Spiritualism and/vs Christianity

[all_outta_angst]

i think your assessment of the bible should be taken into consideration by many christians.  if they are going to take any scripture from old test or new, they have to abide by there own rules.  ex: homosexuality verses are mainly from old.  anything that most christians consider occult has to result in death as punishment.  "suffer a witch to live" it was demanded.  and i doubt very very much when jesus died on the cross and abolished some laws of the time included not burning witches.

i think when the bible refers to spirits, speaks into context of angels and demons, but you are right that spirit could imply us to because we are spiritual beings whether we are expired or not

[Advent]

Exodus chapter 22 verse 18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, the infamous Law of Moses that sent thousands to their deaths, was actually miss translated or miss interpreted. In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah to describe the person who should be killed, which means, a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others.

Clearly "evil sorceress" or "woman who does evil magic" would be the most accurate phrases in today's English usage for this verse.

The most accurate translation can be found in the, “The Answer” and “New Century Version”

“Put to death any woman who does evil magic”.

[Antdog2181]

I have read your story, "My interactive Ghost."  I'm not sure what baptists believe as far as the afterlife, but I'm going to assume, like Catholics/Protestant's, believe there is a separation of souls from heaven and earth...yet still accept that the spiritual world and the physical world are connected.  Hmmmmm...i call that hypocritical don't you agree?

Heck...from my understanding...God has not yet risen the soul's of the dead...and won't until the second coming.  That's probably where R.I.P comes from...again that's my own assumptions from my understanding of the bible.

I agree with you Advent...most people from church would demonize you and "burn you at the stake" for your thoughts on such subjects outside of Christ.  The least they could do is bring some marsh mellows. 

Remember, there are passages in the bible where Ghosts do exist.  King Saul's ghost Samuel.  Many Christian's believe that this was in fact a demonic being manifesting itself...BUT...and this is a huge ASS...
1.God distinctly allows it.  "The message Samuel gave Saul was completely accurate. God allowed the witch of Endor to summon the prophet Samuel in order to give King Saul the news of his coming defeat and death."
2.Nowhere in the book does it ever imply that it was anyone BUT the ghost of Samuel. 

So some naysayers would try to explain through their ass that always starts with the same sentence,  "....maybe God...ex: allowed, used, planned etc..."  We cannot read between the lines if there IS NO CONTEXT of analogy or facsimile.  That's like putting words in God's mouth and I'm sure (if He existed) wouldn't be pleased about it.  "using the Lord's name in vain"  God has used and allowed demons to attack believers, but it was intentional "Ananias and Sapphira"  It's not ever implied with Samuel.

Another important note.  When the disciples were chilling out on the water and saw Jesus walk on it...(maybe he was strutting and singing the BeeGees "staying alive"...who knows)...the disciples become scared and think he's a ghost.  Jesus responds (i'll paraphrase)  "Hey, chill daddy-O.  It's all good....dig it."  So a believer would ask...so what?

Well...SO WHAT!?  Let me put this into context.  His followers have been taught to drive evil spirits and demons out.  They had the oral authority through God to exorcise demons and probably did A LOT.  (not to be confused with exercising demons).  that's evil on another level

So why would His disciples be afraid of a ghost if they were able to drive demons out?  Not to mention that Jesus literally says, do not be afraid, i'm not a Ghost...that, to me, implies that spirits don't necessarily mean angelic, or demonic.  Dig it.

For once Angst I agree completely with your statement above.  No further comments.

[all_outta_angst]

If I still went to Church and had my own beliefs, i would seek out other denominations (not to join), but to approach pastors,teachers,priests, for their interpretation of certain bible passages.  I would cross reference them and bring in different viewpoints to my Church pastor for his input.  Heck, even try to bring the two together to discuss what the Bible means. 

It's uncanny how we each can interpret the bible in so many ways to fit our own agenda as if were abstract art.  If I were a great spiritual leader who said something so black and white like, "No dancing....period".  Many devout believers would place that context into the cultural and political atmosphere of the time.  he meant no dancing because back then it was frowned upon/evil/sin/uncouth/ugly etc.... but it's okay now because.....Jesus died...and so forth.  Well...that's where the challenge comes in...which rules are abolished, and which ones should be kept? 

There are many many laws that dictate the killing of woman, men, and even children back in the fun days...but a lot of it was cultural.  What some Muslim woman can and cannot wear, what they can eat...what Christians can and cannot do....are old laws that used religion to further agenda.

For me...I can not divide faith and religion, because the two depend on each other for order in chaos.  I have contempt for both.  Even some cultural norms that some communities,nations, or castes have taboos and no value to me because they also can hold onto archaic beliefs that can become outdated.  "We do it because we have to"  "It's our culture"  Before I start bashing popular or even important events some may find a part of their lives...let me say that this breeds a certain inclusiveness that excludes outsiders  from being part of the human family.  Rather than embracing ourselves as individuals, it's lost to becoming part of something "bigger" that doesn't necessarily gives two shits about you until you descent.  It's okay to have traditions that we can enjoy...but we need to realize that we are a small part of a much bigger world than our own.

Not everyone has to live their life according to our own...but just because they don't does not make one person less moral than another.  Just different.  Fear.  That's what folks need to understand...a fear of change.  Like religion, the definition of a nuclear family (church going or not) has changed dramatically today because of change.  There are people that think others are inferior because of their lifestyle...and they actually fear things like gay parents teaching their kids to become gay....

Like in the same token that many many gay and lesbian individuals came from mom and pop homes.....yeah...thanks mom and pop...Being a hetero, I can't willfully become gay.
It's frowned upon in society that some parents...*gasp* still spank their kids.  Now don't get me wrong...I used to adamantly say and encourage that it's okay to spank, as long as it doesn't cross the boundaries into beating.  Do some kids need to be beaten?  I used to think so...until I started thinking about the change in our mentality.   Maybe some kids don't need a good beating to learn something.  Your generation and mine probably learned a lot of lessons because we got spanked....but it should be looked upon as a last resort, if at all.  When any parent has a good relationship with their kids...I guarantee 100 percent of the time, no belt is needed.

animals use physical discipline because they lack vocal communication to get their points across...we have a means to do that..even though...yes, I agree...spanking can be a good form of punishment....but if we can avoid having to punish a child to begin with by addressing issues that lead to that behavior in the first place...that's an improvement.  And as I hear of more and more parents raising kids and not having to raise their hand against another human being...these kids are growing up WELL BEHAVED too.  maybe faith and religion can learn something from our changing society and embrace it, rather than fear change.

after all, it used to be that kids are meant to be seen not heard.....
i'm glad not many human burnings happen any more...

Here's a thought...what do you think when you hear of a satanic cult killing dogs and cats to their god of darkness...evil huh....what is?  The sacrificing of an animal?  or the giving to Lucifer?

God used to like animals being sacrificed to Him because he liked the smell.  That's it...He just like the smell.
So what makes devil worship more evil?  The fact that they would kill an innocent animal?  Or that their God is just plain evil?....unless your okay with animal sacrificing....my point has sailed away already.

Even though we're not supposed to do that anymore....what do you think of the very notion that to do otherwise in old testament is sin?  What is moral code?  Good and evil from a Christian/Muslim perspective is only if you disagree from God.  If he says jump and you don't...that's "morally" wrong and maybe....

punishable by spanking.

[Advent]

Hi Angst. You asked.

“Well...that's where the challenge comes in...Which rules are abolished, and which ones should be kept?”

(To answer your question I need to quote passages from the Bible. It is not my intention to preach to this forum.)

It is less than a challenge than you may think. You can’t obey one of Gods laws and ignore another. In other words you can’t pick and choose.

“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (James Ch2 V10).

And on the subject of abolishing any of the laws, Jesus said this:

“17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew Ch5 V17-20).

Well, unless you made any sacrifices lately it sounds all doom and gloom. But there is hope for us yet. The Bible is not so much abstract, but cryptic. Jesus had Pharisees waiting round every corner wanting to trip him up. Jesus didn’t want to reveal himself until he was ready. So he sowed seeds along the way. Notice in verse 18 “until everything is accomplished”. What Jesus had to accomplish was the ultimate sacrifice, and that was to sacrifice himself to fulfill the law, and die for our sins.

The moment Jesus died on the cross, he spoke these words:

“When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John Ch19 V30).

“50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split” (Matthew Ch27 V50 & 51).

The curtain in the temple covered the entrance to the Holly of Hollies, the most inner sanctum of the temple. It was where the Arch of the Covenant was once kept. No man except for the high priest on certain days of the year was allowed access. The curtain symbolized man’s separation from God, through sin. At the moment of Christ’s death on the cross, man had direct access to God. When Jesus cried out from the cross, “It is finished”, everything from the beginning to the end had been achieved. He is the Alfa and the Omega.

“Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans Ch10. V4).

We are absolved from the law by grace through our belief in Christ. I believe we are atoned from the whole law of the prophets, because the scriptures don’t mention any specific laws.

This is my own personal belief as I understand it. If anybody needs to correct me on this, please post your reply?




“Belief is in the heart, religion is going to church, and faith is needed to walk on water”. ~Advent~
 

[all_outta_angst]

i understand your argument for Jesus' fulfilling the "gap" by dying on the cross.  However, I think a ton of old testament scripture were heavily influenced by the practices and cultures of the time, and less of the actual alpha and omega.  I mean...I can't really put words into God's mouth, but my belief is that either God is a complete something in old test...or man created this perverse war crazed "God" to fit the agenda's of the elite.  But I really don't know...Jesus does condemn those "holiness" within the church but he never really mentions the weird laws being misquoted or misguided.  Sort of...He treats prostitutes with respect and shuns "righteous" bureaucrats and lawmakers of the time...(for good reason)...but I fail to find the "for good enough reason" when it comes to genocide.  God and Jesus (who are the same?!) are two different very dichotomous personalities.

What does not make the most sense to me within Christianity, is this.  It's easy to condemn how "evil" people were back in the day for God to smite people on a mass scale...but I don't think we're any morally better today than we were 4000 years ago.  Just because Jesus died for A LOT....makes God look like He was pissed off for a very very very long time..and then had a son...and all of sudden...became the Cool dad?! 

The bible lacks consistency on a significant level from the loving creator we romanticize.  And in the same vain followers can justify that God was rightfully and morally sufficient when it's okay to eliminate woman children and men.  Wow....Let's bring this into more perspective...It makes more sense to me that God did not command these old wars to be fought...but you'd find hesitant Christians to argue otherwise.  God's word is God's word if it's in the bible.  I think man wrote and perverted the bible...(if God does exist or not)

Let's hypothetically look at the mass killings of Jews in world war 2.  I will say this ONCE.  I am NOT comparing Jesus or God to Hitler.  Let's just simply look at the victims that happened to be born Jewish.
Imagine how many innocent man, woman, and child being slaughtered....for evil intentions or good....that's not my point.  For WHATEVER reason they were slaughtered....how does anyone justify one Jew being killed...or two....or even three.  Like the victims being killed in WW2...how does anyone justify  the mass genocides of old test?  Certainly, not everyone could have been guilty right?  But again....we interpret that God did in fact command old bloody wars.  And today...many more will be fought in God's name.  Modern Christians interpret these same people as zealous extremists (though they are not true Christians.  What makes a true Christian?  If you and I know...then we'd be able to condemn certain denominations.  A christian that will kill in the name of God will always interpret killing and murder differently.  What worked in the old ways does not mean God is not pleased with extremism today.  Jesus may have died on the cross for our sins...but he did not abolish wars to be fought in His name.  We just choose to say it's a spiritual war nowadays...it's not. 

If we are created in the image of God...we in fact do have war in our DNA.  War will always be justified because the excuse lies in the opposition.  World peace is a mere thought.....and death will inconvenience us all. 

[Advent]

      God has not changed; he is the same now as he was in the time of Abraham. It is our relationship with God that has changed, through Christ.
     The genealogy of Jesus is recorded back to Abraham, as stated in Matthew chapter 1 verse 1 to 17. The whole history of the Old Testament leads to Jesus dying on the cross. That entire lineage needed to be protected in order for man to be reconciled with God. Jesus needed to be pure, without sin, and without the sins of his forefathers, to be the perfect sacrifice for the atonement of our sins. God is divine, and made everything so.

You ask, what is a true Christian? A Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, and is baptized in his name.

[all_outta_angst]

If there weren't laws against the killing of another person today, there would still be Christians that would murder in the name of God.  I believe the only reason western society does not condone killing is because of the repercussions of the law and because of the law, not "morals". 

God has not changed; he is the same now as he was in the time of Abraham. It is our relationship with God that has changed, through Christ.

I would strongly disagree with this statement.  Old testament God and New testament God are polar characterizations of itself.

