In Arkansas, atheists are prohibited from taking office or testifying in court:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court (Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution).
Thankfully, Rep. Richard Carroll is trying to get it off the books. But it seems it’s an uphill battle, even though the Supreme Court ruled such prohibitions unconstitutional in 1961.
I love the parallel of a related story:
Meanwhile, in a related story, the Arkansas House passed a bill Wednesday allowing people to bring their guns to church.
“Due to many shootings that have happened in our churches across our nation, it is time we changed our concealed handgun law to allow law-abiding citizens of the state of Arkansas the right to defend themselves and others should a situation happen in one of our churches,” said state Rep. Beverly Pyle.
The bill doesn’t say whether atheists can bring guns to church.
(via)
I’m staying out of the gun-control debate, nothing to gain from stepping into that steaming pile of excrement. :)
Funny how a little word replacement sheds a clear light on this ‘law’:
“No person who *has brown skin* shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court”
The quickest way to encourage the removal of this is for Atheists (or even people falsely claiming to be Atheists would do) to refuse to participate in trials, pointing to the provision. It would ruin enough cases, and quickly, and be seen as such an embarrassment to the state that it would get changed pretty quickly.
The horns of the dilemma that the state would be trapped on is that no state wants to admit (easily) the supremacy of the Supreme Court over its constitutional acts, and yet they can’t compel Atheists to testify without pointing at the Supreme Court decision.
Here’s my question why does it take a resolution from within the state’s legislative body to bring this to the front? This seems to me to have been a legitimate case for the ACLU to have taken up, instead of some of the politically motivated cases they’ve pursued.
I’m shocked in any case, and apparently Arkansas isn’t the only state either. Learned something new today anyway.
@ Elemenope – Very interesting! “I’m sorry, judge, I can’t testify on the grounds it would violate Article 19 Section 1 of the state Constitution.”
Could I get out of jury duty that way? “Sorry, Judge, since denial of god disqualifies me from testifying, how can I possibly be allowed to determine the guilt or innocence of any god-fearing citizen?”
(i>The bill doesn’t say whether atheists can bring guns to church.
Remember the UU shooting in Tennessee? There were probably atheists in that church, so the answer ought to be “yes”. (Assuming you accept the “let’s all pack heat” argument in the first place, which being in Canada, I don’t).
Wait, what? “No person who denies the being of *a God* shall hold any office…”
So if you deny Eris or the FSM or Shiva or Allah or Thor, you can’t hold office either? Seems like *all* monotheists are left out as well. (And quite a few polytheists too…)
just to echo the sentiment that’s already here, that is crazy, discriminatory and wrong.
I just don’t get the immediate call for concealed weapons in shooting cases. Wouldn’t it be much more effective to have visible weapons?
This is an obvious case of discrimination. Any individual who is a legal U.S. citizen should not be restricted from participation in constitutional freedoms including the pursuit of civic positions on the basis of his or her non-religious affiliation or personal belief.
We are in full agreement, for once.
Now there’s a bonified “miracle”. lol
JC
Pingback: Bring your gun to Church, because God’s not gonna save you « The Frame Problem
Hey Mr. Florien;
I agree with you that it seems a very strange idea to bring guns to Church.
As for the decree concerning Atheists not being able to take office or testify in court, we have to go back to the founding of this country were the majority of the leaders were Christians. In 1798 John Adams said specifically that “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The law on the books of the Arkansas constitution reflects that. In other words, this is where they are coming from. It was important to our founders and it was important to the people of Arkansas when they produced their constitution.
But it is very clear that for many people in this country today such things are not important anymore!
I thought churches are supposed to be sacred spaces? As I understood it, in England at least, there was/is some kind of ancient “law” of sanctuary, whereby a person could not be harmed or arrested whilst inside the church. I think this was meant to be irrespective of the person’s faith (or lack of it). So where does bringing guns to church fit into the picture?
I appreciate this law may well not have survived to the present day, nor in Arkansas, but am I the only one who – even as an atheist – finds the whole idea of armed services sacreligious and/or distasteful? Whatever happened to “My peace I give unto you”?
Kudos for recognizing this as discrimination and calling it out. I think that more us us need to be ready and willing to do so.
Somebody’s going to get pissed off about something, and guns will be whipped out, and there will be a standoff… I’m having visions of Waco right now.
@Elliot
I think the same thing is happening here: “the founders said X” vs. “nothing is sacred.”
This argument is about sacredness? Are you kidding? This is about citizens being denied constitutionally (archaicly) thier rights to run for office and perform the duties of citizens.
The law was nullified by the Supreme Court 48 years ago. How can taking this non-executable law off the books be considered a desire by conservatives to not change convention?
