HE HE HE nothing, just wanted to set the topic on fire. HE HE HE

I'm saying that our culture is moving away from Christianity.  I don't think we can move back.  That move has resulted in a degradation in morals, possibly in large part because (as one poster put it) when someone rejects Christianity, they have some kind of knee-jerk reaction to reject anything associated with it.  Like I said, that's stupid.  So, if you accept the notion that a significant portion of the population is or will be non-religious in the future, and that we need a common morality in order to survive as a nation, then we have to come up with a rational (rather than religious) basis on which to do so.  And the first and foremost thing we have to maintain is tolerance of each others beliefs (or lack thereof).

Can we reverse the decline?  I don't know.  I'd hope so, but history doesn't show many examples of spontaneously resurgent cultures once they start the slide into apathy.  Still, this is my culture, I have no other.  I have to hope for the best.

Precisely.
Yup.

His Nazi sister on the other hand...

God Bless Texas

Ok so this is the sort of pompus pain in the ass christian attitude that makes me start to undestand why some people hate them so much.  Did Christians do some good things.....? YES
Did Christians do some bad things......? YES
Did Athiests do some good things.......? YES
Did Athiests do some bad things........? YES

People are people we come in all shapes sizes and temperments.  
The bottom line is Christians have to rely on FAITH in order to keep thier beliefs intact

Athiests ( or at least in my case that is) rely on tangible evidence of what we believe in.

In other words we can PROVE what we belive in to a reasonable point.

Chirstians must needs be fall back on their beloved bible for succor.  I always love the fact that they use passages of the bible as evidence that the bible is right...just makes me belly laugh....

[b]I[/b] never said we couldn't get along...

Really, I've never subscribed to the "convert them at any cost" ... and I don't believe in a "safety net" faith either. You believe, or you don't.

But as far as morals go, good greif! as a society we've got to get a handle on it somehow, and fairly quick.

I do not think this is correct.  Certainly, in some areas of our country, religion is in decline.  In others, it is growing stronger.  In my State, for example, it is overwhelming, and there are many other places like that.  You do not see it much in the media, but sections of the US are startlingly religious.  The number of people joining fundamentalist religions is accelorating, not declining.

What you are seeing is a deepening divide betweem the religous and nonreligous.  This increasing polarization in much of our culture is a further symptom of its decline.

So you have read the mind of every Chrisitan, and know this to be true?  George Washington was religous, did he have character?  It is possible to have character and be religous, and in fact I think that is the purpose of religion.  Not that it always turns out that way.

Not to be a pain in the ass - but - exactly [b]what[/b] sort of "pompus pain in the ass christian attitude" are you talking about?  I'm really curious, If I've sounded pompus I'd like to know...

Well there you go - I have to rely on faith, while you rely on what you can prove - up to a reasonable point - then what happens? - perhaps, faith?

There are other "proofs" all around us, outside of the Bible, but it seems quite amazing, does it not, that a grouping of books, penned across more than a thousand years, can point to parts of itself in the future tense and be right?  That there are over 300 prophecies of Christ (in the Old Testament?) that are all fulfilled by Jesus himself?  I don't know the odds offhand but I have heard they are fairly large.

Face it, whether you're a believer or an athiest, you still have to [i]believe[/i]!  And belief implies faith.

You believer the wind is caused by air moving, don't you?  How do you know?  you can't see the air can you? (well, in Pittsburg or Chicago or L.A. maybe [:D])

We all have to have faith in something.  You believe that when you're dead, your dead. that's it. the great Black.  I choose to believe something else - and for, what are to me, valid reasons - and just so you understand, no it isn't a "blind" faith.

I know I shouldn't get involved in this, but show me a light-socket & hand me a screwdriver....

Jihasz, you just did what he complained about.  So the New Testament backs up the Old Testament?  And we're supposed to be surprised by this?  Sorry.  If Rapture occurs you might get my attention, but until then the Bible is an interesting historical novel based on people who did, and others who might have existed.

