tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post4285113734865285769..comments2024-02-24T05:11:34.559-05:00Comments on Conservative Black Woman: Jesus, The Name Above Every Name...Except Barack Obama'sConservative Black Womanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04447535512847936593noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-2498726958460635552009-10-25T11:04:22.899-04:002009-10-25T11:04:22.899-04:00"Looking forward to your reply. Notice, JESUS..."Looking forward to your reply. Notice, JESUS' Name is absent from ALL government refernce, whenever they Say "GOD" I have never heard or seen Jesus referenced, not even in the constitution or bill of rights."<br /><br />The treaty of Pars, while it does not use the term Jesus, it did use the term Trinity, which is reference to name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, with Jesus being the Son.<br /><br />And the reference to the name Jesus was mentioned indirectly in the founding documents with phrases like "year of our Lord," who was Jesus back then. Yes, I know it is cultural thing to use that then, but that's precisely the point: the culture was Christian. Contrast that with the French Revolution that tried to go with year one and year two and so on starting in 1792, to get rid of the Christian influence on the country.<br /><br />And finally, nearly state constitutions in their original forms do used terms like Christ, Christian, Old and New Testaments, Bible, etc. <br /><br />The Declaration of Independence did refer to God. Granted, it does not use the word Jesus. But those who signed it came from the states that had constitutions at the time that did not make references to that, as so we can know what God they worshipped and promoted. And the terms like law of nature and law of God were indeed references to God's Bible, where the terms come form. Law of nature was defined by Locke and Blackstone and accepted by the founders as law of God written in the hearts of man via conscience and creation, and identified with the moral law of God, as opposed to the ceremonial and political aspects of the Mosaic law. <br /><br />Not all founders to be sure were Christians, but nearly all of them, even Jefferson, had a Christian morality and worldview that shaped their views, even if they did not always lived by them.Thuyen Tranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01165767132254739165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-19045311685806255442009-04-18T10:28:00.000-04:002009-04-18T10:28:00.000-04:00@Donna:
Like I said, Michael Jordan and Kobe Brya...@Donna:<br /><br />Like I said, Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant have many simlarities, they are defined by their differences.<br /><br />Simple and Plain.<br /><br />And this:<br /><br />"The notion that religious faith is somehow a prerequisite for a moral society is presumptuous and weak, not to berate a faith as a whole but the idea that one must espouse faith-based doctrine in order to be a morally "upright" person"<br /><br />The notion that religious faith is not or has not been instrumental in the human development of Law, Ethics and by mutual implication morality, is utterly inane.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-91288168178638016562009-04-18T09:24:00.000-04:002009-04-18T09:24:00.000-04:00Grace~Yes and Amen!Grace~Yes and Amen!Conservative Black Womanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04447535512847936593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-46101700552659695622009-04-18T08:59:00.000-04:002009-04-18T08:59:00.000-04:00""The notion that religious faith is somehow a pre...""The notion that religious faith is somehow a prerequisite for a moral society is presumptuous and weak, not to berate a faith as a whole but the idea that one must espouse faith-based doctrine in order to be a morally "upright" person.""<br /><br />ROMANS 1:16-32:<br /><br />16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. <br />17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,just as it is written: "THE RIGHTEOUS WILL LIVE BY FAITH"<br /><br />18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, <br />19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. <br />20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.<br />21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. <br /><br />22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools <br />23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.<br /><br />24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. <br />25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.<br /><br />26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. <br />27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.<br /><br />28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. <br />29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; <br />31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. <br />32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.tkaionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16228943396945788816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-54250821757108962002009-04-18T08:37:00.000-04:002009-04-18T08:37:00.000-04:00Donna~You write:"So, based on that logic, just bec...Donna~You write:"So, based on that logic, just because you have concrete evidence that a book exists (as does the Mahabharata and Homer's Odyssey), you claim that it has more basis in truth than one that is not catalogued in the Library of Congress? Just because a city exists in a literary work does not make all elements of that literary work true by default."