Why does this threading go only 4-deep, and is there a way around this – anyone?
Continuing from above
@John C
Revisionist history…from folks with Phd’s…stands for Piled High & Deep.
Have you actually read Franklin’s autobiography? Or any biography of Adams, Jefferson, Paine of Franklin? Are you a historical scholar, or do you know one? Have you ever talked to one? Did you study the relevant period of history at school/college in any detail?
If not, you don’t know what you’re talking about, pure and simple. Dissing Daniel (or anyone else on here) with such trivial nonsense as the above, when he has taken the trouble to explain something you clearly didn’t understand, is rude in the extreme. At least justify your objection, if you have one, with a valid argument. If you have no valid argument, you just make yourself look stupid and annoy everyone by posting drivel. Perhaps that’s your intention?
@Professor…
Not too “Professorial” there Teach…the majority of the historical evidence of the day points to an overwhelmingly Christian culture & climate. See the few school books of the day as one item of note while most were home schooled. Care to weigh the collective bulk of the personal effects…wills, writings, documents, letters, artifacts, recorded prayers against an argument of unbelief?
Yes, I have read extensively on the men and the times. I have also researched the particular writers who have attempted to (significantly) revise down christianity’s influence in the day. It’s a bit like spitting on one’s grave. Many are also “professor’s” with Phd’s…piled high & deep.
Have you ever read the personal letters, documents and prayer’s of George Washington for example?? Freemason? Thats a label…Christian the identity. The many letters and prayer’s demonstrate a strong, undeniable faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Detractors, like yourself are all too quick to dismiss this lest, any credit be given where credit is due. You and I have long been the beneficiaries of their values, labors, sacrifices and beliefs whether we care to acknowledge them or not.
The worst is yet to come. This nation has gone into captivity to its (false) lovers, materialism, abortion, pleasure, immorality…we would do well to metanoi, the sooner the better.
We are a most ungrateful people.
@Elemeno…
In the same way that Christ doesnt force us to love Him, its always a choice, He has no interest in “Godbots” as the forum is so fond of (incorrectly) quoting.
@Sunny
I just love the “What would the founders think?” question.
They would probably wonder why there are so many “Darkies” and women in positions of authority.
Hey, I just had this great idea: why not get rich selling a bunch of bracelets inscribed with the legend “WWTFD?”
What – it’s been done before, you say?
@Just Thinking…
Where does the fanciful notion of a “sky-God, sky fairy” come from?? This is not at all what Christ taught, quite the opposite. You are simply another ill-informed God hater in a long line here JK, not terribly unique. I have never said anything, and neither did he about some “sky fairy”. Quite a liberty you took there my friend.
Where is Heaven…JK? Where is this “kingdom of God” you mock, scorn and ridicule anyway? Do you know? Oh you are all grown up indeed.
And how do you know that I don’t possess a Phd? And why do we assume various titles like “atheist”, why are we so enamored with titles anyway? What truthful title has Father already given you, that you know not?
Yes, its true…if you knew Him, you would love Him. How could you not love…Love Himself?
You have much to learn my friend…you consider yourself wise in your own eyes, so your blindness remains.
AWAKE…and Christ will shine on you, YES EVEN YOU!
JC
@Daniel…
What we “see” in the physical (natural) realm with our natural eyes illustrates, teaches about the unseen (spiritual) that we can’t see so when we “see” Jesus ascend it depicts the spiritual as a plane, place “above”, meaning superior to the natural…not literally the “sky”. As the sky is above the earth, so the spiritual is above the natural.
“Heaven” is in the spirit realm, and that realm is “above” the natural, viewable realm. So…2 Cor 4:18 says…that which is visible (with the natural eye) is temporal (like our bodies) but that which is invisible (to the natural eye) is eternal, everlasting, impersihable.
The true spiritual journey is one from an external life to an internal one…where the Kingdom of heaven is…within you. Luke 17:21
“Revisionist history…from folks with Phd’s…stands for Piled High & Deep.”
I am blown away with unsurprise that John is anti-intellectual and anti-education.
Daniel…
Sorry, I went to lunch…none of this makes sense to our natural minds, only to a “renewed” mind. If, by faith (which is closely tied to love) we will anchor our existence and true identities in the eternal, spirit realm then the liberty of those truths will begin to manifest in our earthly, natural lives (may it be done on earth “the natural realm” as it is in heaven “the spiritual realm”)…because truth is always liberating.
Of course, to realize these spiritual liberties (here and now) for the kingdom Jesus unveiled is not merely in some “sweet bye & bye” we have to become as foolish “little children”and believe, really hear the words of Jesus. Few of us ever really hear, ever want to really hear.
