Filed under: FOR THE BORED — BibleAnswerMan (Check it out!) @ 10:57 am
HOW TO GET RID OF RELIGIOUS door knockers for good, and other religious solicitors
Hello my name is Grady,
My dear friend and Christian in a day of so many contingencies it is impossible to prove any thing beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Does this mean we should doubt our salvation as many door knockers demostrate? Quite the opposite is true. It’s not a false spirit bearing witness to a false Gospel (like burning in bosom). It’s not holy spirit goose bumps, it’s not an indwelling or a manifestation….that gives you assurance….all this can be manipulated by the god of this world (satan).
Your assurance comes in knowing the mere facts of the gospel and believing them.
This in turn gives you an absolute assurance that is indissoluble and true:
AND RELIGION IS A GOOD THING
I MEAN SOMEONE needs to feed the homeless right? (solve wellfare probs)
the problem is that RELIGION was never intended to save us.
Reforming our actions may get us better probation but they will not attian SALvation
THERE IS A GREEK WAR GOING ON RIGHT NOW
and a battle over what the bible says consistently and what the bible says literally
THIS BOOKMARK IS A COMMEMORATIVE INDEX OF FREE GRACE, the only one out there that I know of…
and it’s free….download today!
click to download…
bookmark has a “IS YOUR GOSPEL TRUE” graphic on front and 157 free grace verses on back…which makes it impossible for people to tell you to repent and be baptized to be saved….especially in light of the other hundreds of verses
Filed under: FOR THE BORED — BibleAnswerMan (Check it out!) @ 10:56 am
The Conservative Agenda: Its Basis and Its Basics
This isn’t an endorsement of a political party.
It’s mainly the endorsment of conservativism over secular humanism which is the mass education of the public schools and equals to a brain washing of communism and marxism.
The only party large enough to defeat the liberals is the republican party.
The choice is hurtfully obvious.
Vote for mcCain. (remember TWO SEATS TO CAPTURE THE SENATE!)
True Conservativism …
“We believe it is hypocritical to focus on saving baby seals while we destroying baby humans at the rate of over 3000 per day by abortion.”- excerpt from essay on conservativism
By Norman L. Geisler
As I listen to liberals articulate their agenda, I am struck by the stark contrast between true conservatism and liberalism. In point of fact, I am struck by the unAmerican nature of political liberalism. Indeed, the basics of conservativism are identical with the basis of Americanism. The natural birth of conservativism is the same as the national birth of America: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There are numerous basic principles of conservativism contained in our National Birth Certificate: The beliefs in 1) a Creator, 2) Creation, 3) God-given moral absolutes; 4) Governments are ordained of God; 5) the Providence of God, and 6) a final day of judgment. Other principles, like 7) the freedom of speech, the right to political dissent, 9) the right to bear arms, 10) a government based on the consent of the governed, and 11) freedom against tyranny are also implied in The Declaration of Independence.
However, the most fundamental principles of conservativism are the first three: Creator, creation, and God-given moral absolutes. These are the foundation of our country, our constitutions, our courts, and our conservative agenda. And the erosion of these principles in the courts portends the condemnation of our country, as the prospects of restoring them offers hope for our preservation.
The Basis of Conservativism
A conservative is someone who wishes to conserve the basic principles on which our country was founded. He wants to protect, preserve, and achieve the application of these principles to our country. So, the basis of conservativism is the grounds for the basics of conservativism. This being the case, let me speak first about the origin of conservativism.
The Origin of Conservativism
Conservativism is firmly rooted in the principles of The Declaration of Independence which is the basis of Americanisms. That The Declaration of Independence is our founding document and the birthday of our country has been firmly established in a recent brilliant Amicus Brief before the High Court titled Gonzales v. Planner Parenthood (2007).
The Original States
Gonzales demonstrates that all the original states endorsed The Declaration, and every state since has been required to form a government that is in conformity with the U. S. Constitution “and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” As late as August 21, 1959 Hawaii was admitted to the United States based on the same basis, namely, that it concurred with “the principles of the Declaration of Independence.”
The Articles of Confederation (1781)
In the pre Constitution Articles of Confederation document drafted in 1777 and ratified in 1781 all agreed in “cooperation between the States” and sent “delegates of the United States of America” to participate. This acknowledges that the country already existed before this time and had delegates to send. Indeed, following the spirit of The Declaration of Independence, these Articles spoke of the “Great Governor of the world” who “authorize[d] us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual union.”
The Northwest Ordinance (1787)
Likewise, in The Northwest Ordinance was created in 1787 to serve for those territories that would seek thereafter to become States of the already existing United States. It too borrowed from The Declaration of Independence, insisting that “religions, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government…shall forever be encouraged.” In its introductory legal document it insists that “the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty… formed the basis whereupon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected….”
The U. S. Constitution
In 1789 The Articles of Confederation were replaced by The United States Constitution and thus became the national government mandated by The Declaration of Independence. It begins, “We the people of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Clearly, the “United States” already existed or they could not be doing this “for” the nation. Indeed, as The Constitution says, they were only making “a more perfect union” than the one already in effect for 13 years. The new Constitution did not create a new nation. It simply created a new document to govern the already existing nation. This new Constitution was “for the United States of America.” It was not the creation of the United States. Article VI makes it clear that it was only providing a better government for the nation that already existed. It affirms that the nation already existed and had an initial form of government under The Articles of Confederation which in turn was based on The Declaration of Independence. For The U.S. Constitution affirms that “all the debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation….”
Indeed, the draft of The Constitution (1787) ends with a reference to the ratification of the Constitution, speaking of “the Independence of the United States of America” as the “twelfth” years before it (in 1776).
As late as 1961 in McGowan v State of Maryland, Justice Douglas wrote: “The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator, and which governments must respect.” It then refers to the familiar words of The Declaration of Independence as a basis of this affirmation, saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal….” Justice Douglas adds, “And the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights enshrine those principles.”
On the Jubilee of The U. S. Constitution, President John Quincy Adams wrote: “This act [i.e., the Constitution] was the compliment to the Declaration of Independence; founded on the same principles, carrying them out into practical execution, and forming with it, one entire system of government….”(1).
Indeed, the Founders and presidents dated their government from the time of The Declaration (in 1776), rather than from The Constitution [in 1789]. This included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson and even Abraham Lincoln. In his famous Gettysburg Address (1863) Lincoln said: “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation….” But eighty seven years before 1863 when Lincoln gave the famous address was 1776, the year of The Declaration of Independence when America was born.
The Implication of Conservativism
If The Declaration of Independence is our founding document, then its principles are our founding principles. And a conservative is one, who by definition, wants to conserve these principles. As already noted, the most basic of these are the first three. So, we will concentrate on them and their implications for a truly conservative agenda.
Creator
Contrary to current judicial shyness about recognizing God, our founding document and our founders had no reluctance to acknowledge the Creator. This is obvious in numerous way. First, The Declaration itself refers to the “Creator” and “Nature’s God.” Also, The Articles of Confederation speak of “the great Governor of the World.” Further, the father of the Constitution, James Madison, declared that “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of “the Governor of the Universe” (Memorial & Remonstrance, 1785).
What is more, Congress has been opened by prayer to God from the very beginning. And presidential oaths have been taken in the name of God, adding “so help me God.” This is to say nothing of “In God we trust” on our coins, above the head of the president of the House of Representative’s, and in the fourth stanza of our National Anthem.
Further, early presidents with the consent of Congress invoked “God” in their thanksgiving proclamations, such as Washington, Adams, and Madison. The First National Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1777 was signed by Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress. It affirmed that: “…it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received, and to implore such further blessings….” Later, George Washington declared that “…it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour” (Oct. 3, 1789).
What is more, the Constitutions of many States refer directly to God. In my own State the Constitution begins: “We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union … do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
Like other States, the Tar Heel Constitution even went so far as to disqualify atheists from holding office, saying, in Article VI, Section 8: “Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” There is no scarcity to official references to God by our Founders and in our founding documents. And a conservative is someone who wishes to confess openly and conserve perpetually this God-given and God-acknowledged heritage, including our Pledge of Allegiance “under God.”
Creation (seven 24 hour periods)
Further, in addition to acknowledging “the Creator and Ruler of the world,” a conservative is one who believes that “all men are created equal.” He does not believe, as the Scopes evolutionary textbook did in 1925, that the “Caucasians” are the “highest type” of human beings (2). Nor does he believe as Charles Darwin did (in The Descent of Man) that vaccinations and laws to help the poor should be eliminated because it preserves the weaker breed that natural selection would have eliminated. Darwin wrote: “We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick: we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small pox”(3).
Nor does a conservative believe, as Hitler did in Mein Kampf, that “If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile”(4). In short, there are moral implications to Darwinian evolution, namely, if natural selection explains common ancestry, then there is nothing wrong with eliminating the weak and undesirable among us.
In short, if there is not a Creator and Moral Law-Giver, then man is just an animal without any God-given rights, and those in power are under no moral obligation to preserve these rights. A true conservative finds Darwinianism and its social consequences to be contrary to every fiber of his being and loudly proclaims with our founding Fathers and documents that “all men are created equal” and, hence, are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” foremost among them are the rights to life and liberty.
God-given Moral Laws
Nietzsche was right: If God is dead, then there are no God-given moral laws. As the French atheists Jean Paul Sartre put it: As a person without God, “I was like a man who’s lost his shadow. And there was nothing left in heaven, no right or wrong, nor anyone to give me orders…. I am doomed to have no other law but mine”(5). The simple truth is that if there is no absolute Moral Law Giver, then there are no absolute moral laws. Or, in Jeffersonian terms, “Nature’s Laws” come from “Nature’s God.” Both logic and history inform us that we cannot separate the Moral Law from the Moral Law-Giver and that we cannot have good government or society without an absolute standard for good.
The Destruction of the Declaration
Liberals are deconstructionists. They want to deconstruct the Constitution. Conservatives are reconstructionists. We want to reconstruct the Constitution the liberal courts have deconstructed to conform with the way the framers constructed it. Sadly, liberals, to borrow the title of Ann Coulter’s excellent best seller, are truly “Godless.” Of course, this is not necessarily true in their private lives, but it is in their public policy. For they would eliminate God from government and government schools. But a government less God is literally a God-less government. Mark Twain said it well: “ The American Christian is a straight and clean and honest man, and in his private commerce with his fellows can be trusted to stand faithfully by the principles of honor and honesty imposed upon him by his religion. But the moment he comes forwards to exercise a public trust he can be confidently counted upon to betray that trust in nine cases out of ten, if ‘party loyalty’ shall require it….” He continues, “There are Christian Private Morals, but there are no Christian Public Morals, at the polls, or in the Congress or anywhere else–except here and there and scattered around like lost comets in the solar system”(6). The more recent godless trend in our government can be demonstrated by the Supreme Court decision between 1961 and 1987 discussed later. First, lets look at the historical record.
The Humanist Manifestos
Beginning with the first Humanist Manifesto in 1933, Secular Humanism declared itself a “religion” with three fundamental principles(7): No Creator, no creation, and no God-given moral absolutes. In their own words, they declared there is–
No Creator.–“Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.” In brief, there is no Creator of the world or of mankind.
No Creation.–“Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.” In short, mankind was not created but evolved by natural processes.
No God-Given Moral Absolutes.–“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values” That is to say, there are no God-given moral absolutes.
So here we have a self-proclaimed religion of Humanism that is opposed to three fundamental principles of The Declaration of Independence. But since The Declaration is the founding document of America, The Humanist Manifesto is at the core an anti-American religion. And since it is a religion less God, then it is a God-less religion.
But one may argue that the First Amendment permits freedom of religion–even for Humanist religions. In response, a serious case can be made against the thesis that by freedom of religion was meant also freedom from religion. And it may also be argued that “religion” as meant by the founding Fathers was not intended to include atheism. Indeed, many States incorporated anti-atheist statements in their constitutions. Even the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in Kneeland, 1838 that “[The First Amendment] embraces all who believe in the existence of God. This provision does not extend to atheists because they do not believe in God or religion.”
Be this as it may, even granted that Humanism (without belief in God) is a religion (as Torcaso v. Watkins said in 1961), nonetheless, neither Humanism nor any non-theistic religion has the right to be the established (i.e., favored) religion in government schools.
The Humanist Courts- where robes win and voters lose
A Humanist culture will ultimately produce humanist courts. It took a generation or two to do it, but it eventually happened. And granted that Humanism is a religion, then it would follow that Humanism–or at least its central religious beliefs–have become the established beliefs in our public schools. Just how this happened is a matter of record.
1925–At the Tennessee Scopes Trial ACLU attorneys argued that teaching evolution was part of their religious rights, claiming that permitting the “teaching of a particular doctrine that comes from a particular religious book…contravene the provision of our constitution”(8). But, as we have seen, evolution is a particular doctrine from a particular religion called Humanism.
1933–John Dewey signed Humanist Manifesto I (1933) which proclaims a religious point of view that denies the fundamental beliefs of The Declaration of Independence – Creator, creation, and God-given moral absolutes.
1934–John Dewey wrote a book called the A Common Faith in which he declared: “Here are all the arguments for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race. Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant”(9). During the next decades Dewey concentrated on training teachers in this militant Faith to indoctrinate our children in our tax-supported government schools. Within a generation Humanist had achieved their first major victories in the Supreme Court.
1961–In Torcaso v. Watkins the High Court proclaimed that “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others” (emphasis added). Then in rapid-like decisions the Supreme Court began to make ruling after ruling that eliminated the Creator, creation and God-given moral absolutes as an official part of our government school programs.
1962 (Engel)–State required devotional prayers were banned from public schools. We had been praying in American schools for some 300 years before that with no perceivable damage to our children or our freedoms.
1963 (Abington)––State required devotional Bible-readings was barred from public schools. It is worthy of note that our earliest schools were started to teach children to read the Bible with the 1647 “Old Deluder Satan Law”(10).
1968 (Epperson)–Laws forbidding teaching evolution was declared unconstitutional. This was done in spite of the fact that evolution is opposed to creation, a doctrine embedded in our American Birth Certificate and at the basis of our freedoms.
1973 (Roe and Doe)–De facto abortion on demand was approved by the High Court in these two decisions. This too flies in the face of the fundamental constitutional right to life stated in The Declaration of Independence and in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of The Constitution.
1990 (Stone)–-The display of the Ten Commandments was forbidden in public schools. With this ruling, not only was the legal history of the these moral principles reversed but so was the moral foundation necessary for good government and education called for by our early Fathers.
1987 (Edwards)–Laws requiring teaching creation, if evolution is taught, were struck down. This ruling not only enshrined naturalistic evolution and eliminated teaching the crucial creation pillar of our founding document, but it established (contrary to the First Amendment) a crucial tenet of non-theistic religions.
Thus ended a generation of liberal, High Court rulings that in effect established the central tenets of Religious Humanism in our tax-supported institutions of learning. For they favored the central teachings of non-theistic religions, like Secular Humanism, over the opposing tenets of other religions, namely, orthodox theistic religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Indeed, these Court rulings favored religious beliefs that were opposed to the foundational documents of America. All true conservatives cringe at these anti-American conclusions.
The Tragic Conclusion
Religious Humanist John Dunphy summed up their Humanist strategy well in his 1983 article in The Humanist journal: “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new Faith: A religion of humanity…. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers. For they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach…”(11).
Indeed, this is precisely what happened between 1961 and 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled that government cannot endorse teaching Creator, creation, or God-given absolutes in America’s public schools, even though these are the basic principles of The Declaration of Independence on which our government is based. So, in effect the courts ruled that teaching the great truths of The Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional! These judicial decisions are not only unconstitutional, but they are unAmerican. Thus, if Thomas Jefferson returned today, he would discover that he was being forced to pay taxes to public schools that were teaching his children that The Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. I have no doubt what the proclaimer of “Taxation without representation” would do: He would start a second American revolution!
The Basics of Conservativism
The basic principles of conservativism are the basic principles of Americanism–those embedded in our Birth Certificate–The Declaration of Independence. It is from these principles that we derive the conservative agenda. Foremost on the list are the beliefs in a Creator, creation, and God-given moral absolutes. Let me briefly comment on each area.
The Creator
If we are ever going to be successful in reestablishing the conservative agenda in America, then it cannot be done without overcoming the hostility to invoking God in the public square and overcoming the antagonism toward acknowledging Him in our schools. Contrary to the tragic ruling against teaching creation along side of evolution in public schools, our founders had no such problem in giving due credit to the Creator.
Fortunately, the vestiges of our religious heritage can still be found in our culture. Last time I looked God’s name was over the president’s head in The House of Representatives in the phrase “In God we trust.” Nor has it been minted out of all our coins. Indeed, it is still found in the last stanza of the National Anthem, though it is seldom sung outside of churches. Yes, his name is still invoked to call Congress into session. Ironically, the US Marshall still invokes God’s blessing at the opening session of Federal Court when he prays: “…God bless the United States and this honorable Court.” Yes, we still pay military Chaplains who can use God’s name, and presidents still take oaths in God’s name. And liberals have not yet physically deconstructed the Jefferson or Lincoln Memorials–even though they may wish to do so if they could.
A certain tragic irony emerges from eliminating God and any prayer to Him from our public school. After the Virginia Tech massacre, someone put the following on the internet which I summarize: “Dear God: Why don’t you do something about all the violence in our schools like the mass slaughters at Columbine and Virginia Tech. Signed, Johnny.” To his surprise He received a reply: “Dear Johnny: Sorry, I am not allowed in school anymore. Signed, God”!
Actually, there are at least ten good reason for prayers in the public school which I wrote to the editor of The Charlotte Observer, and my then honorable Senator Jesse Helms put into the Congressional record. We should have voluntary class prayer because:
1) Our government was based on religious principles (of which prayer was a part) from the very beginning.
2) The First Amendment does not separate God and government but actually encourages religion (which includes prayer) in the Free Exercise clause.
3) Early Congressional actions such as The Northwest Ordinance (1787) encouraged religion in public schools of which prayer was a part.
4) Early Presidents, with congressional approval, made proclamations encouraging public prayer.
5) Congress has prayed at the opening of every session since the very beginning.
6) Schools had prayer for some three hundred years before the Supreme Court ruled that State mandated class devotional prayers were unconstitutional (Engel, 1962).
7) Since the High Court outlawed state mandated class devotion prayer and Bible reading the nation has been in steady moral decline.
Morals must be taught, and they cannot properly be taught without religious sentiments like respect for the Creator since both logically and practically there will not be respect for an absolute moral law without respect for an absolute Moral Law Giver.
9) Forbidding prayer and other religious expressions in public schools establishes in effect the religion of Secularism.
10) To forbid the majority the right to pray because the minority objects, is to impose the irreligion of the minority on the religious majority.
If theistic children who do not believe in Darwinian evolution, sex education, and homosexual life-styles are exposed to these contrary beliefs without violation of their rights, then why can’t the tiny minority of atheist’s children to be exposed to voluntary prayers?
Creation
My experience as the lead expert witness for teaching creation alongside of evolution in the 1981 Arkansas “Scopes II” trial taught me invaluable lessons. The State had passed a “balanced treatment” law which was the reverse of Scopes I (1925). It read in essence, if you teach evolution, then you must also balance it off by teaching creation, but one does not have to teach either. The evolutionists at the Scopes I Trial (1925) spoke in favor of teaching both views. John Scopes said: “Education you know, means broadening, advancing. If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought, be one individual. I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory”(12). ACLU attorney Malone pled: “For God’s sake, let the children have their minds be kept open–close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them…. Let they have both. Let them both be taught. Let them both live”(13). The irony is that creationists were called “bigots” many times at the Trial. But let not the kettle call the pot black. If it was bigotry in 1925 when only creation was taught in schools, then it is still bigotry in 2007 when only evolution is being taught.
God-Given Moral Absolutes
The Conservative agenda is a moral agenda. Yes, we believe in legislating morality. In fact, really everyone does, even those who deny it(14). Since virtually all good laws prescribe some behavior as good and others as bad, there are really no such laws that do not legislate morality. No civil society is without legislation on moral issues, forbidding theft, abuse, rape, and murder. Indeed, even liberals favor these laws, as well as others condemning racism, hate crimes, and genocide. The truth is that everyone favors legislating morality. The only question is whose’s morality will be legislated. The conservative answer has always been “God’s”! From the very beginning our founding document spoke of “Nature’s Laws” that come from “Nature’s God” or “the unalienable rights” of the “Creator.” Among these are the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Indeed, most all of the Ten Commandments have been put into law at one time or another.
Laws Protecting Life
First and foremost on the list is the right to life. For the right to life is the right to all other rights. Those who are not allowed to live, are not allowed to have any other rights. And this right to life extends to both ends of life, thus opposing both abortion and euthanasia. At the time of The Declaration abortion was forbidden by both English Common Law from which our law was derived and an early American law which in 1716 forbid midwives to perform abortions(15). And the unborn were defined in the dictionaries of the day as a “child in the womb” and a child as a “very young person”(16). This leaves no doubt about the framers views against abortion.
Historically, being against abortion was not a uniquely Christian view for even the ancient pagan Hippocratic oath opposed both abortion and euthanasia, pledging, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Whatever minor intramural debate there may be about capital punishment for guilty criminals, there should be absolutely no doubt about the wrongness of giving capital punishment to innocent babies by abortion!
Resetting the Conservative Agenda
There are some who wish to refocus the conservative agenda away from the life and death issues of abortion, euthanasia, terrorism, and pro-family values to other things like poverty, privacy rights, Gay rights, animal rights, and environmental concerns. The conservative response is based in our founding national documents and its fundamental principles.
On Pro-Life
We believe in the unalienable right to life of all humans, born and unborn, young and old–whatever their ethnic orientation..
We believe there is no right to do a wrong, and that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings of any size, age, color or creed. The unalienable right to life takes precedence over questionable right of privacy. Killing innocent human beings in private is no more justifiable than killing them in public.
3. We believe it is hypocritical to focus on saving baby seals while we destroying baby humans at the rate of over 3000 per day by abortion.
We believes in the unalienable right to life of the born and unborn, not in alienating the unborn from their right to life.
We believe that the right to privacy of the mother does not take precedence over the right to life of the child.
On Civil Rights
We believe in civil rights for all persons, but we do not believe in uncivil actions against any person.
We believe that abortion is the worst violations of civil rights because it violates the very basis of all civil rights–the right to life itself. The right to life is the right to all other rights. Hence, those who are not allowed to live are deprived of all their civil rights.
We believe that homosexuals have civil rights but that homosexual activity is a civil wrong against themselves and their society. We do not believe there are any rights to do a wrong. Likewise, polygamist, pedophiles, and rapist have civil rights, but their activities as such are not civil rights; tey are uncivil wrong. And we believe is wrong to give rights to do a wrong.
We believe the evident truth that “all men are created equal” opposes slavery, racism, and ethnic discrimination.
On The Family
We believe that our domestic constitution should begins with “We the parents of our children, in order to form a more perfect society, establish the family to insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
We believe that a family consisting of one male and one female, and whatever children with which God blesses us. And we pledge ourselves to preserve the family as the basic unit of society, the teacher of social skills, moral values, and the duty of good citizenship.
We believe that since the roots of most social problems begin in the family that we should be doing everything we can to strengthen the family, not to weaken it. To be pro-family is to be pro-society, and to degrade the family by approving of distorted unions is destructive of our society.
We believe that divorce is generally harmful to the family and should be discouraged and diminished.
On Homosexuality
We believe that civil rights for homosexuals should not be a pretext for civil wrongs done by homosexuals–both against themselves and society. We believe that if laws against smoking can add seven years on the average to ones life, then laws restraining homosexual activity, which can add some 20-30 years to their lives, should be welcomed as well(17).
We believe that uncivil behavior is not the basis for a civil union. In the beginning God did not unite Adam and Steve but Adam and Eve.
We believe that since no homosexual union has ever produced a child, then only babies produced by homosexual unions should be adopted by homosexuals.
On Education
We encourage home schools, private schools, and parental control of public schools, not government control of our tax-supported institutions.
Since we firmly believe that taxation without representation is tyranny, we believe that the majority view of creation, held in some form by over 75 percent of Americans, should be represented in public schools. And we thank Judge Antonia Scalia for his brilliant defense of this in his dissenting opinion in the 1987 Edwards case.
We believe that sex education is best done by parents, not the schools. If the school is to be involved, it should be with parental permission and review of the curriculum. We believe children should not be taught a sex course in “how to” but, if any, they should be taught one in “why not” to get involved in sex before marriage.
We believe that no child should be left behind and that, if necessary we should spank their behind to help accomplish this. We believe discipline is a necessary condition for proper education and the moral law (as expressed in the Ten Commandments) is necessary for proper discipline.
The Ten Commandments are represented on the East end of the Supreme Court, over the Chief Justice’s head, and on the upper wall, and we see no reason the same Court should forbid our school children from having them on their walls.
We believe that no harm was done for 300 years of school classes talking to the Creator in public schools and much harm has been done in the generation since prayer has been locked out of school classes.
We believe that the Bible, the world’s best seller, should be read, not banned, from public school classes.
We believe that if it was bigotry in 1925 to teach only one view of origins in public schools when only creation was taught, then it is still bigotry today to teach only one view of origins when only evolution is being taught.
On God and Government
We believe in government based on God, not a government without God.
We believe civil laws should be based on unchanging Divine principles; , not on changing human precepts.
We believe in the cooperation of religion and state and in the encouragement of religion by the state, not in the separation of religion from the state or in the antagonism against religion by the state.
On Poverty
We believe that poverty cannot be voted out of existence but that it should be worked out of existence. We believe poverty is better addressed by private compassion than by public compulsion.
We believe in making a living by working, not in making a living at not working.
We believe our economy is best served by capitalism, not collectivism. We believe that the economy is best served by private entepenureship, not by public ownership.
While we are concerned about the poor life of those born, we are even more concerned about those who by abortion were never allowed to be born.
On Crime and Punishment
We believe the punishment should fit the crime and that it is fit to punish a crime.
We believe that focusing on criminal rights to a fair trial should not overshadow the need to protect non-criminal’s rights to happy life.
We believe in the rights of innocent citizens to be protected from the wrongs of guilty criminals.
We believe criminals should be treated as persons to be punished, not patients to be treated. We believe forced “rehabilitation” is a violation of personhood. We believe proper punishment is the best form of rehabilitation.
We believe it is a gross inconsistency to protest capital punishment for guilty criminals while one engages in capital punishment on innocent babies.
On War
We believe in the right to protect our right to life.
We also believe that fighting terrorist is better done on their soil than ours and that we must fight fire with fire, not with mere fiery anti-war rhetoric.
We are more concerned about actual global terrorism than debatable global warming. Indeed, I believe that alleged global warming could be significantly diminished by circulating less liberal hot air used in attacking the Commander in Chief in his fight against global terrorism.
Yes, we still believe in the Second Amendment and the old NRA slogan that “when guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.”
Conclusion
In summation, conservatives believe in life, liberty, and happiness based on God’s law and achieved in a context of freedom of religion and speech. In short, we believe in a godly, not a God-less government. Put another way, we believe The Declaration of Independence.
I close with a quote from its author. My favorite line on any monument in our nation’s capitol is from the Jefferson Memorial. Standing in front of the magnificent statue of Thomas Jefferson and looking over the water toward the White House one can read these words engraved in large marble letters: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”
Notes
Robert C. Cannada, America’s Rule of Law (National Lawyers Association Foundation, 2002).
George William Hunter, A Civic Biology (New York: American Book Company, 1914), 196.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, in The Great Books edition, 323.
Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1939),162.
Jean Paul Sartre, No Exit and Three Other Plays:The Flies (New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1947), 122.
Mark Twain, Christian Science (NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1906), 359-361.
It added other principles, but these are among the first and most basic listed in the Humanist Manifesto I (1933).
The trial transcript is published in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case (Cincinnati, Ohio: National Book Company), 51-52.
John Dewey, A Common Faith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934), 87.
This was so named from its first line of the law which goes on to affirm that if our children are taught to read the Bible they will have the best defense against Satan who wishes to deceive them.
Paul Kurts, The Humanist (Jan/Feb., 1983), 26.
Cited in P. William Davis, The World of Biology, 2nd ed. (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1979), 610.
Cited in T. C. Mercer, ed., The World’s Most Famous Court Trial (Cincinnati: National Book Company, 1925), 299.
See Norman .L. Geisler and Frank Turek, Legislating Morality (Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998).
See James Witherspoon “Reexamining Roe: Nineteenth-Century Abortion Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.” St. Mary’s Law Journal 17 (1985), 32.
See Dennis J. Horan, “Abortion and Midwifery: A Footnote in Legal History,” in Hilger, Horan, and Mall EDS, New Perspectives on Human Abortion (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America., 1981), 199.
I think the whole point is that conservativism is not absolute. It’s merely who is the most moral in a biblical/ historical way. (would therefore become the conservative) In this way America has been conservative in the past and in relation to other countries. (they were the second to abolish slavery I believe right behind Brittan’s William Wilberforce). In this manner brittian would have been more conservative than america during that era of history. Conservativism becomes “that which conserves a traditional and political thought that endorses morality more than it’s counterparts” - bibleanswerman
sociable: related community
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Filed under: FOR THE BORED — BibleAnswerMan (Check it out!) @ 10:54 am
another key democrat arrested for alleged satanic torture , going green with liberalism update
WorldNetDaily.com reports
Victims allegedly shackled to beds, raped, locked in cages without food
The North Carolina case of an alleged satanic torture involving a Democratic Party official and her husband has now expanded to include a third suspect, an even higher-ranking Democrat.
Diana Palmer, the first vice-chairwoman of the Durham County Democratic Party, joins her political colleague Joy Johnson, the third vice-chairwoman of the party, and Johnson’s spouse, Joseph Craig, in facing charges.
Palmer, 44, surrendered to police in Durham, N.C., this afternoon and was charged with being an accessory after the fact of assault with a deadly weapon. She’s being held at the Durham County Jail under $95,000 bail.
Additional charges were also filed today against Johnson and Craig.
Craig, 25, is now charged with second-degree rape, second-degree forcible sexual offense, three counts of second-degree kidnapping and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for incidents in January and May. Johnson, 30, is charged with four counts of aiding and abetting, as she’s accused of watching and encouraging her husband commit the alleged abuse of another couple who reportedly shared an interest in Satan worship.
Joseph Craig
Joy Johnson
According to broadcast and published reports, that couple was reportedly caged to learn more about satanic practices, but did not consent to physical abuse.
Craig allegedly shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his home. Police say he beat the man with a cane and a cord, and raped the woman.
Prosecutors today asked for higher bail for Craig and Johnson, but Judge Nancy Gordon refused, leaving Craig’s bond at $500,000 and Johnson’s at $270,000.
Also today, Durham County’s Democratic Party disabled its website, but a cached version of its “Who We Are” page lists both Palmer and Johnson as top officials.
(Story continues below)
Someone claiming to be a friend of Palmer wrote on a messageboard of the Raleigh News & Observer:
I don’t appreciate the implied connection in this story. Like many people who know this couple, [Palmer] is in a state of shock, deeply distressed and devastated that she was so misled by them. The connection between politics, a satanic cult and the surreal nature of these crimes may be entertaining to some, but I assure you it is causing many people a great deal of real pain, particularly people like Diana with strong religious convictions. In short, many people who trusted and believed in their integrity are feeling victimized by this couple right now.
Along with their interest in the Democratic Party, Johnson and Palmer were part of a New Age website called “Indigo Dawn,” a name which, according to the site, was given to Johnson during a meditation vision.
“She decided to explore the New Age community more, and after taking a course in Reiki healing, experiencing past-life regression along with direct guidance from her spirit guides, she confirmed that her destiny was to help bring about the New Age on Earth,” Johnson’s online biography states. “Joy shared her vision with her husband, Joe; as a result the Indigo Dawn was founded to raise the vibration of energy on Earth.”
Among the services she offers online are “intuitive guidance, past-life regression, spirit guide communication and healing and cleansing.”
“I was absolutely shocked and flabbergasted,” State Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, told the Raleigh paper. “You never would have suspected allegations that she would have had any participation in these rituals.”
In relation to this story worldnetdaily offers a plethora of material and journals for a low cost…
among which are some of the following information to whet your appetite…
August 2002 edition – THE NEW PAGANISM: How Christianity is being replaced by ‘green’ religion, goddess worship, globalism
Relentless attacks on America’s Christian churches – not just from without, but from within – which are steadily remolding institutionalized Christianity to serve a new, non-Christian, globalist agenda, are the focus of August’s eye-opening edition of Whistleblower.
Indeed, the paganization of America’s churches is well under way. This “new” religious worldview is sugar-coated with high-minded and universal ideals of environmental protection and species preservation, but the ultimate agenda behind the movement is much darker.
The ultimate purpose of what is sometimes called “green religion” is to convince the people of the world to embrace world governance – which for a free nation like America represents a massive loss of national sovereignty and personal freedom – for the supposed sake of Mother Earth (”gaia”) and the environment. After all, it is a lot easier to administer world government if all people believe it represents their salvation, rather than tyranny.
How is this to be accomplished? To begin with, assign new names to old demons. What once was called “paganism” has been renamed and assigned a new respectability as the “gaia hypothesis.” The once-hated idea of world government has been renamed “global governance.” The concept of national sovereignty is eroding and transmuting into the concept of “sovereign equality.”
“The vanguard of this movement,” explains Henry Lamb in “The rise of global green religion,” “people like James Parks Morton, James Lovelock, Robert Muller, Al Gore, Timothy Wirth and many, many others, have been ‘enlightened’ through their biocentric belief in gaia” – the belief that the earth itself is a conscious, living organism – “and therefore they know what is best for the planet. They also know that the only way to protect the sacred gaia is to control the people who are degrading her. The only way to control the people is through an omnipotent government that is, at this moment, consolidating its power into an ever-growing bureaucracy, now stretching around the globe, extending its tentacles into every corner of human life, creating de facto global governance.”
And guess what? Not only has this new “enlightened” worldview permeated Western schools and governments, but America’s Christian churches themselves also are rapidly being converted to this new religious paradigm.
Most Americans have no idea this is happening. Many don’t want to know. And yet, Americans are the only power on earth strong enough to prevent global governance from taking control of the entire planet. The August Whistleblower shows the way back.
Filed under: FOR THE BORED — BibleAnswerMan (Check it out!) @ 12:13 am
The possibility that God exists is greater than zero - blaise pascal
article from religioustolerance.org
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w.htm
Quotations:
“If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing — but if you don’t believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist.” Paraphrase of Pascal’s Wager. 1 “…the argument consists of four statements: 1. One does not know whether God exists.
2. Not believing in God is bad for one’s eternal soul if God does exist.
3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
4. Therefore it is in one’s interest to believe in God.” Summary of Pascal’s Wager by the Internet Infidels. “I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it.” Benjamin Franklin, from his “Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion,” 1728-NOV-20. “The reason Pascal’s wager does not work is the same reason why you should never plan your retirement on winning the lotto.” Massimo Pigliucci. 1
Overview:
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a 17th century French mathematician and scientist who is considered to be the father of modern probability theory. He created the first calculating machine, invented the syringe, developed the hydraulic press, and refined the barometer for measuring atmospheric pressure. 1 However, he is best known in philosophical and theological circles for Pascal’s Wager: the suggestion that it is better to believe in the existence of God then to be an Atheist, for the simple reason that it is the bet that gives the better chance for a good outcome.
Humanist Massimo Pigliucci compares the Wager to the argument that promoters of lotteries use: if you decide to buy a ticket, you have a chance at great wealth; if you don’t buy it, you are certain to win nothing. Since the ratio of money given out in prizes is equal to about one third of the money collected, then buying tickets are obviously not a wise investment. 1 However, Pascal’s Wager and deciding whether to buy a lottery ticket are not that similar. If Pascal’s interpretation of the Bible is correct, then God exists. If a person does not believe in him, their penalty is not death (i.e. annihilation; non-existence; lack of the happiness of Heaven), but eternal, unrelenting torture in Hell.
Pascal had been unimpressed with the efforts of theologians over many centuries to prove the existence of God. He decided to present arguments why people should believe in God even if no solid proof is available. ”
…In a single paragraph of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’ — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as ‘Pascal’s Wager.” 2 Pensées was a book on Christian apologetics that Pascal had started to write; he had left as a series of notes. It was published posthumously in 1670. 3 The Pensées are still available today in various forms. 4,5,6
Pascal’s three arguments:
The first is the argument from superdominance, as philosophers call it. Pascal wrote: “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here….Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least….Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
The implication is that:
The possibility that God exists is greater than zero.
If you assume that God exists, and he does, then you have gained everything — an eternity in Heaven.
If God does not exist, then you have lost nothing. The Bible is in error. God, Heaven, Hell etc. don’t exist.
Therefore, the better bet is to assume that God does exist.
The argument from expectation: He wrote: “Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness.”
He seems to be stating:
The chance that God exists, and the chance that God does not exist are both one in two; i.e. the probability of God’s existence is 0.5. This belief “apparently derives from the classical interpretation of probability, according to which all possibilities are given equal weight.” 1 Many people will have difficulty accepting this belief:
Most North American adults, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc., are absolutely and passionately certain that God exists.
Some Agnostics believe that the possibility of there being a God is slim.
Some Atheists assert with 100% confidence that God definitely does not exist.
Fortunately, the rest of his argument is not based on this assumption.
One has to decide whether God exists.
If what was at stake in the wager was one or two extra lifetimes of living, then one would still be wise to believe in God in the hope that he did exist, and that one would be rewarded.
But what is at stake is not one, two or three extra lifetimes. It is an infinite interval of living. The reward is infinite. This makes the stakes even greater, and the denial of God’s existence even less wise.
The argument from generalized expectations: This is considered the most important quote in Pascal’s writing: “But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all…”
This passage is somewhat obscure. However, he seems to imply that:
The chance of God existing is not zero.
Even if the chance of God existing were vanishingly small, the reward in Heaven for believing in God is of infinite duration. Thus, a person would be stupid to believe that God does not exist, because they might possibly lose out on an infinitely large reward. 2
For such a simple concept, Pascal’s Wager has one enormous number of weaknesses and contradictions. Some are listed below.
Weaknesses #1 — Is believing in God sufficient for salvation?
Pascal seems to assume that those who believe in God will be automatically rewarded be attaining Heaven, whereas those who disbelieve in God will automatically spend eternity in Hell. i.e., simply believing in the existence of God guarantees ones “salvation.” But different religions, (and different traditions within certain religions) have very different criteria for salvation. Many require that a person do more than simply believe in the existence of God. Passages in the Bible, interpreted literally, seem to imply that salvation is dependent:
solely on good deeds.
solely on faith.
on faith plus the act of baptism.
on repentance.
on faith, coupled with good deeds,
etc.
T.M. Drange describes this in greater detail. He wrote: “According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to:
Believe in God’s son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12),
Repent (Luke 13:3,5),
Be born again (John 3:3),
Be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5),
Believe everything in the “gospel” (Mark 16:16), QUOTATIONS ADDED
Eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53),
Be like a child (Mark 10:15)BUT ONLY WHEN RECEIVING THE KINGDOM, and
do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46 (ISRAEL to accept the Gentile); Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29 (a JEWISH PRESENTATION); James 2:14-26).”
Weaknesses #2 — Which God must we believe in?
Pascal apparently assumed that one either believes in God or one didn’t. But the situation is more complex that than. Consider both Christianity and Islam:
The Christian Scriptures, in John 3:16 to 18 states: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” This implies that anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ will be condemned. Since the Christian Scriptures only talk about two eventual resting places after death — Heaven and Hell, one might conclude that anyone who does not believe in Jesus and the Trinity will spend eternity in Hell.
The Qur’an is the Holy Book of Islam.
Sura 69:15-18: “On that Day shall the (Great) Event come to pass. And the sky will be rent asunder, for it will that Day be flimsy. And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them. That Day shall ye be brought to Judgment: not an act of yours that ye hide will be hidden.
Sura 69:30 -33: “(The stern command will say) “Seize ye him, and bind ye him. And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High.”
Now, if one interprets these passages literally, then:
Christians generally believe in the Trinity of God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. But if Christianity is wrong, and Islam is correct, then Allah will punish the Christian believer with horrendous tortures.
Meanwhile, Muslims believe in the single, indivisible deity Allah, who is very different from the Christian Trinity. If Islam is wrong, and Christianity is correct, then the Christian God will torture all Muslims for eternity without any hope of mercy or a cessation of their pain.
“This is often described as the ‘avoiding the wrong hell’ problem.” 3
Actually, the problem is even more complex than is indicated above. There have been countless deities among the tens of thousands of religions in which people believe or have believed. The Fararrs have written a pair of books that list 1,000 Gods and 1,000 Goddesses. 8 Many of these Gods and Goddess are jealous deities who demand worship from their followers and who punish those who do not believe in them. The probability of choosing the right God or Goddess is chancy at best.
Click below to Visit one of our Sponsors:
Weaknesses #3 — Does any human belief matter?
Many Christians believe in Predestination - a concept promoted by John Calvin and other theologians. The theory is that God has divided humanity into two groups:
A small percentage of people who God will save and who will attain heaven. They are not chosen by God on the basis of any merit on their part — because they have led good lives, for example. They have done absolutely nothing to deserve this fate.
A much larger group, that God has decided to not save. They will spend eternity being tortured without mercy in Hell. They also have done nothing to warrant being chosen differently from those who are saved.
Only if God has chosen an individual will they be able to understand the Christian Scriptures and accept salvation. To the unchosen, the Gospel is meaningless. Pascal himself wrote: “We shall never believe with an effective belief and faith unless God inclines our hearts. Then we shall believe as soon as he inclines them.” 9 The implication of predestination is that nothing that the individual does will determine their fate after death: heaven or hell. It is all up to God. One’s fate is sealed before birth. We are powerless to change it.
Weakness #4 — Is Heaven better than Hell?
Some visualize Heaven as a place where one praises God, sings hymns, basks in the presence of Jesus continuously. Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) once commented that the average Christian has considerable difficulty sitting through a single church service every Sunday. The thought of having to endure a 24 hour service is dreadful. The image of what is essentially a church service of infinite length would be beyond endurance. Meanwhile, many Christian denominations have interpreted Hell as a place or condition where one is simply separated from the presence of God. Some Agnostics and Atheists live their entire lives continuously in this condition and are quite happy. On balance, some might prefer Hell to Heaven.
Weakness #5 — Can one make themselves believe?
Pascal seems to accept voluntarism: the concept that belief is a matter of the will. That is, a person can simply decide to believe in the existence of God. Some people cannot do this. “…many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.” 3 Many Agnostics, for example, have evaluated all the “proofs” for God’s existence, and all of the “proofs” of God’s non-existence. They conclude that neither belief can be substantiated. They feel that they can not rationally believe in the existence or non-existence of God; they must remain Agnostic. Under these conditions, a person can only believe in God if they violate their honesty. And God might punish a lack of honestly more severely than not being able to believe in God.
It can be argued that if people believe something on insufficient evidence, that the result is the promoting of credulity — something that harms society. Again, that could be a sin that God is particularly concerned about punishing.
Weakness #6 — Is a greedy decision valid?
Some might argue that an insincere wager is worthless. God, being omniscient and omnipotent, knows our motivations. If a person decided to believe in God in order to increase their chances for a good life after death, then such an insincere decision might be rejected by God. In fact, if there were some doubt in God’s mind whether the individual should be sent to Heaven or Hell, a deceitful decision might be counter-productive. It might tip the scales in favor of Hell.
Weakness #7 — Can we guess God’s criteria for salvation?
Perhaps God does not care whether a person believes in him or not. Perhaps he will to treat the person who seeks to understand God but, to be honorable to himself, must remain an Agnostic. Perhaps he will treat people harshly if they blindly accept the existence of God without any proof.
Weakness #8 — Is the probability that God exists greater than zero?
What is the possibility that a God exists who exhibits such intense wrath against unbelievers that he sends them all to Hell for eternal punishment? (The term “wrath” seems like a better term that “hatred” here because so many people associate God with pure love). Some feel that the possibility is zero. If so, then no possibility of an infinite reward results in no reward, and Pascal’s Wager collapses. Massimo Pigliucci outlines two lines of thought that indicate the improbability of God’s existence:
“…every time we consider a God with physical attributes, that is one that actually does something in the universe…science invariably tells us that that God does not exist. We thought that God caused lightning, now we know better; we attributed to him a worldwide flood that modern geology says never occurred; and so on and so forth.”
“…even a much reduced version of God…assumes the existence of the supernatural; that is, of something we have absolutely no evidence of, which is not necessary to explain the world, and quite plainly is the result of wishful thinking on the part of a pathologically insecure humanity.”
For those Atheist who are 100% convinced that God does not exist, Pascal’s Wager is unconvincing. However, If one accepts that the probability of the existence of a wrath-filled God is, say, one in 100, then the Wager still makes some sense. A 1% chance at eternity in Heaven is still better than a 1% chance at Hell or a 99% chance at nothing. So, this weakness of Pascal’s Wager is only valid if one can prove that God does not exist. Only a person who is omniscient could do that. There are no humans who have reached this level.
Weakness #9: God is just:
Adults differ greatly in their ability to believe things by faith, and their degree of skepticism. These tendencies are observed in childhood before the age of accountability. Thus, it can be argued that the degree of skepticism and amount of faith that an adult has is outside their control; it is fixed, much like race, gender, and sexual orientation. It may be determined mainly by genes, or by some interaction between genes and environment. However, it is so fundamental a factor in a person’s life that it is extremely difficult or impossible to change in adulthood.
Pascal himself once wrote of persons to whom belief by faith comes easily : “The heart has its reasons which reason does not know.” 9 i.e. there are times when we can accept that something is true even if it cannot be proven through logic and observation. In the life of a skeptic, this phrase is without validity.
Some would argue that for God to discriminate against skeptical individuals would be akin to racism, sexism and homophobia. He would not require a skeptic to believe in God in order to attain Heaven — something that the skeptic could not achieve. It would be neither fair nor just.
References:
1. Massimo Pigliucci, “A refutation of Pacal’s wager and why skeptics should be non-theists,” Massimo’s Skeptic and Humanist Web, at: http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/essays/
2. “Pascal’s Wager,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at: http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp011.htm
3. “Pascal’s Wager (God is a safe bet),” The Internet Infidels, at: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/
4. Blaise Pascal (A.J. Krailsheimer, Translator), “Pensees,” Penguin USA, (1995). Read reviews or order this book savely from Amazon.com’s book store
5. James Houston, translator, “Mind On First: A Faith for the Skeptical and Indifferent”, Bethany House, (1997) Read reviews or order this book
6. Peter Kreeft, “Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensees Edited, Outlined and Explained,” Ignatius Press, (1993). Read reviews or order this book
7. T.M. Drange, “Pascal’s Wager Refuted,” at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
8. Janet & Stewart Farrar, “The Witches’ God,” and “The Witches’ Goddess.
9. Passages cited by Rick Wade, “Blaise Pascal: An Apologist for Our Times,” Probe Ministries, at: http://www.probe.org/docs/pascal.html
10. “Pascal’s Wager,” at: http://www.infidels.org/library/ This contains a list of brief reviews of, and hyperlinks to, essays on the Wager.
11. Learn more about Pascal’s life:
Joyce McPherson, “A Piece of the Mountain: The story of Blaise Pascal,” Greenleaf press, (1997). Read reviews or order this book
Marvin R. O’Connel, “Blaise Pascal: Reasons of the Heart,” Eerdman’s Publ., (1997). Read reviews or order this book
Ben & Bernard Rogers, “Pascal: The Great Philosophers,” Routledge, (1999). Read reviews or order this book
Author: B.A. Robinson
sociable: related community
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Filed under: FOR THE BORED — BibleAnswerMan (Check it out!) @ 3:44 am
DON’T ROCK THE VOTE, BUT REDEEM IT
update: obama tries religion but misses salvation …faith based initiatives…
onenewsnow.com reports:
A liberal group known for its opposition to Christian expression in the public square is critical of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s proposed faith-based initiative.
Obama has announced he will create a new “Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships” if he becomes president. The Illinois senator says he “believe[s] deeply in the separation of church and state,” but that his program will not endanger that idea. Obama says under his plan, faith-based groups that receive a federal grant will not be allowed to “proselytize” the people they help or hire people based on their religious beliefs. Also, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs.(see video of Obama announcement)
Rob Boston is a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which has been highly critical of President Bush’s faith-based initiative.
“This sort of tweaking of the plan by Senator Obama does present us with some concerns,” Boston admits. “In our view, the faith-based initiative is a really flawed concept and it should be scrapped entirely. Obama’s talking about an actual expansion of the plan and renaming and changing some of the details — but it seems to us that the entire concept will still remain intact.”
The Americans United spokesman says religious organizations should not be asking the government for a “handout” to run their social services. “If a church wants to run a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or some other type of program, that’s great — and a pastor should ask the congregation to pay for it,” states Boston. “It shouldn’t ask the Department of Health and Human Services or some other federal agency [for the money to do that]. If the people sitting in the pews really believe strongly in this program, they’ll dig deeper and they’ll fund it.”
The California decision against the same-sex marriage ban has the candidates for the presidency declaring their dedication to the traditional definition of marriage. Even the faux conservative, John McCain, meekly defended a “difference of opinion” on marriage during an appearance on lesbian bride-to-be Ellen Degeneres’ national talk show.
Suddenly, it’s back to basics since only a small minority of Americans are interested in allowing woman and woman to become wife and wife. Even liberal California, a state that’s not sure which flag to salute, rejected gay marriage by 60 percent. In 2004, the debate over marriage may have ruined the John Kerry candidacy, but my bet is that Americans were more offended by the amount of hairspray running mate John Edwards applied to his coif.
From sea to shinning sea, Americans have defined marriage as between man and woman; whether in Alabama or Alaska, it’s safe to say transsexual nuptials are politically toxic. Although every candidate quickly came out against gay marriage, Democrats are the most vulnerable to the accusations of being closeted activist. When it comes to the “marriage equality” agenda, the man who calls himself “the most consistent advocate on LGBT issues” is particularly suspect.
Like a staph infection resistant to aggressive antibiotics, Barack Obama has a gay problem that will keep returning if only the American media will recognize and examine the symptoms.
(Column continues below)
The history between Obama and the LGBT movement goes way back. The Barack Obama for President campaign got early seed money from billionaire, gay activist and entertainment executive David Geffen. Geffen gave Obama the pink thumbs-up after banishing the Clintons from Tinseltown.
“Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling,” said Geffen before anointing Obama and placing the world’s most sophisticated propaganda industry at the disposal of the “Hope” and “Change” campaign.
The honeymoon did not last. Obama ruffled LGBT sensitivities when an ex-gay gospel singer headlined during the early days of Obama’s presidential run. Gay activists protested to have the singer removed from the campaign.
The peddlers of pride, diversity, free speech, tolerance and fairness in the workplace wanted the singing black guy fired for disagreeing with them. If that sounds as inconsistent as the vows of two men publicly promising to be monogamous to one another, don’t worry; none of this stuff is supposed to make sense, especially for the first serious biracial contender to the White House.
Ever notice the LGBT advocates constantly compare the same-sex struggle to the civil rights movement? According to polls, African-Americans are the most opposed to the legalization of gay marriage, and no black leader has endorsed the comparison between racial equality and the “right” for pre-op transsexuals to get a taxpayer funded sex change. The liberal interpretation of the civil rights struggle through the rainbow-colored glasses of the “queer theory” activist would have given the Rev. Martin Luther King a nightmare, rather than a dream.
“The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don’t have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them,” Obama told the Advocate, the modern day Pravda of the pink triangle set.
The Obama platform calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Clinton. The law protects one state from imposing its definition of marriage onto another state – the same way gay advocates would like to impose a new definition onto how the Department of Defense keeps statistics.
“I reasonably can see ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ eliminated,” Obama said.
Eliminating “don’t ask, don’t tell” is an invitation to give priority to the self-serving activism of “out and proud” over the self-sacrificing commitment of “just doing my job.”
We don’t classify soldiers as Democrats, conservatives, Republicans or liberals, but activists would like those who fall in the line of duty to be recognized by who and what turns them on.
Obama’s gay agenda is based on mainstreaming the marginal, but the senator is both methodical and pragmatic. In regards to transgender inclusiveness: “I’ve also been honest with the groups that I’ve met with that it is a heavy lift through Congress.” Obama would eventually like for the transgendered to serve openly in the military too, but he’s willing to wait.
When asked why so many African-Americans are opposed to the gay agenda, Obama replied, “Most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture.” Obama does have queer religious beliefs – the church where attendees applauded “God d— America” has happily blessed same-sex civil unions for years.
TO VIEW THE REPUBLICAN MORAL STANCE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND ABORTION CLICK BELOW…
mag sticky sold at worldnetdaily.com
it’s crucial to vote the moral over voting money
just for the same reason you should never take on a job for the money but take on a job for the experience it gives you…(-according to how to be a millionaire father seminar)
How should we take money out of the picture and really see these candidates for who they are?
every christian must find their threshold and vote the conscience. Is my threshold immigration? Is my threshold freedom of speech or freedom of the press? Is my threshold civil unions? Is my threshold a better tax bracket? I suggest that your threshold be Jesus.
Would Jesus vote for only the person that Rush Limbaugh endorses or Anne Coulter?
Or would Jesus vote for the best of the worst?
I think it’s a very interesting question.
Jesus would vote for those with the highest standards.
No one is perfect.
That doesn’t mean we don’t vote….
Would you vote republican or democrat after seeing the following videos?
Who would Jesus vote for?
Which one is more moral and who of these two really love their neighbors?
allen keyes debates obama on death penalty and abortion
Jesus would not vote for Obama part 1
obama and democrats will vote for Gay marriage in your town ———————————————————————-
keyes/ obama debate homosexuality in public squares in general
Obama weak on (Iraq and Homeland)
AMERICANS AGAINST OBAMA-NATION: a lie doesn’t have to be spoken a lie can be lived. Expose the darkness of Democrat liberalism.
Filed under: FOR THE BORED — BibleAnswerMan (Check it out!) @ 3:39 am
-ADVERTISEMENT- T.V.C. homosexual urban legends – the series
GAY RIGHTS TO SUPREME COURT - robes push more weight than the people
worldnetdaily.com reports:
Homosexual-rights advocates have asked California’s Supreme Court to block citizens from voting this fall on a measure voters originally brought to the ballot: Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act.
Proposition 8, so labeled when Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified it earlier this month for placement on the November 4 ballot, is a constitutional amendment that states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The amendment was created by voter initiative with the signatures of 1.1 million voters, more than the required 694,354 needed to place an issue on the ballot.
Lawyers representing the ACLU and Equality California, however, filed a petition earlier this month in the state’s highest court to strike Proposition 8 from the ballot, claiming the measure is not merely an amendment, but a revision, which a lawyer told WND is defined as a radical rewrite of the Constitution that would drastically upset the social fabric of California and require convening a constitutional convention to approve.
Liberty Counsel founder, Mathew Staver, told WND that if there was any radical rewrite of California’s social fabric, it was done last month when the Supreme Court ignored over a century of precedent in the state’s definition of marriage with a 4-3 ruling that deemed a law defining marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional.
“They’re suggesting the Supreme Court can rewrite the entire institution of marriage, but people can’t amend the Constitution to go back to its historical definition,” Staver said. “It’s absolutely ridiculous to argue that courts can turn society upside down in 30 days but the people have no right to define it.”
Criticizing homosexual marriage’s legal advocates, Staver said, “Their agenda is to trample the will of the people and elevate by force the will of four individuals on the Supreme Court over the will of millions of voters.”
Today Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation organization dedicated to religious freedom and the traditional family, filed a motion in the state’s Supreme Court to intervene in the case, allowing Randy Thomasson of Campaign for California Families and former California Assemblyman Larry Bowler to defend Proposition 8.
Stating that the state’s current attorney general has never effectively defended traditional marriage, Staver told WND, “It’s prudent to have a rigorous defense of Proposition 8. These two guys have been involved in the ‘gay’ marriage issue for years, and they would be disenfranchised if same-sex groups succeed at blocking them from voting.”
California voters first sought to protect the traditional definition of marriage when in 2000 a ballot initiative called Proposition 22 was passed with 61.4 percent, or roughly 4.6 million people, voting in favor of it.
Last month, however, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional, opening the doors for same-sex marriages in California, which began earlier this month.
Even before the landmark case, aware that Proposition 22 might be overturned, many of the state’s citizens began work on collecting signatures for initiating a constitutional amendment that would define marriage between one man and one woman. Now that their initiative, Proposition 8, has been certified for the November 4 general election, only a court order can prevent the people from voting on it.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen “has a ministerial duty to certify any initiative when they qualify through the petition process,” a spokesperson for the secretary told the Associated Press. “She can’t remove an initiative without a judge’s order.”
The Associate Press also reports that two ballot propositions were challenged in 2005, but that the state Supreme Court overruled lower courts on both cases and allowed the propositions to remain on the ballot.
Staver told WND that the attempt to manipulate the courts to trump the will of the people marks an elitist approach to social change. “Same-sex marriage advocates think that voters are ignorant and backwards because they support traditional marriage,” he said. Therefore, he said, they use courts in an “absolute dictator approach to force ‘gay’ marriage down the throats of California citizens.”
Further, he warned, if judges disarm people from voting, effectively rendering their political voice impotent, “the people will not sit back and allow courts to suppress their freedom to vote.”
Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com Executive Committee, told WND earlier, “The people’s overwhelming support to protect the longstanding meaning of marriage as between a man and a woman has been staggering. The California Marriage Amendment will allow the people of California, not politicians or judges, to reaffirm the definition of marriage by placing it in the Constitution.”
Of 28 states where such an amendment has been considered, voters in 27 states – all but Arizona – have passed the amendment. A Los Angeles Times poll last month reported that 54 percent of Californians polled supported the amendment, while 35 percent opposed it. A simple majority of the vote is needed to add Proposition 8 to the California Constitution.
Voters in California, not black-robed men and women on the state Supreme Court bench, will decide whether marriage is restricted to one man and one woman after a proposed constitutional amendment was certified for the November election ballot.
“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council.
Prentice also serves as chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com campaign to put the amendment in front of voters in November.
“We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people
BibleAnswerMan @ 10:57 am 
the right to political dissent, 9) the right to bear arms, 10) a government based on the consent of the governed, and 11) freedom against tyranny are also implied in The Declaration of Independence. 
mag sticky sold at worldnetdaily.com