Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[450knotOffice]

Well said, Jeff (Porsche-O-Phile). Your opinion seems to mirror mine exactly.

[dd74]

Skip - maybe it depends on the ultimate history vs. the long standing history.

If what POP says is true, that the FF were Diests, (undeclared), but God was introduced only as a figurehead and not a definitive fact into the Constitution, that to me is the ultimate history - the keystone, so to speak.

What's convoluted that history is the long-standing history of various religions vying for influence in our government. But even with that said, I as well simply don't see how one can separate entirely from the other - the histories are too intertwined - for better or worse.

For whomever can answer: I'd still like to know how many laws and which laws have been based on the bible.

[skipdup]

DD- I think I might edited: (partially) agree???

My only point was to show the intertwinedment (ha! is that a word)? Nothing more or less. But, they are clearly intertwined.

As for the Q a/b laws... Aren't most laws based on a Judeo-Christina belief structure and/or the 10 Commandments? I would think (with no basis to back up) that maybe none are based on the Bible, per se. Actually, it's a scary thought... Seeing how some distort...

I'm still waiting to find out from POP what religious dogma I'd force on everyone.

[nostatic]

I believe you'll get the slippery slope argument. First abortion, the prayer in school, then you'll forbid us from planting different types of plants in our garden and making the women live outside the city during menstruation (still not a bad idea I think...).

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

No, that would be THE DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE. Have you ever heard of it?

Ok, have you picked one for sure yet? Yes, a courageous document but, a governing document???

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Mule

Sorry but Al Gore's carbon credits carry no guarantee and are worthless. Zygote credits are 100% guaranteed.

Dangit. Stem cells?

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by dd74

...
but God was introduced only as a figurehead and not a definitive fact into the Constitution
...

I re-read and wanted to clarify my stance.

I read it as the FF were saying the constitution and the resulting government's purpose was to protect and secure the Creator given rights. That just doesn't seem "figurehead" to me...

Here's an interesting site re: FF's beliefe (or not) in God...
http://watkins.gospelcom.net/foundingfathers.htm

Author states he's Christian. His conclusions are that "They were certainly godly men who believed in a supreme being, but not everyone would subscribe to the Apostles' Creed."

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by skipdup

I re-read and wanted to clarify my stance.

I read it as the FF were saying the constitution and the resulting government's purpose was to protect and secure the Creator given rights. That just doesn't seem "figurehead" to me...

Here's an interesting site re: FF's beliefe (or not) in God...
http://watkins.gospelcom.net/foundingfathers.htm

Author states he's Christian. His conclusions are that "They were certainly godly men who believed in a supreme being, but not everyone would subscribe to the Apostles' Creed."

Yeah, I'm sure that "gospelcom.net" is quite the unbiased source for this type of thing.

Kinda like going to screwreligion.com for a treatise on the life of Jesus.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by skipdup

Forget church & state. We're talking God & state.

Now see, there ya go Skip. You're talking about your God.

[DanielDudley]

I think the fallacy of anti abortion is that you will stop abortions simply by making them illegal. You won't , all it does is ensure that those with the means and access to safe abortions will get them and others will resort to not so safe procedures. I suppose that you feel free of any responsibility of any harm that might come to those women. IMO, you would not be.

I understand the idea of the sanctity of human life. I still believe that birth control is OK. I don't believe that early term abortions are murder, and I understand that all fetuses are potential humans. I feel that God's understanding is far greater than ours about such things. Our feelings about such things are just that - our feelings.

Now go save yourselves, and stop dwelling on who should pay. God alone is qualified to judge.

Go read your new testament again, and see if it is not so. I am done here. LOL

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Mule

Is this her? "Cause I'm ready to worship if it is!

That's not her. God's a brunette...........Wait a minute, you're right, that's her alright.

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Yeah, I'm sure that "gospelcom.net" is quite the unbiased source for this type of thing.

Kinda like going to screwreligion.com for a treatise on the life of Jesus.

Did you go to the site? Are you saying it's biased? Show me where it's biased...

I stated the guy was a Christian.

Basically, he says some FF were Christian and some were not. Hardly screwreligion.com.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by skipdup

I'm not positive... but basically, doesn't the constitution state that our rights are given by the "creator"?

a quick search and I found...

So, our rights are given to us from our "creator". Again, that seems pretty "religious".

That just means I get them from my mom and dad.

Skip your problematic view is that you reference everything from your God with ZERO thought for any one elses. I'm almost positive you're not talking of Shiva but, I could be wrong. First, you interjected the word "the", implying a single entity. Strike one. Then above you use the word "our". What do you mean by "we" white man? Strike two.

The framers used the word "their" very precisely. Do you know why?

[skipdup]

satman- are you talking to me or doug? why quote me and then talk to doug?

[nostatic]

i think he has you confused. You all sound alike to us

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by nostatic

i think he has you confused. You all sound alike to us

OOps Yes, Skip, I meant you. I'll edit that.

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by nostatic

i think he has you confused. You all sound alike to us

OK, that is a little funny.

Did you go to that site? Did you really think it was biased?

In general, I'd agree that anything like gospelcom.net would be biased. But, after reading it, it seemed pretty fair - and interesting. It definitely was not trying to say all the founding father were Christian. Some were (despite POP's assertions) and some definitely were not.

- Skip

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by skipdup

satman- are you talking to me or doug? why quote me and then talk to doug?

There all better. I am addressing your comment. I was trying a feat of slick trickery that went awry. That's what I get for trying to catch up for the hours I was away. Got to get some work done at work don't ya know.

And that was not just "a little funny". HFCOAC!



I can't tell you what that means.

[nostatic]

actually I thought is was a pretty interesting article. No real conclusions though other than they were a mixed bag, and that they probably disagreed on quite a few things. Their compromise position is probably what we see today. What is interesting is that disparate religious views could come up with something that "works." And it does so by leaving the specifics of religion *out* of the lionshare of the documents. I think that is a key point. If you go with the spirit of what they wrote, including explicit religious language/dogma isn't cool. And if you do want to include it, then you better make room for Allah, Shiva, etc. And I don't think a lot of Christians would like that very much...

[skipdup]

I still want POP to step up and tell me what religious dogma I plan to force on him.

Alas, bout to hit the rack. Going to Dallas tomorrow to have the seat in my new car fitted. Just letting you guys know... Don't want someone to post a zinger and think I was scared off...