<br /><br />What I am saying is that based on the fact that there is archeological, eyewitness and physical evidence that that Bible exists that one can deduce that since none of this exists for the Vivifying The Soul Forever and the story of Horu closely resembles the redemptive narrative of Christ that one can logically conclude that Horu is a pagan copy-cat, and Vivifying the Soul Forever -- if a copy is ever discovered, produced, printed and mass distributed it is still a counterfeit.Conservative Black Womanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04447535512847936593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-74925305322160195552009-04-18T04:51:00.000-04:002009-04-18T04:51:00.000-04:00The notion that religious faith is somehow a prere...The notion that religious faith is somehow a prerequisite for a moral society is presumptuous and weak, not to berate a faith as a whole but the idea that one must espouse faith-based doctrine in order to be a morally "upright" person.<br /><br />I leave you with this (pulled from Wikipedia for brevity):<br /><br />“Socrates (469 BC–399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of man. In this view, Knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary. Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within their capabilities to their pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions, are the result of ignorance. If a criminal were truly aware of the mental and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither commit nor even consider committing them. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with happiness. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good and therefore be happy.”<br />Again, one does not have to espouse a faith doctrine to know what is right and wrong. Faith is not a predicate for morality.<br /><br />And I'm done. Thanks guys - it's been real!Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-4624942556668713882009-04-18T04:25:00.000-04:002009-04-18T04:25:00.000-04:00CBW:
You wrote: "The Bible was also written thous...CBW:<br /><br />You wrote: "The Bible was also written thousands of years ago but here is the big difference… It can be scientifically proven, historically backed up by secular eye-witness accounts, and archaeologically it can be proven via inscriptions and rolls that were found that corroborate the words of the bible. Cities and events have only been discovered in recent years that back up the Bible. And here is the biggest difference between the Bible and the “Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever,”…I can prove the Bible actually exists because I’ve got one sitting on my bed!"<br /><br />So, based on that logic, just because you have concrete evidence that a book exists (as does the Mahabharata and Homer's Odyssey), you claim that it has more basis in truth than one that is not catalogued in the Library of Congress? Just because a city exists in a literary work does not make all elements of that literary work true by default. I’m sure you realize that? <br /><br />Two points to chew on...the Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, Library of Congress was established in 1800 and Egyptian hieroglyphs were being translated as late as the 1820s. Compare that with manuscripts of the New Testament dating as far back as the 2nd and 3rd century and you’ve got yourself a significant gap and presumable advantage when it comes to translation and transliteration. <br /><br />The assumption that a book must be contained in the Library of Congress to be considered legitimate consists of a completely ethnocentric view of the world. The story of Horus, albeit variant, has been found in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Does that make it true? Because that can be "scientifically proven" by archeologists too.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is is that you happened to be born in a place where the dominant religion is Christianity (my assumption). Based on your logic, Islam is just as legitimate by your standards, but it is not your faith system and therefore is less legitimate because...?Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-49127664805220319382009-04-18T03:35:00.000-04:002009-04-18T03:35:00.000-04:00That previous post was mine, by the way...
DJBA, ...That previous post was mine, by the way...<br /><br />DJBA, you also state: "You know, like that scientific theory you all had that the earth was FLAT. Or the one that humanity evolved from three different strain of primates, i.e. Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid?"<br /><br />The great thing about science, theory, laws and all, is that it does not claim to be static and is always available for scrutiny and experimentation. The problem with Christianity is that it is not. Obviously, the theory of the earth's flatness was thrown out around the 4th century by educated scholars. But then again, science makes room for discussion and, debate and proof while Jesus's divinity, not so much.Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-37631050471872141522009-04-18T03:27:00.000-04:002009-04-18T03:27:00.000-04:00DJBA:
Re your comment: "The proof was not and is ...DJBA:<br /><br />Re your comment: "The proof was not and is not did said event happen, the proof we are looking for is PROOF THAT THERE EVER WAS A STORY that said Horus ahd a virgin birth.<br /><br />We have proof such a story is in the Gospels."<br /><br />We also have proof that virgin births were touted in mythology that predates (if not contemporary with) Christianity (Mahabharata, Greek/Roman mythology, etc). The advantage that Christianity had is that it was an organized religion that had religious scholars convene to agree upon texts to be included in the bible a few millennia ago. Another advantage, specifically over Egyptian mythology, is that it did not have to rely upon translating or transliterating hieroglyphs, but had a phonetic language from which to translate.<br /><br />If you want to use proof that a story exists or does not exist to build your argument, then it becomes weak again.<br />You also said: “Further to the point, even when ONE Of these so-called "other messiahs" is looked at, there is little if any similarity between them and the Gospel of the Kingdom of God."<br />So, the fact that a piece of literature is relatively original as opposed to completely original is how you choose to verify the deity of Jesus? Not sure that one holds much water either. William Shakespeare had some very original works, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-68738554048797491252009-04-18T02:59:00.000-04:002009-04-18T02:59:00.000-04:00DJBA:
You wrote: "BUT, people who have resentment...DJBA:<br /><br />You wrote: "BUT, people who have resentment for religion, predicated on PERSONAL ISSUES not the crusades or the inquisition and such, often are willfully ignorant of the FACT That MONEY was the predicate for much of that strife, religion, at best an excuse."<br /><br />Therein rests the problem. The personal issue, in their eyes, is legitimate grounds for contesting that these men of the cloth were corrupt while using religion as their cause, a faith system they imposed but obviously did not believe in.<br /><br />If you cannot see that atheism has fewer burdens to carry in this argument, then you too are ignoring history. The fact that you mention Stalin's apparent lack of faith in a deity to his atrocities ("...if he valued something as simple as "Love thy neighbor" he would not have killed 12 million of his own countrymen?") is the very reason some might take personal issue with the idea that having a faith system in some deity would change that. For those would make that argument but then conveniently explain away Hitler's Christianity seems a bit convenient. If people were to truly espouse the true tenets of Christianity as one would interpret from the gospels, "earthly" pursuits and interests like having a career, possessions, family life, etc are not the priority. (See Matt 16:26, ""If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and<br />mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even<br />his own life, he cannot be my disciple.)<br /><br />So, loving one's neighbor is tied to the golden rule in that, ethically speaking, it makes sense from a self-serving angle and a communal angle (inner harmony, communal peace and understanding). Of course it is the right thing to do, but you don't need a faith system to understand why it is important to help and love fellow man, despite his innate flaws and self-serving leanings.Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-68125170989473778762009-04-17T20:39:00.000-04:002009-04-17T20:39:00.000-04:00Donna~You wrote:
“if the Jews were under the old...Donna~You wrote:<br /> <br />“if the Jews were under the old law in the old testament that contains the 10 Commandments, how are we not cherry-picking what is relevant today? Or do the 10 Commandments not fall under the law? Does Jesus fulfilling the law absolve you from following ANY of the old testament tenets, or just some? If so, then this one is cool?”<br /><br />I maintain that the O/T is still very relevant as a historical document and as a prophetic document for the coming of Jesus. It is in the OT that we Christians learn not only our history, but also the significance of Jesus' act of opening up the promises made to the Jewish people to all nations and peoples. Jesus did not come to break the law (O/T) but to fulfill it – therefore we are not free to break the law. But if we do we have a Savior who redeems us. No it is not a sin to eat shell fish, but if my brother is offended by me eating shellfish and it will cause him to stumble then yep, I’ll drop the shrimp basket.<br /><br />There are still many valid and important lessons to be learned from the O/T. I know Christians who grew up in the church and yet have never even read the O/T. To me, this is learning only half the faith. We can only understand the remarkable ministry of Jesus by understanding the O/T.Conservative Black Womanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04447535512847936593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-53796672514563168022009-04-17T19:55:00.000-04:002009-04-17T19:55:00.000-04:00Donna you write~"The story of Horus, a major Egypt...Donna you write~<I>"The story of Horus, a major Egyptian God, is told in the Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever over 3,000 years before the birth of Christ."</I>There is no such book. It is not listed on the Library of Congress catalogue or on Worldcat. There is no mention of it in the 14 volume Encyclopedia of Religion. It is not mentioned in the Handbook of Egyptian Mythology or the Dictionary of African Mythology, The Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion, or Legends of the Egyptian Gods.<br />There is <B>no</B> trace of this book! I submit to you that The “Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever” is just as much a myth as Santa Claus. Go ahead and look it up online or anywhere else. No such book exists, has been dated or found. Think about this-- Many people will say a book was found that was written between 3,000 to 5,000 years ago but nowhere does anyone say where it was found or even who it was found by. There are no archaeological photographs or eye witness accounts. It is <B>too easy to re-write the story of Jesus and claim it was written 3,000 years in an effort to imply the biblical account is the counterfeit and horus is the true god</B> The Bible was also written thousands of years ago but here is the big difference… It can be scientifically proven, historically backed up by secular eye-witness accounts, and archaeologically it can be proven via inscriptions and rolls that were found that corroborate the words of the bible. Cities and events have only been discovered in recent years that back up the Bible. And here is the biggest difference between the Bible and the “Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever,”…I can prove the Bible actually exists because <B>I’ve got one sitting on my bed!</B>Conservative Black Womanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04447535512847936593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-30284596878331101652009-04-17T18:24:00.000-04:002009-04-17T18:24:00.000-04:00@Donna:
I thought you were above word games. You ...@Donna:<br /><br />I thought you were above word games. You wrote:<br /><br />"Scientific theory = a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms."<br /><br />The problem I have with your theory definition, is that somehow you all miss the point that a scientific theory is NOT a scientific principle and is still SPECULATION not FACT. Logical speculation sure, but LOGIC is only as good as the POSTULATES and presuppositions one starts with.<br /><br />You know, like that scientific theory you all had that the earth was FLAT. Or the one that humanity evolved from three different strain of primates, i.e. Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid?<br /><br />My faith has much to stand on, even if it beyond your current ability or desire to apprehend. I respect scientific research and appreciate it, however; I know that it is only useful to measure the spatial and temporal reality we inhabit, and ill-suited to investigate or ascertain the greater actuality outside the bounds of this physicality.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-21070387855081264422009-04-17T18:18:00.000-04:002009-04-17T18:18:00.000-04:00@DJBA:
I qouted: "...pointing out that there is n...@DJBA:<br /><br />I qouted: "...pointing out that there is no evidence of a virgin birth for Horus." <br /><br />You wrote: "It seems that we may have missed on the irrefutable proof of jesus's virgin birth?"<br /><br />The proof was not and is not did said event happen, the proof we are looking for is PROOF THAT THERE EVER WAS A STORY that said Horus ahd a virgin birth.<br /><br />We have proof such a story is in the Gospels.<br /><br />Further to the point, even when ONE Of these so-called "other messiahs" is looked at, there is little if any similarity between them and the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-80482619512860361742009-04-17T18:07:00.000-04:002009-04-17T18:07:00.000-04:00DJBA:
So, you leave your point WIDE open...
"......DJBA:<br /><br />So, you leave your point WIDE open...<br /><br />"...pointing out that there is no evidence of a virgin birth for Horus." <br /><br />It seems that we may have missed on the irrefutable proof of jesus's virgin birth? <br /><br />That is the point from the start. The lack of substantial proof for both Jesus's divinity and Horus's divinity, even correlation as one stolen from the other and vice verse, is missing. Woefully absent.<br /><br />Holes everywhere.Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-42178343337827077292009-04-17T18:03:00.000-04:002009-04-17T18:03:00.000-04:00DJBA: I never said this: "If you think the study o...DJBA: I never said this: "If you think the study of Ethics, law and /or Morality can be had independent of the study of religion and its affect on human society from Sumer till now..."<br /><br />What I did say was that ethics and religion can stand independently of each other and can be espoused independently of each other. <br /><br />You also said: "Science itself is a TOOL, building religions (in form if not fashion) predicated on scientifc THEORIES that have NOT been proven, is in fact, what the problem is."<br /><br />A) That's a sweeping generalization that is obviously incorrect as we have the Newtonian Laws of Motion that are very much proven, over and over again. Law = A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always under the same conditions. Meaning it always occurs in those conditions. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws_named_after_people (a list of laws that are eponymous)<br /><br />B) Scientific theory = a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. The problem some have with faith is that it has no legs to stand on, if you want to give science one leg for effort that is.Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-31723294342281968812009-04-17T17:56:00.000-04:002009-04-17T17:56:00.000-04:00@Donna:
"Only for their purposes, but not in its ...@Donna:<br /><br />"Only for their purposes, but not in its truest form."<br /><br />Doesn't matter, in practice in the Soviet Union ATHEISM was part of the ideology that formed the Communist Party, churches were destroyed, religion banned. Who can say if Stalin had of not dropped out of seminary, and if he valued something as simple as "Love thy neighbor" he would not have killed 12 million of his own countrymen?<br /><br />You want to separate atheism from an ideology that was partly comprised of atheism as an element, but you can’t seem to make a distinction between powerful kings and popes who had their own agendas while often using religion to manipulate a largely illiterate group of people, many of whom couldn’t even READ the scriptures in question?<br /><br />BUT, people who have resentment for religion, predicated on PERSONAL ISSUES not the crusades or the inquisition and such, often are willfully ignorant of the FACT That MONEY was the predicate for much of that strife, religion, at best an excuse.<br /><br />Same motivator with Stalin and Mao if one wishes to be honest. Religious doctrine has been used as an excuse, scientific theories have been used as an excuse, MONEY is generally the predicate.<br /><br />If you can’t see that, you are ignoring history and current events.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-20279869253212150872009-04-17T17:48:00.000-04:002009-04-17T17:48:00.000-04:00@Donna:
FURTHER, from that SAME ARTICLE regardin...@Donna: <br /><br />FURTHER, from that SAME ARTICLE regarding Heru (Horus, sorry mamma name em Heru, I'ma call em Heru):<br /><br />"W. Ward Gasque has written that Egyptologists have rejected many of the specific claims made by Harpur and Massey as fallacious, pointing out that there is no evidence of a virgin birth for Horus, and that Harpur's main source, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, was a Theosophist whose books were mainly self-published and that his other sources were in the main not ancient Egyptian texts but out-of-date authors"<br /><br />JUST saying....DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-87463476891844691692009-04-17T17:45:00.000-04:002009-04-17T17:45:00.000-04:00DJBA,
"Atheism is PART of communism, you can sep...DJBA, <br /><br />"Atheism is PART of communism, you can seperate the two if you like, Stalin and Mao did NOT."<br /><br />Only for their purposes, but not in its truest form. Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.<br /><br />Stalin wanted to promulgate the legacy of Lenin...one could argue that he was calling for a god-like worship of Lenin and his ideology of collectivism.<br /> <br />Again, you fail to prove how atheism in and of itself was responsible for their atrocities. It is as if you are trying to create a causal relationship where this isn't one at all.Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-47388255812292633682009-04-17T17:40:00.000-04:002009-04-17T17:40:00.000-04:00Donna:
Let me take this one at a time. One, if yo...Donna:<br /><br />Let me take this one at a time. One, if you site a source, make sure it supports your psoition.<br /><br />Regarding Mr. Massey: " However, Massey was not a trained Egyptologist and his work was never recognised in the field of Egyptology, and his ideas were seen as fringe theories that lacked critical support. Massey was also a Theosophist whose theories often support theosophical concepts and ideas."<br /><br />From YOUR source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey<br /><br />The story you forward about Horus is a fiction predicated on a myth predicated on a religion.<br /><br />Now for this, you wrote: "We now know, through enlightenment, education, and ethics (a study that does not require religion) that those are opposing forces."<br /><br />If you think the study of Ethics, law and /or Morality can be had independent of the study of religion and its affect on human society from Sumer till now, you are sadly mistaken.<br /><br />Second, Science itself is a TOOL, building religions (in form if not fashion) predicated on scientifc THEORIES that have NOT been proven, is in fact, what the problem is.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-48513205810860993102009-04-17T17:33:00.000-04:002009-04-17T17:33:00.000-04:00@Donna:
"Not the same since Stalin and Mao CLEARL...@Donna:<br /><br />"Not the same since Stalin and Mao CLEARLY stated their objectives were about Marxism and Communism, not atheism."<br /><br />So Stalin and Mao stated their obejetcive about communisim, then by definition they stated that whererever their ideology went ATHEISM would follow, as it did in the Soviet Union and China. Atheism is PART of communism, you can seperate the two if you like, Stalin and Mao did NOT.<br /><br />2ndly, these ideas are congrueent, because at abse, the masses were manipulated by an ideology, rather a dieity was professed or not, is of no consequence.<br /><br />Difference in style, not form.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-30481097642331704912009-04-17T17:27:00.000-04:002009-04-17T17:27:00.000-04:00DJBA,