That entire lineage needed to be protected in order for man to be reconciled with God

ummm...He ordered the destruction of thousands of genealogies to "protect Abraham's lineage.  It's hard to place into context something that happened so so long ago...but let's say for argument sake that it were today that God ordered YOU to destroy (let's replace Sodom and Gomorrah) with "sin city".  Every man woman and child, toddler, and baby.  Only the just and righteous will be saved, but that does not include all babies by the way.  In fact, many will die.

Lot and the sacrifice of his son...Even if God "allegedly" never meant for Lot to actually kill his son...what kind of father would actually command that for the sake of testing him?  That is cruel no matter how you want to justify that.  If any human did that...you or I would crucify that person and that type of mentality (i know you would)...but God gets a free pass altogether for reasons I know not...oh yeah...an innocent animal was sacrificed instead all because God made a wager with the devil....

Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall  have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.-- Is.13:18

children? 
most Christians would defend God with this argument.  Here's an excerpt from a Christian advocating God.  (full source at the end)

 

In some instances, God ordered the killing of entire populations, presumably including the killing of babies and children. Isn't God unrighteous in killing these innocent little ones? First of all, the Bible indicates that all people are sinners,⁸ including babies,⁹ and worthy of judgment.¹⁰ However, the Bible also indicates that children are incapable of making moral choices, so that they are automatically rewarded with heaven.¹¹ So, in having babies killed, God is actually doing them a favor, since, if they had grown up opposed to God, they would have gone to hell. If God were to have spared some of the children, it would have been difficult to determine the cutoff age. A one-year old is probably still relatively uncorrupted by his parents, but what about a two-year old? I have personally seen a number of spoiled two-year olds who had already been corrupted by their parents.

"http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html"

So...can you be guilty of a crime before you commit one?  The bible and Christians infer that we are born unto sin.  Guilty guilty guilty.  It also infers that sin can pass on like traits from your parents.  ex:  If your dad screws another woman other than his wife..and you are born....sorry kiddo...

I believe...that children are born with a clean slate and without sin...I disagree with God.  I will never condone killing a child EVER.  How do believers compartmentalize this?  Even justify it...If you can Justify God killing one baby...you can justify MUCH MUCH more glory killings for the sake of His kingdom.  The line is never drawn in the sand.

Exodus "The Lord is a man of war."15:3.  He is also a God of peace...so he's more yin and yang...then what the new testament would like to portray.

15:9     my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.
God lusts in killing?  Even if he deserved a smiting...it's interesting to note none the less.

"A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed." 21:15,17   I don't think Jesus abolished this rule.  We should bring it back...oh yeah...laws.....good thing for separation of Church and State.

anyways....There are much much more insane things the bible talks about, but if you believe, I can't change that.  I don't mean to bring up bible verses to condemn God..but question why a believer reacts first with Defending God than weeping for the murdered children.  The answer?

Because we can't put into context what it was like back then.  We can't fathom being in the crossfires of old testament in His holy war.  We would rather subscribe to the idea that today's battle is much more spiritual than physical. 

For me...if anyone annihilated another human being for the sake of uplifting oneself, or higher authority...they are subject to my condemnation of what transpired.


If God is indeed everything

He is both:
Vengeful and forgiving.
Loving and Hateful
Jealous and compassionate
there is a yin to His yang which is why the two biblical sides are dichotomous.  He seems enraged one moment and jealously obsessive for your Love. 

I would not obsesses with a mortal love not returned....why does God?  The vengeful part comes in the form of being cast away into hell.

Why does God not just obliterate something He creates?  but instead keeps them alive to suffer eternity as punishment?  We are technically forced to Love god to enter heaven or the punishment is death and hell.  What about a husband that kills his wife for leaving?  Is he wrong if he's jealous in the same context as God?

It would seem the highest road to take...is to wish an old lover all the best in future endeavors.  It is selfish to wish an ex to the lowest depths of sorrow and pain...don't you think?

[Advent]

      The Old Testament is the largest and most difficult book of the Bible to understand. My last two posts are based upon Christian teaching at Upton Vale Baptist Church during the 1980’s, which is an interpretation I agree with. As I said before, the Church rarely covered the Old Testament. But during the 1980’s we had a gifted minister by the name of David Coffey, who could interpret very deeply into the relationship of the Old and New Testaments. It’s his interpretations and observations of the Bible I tend to follow, which are acknowledged throughout the Baptist movement.
    Testing the sprits interpretation though, came from me.