We have so many pre-conceived, wrong notions about that dreaded thing we all love to hate…religion that we associate Christ with it when His real, true message & offer is a polar opposite to endless, pointless rule-keeping devoid of the motive of love.
Thats why I say….(ad nauseum…sp?) There is life…there is…more.
@Daniel…
Most “theists” don’t stick around here long do they? Sure, some jump in for a quick shot at you guys, get abused and run off only to magically re-appear” again at some later time only to quickly disperse again but not many hang with you guys. And why do I hang? Have you ever considered that…really? In light of all the abuse I take? ha.
So let me ask you…does my presence on UF provide a protagaonist/antagonist benefit, ie “live” ammo of sorts and a substantive contribution (in any way) to your vision or…not? I sincerely do not mind being the fox amongst the hounds seeing as I have no reputation of my own to protect (and oh how free’ing that is). Would you (honestly) prefer that I limit my presence, or fade away completely?(I’m asking Daniel…not you AOR…lol)
I have had numerous, interesting & enjoyable dialogues with many of your forum regulars over the last couple months…I can honestly say I appreciate them and care for them, even through this limited medium.
I am not expecting (or trying) to convert anyone to anything. That comes from a religious mindset. I have no quota, no “pressure” to perform, only to speak the truth in love. Loving God is a choice we make…individually. I can not make that choice for anyone but me.
Daniel, this is your (excellent) handiwork, vision, your blog and I have said numerous times how well crafted, thought out and impressive a forum it is. But while it is (technically speaking) a public forum I would still consider leaving, at your request if in fact that is your preference. Up until now you have not asked me to leave…are you asking me now?
Ball’s in your court D…
Nobody who denies that God created all men equally and endowed them with certain inalienable right ought to be allowed to hold pubic office, since that simple non denominational non-Christian non-Jewish non-Muslim merely theistic statement is the foundation of the whole frigin’ nation.
Many religions do NOT teach that all men are created equal, including Christianity. So not sure where you get the idea that this requires theism.
Is it not possible for a person to believe that all people are equal without also buying into the sky fairie concept?
Ty…
Where do you guys come up with this whole sky-God concept? I’m not being contentious, I’m seriously asking you. This is not what Jesus taught?? Is is because of all the art work over the years rendering God up in the sky??
I’m just curious…thx
And you, John C, were asked whether yoy believe that Jesus ascended into “Heaven”. From your reply:
““Heaven” is in the spirit realm, and that realm is “above” the natural, viewable realm. So…2 Cor 4:18 says…”
Well, I look above, and what do I see?
But people have been appealing to “the heavens” for divine help for generations. And though I’m not familar with prior conceptions of Heaven, I suspect that most believers have historically considered heaven to be “beyond the skies.”
God’s blessings arrived from the skies, his favourites ascended into them.
Yes, I know you weren’t being literal. But many are, and even those without literal belief appeal skyward. So we in turn use “Sky-man/fairy/spirit” as a shorthand reference to the massive pantheon.
I didnt start out quoting scripture, and neither does our spiritual journey into (His) light.
First, His spirit calls for ours…if we respond He leads us into deeper spiritual truths…into His very presence.
Lets dont get the proverbial cart before the horse.
Poor John C. is getting losted….
He can’t seem to find his way back into the threads in which people have challenged him with rebuttals and specific questions.
Sorry Daniel, Bill, professoryackle -
I think he’ll never find his way back there again.
@Winter…
Did you mean Genesis 1:6-10? Not 1 6:10? Cuz there is no such thing as 1 6:10??
You take this to mean the (air, sky) is the divider of heaven (literal heaven) and the literal earth? God dividing the “waters” form the “waters”?
Our original conversation here began with the idea of “sky fairies” if you will kindly remember…where are you going with this Winter?? I think we have gotten (way) off track my friend.
You can look for Him all you want “up there”, but you will not find Him there…my question to you is…exactly where can you find Him?
Back on point.
I would definitely bring it up. It’s discrimination and offensive. Like Adamus point out, if this law was talking about black people the howling would be outrageous. If people don’t make noise about it, nothing will happen.
Because practically speaking, the thing *was* killed by the Supreme Court quite a while ago. It’s dead-letter law. The point now is the symbolism of getting rid of the vestiges of legal discrimination by actually amending the constitution to remove the offending language.
Oh, you literal interpreationists… obviously, this passage is supposed to be metaphorical.
I agree. I’m a big fan of open carry, not so much a fan of concealed carry.
So you think Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Adams were Christians? Both Jefferson & Franklin were deists, and Adams was somewhere in-between Deism & Christianity.
Of course, slavery was also very important to the founders. Do you think we should go back to that, because they thought it was important and owned slaves themselves?
If not, then who cares about their position on atheism? They were wrong about slavey, and they were wrong about atheism.
“Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people…
“A religious people” and “a moral people” are not necessarily covalent. I know religious people who do the most despicable things, then confess, then go back and do the same things again. Whilst I am no judge, personally I think they are being immoral in their daily lives. I also know atheists who are kind, loving, and moral in every normal sense of the word.
If the constitution was made for religious and moral people, it should include atheists.
If you want to say that it was made for people who are BOTH religious and moral, you’d have to exclude many theists too. As Jesus (allegedly) said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. If you’re going to take heed of that, then the constitution applies to no one, because “all have sinned”.
Ah, but the xians could argue that a black person can’t change the colour of his/her skin whereas an atheist has made a choice in deliberately turning away from the lord and therefore doesn’t deserve to hold office. All said atheist has to do is turn to god and any perceived injustice is rectified.
lol
Literal interpretation or no, it’d still be interesting to see a test case of an FSM-ist try for public office in Arkansas.
I think a good compromise here is to consider each athiest as 3/5′s of a person. :(
I think we should glorify everything about our forefathers. (But not our foremothers – did they even exist? History doesn’t say much):
Go back to hard grinding agricultural or sweat-shop labor, child labor, grinding poverty, uncured disease, early deaths, deaths in childbirth, deaths in infancy, deaths in childhood. Women should “settle” for a good partner, says Lori Gottlieb – women shouldn’t divorce so easily or be so picky. Back then abuse and wife-beating were kept quiet as a private family matter. “Settle” for that, Lori Gottlieb! The agricultural life kept people out of getting education. Women not owning property.
Slavery, sure, if it was good enough for them, it’s good enough for us. Witch-hunts of any kind. Puritan judges and torturing? They didn’t kill witches back in old Salem; they killed people in old Salem. Inquisition anyone?
That’s what’s wrong with this country today: people are so new-fangled and immoral. We need to return to the good ol’ days!
In light of the aforementioned UU shooting and other incidents of violence towards people in church, I find it pretty reasonable for people to be able to arm themselves for defense. Our modern repugnance for the notion of an armed defense would have itself been out of place in other ages of Christian worship, where it would have been expected to be armed at all times during travel.
It is distasteful, I agree. As non-religious as I am, I still am offended by the desecration or disrespect of any religion’s sacred spaces (kind of in the same way that, although I am white, I am still VERY personally offended by racism against people who are not).
Religions or denominations which are the least offensive to me are ones which try to bring peace- personal, familial, political, local, whatever – to the believer and the believer’s circle of influence. I think peace is a noble goal for both atheists and religious people; however, point being, in Arkansas at least, whatever they’re doing isn’t working.
Christianity has obviously not brought peace to these people. Aren’t many of the people involved in recent church shootings either church members / Christians or former members / Christians? Not only are they unhappy enough to want to go shoot people, they feel that Christianity or this particular church is to blame for their unhappiness. That says to me that Christianity is incapable of providing either emotional OR physical “sanctuary” to these people, and in many cases, may have made their problems worse.
It was my impression that with the “sanctuary” laws in Europe, the threat was coming from outside the church – robbers, angry neighbors, the police, whatever, whereas in the States the threat is unhappy believers within the church. It was an issue of respect towards the priests and monks who were categorically forbidden to engage in violence, not because they were all packing and ready to defend the person who called for “sanctuary”. The Church in the States doesn’t seem to command that level of respect (or fear).
Unbelievers are fond of the term “deist” since it allows a concession of sorts w/o an outright acknowledgement. Simply because one does not go around shouting the name of Jesus at every turn, does not mean he or she is not a christian. Given the culture of the day, the associations, the articles, documents, letters, etc it would not be much of a stretch, in fact would be very “reasonable” to arrive at the conclusion that not only was Franklin, in all likelihood a “christian” but so were the majority of “deists” in that era.
While most of the conclusions about their particular “religious” persuasions are arrived at through a careful review of the historic records in public affairs, all one has to do is review the personal effects, ie last will & testament, church records, personal letters and belongings to easily arrive at the truth that not only were they “christians” but they were sincere and steadfast believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
C’mon D…typically you take the proverbial high road, not this time and I think you know it.
John C
Yeah! That’s what the FOUNDERS would have wanted! It MUST be right!
I can relate to Jefferson. He believed in the overall message of Jesus but denied the virgin birth, miracles, supernatural aspects, resurrection, and deity of Jesus. If you want to call him a Christian, fine. I guess you could also call me a non-theistic Christian as well.
Aha. I guess it’s difficult for me to get my head around it, being a modern English person, since we have very few legal guns over here.
I guess it’s lucky I don’t go to church.
