Mary had a little lamb..........

[Gwydion]

Every time it is translated it leaves room for interpretation by the ones translating it. So, a little bit of what you read in any of the english translated versions is going to contain just a bit of bias depending on the translator.

There are many verses that can be quoted and discussed covering almost anything that comes up in our lives. An interesting thing if you ask me considering a book written 2000 + years ago can still cover situations that we fight with today.

at any rate, I dont care what version any individual person reads as long as the basic message comes out.

Jesus Christ is the way.
Without a belief in Jesus Christ, and (my interpretation) an attempt at living by his words, there is no way to gain your salvation.

Jesus Christ is the only way. He is the light, and he is the word.

Like it or not, I always add to my prayers that those that are blind to the words of Jesus Christ will find him so that they too can be given the gift of everlasting life with the Lord promised so many years ago.

Perfectly put. And thats what I follow. Even if I do not believe certain aspects of the bible, it still simply amazes me how useful it can be. When I graduated from my Bible Class, I was given a bible with a sheet of paper my pastor wrote out. The paper listed about 200 different events that could possibly happen in my life and then a scripture or a few that pertained to that event.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Good scripture! Anyody that is willing to discuss religion is more than welcome to with me. I am just claiming that religion is religion. Besides paganism (and probably a few others) there aren't any religions that wish people to murder, rape, or steal from other people.

That is true, but there is this.

Acts 4:8-12

8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people,

9if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well,

10let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health.

11"He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone.

12"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Again, I do not hold to religion. I believe in God, Jesus as Savior and Lord, and the Holy Spirit; One God revealed to man in three ways. I do not believe in rules and doctrine made by men. If doctrine conflicts with the Bible, the doctrine is wrong.

The denominations are fraught with rules and interpretations that contradict the Bible. Some teach if you speak in tongues, you are not a Christian, contrary to the Bible, some teach you must speak in tongues, contrary to the Bible. Some teach you must handle poisonous snakes, contrary to the Bible. The list goes on and on. But I can only rely on the Bible as the Truth. As I posted, I believe all of the Bible. Remeber the earth is satan's domain. He is a liar and a deceiver. What seems like scientific evidence may be a lie from satan. The profession of men to be wise leads to the rejection of God.

Romans 1:18-32

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Human "wisdom" is often spiritual foolishness.

 

[Pandora]

proves nothing, a different time and plce with different problems. If their hadn't been prayer in school then it wouldn't have been different



and your understanding is certainly a christian one- ignoring the fact that it is commonly practiced that church and state are to be separated, and this view is gennerally upheld by the SCOTUS.

I'm never said that the founders werent religious people, but it is obvious by the inclusion of the first amendmend that they didn't want folks like you (those who feel their religious views are the only correct ones) to dictate to the rest of the country our religious options

Madalyn Murray O'Hair (April 13, 1919 – 1995 MURDERED SO THE EXACT DATE IS UNCERTAIN)

What killed her? Her own hate, well, not really, she wrote a horrible article about David Waters saying he was a homo and let everyone know all about his past crimes, so, he cut her, her son and her son’s wife up in pieces and buried them in the ground.

Her other son William, who eventually became a born-again Christian and preacher, writes of her as follows: "My mother was an evil person ... Not for removing prayer from America’s schools ... No ... She was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents’ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company." William also stated everything she complained and to the school about was a huge lie made up by her.

An evil, hateful bitter woman removed prayer from the schools. There was no harm being done by allowing it to stay, yet, I agree with 2A, since it has been removed from the schools we have seen a drastic difference in drug use, school violence, etc. etc. etc. But hey, Madalyn O'Hair just wanted to make sure the wishes of the founding fathers was fulfilled.

 

[buddy999]

You know, I hear there's a whole DAY set aside in Christianity for prayer and worship. If you need another hour and fifteen minutes of prayer per week, get up earlier on Sunday. Go to church twice. There's even Saturday and sometimes weeknight Mass if your weekend is too full up. Pray with your kids before breakfast. Any of those will be far more fruitful than inserting nap time into the school day.

