I'm pushing nothing on anyone. What negative thing comes of prayer in school? And no we don't reject evolution and most of what science KNOWS about human evolution and genetics. It is a theory my friend, tis why it's call the THEORY of evolution. A theory is nothing more then an educated guess. So therefore evolution is not a sound fact. So yeah I guess we reject the guessing game scientists use.

Well now you're contradicting yourself. You just previously posted:



And now your claiming that this cannot be proven to be a fact?

You're talking in circles now.

In science terms it is 100% fact that water freezes at 32 degrees F. But nevertheless is not a fact. For you can not prove that waster freezes at 32 any more then I can prove you God.

Sure you are. You're trying to push the idea that it is a FACT that the Bible is the "Word of God".

But it doesn't fly.



Why should spirituality be lead by a government run institution?

Also why should atheists be made to pray to a God they don't even believe in?

Who's going to lead the prayer, and what are they going to say or ask of God? Maybe I won't be in agreement with the person who is leading the prayer.



Who's we? The Bible says that God created Adam from the dust of the Earth and he created Eve from Adam's rib. That is NOT in agreement with evolution. Many Christians renounce evolution entirely. And rightfully so if they are going to take the Bible literally.



Yes, my friend, there is a theory of evolution.

However, there is also much evidence for evolution. And the evidence is overwhelming. Not only is there tons of evidence for evolution of life on Earth, but we can even see how it works via the genetics of DNA.

In other words, the "theory" has actually been explained via the sciences of biology, chemistry, physics, and genetics.

And it all fits and works seamlessly.

On the other hand the claims of the Bible do not fit observations.

Scientific observations show that thorns existed prior to mankind.

Scientific observations show that death, disease, and all manner of imperfections and animals eating animals occurred prior to the evolution of mankind.

Scientific observations show that no major catastrophic flood depicted in the Bible could have possibly occurred during the time that humans roamed the Earth.

So the idea that science is wrong and the Bible is true seems pretty far-fetched.

Well, if it's your stance that you can't even prove God, then why would you even bother trying to claim that the Bible is bottom line fact?

That's just silly.

This conversation is truly getting absurd Cowboy.

You confess that you cannot prove your God.

Fine.

I accept.

Doesn't have to be lead by the school itself, can just be casually lead by a student at the school. They wouldn't be "made" to pray, if they did not wish to pray they could just simply not while the others did.



What does it matter? A lot of people don't agree with certain things certain people do through out the day. If you don't agree with the person, then don't join in simple as that.

Conversations with people such as you is always absurd Abra.

And same question for you on EVERYTHING. NOTHING about science can be proven except but using hearsay rumours my friend.

All of that is beside the real point anyway.

The real point is that schools are supposed to teach children things that we know. As you say, we can't can't if a God exists. Therefore to teach children to pray in schools is silly. There's simply no reason to teach children to pray to imaginary beings.

This should be something that their parents can do on their own time if they wish.

There's just no point to this type of thing even taking place in a school at all. It's just not the right place for it.

Religious fanaticism at it's peak.

Atheists fanaticism at it's peak.

Everything taught in history is from hearsay rumours just as you claim is in the bible. If the bible is held at hearsay rumours, why then do eye witnesses of crimes hold so much power of persuasion? for that is nothing but hearsay rumours as well.

Well, first off, we do know that many people have been wrongly convicted due to poor eye witness testimony. So eye witness testimony cannot always be trusted. Do you believe in all the eye-witness UFO sitings? Do you believe in the eye-witness sightings of Big Foot, etc.?

We know that it's human nature to often exaggerate and even tell outright lies to support stories.

I don't discount all of the rumors of the New Testament. I believe that some guy named Jesus probably did live, reject the moral values of the Torah, Preach the moral values of Buddhism, and was wrongfully crucified for his view.

That much probably did spark these rumors. However all the claims of being born of a virgin, voices coming from the sky, zombie saints raising from graves and so forth, I feel are most likely just over-zealous rumors.

I think many a judge has ignored the testimony of supposed 'eye-witnesses' who have gone overboard with wild and crazy nonsensical testimonies as well.

Besides, like I say, if you're going to believe everyone's eye-witness testimony then you must also believe in faeries because many people do indeed claim to have seen them. I have a book right here entitled "Forty Years with the Faeries". The whole thing is a book written by a woman who swears on her mother's grave that she's been talking to faeries for over 40 years.

So I guess faeries must be real then.

She even claims to speak with her deceased husband through these faeries.

So there you go. An eye-witness account of the reality of faeries.

Well thanks Abra, you've helped me come to the conclusion ALL history is a bunch of hearsay rumours, thanks bro you're a great help much love to you and yours.

