100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Franklin Graham : 'We Have Turned Our Backs on God' | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
seems a semantical argument a creator , may be named God in some cultures, jehovah in others or allah in others but it is still someones 'God' , in terms of being their creator No, it's not. As far as I'm concerned, my creators were Mom and Dad. No deity necessary. Though his name might have been mentioned at the time, it was purely coincidental. Even then, I wasn't really created until a little over eight months later. Up until that point I was just a parasite feeding off of a host body. From this act of creation, I was endowed with all the rights inherent in the Constitution, even some that aren't in there if you ask me, which includes the freedom FROM religion. so, 'endowed by their creator',, refers to our biological parents,,,thats kind of a stretch I t hink,,,,, Yeah... The people that are responsible for bringing me into being is a stretch, but an invisible man in a white robe, wearing a beard and sitting in outer-space with a "naughty and nice" checklist is reasonable. I somehow don't think I'm one that's really having to stretch anything. he stretch comment isnt about beliefs its about the context of the decleration of independence that this 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' is referring to 'all men' being created by your parents, is a stretch it instead refers to a common creator of ALL MEN,,,,, No, it doesn't. The context of the sentence implies that "all men" have a "Creator" it doesn't imply from the text that there is a singular one, only that each person, because of their shared equality has been created. The notion of a singular creator for "all men" is just a rational implied by religious zealots to justify saying that America is a "christian" nation. The truth is, you and every other human were created by your parents just as I was. God didn't breath air into your lungs. At some point a doctor, mid-wife, nurse or maybe a relative, depending on circumstances, actually took the fluids you were breathing out of your lungs - much the same way the first fish that decided to crawl out of the oceans did, which spawned all animal life and later the entire human race. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 11/21/12 06:40 AM
|
|
seems a semantical argument a creator , may be named God in some cultures, jehovah in others or allah in others but it is still someones 'God' , in terms of being their creator No, it's not. As far as I'm concerned, my creators were Mom and Dad. No deity necessary. Though his name might have been mentioned at the time, it was purely coincidental. Even then, I wasn't really created until a little over eight months later. Up until that point I was just a parasite feeding off of a host body. From this act of creation, I was endowed with all the rights inherent in the Constitution, even some that aren't in there if you ask me, which includes the freedom FROM religion. so, 'endowed by their creator',, refers to our biological parents,,,thats kind of a stretch I t hink,,,,, Yeah... The people that are responsible for bringing me into being is a stretch, but an invisible man in a white robe, wearing a beard and sitting in outer-space with a "naughty and nice" checklist is reasonable. I somehow don't think I'm one that's really having to stretch anything. he stretch comment isnt about beliefs its about the context of the decleration of independence that this 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' is referring to 'all men' being created by your parents, is a stretch it instead refers to a common creator of ALL MEN,,,,, No, it doesn't. The context of the sentence implies that "all men" have a "Creator" it doesn't imply from the text that there is a singular one, only that each person, because of their shared equality has been created. The notion of a singular creator for "all men" is just a rational implied by religious zealots to justify saying that America is a "christian" nation. The truth is, you and every other human were created by your parents just as I was. God didn't breath air into your lungs. At some point a doctor, mid-wife, nurse or maybe a relative, depending on circumstances, actually took the fluids you were breathing out of your lungs - much the same way the first fish that decided to crawl out of the oceans did, which spawned all animal life and later the entire human race. it doesnt say 'each man, endowed by their creator' it says 'all men, endowed by their creator' however you spin it, the subject verb agreement does imply ONE creator (their) for ALL men no point debating what YOU believe to be true, the debate is about what the writers of those words implied according to THEIR beliefs... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Art. 11.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Treaty of Tripoli 1796 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seems a semantical argument a creator , may be named God in some cultures, jehovah in others or allah in others but it is still someones 'God' , in terms of being their creator No, it's not. As far as I'm concerned, my creators were Mom and Dad. No deity necessary. Though his name might have been mentioned at the time, it was purely coincidental. Even then, I wasn't really created until a little over eight months later. Up until that point I was just a parasite feeding off of a host body. From this act of creation, I was endowed with all the rights inherent in the Constitution, even some that aren't in there if you ask me, which includes the freedom FROM religion. so, 'endowed by their creator',, refers to our biological parents,,,thats kind of a stretch I t hink,,,,, Yeah... The people that are responsible for bringing me into being is a stretch, but an invisible man in a white robe, wearing a beard and sitting in outer-space with a "naughty and nice" checklist is reasonable. I somehow don't think I'm one that's really having to stretch anything. he stretch comment isnt about beliefs its about the context of the decleration of independence that this 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' is referring to 'all men' being created by your parents, is a stretch it instead refers to a common creator of ALL MEN,,,,, No, it doesn't. The context of the sentence implies that "all men" have a "Creator" it doesn't imply from the text that there is a singular one, only that each person, because of their shared equality has been created. The notion of a singular creator for "all men" is just a rational implied by religious zealots to justify saying that America is a "christian" nation. The truth is, you and every other human were created by your parents just as I was. God didn't breath air into your lungs. At some point a doctor, mid-wife, nurse or maybe a relative, depending on circumstances, actually took the fluids you were breathing out of your lungs - much the same way the first fish that decided to crawl out of the oceans did, which spawned all animal