On a more serious note, The one thing I find more scary then being in a crowded place and have some wacko start shooting is being in a crowded place where everyone is packing heat and start shooting back. The death toll will be a lot higher in scenario #2 especially since you are not required to show any competence in using a gun before the set you on the unsuspecting world armed to your teeth.
I’ll vote for that, just for fun.
I’ve read biographies on Adams and Franklin — Adams would be considered a liberal Christian in his doctrine. Franklin was definitely a Deist and so was Jefferson. As was Paine.
These are not terms to throw around just because — ask any historical scholar, and they’ll say Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin were Deists. It was quite popular in intellectual circles back then. Pain even wrote an entire book on it, which is excellent, called “The Age of Reason.”
Franklin called himself an Deist in his own autobiography (see chapter 4).
Regarding Thomas Jefferson, the theologian Avery Dulles concluded:
He was a Deist for a long time, but later in life became more Unitarian, but was still Deistic. But he never believed in the divinity or miracles of Jesus.
The Heinleinian notion is that most people who would otherwise start shooting would be discouraged by the almost certain and quick death they would receive upon initiating aggression. It’s like a mutually assured destruction dynamic, only with little lead pellets instead of nuclear weapons.
How did he put it? “The armed society is a polite society.”
For people of a conservative mindset, there is inherent virtue in sticking with convention. There’s an interesting TED talk about sociological differences between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives,’ and it seems to be a cross-cultural phenomenon.
Anyway, one of the conclusions they came to was that we frequently reach an impasse when confront each other, because liberals cannot convince conservatives that the value of changing something outweighs the value of keeping it the same. Conversely, conservatives have trouble relating to liberals, who have no deep seated respect for tradition and convention.
This is a huge part of the disagreement about gay marriage. Liberals say “let’s change a definition,” and conservatives say “you can’t change a definition, it’s a definition!” We get stuck in this head-butting match between “change is good, don’t you get it?” and “change is bad, don’t you get it?”
I think the same thing is happening here: “the founders said X” vs. “nothing is sacred.”
I just love the “What would the founders think?” question.
They would probably wonder why there are so many “Darkies” and women in positions of authority.
Revisionist history…from folks with Phd’s…stands for Piled High & Deep.
If you feel it’s revisionist (and it’s not), feel free to show what some “non-revisionist” historians have to say about the issue. I doubt you’ll find anyone except fundie Christians, like yourself, claiming they were Christians.
John C
If you are sincerely interested you should check wikipedia for Jefferson’s Bible, in which he separates the moral teaching of Jesus from the Supernatural. See Jefferson’s letter to Adams. I mean, if you want to know what Jefferson really believed.
I still think the right of every citizen to bear arms is not the answer. If guns were not as universally (and legally) available, there would not be anything like the number of shootings. There are far fewer in England, and the two major ones in modern times – Hungerford ’87 and Dunblaine ’96 – resulted in the gun laws being tightened up.
However, this is digressing from the topic of the blog. I guess my assumption that Arkansas xians’ desire to bring guns to church was sacrilegious, might have been a knee-jerk reaction.
Even so: don’t they trust their God to save them from shootings? Why didn’t he, at UU?
We know the answer to that, but what’s their rationale ?
Yeah, I was already having visions of Waco, and then you said it too.
Polite, my ass ;-)
That is empirically not true. Britain is more polite than Texas.
What he expected to happen is that people would think “that guy might have a gun. I’d better not do anything to offend him”. What they actually think, though, is “I have a gun. I can say any damn thing I want, because I can back it up with violence.”
I think it’s the difference between conservatism as a temperament and conservatism as an ideology. I’m temperamentally conservative (am skeptical of the necessity of change without convincing demonstration of a defect in the status quo) but think that ideological conservatism (the idea that there was once a great society with great morals and nice crisp edges that we could get back to if only we punish difference and dissent harshly) is downright silly at best and horrific at worst.
Ideological conservatism is what most people are dealing with when they are talking about conservatism in American politics. Hence, such a silly desire to hold on to laws that aren’t even active anymore is more a product of a yearning for an illusory past that a given ideology holds up as an ideal, and less about the temperamental differences that Elliot referred to. Now, a temperamental conservative bent can cause a person to *tend* to gravitate towards more ideological conservatism, or sympathize with some of its goals, but it is by no means an isomorphism.
A very important distinction to draw. Thanks Elemenope.
Although neither entails the other, I think that there is nonetheless a strong correlation between ideological and tempermental conservatism.
I was originally commenting on Daniel’s little quip “That’s what the FOUNDERS would have wanted! It MUST be right!”
Even though we can all agree that denying atheists our rights is wrong, I can still picture my (ideologically and tempermentally) conservative relatives rolling their eyes at the news that this worthless old law was being challenged.