    It was Abraham that God commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac, in order to test him. I believe God wanted to test Abraham’s loyalty and honesty. It is easy to be honest when there are no consequences, but more difficult when there’s a cost. Abraham past the test, and God was pleased with him, and blessed him many times. God provided Abraham with a ram to sacrifice instead, and spared Isaac. God had no intention of letting Isaac be sacrificed.   

Regarding; “he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation”, from Exodus.

6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus Ch 34 V6-7).

Sin didn’t just mean doing something naughty and getting a slapped wrist. It meant being contaminated. I was told many years ago, what the verse was referring to, was sexual disease and genetic disorders. If you think about it, we wouldn’t have diseases like hepatitis B, syphilis, or aids, if the guidance of the Bible was followed. Jesus’ blood line needed to be kept pure, and that is what I meant when I said, his genealogy needed to be protected.

Regarding the thousands of deaths in the Biblical wars; this only concerns the Israelites thousands of years ago, and not Christians of today. The Biblical wars were total wars, which meant women and children also died. It is called collateral damage today. Mankind has done far worse in modern times than ever happened back then.

Christians aren’t being just restrained by the law, our Christian forefathers laid down the foundations for the law. The law was written around Christian principles.

[rudywalsh]

Jesus would have been a superior being no doubt, especially been the son of god, a direct descendent.
Surely he must have been aware that his presence alone would result in the deaths of millions of people.
I’m one of those strange folk who live with Aspergers (Autism)
I have experienced and seen what the human mind can do, Telepathy, Out of body experiences, Bi-locational out of body experiences, (being in two places at the same time) Knowing or sensing when people are going to die, premonitions, knowing the time without the aid of a time, these things and more occur through-out my life because I was made different.
I’m not alone; there are many autistic people who can do things with their mind that defy science, and religion dare I say.
I believe all the above things I have mentioned to do with the mind, happen because it’s somehow linked to our evolving, our mind(Spirit) works through us, over time we will be capable of things we can’t even imagine yet, that’s evolution.

Back to my point about Jesus.
From what I can gather, it sounds like Jesus possessed foresight and had the ability to heal with his hands, I’m guessing when I say that he must have been a very developed being mind wise, fully evolved even, if so, once again he must have been aware that his presence would result in the death, humiliation, starvation and torture of millions of people.
It’s fascinating for me when I think of Jesus and his existence; he would have been a genius if he could do the things that have been written about him in the bible.
I truly believe that one person can change the world, Jesus had insight, he must have known the future, I wonder if he were around today, if he would say that his presence was a good thing or not, good for all mankind that is, past and present...

[all_outta_angst]

God had no intention of letting Isaac be sacrificed.

  I think it would hard to argue what would have happened to Isaac had he disobeyed God.  God wouldn't have just said..."oh well" in the old testament.  There would have been serious consequences for disobeying.  With that said, even if God had zero intent on that poor kid being murdered/sacrificed...same thing in my ethics...that is just plain mean spirited.  If anyone but God had the authority to do such a thing, we WOULD demonize that type of behavior...but God gets a free pass.

Sin didn’t just mean doing something naughty and getting a slapped wrist. It meant being contaminated

  This is ridiculous.  To say that we are "guilty/sinful" before actually committing an act would never hold in any court or ethical cause in the "real" world.  Why does it hold in the spiritual sense?  In this belief...if I were to concede to this mentality, I would say that we are born with the potential to do good and potential to do evil.  That's it...but I would not condemn a living soul of being in sin before any act.  If sin were to be passed on through our genes, then this is the basis of guilt by association.  I just find this idea ridiculous and unfortunately many Christians just accept this as plain fact without question or dissent. 

I was told many years ago, what the verse was referring to, was sexual disease and genetic disorders. If you think about it, we wouldn’t have diseases like hepatitis B, syphilis, or aids, if the guidance of the Bible was followed. Jesus’ blood line needed to be kept pure, and that is what I meant when I said, his genealogy needed to be protected.

  Mass extermination just to protect a bloodline is genocide and murder...I can't justify that...I can't expect you to justify that...but again...a free pass because everything God does is "right".  Rather than destroy "enemies" of God, he could just have commanded that the actual bloodline not (sexually) mingle with "those people"  If this argument is the case...than it actually perpetuates xenophobia,racism,hate,and ignorance.  (which I believe were part of the culprits in old test. wars.)