Would have lived my life in the dark if not for you :)

Cowboy wrote:


You define conscience as something God uses to influence our behavior.

However, because you agree that we also have free will, it is not necessary for us to follow that conscience.

That would actually serve us well because we are also born with survival instincts that allow us to react to perceived and eminent danger WITHOUT conscience – that survival mechanism protects our species from extinction and people from harm.

For example, we can murder others in one moment, without conscience, and resume our previous moral conduct in the next moment.

So without ever having communication with God in any form, without ever considering a greater creative power (like a god), humans would have naturally avoided behaviors which God did not want exhibited. There would have been no need for any communication at all.

But that’s not what happened – is it? Obviously God is not the only thing that influences our conscience. Our free will allows our instincts to override conscience, as previously stated. It also makes sense that instinct should be given prevalence to socially accepted moral codes.

If it was never God’s intention to directly override or interfere with our free will, then He had to provide a mechanism of survival that would protect humans in any number of situations over which He had no control. Instinct seems to be the perfect moderator to serve as survival mechanism.

So what is the connection of the previous information to the question of how people, societies, and whole cultures, can adopt differing moral codes, and behave accordingly, with a clear conscience? The answer is, it all boils down to instinct.

Humans instinctually form social groups because creating social communities increases the likelihood of survival. Humans are mobile and as populations moved, life styles often demanded a new set of moral codes, survival depended on it. As societies exchanged members and trade brought new ideas and new cultures, again morals mingled and societies changed.

Humans have another instinct, the need to ‘fit in’ to be accepted as part of the group. This instinct keeps societies civil and without all of this change and human exchange that brought diversity into every culture, we would not have evolved in agriculture, industry, technology, and medicine.

I think what you overlook, what many religious people who believe they have the one true faith also overlook, is that our instincts have served us well AND if you believe in a creator then you should believe those instincts and HOW THEY WORK were part of the design.

Free will was necessary for instinct to work when God could not intervene. Through instinct, moral codes change which is a good reason why rigidly defined and written moral code of law can work, they cannot transcend time it brings.

No man can enforce the New covenant, nor determine when another has broken it because it is not written in a book that men can use as judgment against others. If you know God’s law then you must know it in your heart and not in the words of man.

Cowboy, Here are several quotes you have made in this thread: They seem to be as riddled with as much confusion and conflict as you attribute to others:



Which laws were to be judged by peers: The laws about civil order (like hospitality, slavery, giving alms, respecting the laws of the land) or the laws about religious rights (like circumcision, purification, marriage, food) or sacrifice, or the 10 commandments? Were all of these meant to be judged and punished by man?

Yet you say that the biggest difference between the old and new covenant is WHEN we will be judged and as an aside you mention:



You are saying that God could not judge because he had not been made flesh. What was the flood, or the mass destruction of cities, or the plagues upon Egypt?



How can we STILL be judged by the word when it was not the word that judged by the Old covenant but peers, as you have stated above?



Here you were implying that the written law of the old covenant is to be obeyed even now after the New covenant.

In addition you added:


In other words the ‘feeling’ a person gets form INSIDE is only valuable if the person has read and understands the law of the covenant. Which covenant – because the law of the Old Covenant is fulfilled – done away with and the New is 'Inside'.



What or who does it serve to repeat some of the same laws on a new paper? Why not strike out the ones that were no longer of value?

What have you learned about WHY the Old covenant had to be replaced other than WHEN we will be judged & by whom – which seem to both be in error by the way.



Jesus was born a Jew, was raised a Jew, and clarified consistently the misinterpretation and misuse of the Old covenant laws.

To fulfill these laws he would have had to accomplish what no human ever could – follow the Old law without sin or transgression.

Does it make sense to you that this MODEL could have followed every law faithfully without trespass if he were breaking it by teaching something OTHER than the old law?



He NEVER said the old law was fulfilled, in fact he supported them rigorously and one of the MOST quoted versus is his proclamation that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it – that meant it HAD TO BE IN PLACE and he had to follow it, in order to fulfill it. He was not teaching a New covenant but making the Old one clear, as it had been so corrupted by man.

Then regarding the New covenant you say:


This is in direct conflict with the quotes at the beginning of this post in which you say the written law is more important than the one inside, because without the written law we could not interpret our ‘feelings’.



So far you have said that the Old testament is no longer needed (from other posts) because its covenant was fulfilled. But a new covenant took its place and it includes the 10 commandments.

You also claim that the new covenant comes from within (where it was placed) BUT you also say that we need the written law to understand the feelings the new covenant gives us. But then you rescind that idea and say that if we are honest and sinsere we don’t need a written law.

Furthermore, there is the claim that one of the differences between the old and new law is that ONLY Jesus can judge based on the New covenant that was placed inside. But you continue judge based on laws that are not inside but written before the New covenant took place.