A lot of people have to be reminded that GOD is there every day and not just on Sunday. I will concede that there doen't need to be a specific time set aside to pray however, the child should not be told that they cannot pray if they wish to do so.

When I went to school every student was assigned to a homeroom. They reported to the homeroom at the start of the day. During this time, the principal would make any announcement that were relevent and the entire school would join in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I still think this ritual should take place in all schools.

 

[JKG]

Nowhere in the Constitution or any of the amendments does it say that there can be no religion in government or government institutions like schools.

Thought I'd go take a look at the document; it's been a while since I read it.

"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

So, Congress cannot establish by law a religion of any kind. It can also not legislate for or against a religion, since that would be impinging on the free exercise of religion. People who are in government can be religious (their free exercise thereof), but Congress can't force anyone to follow any religion.

As was pointed out earlier in this discussion, the Constitution applies to the powers of the Federal Government, not the state governments, and states could (and did) have laws about religions in their jurisdictions. Some didn't let Catholics hold public office; others denied Jews the vote. Some required all citizens to pay a tax to support the state-sponsored religion. Some didn't like Baptists. Some didn't like Anglicans. Or Quakers. Etc.

Currently, we don't permit laws that favor one creed over another creed, but if we were to allow them on a state-by-state basis, we might have Muslims being denied the right to vote in some places. We might have mandatory tithing to certain churches in certain states. We might have states where Jews are illegal, and others where non-Catholics can't get jobs. States where Baptists are welcome and Methodists are not.

It's been like that before in this country. Do we want it to be like that again?

Nowhere in the Constitution or any of the amendments does it say that there can be no religion in government or government institutions like schools.

Article VI of the Constitution says: "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


The President's oath of office is set forth in the Constitution as "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

George Washington began the tradition of placing his hand on a Bible and concluding with "So help me God", but they are voluntary, not necessary. Indeed, neither the Bible nor the mention of God can be required without violating Article VI.

 

[JKG]

I am just claiming that religion is religion. Besides paganism (and probably a few others) there aren't any religions that wish people to murder, rape, or steal from other people.

Um, help? The dictionary's first definition of paganism is every religion that doesn't worship the God of Abraham (i.e., everyone who is not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim), and it's next definition is someone who doesn't have a religion. That's a lot of religions to choose from. Could you please be a bit more specific as to which type of paganism? I'm not sure who you're talking about.

Are these mean pagans anything like this?

"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. .... Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.... Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "...kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
- from the Hebrew Scriptures, Numbers 31: 7-18

 

[tirdun]

I agree with 2A, since it has been removed from the schools we have seen a drastic difference in drug use, school violence, etc. etc. etc. But hey, Madalyn O'Hair just wanted to make sure the wishes of the founding fathers was fulfilled.

Really? Can you support this?

Drugs:
According to the University of Michigan and DOJ figures: Drug use in teenagers is lower today than in 1975, somewhere between 40 and 45% for all drugs, including alcohol and steroids. For "hard" drugs its lower, but follows the same pattern: there was a steady decline from 1975 to 91, then a lesser upturn and leveling off. The rise in the early 90s is mainly Ecstasy and with inhalants and LSD showing minor increases.

Violence:
As I mentioned above, violent crime is down in every category across the board. Juvenile crime has fluctuated within a relatively narrow band, but there's no steady trend upwards from the 60's to today.

The Court Case
Ms OHaire wasn't the only plaintiff in that case, although she got top billing.
Abington vs Schempp was also part of the decision and it followed previous cases: Engel vs Vitale, Cantwell vs Connecticut, etc. There were a string of cases, all overwhelmingly decided at the Federal level in favor of removing Teacher led prayer and official prayer functions in schools, all of which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The case also reinforced the existing decisions of many states to block teacher-led prayer, not because some atheist firebrand got angry, but because different Christian denominations became bitterly divided over which prayers to include, which Bibles to use and who should be allowed to give or hear such prayer. Pennsylvania actually saw the wall working better the other way, religious schools feared government interference and worked to control what they saw as their area of expertise.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Thought I'd go take a look at the document; it's been a while since I read it.