Yes, atheists and mathematicians and scientists have to work on "first principles" that cannot be [i]proven[/i] in any literal sense.  These first principles are based on the observable universe and are the baseline on which everything else is theorized.  The difference is that when a mathematician or scientist finds something that contradicts the common knowledge, it isn't rejected out of hand (usually) as heresy and he isn't burned at the stake for pointing it out (usually).  Science suffers the same human inertia as any other human endeavor, and people who've worked decades on an idea don't like to be told "Whoops!  You started with a flawed theory!"  But science is amenable to change.  Fundamental religion is not.  "I have the TRUTH!  Don' confuse me with the facts!"  Your example of "wind" being "air moving" is demonstrable by experiment.  The Ressurection is not.

As to what happens to us after death (the fundamental question that sparks all religions in my opinion) I don't think I just cease to exist, but I can't prove it one way or the other.  Soon enough I will know.  I'm in no hurry to find out.

The fact that more people are joining fundamentalist religions is not heartwarming to me.  As I noted before, I don't think most people who are nominally religious actually practice the tenets of their religion.  They're looking for someone to tell them how to live and relieve from them the stresses of life.  They are in the main, then, sheep that can be lead by a charismatic person to do almost anything in the name of God.  Those who actually do follow the tenets of their religion are often persecuted by their supposed breathren for opposing the majority or the leader.  

As to the increasing polarization?  That's it exactly.  Like I said, what I fear is a resurgence of fundamentalism that will make the Inquisition look like day-care.

Yeah, I know ... I don't know what comes over me sometimes... [:D]

Well, since you asked, no you're not (Supposed to be surprised by that), but... the fact that the prophecies in the Old Testament were written hundreds of years before the historical Jesus came on the scene, and that He fulfilled them all, the odds of which are fairly large (1 in a billion?  Nah, I've heard it's more than that), should speak volumes.

This is my point - if you think it's a novel, there's a problem... because there is a large amount of evidence from outside the Bible that happens to confirm fairly large portions of it.  Including people, and historical data.

And neither is evolution... which (while I'm not saying you fancy that theory, just happens to mind).

In fact, there is a Nobel Prize winner that actually admitted that evolution could not be proved - and if fact that the only reason he believed in evolution was that belief in special creation was "out of the question".

Ah, an agnostic then...

Believe me, I thought about it after sumbitting the post, and I really didn't mean to come off sounding like a pompous ass... I can see how that might be read into it.  but I really am curious as to what part of what post he thought carried any pompousity (and which post it was!) If it was mine, I wished to correct it.

As for my other statements, they should only be taken in the spirit of debate and discussion.

My point is that your moral standard which is supposedly based on rationality rather than religion isn't very rational.  It's elastic enough to justify almost anything.

Well, that depends on your definition of fundamentalism.... in my case, I consider myself to be a "fundementalist" but then again, I'm belong to a Lutheran Church! ... hmmm, how "main stream" can I get? [:)].  Mind you, I'd change to something that actually taught the Word more, encouraged me to think on it more, really [i]practice[/i] and apply my beliefs to my life more, but we're sort of stuck here because of that worst of reasons - Tradition! altho, I am beginning to get throguh to my wife.  Most of the people in my church are of the type we discussed above - 'nominal'  They have faith, but some of them might not hang onto it under extreme duress - I could be wrong though.

So you see,  my definition of 'Fundamental' is different, I think , than yours - yours I would simply call a 'cult' for various reasons.

Some do, some do not.  I would have to say that most fundamentalist types are more sincere than your episcopalians and the like.  The baptists and whatnot I know are pretty good people.  Not only are they sincerely religous, which I do not view as all that relevant, but they are also imbued with character.  This may vary tremendously by where you live.  I think a baptist living in Chicago is more likely to be sincere about it than a baptist in Selma.



If you look back through history, Christianity, especially in America, has gone through a series of fundamentalist periods.  We are in the middle of one right now, and it has actually had a lot of positive political effects.  I don't think people belonging to fundamentalist Christian churches is all that dangerous.  As we discussed, it was not Christian churches that caused the holocaust, but a very modern post-religious racial theory.  Communism was a lot more deadly than Christianity has ever been, and communism is what is being preached in much of the media.  Perhaps you are right that some of the fundamentalists are sheeple, but compared to most couch-potato-MTV and NBC watching Americans, they are a pretty gun and freedom loving bunch.  I would be much more worried about the leftists in the media inciting some kind of race war than the fundamentalists destroying our liberty.  

