Rooster7

Packsaddle,

I don't know what goes on inside the head of a newborn. Certainly, whatever bad thoughts they could possibly have, pale in comparison to any adult's dark thoughts.

That said, from what Ive witnessed, it's a short ride between birth and the first sign of selfish thought - whether that be screams and tears for attention from one's crib or a two year olds temper tantrum for a toy - our self-centeredness becomes evident quite quickly. Also, I challenge anyone who claims that we have pure thoughts as young children, to reach back in their memories and try to recall their own thoughts, desires, and behaviors at that age. I believe few if any can make that claim of innocence, yet we seem to believe all other children have good thoughts - especially after we've become adults (and forgotten our own sinful thoughts as children).

I love children, but Im not so niave to believe that most (or even some) always have good thoughts, and left to their own wills the world would be a better place. Go rent Lord of the Flies.

To make the question clear, you need to put it in context. Did you mean to say Is man good or bad inherently, in terms of honorable thought and given an absolute standard such as Gods Word. If so, I think with the smallest amount of introspection, every man knows the answer to that question.

If there is no absolute standard, whos to say what is good and what is bad?

"Somebody got to decide that 2+2=4. What can't 2+2=22?"

Hops,

I'm not sure what your point is, but... its difficult, if not impossible, to taint mathematics with politics or one's agenda. It is what it is. On the other hand, history is often and regularly re-invented by those empowered to create/impose change.

Over the last 50 years, the historical depiction of events like WWII seems to be in a constant state of flux. Shortly afterwards, the vast majority of Americans recognized WWII as one of the worlds darkness moments (of course), but it was also an event that unified this country in a significantly way and brought honor to Americans worldwide. Today, its not so clear. The focus no longer resides on the sacrifices of our fathers. Many schools and universities want to shift the focus to Japanese internment camps, Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, how America profited from the war, What took America so long to act when Jews were dying in Nazi labor camps?, and the like. Beyond that, many portray our country as having so much evil intent; its sometimes difficult to determine who the bad guys really are even in WWII.

Yes, I agree that I dont want Ben Franklin portrayed as some kind of sex addict as part of a National Inquirer type of tour guide presentation. It would be nice if we could prevent that kind of non-sensebut at what price? To ensure that the PC version of WWII history is not required test material for those doing tours of the National Cemetery, Id be willing to hear about Bens wild exploits (real or imagined). In short, Im not so concerned about the bogus material being put forth as much as the total squelching of another perspective (especially when I view that other perspective as being the truth).

True enough. That should give us more reason to be concerned, not less.

Is it a good thing, to have a singular congruent perspective on history presented in the public schools? If you adamantly believe that perspective is true, then I suppose it is. However, if you believe that perspective is being colored to meet the desires and goals of those empowered to determine curriculum, then its not.

I'm pretty sure the Grand Canyon was created by the dragging knuckles of evolutionary man. ;-)

Okay so now the government gets to license those who recite history.

Who gets to decide what the true facts are?

How did WWII start? Why did we leave Vietnam? What were the origins of the Civil War? Why did we get involve in Afghanistan and Iran? What was 9-11 about? Gee all those should be easy to clarify to the public, right?

Im sure theres only one way to tell those facts and everyone (at least the vast majority of Americans) will be completely harmonious as to what should be taught and asserted as truth.

Amen. ;-)

I think there is a fairly robust set of systems in place to ensure the public is not duped/injured by bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, and accountants. Thats not to say it doesnt happen but there are safeguards. I understand the need for standards in these professions.

OGE,

I have the opposite concern. Once you allow government to declare absolute knowledge in one area (and pass laws to enforce the same), then you run the risk of government enforcing its views in every aspect of your life. Consequently, we should be very careful about what areas of our lives we allow (i.e. silently accept) government to regulate.

Merlyn,

I'm against the government telling schools what they can teach. And yes, I'm against the government deciding what schools receive accreditation. Employers will figure out in short order which schools they like or dislike, with or without the government providing accreditation. And likewise, that information (what schools employers like or dislike) will become public knowledge quickly. The accreditation process serves no real purpose but to provide the government with another vehicle of controlanother governmental power which can be abused and leveraged to someones personal and/or ideological advantage.

There have always been disagreements about what occurred in the past. All of human history can and has been a source of debate. Its not our governments job to control what can be publicly stated and promoted as historical truth. If there is a dispute and someone suffers damages, I have no problem with the government acting as an arbitrator (i.e. preside over a civil suit), but they should never regulate our speech.

This is such a slippery slope. The next step will be to regulate historical accuracy in private schoolsthen home schools...then homes. Eventually well be told that we have all the freedom we want to practice religionwe just cant teach it as truth. And if that doesnt bother you, the next step will be to regulate what political candidates can say.

The solution to the Philly problem is simple And its the same solution for all of America Let the buyer beware. Were all big boys and girls, and if we want our freedoms, we should tolerant some dissent whether it be rooted in ignorance or politics thats a small price to pay given the alternative.

GB,

Laws/regulations imposed for safety reasons do not tend to trample on our Constitutional rights (unless theres some hidden agenda like protestors on the public sidewalk with signs may cause patrons to trip).

Merlyn,

Penalties or not, when did our government gain the Constitutional ability to regulate what we (the public) believe to be true whether it be history or religion or anything else?

GB,

I think you're making the assumption that the city of Philadelphia hired the guides. That's probably not the case. If the city did hire them, then of course they have a right to impose a standard. In fact, I don't think there would be a law suit. The city could simply fire them for being inadequate for the job.

However, in this story, I believe it's being reported that the city is requiring any person for hire to pass a history test, including independent contractors (like a horse and carriage guide). That being the case, I adamantly oppose this new law. It is an infringement on free speech. The city of Philadelphia has no right to force others to embrace their perceptions of historical accuracy.

If this law is allowed to stand, then it will set a very dangerous precedent. All sorts of lines will become blurred and we could lose many of the freedoms that we enjoy today.

I agree that restrictions should be applied. I just don't agree it should be based on religion or proselytizing. The WBC shouldn't be allowed to participate in such a program - not because of their faith (whatever that might be), but because of their antagonistic tactics and history of bad behavior.

GB,

Westboro Baptist Church? Thats a strawman argument. Please they do violate the standards of every community I know. And, they are hardly typical of Christian churches and the Christian community in general.

Merlyn,

I missed your point or did you miss mine? Yes, Im aware of the BSA membership criteria. But are you suggesting that they would use those criteria to decide who gets help in a disaster?

Thanks OGE - my opponents don't need any additional help...that's for sure. ;-)

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

However, the recipients of those services should not have to bow to the will of the provider, including proselytizing.

I presume that youre referring to providers whose services are augmented by the government (as opposed to providers who accept no federal funding). If so, that is a popular opinion. Still, I think it depends on how much augmenting the government is doing. For example, lets say theres a disaster. Option 1, the federal government can utilize their own resources and feed 100 people for $200. Option 2, they can supplement a church group with $50 and feed the same 100 people. The only caveat, the church group does not give up any of their 1st Amendment Constitutional rights i.e. they have freedom of speechand they wish to tell others about their God. In short, the government can feed an additional 300 persons for the same money if they simply ignore the cries of so-called activists who cling to a twisted interpretation of the Constitution. Personally, if I discovered that 300 people were left unfed and starving because the federal government chose Option 1 to avoid the possibility of proselytizing, Id be much more upset and disturbed. I would not expect the government to force self-censor on any group that helps them accomplish their goals, so long as that group is acting legally and within the standards of the community that they serve. I wont debate the separation of church and state clause as it has been done over and over, here and elsewhere. But I think most reasonable people can agree on these two assertions 1) that particular phrase is not in the Constitution, and 2) it is not unanimous as to how the actual Constitutional wording should be interpreted.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Think of the BSA getting a Faith Based Initiative grant to provide a tent city for homeless people. A great initiative. But because of BSA policy against gays and atheists, they would only provide those tents to those who met their standards. That would be wrong.

That hypothetical really sells the BSA short. Do you really think the BSA, or most churches for that matter, would utilize membership criteria as a filter for those receiving help in a disaster? Careful - your bias is showing, and it aint pretty.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

If you're old for remembering who I am...how old does that make me?

I'll say it:

Homosexuality is a sin.

If you think that equates to hate, you're ignoring simple English and introducing your own bias.

The vast majority of believers I have ever encountered and witnessed (via the media and everyday life), do not hate homosexuals or any other sinner.

In fact, we all sin.

That said we (believers) are called to recognize and confront sin in our own lives, and to make others aware of Gods teachings. And the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin.

That said - what the WBC is doing, does not qualify as "teaching" and enters into an arena that can and ought to be labeled as hateful.

That said folks, who want to lump all Christians together and portray them as coming from the same mindset as the WBC, are also being hateful.

No matter where you come down on the "issue" of homosexuality, I think most would agree that this group is very deluded. So much so, their faith appears to be motivated solely by hate.

You know youre getting old when . . . when your doctor asks, Have you ever had the pleasure of a colonoscopy?

I believe you Merlyn... ;-)

Do you think every single atheist in the world is just pretending? That there are no genuine atheist materialists?

I believe that deep down inside (consciously or subconsciously), everyone knows that God exists and/or they dont want to conduct a real search because they're afraid (consciously or subconsciously) that they may have to give up something, like the pleasure of their current lifestyle, or the comfort that some find in knowing that nothing comes after death.

Beavah point taken. Though, Im not sure how long God calls out to those who hear but refuse to listen or who can see but refuse to look.

Does love and hate exists? Does good and evil? Is the essence of Merlyn a bag of bones, a few pints of blood, some flesh, and a collection of random thoughts? I dont believe you. I dont believe that you cannot see your own soulyour own spirit. Theres more there and I cant help but believe youre pretending otherwise.

Close your eyes long enough and you really will go blind

Just have your invisible friend show up sometime.