The point is, the reflexive reaction to change is strong, and not necessarily based on the issue itself. The mechanism may be closely linked to ‘personality type’ or something similar.
It goes 5 deep (total) because that’s what I have it set to. If that doesn’t seem enough, I can raise it, but I don’t want the column to get too narrow.
However, you can reply to the comment above the 5th one and still get it close. :)
@Professor…
You hit my hot button…wasn’t intending to single you out, rather as a general refuting of revisionist agenda’s. When I look back on my post, it comes across as more personally aggressive than I intended…than was necessary, and while I stand by my general position, my sincere apologies for any (seemingly) directed angst.
Sincerely,
John C
They aren’t right because they have phDs. They’re right because they’re right.
Also, if the nation was so deeply Christian at its founding, how do you explain the Treaty of Tripoli (1799)? Article 11 of the threat reads:
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; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.
Many of these founders were involved in its drafting, negotiation and ratification. The full text of the treaty was printed in major newspapers at the time, for perusal by the citizenry, and yet nobody objected to it in print (which as you know, nobody back then was shy to do if they had a problem). It was unanimously ratified, and signed by the president without any fuss.
Article 11 of the threat reads: should read Article 11 of the treaty reads:
Fast clumsy fingers. :)
Dunblane should have ended with the enforcement of the laws being tightened up, rather than new laws being introduced.
I’m no fan of private gun ownership, but the law as written at the time completely forbade Hamilton from owning a gun; adding new laws that were equally poorly enforced and wouldn’t have done anything to affect this shooting was not the right answer.
@ prof
“Even so: don’t they trust their God to save them from shootings? ”
I don’t think most christian believers, whatever denomination or interpretation, think that God promises they are going to be safe at all times. Many believers at that time were killed.
‘He has no interest in “Godbots” ‘
I love the way you assert Jebus’s position with such certainty and authority, John. There’s no way the limited direct (and contradictory) words of Khrist in the NT can give you such certainty. Oh, wait…I know…you heard it on the road to Damascus … (ahem … VA). Your claims for divinely inspired knowledge are as vacuous as your use of the classic conservative ploy of attacking the intellectual when someone presents proof that contradicts your prejudices and superstitions. You don’t earn a PhD reading one badly-written book and parroting its superstitions because you ‘feel the truth in your heart’ and you have faith and you just believe. You earn a PhD through many long years of hard reading and research. But we all know knowledge frightens you John–you wouldn’t want to have to engage your ‘god-given’ brain anytime soon, because you’d discover the same things we did about the Sky Fairy.
I’ll give you credit for finally showing a little bit of a human side, though. You can’t whitewash your earlier post–there’s some anger seething around there under all the ‘love’. Let’s see a little more of the real John–take off your televangelist suit for a while and show us your humanity. You’re going to be molecules like the rest of us in a few decades at best John–and that’s where it all ends. You’ve got your ticket, but you’re wasting your ride!
sorry i wasn’t clear. When i said “Many believers at that time were killed” i was thinking about how those close to Jesus and in that time were killed. so if those close to Jesus didn’t expect to always be safe it’s silly for us to think that.
I guess however there are still places around the world where they would not be safe.
never the less i thought i’d clarify.
I think you’re right about that. In Iraq for instance, I understand most known xians have been killed. The question remains though, why does god allow some deaths yet – according to xians – save others? And why in the bible does it say he won’t allow a single hair on your head to be harmed? (I guess this is now o/t and more suited to the miracles thread)
John, didn’t Jesus ascend into the sky? Where do you think he is now in his resurrected human body?
“You are simply another ill-informed God hater”
That’s better JC! A bit of heat there…keep at it, you might find yourself.
I’m not a hater–though I know you’d like to think so–frustrated by the waste of a good mind is probably closer to the mark. Chances are I’d like you a lot–if I could know the man not the christian.
But you’re right on one thing JC–I’ve been attacking you probably more than anyone. Primarily because I find your patterned responses so superficial. My hostility isn’t warranted–Daniel invited everyone here to debate the issues, and that’s what you’re doing. It’s your beliefs I hate–they inevitably demonise some people no matter how good your intentions. But for going after you personally I apologise.
Like many of the others it means I’ll also probably just ignore your posts from now on unless you can say something that genuinely engages my mind.
Who are you, John, to call JT for ‘making assumptions’? Pot-kettle-black, anyone?
As per usual, you have not properly addressed the points I made, nor the debate in general. You make all kinds of assumptions. For example, you have assumed I am some kind of professor because of my nym.
I also do not think I can take your apology seriously. You most certainly did mean the things you said in your first reply, albeit you probably didn’t think too hard before posting them. What I think you’re really apologising for is showing yourself up as someone who does have anger and other “negative” emotions inside, which is at odds with your “jesus is LOVE… he is WITHIN…” stance.
All this love love… LOVE stuff you preach makes me want to puke. Especially because, as you have shown, and others on here have also noticed, it’s totally false in your case.
I have no issues with you as a valid human being. It’s just your arguments which suck.
Is this all a jumble in your mind, or does it actually make sense to you?
John C will not take part in any rational discussion. The man claims he is not the same species as atheists are. He claims atheists cannot feel love the way he can. He tries hard to hide his bigotry but it inevitably shows up in his diatribes. He doesn’t actually care about discussion, he only wants an opportunity to stand on his soapbox and yell out his bullshit. He is a streetcorner preacher. He comes here to witness, not to convince or reason or take part in discussions. In his mind, simply babbling those crazy claims is doing the will of some fairytale creature.
He will never concede a point, never admit any flaws or errors in his mindless chatter. Since he will not concede any points it is fruitless to try to make any. I long ago chose to use ridicule on this man because it is much more likely to get a change in his behavior than reason. He is unable to reason, but clearly is able to feel shame. Engaging him in rational conversation is a waste of everyone’s time.
And yet in another post, he says “And how do you know that I don’t possess a Phd?” I think he wants the kudos without having to work for it. Or maybe he’s just suffering from good old-fashioned jealousy.
Like Aor, I think I’m done with attempting to talk to him.
So if we can’t understand it, why bother? Has your preaching ever been successful to any atheists around here?
And he has been “out to lunch” long before, and ever since.
The illumination of the mind by the spirit enables the full spectrum of human potential within it…many of the great thinkers were devoted followers, full of Christ…many inventions, discoveries, etc have come from God-lovers over the centuries.
Creative, rich, imaginative literature, story-telling, fairy tales (dont get me started…lol) are “christian” contributions as well.
Btw…I am usually pretty docile, crazy maybe according to your colleagues but I think if you caught certain forum fav’s in a candid moment they would attest to my mostly being respectful, civil, etc. Hmm…maybe Wintermute, Teleprompter, LRA, Metro…even our beloved founding father Daniel may (or may not) come to my defense in this regard. I will admit to having serious tired-head today…way too much coffee yesterday resulting in zero sleep last night…so there, I’m human too!
Take care JK
“After further review” lol…no I was not apologizing for what I said, only that, in this limited medium w/o the benefit of voice inflection, tone expression it is sometimes difficult to adequately convey a particular position in the true spirit in which it was intended…that’s all.
Yes, the founding Father’s were pre-dominantly big time believers in and (more importantly) lovers of Jesus Christ.
JC
Well, at least you’re respectful when I can understand you.
:P
John, I’m not asking you to leave. And I do enjoy some of your comments. In this comment, for instance, I can understand most of what you are saying.
However, I do wish you’d stop talking in riddles. Talking that way to us is not effective and is just frustrating. If you are going to make spiritual assertions, you must be prepared to back them up with clear evidence. If you can’t, I wouldn’t mention them. We’re not children that simply believes what some spiritual guru says.
“Most “theists” don’t stick around here long do they? Sure, some jump in for a quick shot at you guys, get abused and run off only to magically re-appear” again at some later time only to quickly disperse again but not many hang with you guys. And why do I hang? Have you ever considered that…really? In light of all the abuse I take? ha.”
Some theists have juse enough sense to be embarrassed and leave when the realization that they are in way over their heads and have run out of ammo.
Others, sadly, just run around shouting, “pew pew pew, HA I got you, pew pew pew, I win, pew pew pew.”
If that’s the case, why did they lie about it in their autobiographies, books, letters, and other writings? Why do you claim to know more about their beliefs than they knew themselves?
Genesis says that God made the sky to separate Earth from Heaven. Therefore, the bible says that heaven is literally and physically above the Earth.
Moses climbed a mountain to receive the Ten Commandments because that meant he’d be meeting God halfway. Because he believed that God lived in the sky.
Elisha and Elijah heard the voice of god coming from the sky.
Jesus was seen to ascend into the sky on his way to heaven.
Are you really so confused about why people think the bible speaks of a god in the sky? Just because you assume these are all codes for something completely unrelated doesn’t mean that everyone else subscribes to your unique revisionist view.
@Metro & Winter…
G’morning guys, good to hear from the faithful, hope this finds you well. Btw…Metro…”massive pantheon” ha, kudo’s there, how creative…funny, loved it. And Winter…I think you just coined a new term…revisionist believer…lol…I like it.
When I say “above” that means “superior” to in quality or condition. The spirit realm is a higher/superior realm than the physical realm we are entombed in currently.
If sky, spirit, heaven are, as you imply essentially interchangeable terms…then how is it that I am to “walk in the spirit” (realm) now (meaning abide there, live there) as Paul implores while I am yet encased in the (natural) flesh realm, ie my body? How is this possible?
Now I realize you two are musing about my (delusional, ha) world for the sake of our discussions, but tell me, was Paul just as nutty as me? Afterall, he was a highly educated hebrew scholar of the “law” right? But he (divinely inspired) instructs believers to walk (again…live, abide, reside) in the spirit realm in the here and now while we are still in our…physical bodies! ??? How is this??
The answer to this is the answer to our current question.
And how is the kingdom of heaven within us as Jesus said. If so then there must be more to man(kind) than meets the eye.
Or…where does Christ reside?? (if He is at all) you might answer me…Heaven, right? Then how is it that the “mystery of the ages is…Christ IN you? Col 1:27.
How are we (believers, His ecclesia meaning called out ones) the “body of Christ”?
Remember the tabernacle in the OT? It had three compartments right? And so do we…we are a picture of the tabernacle. It had the outer court (our bodies), the holy place (our soul, mind, will, emotions) and finally the holy of holies, (our spirit where He resides within and is united to our spirit). So Paul says…know ye not that ye are the temple (tabernacle, dwelling place) of the holy spirit?? The spiritual life is a progression from an externally focused existence to an inward…life, His life in us.
Now I ask the age old question that King David (wrote most of the psalms) asks…what is man that thou art mindful of Him? Ps 8:4.
Is there more to you guys, a latent “container” potential?
What is man? What are we…really?
Just askin guys..
Muse on,
JC
One of your more lucid posts John…so I will reply.
“The spirit realm is a higher/superior realm than the physical realm we are entombed in currently.”
Sorry, but there is no proof of this statement or that another realm even exists.
“how is it that I am to “walk in the spirit” (realm) now ”
Exactly. You are not. Simply claiming something does not make it true.
“And how is the kingdom of heaven within us as Jesus said. If so then there must be more to man(kind) than meets the eye.”
And how does one claim that the bible is accurate or even the inspired word of god….other than it claims to be? And at this point are we not begging the question? The Koran has a very different view on things…as does every religious text.
Quoting scripture means nothing to people who do not understand it to be the inspired word of god.
Sure; why not? Are you trying to suggest that lawyers are all sane and sober people without any strange beliefs? Because I’ve worked with a few, and in my experience, they’re liable to be as nutty as the next guy.
Oh, and you don’t address why Genesis says that the sky is a literal, physical barrier between Earth and heaven. Is there a reason for this oversight, or do you just not want to admit that you can’t think of an alternate meaning for this clear statement?
Did you eat de-”bonified” chicken for dinner?
*snort*
Ha! As Bill noted in other forums, he also “majors in the minors” (his own term) and refuses to address any direct questions on the major issues, like what he believes about hell.
@Winter…
No, it does NOT say in Genesis that the sky is a literal, physical barrier between Earth and heaven.
You completely avoided my comments about the real nature of man…you just cant imagine that there is more to you than you can see…with your eyes can you Winter?
You dont HAVE a soul, you HAVE a body, you ARE a soul. CS LEWIS
But honestly…I prefer his “master”, the brilliant George MacDonald, Scottish author, minister from the 1800′s…did I say brilliant?? lol
JC
Genesis 1 6:10. The firmament of the sky separates the waters of Earth from the waters of heaven.
Go on. Surprise us. What is this code for?
We have threads now. Even if you ever do decide to quit evading answering others’ questions directly, you’ll have to scroll up.
Up… up… it’s up there… you have to scroll up there… toward God… toward the sky… or at least toward the top of the page.
Oh, my apologies for slightly misformatting it. Clearly, it was good enough for you to be able to figure out what I meant. Feel free to feel superior for the rest of the day, if you feel the need.
I don’t take it to mean anything. I’m just pointing out what it says. The firmament of the sky separates the waters of heaven from the waters of Earth. For more on the same theme, Genesis 7:11 describes heavy rain by saying “the windows of heaven were opened”, thus letting the water that is above the sky fall down onto Earth. Or do you believe that the floodwater spewed out from inside Noah?
2 Samuel 21:10 uses the same imagery. Genesis 1:20 says that birds fly in the open firmament of heaven.
So, you ask why people think that the Christian god is supposed to live in the sky, and I respond with scriptural references that say that heaven is above the Earth, and that’s getting off the point? It seem to be exactly the point, to me. What kind of responses were you expecting?
And my answer is “exactly nowhere”. Though some people think they’ve found something that they mistake for a god.
Thanks Brandon…good one.