Making Values Great Again: The Only Way America Can Survive
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Ever since 2016, there has been a lot of talk about “making America great again.”
If you’re a conservative you probably believe that America is great and used to be even greater. You want to restore America’s greatness. But just how do we do that? How do we make America great again?
A lot of people are focused on securing our borders and cracking down on illegal immigration. Border security is extremely important and must be a top priority if we’re to make America great again. However, building a wall and securing our borders, while important, is not enough.
What about lowering taxes and cutting burdensome regulations? Perhaps we should focus more on appointing conservative judges to the courts? Yes, all of these are quite important and all are necessary to make America great again. But it’s still not enough. It still doesn’t go to the root of the problem.
In order to truly make America great again, we must once again return to traditional family values. We must once again embrace America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. President Ronald Reagan once said, “If we
Sadly, over the last few decades we have slowly but surely kicked God out of the public square. The left seeks to eradicate any vestiges of the Judeo-Christian heritage that our nation relied on for over 200 years.
As God has been kicked out what has been brought in? Atheism, secularism, and moral relativism — some might even say moral depravity — have slowly replaced the church and synagogue.
Just last month New York State legislators clapped and celebrated uproariously as New York passed what truly amounts to an infanticide law that allows babies to be killed up until the moment of birth.
Young children are being told they can “transition” to a new gender if they feel like it.
The very definition of marriage itself has been radically redefined.
The left has also invented approximately 3,357 new “genders” one can choose from should he/she/they/it decide to. People don’t even know what bathroom to pee in anymore and worst of all, young children and teenagers are being indoctrinated and brainwashed with this insanity at schools all across the country.
If we are to truly make America great again we have to fight this.
We have to find a way to somehow put the proverbial brakes on this insanity and to restore traditional family values and our Judeo-Christian heritage. It won’t be easy when the schools, the media and Hollywood are constantly promoting secularism and moral relativism. But we have to try. We can’t give up this fight.
This is a fight for our culture, for our heritage, for the very soul of who we are as a nation. We are one nation under God. We are a nation that says, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. We are a nation in which almost every president since George Washington has been sworn in on the Bible.
If this nation is to survive we must do more than simply secure our borders. We must secure America’s soul. We must once again boldly, loudly, and emphatically declare that in America we put God first and will always be proud of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Only then will we be able to save America. Only then will we Make America Great Again.
Tags
Who is online
563 visitors
“Sadly, over the last few decades we have slowly but surely kicked God out of the public square. The left seeks to eradicate any vestiges of the Judeo-Christian heritage that our nation relied on for over 200 years.
As God has been kicked out what has been brought in? Atheism, secularism, and moral relativism — some might even say moral depravity — have slowly replaced the church and synagogue.
Just last month New York State legislators clapped and celebrated uproariously as New York passed what truly amounts to an infanticide law that allows babies to be killed up until the moment of birth.
Young children are being told they can “transition” to a new gender if they feel like it.
The very definition of marriage itself has been radically redefined.
The left has also invented approximately 3,357 new “genders” one can choose from should he/she/they/it decide to. People don’t even know what bathroom to pee in anymore and worst of all, young children and teenagers are being indoctrinated and brainwashed with this insanity at schools all across the country.
If we are to truly make America great again we have to fight this.
We have to find a way to somehow put the proverbial brakes on this insanity and to restore traditional family values and our Judeo-Christian heritage. It won’t be easy when the schools, the media and Hollywood are constantly promoting secularism and moral relativism. But we have to try. We can’t give up this fight.
This is a fight for our culture, for our heritage, for the very soul of who we are as a nation. We are one nation under God. We are a nation that says, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. We are a nation in which almost every president since George Washington has been sworn in on the Bible.
RELATED: State Rep’s Prayer Shows Need for True Tolerance
If this nation is to survive we must do more than simply secure our borders. We must secure America’s soul. We must once again boldly, loudly, and emphatically declare that in America we put God first and will always be proud of our Judeo-Christian heritage.”
Which one?
"Which one? "
All but "Allah" !
We MUST placate those worshippers and "Their" God !
There is only one. The rest are fake and counterfeit of the One and only God in the universe.
You do realize that all three of the Abrahamic religions basically believe in the same god.
You are so wrong it's sad
That goes without saying. It's also typical.
Does it matter? It still happened.
You know this how? Proof?
That's nice. Prove it!
Because he "believes," as if that is equivalent to actual proof.
Because logically there can only be one. Assuming a definition requiring for God to be God there can be nothing that can resist His will. There can be nothing that can supersede Him, overrule Him or be something that God is dependent on. No necessary condition for existence except Himself.
Further, God, by definition, would be the first cause and there could only be one first cause. God could not have a beginning, but must have always existed, otherwise, whatever created God would really be God.
If you look at something like the Greek pantheon of gods, you find none of them meet such requirements. Some of them die, all of them came from something else and so on. They could supposedly beat the crap out of humans, but all of them could be resisted, fooled, defeated and had limitations. Not what I would consider God.
If one is in the business of defining 'God' it does make sense that God be the supreme entity. Given we are merely making a definition (rather than expressing something that is known to be true) God could be defined as:
The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself.
There you go. A definition for God in the abstract that captures the essence of your view. Note that this definition does not posit God is omniscient because that presumes all of reality is knowable (and thus free will is impossible). It also does not posit that God is omnipotent because that unnecessarily introduces logical problems as well.
But we are merely speculating on what God might be. We are doing nothing more than inventing a character that may or may not exist. There is no basis for believing this definition is correct and that the defined God exists; but on the flip side, there is nothing we know (logically and empirically) that prevents this God from existing. (‘Eternal’ is a problem, but let’s skip that because the reasoning is complicated.)
Now, contrast this with the biblical God (or any other God you wish to examine). The biblical God is highly attributed with self-refuting properties of perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, has historical stories, has desires, emotions, personality, gender etc. These additional details make it possible to show the biblical God —as defined— is a contradiction and thus cannot exist.