If we followed the bible, there wouldn't be hep B, syphilis, aids.  Let's talk about aids and Christianity for a second.  Many Christians today still believe that aids were caused by homosexuals, and despite science, still advocate that this is still the case.  Science tells us how these diseases are spread...they are viruses and/or bacteria that has nothing to do with sin.  I will say though, that yes...sexually active individuals that are non monogamous tend to have higher mortality rates.  So do Christians have lesser cases of STD or STI's?  I don't know the facts of those...but I'm positive that STD or STI's are just as low in atheist monogamous families too.  So it doesn't hinge on faith at all... because there is no proof of having faith or not governs how society runs itself.

Regarding the thousands of deaths in the Biblical wars; this only concerns the Israelites thousands of years ago, and not Christians of today. The Biblical wars were total wars, which meant women and children also died. It is called collateral damage today. Mankind has done far worse in modern times than ever happened back then.

The biggest difference of old test wars vs the wars of today were just that...One was a Holy war...and the wars today are arn't.  Collateral damage is the non expected outcome of the deaths of innocent woman, men, and children.  The old testament did probably have collateral damage, only that God did command and destroy innocent people in the process.  This does not fall into the definition of collateral damage because of intent.

Christians aren’t being just restrained by the law, our Christian forefathers laid down the foundations for the law. The law was written around Christian principles.

I'm assuming that you live in the United States of America.  I'm more north...from that blank spot on your map....Canada.   
Your forefathers were also smart enough to realize that there needed to be a fundamental separation of Church and State.  Many still believe that the U.S were founded by Christians, when in fact a majority of them were not Christian's, but Deists.  They believed in a Creator, but maintained that it had no effect on when they wrote the constitution otherwise there would be heavy evidence of the acknowledgement of the bible.  (this is different than the declaration of Independence BTW)  Yes they believed that our universe had a creator...but never imply in a Christian God...and actually denounce his Divinity in that they don't believe He micro managed our lives nor spoke to us directly. 

here's an excerpt if you want to read:  if not just skip down.

The Declaration of Independence
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.
Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."
The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.
Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

(http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm)

In response to rudywalsh:  I think Jesus was a great Guy...not necessarily God.  I believe He had it right, but even if He was/is God...we still manage to pervert his teachings to fit our own agenda that I find disgusting...this comes in the form of religion...and that religion contaminates faith...(this is why it's hard to differentiate the two).

Advent, I don't know if you agree or disagree with any of my points, but that is still your interpretation of your God.  I can't change that, but certainly can question it.  Vice versa.
The main point that I'm sticking with that you will never have an answer for is simply that;

Whatever your God decides or decided to do...you will advocate and ALWAYS take His side with the pretext of "right".  Even if you don't like it or love it.  I believe that if God were real...He has made mistakes, and is not as perfect as some believe.  He doesn't get free passes with me because I think...therefore I am.  Not intelligently created...just am.

[rudywalsh]

If we listened to Jesus we wouldn’t have any diseases like Hep B, syphilis’s or aids, a comment from Angst.
The world exists because of bacteria, it’s more essential to life on earth than the plants and animals.
Take away the plants and animals, the earth would regenerate again, take away the bacteria alone, everything would cease to exist.

Jesus was a man, a human like the rest of us, so did Jesus have what some religious folk might say as ‘’Impure thoughts’’. Did he masturbate or have sex with anyone, if not he would have had wet dreams, if he was human then he must have, if not he wasn’t human.
Sorry to sound so course, this was a statement made by Charles Darwin who along with Albert Einstein thought the bible was ‘’Impossible’’ too many contradictions that don’t make sense.
An example, King Solomon dies, but later on in the bible he is mentioned again and seems to be very much alive at a later date.
Once again, these are not my thoughts, but the thoughts of two very intelligent individuals, Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin...
Both Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin believed we had a spirit, like myself, I never turned to religion for the answers; instead, I rely on my experiences and a greater faith, the faith in myself.

[all_outta_angst]

If we listened to Jesus we wouldn’t have any diseases like Hep B, syphilis’s or aids, a comment from Angst.

this was a quote from the post above mine.  I did not advocate this belief but explained my opinion of it.

Free will.  Is it truly the cause of man's downfall? as well as the angels that rebelled against God?  How much free will do you have if the repercussions are eternal damnation?
If you let someone you loved, go and love someone else...but had the power to damn them for their decision...is it a righteous one?  No matter how divine you were? 