"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

So, Congress cannot establish by law a religion of any kind. It can also not legislate for or against a religion, since that would be impinging on the free exercise of religion. People who are in government can be religious (their free exercise thereof), but Congress can't force anyone to follow any religion.

As was pointed out earlier in this discussion, the Constitution applies to the powers of the Federal Government, not the state governments, and states could (and did) have laws about religions in their jurisdictions. Some didn't let Catholics hold public office; others denied Jews the vote. Some required all citizens to pay a tax to support the state-sponsored religion. Some didn't like Baptists. Some didn't like Anglicans. Or Quakers. Etc.

Like I said; the First Amendment only limits Congress.

Currently, we don't permit laws that favor one creed over another creed, but if we were to allow them on a state-by-state basis, we might have Muslims being denied the right to vote in some places. We might have mandatory tithing to certain churches in certain states. We might have states where Jews are illegal, and others where non-Catholics can't get jobs. States where Baptists are welcome and Methodists are not.

It's been like that before in this country. Do we want it to be like that again?

And just where does the Constitution bestow the power to the Federal government to regulate those states' laws? Nowhere. More overstepping of authority by the feds and federal courts.

Those were the days when people, citizens of the United States, that were bound together for the purpose of common defense, could "vote with their feet" and move to another community or state if they didn't like the practices and laws of the one they lived in. The states have been striped, unconstitutionally, of many of their powers as have the people. The feds have pushed for homogeneous government and centralization of power. Bad. Diversified power is best. Little bits of power in many, many hands, is much harder to corrupt. Lots of power in few hands is much easier to corrupt.

It it right to discriminate? I don't think so. Should I be forced to associate with those I care not to? No. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right not to be offended? Nowhere. But we have laws prohibiting social offense. Where does the Constitution bestow the power to regulate social graces to the government? Nowhere. Freedom is the right to tell a Polish joke or a Irish joke or to be socially unacceptable. People only look to government to control these things because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to chastised the offender themselves. Why rely on government? You don't like the joke, tell the teller you find it offensive or walk away; don't laugh. Lots of ways to show displeasure and joke tellers want attention so they'll probably stop when they find their audience walking out on them. This works in private as well as the public. And joke telling is only an example; it can be applied to any situation.

Article VI of the Constitution says: "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


The President's oath of office is set forth in the Constitution as "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

George Washington began the tradition of placing his hand on a Bible and concluding with "So help me God", but they are voluntary, not necessary. Indeed, neither the Bible nor the mention of God can be required without violating Article VI.

Don't see where Article VI says there can be no religion in government. It is not there. That there can be no religious test or qualification is there. There is a difference between the two.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The Big Bang is Creation. It was designed to scientifically prove creation as per Genesis. The big bang showed that first there was nothing, and in a flash the universe was created and filled the void. That is equivalent to God saying let there be light.
The Big Bang theory was originated by a religous brother asking a scientist friend to come up with a scientific version of the formation of the world that followed Genesis.

That's somewhat incorrect. There was never "Nothing there". Physics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. All matter that is in the universe has always been there. right before the "Big Bang" it was all crammed into and miniscule area.

The Theory was put for by a Catholic Priest who was a professor of Physics, who came about the threoy through the regular scietific study of the universe. there is no mention of a "religious brother asking a scientist."

Father Georges-Henri Lemaître (July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer.Fr. or Msgr. Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. He based his theory, first broached in the pages of Nature in 1931, on the laws of relativity set forth by Einstein, among others, although at the time Einstein believed in an eternal universe and had previously expressed his skepticism about Lemaitre's original 1927 paper. A similar solution to Einstein's equations, suggesting a changing radius to the size of the universe, had been proposed in 1922 by Alexander Alexandrovich Friedman, as Einstein informed Fr. Lemaître when he approached him with the theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference (Friedman had also been criticized by Einstein), but it is Fr. Lemaître that made the theory famous with his widely read papers and media appeal. Fr. Lemaître also proposed the theory at an opportune time since Edwin Hubble would soon release his red shift observations that strongly supported an expanding universe and, consequently, the Big Bang theory. In fact, Lemaître derived what became known as Hubble's Law in his 1927 paper, two years before Hubble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations. Observers determined that most "spiral nebulae" were receding from Earth; but the observers themselves were unaware of the cosmological implications of this fact, or that the supposed nebulae were actually galaxies outside our own Milky Way.[5] Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity in 1927 and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

[bcp]

That's somewhat incorrect. There was never "Nothing there". Physics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. All matter that is in the universe has always been there. right before the "Big Bang" it was all crammed into and miniscule area.

And here is where faith and the belief of what we cant understand crosses over from the scientific theory, to creation.

Where did this matter come from? how can something just always be there?
our brains are programmed to accept that everything has a start, and a finish.
why is it so unrealistic for some to accept that we were created by God, and that God created the Heavens and the Earth as far as we can see it?

Where it might be true that I cant show you God, as in, introduce you to him so that you can see him, shake his hand swap stories etc... the scientific community is no more able to show me something that just exists without a start.
Those that try to disprove Gods existence based on their inability to comprehend that he has just always been there, should also have an equal problem with a belief that matter has just always been there, came from nowhere, has no start. Just existed forever.

At least with God, we know that our universe had a begining, and we can assume that it will have an end.

 

[Azzy]

Why? because it was based on a BOOK that someone wrote, and others who felt the same, believed the same, followed the tenents of that book?

How is it more farce-iful (sp?) than a book (NT) written say... 1500 years (or so) ago, that was agreed upon by a Council of Men in a land called Nicea?

Have you seen Tom Cruise If the rest of them are half as freakin weird as him and do half the loony crap that he does, then it's a farce. It's hilarious to watch people that weird :shrug:

 

[Midnightrider]

Your knowledge of the Constitution and history sure don't show it.

just because you have a very skewed veiw of history doesn't mean that those of use who don't read history with religious colored glasses on are wrong.

Again i point to the numerous decisions by the courts that uphold the "common" interpretation of the constitution and its ammendments.
I'm pretty sure that the members of the SCOTUS are better educated and have a better understanding of these issue than you- but keep up the zealotry!!!

 

[bcp]

just because you have a very skewed veiw of history doesn't mean that those of use who don't read history with religious colored glasses on are wrong.

Again i point to the numerous decisions by the courts that uphold the "common" interpretation of the constitution and its ammendments.
I'm pretty sure that the members of the SCOTUS are better educated and have a better understanding of these issue than you- but keep up the zealotry!!!

The supreme court as an institution is flawed.
To make it simple to understand, If lets say I were allowed to be the one to pick the supreme court justices, you can bet that they would all have the same basic beliefs that I do. Then when something like the interpretation of the separation of church and state came up, they would vote, much like I would.

I can not see how the founding fathers intended for that line in the constitution to mean what it has been interpreted as. If in fact they would have intended for no mention of religion in school, or no display of religious items in government buildings or on the property, or they would have intended it to mean that the display of the ten commandments in a court house be wrong, it would not have taken 160 years to come about.
Had that been the intentions of the founding fathers, there would have been no prayer in school the day after they signed it. The ten commandments would not have shown up in the court houses as they were built. There would have been no mention of God in any government procedure, but thats not the case.

I look at history tells us what the founding fathers had in mind, and the liberal redefinition of the separation clause is not even close.

It took a long time to stack the supreme court the right way to have them rule God out of existence, but thats exactly what they did.
They didnt look at history to figure out what the founding fathers wanted, they only looked at what they themselves wanted.

It was never meant to take God out of school, or government.
It was however meant to keep the government from forcing people from being a certain religion, and supporting that religion even if they did not follow its doctrine.

Look at where the founding fathers came from and see how the church played into the politics and the lives of the people at that time, and you will see the reason that they included that line.

its not so hard for someone with a basic understanding of history to see.

 

[Midnightrider]

It was however meant to keep the government from forcing people from being a certain religion, and supporting that religion even if they did not follow its doctrine.

And thats exactly the reason that they came to the decision they did. Think about it. If the gov allows prayer in school, then they have to decide what type of prayer is appropriate. I know that people like 2ndA would be pulling for good ol christain prayer, while jews would want their style and muslims would want theirs, scientologists would want theirs. So then its up to the gov (local or fed) to decide which type is going to be sanctioned. In the end, lots of people's children would be having religion that is not their own forced on them through organized school prayer.

as far as the founders and what their experiences were and what they intended, i think that this ruling is consistent with their intentions- that noone be forced to follow or disregard a religion based on what is approved by the government.

 

[bcp]

And thats exactly the reason that they came to the decision they did. Think about it. If the gov allows prayer in school, then they have to decide what type of prayer is appropriate. I know that people like 2ndA would be pulling for good ol christain prayer, while jews would want their style and muslims would want theirs, scientologists would want theirs. So then its up to the gov (local or fed) to decide which type is going to be sanctioned. In the end, lots of people's children would be having religion that is not their own forced on them through organized school prayer.

as far as the founders and what their experiences were and what they intended, i think that this ruling is consistent with their intentions- that noone be forced to follow or disregard a religion based on what is approved by the government.

all religions have a God.

 

[Toxick]

I'm sorry. I wish I had something useful to add.

All I know is that every single time I see the title of this thread all I can think of is...

"She tied it to a heater."




That's all.

 

[wxtornado]

And here is where faith and the belief of what we cant understand crosses over from the scientific theory, to creation.

Where did this matter come from? how can something just always be there?
our brains are programmed to accept that everything has a start, and a finish.
why is it so unrealistic for some to accept that we were created by God, and that God created the Heavens and the Earth as far as we can see it?

Where it might be true that I cant show you God, as in, introduce you to him so that you can see him, shake his hand swap stories etc... the scientific community is no more able to show me something that just exists without a start.
Those that try to disprove Gods existence based on their inability to comprehend that he has just always been there, should also have an equal problem with a belief that matter has just always been there, came from nowhere, has no start. Just existed forever.

At least with God, we know that our universe had a begining, and we can assume that it will have an end.

This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

 

[bcp]

This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

Then by those standards, neither one can be disproven.
soooo,,,, seems that since both are scientifically equally valid, why is the truth kept out of the schools?

 

[Bustem' Down]

And here is where faith and the belief of what we cant understand crosses over from the scientific theory, to creation.

Where did this matter come from? how can something just always be there?
our brains are programmed to accept that everything has a start, and a finish.
why is it so unrealistic for some to accept that we were created by God, and that God created the Heavens and the Earth as far as we can see it?

Where it might be true that I cant show you God, as in, introduce you to him so that you can see him, shake his hand swap stories etc... the scientific community is no more able to show me something that just exists without a start.
Those that try to disprove Gods existence based on their inability to comprehend that he has just always been there, should also have an equal problem with a belief that matter has just always been there, came from nowhere, has no start. Just existed forever.

At least with God, we know that our universe had a begining, and we can assume that it will have an end.

For starters, I'd rather it didn't have an end. Why should it? The difference between science and religion is that it there need not be a definite beginning. Why has matter always been there, we just haven't solved that problem, but one day will. I never try and disprove god, and most scientists would tell you the same. The only people that do are those few atheists with some kind of agenda, which ironically, creates a religion for them.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Then by those standards, neither one can be disproven.
soooo,,,, seems that since both are scientifically equally valid, why is the truth kept out of the schools?

No, I would not say god is scientific and I think the best example of that is a statement 2A said earlier...

Christianity. It is a way of life not a religion. Religion is man made rules to get to God. Christianity is God's method of salvation provided for men to reach God. Religion is man reaching for God by man's rules. Christianity is God reaching to man by His way.