Not only are you using written law – when the only law currently comes from inside – but you are using obsolete law AND THEN you are doing what you said the New covenant no longer allows men to do – to judge the works of people, not based on quality or intent (of which you could not know) but by a ‘written’ law that was never meant to be a copy of the Old one because it was not to be written BY men but INSIDE of men.



I suggest that you cannot know what the New Covenant is – because it was not meant to be written by any man, the New covenant is belief – wholly and only, faith in Jesus sacrifice for the redemption of sin.

Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant by following it as it was meant to be followed – something no man could ever do. In its place is the power of redemption which his sacrifice placed inside of EVERY human so that faith would initiate it and ONLY God will be the judge of a mans faith and deeds.



I have given you some vital information throughout much of this thread. I have attempted to explain where you have either been deceived, misdirected, or made grievous errors in interpretation.

As you would have others submit to those who bring the gospel and its words for their own good, so I have brought you this vital information.

For the bible you love plainly says that believing in the least of the written law is to fall from grace. It tells you that accepting any part of that written law BINDS you to ALL of it and in doing so you render your very salvation through Jesus a moot point.

I have not given you secrets, I have given you an opportunity to re-evaluate your beliefs. The book is there, much of the information has been pointed out here, and like many non-believers you now stand in the crossroads because I’m telling you that your very salvation is at stake.

To hear the words of Jesus and deny them, or to teach and judge others about Jesus or God wrongly puts you in the same boat as everyone you say does not believe as you do. Maybe without a lifejacket becaue you do it when you have been given the truth.

Now its up to you, do you think your faith is enough if you are unrepentant of your wrongdoing – or do you think ‘ignorance’ of the New covenant (when truth has been presented) will be enough to save you?

The only laws that have any power over our soul, the laws provided by our father.
-------------



The flood was not a "judgement". It was a purifying of the planet. Everyone that was not on the ark after the flood then went before God for judgement. The world was ran by evil and corrupt people, so the easiest way to deal with that was to wipe the planet clean and start again.



We were judged by the word, but as the word was just that the word it obviously couldn't carry out the judgement on it's own. Thus we were judged by our peers through the word. As in the word tells us that it is a sin to steal, the only reward for sin is death, thus came the stoning people to death. For the word judged it as a sin to steal and the only reward for sin is death. But now that the word has become flesh, Jesus. The world "Jesus" can carry out the judgement on his own and is no longer in need for us to do it.

Perhaps the term "Designer Christian" is indeed the best title because it denotes that the 'designer' eminates from within, developing moral codes of ethics to suit the individual needs of each person.

This would make so much more sense in a world in which individual expereince finds little commonality among poeple with vast and far-reaching differences in culture, economics, and environment.

An internal moral compass 'Designed' on an individual basis - what a good concept.

Well, as strange as it may seem many people take the term to be 'derogatory'. The bottom line is that Christianity is basically supposed to be a dictatorship being dictated by God. Thus if you are 'designing' your own version of it that seems to imply that you are basically rejecting the very foundational idea that it's a dictating God.

However, in terms of an idea that a "New Covenant" with Jesus is supposed to come from internal faith rather than external dogma, then it's actually a more suitable description.

Although perhaps "designer" is not the correct term, since this does imply that the individual are "designing" their own rules. I prefer instead to think of it as designing a personal relationship with the divine. In that sense it's still the divine who is the ultimate 'guide' so-to-speak, and thus, in this sense there is nothing derogatory about the term.

So it's all in how a person views it.

To me, Wicca, is indeed a 'designer religion' in this sense. It's a means of communique with the divine source that allows the individual to communicate with the divine in a way that is best suited for them. What could be better?

These people who view the divine as a dictator who is making them cower down before him and screaming at them, "Do it my way or go to hell", is certainly a valid relationship with the divine source, if this is how they want to view God. But pushing that relationship with God onto other people seems rather arrogant, IMHO.

Maybe instead of calling it "Designer Christianity" we should call it "Passive Christianity". Passive meaning that these Christians are allowing Jesus to guide them individually as a Shepard would guide his sheep. It seems to me they would really like the sound of that scenario since Jesus himself often used the analogy of a Shepard tending to his sheep.

Or maybe, "Intuitive Christianity" since the New Covenant has been placed in the hearts of men (i.e. using their intuitive feelings as the basis of divine communique)

This is what many Wiccan's do. They rely on intuition and meditation as the ultimate connection with the divine source.

So maybe the Wiccan's actually "got it right" when it comes to the "New Covenant".

Although in Wicca there never was an "Old Covenant" so the Wiccans must have been contacted by Jesus even before Abraham was. He appeared as a Goddess back in those days as he did not yet have a human body.