Only you can make that happen. Alas, I cannot imagine how a skeptics heart will draw a response from God Almighty. I dont claim to speak for Him, but I have to believe (from His Word and from the Spirit He gives me) you need to cast aside all of your pride and stand naked before Him, as a sinner - we all know everyone of us is.

Im sure that last phase will draw some fire from someone on this forum. But you know folks; if you refuse to recognize the darkness in your own hearts, then how can you expect God to acknowledge you? And really, if we have as much in common as I am convinced we do then pretending that we have nothing to be ashamed of, has got to be the biggest joke known to man. Seriously, the emperor has no clothes and everyone knows it so lets take off any airs and discard all pretenses. Everyday the headlines scream that the world has fallen and no one stands without fault.

God is the Light. But He wont show himself to someone who refuses to come out of the darkness.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Aha...but you do have doubt. ;-) And from a little seed...

Sure would like to have you on this side of the fence. Your powers of persuasion and logic are truly gifts from... (Well, you know who).

So Merlyn - do you see death as being your final experiment? Certainly, no amount of experimentation in your lifetime will prove your theory correct - i.e. God does not exist.

Merlyn,

Well, I disagree, given that god has rules for the proper way to keep and hold slaves, just for one example.

Your inference appears to be - God (the God of the Bible) endorses slavery. I not only disagreebut I further assert that this supposition demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of God and His Word. We, Gods children, exist in a fallen world. Gods instructions for us have many purposes (and this is especially true in the OT before His plan for our salvation was fully revealed). For example, see Matthew 19:3-9:

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Did God endorse divorce? Clearly Jesus teaches that Moses (Gods messenger) permitted it to occurbut Moses (and Jesus) never taught or declared divorce to be honorable or a righteous path.

In short, dont portray God through the words and actions of His children. We are flawed; He is not. Furthermore, there are many stories in the Bible and each has a message. Some stories demonstrate Gods capacity to love His children even when our behavior deserves His judgment. Is that a tacit endorsement of bad behavior? Of course, it is not. Its a demonstration of His merciful heart.

And I never see gods themselves issuing rules, only people claiming to speak for them, which is why basic societal rules like whether polygamy is OK have never been settled.

Interestingly, according to the verses I noted above, God clearly states that polygamy is not part of His design for us. And again, we are flawed God is not. So yes, there are many who speak without any real consideration of God or His Word.

On a more practical basis, since nobody can demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that their particular rules actually ARE "the" absolute rules, it all ends up being argued by people anyway.

True. But just because people disagree, that does not negate the reality of an absolute truth. You can make all the grand arguments you want some of which may even be convincing. But no matter how intelligent you are, and no matter how well you state your arguments if the God of the Bible exists (and I only say if for your benefit and to make this point), then within the next 30 to 40 years (assuming you are about 40 to 50 years old) you will not only meet Him, but you will be judged by Him. I dont say that to be judgmental or hostile towards you, but Id like for you to consider and recognize that your rhetoric has consequences not only for those that you convince, but for you personally. I hope your convictions are truly heartfelt not because I feel that will change the results of those convictions, but at least you are not marching down a road with pride as your bandleader. IF you truly believe that God does not exist (or that his moral compass is infallible), then so be it Im sure you sleep well and theres nothing else I can say. BUT if youre just presenting arguments to show how well you can defend yourself and/or belittle the arguments of others well, that makes you a great debater, but it doesnt negate the truth nor will it allow you to sleep very well. For your consideration I hope you do.

Tell a lie long enough and good people will believe it as the truth or something like that. Not sure who said it, but Ive seen that occur in my lifetime many times over especially by politicos who have an axe to grind.

Bush may have told a lie or two I wouldnt put my life up for grabs based on anyones ability to be wholly honest all the time. That said - I dont believe hes guilty of the big lies that many accuse him of uttering. I know the accusations so please dont list them for me again. I also know that there have been plenty of reinterpretations made to portray Bush as the person liberals love to hate. So be it. Hate him.

Soon there will be a new President, and liberals (and those who drink their Kool-Aid) will have a new opportunity to smear the next guy. Or, if things go their way, they can bury their heads in the sand and scream into the earth about how much better things are now with their man (or woman) in office.

I believe the war our troops are fighting against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is realand it needs to be fought as much as possible in those arenas, lest we want to see those battles played out in our streets on a regular basis. Yesterday, when 3,000 plus Americans were murdered in THIS country simply for being American (or associating with Americans) - Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and others (many of which were Democrats touting their patriotism) were considered strong and brave leaders. And we were extremely happy to have them in office especially given the alternative. Today, because many Americans have memories which fade as quickly as their emotions (and convictions, or the lack thereof, to match); Bush is accused of war-mongering for oil. Tomorrow, when some horrible crime against humanity is committed in the name of Allah, there will be a new story to spin and new lies to embrace But ultimately, most will fall their knees in prayer and ask for strong leaders with convictions to do the right thing. Whatever Bushs flaws may be; Im thankful to have him in office. Someday soon, probably much sooner than I want I believe most folks in this country will long for his presence or someone just like him to be in office again. Sadly that day may not be soon enough to make a difference.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)