Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2015, 10:02 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2015 11:02 PM by Chas.)
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 09:51 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I like that. Still irrelevant though. My knowledge of what you ask. God and my direction under it. God and the possibility of unseen advancement, peace and prosperity of all existence under the direction there of. What are you saying about Jesus. Crist is a way of being. Jesus was the most pure in this and his teachings and sacrifice are a lesson to those with ears and eyes. Notably, quite a few.

Could you try that again using actual English sentences? Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2015, 10:03 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 09:50 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(06-11-2015 09:41 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Born in 81? I thought you were like 75 yo by the way you proudly display faith versus actual knowledge. Study a little history "pops"....there are LOTS of misconceptions out there...and why is that? religion.

Here is some things you may have missed out on in school...

While it is true that a few of the Founders (such as Thomas Paine) were deists, and that some of the Founders (such as Alexander Hamilton) were Christians, the majority of the Founders were somewhere in between. Their beliefs were, in fact, in line with something that is becoming increasingly described as theistic rationalism. Theistic rationalism is a belief system, not a religion.

Heard of the treaty of tripoli? Article 11 perhaps?

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.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.

Original pledge of allegiance written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, ""I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

See mention of god anywhere?

Now a little history lesson.

The efforts to bring God into the state reached their peak during the so-called "religious revival" of the 1950s. It was a time when Norman Vincent Peale grafted religion onto the era's feel-good consumerism in his best-selling The Power of Positive Thinking; when Billy Graham rose to fame as a Red-baiter who warned that Americans would perish in a nuclear holocaust unless they embraced Jesus Christ; when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles believed that the United States should oppose communism not because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime but because its leaders were atheists.

Hand in hand with the Red Scare, to which it was inextricably linked, the new religiosity overran Washington. Politicians outbid one another to prove their piety. President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

The campaign to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this movement. It's unclear precisely where the idea originated, but one driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In the early '50s the Knights themselves adopted the God-infused pledge for use in their own meetings, and members bombarded Congress with calls for the United States to do the same. Other fraternal, religious, and veterans clubs backed the idea. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress.

The "under God" movement didn't take off, however, until the next year, when it was endorsed by the Rev. George M. Docherty, the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Washington that Eisenhower attended. In February 1954, Docherty gave a sermon—with the president in the pew before him—arguing that apart from "the United States of America," the pledge "could be the pledge of any country." He added, "I could hear little Moscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity." Perhaps forgetting that "liberty and justice for all" was not the norm in Moscow, Docherty urged the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge to denote what he felt was special about the United States.

In recent times, controversies over the pledge have centered on the wisdom of enforcing patriotism more than on its corruption from a secular oath into a religious one. In the 1988 presidential race, as many readers will recall, George Bush bludgeoned Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis for vetoing a mandatory-pledge bill when he was governor of Massachusetts, even though the state Supreme Court had ruled the bill unconstitutional. Surely one reason for the current cravenness of Democratic leaders is a fear of undergoing Dukakis' fate in 2002 or 2004 at the hands of another Bush.

The history of the pledge supports Goodwin's decision. The record of the 1954 act shows that, far from a "de minimis" reference or a mere "backdrop" devoid of meaning, the words "under God" were inserted in the pledge for the express purpose of endorsing religion—which the U.S. Supreme Court itself ruled in 1971 was unconstitutional. Also according to the Supreme Court's own rulings, it doesn't matter that students are allowed to refrain from saying the pledge; a 2000 high court opinion held that voluntary, student-led prayers at school football games are unconstitutionally "coercive," because they force students into an unacceptable position of either proclaiming religious beliefs they don't share or publicly protesting.

The appeals court decision came almost 40 years to the day after the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In that case, the court ruled it unconstitutional for public schools to allow prayer, even though the prayer was non-denominational and students were allowed abstain from the exercise. When asked about the unpopular decision, President John F. Kennedy replied coolly that he knew many people were angry, but that the decisions of the court had to be respected. He added that there was "a very easy remedy"—not a constitutional amendment but a renewed commitment by Americans to pray at home, in their churches, and with their families.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...iance.html

Isn't google wonderful? Look at you learning shit.
What was your point exactly?

Pretty sure I said Faith. Nothing to do with an organized religion per say. They had Faith and belief in a God. They didn't let it intervene with government and in some cases kept it secret. No one said they where Christians. Although I mentioned Quakers and Puritanism I didn't state that any particular founding father was of such Faith. They understood that division based on separate "religions" wasn't the truth. Good for them. Smart fellas.

My point? let's review.

You said, "One nation under God. Do you remember that. Pretty sure you took an oath under a similar statement. So yeah you may be subjected to religious views seeing as how you took an oath under such."

This implies ignorance of history of "one nation under god" and how it became part of the rhetoric. I thought you needed some educational guidance. No need to thank me, it is what I do, educate theists.

Lets continue.

You said, "So our money didn't always say" in God we trust"?