Or does free will happen with the repercussions of consequence?  Most of faith would say so...but  the context of this ideology would fall apart in a couple relationship.  A believers excuse may be that...man or woman is imperfect...and God is ...so this justifies damnation.  !? that is messed up logic don't you think?  The same argument would fall apart in a hypothetical level too...

Let's say hypothetically one of the coupled lovers IS perfect like God....Believer:  this does not justify the lover leaving to be sent to hell...because even if He or she is perfect...they aren't God...

so the first argument would fall apart...making...It's okay for God to send his creation  to hell...(depending on whether he rejects or accepts God)

back to free will.

I define free will as the will to do anything.  The difference in religious and the humanistic approach is the the definition of consequence.  If you were to kill someone...I would not need to enforce fear into you so you don't go out and stick a scissor in someones eye. 

However, religion needs to doctrine fear.  To coerce people to love God, just as much as they are to fear them.  (but that fear is supposed to be healthy...I agree...but you have to admit...most of the time, that fear becomes unhealthy).  This takes away much of the ideology of free will...if the penance is so high...you literally take away choice...because it is not EVEN.

Free will (to me) exists a neutrality outside of repercussions.  Of course there's shit to pay for some things we do...but ultimate free will does not need fear nixed into any decision, which exists in faith.

Even in our "free society".. our will is limited...be it politically, economically, communally, and even hierarchically speaking.  Why should faith be the exception?  It's not...

but what do you think?

[all_outta_angst]

So i got to thinking a little about the Judeo-Christian God and wondered if followers are to mold their lives according to their God....We draw many many conclusions as to what God must be like because of scripture..or there lack of.  But what about the "virtues" of humility?

Is god humble? 

I always hear of the defence of scripture saying that God had to do the things he did in Old testament...but can a person draw MORE personality similarities with old/new testament or more CONTRAST of these two?

Thought i'd keep it short so anyone can give their opinions before I make any statement.

[all_outta_angst]

A letter to the faithful from an Atheist.

Dear Believer,

A belief in an orthodox theistic establishment  represents something larger than a building.  It includes you too.    You are a representative of your Faith.  Why do Atheists frown upon your belief system?  Maybe they're stupid?  Hateful?  Prejudiced?  What does it mean to live for Allah? Jesus? Mohammad? etc...

To live for Christ, believers do it wonderfully.  Are exceptional people...some.  Maybe many...I don't know.   But to follow Christ is something entirely different is it not?  How many great Christians would there be if they could look back on their lives and say they followed God like Jesus disciples?  Could you compare yourself to them?  What made them great in their Lord and can you put yourself on par with them?  What makes you Great in the Lord that extends to the external (other people)?

Did you spread the gospel on deaf ears?  Or did you have deaf ears spreading the Gospel?  Did you even put that in your schedule?
I don't think I represent atheists, because I am not a body of, nor do I partake in anything but self knowledge and self improvement.  I'm selfish...what can I say?

You however, cannot say you don't represent something.  You may not represent Christians/Jews etc, but you act on behalf of ________ in the name your Father.    Just living your life as representative to your faith is as meaningful as a police officer enforcing the law by not breaking it.

Goodness does not grant heaven...Sure you can accept ___________ as your personal savior to eventually get into heaven to be with __________ forever.  But hasn't your God done so much for you?  Sure all he asks from you in return is acceptance.....but is it too much to ask for you to do something for God?  Goodness may not guarantee heaven, but is it shining bright enough from your faith to inspire people outside to come to know ___________?

One thing I will never forget when I used to go to bible study.  Someone I hardly knew told me years later that when they looked at me, they could see a light I exuded from my faith.  (In hindsight it may have come from my ass...imagine that!), but nonetheless...I felt I was doing the "Lords Work".  Not to lump you in one boat, but you guys need to outshine the ones that are doing a disservice to your faith.  You need to call out the bullshit and the people that aren't doing the Lords work rather than letting atheists do that for you.  I believe, as an atheist,you would get tons more respect from non believers by voicing out against zealots than taking a passive stand...who knows...you might even convert a soul.

I may not convince you to become an atheist...but I'm certain it's in your Fathers best interest that you do otherwise.  For lack of a better word....


-God Bless,
all_outta_angst