I doubt the fundamentalists are the ones who are going to guarding the camps, if it ever comes to something like that, although they, like everyone else, will most likely do nothing about it.

'Why Do The Heathen Rage?'

Because the righteous won't shut up. It seems there are a few that support a tyrannical government so long as that government justifies its actions within their belief system.

And yes, most of the FF were Deists.

And BTW. If thou shalt not kill, then what about the dictate "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? Sounds like an excuse to murder to me...

Why would you fear God? I love God, respect God and do my best to obey God. God is our father, correct? He teaches, we learn. If I go to hell, it's my fault. Why would I fear him. When I feel God is with me, I'm not afraid, I feel love, strength & grace....the last thing I feel is fear.

The transfer of virtue is fundamental to this debate.  Traditonally, virtue was transferred between generations though church and family.  As modern secular society seeks to destroy both church and family, the transfer of virtue ceases.  The mass media and academia are now the modern conduits of ideas (note that I did not say virtue) and these are distinctly and purposely secular.

The new religion is Secular Humanism - the belief in the power of man to explain and sort out the universe.  This, by definition, also includes Moral Relativism since all cultures have equal value.  Ergo, nothing is really good or bad, it is all just relative.

This is a recipe for disaster and we will see it sure enough.  The decline of Western Culture will correlate precisely with the death of God, or the death of belief in God.  The transfer of virtue will have died.

Post from rig00red -

Post from Ghettoblaster -

You guys both seem to be singing from the same hymnal, so could y'all please identify the Founding Fathers who were deists?

I mean it's so patently obvious that y'all would not RAGE so much unless you had solid evidence that the Founding Fathers were not, as we have all been led to believe, Christians, but deists.

So who were these deists? Names, please.

Eric The(Yes,Let'sDoGetOurHistoryRightBeforeWeRant!)Hun[>]:)]

Um, the fact that the Old Testament was written several hundred years [i]before[/i] the New Testament, and the New Testament tells of someone fulfulling the prophecies of the [i]older[/i] text is a billion-to-one shot?  Ever played three-card-monte?  If I didn't know you were a fundamentalist Christian I'd think you were just a bit naive.  [i]Historical[/i] novel - partially based on fact, partially moralist story.  Exactly how much is historically accurate I (and no one else) has been able to really say.(more snippage)As a matter of fact, I do believe in evolution.  One of the basic "tenets of science" is Occam's Razor - if you have two or more theories that equally explain a physical result, then the one that is simplest is the better choice.  The fossil record, (simple creatures in the distant past, more complex ones as time progresses, mass extinctions at approximately 100 million year intervals) lends credence to me that evolution occurred and is occurring.  The fact that in bacteria cultures and fruit-fly colonies stresses can cause noticeable genetic changes in just a few generations also helps.  The idea of God just "creating" the beasts of the fields out of nothing (per the literal, fundamentalist reading of Genesis) is [i]not[/i] the simpler choice.  (more snippage)Well, I cannot say with certainty that no Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent Creator of All the Universe exists, but I find it unlikely in the extreme that out of all the uncountable planets orbiting all the uncountable stars in all the uncountable galaxies that we're the creatures that must worship him or he gets unhappy.  Or that He made all this up just for us.  If there is some great power that fired it all up, I cannot imagine He would be interested in us except in passing.  Basically, I have a real problem with the Christian story through the Second Coming and Armageddon.  It doesn't make sense to me at all.  But that's another topic entirely. (Light-socket, screwdriver, ZZZZZTTT!!!)

I think if you look that Christian morality has done the same throughout history.  It's not that rigid, either.  Rationality is, as far as I'm concerned, an excellent basis on which to form a system of ethics, as long as you don't lie to yourself.  Then it only gets "elastic" when under severe stress, and that's the only time it might have to be.  

Take, for example, the ethic "thou shall not commit murder".  That is, individuals should not take the life of another without "sufficient" cause.  What is "sufficient"?  Does the Bible tell you?  Is it "moral" to gun down an unarmed Osama Bin Laden if you find him in an Afghan cave?  Why or why not?  What if he's running away?