You wrote: "Lets back this up, and re-mix w...DJBA,<br /><br />You wrote: "Lets back this up, and re-mix what you JUST said: "CHRISTIANITY or FAITH IN JESUS cannot be reasonably resented in and of itself because it is not CHRISTAINITY OR FATH IN JESUS alone that persecuted Blacks and relegated them to inferior beings worthy of nothing but human experimentation but PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED A FAITH, corrupt ones at that, that used shoddy interpretations of SCRIPTURES to put forth such tripe..."<br /><br />I would concede to this argument had it been for one thing:<br /><br />Science, as defined by Wikipedia, is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, record observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. <br /><br />The fact that we can record observable PHYSICAL evidence to negate such claims that bogus scientists used to discriminate stands in distinction against faith, which demands the opposite in the hopes that what you believe pans out in the end with no physical proof to support said faith. Therefore, there is logic in the "resentment" (to use a less harsh word, skepticism) of faith because it does not HAVE TO STAND ON EVIDENCE THAT A COLLECTIVE CAN AGREE UPON TO EXIST by virtue of the physical realm. It has no burden of proof in and of itself, yet it can hold water next to science? Not really.<br /><br />The mere fact that science stands independent of religion, philosophy, politics and culture makes it clear that those who use it to espouse bigoted and unfounded theories are using science to justify a cultural, political, possibly a religious belief or philosophy. We now know, through enlightenment, education, and ethics (a study that does not require religion) that those are opposing forces.Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-84436934769985663492009-04-17T17:12:00.000-04:002009-04-17T17:12:00.000-04:00DJBA:
You wrote: "Irrelevent [sic], if you posit...DJBA: <br /><br />You wrote: "Irrelevent [sic], if you posit the wars and atrocities done (i.e. the crusades) which were LAND GRABS and about MONEY with ideology as a manipulator were about religion, so to must atheism be considred [sic] as a motivating factor if not agitating one for people liek [sic] Stalin."<br /><br />Not the same since Stalin and Mao CLEARLY stated their objectives were about Marxism and Communism, not atheism. They happened to be atheists, but atheism was not the banner under which their atrocities fell. The Crusades, however, were veiled in the idea of spreading Christianity. Whatever the underlying reason, quite clearly an agenda was at work to gain power politically, Marxism and communism are not about atheism and conversely atheism was not the charge for Marxism and Communism. The Crusades were supposedly about Christianity, and as it was interpreted at the time, Christianity justified the Crusades.<br /><br />The argument, as you presented it, is not congruent.Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-35345810454233397182009-04-17T17:03:00.000-04:002009-04-17T17:03:00.000-04:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey
Found ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey<br /><br />Found at Temple of Luxor, in Luxor, Egypt, from the time of King Amenhotep III (1538-1501 B.C. as the original source of four of the elements of the Egyptian Horus story: The Annuncation (announcement), Immaculate Conception, Birth of Child-God, and the Adoration. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cavendish_(occult_writer)<br /><br />http://www.bobkwebsite.com/egyptianmythvjesusmyth.html<br /><br />http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/<br /><br />Just a few that I found in a short time. The wiki sites are interesting as they have references that can be double-checked.Donnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081245598457508568.post-52507183762383329072009-04-17T16:59:00.000-04:002009-04-17T16:59:00.000-04:00@Donna:
You wrote: "Stalin and Mao (don't forget ...@Donna:<br /><br />You wrote: "Stalin and Mao (don't forget Pol Pot) did not commit atrocities in the name of atheism but in the hopes of further entrenching their dogmatic Marxist and communist belief systems."<br /><br />Irrelevent, if you posit the wars and atrocities done (i.e. the crusades) which were LAND GRABS and about MONEY with ideology as a manipulator were about religion, so to must atheism be considred as a motivating factor if not agitating one for people liek Stalin.<br /><br />You wrote: "Science cannot be reasonably resented in and of itself because it is not science alone that persecuted Blacks and relegated them to inferior beings worthy of nothing but human experimentation but SCIENTISTS, corrupt ones at that, that used shoddy interpretations of genetics to put forth such tripe..."<br /><br />Lets back this up, and re-mix what you JUST said: "CHRISTIANITY or FAITH IN JESUS cannot be reasonably resented in and of itself because it is not CHRISTAINITY OR FATH IN JESUS alone that persecuted Blacks and relegated them to inferior beings worthy of nothing but human experimentation but PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED A FAITH, corrupt ones at that, that used shoddy interpretations of SCRIPTURES to put forth such tripe..."<br /><br />Fascinating how that works....Donna:e-mail me at djblackadam@yahoo.com, I'd like to send you something.DJ Black Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258897246879725176noreply@blogger.com