life and later the entire human race. it doesnt say 'each man, endowed by their creator' it says 'all men, endowed by their creator' however you spin it, the subject verb agreement does imply ONE creator (their) for ALL men no point debating what YOU believe to be true, the debate is about what the writers of those words implied according to THEIR beliefs... If we are taking the founders beliefs into context, then we must also consider the context of their belief structure. Ben, John and Tom all collaborated on this document in 1776. These were men of science, and big believers in the use of reason and logic. If you consider that Darwin hadn't been to the Galapagos, nor was his "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," one must come to the conclusion that they didn't have the facts at hand to make the proper wording. If they had, the odds are in favor of much different wording being used. Take John Adams for instance who said: “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”. Does that sound of someone who believed that we should bow down to a deity? Or take Jefferson, who literally made his own version of the bible by removing all text that was not spoken by Jesus himself. If you actually read just the "red letter" section of the holy bible and view it with agnostic eyes, one will discover that Jesus himself was anti-religion and more of a spiritual person. Too bad he didn't have all the science at hand when his words were spoken as well. Franklin's experiments with lightening alone flew in the face of the established religious beliefs of the day. So, when one DOES take in context the beliefs of the FRAMERS of the Declaration, one sees that no, religion and dogma was not on their minds. What they did was a compromise, so that heavily puritanical states, such as Pennsylvania, would not hesitate in joining the cause. What they needed was a set of UNITED colonies opposing Britain. What they wanted was freedom, religion they already had, and they found it didn't work to well, that's why when the Constitution was written, it specifically said that religion must be left out of governing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or take Jefferson, who literally made his own version of the bible by removing all text that was not spoken by Jesus himself. Hey! Me and Tom have something in common! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seems a semantical argument a creator , may be named God in some cultures, jehovah in others or allah in others but it is still someones 'God' , in terms of being their creator No, it's not. As far as I'm concerned, my creators were Mom and Dad. No deity necessary. Though his name might have been mentioned at the time, it was purely coincidental. Even then, I wasn't really created until a little over eight months later. Up until that point I was just a parasite feeding off of a host body. From this act of creation, I was endowed with all the rights inherent in the Constitution, even some that aren't in there if you ask me, which includes the freedom FROM religion. so, 'endowed by their creator',, refers to our biological parents,,,thats kind of a stretch I t hink,,,,, Yeah... The people that are responsible for bringing me into being is a stretch, but an invisible man in a white robe, wearing a beard and sitting in outer-space with a "naughty and nice" checklist is reasonable. I somehow don't think I'm one that's really having to stretch anything. he stretch comment isnt about beliefs its about the context of the decleration of independence that this 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' is referring to 'all men' being created by your parents, is a stretch it instead refers to a common creator of ALL MEN,,,,, No, it doesn't. The context of the sentence implies that "all men" have a "Creator" it doesn't imply from the text that there is a singular one, only that each person, because of their shared equality has been created. The notion of a singular creator for "all men" is just a rational implied by religious zealots to justify saying that America is a "christian" nation. The truth is, you and every other human were created by your parents just as I was. God didn't breath air into your lungs. At some point a doctor, mid-wife, nurse or maybe a relative, depending on circumstances, actually took the fluids you were breathing out of your lungs - much the same way the first fish that decided to crawl out of the oceans did, which spawned all animal life and later the entire human race. it doesnt say 'each man, endowed by their creator' it says 'all men, endowed by their creator' however you spin it, the subject verb agreement does imply ONE creator (their) for ALL men no point debating what YOU believe to be true, the debate is about what the writers of those words implied according to THEIR beliefs... If we are taking the founders beliefs into context, then we must also consider the context of their belief structure. Ben, John and Tom all collaborated on this document in 1776. These were men of science, and big believers in the use of reason and logic. If you consider that Darwin hadn't been to the Galapagos, nor was his "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," one must come to the conclusion that they didn't have the facts at hand to make the proper wording. If they had, the odds are in favor of much different wording being used. Take John Adams for instance who said: “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”. Does that sound of someone who believed that we should bow down to a deity? Or take Jefferson, who literally made his own version of the bible by removing all text that was not spoken by Jesus himself. If you actually read just the "red letter" section of the holy bible and view it with agnostic eyes, one will discover that Jesus himself was anti-religion and more of a spiritual person. Too bad he didn't have all the science at hand when his words were spoken as well. Franklin's experiments with lightening alone flew in the face of the established religious beliefs of the day. So, when one DOES take in context the beliefs of the FRAMERS of the Declaration, one sees that no, religion and dogma was not on their minds. What they did was a compromise, so that heavily puritanical states, such as Pennsylvania, would not hesitate in joining the cause. What they needed was a set of UNITED colonies opposing Britain. What they wanted was freedom, religion they already had, and they found it didn't work to well, that's why when the Constitution was written, it specifically said that religion must be left out of governing. religion and God are different concepts just like cake and chocolate some cakes have chocolate and some dont just like some have God and some dont ,,thus a 'creator' is the best way to refer to whatever 'creator' one believes in without committing to any specific religion,,, that way the document does not respect a RELIGION but it does aknowledge a 'creator' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A higher power, as you have come to know?
|
|
|
|
|