Yes, this is "situational ethics".  How do your morals deal with this problem?

Nobody has anything against christianity. It's just annoying when self-professed Christians start blathering about how x is y and y is x, despite having zero knowledge of x and only a passing acquaintance with y, simply because one or the other preacher told them so. That kind of muddleheaded, closedminded know-nothingism, masquerading under a cloak of religious piety, is exceptionally annoying -- not least because it's the same sort of closedminded foolishness that fuels much of the anti-gun left, just coming from a different angle.

Accepting without question the statement "Clinton told me guns were bad. He wouldn't ever be wrong about that, would he?" is just as bad as accepting without question the statement "Jerry Falwell told me Harry Potter was satanic. He wouldn't ever make that up, would he?"

 Point being, hearing some other human being say "x is evil" and accepting that verdict as such, without questioning it or verifying it through any sort of analysis or use of reason, is a BAD THING. And some people, here and elsewhere, hide from that kind of doubt behind a thin cloak of a professed christianity.

It's easy to simply let some human, fallible leader tell you what's right, wrong, and indifferent( "this is what the bible means," instead of, for example, "this is what I think the bible means.") It's easy, and it's tempting, because life is so much easier if someone just gives you all the answers and you never have to figure anything out for yourself.

But that doesn't mean the rest of us, who have spent a little time checking our facts and our sources, and finding out who's telling the truth and who's making it up as they go along, aren't going to get annoyed when those who took the easy way out start trying to tell us they actually have a clue what they're talking about.

Anyway, that's what's been annoying me. Be as christian as you want, in whatever way you want, so forth. But don't go on for pages about the supposed "evil" of a book you've never read, and about which nothing you've been told is even halfway accurate.

It's frightening. I have to wonder what else some of you might be willing to say was "evil," if a few charismatic leaders told you that the bible said it was.

Is it too much to ask that people at least try to think for themselves, just a little?

Thus illustrating my point - either you accept that the Bible is the Word Of God Divine, the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth, or you don't.  If you don't, then you aren't Saved.  You may be moral as all get-out, but you ain't going to Heaven.  According to the fundamentalists.

Communism had one advantage - modern technology.  A distinct possibility, but you point out one problem with that - the majority of that group are couch-potatoes.  Tough to motivate.  Religious zealotry has traditionally been pretty easy to incite.Sad, isn't it?

Post from rg00red -

Well, among the Founding Fathers, there were, at most, three. You can certainly count Thomas Jefferson as one. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolution, was one, afterwards he became quite religious. But this was all covered in Article VII of the Library of Congress site that I opened this thread with, above.

Don't tell me you didn't do your lesson?

The remaining deist was Thomas Paine, who was not a Founding Father, since by the time of the writing of the most important documents, he had gone to France.

But that's only three. So my answer as to who were the Christians among the Founding Fathers would be 'everybody else'!

So if you were a Freemason you couldn't be a Christian? Is that what they teach in special education classes nowadays?

Well, that will certainly come as some surprise to my brother, who is a 32nd degree Mason and a Shriner, as well. He's also a deacon in his Church, and the preacher is a Mason. Poor fool thinks he's a Christian, wait till I tell him you think otherwise!

Hmmm, could it possibly be that you are wrong on this point?

Eric The('Yep'!)Hun[>]:)]

Post from rg00red -

Balderdash! That's pure hooey. Which French deists are you talking about, wake up, hey you,
I'm talking to you!

Which ones? Or are you going to make me do your homework for you, yet again?  Simply to prove you have no idea what you're saying?

I practically taught government/civics in my high school, Babu, but I didn't stop [u]there[/u], did you?

Eric The(HeHeHe)Hun[>]:)]

As a matter of fact, the Library of Congress website states:
"Deism, which emphasized morality and rejected the orthodox Christian view of the divinity of Christ, found advocates among upper-class Americans. Conspicuous among them were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams."

Don't forget John Adams. [;)]

Also, there is some ambiguity regarding George Washington's religious views.  He attended church, but didn't take communion; he thanked "Providence", but not Jesus; and he noted the importance of religion to public morality, but he didn't specify Christianity.  Even on his deathbed, Washington said little about religion beyond a general belief in God.