell me that we have done a good job with being in charge... you're stunted.

We get some stuff right... but War, famine and the like occur because humanity has a constant track record of inhumanity.

The humble... self sacrificing God that gives us freedom and breath to even defy Him is the One that can and Will sort this mess out. When the visitation of the sword occurs... it will be just and with Love. It will be by the hearts Judge of judges. The very source of life within all living things knows how to sort all living things.

Did you ever watch Braveheart? Would you have liked the movie if William Wallice was a pacifist that said... "Scotland... be at peace! England can have our freedom, rape our daughters and kill our sons... but we mustn't fight back!" ?!?

You're purposefully trying to make God out to be an A-hole, but you refuse to see the full picture.

Shall I begin taking you out of context now?

 

[Lon]

Just a few questions in response:

* Why is having a liberal state with a gay mayor incompatible with 'family'? Surely gay people grow up in families, and they more than most need the support of that social unit.

When children were invited and present at the 'naked parade' it was not stimulating family values, individual and sexual values. Adult self-interested values. Ask that mayor when the last time he had a parade for children. :nono: Didn't happen.

* Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist president would not be interested in providing for safe family environments? What do you fear would be unsafe?

Yeah. Atheism is a fairly self-serving position and philosophy. It really doesn't have at its core, the well-being of the rest of mankind. You poster children on TOL attest to that fact.

* Why do you need to have a prayer breakfast? The breakfast was established (I use that word with purpose!) in 1953, and it came along with the same wave of god-bothering that included 'In God We Trust' as your motto and on your quaint cash in 1957 (did you know that US currency is attracted by a magnet because the ink contains powdered iron?). It just sounds discriminatory, and the regular congressional prayer breakfasts look farcical.

There you go. It is a value of 70% or more of us. So, by virtue, the atheist president is isolated and doesn't represent us or our values well.

Who is winning the piety contest here?

Me, not you. Oxymoronic, that (and no ill-hearted tongue in cheek, but I could have done it more congenial by admission). I don't think this part anything but self-serving again. There was no reason for it, just your misplaced angst. I actually tried to eschew such and be meaningful this and that post. We won't agree, but I don't think we always have to show our disdain. The only accomplishment is that we get a glimpse into another's thoughts. It is not poor thing. Don't be grumpy over everything. Sometimes a discussion is just a discussion (barring many TOL conversations). :e4e:

Why don't they save time and just sacrifice a goat?

As you can see, instead of jumping to bias confirmations, listening is okay on TOL. I realize a lot of TOL is simply a place to dump angst and friendly banter. I've ribbed you back on occasion too. I just wanted you to know it was an endeavor to drop that these past two posts. If I rewrote this, I'd simply not 'react' to anything and instead just address the issues perhaps, because any address of those takes away from the subject matter, but as conversation also is about 'us' to some degree, I took this approach. Meaningful is in amongst both somewhere :e4e:

Stuart

I do "-Lon" too. For me, a personal touch. Off-topic, but I wonder why others do it. For me, it is used to be a bit more 'human' to the one I'm talking to. I wonder, if for others, it is because of letter writing, or to remind a poster who they are talking to (that serves a place on TOL too, I've been mistaken for another a few times). :think:

 

[Lon]

Yup.

I no more work for my self interests than you do, Lon. We've discussed this before.

Amounts to assertion on your part, so it doesn't matter how often we discuss this. Same song, 8th verse. You aren't an American, so your assertions are twice removed on that count. I like your 'we' but politically, you and I have to be us/them. The issues just are not the same. Sometimes I think you want to be an American. I don't blame you but we are a nation of Christians, not well represented by media.

Please, what are these Christian values that drive your oh so wonderful ethics that are not widely held human values? List them, if you will.

Our Christian values are deep, life in fact. It puts all of us, even on TOL, on the same page. We'll argue with one another, but our love for God binds us and very strongly. It was naught up for your disdain, but an expression of something that actually does bind. Regan keyed in on this and united a divided nation. Atheists may have felt left-out, but the core of a nation is who/what that nation mostly is. We are a nation mostly of Christian families. As such, both bind us. As to any value you happen to share with us, it'd be the same at least by sentiment: I have a hard time, however, talking about United States issues when you aren't an American. I'm not sure how much you ever relate. You tend to overly assert into our affairs as if you are American and it conflates discussions. European Christians will have to address your political concerns. They are different. -Lon

 

[gcthomas]

Amounts to assertion on your part, so it doesn't matter how often we discuss this. Same song, 8th verse. You aren't an American, so your assertions are twice removed on that count. I like your 'we' but politically, you and I have to be us/them. The issues just are not the same. Sometimes I think you want to be an American. I don't blame you but we are a nation of Christians, not well represented by media.

Our Christian values are deep, life in fact. It puts all of us, even on TOL, on the same page. We'll argue with one another, but our love for God binds us and very strongly. It was naught up for your disdain, but an expression of something that actually does bind. Regan keyed in on this and united a divided nation. Atheists may have felt left-out, but the core of a nation is who/what that nation mostly is. We are a nation mostly of Christian families. As such, both bind us. As to any value you happen to share with us, it'd be the same at least by sentiment: I have a hard time, however, talking about United States issues when you aren't an American. I'm not sure how much you ever relate. You tend to overly assert into our affairs as if you are American and it conflates discussions. European Christians will have to address your political concerns. They are different. -Lon

How can the core Christian values be different in different regions? Surely that makes them political values?

The upshot is that you couldn't give a specific set of Christian values that are distinctively Christian. That days a lot about your belief that Christian values are superior to mine as an atheist, doesn't it?

 

[Lon]

And... ahem... @Lon ... you tagged in with a like. You're answers are expected as well.

Evil.Grin.<(I)>

"Thanks" have SOOOOO many reasons why they can exist, and perhaps rarely or never against the 'other guy.' Sometimes I imagine they are. In this cases, I thanked him for bringing something to mind as well as a prior rep. :e4e:

Perhaps human-nature has us second-guessing whenever we see a thanks. I do too, at times and try not to react since a 'thank you' is nebulous. If I see a dozen of them in a conversation against me, I start wondering though. Rusha has been doing that a lot to me lately. I'm pretty sure she isn't 'repping' against me, just agrees with the other guy. As such, after about the 10th, I think you can safely draw the other into the conversation :idunno: For what it is worth. In Him -Lon

AND!!!! (be careful about repping me, Nikolai might feel subconscious!) :chuckle: :e4e: