Should the Government Celebrate Prayer?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH:
“ALL THINGS ACT FOR THE GOOD”
POSTED MAY 20, 2009

IRT:
“*you replied,”

[All things that act, act for the good. Man acts, therefore he acts for the good. His very nature seeks what is good. Now, man is made to the image and likeness of God, and therefore seeks the Good for which the Creator created man.]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm

“To which I reply:
It is wishful thinking to say, "all...act for the good." "man acts, therefore he acts for the good" is based on the false premise that all act for the good. again, I wish that were the case. I wish all men (and women) acted for the good. but then I see bin laden, or a common thief and realize it's not true. this idea of "all act for the good" is kind of weird to be coming from a Christian, what with "original sin" and all...

If by ‘act for the good,’ you mean "try to act in ONE'S OWN self-interested good" - in a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest way, then I’d agree we all act for THAT good. but that's not the "good" we're talking about, I think.”

ANS:
What I should have said that would have been more clearer is to say: All things act for an end and the motivation for the act is always perceived, by the subject, as acting for a good. In inanimate things, the act is a good because it acts according to its nature or for what the Natural Law (NL) intended it to do even thought the end may be unintended.

In living creatures, subjectively, all creatures act for a good or what appears to be an apparent good, even if the end is unintentional. By act is meant purpose for which one is moved. The motive to act is to act for a good.

Thus, a flower might act to absorb a certain chemical that appears as a good to the flower’s nature but the chemical is poison and kill the flower, a.k.a. a Dandelion drinks in a weed killer.

An animal that is hungry has no choice but to eat when it sees food. If the animal sees what apparent food is and believes it will harm him, he will not eat even though he is hungry. However, if the animal perceives that the food is not harmful, it has no choice but to eat it because it must act according to its nature, viz. instinct.

In both cases of the animal, the animal acts for its good.

Man may contemplate to commit suicide. Obviously, that is not a good but an evil because it is a contradiction of one’s existence. However, the victim sees suicide as a greater good than to go on living. So, irrespective of what is received, the victim is acting for what he perceives as good.

Hence, the good is not what is received but what prompted the act, viz. the motivation.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
You win. I accept that you have no capability of recognizing anything you have to say.

I have no pity upon anyone who bothers to listen to you (Jer 10:23-24,25,25,25).

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH:
“THE BEST PLAN””
POSTED MAY 20, 2009

IRT:
*I said, "...no physical evidence..."Unfortunately there's no physical evidence for this - it could be the case, but it's wishful thinking, maintained by faith.

ANS:
It depends on what you mean by evidence. See what you think of this view on the definition of evidence.
b) Now, intellectual knowledge may be defined in a general way as the union between the intellect and an intelligible object. But a truth is intelligible to us only in so far as it is evident to us, and evidence is of different kinds; hence, according to the varying character of the evidence, we shall have varying kinds of knowledge.

Thus a truth may be self-evident -- e.g. the whole is greater than its part -- in which case we are said to have intuitive knowledge of it.

Or, the truth may not be self-evident, but deducible from premises in which it is contained. Such knowledge is termed reasoned knowledge.

Or, again a truth may be neither self-evident nor deducible from premises in which it is contained. Yet the intellect may be obliged to assent to it because It would else have to reject some other universally accepted truth.

Lastly, the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority.

For example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life.

If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith. If the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith. If to this be added the medium by which the Divine authority for certain statements is put before us, viz. the Catholic Church, we have Divine-Catholic Faith (see FAITH, RULE OF).

(c) Again, evidence, whatever its source, may be of various degrees and so cause greater or less firmness of adhesion on the part of the mind, which assents to a truth.

Thus arguments or authorities for and against a truth may be either wanting or evenly balanced. In this case, the intellect does not give in its adherence to the truth, but remains in a state of doubt or absolute suspension of judgment.

Or, the arguments on one side may predominate; though not to the exclusion of those on the other side. In this case, we have not complete adhesion of the intellect to the truth in question but only opinion.

Lastly, the arguments or authorities brought forward may be so convincing that the mind gives its unqualified assent to the statement proposed and has no fear whatever lest it should not be true. This state of mind is termed certitude, and is the perfection of knowledge. Divine faith, then, is that form of knowledge, which is derived from Divine authority and which consequently, begets absolute certitude in the mind of the recipient.

(d) That such Divine faith is necessary follows from the fact of Divine revelation. For revelation means that the Supreme Truth has spoken to man and revealed to him truths, which are not in themselves evident to the human mind. We must, then, either reject revelation altogether, or accept it by faith; that is, we must submit our intellect to truths which we cannot understand, but which come to us on Divine authority.

(e) We shall arrive at a better understanding of the habit or virtue of faith if we have previously analyzed an act of faith. This analysis will be facilitated by examining an act of ocular vision and an act of reasoned knowledge.

In ocular vision, we distinguish three things: the eye, or visual faculty the colored object, and the light, which serves as the medium between the eye and the object. It is usual to term color the formal object (objectum formale quod) of vision, since it is that which precisely and alone makes a thing the object of vision. The individual object seen may be termed the material object, e.g. this apple, that man, etc.

Similarly, the light, which serves as the medium between the eye and the object, is termed the formal reason (objectum formale quo) of our actual vision.

In the same way, when we analyze an act of intellectual assent to any given truth, we must distinguish the intellectual faculty which elicits the act the intelligible object towards which the intellect is directed, and the evidence whether intrinsic to that object or extrinsic to it. It is that which moves us to assent to it. None of these factors can be omitted, each cooperates in bringing about the act, whether of ocular vision or of intellectual assent.

(f) Hence, for an act of faith we shall need a faculty capable of eliciting the act, an object commensurate with that faculty, and evidence not intrinsic but extrinsic to that object. It shall serve as the link between faculty and object. We will commence our analysis with the object.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH:
“THE BEST PLAN””
POSTED MAY 20, 2009 2:04 PM

IRT:
I SAY,
yeah...great plan...curse EVERYONE to be sinful for the sin of one man, then get upset with us because we're so sinful, then "sacrifice" his "son" to "redeem" us of our sins (which are the product of his curse)... again, great plan?! that's the best plan god almighty could come up with?

ANS:
God could have made man a robot. Man wouldn’t have to choose anything. He could be programmed always to do good, and never do evil. Then man would not have a free will.

When you were born, you receive the genetic inheritance of your parents. Their DNA and their genetic weaknesses and strengths were passed on to you. More so were their values and their social status and economic conditions. Moreover, we suffer the sins of our fathers before us. Hence, we enjoy the heritage of our Founding Fathers our freedoms and our F/F way of life, in freedom, liberty, and justice.

What we lost when Adam sinned was not our lives and not our ability for eternal happiness, we just so to speak weren't all millionaires. Of course, suffering and dying seems to be a severe penalty, but in the end, there will be a just reward that no eye has seen and no ear has heard. It will be incomprehensible and forever.

Would it seem reasonable for you to not inherit the fruits of your country? There’s an analogy in this somewhere.

We can’t contemplate the mind of God. To do so we would be equal to God. Our problem is we want to think God is a man and hold him in terms a man. Hence, it is written in Job 11: 1cf.

"Peradventure thou wilt comprehend the steps of God, and wilt find out the Almighty perfectly? 8 He is higher than heaven, and what wilt thou do? he is deeper than hell, and how wilt thou know? 9 The measure of him is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. 10 If he shall overturn all things, or shall press them together, who shall contradict him? 11 For He knoweth the vanity of men, and when He seeth iniquity, doth he not consider it? 12 A vain man is lifted up into pride, and thinketh himself born free like a wild ass’s colt.“

God didn’t give Satan a second chance because Satan was empowered with incalculable and unimaginable powers and immeasurable knowledge not to sin. He had enough knowledge to avoid sin. Satan was the greatest creature God had created. His pride got the best of him.

We know it is written in Scripture that Jesus said there is no greater love than he that gives his life up for the good of another. The impact of a mere creature like Adam, given the whole universe and then to think he was greater than God was an enormous sin that no human can fathom. Yet, God came and gave his life for man. Hence, God so loved man with immensurate and boundless love that is unimaginable.

A writer compared God to man in respect to the relationship of a Father or Mother is to their newborn child growing up. The child doesn’t understand why his mother makes him brush his teeth every day, doesn’t let him play with fire, or gasoline, or knives. The child doesn’t understand why he must go to school everyday, take a bath and eat the proper food and not fill up on sweets etc..

God is like that to us. He gives us His grace and many gifts. He gives us the Natural Law and the Natural Moral Law so that man's nature may be in harmony with the world in which man lives and be able to achieve his purpose in life. However, some think they are smarter than God, and unfortunately, they are not.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH:
“EMBRYONIC STEMCELL RESEARCH”

POSTED
MAY 20, 2009 2:39 PM IRT:
RE: STEM CELL RESEARCH.

you said,
[Millions of embryos will be destroyed in Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Embryos are human persons.] a Congressional Committe testimony.

i say:
then, you MUST be opposed to fertility clinics, right?"

ANS;
Yes.

IRT:
I think Obama walked the line brilliantly on this: scientists can use stem cells derived from EXTRA eggs from fertility clinics - that would be THROWN AWAY otherwise.

this policy will be reviewed again pending further scientific study. it's perfect. no embryos are used that weren't already going to be THROWN AWAY.

ANS:
That is the obvious reason why one should be against Vitro Fertilization (IVF).“…

From Susan Jacoby:
“It seems impossible to drive a stake through the hearts of the Undead believers in the “personhood” of six-day-old embryonic cell.

ANS:
Let’s see whom those hearts of the UNDEAD, Jacoby has been trying to put a stake in.

"FATHER OF MODERN GENETICS" DR. JEROME LEJEUNE says, "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ...it is plain experimental evidence."
Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl.

‘At no time,' Dr. Lejeune said, 'is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person, which you are now. You were, and are, a human being.'"

DR. LEJEUNE: “Each human being is unique Recent discoveries by Dr. Alec Jeffreys of England demonstrate that this information [on the DNA molecule] is stored by a system of bar codes not unlike those found on products at the supermarket...it's not any longer a theory that each of us is unique."

Dr. Jerome Lejeune died on April 3, 1994. Dr. Lejeune of Paris, France was a medical doctor, a Doctor of Science and a professor of Fundamental Genetics for over twenty years.
1. Discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome.
2. Receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery.
3. Received the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world's highest award for work in the field of Genetics.
4. Practiced at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades (Sick Children's Hospital) in Paris.
5. A member of the American Academy of the Arts and Science,
6. A member of the Royal Society of Medicine in London,
7. The Royal Society of Science in Stockholm,
8. The Science Academy in Italy,
9. The Science Academy Argentina,
10. The Pontifical Academy of Science 11. 11. The Academy of Medicine in France.

DR. LANDRUM SHETTLES sometimes called "THE FATHER OF 'IN VITRO FERTILIZATION'":
"Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, 'To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.'"

DR. HYMIE GORDON, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic and professor of Medical Genetics: ". . .when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. . .it is an established fact. . .[when] all life, including human life, begins, By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

DR. MICHELINE M. MATHEWS-ROTH, Harvard medical School: Gives confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.”

DR. MCCARTHY DE MERE, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
DR. ALFRED BONGIOVANNI, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine:

"I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."
DR. RICHARD V. JAYNES:

"To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."

PROFESSOR EUGENE DIAMOND: "...either the justices were fed backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."
When such renowned Doctors and Scientists claim life begins at conception, who has the credibility to dispute them?

Size does not measure humanity, nor does appearance, or the capability of surviving on one’s own.

Therefore, to kill by experiment an embryo is to murder it. Anyone for such Embryonic Stem Cell Experimentation (ESCR) participates in willful murder of an innocent human life, a conceived child.

To attempt to drive a stake into the living dead is to condone the murder of an innocent defenseless child is morally inconceivable.

ESCR has been fully funded since 1992 in England; it has produced not one health benefit. Many predict it could be 20 years for any benefits might occur.

Alternate Stem Cell Research (ASTR).meanwhile has produced some 80 breakthroughs in health and is now becoming the top research investment in Medicine. The choice is cures or murder. The Left has chose murder.

IVF has caused a dilemma that should never had occurred. We have human life in every embryo. The dilemma is how do you justly murdering an innocent child?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH:
“IS GOD PRO-LIFE””
POSTED MAY 20, 2009 3:10 PM

IRT:
Is God “pro-life”? Though He makes no specific statements about “abortion,” in Exodus 21:20 we get a rare, almost accidental, glimpse into what He thought about fetuses. While describing penalties for various transgressions, He says,

ANS:
The “conceived” has been scientifically shown by the most profound and eminent Embryologist, Microbiologist, and Eugenic scientist in the world to be a human person. Since, God gave Moses the “Ten Commandments” and the Fifth Commandment is, “Thou shalt not kill, a.k.a. “murder,” God is against therapeutic abortion, the intentional taking of an innocent human life,” because it is murder.

Moreover, it is written, that God breathes into every human person a soul made to His image and likeness. It would be irrational for God to give life and not mean he wants life to exist or else he would be contradicting himself. That is impossible because God is All Truth.

Again it written in Mt 18:6
“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Matthew 2:16-18
“16 Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 18 A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Doesn’t that answer your question?

IRT:
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.”

In those days, a “premature” baby was a dead baby. The fine was remuneration for causing the miscarriage. It’s just a fine. If God considered the fetus a human life, the penalty would have been death. In the next verse, God goes on to say,

God was talking about serious injury to the woman, not the baby. We can surmise that God would probably be in favor of abortion (and murder) if the mother has other Gods. Surely some of Joshua’s victims were pregnant and in Hosea 13:16, God warned unbelievers in Samaria that they would have their “little ones dashed to the ground and pregnant women ripped open.” True, they were infidels, but it’s not very fetus-friendly. Later Jesus warned specifically of woe unto unbelieving expectant mothers at the tribulations (Mt24:19).”

ANS:
I believe that the woman accidently hit would be an accidental death, and not a direct death that abortion is. Abortion is the direct taking of an innocent human life and is directly forbidden in the Fifth Commandment.

Also, note that the death of the woman would be murder.

&&&
IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH:
“ABORTION”

IRT:
“The goal should be to reduce the demand by providing comprehensive sex-education, easy access to birth control and the morning after pill. again, this is a weakly held position, as one only has to watch one of those "development of a fetus" shows to see how developed a fetus is at 3 months.

ANS;
The goal should be to end abortion. Abortion is the unjust intentional taking of an innocent human life, viz. murder.

Comprehensive sex education and contraceptives have been shown to increase sexual activity and out of wedlock births. Sexual Education cannot be taught in a secular setting alone. It must be taught in a traditional moral setting.

Unfortunately, Public Schools basically cannot teach traditional morality because secular morality predominates and is the measure for the Public Square.

Consequently, Secular morality is subjective and therefore rendered useless. Unfortunately, the basic tenants of the Natural Moral Law are apparently proscribed from the Public Square.

In addition, sexuality outside the context of God’s Natural Moral Law and graces inevitably becomes corrupted. Hence, today, in a land of immeasurable wealth, of unequaled opulence, including the billions of welfare to aid dependent families by our nation, divorce hovers over nearly fifty percent of marriages and is destroying our country. A Los Angeles survey years back showed only twenty-five percent of couples living together were married.

Subsequently, the predominance of Secular Humanism is in a Culture war with our Judeo-Christian heritage, its values, and the family protected by the institute of Marriage.

Many States are recognizing shack-ups and gay unions as legitimate lifestyles. These practices are the antitheses of the moral foundation of the family and therefore undermine the State’s stability and social order.

Unfortunately, gay sex is a blight on society. However, the atheistic majority on our Supreme Court, in “Lawrence v. Texas,” elevated “gay sex” to the status of conjugal love in Marriage and made it a Constitutional right. Moreover, the Court proclaimed that traditional morality served no legal interest to the State, and could not be a basis for Civil Law, though traditional morality is the basis of all Civil Law.

arcadiolahttp://www.chefdansculinaryadventures.com/~lgthscac/homosexualityingod'seyes.htm (note this link may not be available now)

"Current Court records reveal that 1/3 of all child abusers are homosexuals. Since the total homosexual population is statistically, not more than 1- 1/2 to 2- 1/2 percent of the population, this means that homosexuals are sixteen (16) times more likely to abuse children than are heterosexuals.

Nature has rejected Homosexuality -based on the abject unhealthiness (as of 1995) of those in bondage to this "unnatural" vice, according to the British Journal of Sexual Medicine and The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

Homosexuals carry one-half of the country's syphilis, although they are only 1 1/2 to 2 1/2% of the population, and are fourteen times more likely to have had the disease than do heterosexuals.

Two-thirds of all the AIDS cases in the U.S. are the direct result of homosexual conduct.

Homosexual young people are twenty-three times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than do their heterosexual counterparts.

In San Francisco, the sexually transmitted disease rate is twenty-two times higher than the national average.

New York Times: Homosexuals Commit 68% of All Mass Murders

In a January 2l, 1984 editorial, The New York Times reported, "many of the most violent multiple murders have been committed by homosexual males.

"Statistics show that although the homosexual population is only between 1- 1/2 to 2- 1/2 percent of the total population, eight of the top ten serial killers in the United States were homosexuals, and that homosexuals were responsible for 68 percent of all mass murders." (Ibid)

According to several surveys, and repeated by Bill Cosby, seventy percent of Black births occur outside of Marriage. Subsequently, nearly fifty-five percent end in abortion. Jesse Jackson, before it became politically expedient, said Abortion was Black Genocide.

Consequently, the Sexual Revolution that plagues our nation with the Culture of Death cannot be resolved unless the government turns to God and prays for His intercession.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
HUMANISM:
TO WHOEVER WROTE THIS:

IRT:
“You've been commenting a lot "In Reply To:" me, none of them referring to anything I have ever said. It's enough that you invent new definitions of words so that communicating with you is impossible, but why do you insist upon lying about what you pretend to communicate?”

ANS:
I don’t believe I invented anything. Either you wrote this post on May 17, 2009, or someone is using your handle. Could you not know what you wrote?

IRT:
In reply to who ever has stolen your identity if you didn’t write this.
.
“Secular humanism is a philosophy viewed as a non-theistic religion antagonistic to traditional religions. That is the Merriam-Webster definition.”

ANS:
I agreed with Webster’s definition of “Secular Humanism.” So where is the lying and making up of definitions?

IRS:
“Humanism on the other hand makes reference to man's study of his heritage literature and values for the purpose of developing human interests.—May 17, 2009”

ANS:
I don’t believe I disagreed with that. That’s perfectly suitable. There is no lying here.

IRS:
“Thus, "We are all humanitarians, that is, if WE HAVE LEARNED how to utter an expression understood by someone else.”

ANS:
That is ridiculous. Simply talking to one another is not Humanism. Saying ”Hello,” is an utterance understood by someone else and is not Humanism

You quoted the Webster Dictionary as a definition of Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism was the topic of Solzhenitsyn address at Harvard and the subject of the post.

Simply talking to each other cannot be deemed as a philosophical secular system or mode of thought manifesting a non-theistic religion that is antagonistic to traditional religions, a.k.a. Webster. That would mean Solzhenitsyn, in talking to the Harvard students against Secular Humanism, under your definition, would be a Secular Humanist, which is ridiculous.

IRT:
“I did not learn to believe secular humanism, but no man what walks decides his own steps (Jer 10:23-24; 1Cor 4:7). I was taught what I believe and say. That's still humanism, man to man.

ANS:
Now how can that be humanism when Secular Humanism is antagonistic to traditional religions like Judaism. Jeremiah is talking to God. That is strictly a religious encounter. In fact, Jeremiah 10: 23, is a warning against Secular Humanism. Man cannot make his own path with out the help of God. That is the lesson Jeremiah was telling God he learned.

Thus, that is exactly what Solzhenitsyn told the students at Harvard. Namely, Humanism “alone” cannot serve any good purpose to man and will in the end destroy man. To be effective, Humanism must be used as a tool to help man understand God, but Secular Humanism is the anti-thesis of our dependence on God, or as Jeremiah says in the passage you wrote, Humanism the serious error of man choosing to walk his own path.

Consequently, any leader who believes the separation of Church and State is the isolation of religious morality from the Public Square condemns the State to Secular Humanism and inevitably to social suicide.

IRT:
“Now when I close the closet door and confer with my Lord alone that is not humanism.” It might become translated into as close a humanistic phrase I might think of to tell someone else, then its humanism.”

ANS:
That seem to be a contradiction. Jeremiah was talking to God but you claimed that what he did was Humanism. Then you do the same and claim it isn't Humanism but close to humanism when you mention your closet talk to God to other persons.

IRT:
“Secular humanism is just a joke that denies the Kingdom of God within (Luke 17:21).”

ANS:
Secular Humanism has wrought the Sexual Revolution and the Culture of Death. It is not a joke to the 50 million unborn aborted in America, or to the 43 million per year who die worldwide from abortion. It doesn’t seem to be much hilarity for the 70 percent Black children born out of wedlock according to Bill Cosby.

Nor is it a joke to North Koreans, or the Chinese people; millions have died because of it.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WHAT IS SUPERNATURAL:

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WHAT IS SUPERNATURAL:

IRT:
“It's enough that you invent new definitions of words so that communicating with you is impossible, but why do you insist upon lying about what you pretend to communicate?”

ANS:
Maybe, it’s because the definition given you is from the dictionary. You wouldn’t be accusing the Dictionary of lying would you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural

SUPERNATURAL–Adjective 1. Of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena, or that which is abnormal.
2. Of or pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. Of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. Of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

SUPERNATURAL–noun 5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.

Maybe your problem to communicate is a closed mind. Though you are having a problem understanding “supernatural,” there is not cause for me to call you a liar. I believe lying is an intentional attempt to deceive some one at the time, the one lying knows the truth but intentionally conceals it.

IRT:
“Again. The word 'supernatural' is not a word found in scripture, but is a humanist word that means what we have agreed that it means, or, doesn't mean a thing if every person arbitrarily invents a definition to their own fancy.” May 17, 2009 2:29 PM"

ANS:
Did you ever think you might be the one arbitrarily inventing definitions to meet your own fancy.

Sorry but though the word “supernatural” is not found in the Scriptures 'per se', the Scriptures are replete with supernatural acts. Miracles are supernatural occurrences, acts that cannot be explained by the physical laws and go beyond the laws that normally govern the universe.

The Scriptures from the Old Testament to the New Testament are brimming over with miracles. Hence, supernatural acts are abundantly present in the Scripture.

Further, Divine Revelation is a miracle, viz. God speaking to man and inspiring him to write the Scriptures.

IRT:
"You've been commenting a lot "In Reply To:" me, none of them referring to anything I have ever said."

ANS:
If the words above on “supernatural” are not yours, then someone is using your identity. If they are your words, then you then you’ve made another mistake, because I did write an answer to what constituted what you were talking about, viz. “the supernatural.”

IRT:
"We, not scriptures, have agreed that 'supernatural' is defined as "1)..relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe...."

ANS:
Second, who are you referring to as we?” I cannot find your definition in the dictionary that “supernatural” is an order of existing things beyond the “VISIBLE & OBSERVABLE” universe, that is, if you said such. If you didn’t say such, then I am referring to the one who is falsely using your name.

As to your or someone else's statement, supernatural things may be invisible, however, all things invisible or unobservable are not always beyond the Universe but can be supernatural, as man's soul and ideas. Love is not visible, however, its affects and effects are visible. However, ideas are a supernatural trait of man because man is a super natural being in the sense that he is not made for the world but for the kingdom of God according to the Scriptures.

John 17: 14-16
“They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world.” Thus, it is said that at every conception of a newborn God creates a spiritual soul. That creation is a miracle because matter cannot produce a spiritual being,, viz. the nature of man, an intellect, and will, and hence supernatural because a human soul is beyond the Universe. Yet man is in the Universe and is observable.

Consequently, the proper definition of “supernatural” should be that which cannot be explained by the phenomena of the natural laws of the physical Universe, as are ideas, and miracles, and apparitions of the saints.

As to “language,” man creates all languages; they are man’s way of communicating ideas. Since ideas are spiritual, and language is the expression of ideas, language can be said to be supernatural; yet it is in the Universe.

Gen 2:19
“And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.”

In addition, it is said, that God imbues man with supernatural grace when man receives the sacraments. Hence, grace is a supernatural entity for man’s supernatural soul, which is beyond the Universe but is in man who visibly exist in the Universe.

Simply put, “supernatural” is that phenomena whose acts are beyond the physical natural laws that govern the Universe.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
re: natural and moral law

there are certain "Natural Laws": laws of motion, boyle's law, the laws of thermodynamics etc... these are all physical laws. physical or "Natural" laws are "IS" laws - they DESCRIBE the way it IS - not we way it should be. scientists didn't "make up" these laws, they "found them". they cannot change them. they CANNOT be violated.

those physical natural laws are different from "moral laws" ("rules" like do not murder, do not steal, do not jaywalk). they CAN be violated. people do murder.

nonetheless, when you say "natural moral law" - that's what i can humanism. it stems from empathy. is the realization that we are all humans, we OUGHT to all be in it together, and we all OUGHT have the same rights. it is a made-up belief about how things OUGHT to be. (just because it's "made-up" that doesn't mean it's bad.)

possible the reason there really do seem to be some universally made-up OUGHTs like "do not murder" and "be fair" are because humans have evolved as social animals. you could call it the "law of the cooperation gene". humans have evolved to cooperate like no other animal.

it's a pleasure "talking" to you

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
I'm sorry I asked you that last question.

What I would rather say is, stop telling people you are making a comment "In Reply To:" me and then tell them what you wish I had said so you can set up what you think you know in rebuke.

That's awfly Catholic of you, and no deserves it.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
I've been gone a few days and just now came back in to see what's up.

You've been commenting a lot "In Reply To:" me, none of them refering to anything I have ever said.

It's enough that you invent new definitions of words so that communicating with you is impossible, but why do you insist upon lieing about what you pretend to communicate?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
re: "culture of death"

besides saying, "oh puleeze" again i admit that abortion is the "most difficult", and therefore least firmly-held "liberal" position i have. personally, for myself (for a woman i impregnated...), i am against abortion. but, since abortions are going to happen, i suppose i would rather it be in a doctor's office than in a less safe place. it is a sad concession to pragmatism. the goal should be to reduce the demand by providing comprehensive sex-education, easy access to birth control and the morning after pill. again, this is a weakly-held position, as sone only has to watch one of those "development of a fetus" shows to see how developed a fetus is at 3 months.

but before you get on your high horse and say it's a religious issue, let's consider bible's take on the rights of fetuses:

Is God “pro-life”? Though He makes no specific statements about “abortion,” in Exodus 21:20 we get a rare, almost accidental, glimpse into what He thought about fetuses. While describing penalties for various transgressions, He says,

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.”

In those days a “premature” baby was a dead baby. The fine was remuneration for causing the miscarriage. It’s just a fine. If God considered the fetus a human life, the penalty would have been death. In the next verse, God goes on to say,

“But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

God was talking about serious injury to the woman, not the baby. We can surmise that God would probably be in favor of abortion (and murder) if the mother has other Gods. Surely some of Joshua’s victims were pregnant and in Hosea 13:16, God warned unbelievers in Samaria that they would have their “little ones dashed to the ground and pregnant women ripped open.” True, they were infidels, but it’s not very fetus-friendly. Later Jesus warned specifically of woe unto unbelieving expectant mothers at the tribulations (Mt24:19).

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
re: stem cell research.

you said,
"Millions of embryos will be destroyed in Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Embryos are human persons."

i say:
then, you MUST be opposed to fertility clinics, right?

i think obama walked the line brilliantly on this: scientists can use stem cells derived from EXTRA eggs from fertility clinics - that would be THROWN AWAY otherwise.

this policy will be reviewed again pending further scientific study. it's perfect. no embryos are used that weren't already going to be THROWN AWAY.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
re:WHY LEADERS NEED TO PRAY: THE RELATIONSHIP OF CHURCH AND STATE”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.htmlC

i agree with almost everything you pasted here. i might quibble with the characterization of "the aim of faith/church...is to help purify reason", but that's minor. i wish all religious people lived by those church/state separation principles.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
again, i think you're getting me and roger mixed up.

re: "the destiny of man"

you said,
"When God created Adam, God made man perfect. Adam screwed up and so sin entered the world and man lost all his privileges. The intellect was wounded, and the will was enabled to challenge the intellect.

Consequently, the bond between God and man was broken. For man to achieve the purpose he was created, the Father had to send a Redeemer to restore the bond between God and Man. This was done when Christ died on the Cross in atonement for our sins. Then the gates of Heaven were reopened. Jesus established the sacrament of Baptism to remove the sin of Adam, Original Sin."

i say,
yeah...great plan...curse EVERYONE to be sinful for the sin of one man, then get upset with us because we're so sinful, then "sacrifice" his "son" to "redeem" us of our sins (which are the product of his curse)... again, great plan?! that's the best plan god almighty could come up with?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
*i think you're getting me and roger mixed up.

*I said, "...no physical evidence..."

IRT:
Unfortunately there's no physical evidence for this - it could be the case, but it's wishful thinking, maintained by faith.

*you replied,

ANS:
All things that act, act for the good. Man acts, therefore he acts for the good. His very nature seeks what is good. Now, man is made to the image and likeness of God, and therefore seeks the Good for which the Creator created man.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm

*to which i reply,
it is wishful thinking to say, "all...act for the good." "man acts, therefore he acts for the good" is based on the false premise that all act for the good. again, i wish that were the case. i wish all men (and women) acted for the good. but then i see bin laden, or a common thief and realize it's not true. this idea of "all act for the good" is kind of weird to be coming from a christian, what with "original sin" and all...

if by "act for the good" you mean "try to act in ONE'S OWN self-interested good" - in a darwinian survival-of-the-fittest way, then i'd agree we all act for THAT good. but that's not the "good" we're talking about, i think.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ROGERWDAVIS
“THERE IS BOTH A NATURAL AND NATURL MORAL LAW.”

IRT:
"God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (I Jn 4:16). Hence, God created man for Himself, Who is “Eternal Happiness.”

IRT:
“Let me also state that humanism is also an "ought.” there are no "Natural Laws of Humanism.” it's just something we made up. it's just an idea, a good one that says we should be good to each other. so, when enlightenment philosophers talk about our "natural rights" they're not really talking about natural laws - they talk that way so as to put them beyond the reach of god and governments.”

ANS:
There is a Moral Natural Law (NML) that is applicable to all humans, objectively and universally. To the contrary it is not made up. We can see everyday when these laws are violated the tremor and travail the ensues as a consequence of our failure to keep them. The NML is the proper rules for human behavior inbued in man's nature.

In religion we can believe what religion we wish; that is why God gave man a free will, viz to choose God's love freely. As to the NML, man has no choice to disobey them without dire consequences. He does have a choice to disobey them, but he has no choice to the dire consequences that ensue.

The NML is a derivative of the Natural Law(NL). The NL is the domain of God; it is law that governs all created things without exception. Hence, man has no authority over the NL and therefore the NML. Man can no more defy the Law of Gravity or claim it no longer exists, or that Law of Gravity is proscribed than man can violate the NML.

Our Constitution is based on the NL & NML. The rights of man stated in the Bill of Rights are as the Declaration has stated, endowed by God. They are not given by man but by God. The Bill of Rights only recognizes them it does not give them. Thus, they are inviolable. What man gives, man can take away. What God gives, man cannot take away.

The rights of man are based on the NML. They are a gift of God to man so that man make accomplish his purpose in life, choosing the good. Man is oriented to choose what is good, and ultimately is drawn toward the eternal good who is God.

The State exist for man in that it facilitates the accomplishment of man’s destiny in life. Anytime the State interferes with man’s human rights to do good, it violates its mandate for its existence. The State exists for man that it might harmonize the life of man in the tranquility and peace of the society in which he lives.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ROGERWDAVIS
“THE DESTINY OF MAN: WHAT IS HAPPINESS?””

Man Seeks The Good And Seeks Perfection.

“Every being has a natural tendency to continue and to develop itself. This tendency brings its activities into play; each power has its proper object, and a conatus pushing it to action.

The end to which action is directed is something that is of a nature to contribute, when obtained, to the well-being or perfection of the subject. For this reason it is needed, pursued, desired, and, because of its desirability, is designated good.

The defined doctrine on the good, ontologically considered, is formulated by the Vatican Council (Session III, Const. de Fide Catholica, cap.i):

This one, only, true God, of His own goodness and almighty power, not for the increase of His own happiness, not to acquire but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel created from the beginning of time both the spiritual and the corporeal creature, to wit, the angelic and the mundane; and afterwards the human creature.

IRT:
Unfortunately there's no physical evidence for this - it could be the case, but it's wishful thinking, maintained by faith.

ANS:
All things that act, act for the good. Man acts, therefore he acts for the good. His very nature seeks what is good. Now, man is made to the image and likeness of God, and therefore seeks the Good for which the Creator created man.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm

“The will moves the intellect quoad exercitium, i.e. in its actual operation: the intellect moves the will quoad specificationem, i.e. by presenting objects to it: nil volitum nisi praecognitum.

The beginning of all our acts is the apprehension and desire of good in general (bonum in communi). We desire happiness (bonum in communi) naturally and necessarily, not by a free deliberate act. Particular goods (bona particularia) we choose freely; and the will is a blind faculty, always following the last practical judgment of the intellect (Zigliara, 51).

The moral good is not a kind, distinct from the good viewed ontologically; it is one form of perfection proper to human life, but, because of its excellence and supreme practical importance, it demands special treatment with reference to its own distinctive character which differentiates it from all other goods and perfections of man. It is again, in Greek philosophy, that we find the principles which have supplied the school with a basis for rational speculations, controlled and supplemented by revelation.

In conclusion, we may now state in a word the central idea of our doctrine. God as Infinite Being is Infinite Good; creatures are good because they derive their measure of being from Him.

This participation manifests His goodness, or glorifies God, which is the end for which he created man. The rational creature is destined to be united to God as the Supreme End and Good in a special manner.

In order that he may attain to this consummation, it is necessary that in this life, by conforming his conduct to conscience, the interpreter of the moral law, he realizes in himself the righteousness which is the true perfection of his nature. Thus God is the Supreme Good, as principle and as end. "I am the beginning and I am the end."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ROGERWDAVIS
“THE DESTINY OF MAN: WHAT IS HAPPINESS?””

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm

"Man is complex in his nature and activities, sentient and rational, cognitive and appetitive. There is for him a well-being of the whole and a well-being of the parts; a relatively brief existence here, an everlasting life hereafter.

Beatitude, perfect happiness, complete well-being, is to be attained not in this life, but in the next. Primarily, it consists in the activity of man's highest cognitive faculty, the intellect, in the contemplation of God — the infinitely Beautiful.

But this immediately results in the supreme delight of the will in the conscious possession of the Summum Bonum, God, the infinitely good. This blissful activity of the highest spiritual faculties, as the Catholic Faith teaches, will redound in some manner transcending our present experience to the felicity of the lower powers.

For man, as man, will enjoy that perfect beatitude. Further, an integral part of that happiness will be the consciousness that it is absolutely secure and everlasting, an existence perfect in the tranquil and assured possession of all good — Status omnium bonorum aggregatione perfectus, as Boethius defines it.

This state involves self-realization of the highest order and perfection of the human being in the highest degree. It thus combines whatever elements of truth are contained in the Hedonist and Rationalist theories.

It recognizes the possibility of a relative and incomplete happiness in this life, and its value; but it insists on the importance of self-restraint, detachment, and control of the particular faculties and appetencies for the attainment of this limited happiness and, still more, in order to secure that eternal well-being be not sacrificed for the sake of some transitory enjoyment.

What is it which, in the nature or being of any object, constitutes it desirable? Or, in more technical phrase, what, metaphysically speaking, constitutes the good or goodness in a thing, absolutely considered?

What is the relationship existing between the good thus absolutely constituted and the subject to which it is desirable? Or what is implied by good, relatively considered?

These two questions may be combined in one: "What is the good in the ontological order?" In exposing the reply to this question we shall come across the moral good, and the ethical aspect of the problem, which shall be treated in the second place.

See link below:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm

“St. Thomas starts from the Aristotelean principle that being and the good are objectively one. Being conceived as desirable is the good. The good differs from the true in this, that, while both are objectively nothing else than being, the good is being considered as the object of appetite, desire, and will, the true is being a the object of the intellect.

God, the Supreme Being and the source of all other being is consequently the Supreme Good, and the goodness of creatures results from the diffusion of His goodness. In a creature, considered as a subject having existence, we distinguish several elements of the goodness which it possesses:

Its existence or being, which is the ground of all the other elements.

Its Powers, Activities, And Capacities.

These are the complement of the first, and they serve it to pursue and appropriate whatever is requisite for and contributory to sustaining its existence, and developing that existence into the fullness of perfection proper to it.

Each perfection that is acquired is a further measure of existence for it, hence a good.

The totality of these various elements, forming its total good subjectively, that is, its entire being in a state of normal perfection according to its mind, is its good complete. This is the sense of the axiom: omne ens est bonum sibi (every being is a good unto itself).

The privation of any of its powers or due perfections is an evil for it, as, for instance, blindness, the loss of the power of sight, is an evil for an animal. Hence evil is not something positive and does not exist in itself; as the axiom expresses it, malum in bono fundatur (evil has its base in good).

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ROGERWDAVIS
“THE DESTINY OF MAN”

IRT:
“Nonetheless I object to the idea that we were born to be happy

ANS:
When God created Adam, God made man perfect. Adam screwed up and so sin entered the world and man lost all his privileges. The intellect was wounded, and the will was enabled to challenge the intellect.

Consequently, the bond between God and man was broken. For man to achieve the purpose he was created, the Father had to send a Redeemer to restore the bond between God and Man. This was done when Christ died on the Cross in atonement for our sins. Then the gates of Heaven were reopened. Jesus established the sacrament of Baptism to remove the sin of Adam, Original Sin.

However, Jesus’ resurrection did not remove the consequence of sin, it only removed the sin. Namely, a window is broken, the breaker is forgiven and friendship is restored. Still the window remains broken and must be repaired.

And, so man has a tendency to succumb unto his passions and concupiscence. Happiness was not guaranteed but was an opportunity. God wanted man to love Him freely. Therefore, he gave man a free will to choose God’s love feely. Love is the greatest pleasure and happiness man can obtain. All the creatures of the world except for man can love. That man is always seeking love is testimony for his intended end.

The effects of Adam’s sin remained, viz. lost of privileges, and a weaken intellect vulnerable to man’s concupiscence and passions. Therefore God instituted His Church to overcome these temptations of evil that make man turn away from his Creator and inwardly to himself. This is the discord of unhappiness. So God, in realization of man’s spiritual weakness, bestows His graces on man through His Church in order that man may obtain his eternal destiny, the purpose for which man was created, to abide harmoniously in God which is eternal happiness.

Subsequently, St. Augustine says, “Lord our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Then man’s perfection will be complete and all his desires fulfilled.

“The term "love,” one of the most used and abused words in today's world, has a multiplicity of meanings. From them, however, emerges an archetype of love par excellence: the love of a man and a woman, which in ancient Greece was known as eros.

In the Bible, especially in the New Testament, the concept of "love" is examined closely, a development which results in setting aside the word eros in favor of the term agape to express a self-sacrificing love.

This new vision of love, an essentially Christian innovation, has often been judged in a totally negative way as the rejection of eros and of bodylines. Although these tendencies have existed, the meaning of this deepening is different.

The eros, implanted in human nature by the Creator himself, needs discipline, purification and growth in maturity if it is not to lose its original dignity or degenerate into pure "sex,” becoming a commodity.

The Christian faith has always considered man as a being in whom there is a sort of interpenetration of spirit and matter, from which he draws a new nobility. We can say that the challenge of the eros has been overcome when body and mind are found to be in perfect harmony in the human being.

At that point, love indeed becomes an "ecstasy", not in the sense of a fleeting moment of intoxication but as an ongoing exodus from the inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving, and thus towards self-discovery and the discovery of God: in this way the eros can uplift the human being "in ecstasy" towards the Divine.

In short, eros and agape somehow need to be connected to each other. Indeed, the more the two find the correct equilibrium in their different dimensions, the more the true nature of love is realized.

Even if eros is at first mainly desire, in drawing near to the other person it becomes less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, bestows itself and wants to "be there for" the other. It is then that the element of agape enters into this love.

In Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate love of God, the eros-agape reaches its most radical form. In dying on the Cross, by giving himself in order to raise and save man, Jesus expresses love in its most sublime form. He guaranteed an enduring presence of this oblative act through the institution of the Eucharist, in which he gives himself under the species of bread and wine as a new manna that unites us with him.

Thus, it is written, in Luke 12: 22-40 how much God watches over man and protects man. It could not be said more forcefully what Christ came for. It was that man’s eternal destiny be achieved.

Thus, it is written,” John 14:2

Jesus told the Apostles, “In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.”

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH :
“WHY LEADERS NEED TO PRAY: THE RELATIONSHIP OF CHURCH AND STATE”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.htmlC

“In order to define more accurately the relationship between the necessary commitment to justice and the ministry of charity, two fundamental situations need to be considered:

The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves:

“Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere.[19]

The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.

Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics.

The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.

Here politics and faith meet. Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself.

From God's standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State.

Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.

The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.

Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.

She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper.

A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH :
“MODERN HUMANISM IS A DISTORTION OF HUMANISM—THE CULTURE OF DEATH”

IRT:
"you said,
[It has distorted human values to mean a Culture of Death]

puleeze... just because "reason" denies eternal life in heaven (or hell), that does not make it a "culture of death.” that's just so over-the-top. in fact I can say that since there's no life after death, it makes life here on earth that much more precious.”

ANS:
However, that isn't what has happened. Human life has become less valuable, not precious. America, as the world, has made human life a commodity. We are selling human flesh on the open market. We have destroyed over 50 million unborn. Obama voted three times to allow an abortionist to finis murdering a little child that survived his abortion.

The sacredness of conscience is being attacked by the President. The "Freedom of Choice Act" he vows to sign into law will proscribe conscientious objectors to abortion. Hospitals and doctors who have a moral objection to abortion will be forced to perform abortion or close down or not be doctors. Millions of embryos will be destroyed in Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Embryos are human persons.

Even one's privacy is being assaulted. Obama is attempting to proscribe the privacy of union votes. It's been tried recently, and the voters were threatened by union thugs to vote the union in.

The distortions of human values is caused by man making his life as an end itself. He seeks pleasure for pleasures sake, The more he does the more he is frustrated because he is made for love and to love is to give. Love cannot be stored up, it must be given.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.htmlC

“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: ‘We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us’.

“We have come to believe in God's love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

Saint John's Gospel describes that event in these words: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life” (3:16). In acknowledging the centrality of love,

Christian faith has retained the core of Israel's faith, while at the same time giving it new depth and breadth. The pious Jew prayed daily the words of the Book of Deuteronomy which Expressed The Heart Of His Existence: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might” (6:4-5)."

The heart of man's existence is to love and be loved. In man's love for one another, man ultimately is seeking the ultimate love, his destiny, who is God. Since man is made to the image and likeness of God, we are vicariously attracted to each other because we are a reflection of God.

Jesus united into a single precept this commandment of love for God and the commandment of love for neighbor found in the Book of Leviticus: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (19:18; cf. Mk 12:29-31). Since God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn 4:10), love is now no longer a mere “command”; it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
in response to "totalitarian governments".

oops...

that first paragraph should be:

you keep calling n.korea and the soviets etc... as humananism gone awry. maybe they have "gone bad" because they're NOT secular humanist.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
in response to "totalitarian governments".

you keep calling n.korea and the soviets etc... as humananism gone awry. maybe they are because they're NOT secular humanist "gone bad".

a "utopian" secular humanist society would not impose or ban any religion - unless that religion required something in humane. the soviet union banned religion - that's bad. that's not in line with humanist principles. the most secular humanist government i can think of is the u.s. government.

you point to alcoholism in "scandinavian" countries and suicide in japan. those are problems with society, not their government.

let's think about some existing "godly" governments. one would be north korea in that kim-jong-il is their god. another would be saudi arabia. if you want a christian example, to get a really good example, you might have to go back to the days before the u.s. constitution - to the kinds of governments our founders fled from. secular government is better for everyone.

remember secular government doesn't ban religion and doesn't impose it or favor any particular religion. a secular government is "neutral", not involved, about religion.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
what does "TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2" stand for?

in response to: a distortion of humanism.

well, obviously we disagree about the source/causes of man's good and bad sides, but we agree that we HAVE good and bad sides. i'd say these "good" unifying thoughts - that make us think outside ourselves, about others - are "humanism".

jesus expresses humanist thought when he says, "do unto others" and "what you do to the least of these you do to me" - those are humanist thoughts.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH :
MODERN HUMANISM IS A DISTORTION OF HUMANISM;

IRT:
"Thus, in its distortions of human nature, Humanism brought us the Enlightenment Period, Rationalism, Phenomenalism Utilitarianism and Pragmatism. These ideas, pushed to their conclusions brought us to Socialism and Communism as Marx said in triumph in 1844, "Communism is naturalized humanism.""
___________________________
“I don't think communism has ever been "properly" implemented. - maybe because we humans are not ready for it. we're still to "Darwinian" in our thinking (and I hold Darwin in high esteem) in that we care about self-preservation. we have hard time thinking about the good of others. religion can at certain moments help us think outside ourselves. we have hard time thinking about Community.”

ANS:
We have a hard time to love something besides ourselves because of the affects of Original Sin on man. Man was made perfect by God. He sinned and made himself imperfect. Now life isn’t so easy as when man was in the Garden. Hence, man must pray to God for God’s graces to help him sustain the good for which man was created.

*************************************
IRT:
you said,
"Humanism, today, is bereft of its roots in God the Creator of man..."

I disagree with the premise. I don't think humanism has its roots in god. it's roots are in "do unto others" (which is not a religious sentiment). humanist morality is derived from our (invented) responsibility to other humans, not (invented) gods.
***************************

ANS:
Humanism has its roots in the good of man; once its precepts are adverse to man it is corrupted. The good in man is the Good God gives man. Man is good only in his relationship to God's Good. Anything against man's nature is against God's nature of which man is made to His image and likeness.

Man is always seeking the good, A.K.A. the All-Good who is God. Even when a man seeks evil, he thinks it is a good, viz. an apparent good. If man obtained all the things of the world he desired, they would not satisfy him. He would eventually become tired of them and seek more, namely he would become bored.

Nothing on earth can satisfy man’s longing for the inert happiness that he constantly is seeking. He will never be satisfied until he obtains eternal happiness. Thus, St. Augustine say, “Lord our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

God made man that man might seek Him freely. When man arrives in God, he will have no more desires; he will be perfect, without any wants. Since God is Eternal, we will become in Him eternal and forever happy, or fully satisfied.

From Scripture:
So says God in Divine Revelation that man may enjoy eternal happiness for all eternity.

2Co 4:18,
“While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporal: but the things which are not seen, are eternal.” Or, “2Co 5:1, “For we know, if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven.”

John 14:2
Jesus told the Apostles, “In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.”

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ROGERWDAVIS :
“SUPERNATURAL AND HUMANISM”

IRT:
“Again. The word 'supernatural' is not a word found in scripture, but is a humanist word that means what we have agreed that it means, or, doesn't mean a thing if every person arbitrarily invents a definition to their own fancy."

ANS:
The supernatural is personified in the Scriptures. Try Genuses and Exodus. God’s appearances, the parting of the Sea, the Great Flood,-all are phenomena that are supernatural occurrences. Jesus and His miracles, viz. raising the dead, feeding the hungry, curing the sick, are explicit supernatural acts by God that are mentioned in the Bible; they are called miracles.

Humanism relates to human things. "The doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural." "It is a doctrine that people's duty is to promote human welfare."

Supernatural means things above the natural world. It means not existing in material nature or not subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material. "Humanism" deals with the spirit of material universe and man’s relationship to it; "supernatural" deals with the natural causes of that exceed the Natural Law in its causes, though it can operate in the normal material universe. Thus Humanities deal with the things men do,

IRS:
“We, not scriptures, have agreed that 'supernatural' is defined as "1)..relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.”

ANS:
To the contrary, many things are not visible in the Universe today. For example, force. Gravity is never seen, but we see its effects. Thinking is never seen, but it is not supernatural because it is applicable to man’s nature not and is not above the Natural Law. The ‘idea” is never seen, it is not quantified, but it is also not supernatural. Only an idea's effects are seen when an idea is acted upon. Things like “love” are both natural and supernatural. Love by man is natural; love by God is supernatural love.

IRS:
“Without transgressing the sanctity of scripture we can use that humanistic definition and agree that the Lord is the order of existence beyond the visible observable universe, yet all things within the visible observable universe comply with and reveal, each in part, the attributes of God (Ps 19:1-6). I only know the supernatural attributes of the invisible and unobservable God because all observable and visible things of nature are in compliance.”

ANS:
If they weren’t in compliance with God’s Natural Laws they wouldn’t exist. Consequently we know God from His effects, viz. His Creation.

IRT:
“If supernatural things have no compliant things to reveal them, as is arbitrarily defined by you against the agreed upon humanist definition, then supernatural refers to something we know nothing about and have nothing to say about at all.

Fortunately, those things which are secret belong unto the Lord our God (Deut 29:29), but those things revealed belong unto us and to our children that we may do all the things of this law (Deut 29:29; 30:12; Rom 10:6; Deut 30:14; Rom 10:8; Deut 30:15; Rom 1:17,18-19; Rev 19:11,12-13,14-21)."

ANS:
Things like the Trinity, Genesis, the Eucharist, the Fall of Satan are all things we do not understand but that are revealed by God. It’s called Divine Revelation. We would never have known them if God had not revealed them to us.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
: WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH :
TOTALITARIAN Governments:
MAY 17, 2009 2:29 PM

IRT
“you pointed to Nazis, N. Korea and China etc... as examples of "anti-religious" governments, supposedly the product of "humanism" gone bad.
For this to “work,” state doctrine teaches that allegiance to state doctrine supersedes Golden Rule humanity. Substitute “Yahweh/Jesus, Allah” for “Lenin” or “Fuhrer” or Great Leader” and “temple/church/mosque” for “state” and these secular religions become indistinguishable from our own theocracies of the Dark Ages.

ANS:
To the contrary, Christian nations are the antithesis of secular nations and are quite distinguishable. Just look a N. Korea and South Korea; East Germany and West Germany.

These secular ideologies or atheistic religions are illustrations of humanism gone awry. Without the concurrence of God’s guidance, man ends up in committing social suicide and invites the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Famine, Pestilence, War and Death. These are the marks of N. Korea, the Congo, the Russia, China and Cambodia, Vietnam est.

Their ideologies violate the Natural Law, and the Natural Moral Law that flows from it. Hence, rulers must rule by force, because man has certain rights by virtue of his nature and to violate them consistently is to lead to the frustration of the purpose for human life. Thus, these regimes are often marked by violence and rebellion.

The Scandinavian countries are said to be more of a Godless secular nation. This region has an inordinate problem with alcoholics and a high rate of suicide. Japan also a secular nation has the same problems. Why? Because they are in opposition to the very purpose they have been created for.

The Middle East is in a social turmoil because they are out of harmony with God’s Natural Moral Law.

Every time man tries to do things on his own, he screws up. That’s why God had to send a Redeemer and institute a Church. The world went amuck. All religions started by man eventually fail because man, after the fall of Adam from the graces of God, wounded his nature.

Consequently, God's Church is imbued with infallibility in its universal teachings on faith and moral, so that error will not be taught. (Mt. 28:20 Mt.10; John 15: 26-27).

When Adam sinned against God, he covered his body in fig leafs. He realized he was naked. He no longer had complete control over his own body, and man’s reason became vulnerable to the will through man’s concupiscence, irascibilities and passions.

Pope John Paul II, in his “Theology of the Body,” describes the effects of Adam’s sin in the Genesis account. “The shame at their nakedness, experienced by the first man and woman after the Fall, contrasts with their original innocence.” Sin had entered the world.

“Adam and Eve entered the world as a primordial sacrament, a sign to the visible world of the invisible mystery hidden in God, the mystery of truth and love, the mystery of divine life, in which man really participates.

The sin of Adam and Eve distorted the 'nuptial meaning of the body,' its masculinity/femininity, which was meant to shape their communion. Their relationship was corrupted by lust, which includes the desire to possess the other, rather than receive him/her as a free gift.

After the fall, human sexuality was marked by a certain 'coercion of the body,' which subverts the expression of the spirit seeking the communion of persons, male and female, through a mutual gift of self. 'The more lust dominates the heart, the less the heart experiences the nuptial meaning of the body.'

The nuptial meaning of the body is destroyed when man or woman seeks to possess the other as an object, but not when each belongs to the other through self-giving.

'Hardness of heart,' which all men share with Our Lord's auditors, and its connection with the three-fold lust which is our heritage from Adam.

When a woman is looked at lustfully by a man, she ceases to be regarded as a subject of personal attraction or communion, but only as an object of sexual satisfaction. And when this "intention" reaches the will, the man himself becomes enslaved [to his passions].”

Consequently, it is written, Mt 4:4, “Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.”

Thus, it is said in Matthew 19:23-30, “With God all things are possible, without God man can do nothing.” Thus, any leader who ignores the mandates of God, eschews his reliance on God and His unfathomable love by not keeping His Commandments and seeking God’s advice is destined for social suicide.

Today America is devouring our prodigy and posterity to the tune of some 50 million unborn by abortion and are planning to assault the temple of life for embryo stem cell research which will require the killing of some 80 million human beings in the at the stage of embryos. An aborted child sells up to $2,500 a body, and some $500/lb on the open market.

We have elected a Modern Humanist to lead us in this debauchery. He worships at his own altar, the altar of Humanism. As Albert Einstein wrote describing those who do not recognize God, “He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.”

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
if you don't mind... does "TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2" stand for something? is it an abbreviation or random?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
re:souls

"All creatures of the Universe are material except man. Man is immortal"

why would you think this? or is it something you hope/feel/wish? biological analysis of animals (including humans, since we're animals) shows a broad spectrum of degrees of consciousness, self-awareness, planning for the future, desires, etc... i think these are features we would identify as being products of our "soul".

i think maybe what you're getting at is how man is unique in [using tools, showing empathy, having emotions etc...]. biologists used to think that was the case - probably because of the philosophical/religious mind/body dualities developed by aristotle and captured in the bible. the more we study other animals the more we see thay are like us, but with smaller brains - that seems to be the big difference.

the difference between humans and other animals is a qualitative one rather than a quantitative one. that is, it's a matter of degree rather than kind. there's no "soul" organ that humans have that no other animal has.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,

very enjoyable, thanks.

re: "the soul"
somewhere in there you say something to the effect of "aristotle has used reason to prove the existence of a soul."

if we define the sould "as a life force" - then, ok, i'm with you. it's when you (or what you quote) says things like "since we're spiritual beings our soul is eternal." again, i see no EVIDENCE for an eternal soul. because aristotle thought so or some religion's doctrine says it's eternal does not count as evidence. again, it's a nice thought, it would be cool if our "life force" were distinct from our bodies, and eternal, but there's no evidence for that.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
the most salient point in what you pasted was,

"St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian equality either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions are not effected of a sudden. Christianity accepts society as it is, influencing it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls."

this is true and i think so fortunate. the general christian mindset is one of an oppressed class hoping not to get killed. the attitude is conciliatory.

islam on the other hand was written by leaders trying to consolidate power - it's inherently political.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH :
“THE SOUL: REASON AND KNOWLEDGE ARE IMMATERIAL OPERATIONS BY AN IMMATERIAL AGENT:”

ANS:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

“The Peripatetic axiom: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu" (Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses), is admitted; but St. Thomas modifies it by saying: first, that, once the sense objects have been perceived, the intellect ascends to the knowledge of higher things, even of God; and, secondly, that the soul knows its own existence by itself (i.e. by its own act), although it knows its own nature only by reflection on its acts.

Knowledge begins by sense perception, but the range of the intellect is far beyond that of the senses. In the soul as soon as it begins to act are found the first principles (prima principia) of all knowledge, not in the form of an objective illumination, but in the form of a subjective inclination to admit them on account of their evidence.

As soon as they are proposed we see that they are true; there is no more reason for doubting them than there is for denying the existence of the sun when we see it shining (see Zigliara, op. cit., pp. 32-42).

The direct and primary object of the intellect is the universal, which is prepared and presented to the passive intellect (intellectus possibilis) by the active intellect (intellectus agens) which illuminates the phantasmata, or mental images, received through the senses, and divests them of all individuating conditions.

This is called abstracting the universal idea from the phantasmata, but the term must not be taken in a materialistic sense. Abstraction is not a transferring of something from one place to another; the illumination causes all material and individuating conditions to disappear, then the universal alone shines out and is perceived by the vital action of the intellect (Q. lxxxiv, a. 4; Q. lxxxv, a. 1, ad lum, 3um, 4um).

The process throughout is so vital, and so far elevated above material conditions and modes of action, that the nature of the acts and of the objects apprehended proves the soul to be immaterial and spiritual.

THE SOUL, BY ITS VERY NATURE, IS IMMORTAL. Not only is it true that God will not annihilate the soul, but from its very nature it will always continue to exist, there being in it no principle of disintegration (Zigliara, p. 9). Hence human reason can prove the incorruptibility (i.e. immortality) of the soul.

The existence of God is not known by an innate idea, it cannot be proved by arguments a priori or a simultaneo; but it can be demonstrated by a posteriori arguments. Ontologism was never taught by St. Thomas or by Thomists (see Lepidi, "Exam. phil. theol. de ontologismo,” Louvain, 1874, c. 19; Zigliara, Theses I, VIII).

There are no human (i.e. deliberate) acts indifferent in individuo.

The doctrine received its complete philosophical elaboration from St. Thomas. Accepting the Aristotelean theory that the soul is the form of the body, Aquinas still insists that, possessing spiritual faculties of intellect and will, it belongs to an altogether higher plane of existence than other animal forms.

Though form of the body, it is not to be conceived as immersed according to its whole being in the body. That is, it is not completely and intrinsically dependent on the body which it animates, like form educt ex materiâ. For the human soul is created and infused into the body, and there is thus no intrinsic impossibility in its existing separate from the body.

Still, as the human soul possesses vegetative and animal faculties, its natural condition is that of union with a body, and during this life the activities of the spiritual powers of intellect and will presuppose the co-operation of the organic faculties of imagination and sensation.

Even the most spiritual operations of the soul are therefore extrinsically dependent on the bodily organism. The sensory and vegetative activities of the soul should necessarily be suspended when the soul is separated from the body, whilst its conscious spiritual life must then be carried on in some manner other than the present.

What that manner is, our present experience does not enable us adequately to conceive. Yet St. Thomas holds that we can prove the fact of the soul's conscious life when separate from the body. (Ibid)"

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH:
“THE SOUL”

IRT:
“the link also talks about the soul and it's relation to the after life. I mean, if there's an after life, you're going to need a soul, since it's clear your body won't be living eternally.”

ANS:
That the soul is immortal is rationally proven, but it must be set in context to understanding the philosophical terms. That takes time to do it. So if your interested check the links of Aristotle (proof from reason) and Aquinas (proof from reason and theology).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

Here is a brief attempt to show how it is rationally explained.

The soul is defined as the life force of a living creature. Hence, any living creature that lives has a soul. Material beings have material souls that cease when the material creature’s life ceases. Spiritual creatures have a spiritual soul that does not cease because to decease is to decompose but spirits have no parts to decompose, example an idea,

Now, man is a creature made from matter and breathed into the matter a soul (giving life) by God made to the image and likeness of God, viz. a spiritual intellectual nature.

We describe the nature of a creature by its fundamental principles of operations. In man, that which defines man is an intellect and free will. No other creature in the Universe has either an intellect or a free will. These powers are spiritual powers; they are neither measurable, or quantified.

Ideas are the exclusive properties of an intellect, they are real, and they are immaterial, viz. they cannot be quantified. No material living creature can have ideas because they cannot think.

Consequently, you can teach an animal all his life the English language, and teach him to respond to its sounds, but no matter how long you teach it, it will never write a book, design a building, or compose a concert, and it will never understand a joke you tell it, no matter how long you try.

Knowing and making judgments are a spiritual operation. We see trees. We abstract the form “tree” into a universal representing all “trees,” and make judgments about trees. However, “tree” doesn’t exist as “tree” in the real world. Only “a tree” exists. “Tree” is a genus, a universal, a real entity that exists only in the mind; it is an idea. How many ideas can fit in the intellect? Ideas are not quantified; they are spiritual entities that man created.

All creatures of the Universe are material except man. Man is immortal

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

The angels and human souls are without matter, but every material composite being (compositum) has two parts, prime matter and substantial form.

In a composite being which has substantial unity and is not merely an aggregate of distinct units, there can be but one substantial form.

The substantial form of man is his soul (anima rationalis) to the exclusion of any other soul and of any other substantial form.

The principle of individuation, for material composites, is matter with its dimensions: without this there can be no merely numerical multiplication: distinction in the form makes specific distinction: hence there cannot be two angels of the same species.

The essences of things do not depend on the free will of God, but on His intellect, and ultimately on His essence, which is immutable.

The natural law, being derived from the eternal law, depends on the mind of God, ultimately on the essence of God; hence it is intrinsically immutable. Some actions are forbidden by God because they are bad: they are not bad simply because He forbids them [see Zigliara, "Sum. phil." (3 vols., Paris, 1889), ccx, xi, II, M. 23, 24, 25].

The will moves the intellect quoad exercitium, i.e. in its actual operation: the intellect moves the will i.e. by presenting objects to it. The beginning of all our acts is the apprehension and desire of good in general (bonum in communi).

We desire happiness (bonum in communi) naturally and necessarily, not by a free deliberate act. Particular goods (bona particularia) we choose freely; and the will is a blind faculty, always following the last practical judgment of the intellect (Zigliara, 51).

The senses and the intellect are passive, i.e. recipient, faculties; they do not create, but receive (i.e. perceive) their objects (St. Thomas, I, Q. lxxviii, a. 3; Q. lxxix, a. 2; Zigliara, 26, 27).

If this principle is borne in mind there is no reason for Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason.” On the other hand those faculties are not like wax, or the sensitive plate used by photographers, in the sense that they are inert and receive impressions unconsciously.

The will controls the exercise of the faculties, and the process of acquiring knowledge is a vital process: the moving cause is always within the living agent."

All these operations are spiritual and not part of a material beings mode of operation.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH :
“SLAVERY”

IRT;
“that page you linked to said,
"As part of the Christian Faith this doctrine was one of the chief factors in establishing the equality of man and the liberation of the slave."

hahhahahhahhhaaa...that's funny. if Jesus were divine he would have said, "don't have slaves. it's immoral - god HATES it."

ANS:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

The Church and Roman slavery

“The first missionaries of the Gospel, men of Jewish origin, came from a country where slavery existed. But it existed in Judea under a form very different from the Roman form.

The Mosaic Law was merciful to the slave (Exodus 21; Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15:21) and carefully secured his fair wage to the laborer (Deuteronomy 24:15).

In Jewish society the slave was not an object of contempt, because labor was not despised as it was elsewhere. No man thought it beneath him to ply a manual trade. These ideas and habits of life the Apostles brought into the new society which so rapidly grew up as the effect of their preaching.

As this society included, from the first, faithful of all conditions -- rich and poor, slaves and freemen -- the Apostles were obliged to utter their beliefs as to the social inequalities which so profoundly divided the Roman world. "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:27-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13).

From this principle, St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian equality either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions are not effected of a sudden. Christianity accepts society as it is, influencing it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls.

What it demands in the first place from masters and from slaves is, to live as brethren -- commanding with equity, without threatening, remembering that God is the master of all - obeying with fear, but without servile flattery, in simplicity of hear, as they would obey Christ (cf. Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:22-4; 4:1).

This language was understood by masters and by slaves who became converts to Christianity. But many slaves who were Christians had pagan masters to whom this sentiment of fraternity was unknown, and who sometimes exhibited that cruelty of which moralists and poets so often speak. To such slaves

St. Peter points out their duty: to be submissive "not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward,” not with a mere inert resignation, but to give a good example and to imitate Christ, Who also suffered unjustly (I Peter, ii, 18, 23-4.

In the eyes of the Apostles, a slave's condition, peculiarly wretched, peculiarly exposed to temptations, bears all the more efficacious testimony to the new religion.

St. Paul recommends slaves to seek in all things to please their masters, not to contradict them, to do them no wrong, to honor them, to be loyal to them, so as to make the teaching of God Our Savior shine forth before the eyes of all, and to prevent that name and teaching from being blasphemed (cf. 1 Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:9, 10).

The apostolic writings show how large a place slaves occupied in the Church Nearly all the names of the Christians whom St. Paul salutes in his Epistles to the Romans are servile cognomina: the two groups whom he calls "those of the household of Aristobulus and "those of the household of Narcissus" indicate Christian servitors of those two contemporaries of Nero."

His Epistle, written from Rome to the Philippians (iv, 22) bears them greeting from the saints of Caesar's household, i.e. converted slaves of the imperial palace. –(Ibid).”

IRT:
"instead he regulated it. it took us 1700-1900 more years to develop humanism to the point where we realized how horrible it is. this realization came from the HUMANIST idea that slaves are people too. the Christians (atheists) involved in the abolition movement were informed by humanist principles."

ANS:
If by humanist principles you mean principles derived from man alone, man made a mess of them, hence, the need of a Savior. Early Christians were informed by God. His Church, their natural rights, and conscience endowed by God in man.

Modern Humanism has changed its formal object from man to itself. Hence, it tell you how man must be than how he is. Today it has denounced the Natural Law, the Ten Commandments, marriage, and the sacredness of man.

President Obama is a modern humanist misanthrope. He is a fanatic pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage socialist who is against man’s free will, conscience, and privacy. He advocates partial birth abortion, and even the murder of a child of a botched abortion.

His denies the freedom of conscience, and advocates the Freedom of Choice Act, while promoting the end of secret ballot for labor union votes.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
that page you linked to said,
"As part of the Christian Faith this doctrine was one of the chief factors in establishing the equality of man and the liberation of the slave."

hahhahahhahhhaaa...that's funny. if jesus were divine he would have said, "don't have slaves. it's immoral - god HATES it." instead he regulated it. it took us 1700-1900 more years to develop humanism to the point where we realized how horrible it is. this realization came from the HUMANIST idea that slaves are people too. the christians (ansd atheists) involved in the abolition movement were informed by humanist principles.
****************************

the link also talks about the soul and it's relation to the after life. i mean, if there's an after life, you're gonna need a soul, since it's clear your body won't be living eternally. i agree it sure SEEMS like a there's a soul, like there's an "I" inside of me, sort of like the "pilot" of my body. and it WOULD be really cool if after my body dies "I" could live on.... but there's no evidence for that.

walter-in-fallschurch wrote,
RogerWDavis,
i'm studying. i'll get back to you.
=================================
Walter,
This cite is expiring, but if I can answer any questions to help you on your path to neither believe me nor anyone else' explanation of scripture (Jer 31:33-34; 1John 2:24,27) you are welcome to contact me directly.

rwdavis.esquire@tds,net

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
Again. The word 'supernatural' is not a word found in scripture, but is a humanist word that means what we have agreed that it means, or, doesn't mean a thing if every person arbitrarily invents a definition to their own fancy.

We, not scriptures, have agreed that 'supernatural' is defined as "1)..relating to an order of existance beyond the visible observable universe...."

Without transgressing the sanctity of scripture we can use that humanistic definition and agree that the Lord is the order of existance beyond the visible observable universe, yet all things within the visible observable universe comply with and reveal, each in part, the attributes of God (Ps 19:1-6). I only know the supernatural attributes of the invisible and unobservable God because all observable and visible things of nature are in compliance.

If supernatural things have no compliant things to reveal them, as is arbitrarily defined by you against the agreed upon humanist definition, then supernatural refers to something we know nothing about and have nothing to say about at all.

Fortunately, those things which are secret belong unto the Lord our God (Deut 29:29), but those things revealed belong unto us and to our children that we may do all the things of this law (Deut 29:29; 30:12; Rom 10:6; Deut 30:14; Rom 10:8; Deut 30:15; Rom 1:17,18-19; Rev 19:11,12-13,14-21).

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
you pointed to nazis, n.korea and china etc... as examples of "anti-religious" governments, supposedly the product of "humanism" gone bad.

to the extent those are truely "anti-religious", then they are/were in violation of humanist principles. here's something i once wrote on the subject:

Take a look around the world. Think of countries with religious governments. They tend to be dogmatic, rigid and oppressive (and Islamic). Now contrast that with the group that comes to mind when you think of secular governments. They are progressive, flexible, free and modern. People are better off in Denmark than in Saudi Arabia. Old-fashioned religious governments are by necessity heavy-handed. People resist them. It’s not natural. The government’s dogmas are imposed on society. People are intimidated into submission. To be sure, we hear of sinister tactics (surveillance, kidnapping, torture, black sites) by our own government. We are appalled by these things because they are remnants of a bygone era of capricious justice and medieval despots. Yet, this is standard operating procedure today in the Islamic world. We send our prisoners to Afghanistan or Jordan because we know they will be tortured there.

Islamic leaders probably hold the Soviet Union in high regard. Not the religion part, but the oppression part. But even Soviet communism’s atheism is instructive. Their objection to God was not theological, but political. They did not want their diverse population having all kinds of different religions dividing their loyalties. They realized that freedom of religion disempowers the government. Communism, as practiced by the Soviets, was not secular. Atheism was the state religion, imposed like Wahhabi Islam in Saudi Arabia. In a theocracy, any action that does not glorify (the state) God, is not tolerated. So, Islamic leaders can’t tolerate subversive elements. The Islamic KGB whisks away neighbors in the middle of the night, never to be seen again (to be subtle), or they are slaughtered in public (to make a point). These murders are justified as somehow being prescribed by Islam, when they are actually to serve the government.

Some people also point to North Korea as an example of a Godless society. North Korea is not secular. They have a new religion. Kim Jong-il is the national deity. He is their Savior. He hosts revivals where He heals the sick. “The Great Leader” is known to have performed miracles. North Korean state media reports that Kim routinely shoots three or four holes-in-one per round of golf. When He dies, He will be resurrected. Some people are skeptical of all this. The ones who live in North Korea are dealt with in appropriate theocratic fashion.

The moral failings of Communism and Nazism Kim Jong-ilism are much easier to see because they are not cloaked in the familiar trappings of our own traditional religions, but the underlying mindset is the same. These “secular religions” require unquestioned faith in beliefs provable only by reference to state doctrine/dogma. They have group rituals designed to reinforce beliefs and encourage group-think. Beliefs include the idea that outsiders are dangerous and possibly evil, so an “us vs. them” mentality is fostered in which opposing beliefs are suppressed or outright banned and unbelievers are discriminated against, segregated, exiled or killed. For this to “work,” state doctrine teaches that allegiance to state doctrinesupercedes Golden Rule humanity. Substitute “Yahweh/JesusAllah” for “Lenin” or “Fuhrer” or Great Leader” and “temple/church/mosque” for “state” and these secular religions become indistinguishable from our own theocracies of the Dark Ages.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2, you said,
"Thus, in its distortions of human nature, it brought us the Enlightenment Period, Rationalism, Phenomenalism Utilitarianism and Pragmatism. These ideas, pushed to their conclusions brought us to Socialism and Communism as Marx said in triumph in 1844, "Communism is naturalized humanism.""
___________________________
i don't think communism has ever been "properly" implemented. - maybe because we humans are not ready for it. we're still to "darwinian" in our thinking (and i hold darwin in high esteem) in that we care about self-preservation. we have a hard time thinking about the good of others. religion can at certain moments help us think outside ourselves. we have a hard time thinking about COMMUNity.
*************************************

you said,
"Humanism, today, is bereft of its roots in God the Creator of man..."

i disagree with the premise. i don't think humanism has its roots in god. it's roots are in "do unto others" (which is not a religious sentiment). humanist morality is derived from our (invented) responsibility to other humans, not (invented) gods.
***************************

you said,
"all things are, is indubitably linked to God by his very nature and his purpose for being created."

there you go with that "purpose" thing again....
**********************

you said,
"It has distorted human values to mean a Culture of Death"

puleeze... just because "reason" denies eternal life in heaven (or hell), that does not make it a "culture of death". that's just so over-the-top. in fact i can say that since there's no life after death, it makes life here on earth that much more precious.

thanks for the responses, guys.

RogerWDavis,
still thinking. you're a little opaque. can't figure out what's parable and what's not... ;-)

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
you said, "No it doesn’t make sense, since that is not what I said. Second, I was quoting the words of Solzhenitsyn"
________________________
uh...sorry, i didn't realize that whole thing was a solzhenitsyn quote. nonetheless i object to the idea that we were born to be happy - happiness is not a guaranteed provision of being born. it presumes we were born "for a reason", hopefully with a "purpose". i think this is more wishful thinking. we WANT to be part of something bigger. it stem from our desire for "meaning". i think it's more of an "ought" than an "is". our lives ought to have meaning.

unfortunately there's no physical evidence for this - it could be the case, but it's wishful thinking, maintained by faith.

let me also state that humanism is also an "ought". there are no "Natural Laws of Humanism". it's just something we made up. it's just an idea, a good one, that says we should be good to each other. so, when enlightenment philosophers talk about our "natural rights" they're not really talking about natural laws - they talk that way so as to put them beyond the reach of god and governments.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH
“HEAVEN AND HELL ARE NOT WISHFUL THINKING””

IRT:
“but I think you're onto something with that second sentence. when you say that because we die, our task here on earth must be of a more "spiritual nature."

that's just the wishful thinking behind all heaven-promising religions. they propose that since you don't WANT to die that you don't have to. heaven-promising religions invented heaven so believers don't have to die.

ANS:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07687a.htm

Christianity
“With the birth of the Christian religion the doctrine of immortality took up quite a new position in the world. It formed the foundation of the whole scheme of the Christian Faith.

No longer a dubious philosophical tenet, or a hazy popular opinion, it is now revealed in clear and distinct terms. The dogma of the Fall, the Christian conception of sin, the Incarnation of the Son of God, all the means of grace and redemption, and the priceless value of each human soul are connected in significance with this article of the Creed.

As part of the Christian Faith this doctrine was one of the chief factors in establishing the equality of man and the liberation of the slave.

The doctrine received its complete philosophical elaboration from St. Thomas. Accepting the Aristotelian theory that the soul is the form of the body, Aquinas still insists that, possessing spiritual faculties of intellect and will, it belongs to an altogether higher plane of existence than other animal forms.

Though form of the body, it is not to be conceived as immersed according to its whole being in the body. That is, it is not completely and intrinsically dependent on the body which it animates, like form educt ex materiâ. For the human soul is created and infused into the body, and there is thus no intrinsic impossibility in its existing separate from the body.

Still, as the human soul possesses vegetative and animal faculties, its natural condition is that of union with a body, and during this life the activities of the spiritual powers of intellect and will presuppose the co-operation of the organic faculties of imagination and sensation.

Even the most spiritual operations of the soul are therefore extrinsically dependent on the bodily organism. The sensory and vegetative activities of the soul should necessarily be suspended when the soul is separated from the body, whilst its conscious spiritual life must then be carried on in some manner other than the present. What that manner is, our present experience does not enable us adequately to conceive. Yet St. Thomas holds that we can prove the fact of the soul's conscious life when separate from the body.

This is more explained in the link below.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm

IN REPLY TO (IRS)
ROGERWDAVIS
“HUMANISM and SUPERNATUALISM””
MAY 15, 2009 9:12 AM

The Supernatural simply means above the Natural Order, above the Natural Law of the Universe. Namely, that which is above the natural order that cannot be explained by the Natural Law. More specifically it points to the attributes of God.

The Law of Gravity, as all of the Laws of Physics, are part of the Natural Order. God is Supernatural because he is above all that is created including the Natural Law of which He is its author.

Things that are unknown aren’t necessarily supernatural. The laws of thermodynamics weren’t supernatural 5,000 years ago; they were just unknown at the time.

God is Supernatural; He does not fade away, nor can He. Miracles are supernatural phenomena; they are acts by a supernatural being that can’t be explained by the Natural Law.

Knowledge or lack of it doesn’t make a thing supernatural. When we speak of the supernatural we are talking about something that is not natural for the occurrence to occur in nature. A supernatural act cannot be explained by natural phenomenon.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH
“HUMANISM”

IRT;
["If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature."]
_____________________________________

“huh? you think because humans (and every other living thing) die that means "humanism" is a bad/false philosophy? that doesn't make sense."

ANS:
No it doesn’t make sense, since that is not what I said. Second, I was quoting the words of Solzhenitsyn who wrote,:

“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html

“As humanism in 'IN ITS DEVELOPMENT' [my emphasis] became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by Communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that "Communism is naturalized humanism….."

Namely, knowledge of values and human relationships from the study of humanity is perfectly fine, but when it becomes distorted it becomes an evil because it becomes error.

Modern Humanism ceases to describe human nature, it describes the antithesis of human nature. Thus, in its distortions of human nature, it brought us the Enlightenment Period, Rationalism, Phenomenalism Utilitarianism and Pragmatism. These ideas, pushed to their conclusions brought us to Socialism and Communism as Marx said in triumph in 1844, ""Communism is naturalized humanism."

Thus, Solzhenitsyn writes, “I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness.“

Humanism, today, is bereft of its roots in God the Creator of man and it has distorted the true values of human nature. All human values are an imitation of the Natural Law of the Creator who made man in his image and likeness. Once Humanism abandons God, it cannot relate to man because man, as all things are, is indubitably linked to God by his very nature and his purpose for being created.

Modern Humanism is a scourge of man. It has distorted human values to mean a Culture of Death, death to the unborn, death to freedom of conscience, to privacy, to religious belief. It fruits are witnessed in the ideologies it bears, Rationalism, Socialism, And Communism.

Consequently, Solzhenitsyn writes:
“Freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims.” One of those boundless freedoms is the right of a woman to have her unborn murdered by Abortion.

But that is what is being done. We have murdered 50 million of our nation’s unborn, our nation's prodigy and posterity a.k.a. social suicide. We are now in an assault on the institution of Marriage, the basic fundamental foundation of all societies, a.k.a. social suicide.

That man is supremely dependant on God is illustrated by man’s failure to govern himself without God. Such failures are expressed in the anti-religious governments history is witness to, viz. Nazi Germany, East Germany, North Korea, China, the Congo, and the Sudan are just some of the contemporary examples.

Any man that fails to see the necessity for the intercession of his Creator will commit social suicide and drown in his own arrogance with those who support him.

RogerWDavis,
i'm studying. i'll get back to you.

WALTER-IN-THEFALLSCHURCH,
Apologies for the mistype in the 4th paragraph of the 2) reference.

It should read,
"That’s why Paul says all men are liars (Rom 3:3-4), and Paul is as much a liar as any other preacher with the exception that Paul uses references so that those who will check to verify or rebuke him will indeed read the truth (ROMANS 3:7), which was a commandment from Christ (Matt 23:1-3)."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,
I read you post, but I hope you realize I was not expressing either the positive or negative side of humanism.

Secular humanism is a philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religions. That the Merriam-Webster definition.

Humanism on the other hand makes reference to man's study of his heritage literature and values for the purpose of developing human interests.

Thus, "We are all humanitarians, that is, if WE HAVE LEARNED how to utter an expression understood by someone else.”

I did not learn to believe secular humanism, but no man what walks decides his own steps (Jer 10:23-24; 1Cor 4:7). I was taught what I believe and say. That's still humanism, man to man.

Now when I close the closet door and confer with my Lord alone, that is not humanism. It might become translated into as close a humanistic phrase I might think of to tell someone else, then its humanism.

Secular humanism is just a joke that denies the Kingdom of God within (Luke 17:21).

WALTER-IN-THEFALLSCHURCH,
These answers are getting too long, especially because Christians have a very short retention span, and others who use Christians' definitions, even though they may not believe them, require a lot of repetitions that preclude lengthy corelations.

I'd appreciate fewer questions in each post, so you might check scriptures instead of trying to beleive which of us liars has a better gig.

1) I use the KJV and Strong’s Concordance. I use the Strong’s to locate where the words were initially used and subsequently used in that original context.
2) Liar priests are anyone who preaches in the name of God, and it’s not as negative as our contemporary language implies.

The Lord tells us that we are supposed to teach our children in our households about our Covenant God (Gen 17:7; Deut 6:7-9). Eating the word of God is a household matter (1Cor 10:3-4,11) under the husband’s supervision (1Cor 11:3) and it’s an abomination for priests to dictate what God says in any assembly of believers (1Cor 11:19-21,22; Rom 15:20; Jer 31:33-34; Rom 15:21).

However, because men have forgotten that the Lord does not accept regurgitated chaff (Jer 23:1-3,15,28-30; Ps 1:1-4; Matt 3:11-12), and, as Paul says, “How can they believe what they have not heard (Rom 10:14), “.. in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1Cor 1:21).”

That’s why Paul says all men are liars (Rom 3:3-4), and Paul is as much a liar as any other preacher with the exception that Paul uses references so that those who will check to verify or rebuke him will indeed read the truth (Rom 3:19), which was a commandment from Christ (Matt 23:1-3).

Thus, Paul abased himself as a liar so that we would benefit (2Cor 11:7), not only by reading the truths his preaching directed us to examine ourselves, but through our developed habit even the Adversary and his ministers are tricked into revealing truth by every lie they speak (2Cor 11:11,12-15).

And, you asked about ‘miracles’ again. Miracles have nothing to do with magic, and magic has never existed except as a slight of hand trick.

Magic is a 14th century English word, referring to the 6th century BC practice of Zorastrian magi. Magi were astronomers who calculated calendars through the star positions during cyclic events observed on earth.. When the magi recognized they had power over the minds of the uneducated who thought the star positions dictated the cyclic events, and began to inquire about what the stars dictated for their own lives, the magi began making horoscopes showing the people what they could expect from day to day.

As a very junior executive over several departments whose supervisors started their mornings checking and comparing their horoscopes, I made my disbelief clear and pretended to be offended by their practice. But I knew each of their birthdays and studied their horoscopes so as to know how to suggest their thrilling compliances.

There is no magic.

3) Reason does not prevent anyone from anything. You know there is no magic, or you have said that you know. Reason tells you that anyone who says that ‘supernatural’ things are ‘magical’ are not stating truth. Reason also tells you that by looking up the definition for ‘supernatural’ there is a definition and magic is not part of that definition.
4) No, I no longer follow any chronology of scriptures. Decades ago I did, and counted out the overlapping generations detailed in Genesis, 1st and 2nd Chronicles, Matthew and Luke, and gave copies to friends who also thought at that time it was a good time-line to increase Bible study effectiveness. But somewhere a few decades ago I recognized that the word ‘God’ in Genesis 1:1 is translated from the word ‘elohyim’. That word for ‘God’ is defined in Genesis 17:7 as the revealed word of God, called an everlasting covenant “..to be a God (elohyim) unto thee and thy seed after thee.” Thus, Genesis 1:1 does not begin a history lesson, but a lexicon shedding light (Gen 1:3) of understanding (Is 8:18-20; John 3:19; 1Cor 10:11; Heb 11:39-40; 12:8).

Everything we read or say is in metaphors, and I don’t read the Bible allegorically. The Lord says He speaks to us in parables. Christians say that parables are allegoric in that it simply states a complex idea. But the Lord says He speaks in parables to deliberately confuse men who believe what men say about Him (Isaiah 6:8-10; Jer 31:33-34; 1John 2:24,27), and Jesus when asked by His disciples why He spoke to them clearly but to everyone else He spoke in parables, Jesus answers that because they knew what the scriptures said they could hear the truth it says, but the others believed what men said about scriptures and therefore are fulfilling the confusion Isaiah 6:8-10 says they would (Matt 13:10,11-15,34).

Answering only you specific question, do I “..believe god "intervened" with some kind of miraculous/magical/supernatural event?” No, there is no magic.

But you know that, and the rest of that question somehow doesn’t sound innocent. Does it?

RogerWDavis,
please bear with me - i'm trying to understand. most of my experience with christianity is with literal fundamentalists. they are WELS lutherans and the nicest buch of people i've ever met - but they're crazy. they think "noah's ark" is an actual real literally true story - and there's just no way i could ever square that with my understanding of biology, anthropology, genetics etc... i have read the whole bible at least once, and some parts many times.

1)which version do you use? NIV?, KJV?, NKJV?, NRSV? other?

2)what do you mean by "liar priests"?
are those teachers of other religions? or teachers of "profane things" (jer) like reason, logic, critical thinking etc - the people who taught me that "miracles" don't happen?

3)are you saying "reason" prevents us (me, anyway) from experiencing the "good definition" of the supernatural?
___
re moses:

4)do you subscribe to any particular chronology? that is, did moses confront pharaoh in 1446 b.c.? or in the 1200s b.c.? some other time? or is the whole story metaphorical/allegorical and designed to teach us something? ...or none of the above?

5)if you believe anything like "exodus" ever happened, do you believe god "intervened" with some kind of miraculous/magical/supernatural event?

IN REPLY TO (IRS)
ROGERWDAVIS
“HUMANISM”

IRT:
“We are all humanitarians, that is, if we have learned how to utter an expression understood by someone else.”

ANS:
The Humanism that Solzhenitsyn speaks of in his address to Harvard students, is a one that has become manipulated by its inevitable tendency towards materialism. Man replaces God’s Natural Moral Law for his own values. Morality becomes subjective and meaningless.

Solzhenitsyn: (AS)
“I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness. The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive, and victorious, because it is more consistent."

Since man fell from God’s grace, man had to be restored. Thus, Jesus established a Church to guide man. Hence, man by necessity needs God’s guidance and grace for happiness.

AS:
"Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic.

Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism.

In the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism, there is endless materialism, freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes, reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship. The concentration is on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach.

In early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God's creature.” Rights are endowed by God.

AS:
“That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims.”—Solzhenitsyn

The Humanism of today, is described by Solzhenitsyn as a metamorphic anthropocentrism. It looses the context of its theocentric roots of which it is centered in. Man, because of his fallen nature must depend on God. That’s why God created a Church to assist man.

Humanism looses its basis for its values if it loses it theocentric context. In ” Roe v. Wade” the Court redefined “person,” and over 50 million unborn are dead because of it. Nature and values are the domain of God, not man.

Consequently, under a godless Humanism, human values inevitably become the sole domain of the social sciences. Radical Evolution concludes ultimately, there is no God, and confirms the transposition of Humanism to Socialism, eventually climaxing into Communism.

Subsequently, human values mutate into the anti-thesis of human nature, viz. Abortion, the murder of innocent unborn children. Marriage, the institute to preserve families is being transmogrified into the anti-family concept of “Gay Marriage.” Human life is being degraded into a thing, a commodity, and is disposable. Values become subjective and meaningless by loosing their objective universal standards. Man cannot govern without God’s help.

And so, Solzhenitsyn writes about the Enlightenment Movement that led man from Theocentricism to Anthropocentrism.

AS
“On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of God, which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

The Enlightenment. became the basis for government and social science. It could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.”—Solzhenitsyn

When man alone determines what human values are, and not God, then it becomes a pathway to social suicide. It is written that without God man can do nothing, but with God all things are possible. (Mat. 19: 23-30)

Thus, Solzhenitsyn write that when humanism losses its context, it inevitably transmogrifies into a rationalistic social science of humanistic autonomy

History has shown when man strays away from the Natural Moral Law of his Creator he ends in disaster. Man was in a disaster when he broke from the Garden of Eden; that is why Christ, who still loves man, came to redeem him.

Jesus left a Church to guide man, when man doesn’t use it, he ends up like the USSR, Nazi and East Germany did, and China and North Korea are.

walter-in-fallschurch,
Ok.

As a last attempt to find a common vocabulary to exchange common ideas, and get away from the confusion of 'parables' that are intended to expose liars "..BY THE SAME WORD (2Pet 3:7; Matt 13:10,11-15; Isaiah 6:9-12,13)....", let's try again.

Supernatural is not a word found anywhere in scriptures, so when liar priests (Jer 23:1-3,15) ignore the contemporary dictionary where 'supernatural' is defined and pretend that supernatural is a religious word and applies to magic, then, even though you know there is no magic these liar priests have successfully taught you to believe that 'supernatural' has to do with magic, which you know does not exist.

I don't believe the magical 'supernatural' that you don't believe, either. But I also don't believe the definition of 'supernatural' that liar priests teach as gossip or chaff-to-one-another (Jer 23:1-3,15,28-30; Ps 1:1-4; Matt 3:11-12). So when you use the definition of 'supernatural' preached by liar priests, by proxy you are believing that what the liars say about 'supernatural' is what the scriptures say about 'supernatural'.

You did not become a liar because you heard a lie and knew it was a lie, but you did become a liar when you repeated the lie as defined by its liar source.

Since there is no scripture reference to 'supernatural', ignore what priests say about 'supernatural magic' and believe what you contemprary dictionary defines.

You made reference to 'miracles', which the same liar priests tells you is 'magic'. You know magic is a lie, but you believe the liars who tell you that 'miracles' are 'magic'.

Scriptures are written in parables, meaning, the same words of truth defined by Moses (John 5:30,45-47; Num 12:6-9) are an absolute lie when redefined by men (John 5:30,37-39; Matt 13:10,11-15; 2Pet 3:7).

Everything in scripture is written in parable (Pro 26:7-9; Matt 13:34), and, even though you say you don't believe in magic you quote the parables of fools.

The word 'miracle' is written in scripture using two words. One word for 'miracle' means 'sign or symbol' that represents an idea that has no properties of its own for identification. All supernatural words have 'symbols' of one or more natural things which exhibit part of the invisible properties of the 'supernatural'. There is no implication of magic in a miracle (sign).

The other word for 'miracle' refers to a man's ability to translate a representative sign back into the invisible supernatural meaning. A contemporary word for both 'miracles' combined is 'metaphore'. Every word we speak is a metaphore, using something visible and measurable to represent an idea that is not visible and measurable.

Moses parting the Red Sea has nothing to do with magic. It is a military strategy, written in parable, having the tribe of Ephraim which bears the seed of Israel to taunt Pharoah's army at day break, lead Pharoah's well armed chariots through the tribes of the non-seedbearing children of Israel (the sea) where the il-equiped Hebrews could enclose in and cog down the Pharoah's chariots with minimal loss of life.

The liar priests who tell you that miracles and the supernatural world is a realm of magic count upon non-believers and sycophants alike getting a headache trying to read scriptures and interpreting what they are told to. And it works, doesn't it (Ps 62:9; Pro 22:2,6,16; Matt 6:1-2)?

RogerWDavis,
sorry, i'm not sure i understand your reply. my point was that i don't believe in the "supernatural" or in "miracles." i don't believe pharaoh's magicians really did magic. i don't believe god parted the red sea for the israelites or did any of the miracles "recorded" in the bible. so, sorry if i pounced on you or something inappropriate.

my point was i think the supernatural world is make-believe - the biblical authors were ignorant superstitious priests doing their best to understand things and garner congregants from among the ignorant superstitious masses. they either made up the miracle stuff or misinterpreted natural events as miracles.

for evidence i consider the fact that the fantastic miracles "recorded" in the bible don't happen today.

walter-in-fallschurch,
Sorry.
I know there is no magic, but priests whom you do not believe have successfully tricked you into believing that 'supernatural' and 'miracle' are references to magic (Jer 23:1-3,15,28-30; Ps 1:1-4; Matt 3:11-12).

As you said yourself, you so certainly believe that those whom you don't believe have taught you the truth about magic, your mind is fixed to believe those whom you say you don't believe, and you say to me, "..when you say "supernatural" and "miracle" what comes to mind for me is "magic". you call it a miracle because it's YOUR magic."

You are projecting your own malady upon me (Matt 7:1-2,3-5). You cannot consider that Aaron's rod was a staff under one authority and the Pharoah's priests of many gods had staffs of multiple conflicting authorities. You cannot learn that the serpent is man's ability to inquire or what distruction multiple men of various beliefs must "what-comes-to-mind-to-me" upon each other...

My goodness, there is nothing you can discuss at all.

Bye.

RogerWDavis, you said,
"Parallel universes? Pluto was discovered in the 1930 after an archeologic find in a ancient library in Mesopatania, city of Ur, not only refered to the planet but calculated its exact position which we used and found immediately."
___________________________________
huh?! where'd you hear THAT!

RogerWDavis,
interesting post. when you say "supernatural" and "miracle" what comes to mind for me is "magic". you call it a miracle because it's YOUR magic.

i remember the first time i read "exodus". i was surprised that pharaoh's magicians could (supposedly)actually DO TRICKS. sure they weren't as good as moses's tricks, but still...

so anyway, why doesn't god do tricks anymore? i mean, according to the bible, he used to do all kinds of fantastic tricks.

walter-in-fallschurch,
Yes, laws of nature are supernatural, being invisible, without mass or any means of discovery or communcations of their own.

But we can percieve the pre-existing supernatural concept of numbers, take off our shoes and count up to twenty, tie knots in a rope and bigger knots to represents fives and tens, scribble figures to represent numbers and progress on from the supernatural origin to even communicate humanitarian equations.

But Einstine's famous equation was a discovery of something that preexisted, and not an invention.

Parallel universes? Pluto was discovered in the 1930 after an archeologic find in a ancient library in Mesopatania, city of Ur, not only refered to the planet but calculated its exact position which we used and found immediately.

I Have no doubt that our substitutionary humanitarian knowledges have many parallels, lost, found, and right under our unsuspecting noses.

persiflage said, "Roger Davis - I think you misread my intentions...."
===================================
No, I didn't misread your intentions. Out of nowhere you lodged an association between me and a Catholic heirarchy. I'd be just as offended if someone called me a Luthern, a Calvinist, or for that matter any one of the denominations of the Christ who cannot be denominated (1Cor 1:11-13). Nothing I have ever written or spoken condones sycophancy.

I merely reciprecated you presumption back upon you, which you also deny.

The God I read about in scripture is a God of knowledge who weighs actions (1Sam 2:3), a God of Truth who must be worshipped in spirit and truth (John 4:24), and not to be confused with the humanist images we substitute only for purposes of discussion Truth (Rom 1:22-23).

Humanism is a tool, not a reality. Reality never changes, but what we know of reality is in constant change, which can at best be called evolution of the mind.

And as far as the catholic and protestant spins on the word 'supernatural', there's no mention of the word supernatural in scripture, and the definition of supernatural has nothing to do with boogiemans.

Possibly an understanding of supernatural might be had in two biblical words for 'miracle'.

The one word for miracle merely means "sign or symbol" representing something that has no image of its own to analyze.

The other word for 'miracle' is a man's ability to hear or see the sign and translate to its otherwise nonevident meaning.

Although we have forgotten that the word 'coward' is an old french word referring to 'rabbits-turn-tail-and-run' the message is still translated. Most still recognize the image of a "mule or ass" and it's stuborn behavior.

All of our words are metaphores, which would mean nothing without our power to perform miracles, and as Paul states, many homosexuals who substitute standard definitions with what they would rather mean in their pecking order (Rom 1:22-23) are already reprobates who speak and say nothing at all (Rom 1:27).

I am aware that just as the queers and Christians changed the meaning of the word 'gay' to mean 'homosexual' in just one year between 1967-68, sooner or later all of our 'signs' will be corrupted and no miracles will be performed at all.

Until then and thereafter I will use the words in scripture as they are defined in scripture, and the word not in scripture as they are defined in the dictionary.

Hi Walter - my God Theory comment was really just a general statement - my take regarding the current state of cosmology.

I could tell from your posts that you were not advocating the anthropic position (with or without God) - although there are physicists (and posters) that do seem to extrapolate a pre-ordained kind of purpose and meaning to it all.

The many worlds/parallel universes idea seems unnecessarily complex, but then string theory/M theory has it's own version of a similar multi-dimensional universe.

Teleologies e.g the anthropic view are always tenuous, and simply can't be substantiated 'after the fact'.

On the other hand, imagining that the cosmic menu e.g. the raw materials of our present universe, actually emerged in their entirety from a primal atom/point many orders of magnitude smaller than a proton also gives one pause. They do seem to be talking about an imaginary primal realm without dimensions or limits.

Inflation theory confidently offers a constellation of ideas based on Planck limits, concerning the first few atto-seconds of our emerging universe that really stagger the mind! Is it all true, or an exercise in the abstract purity of complex mathematics pushed to their furthest limits?

As you say, who can really be sure at this point? I've got my own favorite theories, but then who doesn't?

I enjoy your posts!

persiflage,
i'm not advocating the "anthropic principle" as evidence for god.

the many-universe theory is one possible reason for the "finely tined" constants. also, it is speculation on our part to say this configuration of constants is the only one that could "work." we don't know how the evolution of the universe, much less life on earth (and elsewhere) would have evolved under different conditions. it could be that changing one constant would necessarily change another. i think more likely than the "multi-verse" theory is the idea that BECAUSE we evolved in this universe, with this set of constants, we think it's the ONLY way it could have happened. who knows, though? it could be god, theoretically, i suppose, but proposing that seems like "giving up" on figuring it out.

Roger Davis - I think you misread my intentions....far from being a Vatican apologist, I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. Much having to do with religion and religious dogma pertains to the supernatural - meaning beyond nature.

While the term is used loosely to mean a lot of things, when it comes to religion it generally refers in some way, shape, or form to deity-based events. A conspicuous exception in Catholic dogma for example, are events surrounding the Virgin Mary, who was alleged to be born free of original sin, and assumed bodily into heaven at the time of her death.

These are ALL supernaturally based events...much less anything related to the resurrection and divinity of Jesus and the Trinity.

It should be noted that the prophet Mohammed, founder of Islam, was also said to have been assumed bodily into heaven at The Dome of the Rock - another supernatural event.

One must admit that these events all defy the known laws of nature - and are therefore supernatural.

Walter, quite right about the necessary initial conditions and the assembly of cosmological constants (basic forces of nature) - the odds for all of these factors emerging from the Big Bang with the necessary fine-tuned precision and balance necessary to give rise to the known universe and life itself, is astronomical - in the extreme.

One reason why the many worlds theory of cosmology developed initially by Kent Everett still holds considerable currency.
e.g. if all possible universes exist simultaneously, then our universe becomes possible based on pure statistical probability.

Interesting stuff - but seldom do cosmologists fall back on the God theory these days as an explanation for anything.

RogerWDavis,
i think you got fixated on the "beyond the visible observable universe" and the "invisible agent" part of the definition of "supernatural". the idea is something not explainable by the "laws" of nature. gravity is a law of nature. i suppose you could say laws of nature are supernatural (maybe that's what you are saying), but that makes "supernatural" meaningless.

many people make the arguement that the "natural constants" are "fine tuned" to allow for our existence - thus begging the question of "WHO tuned them?"

persiflage,
In 1979 the papacy finally acknowledged the global shape of Earth, and in 1980 excused it condemnation of Galileo, saying he wasn't condemned because he was wrong but because he questioned the infallible papacy's nonsense oabout a flat world.

I am sure that catholics knew the papacy was full of bull crap sometime between its 1642 condemnation of Galileo and its 1979
claim of infallibly fallibating the bull crap of previous infallible popes.

Since something supernatural has no image to be observed, I'm sure your infallible papacy will grow up someday and explain what it thinks it didn't mean, again.

I suggest using something other than gravity as an example of the supernatural.

For example, one can review the doctrines and dogma of the Catholic Church to see first-hand what 'supernatural' actually looks like.

The basic forces of nature are truly inseparable, but hardly supernatural. Nor are they governed by Papal edict.

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

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2 and WALTER-INFALLSCHURCH,

We are all humanitarians, that is if we have learned how to utter an expression understood by someone else.

I try, as much as is possible for me, to recognize humanism and supernaturalism as inseparable existences, but for purposes of analysis and discussion they must be separately considered. Much like Fraud separation of a man’s id, his ego and his superego as being inseparable parts of a man’s identity mechanism, but can only be analyzed in isolation.

Humanism; 1 a : devotion to the humanities : literary culture b : the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.

Humanism is a devotion of man’s development of postulates (true or false) which have already been handed down through his associating heritage. It is not only a separated study from the supernatural unknowns, but, it does not trespass into the supernatural knowns beyond those already exhibited interests and values inherited.

Supernatural; 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit).

Gravity is a supernatural law which has no mass, shape or form, yet all natural substances are locked into the supernatural law of gravity. We know of many supernatural laws that have no observable identification of themselves, but are exhibited by their effects upon natural substances.

We are all humanists who can visualize an apple falling upon Newton’s head, but it took Newton’s grasp of the supernatural constant before he could associate certain inherited humanistic artifacts and correlate mathematic (supernatural) formulas (humanistic postulates) for our humanitarian education.

I do believe the supernatural exists, is constant and unchangeable. I don’t know what I don’t know and I try, to the best of my abilities, to avoid speculations made by others who don’t know what they don’t know, either. Therefore, I live in a world of humanism, knowing that…

“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deut 29:29).”
….
“It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it (Deut 30:12; Rom 10:6)? “
“But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it (Deut 30:14; Rom 10:8).”
“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil (Deut 30:15; Num 23:19; Rom 10:17);”

The supernatural unknowns melt away at the edge of our humanitarian discoveries, but other humanistic manifestations continue to modify what we once thought we knew as the supernatural constant reveals a new reconsideration (Ecc 3:14-15).

“And God said, Let us make man in our image….(Gen 1:26).”

We should have a national day of peace/tolerance instead.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2, you said,
"If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature."
_____________________________________

huh? you think because humans (and every other living thing) die that means "humanism" is a bad/false philosophy? that doesn't make sense. but i think you're onto something with that second sentence. when you say that because we die, our task here on earth must be of a more "spiritual nature."

that's just the wishful thinking behind all heaven-promising religions. they propose that since you don't WANT to die that you don't have to. heaven-promising religions invented heaven so believers don't have to die.

enlightenment humanism is the philosophy that FREED us from the oppressive theocracies of the dark ages.

ancient morality was simply allegiance to (my) god. (my) god was by definition moral, and not subject to Man’s thoughts. the renaissance began our evolution from the (my) god-dependent morality of the dark ages to the humanism of the modern age. we began to appreciate Man. we began to see that every man (and woman…eventually) has unalienable rights – regardless of his relationship with (my) god. modern morality is between Men. but, respect for man is what’s missing from islam in particular and JudeoChrIslam in general.

freedom of religion requires respect for human life – here on earth. this was very tricky, as it required no less than a subjugation of religion to modern ideas of morality. this was the paradigm shift. those who believe in (desire) eternal life after earthly death consider our 80 years here but a prelude, a preparation, a tryout, for our eternal existence.

this belief has insidious consequences for us back here on earth. it means our lives here are just not that important. with one’s eternal fate in the balance, loyalty to god is more important than loyalty to Man. abraham’s willingness to offer his son to God as a human sacrifice illustrates this (gen 22).

this objectively morally repugnant act is universally revered in all JudeoChrIslamic religion. it symbolizes total submission to god (with the understanding you get into heaven). it also devalues human life and places god above morality – fundamentally the same thinking that compels jihadists.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ2,

here's a post i just made on another thread, then i saw it is relevant here:

some people also point to north korea as an example of a atheist society. north korea is not secular. they have a NEW religion. kim jong-il is the national deity. he is their savior. he hosts revivals where he heals the sick. “the great leader” is known to have performed miracles. north korean state media reports that kim routinely shoots three or four holes-in-one per round of golf. when he dies, he will be resurrected. some people are skeptical of all this. the ones who live in north korea are dealt with in appropriate theocratic fashion.

the moral failings of communism, nazism and kim jong-ilism are much easier to see because they are not cloaked in the familiar trappings of our own traditional religions, but the underlying mindset is the same. these “secular religions” require unquestioned faith in beliefs provable only by reference to state doctrine/dogma. they have group rituals designed to reinforce beliefs and encourage group-think. beliefs include the idea that outsiders are dangerous and possibly evil, so an “us vs. them” mentality is fostered in which opposing beliefs are suppressed or outright banned and unbelievers are discriminated against, segregated, exiled or killed.

for this to “work,” state doctrine teaches that allegiance to state doctrine supercedes golden rule humanity. substitute “yahweh/jesus/allah” for "mao" or “lenin” or “fuhrer” or great leader” and “temple/church/mosque” for “state” and these secular religions become indistinguishable from our own inhumane theocracies of the dark ages.

I doubt If can be more vividly expressed why all public officials should pray and recognize that their authority and their existence depends on God than by Alexander Solzhenitsyn at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises, Thursday, June 8, 1978

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html

An Unexpected Kinship
As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that "communism is naturalized humanism….."

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach.

(This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

“I am not examining here the case of a world war disaster and the changes which it would produce in society. As long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we have to lead an everyday life. There is a disaster, however, which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness.

To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects.

We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life.

In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.

If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature. It cannot unrestrained enjoyment of everyday life. It cannot be the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then cheerfully get the most out of them. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become an experience of moral growth, so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to review the table of widespread human values.

Its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or of unlimited availability of gasoline. Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism.

It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but -- upward. “

;-)

walter-in-fallschurch,
And I apologize for my hasty (for effect) criticizm. I was aware that more likely than not you would have checked my rebuke of freestinker's comment, and might have even corrected yourself once you saw the error.

I just had a mean streak. Sorry.

sorry RogerWDavis,
my bad - i didn't read back through the posts...

you know, one reason (though not an excuse...) is that the posts are displayed BACKWARDS. it's so inconvienient to scroll up and down to read the posts. i wish they'd put new posts at the bottom - so you could scroll DOWN to read the posts. sorry, again.

MODERATOR/WEBMASTER:
could you please display new posts at the bottom of the thread? thanks (hopefully).

walter-in-fallschurch,

You are correct that Burton edits things others have said so to falsely make it sound in support of his own opinion.

But, no man who hears a lie is a liar, while every man who repeats the lie is.

You too quickly fell into Freestinker's trap in agreeing with him while evidence was right in front of you. How can anything you say be believed?

Freestinker,
You are obviously confusing me with someone else.

I posted Jefferson's letter in which he refused to represent any denomination, but insisted that Danbury Baptist did not have to even concern itself with Conneticut's requirement for Danbury and all other churches in the state to pay a tax supporting Conneticut's Official Congregational Church.

"Jefferson's letter reminds Danbury Baptists that faith is an individual pursuit, and individuals must ignore any legislations to the contrary."

No where in anything I wrote is the suggestion about what you invented for me, very Burtonishly I might add.

a little detail on the madison "quote" from barton: "RELIGION IS THE BASIS AND FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT."

Madison did use each one of these words, in this order, in Section 15 of his Memorial and Remonstrance, while cautioning against religious government. Barton just left some words out, completely changing the meaning of what Madison wrote. Here is the full Madison quote with the words Barton selected shown IN ALL CAPS:

“Because finally, ‘the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his RELIGION according to the dictates of conscience’ IS held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the ‘Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as THE BASIS AND FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT,’ it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.”

Sheesh...Madison is saying equal rights, one of which is freedom of religion, is the foundation of our government. The text he quotes is arguing against religion being the basis and foundation of government. This deception by Barton is in the Christian pious fraud tradition of Eusebius, and should disqualify anything he says from serious discussion.

oops... disregard that second partial/duplicate post... i didn't think it "went through" the first time. perhaps the moderator could remove it?

Freestinker,
Sounds like he learned it from David Barton. David Barton serves on the board of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. Obviously, he feels we’re all confused about this separation of church and state thing. Because of revisionists like Barton, some think the Founders intended to create a Christian Nation blessed by Yahweh/Jesus Himself.

Barton has studied the Founder’s views on religion, and not finding much there to his liking, he made up some views. For example, he “quotes” James Madison: “We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God,” and, “Religion [is] the basis and foundation of government.” Wow – that clearly shows what Madison thought of the Bible and its role in government. The problem is Madison didn’t say it.

Barton quotes George Washington saying, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

He quotes Patrick Henry saying, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”

He quotes Jefferson saying, “I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens.” Didja like that “studious perusal” part? It sounds so Founding Fatherly.

These, and about a half-dozen others, are all false quotes, intended to distort the Founders’ views, which have been widely circulated on the internet and in Barton’s books.

Freestinker,
Sounds like he learned it from David Barton. David Barton serves on the board of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. Obviously, he feels we’re all confused about this separation of church and state thing. Because of revisionists like Barton, some think the Founders intended to create a Christian Nation blessed by Yahweh/Jesus Himself.

Barton has studied the Founder’s views on religion, and not finding much there to his liking, he made up some views. For example, he “quotes” James Madison: “We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God,” and, “Religion [is] the basis and foundation of government.” Wow – that clearly shows what Madison thought of the Bible and its role in government. The problem is Madison didn’t say it.

Barton quotes George Washington saying, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

He quotes Patrick Henry saying, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”

He quotes Jefferson saying, “I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens.” Didja like that “studious perusal” part? It sounds so Founding Fatherly.

These, and about a half-dozen others, are all false quotes, intended to distort the Founders’ views, which have been widely circulated on the internet and in Barton’s books.

Barton, in an article called "Unconfirmed Quotes", written after being exposed as a quote-fabricator, says that while he has no primary sources for the quotes, he is studiously perusing the Founder’s documents for authentication. Meanwhile, he assures us the quotes are consistent with what the Founders would have said...

Before judging Barton, consider another case. In the 1990 version of his video America’s Godly Heritage, Barton says, “On January 1,1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.”

Barton didn’t realize how easy the internet would make it to check up on him. Neither Jefferson’s letter, nor any of his other writings, says, or implies, anything about a “one-directional wall.” You’ve got to admit, Barton has chutzpah, if no scruples. He also has an audience. Millions of Americans have “learned” American history from Barton’s books, videos, pamphlets and website. They want it to be a Christian Nation, and it is a lot easier for Barton to make the case when not constrained by facts.

RogerWDavis,

Did you miss the part where Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."?

Your own post contradicts your claim that government has any authority to interfere in the religious affairs of citizens. Jefferson clearly states that the governemnt has absolutey no authority on matters of religious opinion and prayers are most certainly religious opinions.

I am curious to know exactly where you think the government gets it's authority to interefere with citizens on matters of religious opinion?

I'm also interested to know why you think government should promote religion (of any stripe) instead of just staying silently neutral on the subject?

Absolutely not. Although I personally embrace prayer (quietly, in private) in my life, I firmly believe in the separation of Church and State. Anybody who has even a cursory knowledge of History knows all the evil that can result when religion mixes in with politics.

And GLADRUNNER is correct, also. What to hell are denominated Christians of a Christ who cannot be denominated doing with concerns about a day of prayer with the re-difined "IS" of Slick Willy, the liar god of Boy George, and the bigoted racist god of Obama who intimately spent 20 years with his preacher and congregation and never noticed a disparaging word.

My God is God. Let anyone else bow down on the monicalewinskis to whom they will.

Constitutionalist2004 is correct.

The only reference to "Seperation between church and state" made by any of our forefathers was made by Thomas Jefferson in January 1802 is answer to the Danbury Baptist's Association's request for legal intervention against Connecticut's false assersion of the state's right to regulate religions.

Thomas Jefferson, instead of giving them representation, made reference to "the wall of seperation between church and state...."
====================================

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
====================================

Jefferson's letter reminds Danbury Baptists that faith is an individual pursuit, and individuals must ignore any legislations to the contrary.

Liars have misquoted Jefferson for decades and know they are liars. There is no Constitutional provision which permits, the Executive barnch, the Legislative branch or the Judicial branch of the United States nor any of the several states to approve, condone, refuse or deny the individual religious practices of a citizen.

Now, when individuals congregate to interfer with anyone else freedom of expression, they are automatically liars.

constitutionalist2004
"If you look at the writings of our Founders, or the biographies that have been written by today's great minds, you will find that many of them were deeply involved in their faith in God"
False argument. No one is trying to say / deny that many of the founding fathers didn't have personal faith in their god. However the constitution was set up, after much heated debate to NOT include a shout-out to God, Jesus, or any other diety. Why is that?

"the minority has been fairly successful in its push to rid the public of religion."

No, we're trying to rid the government of it's violations of the first ammendment that were established by the overbearing majority.
No one I know is trying to keep you from worshipping, praying or choosing a religion. You have tax-free churches littering every street in the country. You have radio stations, TV stations, and the following of about 80% of the population. But that's simply not enough... you need the government to pronounce a 'day of prayer' or you get all upset and whine about being persecuted.

Why do you even want the proclamation? Are you that insecure about your faith that you need to have it constantly validated by pandering politicians?

"no one is forcing those who don't believe in spiritual matters to participate, that the beauty of America, you can still choose. "

Nor are we trying to force you not to pray whenever and to whomever you see fit. The argument is whether the government should be certifying one religion or type of religion as favored amongst all others.

If you want the national day of prayer 'for all faiths' I suppose you don't mind that they pick Zeus as the god to pray to next time, would you?
Different gods have different prayer requirements, and that almost ALL say 'no other gods before me' or 'I am the one and only'

What would the 'all inclusive' prayer sound like? Will your god be fooled into believing it is about him?

Everyone is missing the point. On this issue, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Put in context of the time, our Founding Fathers did not want a national church establishment such as the one in England, e.g. the Church of England. The intent was not to push religion out of the public life nor the lives of the people's representatives or communities. Rather, unlike the Church of England at the time, they did not want to even allow for the persecution of other religious groups. THEIR INTENTION WAS NEVER TO PUSH RELIGION OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW.

If you look at the writings of our Founders, or the biographies that have been written by today's great minds, you will find that many of them were deeply involved in their faith in God.

Nowadays, the American society is so overly sensitive to political correctness that the minority has been fairly successful in its push to rid the public of religion. How is this tolerant with an eye toward the 1st Amendment? It is not.

If anyone is interested in actually doing a little bit of research, you will find that the whole present debate is based off of a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a private organization.

There is no precedent to NOT have a national day of prayer. It's not necessarily a Christian endeavor, but a day for people of all faiths to come together and pray for the continued blessing for our nation.

Here's the kicker, no one is forcing those who don't believe in spiritual matters to participate, that the beauty of America, you can still choose.

Just passing through, and haven't any time to play with quibbling nonsense, but...

Gladerunner wrote in response to Doug_White's insistance upon ignoring definitions in his communications, "I (Gladerunner) really didn't intend to get in to a semantic spat."

Gladerunner, when Doug_White hears a word as it is defined in a dictionary, to him, that is propaganda intended to convince him that whatever he has to say is a crock of dung.

I agree with him explicitly.

Again, who do the Baba'ists/Baha'ists pray to? Or do they pray? Might Obama be a closet Baba'ist?

gladerunner

Well at least you admit to being a religious person….sometimes.

That makes you no different from Doug White or myself doesn't it?

Gladerunner wrote:

"I really didn't intend to get in to a semantic spat."

Ha! No semantic spat, I assure you.

I regard propaganda as an effort to control thinking. I resist that: to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "I have sworn on the altar of god eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Anyone who says he does not see the bible, or any other religious rule, as propaganda is either lying or is denser than titanium.

Who do the Baba'ists pray to? Or do they pray at all??

Doug_White
"I'm inclined to regard 'propaganda' with a generally negative attitude. "

"Propaganda, dissemination of ideas and information for the purpose of inducing or intensifying specific attitudes and actions." (encarta)
I really didn't intend to get in to a semantic spat.

Propaganda is a tool, like dynamite or a chainsaw. It is capable of doing something positive, say to try to get kids to not smoke or take drugs, or to practice safe sex, save the environment and yes there is an element of attempted control, persuasion, that does not tolerate much opposition. ... or it can be used for nefarious purposes... i.e. to rid the world of a race of people, or to paint believers of something other than one specific religion as vile pagans or infidels doomed to eternal suffering.
Yes in western cultures the word has evolved to have a negative connotation. But that's simply subjective position.

Propaganda does not have to mislead or misstate. It is simply an attempt to persuade a wide audience to adopt a specific behavior... like at a pep rally, or political fundraiser, or a church, or a bumper sticker. We may not call the positive stuff propaganda.. but from the viewpoint of the recipient audience, there is little difference.

People, most all people, will pray if the situation is bad enough. Why should we always look to government to validate our lives...even our prayers? Certain churches are highly competitive with their ideology being the ONY one valid, or so they preach. That is the heart of the issue, and for that reason some folks have instituted a National Day of Prayer major event at the White House. Obama shows grace by foregoing that event, while marking the historic NDP.

Get rid of religious competition, and the world will be a more holy place!

Gladerunner:

"It's not necessarily a dirty word."

On this we would disagree. Propaganda does not, as a rule, entertain or allow --much less encourage-- questioning, alternative points of view, argument. It is primarily an attempt (often successful) at control. That is particularly true of the bible, as anyone who has read the history of the council at Nicea would agree. Out of many gospels, not the least being those that have become known as the Gnostic Gospels, and which tell a very different story about Jesus, only four were chosen...precisely because they agree with each other. The new testament was assembled to put an end to "heresy", opinions, schisms, and non-conformity to any idea that did not support the bishops full control of the church. It suppressed the exchange of views/ideas/thoughts.

I'm inclined to regard 'propaganda' with a generally negative attitude.

"Do not your own comments then qualify as propaganda?"
Sure, sometimes. When I publicly post an opinion that I want others to accept or adopt.

"Perhaps more important, please define/clarify how one could communicate w/o spreading propaganda."

Propaganda implies intent to widely spread a point of view.
All types of communication can occur without being propaganda... how's the weather, what's for lunch, how was work,
Typical conversation between individuals does not rise to the level of propaganda.
A news report that tells you the facts of acar accident for example, is not propaganda, since it is not promoting a position for or against a point of view.

"From definition #1: 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. "

"Since propaganda can either help or harm; how is it determined as to whether or not the information "deliberately spread widely" is helping or harming? "

Propaganda can do both at the same time. By promoting one thing say, the Aryan race, while harming another. . .

Religions do the same thing whenever they both claim that theirs is the truth and true path to god and when they say theirs is the ONLY true path, in effect praising their own religion and dis'ing the others.

Nearly all advertising is propaganda...

It's not necessarily a dirty word.

gladerunner

By these definitions of propaganda:
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
(dictionary.com)

Do not your own comments then qualify as propaganda?

Perhaps more important, please define/clarify how one could communicate w/o spreading propaganda.

From definition #1: 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Since propaganda can either help or harm; how is it determined as to whether or not the information "deliberately spread widely" is helping or harming?

Way beyond the problems of government sponsored prayer is the issue of "Consciousness"-

To wit:

According to Drs. Lanza and Berman in their new book,
"Biocentrism", the last human frontier is Consciousness.

An excerpt:

"However, the Grand Canyon or Taj Mahal are only real when you get there." p. 160.

"Third Principle of Biocentrism:

The behavior of subatomic particles- indeed all particles and objects- is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves." p. 93.

"So the table has been set in the public mind for biocentrism's jump to the reality that its all only in the mind, that the universe exists nowhere else. "
p. 167

Yes indeed, the NT is nothing but Christian propaganda/brainwashing generated by the likes of P, M, M, L and J!! and further propagated by the likes of Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley and Roger Williams.

Ditto for the koran. Said Islamic propaganda/brainwashing was generated by Mohammed's scribes/imams/cleric since he was illiterate.

Ditto for the OT. Said propaganda was generated by a whole host of Scribes/rabbis throughout most of Jewish history.

Ditto for the Pagans/Wiccan propaganda as generated by the likes of Gerald B. Gardner (1884 – 1964) and Doreen Valiente (1922 – 1999).

Ditto for the Buddhists as generated by a host of monks.

Ditto for the Baha'ists as generated by the "non-boozing and great" Babs.

BRUNO55: "What standard are you using to determine that the Bible is "propaganda"? "

propaganda: 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
(dictionary.com)

This is exactly what the Bible is. It does not always imply a negative connotation. The bible holds particular doctrines and principles and those are propagated (spread) by its followers.
It is used to deliberately spread widely to help persons, groups and christian movements.
How is it NOT propaganda?

Should there be an official National Day of Prayer?

---------------------

Prayer is a strictly religious exercise.

How can a government with absolutely no authority on matters of religious opinion establish an official national day of prayer?

How can a government that is required by law to remain neutral and not favor religion over non-religion establish an official national day of prayer?

Doesn't the Constitution expressly prohibit the government from endorsing or promoting religion or did I miss something here?

Bruno55 wrote:

"What standard are you using to determine that the Bible is "propaganda"?"

Frankly, I think your question is too silly to consider seriously. But I will.

You want a 'standard' for determining that the bible is used as propaganda? Just read anything written by RogerWDavis. Why is it magical thinking? Because none of it submits to proof.

Frustration? About what? I certainly do not subscribe to any jewish or christer nonsense, so what is there to be frustrated about? My god is science! Et tu, Bruno?

..."Prayer/real. "See for yourself/pictures of God himself in action."

..."Take a good look at the day in photo's take a good look at "NO GREATER LOVE."

..."See the Living God/Prayer at their greatest moment and then...

..."Watch the tears fall."

..."Let Your Hope Make Your Glad,
Be Patient in times Of Trouble,

..."And Never Stop Praying."
--(Romans 12:12)

Sincerely, Tommy Birchfield,
Voter/Vet USAF,
Master's Program, Professional
Studies, "East Tennessee State
University/Class 2009

Doug_White

The bible is nothing but a stack of paper with carbon ink printing on it. It proves exactly nothing. It changes nothing, it manifests nothing. It is mere propaganda and magical thinking.

Respectfully, assertions are one thing, proof is another. Offer evidence for consideration please. What standard are you using to determine that the Bible is "propaganda"? If you are honest about your statements and not just venting frustrations you ought to readily have an answer.

FYI
Another once made the same assertions once on propaganda to me; it was to that person that my comments on ignorance were addressed.

Ahhh, and I see the insults go on and on and on!!!

How very pathetic some posters are!!!

RogerWDavis:

"Sorry for the legnthy theatrics, but this is my last post for the forseeable future."

Hmmmm....maybe there IS a god!

CCNL,
I don’t doubt that God exists. Every day I learn something I had never known before, but recognized it always was even when I did not know of it.

“That which is secret belongs onto the Lord our God, but that which is revealed belongs unto us and our children that we may do all the works of His law (Deut 29:29).”

I don’t believe that people have Free Will, but exhibit learned unavoidable behaviors (Pr 22:6) that can be studied and manipulated without their knowledge toward their loss, or studied and manipulated as an instruction technique toward their enlightenment. Being Born Again is not a mystic experience (John 3:3), but a learned transition from the fleshly social interpretations in conflict about things that are. As we recognize the falibility built within all institutional doctrines we are pressed to acknowledge the Kingdom of God within ourselves (John 3:3; Luke 16:13-15,16; 17:21; Gen 1:26) where no man’s fleshly interpretation can cause confusion (Jer 31:33-34).

Children seek approval from others, and adopt their approved oppositions likewise. “..but when I became a man, I put away childish things (1Cor 13:9-10,11).”

Nor can the Lord change who He is (Num 23:19). What I don’t know yet are His HEAVENLY SECRETS I will not trespass in guessing about (Deut 29:29; 30:12; Rom 10:6,8), for such heavenly imaginations are filthy man substitutes (Rev 19:11,12-13) “..BY THE SAME WORD (2Pet 3:7)….” But what has been revealed to me (Deut 29:29; 30:14) I freely demand of God and He provides what I know to do (Job 42:3-5,6-7).

I pray privately to my Lord within His Kingdom (John 3:3-6), and along with the revealed things I know to demand of Him He provides men who may or may not know they are used to make my path toward those secret things yet to be revealed (John 3:7-8; Ecc 11:1-5).

Variability/randomness of nature is an excuse among those who have heard all that men have to pray about changing what has already happened (Ecc 3:14-15; 1Cor 15:19,51).

But, brother, that third paragraph has already given you praise from God, in Isaiah 1:14-18.

Everyone has an equal opportunity to serve our lowly God (Hosea 13:14; 1Cor 15:51,55; Matt 25:37-39; Luke 16:15).

Sorry for the legnthy theatrics, but this is my last post for the forseeable future.

God speed

Back to the topic:

IMHO, if a god does exist, this "singularity" started the Big Bang. "It" also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, "it" is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered.

Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of Nature.

So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping/revering cows and bowing to Mecca five times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the Commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings.

And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!

RogerWDavis:

"I am aware there are people who don't know what they are saying and thus think they have original thoughts, but they expose themselves to men who have grown out of it (1Cor 13:8-9,10; Hebrews 5:12-14)."

Again, you cite no authority for your absurd definitions, and twist the argument to conceal your inadequacy with language.

You are a waste of space. You are more full of it than a Christmas goose.

DOUG_WHITE,
P.S.
The definition of 'rhetorical' states that it is a QUESTION, "..1b: ASKED merely for effect with no answer expected...."

The thesaurus includes related words, as "..pretentious, gaseous, inflated, windy, exaggerated...."

Thus, silly.

I am aware there are people who don't know what they are saying and thus think they have original thoughts, but they expose themselves to men who have grown out of it (1Cor 13:8-9,10; Hebrews 5:12-14).

DOUG_WHITE,
The question you asked was, "Please cite your authorities for this definition of 'rhetorical question'."

I did, but you responded with somewhat of a twist on the synonyms 'authority' and 'source', saying, "I did not ask you to cite the source.... I asked you to cite the authority...

Authority; noun; 1 a (1) : a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2) : the source from which the citation is drawn….

Source; noun: 1 a : a generative force : CAUSE b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : BEGINNING (2) : one that initiates….

If you want confusion by language the Lord does not surrender His ultimate authority even over that source (Isaiah 45:5-7; Gen 11:9).

I believe our conversations have concluded.

Daniel12:

"Certainly we should be able to set a day aside for science."

Most excellent idea! How about a National Darwin Day?

RogerWDavis:

I did not ask you to cite the source of the definition of the phrase 'rhetorical question' which you imagine Psolus used. I asked you to cite the authority by which you claim that YOUR definition that "a rhetorical question is defined as a silly boast a braggert uses that has no answer."

As expected, you did not.

There is no such definition of the phrase. You merely use words to make yourself seem impressive. You are not.

You seem to have spent entirely too much time with chickens.

Daniel_12,
Absolutely!

Our Lord is the God of knowledge who weighs actions (1Sam 2:3). God is Truth (John 4:24).

Since God outreaches all the things we have learned, and relearned when experience shows we had errored, and as we learn realize a step into knowledges we previously did not even know existed, by God we owe the originator of science at least one day commemorated to science.

If we have a national day for prayer--instruction to all on how to petition the lord by such--we should also have a day for a different method, which, depending on one's belief gets one in contact with nature or God: The scientific method. In fact arguably the scientific method is the most required method of all methods in today's world what with the entire technological apparatus of Western civilization dependent on it. Certainly we should be able to set a day aside for science.

Doug_White,

There are several definitions to the words 'rhetoric' and 'rhetorical'.

PSOLUS chose that one in Merriam-Websters Dictionary with use of his comment...

"Sorry dude, those were rhetorical questions; they were meant to provoke introspection on your part."

rhetoric; noun...2b. A type or mode of language or speech; insincere or grandiloquent.

rhetorical; adjective...1b. Employed for rhetorical effect: asked merely for effect with no answer expected.

introspection; noun: A reflection looking inward: an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings.

In our dichotomous language anything we say can be interpreted at the hearers discretion to mean something good or mean something bad, "BY THE SAME WORD (2Pet 3:7)."

Standard usage has the power to kill both those Zorastrian boogiemans.

Back to the topic:

IMHO, if a god does exist, this "singularity" started the Big Bang. "It" also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, "it" is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of Nature.

So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping/revering cows and bowing to Mecca five times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the Commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings. And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!

RogerWDavis wrote:

"Using standards of communication, a rhetorical question is defined as a silly boast a braggert uses that has no answer."

Please cite your authorities for this definition of 'rhetorical question'.

PSOLUS,
I have a young brood of chicks who'd never experienced rain until this morning. Since chicks who are stuck in a first rain have a tendency to look to the unknown heavens, open their mouths and drown if the rain is heavy enough, or get wet and fall into shock as their body temperature lowers, I went out to check, and sure enough three of the fifty failed to take shelter and were laying on their sides in shock.

While I was putting the blow dryer to them and stroking their backs I thought of you. I came inside and saw your three whatever you say you wrotes.

Using standards of communication, a rhetorical question is defined as a silly boast a braggert uses that has no answer.

Your two questions were specific and lacked the qualities of rhetoric you say you intended.

You say your attempt at rhetoric was intended to incite my introspect thoughts, but after three attempts of trying to say what you thought you meant you confess that you have never read and don't know what you think you are talking about.

The chicks are strong and happily scurrying about on the kitchen floor, like nothing had ever happened. I'll put them back with the brood and know that in the future they will remain in the midst of them all.

OK, let's try this again:

I guess the good book did not prepare you for this level of intellectual inquiry.

Whew... and I've never even read the good book.

Make that:

I guess the good book did not prepare you for this level of intelectual inquiry.

Much better.

RogerWDavis,

Sorry dude, those were rhetorical questions; they were meant to provoke introspection on your part.

I guess the good book did not prepare you this level of intectual inquiry.

Good night, Doug_White, CCNL and PSOLUS

PSOLUS,
No. Do you know anyone who has ever had an original thought?

This, PSOLUS, is a land mine. Step carefully around it.

PSOLUS,
No. Do you know anyone who has ever had an original thought?

RogerWDavis,

I notice that you cannot make a comment without quoting scripture.

Have you ever had an original, independent thought in your life?

Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?

Doug_White,
No offence is taken, and all men of differing paradigns of knowledge sound muddled to each other.

I know that truth is self evident (1Sam 2:3; John 4:24), and if any man is persuaded to surrender his faith to another man's doctrine they are both liars (Gen 1:31; Rom 3:3-4,7; 2Cor 11:7,11-15; Rom 8:28).

Hmmm, DOUG_WHITE teaches computer science and is a Buddhist with a flair for catholicism and Catholicism? HMMMMM?????

CCNL,
You brought up the word 'incarnation', and I assume you think you know the difference between that and 'reincarnation'.

I have been here before (Ps 103:15-16) and will be here again (Ps 103:17-18; Jer 10:23-24).

There's nothing new anyone has to teach you (Ecc 3:14-15; 4:1-3; Is 8:18-20; 1Cor 10:11-12,12,12).

RogerWDavis

"I'd much rather be accused of misusing someone else' semantics than being accused of being a denominational catholic"

I accused you of nothing except being unnecessarily muddled.

Doug_White,
I sincerely thank you for the correction of small 'c' catholic, which means universal, and capitol 'C' Catholic, which is several denominations' pronoun claims to being the 'universal' church.

But since we both know that catholic means universal and, for all practical purposes, only the pronoun Catholic Churches make use of the word catholic instead of universal, I'd much rather be accused of misusing someone else' semantics than being accused of being a denominational catholic, which is an oximoron.

Faith can only be universal if every man of faith believes God only (Jer 31:33-34; Matt 19:17; 24:4-5; 1John 2:24,27).

CCNL:

"And DOUG_WHITE your commentaries show evidence of being a teacher of religion and English with maybe a hint of Baha'ism?? "

Your comments give evidence that you are an alcoholic and a fool. I teach computer science, and I am a Buddhist. Do you have any idea how idiotic you are?

Rogerwdavis,

Hmmm, bible thumping this evening??

I recommend reviewing the studies of the major contemporary NT and historic Jesus exegetes before again quoting from semi-fictional books written by the OT scribes and first to third century authors who have no apparent first-hand knowledge and questionable credentials with respect to education.

e.g. John 1:1-18 where you have found most of this incarnation mumbo-jumbo only appears in this passage making it a single attestation. Most contemporary historic Jesus and NT exegetes have concluded that the passage is simply more embellishment by the "great embellisher" John (who btw was not the Apostle John)- See Father Raymond Brown's epic 800+ page book, An Introduction to the New Testament for added information.

And DOUG_WHITE your commentaries show evidence of being a teacher of religion and English with maybe a hint of Baha'ism??

RogerWDavis Author Profile Page :

"CCNL says "As per the famous, contemporay theologian, Father Edward Schillebeeckx...."
=======================================

As you very well know, catholic with a small "c", merely means 'universal'. Catholic with a capital "C" means Roman Catholic, Holy Catholic, and in some instances Orthodox Catholic. Please rewrite your comments with these things in mind, and use both Capital "C" and lower-case "C" where they apply. Otherwise, your comments are confusing/confused and have no meaning.

CCNL says "As per the famous, contemporay theologian, Father Edward Schillebeeckx...."
=======================================

Schillebeeckx is a catholic priest considered to be one of three most influencial catholics of the 20th century...by catholics.

Your catholic reference to his expounding influence on the catholic fortune cookie version of predestination has nothing to do with the educational predestination the scriptures apply to a man's behavior (Jer 10:23-24,25).

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it (Pro 22:6)."

That predestination is what scriptures refer to, and it applies equally to a man who, WITHOUT CHOICE (1Cor 4:7), was educated righteously (Deut 8:5-6; John 1:12-13), and to the man who, WITHOUT CHOICE, was educated to kiss butt (James 2:9-10) which requires him to also invent a lesser example of comaprison (Is 10:1-3; Malachi 2:1-3,10).

The ancient writings of your Father Schillebeeckx (Matt 23:9) may or may not have enlightened catholics since 1914, about such things as catholicism's fortune cookie predestinations, but sycophancy is still the negative and damned side of predestination according to the scriptures (Ps 62:9; Pro 22:2,6,16; Matt 6:1-2).

The Lord's version of predestination is both prescribed (Num 23:19; 2Tim 3:16-17) and exemplified (John 5:30,37-39; 15:13,14-15; MATTHEW 22:29-32; 2CORINTHIANS 5:20)

Bruno55:

"You again manifest your ignorance of the Bible, regardless of your attitude toward it.....(and additional blathering)."

Get over it, Grace Ellen. The bible is nothing but a stack of paper with carbon ink printing on it. It proves exactly nothing. It changes nothing, it manifests nothing. It is mere propaganda and magical thinking.

PSolus Author Profile Page :

""None of this is about prayer...its about gee what can we criticize the Obama admin for now?"

It's actually about the federal government promoting ignorance and superstition; something that most rational people think is a bad idea."

It is not about prayer or criticism. And it is not about promoting ignorance and superstition. It is about ascendancy and control, and suppression.

Per opening comments: "Should there be an official National Day of Prayer?"

Should the be a National Day for Toenail Fungus? One seems as reasonable as another.

- Exodus 32:9-14 -

“And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”

You again manifest your ignorance of the Bible, regardless of your attitude toward it.

I guess reading the article by Mr. Gerson has endeared you to his methods so you are still searching and ever learning I see, but unable to come to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. 3:7)

As I told you in a previous reply, in you I find:
“… a man who has attained 80 plus years, and after all your studies, experiences and observations, you have come to a conclusion that you have only physical existence, and share a fate no different to an animal. When your physical existence is over, you are like Rover, dead all over. How sad.
You know, such a conclusion is an insult to your own intelligence. Separate and apart from any book, even the Bible or any thing you view as a sacred text, if you cannot observe that an animal is far inferior to a human being………yet you in all your learning conclude that your end will be as it.

Understanding any text that is regarded as ‘sacred’ starts with attitude. If you view the Bible as one of several sacred writings, then you will turn elsewhere for advice. That is what you do, as you yourself stated, you “pursue what interests you”. That is your only reason for studying the bible. It explains why you have basically changed every ten years to something else.
And where has “what interests you” taken you? You share the same lot as an animal; physical existence.

You know, you may be content with such, but you offer me no reason to consider your course of life. You were once not and when dead will again be not. You don’t want to be converted to anything else, nor convert anyone to anything.
You need to consider this; if you are correct and when I die, I cease to exist, although I went all through my life believing in a life that will last forever, I will suffer no harm, I won’t ever awake to know what a fool I was on earth.
If on the other hand, there just might be another life, one of reward and the other of punishment, I stand to gain everything.
And if I am right, and there is life beyond physical existence, then you stand to lose your soul.
And the fact that you have a soul is what makes you different from any animal. You ought to visibly see a distinction between a human and an animal.

Which of us offer to the other a better life? I have everything to gain if I am right and nothing to lose if you are right. You have nothing to gain if right and everything to lose if I am right about life beyond our physical existence.

I don’t know what all you have been exposed to in the realm of religion, but whatever it was, it has caused such disappointment in you toward God that you have accepted a fate that falls far short of what your Creator had in mind for you. You need to look beyond man’s shortcomings to the God of the universe and what He has revealed of Himself and about eternal life.

Whether or not you have scrutinized all the other writings and people’s advice/counsel as you have the Bible, I don’t know, but you do. Whether or not you have accepted their statements w/o question I will never know, but you do. It will be on your conscience.

Nevermore531 wrote:

"explain to me why "the faithful" run to church every chance they get to gather with like minded souls and why they feel it necessary to constantly spout off in public forums to express their faith and try to win converts?"

You ask a question, and then substantively answer it: the reason is self-confidence. Nothing enhances self-confidence more than being among --and accepted by -- people of like thought processes. Winning converts is just another proof/justification of 'right-thinking' and continuity.

"None of this is about prayer...its about gee what can we criticize the Obama admin for now?"

It's actually about the federal government promoting ignorance and superstition; something that most rational people think is a bad idea.

None of this is about prayer...its about gee what can we criticize the Obama admin for now? This country is full of depressing nay sayers.

"International Tuba Day"

There was no Whitehouse proclamation OR event!
Why is this government so anti-tuba?
This is a tuba nation, we should require everyone to play tubas in unison, led by our president. After all he was so pro-tuba during the campaign.
It's all those raving lunatic tuba haters that have caused this. With America's finances swirling faster and faster around the porcelain hole, our country and our president just scoffs at the tuba, the instrument that once made this a truly great nation.
Where’s John Phillip Sousa when you need him?
oompah!

I'm not sure we're being dragged into anything. Today, May 8, for instance is:

Iris Day
International Tuba Day
Military Spouse's Day
No Socks Day
V-E Day
World Red Cross Day

I'm not doing anything special to celebrate or ignore those.

Should the government celebrate prayer?

To even ask the question demonstrates how blind we are to the inequities and dangers inherent in any government which is dominated by leaders, or rulers, who are are religiously persuaded.

I don't understand why religious people need to drag the rest of us into what they want to do. Just do it and leave us alone.

As per the famous, contemporay theologian, Father Edward Schillebeeckx: (for those eyes that have not seen)

-from his book Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (paperback)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Thanks for making my point--prayer doesn't sway God but it may well change us. If Jesus already knew the will of God, why pray for it to be set aside? His prayer evidently enabled him to face what was coming...and come it did!

Interesting also that you saw this tweet as an attempt to discredit scriptures. The facts stand that we have no "prayers" from most of the ancients. Conversations, yes; arguments, yes; charges and counter-charges, yes. Not even poor old Job asked for anything but a reason for his suffering.

Your reading of the bible starts with a pile of "faith" assumptions that scripture doesn't share except by labored reading-in of later traditions. That's your choice, but it won't endear anyone to your methods. Read the article in today's POST of an up-coming book pre-viewed by Michael Gerson. Page A27.

Flipper49:
"I will continue to pray, and the only way you'll keep me from praying in public (such as in thanking God for a meal at a restaurant it by killing me.
It's when we claim to be exercising our God-given rights by taking away the rights of others that we all lose."

Who is trying to stop you from praying in public, restaurants, etc? This discussion is about Government sponsored/led prayer, not prayer by private individuals and groups.

"I'm not talking about fags and their "marriages"
Oh my.
If your church does not want to perform marriages for 'fags' then that's just fine. Once again we're talking about government activities, not not those of private entities.

" We should not only allow but encourage praying to God; He's our only hope."
Then fine, pray all you want. Get together with freinds and family and pray all night and all day, no one is trying to stop you.

Pay attention, we are against government sponsored prayer, not private prayer. The problem with government sponsored prayer is that it is unconstitutional. This is to PROTECT your religious freedom, not destroy it. Unless you'd rather have the politicians in D.C. pick the national religion/denomination. You really want that?

BIGBROTHER1 wrote:
"No. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing religion.
Separation of church and state. It's not just a good idea, it's the law."

Who said anything about ESTABLISHING anything? You MUST be a Democrat! I think it strange that you who condemn "religion" (I hate that word) think it's okay to reciprocate and force "religious" people to teach YOUR errant beliefs in schools.
Regardless or original "religious" intentions, our country was founded to provide FREEDOM, and that freedom includes being allowed to pray to our God. I will continue to pray, and the only way you'll keep me from praying in public (such as in thanking God for a meal at a restaurant it by killing me.
It's when we claim to be exercising our God-given rights by taking away the rights of others that we all lose. I'm not talking about fags and their "marriages"; God Himself condemned that kind of arrangement (read Leviticus 20:13), so that could not be considered a God-given right. Yet so many pay no heed to God because He condemns their actions as immoral. That's nothing new. But "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." I'll stand up for that right till I die.

BRETTPAATSCH1 wrote :
"No of course a government that is supposed to represent all constituents should not celebrate prayer. To whom would the prayer be directed? For whose benefit?"

I have news for you: often it's been the sincere prayer of Christians which have saved YOUR rights. As long as we pray for our rights, we also pray for yours...and WE'RE considered the selfish ones. We should not only allow but encourage praying to God; He's our only hope.

[Prayer doesn't seem to work well as a means to change God's mind or action. Jesus prayed while "in extremis" before his crucifixion that "...let this cup pass from me". Oops! Didn't work.]

Such comments show a lack of familiarity w/God's eternal purpose set forth in the Bible.

Titus 1:2; Eph. 3:10; Eph. 1:3-4, 10-11 just to cite a few passages that show that the death of the Son of God was fore-ordained. Salvation in Christ was promised prior to Creation, hence the death, burial, and resurrection to was all a part of that eternal plan.

To say that Jesus’ prayer “oops, didn’t work” is false, and a common mistake made by those unfamiliar with scripture or who seek to use scriptures to discredit them----only a part of the context is set forth; not the entire text.

Jesus went on to statehere, “nevertheless, not my will BUT THINE BE DONE!” (Matthew 26:39)

Jesus knew His death was a part of this eternal plan; His sacrifice was necessary to atone for sins, for “without shedding of blood, there is no remission (Heb. 9:22). He was foreknown to be the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8)

As far as prayer, judgment will be on individual basis before God on the judgment day (Romans 14:12), not on a collective, or group basis.

The powers that “be” are of God, Romans 13:1-3 reads, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil…”.

Both leaders and people have responsibility to God; people make up nations and the Bible states that “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34)

The Psalmist declared, “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” (Psa. 14:1).

The Bible is clear on prayer; the only prayer that availeth is that of a righteous person (James 5:16)

The simple story of the blind man in John 9 shows what is true here; he could "see" more than those who had sight, as evidence by his words, "Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth." (v. 31)

Interestingly, the other individuals cited (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Hannah, and even the priests) were those who believed in God, and all prayed to him regularly, and Moses was a national leader!

Prayer will be a daily activity of anyone who, in truth, acknowledges the authority of Christ.
As 1 Thess. 5:17-18 states to the Christian (not to the sinner), “Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.”

If individuals recognize fear God more than they fear man, they will pray in spite of laws that may be contrary to the will of God. Remember Daniel? Prayer was outlawed by wicked leaders in his day, yet he prayed to his God (Daniel chapter 6).

Peter and John were once arrested, threatened, and commanded to quit preaching salvation thru Jesus, yet replied, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.” (Acts 4:19) They continued to preach and were again brought before the authorities and reminded of the previous charge to stop preaching. Peter replied, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

The point is simple, righteous individuals (i.e. Christians, who fear God more than man) will pray regardless of the laws of the land. Matt. 10:28 reads, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

The God who created and sustains life is in control, and will use wicked servants or wicked leaders as He did Pharaoh (Ex. 9:16, “But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”)

The Psalmist wrote of the futile efforts of wicked leaders in Psalms 2:1-4, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.”

Heh:)
http://f.imagehost.org/0305/i-robot01.jpg

On a different note, but still prayer related:
"It doesn't take a genius to realize that an individual taliban has little sex or a relation with the opposite gender. An individual taliban's motivation is getting to a place with plenty of sex (paradise, virgins etc.). Therefore the taliban's goals in this world are in direct contradiction with their motivation and should a taliban get what he wants in this world this would only serve to produce more talibans and increase the talibans' frustration.
The only way to defeat the taliban is to remove all chadors and head-scarfs. This, alone, wont do. What will do, is to also mix the two sexes in mosques and during prayer. A major obstacle to this is the whole bowing to Allah thing. Do this in a mixed group and all hell might break loose, for reasons that should be obvious. Fortunately for the Muslims, Allah is everywhere, so bowing is really pointless, as it is turning their backs to God at the same time. Therefore, an upright position should be adopted throughout prayer."

(my response to this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/07/pakistan-taliban-democrats-army)

For an excellent synopsis as to what parts of the Our Father are authentic, see:

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb120.html

To whom should prayers be addressed? Jehovah, Allah, Ra, Zeus, to Whom, if anyone, it may concern, or -- how about Mickey Mouse or Eric Clapton? Just asking. Luckily, our founding fathers adopted the First Amendment to keep the government from specifying a deity of choice or recognizing any religion and leaving its citizens free to follow whatever superstition floats their boat (until it involves polygamy, human sacrifice, etc.) It's one of the things that seperate us from theocracies -- we can choose from a smorgasboard of invented deities or even (gasp) "none of the above."

The example of the Lord's prayer given in Matthew 6:9-13 is not one of Jesus praying to God the Father. Jesus has just told us in Matthew 6:6-7 to not make public prayers nor associate yourself with those who assemble to make such vain repetitions.

The example Jesus gave in Matthew 6:9-13 is one of gratitude, accepting forgiveness and giving forgiveness...without a hint of a selfish request.

Praise the Lord and pass the beans.

Curing via praying for the sick?? Hmmm, in the NT, there is no medical documentation of cures/miracles because there were no diagnostic tools for said sicknesses in first century Palestine. And many miracles, are single attestations i.e. fail historic review and appear to be added to the NT to embellish Jesus' biography.

SALERO21:

" It is mostly a private matter between the believer and God. Actually it is the prefered practice of Godly people. It is not to be made a Spectacle, a Show off (Mt. 6:6), a Social gathering or an excuse to get together with other people and eat some food. The Lord Jesus himself prayed in private often (Lk. 5:16)"

Although I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, explain to me why "the faithful" run to church every chance they get to gather with like minded souls and why they feel it necessary to constantly spout off in public forums to express their faith and try to win converts?

Or for that matter, why government officials (i.e. the Congress) need their very own chaplain who is being paid for by the taxpayers. The elected officials don't have rooms, closets, or churches where they can to their praying?

I vote for/elect my Senators, Congress(wo)men and Presidents based on their capability do to their Job, wich is administering to the need of the country (the poplulace of America which ancludes agnostics), not based on their faith.

President Obama deeply disappointed me with this declaration. He is not Minister-in-Chief!!!

Boanerges14:

What word of god is not in vain? Has he/she/it spoken to you lately?

I don't know whenever I talk to it, it never talks back!

Well I guess I don't get it! The headlines of this poll start by asking if Government should celebrate prayer. Which by itself the question imo is loaded. Then it follows with a little complaining about President Obama not hosting an elite event in the WH. Comparing it with Bush's doing it. Former Pres. Bush with all due respect Lied to this Nation and to the world incessantly, before and after the prayers. So why not get that out of the way once and for all?

Prayer according to Jesus, who is the Christ, who IS the Son of God is an act of Faith NOT a "Celebration". It is mostly a private matter between the believer and God. Actually it is the prefered practice of Godly people. It is not to be made a Spectacle, a Show off (Mt. 6:6), a Social gathering or an excuse to get together with other people and eat some food. The Lord Jesus himself prayed in private often (Lk. 5:16). So we have then here what appears as a dichotomy of the purpose of prayer. The Biblical and the Washingtonian. We [christians], are told to pray for those in authority so we can have peace. Peace is the one thing missing after and during, the previously alluded public prayers events of the past. Maybe if they had followed Jesus commands they would have been granted it.

Who do Baha'ists pray to?? They seem to have so many different faiths under their strange "Babs" umbrella!!

katesgram Author Profile Page :

"Folks, IT is FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not Freedom FROM religion. There is a huge difference. Yes, a national day of prayer will not hurt anyone and we need all the help we can get."

Simpleton. Even a third grader could tell you that freedom OF religion includes freedom of NO religion.

"Praying is definitely a must as a christian, but acting rather than talking is more important than words themselves". Certainly barack has already done plenty of actions and omiting the blessing that a prayer brings will fire back at him later on, but that's his loss or is it just his? He has not only imposed his very arrogant self image in "a nice way", but he has also made all from children to adults worship the russian beast.. be warned! and wake up! The word of God is not in vain!

KATESGRAM:
"Folks, IT is FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not Freedom FROM religion. There is a huge difference."
So exactly what is the difference? are you actually implying that we are not free from religion? I know what you are saying is popular on bumperstickers and blog sites, but have you really looked at it to see what it is saying? That we are not free from religion, that we MUST have some religion? And that can and will be mandated by congress and enforced in the judicial system? If I declare myself free from religion, what will I be charged with? Blasphemy? Hate speech?

"Yes, a national day of prayer will not hurt anyone and we need all the help we can get"
Sure pick a religion/denomination and celebrate it as the official/favored of the government... that won't tick anyone off. The government is an elected body of administrators, not prophets or priests. They are not annointed by a god, they are elected by the people. Does god need an official nationaly certified day of prayer? Does god reside in governments or individuals?

Folks, IT is FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not Freedom FROM religion. There is a huge difference. Yes, a national day of prayer will not hurt anyone and we need all the help we can get.

Prayer doesn't seem to work well as a means to change God's mind or action. Jesus prayed while "in extremis" before his crucifixion that "...let this cup pass from me". Oops! Didn't work.

What does work in tough situations in the Bible stories is:

Abraham: argumentation.

Jacob: strategy.

Moses: arguments and threats. (That threat business can be a two-way street).

Hannah: appeal to powerful priest with promises attached.

...and so on and on.

Prayer doesn't sway God. It changes us!

This Nat. Day of Prayer is an embarassment to this US Citizen. Besides violating the spirit of seperation of chruch and state, it offends my own religious convictions. A day of meditation? ... OK. A day of reflection?... on. A day of remembering? OK. But, better yet: A National Day of Reason. http://www.nationaldayofreason.org/

This Nat. Day of Prayer is an embarassment to this US Citizen. Besides violating the spirit of seperation of chruch and state, it offends my own relitious convictions. A day of meditation? ... OK. A day of reflection?... on. A day of remembering? OK. But, better yet: A National Day of Reason. http://www.nationaldayofreason.org/

Rogerwdavis,

Hmmm, bible thumping this early morning, I see.

Some comments:

1. The epistle, Timothy, was not written by Paul but by some pseudo-Paul. ditto for the Titus epistle. (see: Father Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament)

2. The Numbers and Jeremiah references as noted by most Conservative Jews and their rabbis are found in the mostly mythical and highly embellished OT.

3. For the references to the John embellishments see for example:

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb042.html

4. 2 Peter 1:20

Since Father Edward Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming anything about anything.

5. On the Father: (1) John 5:19-38; This passage studied critically by Professor JD Crossan et al was judged to have no historical basis.

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

And, CCNL, the same words of truth are also an absolute lie (2Pet 3:7), depending upon how you learned them (Jer 23:1-3,15,28-30; Ps 1:1-4; Matt 3:11-12).

CCNL said: "..Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT)."
=======================================

Sorry, CCNL.

I read the websites you posted about this and Jericho.

Those cites refuted hasty non-evidence opinions written as conclusions. Something you also did in your false hearsay use of the website report.

But, I don't base my belief in scripture upon what any man living or dead says about its origins. The Bible is consistant (Num 23:19; Heb 9:17) when its definitions are studied and learned within itself (John 5:30; 2Tim 3:16-17) and all speculative definitions of men are absolutly ignored (Johm 5:37-39; 2Pet 1:20-21; 2:1-3)

While Harvestmeister has it right in citing the comment by PSolus, there is more to add. Instead of doing what they are being paid to do through our tax dollars, Federal employees will be given time on the clock to attend events to celebrate this national day of knocking on wood, etc. Not to suggest that federal employees are otherwise always hard at work and on the job . . . but a formal endorsement for time away from the job to practice one's religion?

Test

A national day of prayer is contrary to the teachings of Christ (which makes it an anti-Christian activity) because Christ said that one should go into his closet and pray humbly and alone.

Christers can't have it both ways.

I don't see how one can argue with the astute analogy provided by PSolus. Debate over.

"No. Nor should there be a national day of knocking on wood, nor a national day of throwing salt over one's shoulder, nor a national day of not stepping on cracks."

Just so we're not talking about magical thinking and superstition; or some sort of code to prove who is in and who is out of the Christian club.
One commits oneself to prayer sincerely in private.
I believe that the intent of the U.S. Constitution Article 6, Paragraph 3 is clear. Too many people want to make a National Day of Prayer a religious test for a public and homogenized (Evangelical Christian babbling banality)display of Christian bona fides.
Shame on them. Prayer is between the one praying and his or her diety. A "National Day of Prayer" seems to cut against that.

Absolutely not. It's called the separation of church and state and it's there to protect us from the likes of Falwell and Robertson. I can't say the same about Billy Graham because he never shoved his religion down anyone's throat that I can recall - you either watched him or you didn't. If only we had a similar clause to rid us of the likes of Limbaugh, Huckelberry and Rommney we'd all be much better off. If religion is incapable of standing on it own in the home and in the church then it deserves and should be allowed to fail.

Someone asserts the following:
“Jewish, Christian and Islamic prayers
have very little foundation to rely on.”
Andrew Newberg, American's leading expert on the neurological basis of religion, in his new book, "How God Changes Your Brain," offers some unusual conclusions.
For example, he says that "thinking about a loving God stimulates regions of our brain (the frontal lobes and the anterior cingulate) where empathy and reason reside. Thinking about a wrathful God stimulates another region of the brain (the limbic system) where the emotions of aggression and fear reside. The God we choose to love changes us into his image, whether he exists or not."

Yes on both counts, yet the President should be discriminating on who to invite.

The subject of prayer relates directly to the subject of religions and their foundations.

And what has history, scriptural text reviews and archeology taught us about these foundations?

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).

references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proof read or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own agendas.

references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the whim of Pilate, the false prophesy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.

references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years

Conclusion: Jewish, Christian and Islamic prayers have very little foundation to rely on.

No.

Nor should there be a national day of knocking on wood, nor a national day of throwing salt over one's shoulder, nor a national day of not stepping on cracks.

If we are to be true to our founding fathers, we would not have a national day of prayer:

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason"

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, but the rantings of a denominated people don't mean a thing.

The effectual fervant prayer of a righteous man availeth much, but the rantings of a denominated people don't mean a damn thing.

No. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing religion.

Separation of church and state. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

No of course a government that is supposed to represent all constituents should not celebrate prayer. To whom would the prayer be directed? For whose benefit?

Government is about worldly social contract between citizens. It is about allocating limited resources. It ought be about reasoning and conversing such that the better arguments come to the fore for the benefit of the polity. What has prayer to do with any of the reasons for government? To have government indulge prayer is to have government favor some form of praying. What is needed from government officers is fact checking and homework doing and due diligence so that stupid mistakes aren't made. And prayer has nothing to do with those things.

Of course a free people ought be allowed to pray, but when government goes in for praying it becomes a form of political coercion by the majority over the time and resources and rights of minorities. When the government prays it preys on minorities with the prejudices of majorities.

No of course a government that is supposed to represent all constituents should not celebrate prayer. To whom would the prayer be directed? For whose benefit?

Government is about worldly social contract between citizens. It is about allocating limited resources. It ought be about reasoning and conversing such that the better arguments come to the fore for the benefit of the polity. What has prayer to do with any of the reasons for government? To have government indulge prayer is to have government favor some form of praying. What is needed from government officers is fact checking and homework doing and due diligence so that stupid mistakes aren't made. And prayer has nothing to do with those things.

Of course a free people ought be allowed to pray, but when government goes in for praying it becomes a form of political coertion by the majority over the time and resources and rights of minorities. When the government prays it preys on minorities with the prejudices of majorities.