God ("eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself") might exist, but an omniscient entity that can be surprised, disappointed, persuaded, etc. by its creations is a contradiction. The biblical definition is flawed — it defines a God that is self-refuting.
Pretty much covered this above but.....people can believe in whatever God they want, no one cares. The problem is that politicians want to over step the 1st Amendment and interject their own religious beliefs in our legal systems, which is a HUGE no-no.
Lets say we do allow religions to make laws. Which religions get to make laws? All of them. How long would it be before we looked like the ME, constantly fighting over religion? My guess? Less than two years, and we would be just like the ME and having been to that shithole? No thanks.
Using logic to argue that there is only one God that you cannot even prove the existence of? Biggest fail of the year. You not only missed the target, you were aiming in the wrong direction.
Care to explain why?
There I go, what? How does this explain there can be only one God?
By definition ( note the use of the word 'singular' in the definition ). 'There you go' means 'so here is a definition of God where at most one entity can meet the criteria.'
I do not believe it is possible to prove that there can be only one God except by defining the word 'God' as such.
Do you think otherwise?
Don't even consider myself a god anymore. How sad is that?
Yes. There can be only one because, to my mind, to be "God" there cannot be any other entity that could oppose God. By oppose, I mean prevent God from achieving anything He desires to do. If such a being could, then God could not be the supreme entity, as you put it, because He would not be omnipotent.
Any other definition just describes a powerful being. Speaking for myself, I would not call such a being God. A god maybe.
Did you read the definition I offered? (TiG @1.2.11):
'God' = The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself.
Your comments suggest that you would agree with it. Do you?
When I asked if you thought otherwise I was referring to the statement that immediately preceded the question:
(paraphrasing): Do you think it is possible to prove there can be only one God except by defining the word 'God' as such?
In other words, one must define 'God' to be singular in order to prove God singular. That is, the only proof would be 'proof by definition'.
So do you agree with this?
I presume you have chosen to avoid the balance (and the core) of TiG @1.2.11:
I am assuming that you are trying to state a definition of God. There isn't anything untrue about your definition. However, it doesn't go far enough. Neither did mine, but it included the necessary requirement that not only does your definition have to be true for God to be God, God also has to be sentient, sovereign and irresistible. Your definition could simply define physical existence.
Read it again:
'God' = The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself.
I do and that’s why I said it the way I did.
And the sovereign and irresistible part?
Further, what is your point? That there could be more than one of these?
You do not equate 'sovereign' with 'supreme'? You will need to clarify what you mean by 'irresistible'.
No! My definition explicitly precludes 'more then one'. See the intentional adjective of 'singular'.
My point (the actual point of the comment) was made in the latter part of @1.2.11 and repeated @1.2.19. Given you have ignored my point, why ask me to yet again repeat it?
Currently I am mostly observing how a very clear and simple definition (using basic English words) can be misunderstood:
'God' = The eternal singular supreme sentient entity who created everything other than itself.
In this case, the misunderstanding seemingly results from selectively ignoring adjectives. If misunderstanding occurs at this most basic level, it is no wonder it occurs in more complex discussions.
Supreme doesn't mean sovereign. Talking about supreme, one could be talking about who won the Super Bowl. Sovereignty means supreme power and authority.
Unable to resist something.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to play your game. If your definition excludes "more than one", which concerns the question brought on by Mr. Frost in 1.2.7, what is your point? You apparently are agreeing that there cannot be more than one God. Is there something in what I wrote about why there can be only one God that you disagree with? If so, get on with it. State your objection. If you are trying to do something else, state it plainly.
Frankly, I am okay with sovereign, but I want to make a point. I see you going out of your way to disagree even on points where, really, you should be in full agreement. You object to my use of supreme in the following definition that I posited for God:
You insist that I use sovereign because 'supreme' is too vague. Yet the definition I posited is based on what seems to be the most common core definition for God: supreme entity (or supreme being). For example:
What, Drakk, do you think a supreme entity is?
Further, the definition I posited explicitly shows God as singular (unique) and as the creator of everything. Again, entirely consistent with the most common definitions (for the Christian God). My point is that you object to an extremely common way of defining the Christian God.
There is no wonder in my mind why you routinely misunderstand and/or misrepresent what I write given you object even to a basic definition of God that I posit - one that correlates well with the most common definitions of God. Disagreeing just to disagree is what I see. It is as if you presume disagreement and go cherry-picking to find something on which to disagree ... and ... as in this case, engineer disagreement even when there is virtually nothing on which to disagree.
It is not a game. I made an argument. For the record here is the argument again - TiG @ 1.2.11 :
This argues that the biblical God is a contradiction - a self-refuting character as defined and thus cannot exist. But a God by a different definition (e.g. the one I posited) might exist.
If you have no good response that is fine, but do not accuse me of playing a game as your excuse.
Yeah? Well here's what I see. I responded to Mr. Frost's post about how can we know there's only one God. You respond to me not about whether there can be one God or not, but about defining God. For some reason you don't identify, you felt you needed to change what I said into what you have said and insist we argue from there, else why are we still arguing about it? And, what does it have to do with the idea that there can be only one God?
There is nothing inaccurate in what you've said in your description, but it doesn't convey what I intended. Supreme refers to a position among a group. Supreme in comparison to something else. You need to keep in mind what it is I was addressing. Why can there be only one God? Saying God is supreme, while true, doesn't really say anything about why He is supreme.
This, although not really complete, is sovereignty. It doesn't compare God to anything else. It doesn't put Him on a scale. I was trying to create a sense of the utterly immovable rock and the utterly irresistible force that God is. The reason I am arguing against your version is not because it's wrong, but because I don't agree it conveys what I was going for. Plus, I don't appreciate you trying to reword what I've said any more than you would if I reworded what you say. I meant what I said and I put it the way I did for a reason.
Absolutely you are playing a game. The same one you so often play. You seemingly respond to the subject, which was why there could be only one God. You spend one whole sentence on it and then try to change the subject to one of your choosing. You had no intent or interest in trying to discuss the actual question. That being so, why on Earth should I let you lead me where I don't wish to go? I already know your opinion of my God and the Bible. I already know you would reject any explanation I can give you for why you are wrong about "The biblical God is highly attributed with self-refuting properties of perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, has historical stories, has desires, emotions, personality, gender etc."
You forgot what you wrote?:
This was your proof that there is only one God - proof by definition. My response was all about defining God. Noting that one can indeed define 'God' and thus make God, by definition, be whatever one wishes. Not really much of a proof. Defining God as singular makes it so there is only one God by definition. Your definition did it and, if you note, my definition did it too. Proof by definition is not much of a proof.
I then noted that definitions can also define an impossible God - such as that defined by the Bible. You brought up the Greek gods and I tossed the God of the Bible into the ring. All under the general umbrella of defining God.
And, as usual, here I am yet again showing you what you wrote and what I wrote when this is all quite clear in the thread.
As noted, I have no objection with you using sovereignty or sovereign , but the word alone does not connote what you think it does:
Sovereign ( Oxford ) = " Possessing supreme or ultimate power."
Sovereign ( Merriam Webster ) = " 1 a : superlative in quality b : of the most exalted kind : SUPREME sovereign virtue c : having generalized curative powers a sovereign remedy d : of an unqualified nature : UNMITIGATED sovereign contempt e : having undisputed ascendancy : PARAMOUNT 2 a : possessed of supreme power a sovereign ruler b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT sovereign states "
Your own words show the limited meaning of sovereignty:
Using ' sovereignty ' in your definition for God simply states that God has supreme or ultimate power (and thus authority). You need to add your additional qualifications and, if you are to do that, you could use supreme or sovereign since they are synonyms in this usage. Supreme is what most definitions seem to use.
And, to be crystal clear, your additional qualifications in your personal extended definition of the word sovereignty:
I already did. You cannot even prove the existence of ONE god, but you can logically determine that there can be only one God? That literally makes no sense at all.
The problem is that you cannot prove the existence of one god, much less prove that there is only one God versus many Gods... That is where your logic falls apart.
True, but think about what would happen if you did. You come up with some definition of God, and my definition subjugated yours to mine because yours had some flaw allowing it, yours would get demoted to god. We'd both keep on defining better and better Gods until we reached, logically, the greatest possible entity. All I have done is cut to the chase. The purpose of which was to make it plain there could be only one.
I disagree the God of the Bible is impossible. My belief is He is the only one that qualifies as God. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I won't respond to anything about this further at this time. I don't have time for it.
It does among Christians. That is also why I gave the description of God that I did in my original post. I was explaining some of what we mean by the word as applied to God in Christian understanding. For a more complete (but not totally complete) understanding of the word as applied by Christians to God:
If you read the link above you should note it isn't my personal extended definition. Most serious Christians would use the word applied to God as I do.
Your question was how do we know there is only one God, not, is there a God. It is not necessary to prove there is a God in order to logically prove that, should God exist, there could only be one.
Your definition of God is better than that of the Bible because your definition is not self-refuting (although eternal has some issues). An omniscient entity, such as that defined by the Bible, cannot —by definition— learn anything because it already knows everything. The consequences of that simple fact in the context of the biblical God (especially the stories) are staggering.
I have no doubt that it does to you, but as with most things religious everyone seems to have their own variant of truth. Christian beliefs vary ... considerably.
It is Drakk. You have added substantial meaning to the word and that meaning is not corroborated by dictionaries. Your link shows others who, like you, have added their own extensions to the English word.
Look, I have no objection to people using 'sovereignty' in their description of God. But one should recognize when one is attaching additional meaning to a word. The dictionaries define the word. If you wish to state deeper meaning that the word holds for you that is fine, but recognize you are adding that additional meaning. It does not come pre-packaged in the word alone.
You're going to believe what you will, but it does come pre-packaged with that meaning.
This is the sense in which we apply the word to God but what does it mean for God to have supreme or ultimate power? You have to unpack the meaning behind that description for it to actually have any meaning. When you say a particular State has National Sovereignty, we are saying they have the authority and the power to govern themselves. It is a legal and political device. It does not mean they have the ability to do whatever they please and no one can stop them as many States have discovered in war. We are not saying the same thing when we apply Sovereignty to God. We mean something else. Even atheists recognize this. So what is meant? The link is an unpacking of sovereignty as it applies to God. There isn't any special adding onto the meaning of the word.
A singular (meaning unique) supreme (meaning top dog) entity that is eternal and who has created everything other than itself (meaning everything exists at its pleasure) is about as superior as it gets.
How do you beat that?
Are you suggesting that your god isn't both omniscient and omnipotent, despite the fact that you believe that he created the universe and everything in it?
Why would you worship someone who isn't omnipotent and omniscient, and why would you pray to that same deity if he didn't have the power to change things at will, if he so chose to do so?
I haven't included aspects that aren't necessary for the discussion.
How does this question relate to the discussion? Do you even know what the discussion is about?
You're are dancing faster than Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers combined.
You don't want to get pinned down with a definition of god because you know that your argument isn't defensible and if you do get pinned down with a definition of god your current house of cards falls apart and even you cannot try to defend it. Do you think that we do not notice your desperate logical dance around the truth?
You are trying to act tough, that only broadcasts that you know that your argument isn't logical, because if you had a rational argument you wouldn't have to be so defensive.
I dare you and any other religious conservative to take this Battleground God quiz and have a result that contains less than 3 hits. This is a test of the logic of your religious beliefs.
Whatever. What you are not doing is anything resembling contributing to the discussion.
(Sigh) I took it and it was as leading as I expected it to be. I took one hit as follows.
This is complete crap because it assumes that God and the Loch Ness monster, should they exist, exist in the same manner and are capable of being discovered in the same manner. In other words, the question is examined strictly from a materialist point of view. The Loch Ness monster, should it exist, would obviously be an animal of some sort. Therefore we should theoretically be able to discover it using standard methods, more or less. However, it is claimed that God is not a material creature but is in fact a supernatural Spirit. To my knowledge, science has yet to develop a capability to detect such a being. Since discovery of God would then entail a different method, it is not a contradiction in positions.
I also bit one bullet, whatever that means. I suspect it means they know how weak their objection to my choice was.
First, that the vast majority of scientists think evolution through natural selection doesn't make them right. Believing on that basis is an ad populum fallacy. The vast majority believed the universe had no beginning until Edwin Hubble proved them wrong.
Second, the question was too limited as it does not allow for a third option of intelligent design. That is, that evolution is guided by God and not natural selection.
An entity that created our universe might have the power to direct every aspect of change. Guiding evolution would involve directing mutations (among other things) to occur. Some mutations will be harmless replications of genes that either do nothing or produce features in the creature that are largely irrelevant. Others actually cause harm. And then there are the helpful mutations that add features beneficial to survival. This last part is what enables the formation of new species.
These mutations work in conjunction with the changing environment (which would also have to be directed by the creator for this to work). Features that enable the creature to survive conditions of its environment enable the creature to reproduce and pass those helpful genetic features onto its progeny.
If the creator (God) is directing evolution, not only is He coordinating life at an extraordinarily detailed level, but He is failing most of the time. Further, He is directing features to emerge that are ridiculous - features that make sense if they resulted from undirected processes but not from an intelligent designer (e.g.: " The Poor Design of the Human Eye "):
So sure evolution might be guided by an incredibly powerful and knowledgeable entity (God) but if so, God is purposely trashing things around to produce results that appear to be a result of unintelligent trial & error. Seems like a stretch to think evolution is directed by God when there are vastly superior explanations for what we have observed.
The aspect of this that strikes me most, however, is that you jump to God-directed evolution for (clearly) religious reasons. You posit God as the biochemical micro-manager directing all the details of biochemical evolution and, necessarily, the changing conditions of the environment.
All this control of the details of life and environment by God yet you also insist that this same God provides free will . The contortions one must go through to try to preserve a biblical view of God should be a hint that maybe the Bible is not the best definition for God. It would save logic a ton of torture.
Why not hold to the abstract definition you posited for God and recognize the Bible as simply an ancient book written by men and thus replete with fiction (imagination of the authors) and errors resulting from human mistakes, poor logic and ignorance?
You're deflecting since the link you posted included those aspects.
No, thanks. I'd rather be counted among the foolish.
Me too. I stand with the literal Bible being written by men and women inspired in their writings by God.
Which one?
I miss Zeus. He was always so flashy. Monotheism is boring.
Hermes was the original speedster. Move over Flash! lol
Apollo was the good looking one
The bible states that mortal man is fallible so when will your god confirm those inspirations to be true, instead of them being the projected opinions of ancient men with the claimed backing of god to give them religious and secular authority?
isn't that interesting... the bible states mortal man is fallible.. capable of mistakes and being erroneous... yet somehow when they wrote the bible they were suddenly infallible for that particular time period, right ? ... seems to be what the religious believe... it's almost as if the answer is right in there face... mortal men are fallible... yet they refuse to believe it when it comes to the bible being written by.. mortal men...
God is omniscient and omnipotent but somehow he can't be bothered to write down his own beliefs or edit those beliefs that were written by others so people know that they are correct.
I'm not sure why people would worship a deity such as that?
Why do you love him when he has done nothing for you other than to threaten you with eternal torture for being fallible, that he permitted to happen? Your god both created the concept of sin and then created you not to be perfect so that you sinned. That is the epitome of gaslighting. He is blaming you for a critical design failure that he could have corrected but he didn't.
He told you not to worship other gods, but if he is truly omnipotent then why do those other gods exist when he could have eliminated them?
Why did he allow pain and hell to be created if he truly loves you?
God did not create the concept of sin nor did he make us imperfect.
Who or what, then, created sin?
Did God make human beings perfect?
According to Genesis, god created everything.
Your god cannot be both omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent, (all powerful) if he did not also create sin.
The bible says that man is fallible so you are imperfect. How can the bible be the literal word of god, as you ave said that it is, if this isn't true? Why were Adam and Eve thrown out of the garden of Eden if they weren't fallible enough to eat the forbidden fruit? if god made perfect creatures they would not have been tempted.
You have argued yourself into a logical corner, so how do you plan to get out of it?
(By pretending the corner does not exist?)
Denial isn't a river in Egypt.
You are trying to argue concepts you don't understand. Sin wasn't created any more than dark was created. Neither good nor evil were created. God is good and He is eternal. Therefore, good has always existed. Evil did not. Evil didn't appear until Satan rebelled. It is not a thing you can hold in your hand. You can't scoop up a cup of evil or put it under a microscope. Evil is simply what isn't God's will. It is a potential, not a thing.
When it is said God made us perfect, it is not in the sense that He is perfect. It means when He created man, He got exactly what He wanted for His purposes. People who could have a relationship with Him of their own free will. It doesn't mean we were incapable of choosing not to have a relationship with Him. To choose our own way rather than His. We chose not to. He forced us out of the Garden because that is the result of living outside of His will. Most of the horrible things we do to each other isn't the result of God punishing us. It is the result of us choosing to do it on our own. The result of us thinking we can do it better ourselves than listening to and obeying God.
We are not in a corner. You only think we are because you do not know God. You do not understand the concepts in the Bible because you read it not to understand what it says but to find some way to make it fit your argument. You do not believe God exists, let alone believe in Him. What makes you think you can tell us what it is we believe, then? You don't even know what it means that God made us perfect. You create an argument from non-understanding and then challenge us on the logic as if it were our own? And you can't even see that you're doing it.
Presuming God as the omniscient, omnipotent creator, darkness could not exist if the creator did not wish it to exist. Similarly, if the creator produces conditions where evil emerges then the creator indirectly created evil. For an omniscient and omnipotent creator there is no difference between things that happen directly and those that emerge later. Everything is known to God and God is in full control over that which He creates. Everything, good or bad, is what God knew would happen and what God allows. Thus God created Satan fully knowing Satan would rebel.
To make epistte's quoted comment wrong you would need to equivocate on the meaning of omniscience and omnipotence.
God gets what God wants. ( Disregarding, for the moment, the logical contradiction of a knowable future and free will. )
One could also claim (with rather decent supporting evidence) that believers interpret the Bible in a way that fits their desires. Claiming to 'know God' is an arrogant argument that probably will not persuade many people. 'I know God and you do not therefore I am right and you are wrong' is an appeal to emotion.
If it exists then it had to be created. If your god is truly omnipotent then either he created or he didn't stop it from being created. Dark was also created when your god created the universe, if you believe Genesis.
Other religions do not have a concept of sin, such as Buddhism.
So much bs so little time
If there is only one God then explain:
The Human Truth Foundation
Religion Comparison Table
A List of All Religions and Belief Systems
By Vexen Crabtree 2013
FB , LJ
81 entries are listed here. It is simply impossible to list all varieties of religion 1 as we as a species have created an almost infinite variety of religious and transcendental ideas. Items in lower case italics are classes of religion and not actual religions. For example, "theism" is any religion that contains god(s), and "polytheism" is a form of theism .
What data do you want in the table?
Options
Icons
Compact Layout
Origins & Background
Heritage
Area of Origin
Founded
Founder
Description
Description
God(s)?
Afterlife
Holy Texts
Don't worry Don. You will get it spread around soon enough. It is what you do
Don't worry Don. You will get it spread around soon enough. It is what you do
Then how does sin supposedly exist and how can perfect beings such as we (according to you) commit sin or clearly be imperfect as we are now?
By completely ignoring it, as usual.
He has abandoned this question and started another hair-on-fire shriek thread.
I have warned him if he doesn't stop lighting his hair on fire every day I will be forced to create a GoFundMe page to pay for hair plugs to restore what little hair he has not immolated.
It's sad when people have imaginary friends. It's even sadder when they have imaginary enemies.
We should tax the churches as Patrick Henry and others suggested.
Another faux christian persecution complex article
Is anyone stopping you from going to church
Are you free to worship the God you choose to worship
Are you free to pray
In their minds, they are being persecuted if they are forbidden from trammpling on the the the religious and secular rights of others.
They haven't understood this idea yet.
I think you need to reread that.
It was read correctly. Secular progressives believe Christianity must accept crumbs of limited so called liberty granted by the state which to them is their god.
Factually incorrect, nothing but rhetoric.
I dare you to name even once when Christians would have any fewer religious rights than anyone else? What supposed secular progressive has ever sought to deny religious consecutive or anyone else your equal religious right to believe and worship as you desire?
You now have the same rights as everyone else but your goal is not equality, but instead is the desire to force others to obey your beliefs, both secular and religious via legislation,, which tramples on their secular and religious rights.
You are commanded to tell the truth in the 10 Commandments or is that also a violation of your religious beliefs? if you are such a devout Christian then why do you have to be reminded to obey your Savior and the book that you claim to be the literal word of your god?
The goal that you are seeking is not Christian because Jesus told you not to treat others as unequal. You are trying to cherry pick the Bible for passages as a way to support discrimination against minorities such as LGBT and other religions, despite the obvious passages of the 4 Gospels where Jesus told his followers to treat others as equals. Your goal of denying equal service to LGBT and others cannot possibly be a religious rights when your savior tells you not to do it.
That’s not enough. What is required is the religious liberty to be able to engage in the full free exercise of religious belief in every aspect of our daily lives. We have the right to freedom of religion and all its practices and beliefs all the time everywhere not just the right to believe and pray between the four walls of a mosque, temple, or church at meeting time and at home. The free exercise clause is every bit as important as the establishment clause is.
Too bad, you will NEVER turn this country into a theocracy, if you want a theocracy, move to the middle east. This country will NEVER accept your faux christian sharia
"in god we trust"
everyone else? not so much.
and, an individual's religious liberty does not equal a theocracy/form of govt.
cheers
that does seem to be the goal , to have the country be a " perfect Christian utopia " of everyone worshipping the same God and the " perfect " family of 2 opposite gender parents who raise children and everyone goes to Church every Sunday to get their marching orders from their local religious leader , every law being based upon Christianity ( which version ? meh, we'll battle that out later, right ? we'll make everyone lockstep with one person's interpretations and beliefs in their God ) and everyone will hold hands singing happy songs because God will stop all shootings, and stop all pedophiles and stop all fighting etc. -- or at least in their utopia dream it'll happen that way ... they don't seem to like reality much ...
you would have to define very carefully " religious liberty " and it's limits ( if any ) - or yes, you'll end up with a theocracy ... they have " religious liberty " in the Middle East don't they ?
cheers
we have had religious liberty here in the USA since the day our constitution was signed.
have ya read the first amendment?
I think the left is afraid of their own imaginations.
cheers to you too
They want the 1950s back.
actually, I think we would settle for the 80's
Don't tell me it was the hair styles.
LOL... no, but that's funny.
actually, it was a peaceful time, fewer tensions in the world, the only military conflict I even remember from the 80's was grenada and that took like 15mins. maybe I slept thru some other conflict... who knows... LOL
back then everyone on both sides of the aisle loved our country or at least still pretended to. unlike the past decade, no riots, no cities burning, and some decent tunes.
I mean, we still have some good tunes now, but overall, the 80's were good fun.
There are a number of members who want the 50's back.
then i suppose the religious have nothing to complain about and aren't being " persecuted " , huh ?
i sure have, but i don't remember anywhere in that amendment where it states you can use your " religious " beliefs to legally discriminate against others ... could you point out where that idea was born from ? ( or did you forget about the "battle" for same sex marriage ? a secular legal right and not religious at all - just one example for you ... and they didn't gain that right until well after your "utopia" time frame of the 1980s... i guess equal rights for all citizens is bad ?? )
good possibility - just like the " right " ... i wouldn't personally know, i'm not apart of either of those sides, i don't play those silly little games - i graduated high school quite awhile ago .
cheers !
The only way for them to get to the 50s is build a time machine, otherwise they are SOL
oh, I wouldn't go that far, a segment of our society is actively trying to suppress religious liberty by forcing people to act against their faith. this can not be denied.
but, have no fear, the courts will sort it all out. that is how the system works.
cheers
we saw that debate with same sex marriage . Do you think the religious need exemptions from secular laws and are above secular laws ?
cheers
which debate? rhetorical
people debate all the time, and say lots of stupid shit. that means nothing.
the religious are subject to the same court system as everyone else.
cheers
that wasn't the question - and i suspect you know that.
i'll ask again - maybe this time you'll answer ?
Do you think the religious need exemptions from secular laws and are above secular laws ?
but it was the answer, regardless of how you feel about it.
I think the courts will work it out. regardless of what we think.
and by saying "everyone is subject to the same court system" well, that kind of implies we all follow the same laws, as it should be.
cheers
What if my religion requires daily human sacrifice? What if my religion requires that non-believers be beheaded? What of Mormons who are denied the right to more than one wife? Is it only one religious group that should have liberty, or is it all religious groups?
Nope that isn't true in the least...Better spend more time reviewing the history of the US...
ah, finally an answer - thanks
cheers !
Know you're gonna get some feedback on that statement, but this "country" has had religious freedom for a couple thousands of years - way before dominant society decided to stop it, smash it, kill the worshippers, force them to stop their religious practices, kidnapping their kids and sending them to RELIGIOUS schools to take the "Indian" out of them and to massacre entire tribes/nations to ensure ONLY the dominant society way of life.
Ya know where they got the idea for the 1st Amendment???? The Iroquois Confederacy in the mid-1754 by Ben Franklin in the Albany Plan of Union.
When the colonists were setting up their meetings to discuss the formation/organization of the new government, they met with the leaders of the Iroquois Confederacy, a Native American government comprised of five powerful tribes of the Northeast. The Iroquois Confederation had been formed in about the 1100 to 1300 timeframe and had been governed under the Great Law of Peace since about 1300. The Great Law of Peace was a centralized government format that was based on input from all members of the Confederacy, not just the leaders and Clan Mothers.
Benjamin Franklin, who had studied the foundation and framework of the Great Law of Peace, addressing the Albany Congress in 1754, said he didn’t see how the colonies couldn’t develop a government based on the example of the Confederacy whose government had lasted and been sustained for hundreds of years.
The colonials employed some of the concepts of the Great Law of Peace in the development of the Constitution, such as participation in the governmental by all, bicameral legislature of the House and Senate, one government, common territory and common defense, freedom of religious expression, passage of laws by consensus, election by the people of one leader and removal from office by impeachment for non-performance of assigned duties.
The development of the Constitution and framework of the U. S. government was not a quick process. The colonists worked and researched for well over 40 years, to develop the document that we have as our guidance and pattern for individual, state and governmental rights, liberties and processes of laws – the U. S. Constitution.
and with some updates along the way things have been working out just fine.
as I said, the courts will work it out. whatever it is. courts take time also. and of course, new lines will have to be drawn from time to time as well.
the only thing anyone can promise from minute to minute is no matter what happens next someone will be pissed off about it.
cheers
I think the supreme court will eventually uphold an atheist bakers right to not be forced by a christian to "custom" decorate a cake with a cross if that goes against the atheists beliefs.
I also do not think lesbian wedding planners should be forced to do straight weddings against their will.
but I'm weird like that
The only thing Ronald Reagan ever regretted
after having been a Hollywood hero
and a WWII Hollywood hero
and married & divorced from an a Hollywood superstar and remarrying another Hollywood superstar
was signing the Ca Senate Bills and CA House Bills separately that legally established no fault divorce in this country.
He signed both in 1969, effective in 1970.
By 1975, CA divorces had doubled.
Within a few more years with 9 more states adopting similar laws by 1988 the national average of divorces had doubled.
In Reagan's memoirs and recorded conversation's with his son, he stated that signing the California bills was his greatest regret of his life in public office.
He ( further ) shredded the sanctity of marriage (ironic ) with a signature ( or two) .
That will never happen, the 1st Amendment is quite clear about this. And even if it did, would you be comfortable with prayer rugs and the Muslim call to prayer in the same places you want to push YOUR religion? My guess is no.
Where? Examples please.
No one is talking about a theocracy. We are talking about allowing believers to live, breathe, work, operate a business, think, act, and express as they believe within the free exercise there of of that belief without infringement from others as in individuals or government. That’s not forcing ones beliefs upon others but preventing others from trampling upon ours.
The 80’s were awesome. Most of us weren’t even born in the 1950’s and we don’t want it’s recessions and tax rates or it’s huge war.
Most of us that WERE don't want to go back to the discrimination or segregation.
thanks to the left, we now have more violence, riots, discrimination and segregation today than we ever did in the 80"S - job well done.
Fast forward to present day? Those protesters shouting "blood and soil" and chanting, "the Jews will not replace us!", were REPUBLICAN trump supporters. David Duke was there, once again singing the praises of trump.
Oh do tell me all about your vast experience fighting for equality.
You want businesses to the right to discriminate all based on your religious beliefs, that is the start of a theocracy. Open a business and follow the law.
You are glossing over the reality of TODAY. Today its the right wing that holds the majority of racists. And no I'm not saying everyone on the right is a racist but most racists are right wing.
deleted for context
No, I think the ideal time is a bit further back then that, back to Royalty.
That Nobel and romantic time when power was held by one man and his royal court and nobles, everybody worshiped the same god the same way and same time (by royal decree as all laws were) and the selected religion stated the king was selected and blessed by god, and supported the king and all his actions or the king will pick another religion or make his own, by god.
The peasants produced for all that and accepted the king's scraps themselves and took care of each other and were a self renewing resource and cycled at a good rate at a easy to control level.
Women better be beautiful, entertaining, well-born, quiet and wiling in the hopes of getting a noble's attention for as long as possible because the alternative was a life of drudgery and likely a early death.
If any peasant didn't like any part of it or were disloyal or disrespectful of the king, the guards came in the night and they were never seen...intact or alive.. again.
I think that's the latest version.
Might be just the impression I get.
Sounds nice if you are a man, but women were property and you know what you can do with that, just as an example look what Henry VIII did to Queen Anne Boylen because "she" couldn't give him a male heir.
The interesting thing is that because so many of Henry VIII's wives seemed to be able to have one child, and then had problems after that, it is apparently likely that he had a disease which caused that (kind of like my having an Rh factor which means I could have one pregnancy, but any after that would be rejected by my body if I didn't get a gamma globulin shot, but apparently not the same thing).
Who says you can't? Do you pray over your food when you're in a restaurant? Does anybody stop you? Do you have a cross or Jesus fish on your car? Do you wear religious paraphernalia?
And just what do you mean by "bringing God back into the public square?" Isn't God with you at all times? Why do I need to see God in the public square?
I wish conservative Christians would read their own Bible because Jesus teaches how followers not to do that.
Matthew 6.6
Piggie Park BBQ also tried to cite his religious beliefs, but instead of LGBT people he was trying to deny equal service to black people. Where does Jesus tell his followers to do that? Jesus wasn't a racist and he isn't a homophobe.
"Sounds nice if you are a man, but women were property and you know what you can do with that, just as an example look what Henry VIII did to Queen Anne Boylen because "she" couldn't give him a male heir".
LOL
Not the least surprised you have that view.. you modern women just don't have any respect for tradition. I never thought much of that system of rule either, unless I could be the king and I don't have any offers.
Royal fashion included those much-tighter-than-skin corsets, I don't know how any of them ever became pregnant or managed to stay pregnant more then a couple of months.
What values? Especially anything 'value based' in correlation to the Trump?
A serial adulterer and liar in the white house and you talk about values....give me a fucking break
I started to compare Trump's morals with those of feral alley cats but then i reconsidered. What did alley cats ever do to deserve that comparison?
He lies. He cheats. He steals. Is there even one moral quality he exemplifies?
Greed, gluttony, hubris, envy, lust. Hell! Trump is a human compendium of sin.
That supposed Christians defend him should surely cause Jesus to cringe...
The 7 deadlies
You realize that Jesus spent a lot of time when here on earth with those whom the then establishment swamp called sinners?
Jesus also said false prophets would abuse his name for their own ungodly political aims [delete]
sort of. but I don't think anyone on the right today is advocating for or supports the notion of one ruler over all men as the story goes.
in fact, we just rejected globalism a few yrs ago when we elected trump
Well then, I guess that means that you have outsmarted Jesus /S...
I was referring to one mans/govt reign over men.
eventually, globalism will stick. just not yet. tis way too early for that.
and nothing will stop christ. when the gods return, they will bring laser guns.. LOL
Nice to know you want to push your beliefs on everyone. Traditional family - is that where dad can beat on mom & the kids with no repercussions? Where dad can fuck around on mom, but she will be stoned for doing so? Is that where mom & daughters are property (until daughter is sold to the old fuck down the street)?
Funny how you think only your morals are acceptable.
Persecution of Christians my ass....
And yet he'd be screeching like a banshee if Muslims tried to put their religion into our public spaces and laws.
Fucking hypocritical Christian dominionism bullshit.
Thank goodness most Christians aren't like that. They know that the separation of church and state protects them as it does everyone else.
I just get tired of Christians like him that think they hold the moral high ground.
Maybe christians are being persecuted because they deserve it?
The only way the Christians can at least regain SOME of the moral high ground is to publicly denounce trump and vote him out of office. As long as they support a POTUS that has no morals at all, they don't get to claim the moral high ground.
Eternal victimhood must be exhausting
You all speaking from direct experience?
No and neither are you
Correct! I have no experience at all with eternal victim hood.
yepp.
god helps those who help themselves.
strengthen the legal backstop. trumps judicial picks have been sailing thru the senate and will stop any bs from the left for decades to come.
I actually thought id never see the day when...
on any given day...
I Remember that article. I must have read it at Real Clear Politics because it costs money to read it from your link!
So you want someone like Obama. One marriage, no infidelity. Trump.....wow, not even sure where to start with that one. Gingrich? Rudy?
I find it interesting how every women's right issue the left supports invariably has to do with the destruction of the family unit. abortion and free contraception are prime examples.
Very good points well made.
Yeah, except for actual History which plainly explains that in 1972 Dick Nixon explicitly invited all the disaffected racist Dixiecrats into the damn gop's Big Tent as part of his and the gop's "Southern Strategy" for reelection. Remember The Committee To Reelect The President? I do. And so, that is how it happened and so the gop is where that deplorable contingency still abides today. In the damn gop...
And yet the democrats held the south at the local, state, us house and us senate levels until close to the year 2000 and won it at the presidential level in 1976, 1992, 1996 right up until it turned on one of its own, rejecting the son of a segregationist in favor of the son of a carpetbagger. So no, it is not true that segregationist democrats all converted to the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower after the civil rights act was passed with GOP support to break a southern democrat filibuster
That revisionist history bullshit line or lousy lying fakeass propaganda you are still trying, and still failing, to sell would make Joseph Goebbels blush...
Actually everything I said in my post is historically and factually accurate. We can dig up the partisan make up of each southern state and see how democrat things were at all levels for how long for each. We are both old enough to know that World Book Encyclopedias can prove me right. Also, the long term migration of northerners from the rust belt to the sun belt had more to do with the demographic change in the south than any other factor.
that is one hell of a stretch huh? LOL give em time... and in 30 or 40yrs they will try to convince everyone the tea party knocked down the twin towers also.
Why? They were an entirely different party than the Democrats and had their own candidate for President when they ran against Lincoln in 1860. The conservative "Southern Democrat" party supported continuing slavery with John C. Breckinridge as their Presidential candidate. Stephen A. Douglas was the candidate for the "Democrat" party who supported the right of the Norther States to ban slavery and refuse to return escaped slaves, but was in favor of allowing the States themselves to decide whether or not to allow slavery. He was basically the middle ground between Lincoln and Breckinridge.
So the liberal progressive Democrat party in the North is the party that the current Democrat party truly grew from. The conservative Southern Democrats maintained power in their Southern States for a long time but eventually they were angered by Northern Democrats voting for the 1964 civil rights act and a Democrat President from Texas signing it into law. Over the next 30 years the Souths population didn't move, the old Southern Dixiecrat's were simply attracted to the GOP anti-immigrant messaging and their choice to stick with virtually all white male candidates while the Democrat party in the south appealed to black Americans and those who supported racial equality. Eventually, the South turned bright red as their ex-Dixiecrat population shifted parties. They come up with just about every excuse in the book to obfuscate this transition but you cannot look at their current populations chock full of white conservative Republicans who have been living and voting in the same towns and counties for decades that show who they were voting for just 60 years ago. All the blatant open racists didn't get up and move, they just swept their bigotry under the GOP's seemingly clean rug. Peel that rug back and you see all the disgusting hate, bigotry and racism it barely hides that attracts the KKK, Nazi's and white supremacists like we saw in Charlottseville to their party.
how long ya think it will take until the left accuses obama of being conservative and that's why the coup attempt? because we all suddenly switched sides again... LOL
political musical chairs.... because voters change ideology as often as their underwear.
Who each had their own candidates for President? What the hell are you smoking? The only thing they had in common was the word "Democrat" which is far older that our nation. Is the current Democrat party supposed to accept blame for everything any group with Democrat in its name commits?
The 1964 civil rights act shows the clear division between Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats.
1964 Civil Rights Act Vote By party and region:
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
The Senate version:
Looks like the only thing the bigots who voted against the civil rights act had in common was they were Southern conservatives, party didn't really matter that much. And today all those Southern conservatives are still there, or their descendants, many of whom likely inherited their parents and peers bitter hate for minorities, gays, liberals and progressives, which is basically the Trump platform which is why they have all come to his sirens call.
Wow. Just wow. Women deciding when to start a family on their own timetable is part of the destruction of the family unit? WTF? In other words, the 'Again' in maga is going back to women's subjugation? Back to the days when blacks weren't allowed to be uppity? Back to the days when the white males dominated and controlled the world without the interference of the lower beings? And you, a Trump supporter and defender, who looks the other way at all his moral failing, want to define the good old days of family values? Those values can go right back where they belong, up Trump's ass. Forget your moral high ground. Its gone. Its laughable to think anybody takes that seriously today.
Both parties have "switched" ideologies over the years. Lincoln, by his policies, would be a far left wing liberal by today's standards. You are using slight of hand to try to spin the right as being in favor of women rights which is disingenuous at best. Example?
Which side supports a woman's right to make her own choices regarding her own healthcare? It's not the republicans, that's for damn sure.
and when exactly was that?
as nothing the left says out of hand can be trusted.
bring historical links to this historical switch. no leftwing sites or blogs will be accepted.
sites like history.com or even wikipedia are an acceptable source... start there
some liberal with smoke coming out their ears will not work, here is your chance to shine.
truth is, the only women's issues the left supports today are things that destroy the family unit.
IE free abortions and birth control
well then, that explains why the far left wing liberals vandalized lincolns statue huh?
today's left are the biggest group of posers on the planet
it is almost like they forget actual history. or they think maybe we do.
but somehow... the parties magically switched at some point in the middle there, and today's democrats are the party of lincoln reborn.
these people are delusional... seriously.
too funny
Why do people say stupid shit like this?
I have no idea why democrats shot lincoln in 1865 or why democrats torched lincolns statue in 2017 but somehow claim lincolns policies in 1865 aligned with todays far left liberals who just torched lincolns statue. I agree, that is some fairly stupid shit...
maybe you can splain it all to us?
or as always... attack the messenger and ignore the message. your so predictable like that,,, I luv that about you.
cheers
Utterly uninformed. 60% of abortions are on women who already have a 'family unit'. BTW, how does free contraception destroy family units? Please be specific.
The legislation was initiated by a Democratic governor.
Reagan signed the CA gun control bill, where is the right on that now?
such bs right there...
California was the first U.S. state to pass a no-fault divorce law. Its law was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan , who was not a democrat govenor.
I actually think the states have the right to regulate their militias any way they like. it is the feds who get no say in that. reagan crossed no lines there. did reagan pass any federal "gun control" legislation while in office as president? no.
Historically challenged I see. Jerry Brown's daddy Pat initiated the legislation. It took till 69 to get through the legislature.
The gun legislation that Reagan signed didn't have a fucking thing to do with regulating the CA militia.
"the people of a state" are the fuking militia. every one of them at the proper age, unless they are conscientious objectors and all state constitutions have provisions for them.
so what did we learn today?
the people of the states are the militias and state gun laws regulate said militias.
ya mean it took republicans with control of californias legislature to get it passed.
What I learned is that you're clueless.
CA, as with most states, has an Official State Militia commanded by the Governor.
No, that's not what I mean.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM YOU
In order to truly make America great again, we must once again return to traditional family values
And the Trump family should set the example for what our family values should be?
Ivanka for pole dancer.
Not as beautiful as Don Jr. though, right?
And I believe that boat would be yours.
g-nite and sweet dreams
America’s Judeo-Christian heritage
Would that be the heritage that attempted to destroy those who inhabited this country before their arrival? Those who bought and sold human beings? Those who hated Italians, the Irish and now Central Americans? Would that be the values of the KKK? Would those be the same values as Dillon Roof? Your values are nothing more than a right wing dog whistle.
A crucial and key great moment in American politics.
Happy Easter Every One.
I’m off work and the seed is re opened
What are "traditional family values"? Who's family is the model? Who's traditions? Is it the indigenous peoples? Would it be the Puritains? The colonial plantation owners? The poor indentured workers of the industrial revolution? Who gets to choose and why?
.
Why is your faith so small that where one pees or who one marries has any bearing on YOUR affinity with the divine? It shouldn't matter to the truly faithful that Wal-Mart greeters say Happy Holidays if Jesus is in YOUR heart. Again I submit the writings of people like this author are NOT Christians, but follow a twisted path. One that will only take them into darkness.