This yet again implies lack of knowledge, so...again, I endeavored to help. I work diligently to counter the misinformation people have been spoonfed by others infected with the disease called faith. I offer the cure...knowledge. Big Grin

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
06-11-2015, 10:07 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 10:21 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Do you think you have the capacity to comfort a Christian? I believe you do so I don't understand why my ability is in question?

You don't yet have any ability - you are not yet a qualified chaplain. So there's that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2015, 10:09 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 10:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-11-2015 09:51 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I like that. Still irrelevant though. My knowledge of what you ask. God and my direction under it. God and the possibility of unseen advancement, peace and prosperity of all existence under the direction there of. What are you saying about Jesus. Crist is a way of being. Jesus was the most pure in this and his teachings and sacrifice are a lesson to those with ears and eyes. Notably, quite a few.

Could you tryu that again using actual English sentences? Dodgy
Yeah looks like I missed some commas and a question mark or two. I actually had to read it twice.

Someone was asking me about what I think I know, or something along those lines. What is it your asking other than that if anything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2015, 10:13 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 10:21 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Do you think you have the capacity to comfort a Christian? I believe you do so I don't understand why my ability is in question?

What you believe is immaterial.

I don't think that I would be able to effectively counsel a Christian without trampling on his/her faith. I couldn't possibly offer any insight or help regarding relying on faith or comfort in that which I think is delusional.

I would only offer entirely non-religious means to cope.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-11-2015, 10:14 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 10:03 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(06-11-2015 09:50 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  What was your point exactly?

Pretty sure I said Faith. Nothing to do with an organized religion per say. They had Faith and belief in a God. They didn't let it intervene with government and in some cases kept it secret. No one said they where Christians. Although I mentioned Quakers and Puritanism I didn't state that any particular founding father was of such Faith. They understood that division based on separate "religions" wasn't the truth. Good for them. Smart fellas.

My point? let's review.

You said, "One nation under God. Do you remember that. Pretty sure you took an oath under a similar statement. So yeah you may be subjected to religious views seeing as how you took an oath under such."

This implies ignorance of history of "one nation under god" and how it became part of the rhetoric. I thought you needed some educational guidance. No need to thank me, it is what I do, educate theists.

Lets continue.

You said, "So our money didn't always say" in God we trust"?

This yet again implies lack of knowledge, so...again, I endeavored to help. I work diligently to counter the misinformation people have been spoonfed by others infected with the disease called faith. I offer the cure...knowledge. Big Grin
Slow down there friendo. I really thank you for the history lesson but I was initially making a point that the founding fathers were of some sort of faith in a God. That is all. Do you deny this statement was made, or the veracity thereof?

History is interesting now, I hated it in school though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2015, 10:19 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 10:59 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(06-11-2015 10:40 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  I'd suck it up, cry in a corner, and/or talk to a friend before I went to a chaplain. What is a chaplain going to say that a friend can't say?

[And how many chaplains are attached to an ambushed infantry platoon in the mountains of Afghanistan that a Marine could have a choice?]
More than you think. Chaplains are embedded in some infantry platoons just like a Corpsman would. I would recommend looking into some information on chaplains.

How many of those chaplains are atheist? Consider

You said that a Master of Divinity is required to be a chaplain. What is actually useful is a Masters in clinical psychology.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
06-11-2015, 10:24 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 12:22 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(06-11-2015 12:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yeah, a psychiatrist would be much better.

I mean would you go to an anointed witch for support on a serious issue?

How about going to a guy that talks about star wars all the time, is often quote as telling people to "use the force" (which is no different to a religious person saying "I'll pray for you") or "may the force be with you" (a.k.a. "god bless").

It's really hard to take these people seriously and to confide in them on a serious matter is next to impossible.
I think you are referring to a psychologist not a psychiatrist. However neither will be appropriate. They are not prescribing medications for depression or treating mental illness. Grief is not an illness to be diagnosed.

You are ignorant.

Grief is a psychological matter. Someone trained in grief counseling is required - not someone with a fucking Master of Divinity. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2015, 10:28 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 10:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-11-2015 12:22 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I think you are referring to a psychologist not a psychiatrist. However neither will be appropriate. They are not prescribing medications for depression or treating mental illness. Grief is not an illness to be diagnosed.

You are ignorant.

Grief is a psychological matter. Someone trained in grief counseling is required - not someone with a fucking Master of Divinity. Facepalm
Psychology is a flawed science based on drugs to alter the chemicals in the brain instead of relieving the root problem by addressing and solving it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2015, 10:28 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(06-11-2015 12:32 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Is there anyone here who can claim they have a better understanding about military chaplains than I do. Are there any atheist here who were former military chaplains? So why are there so many experts here about chaplains and how atheist service members have benefitted from them? I would assume that as an active duty Marine officer who is training to become a chaplain that this may be the one topic that I should be a credible source.

My point is not about military chaplains, it is about you being an effective one for non-religious people.

Without a lot more knowledge and understanding of a secular humanist world view and a good deal of training in psychology, you will likely not be effective.

If all you're going to do is pass the atheist on to someone qualified, then that person should be an atheist chaplain.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: