Elder

Excellent post Hugo. Pornography is a form of media that can lead to disasterous behaviour. Krusty Kidd, there is one main difference between what you have with with your wife/girlfriend, and my view of pornography. I'm sure she is a very beautiful woman, and has a figure well worth appreciating (hey, I fully believe it's a crime to not acknowledge beauty where it is). However, you also talked about her other attributes, which sound quite beautiful as well. You know her. You can see all of her wonderful traits, and I'm quite sure you love her for all of her traits, not just her beauty, and I'm sure she could say the same about you. You don't get that out of a magazine, or on some video. There are only looks there, only lust, not love, only sex. Oh, by the way, congratulations Krusty. Souds like you have a wonderful woman. Yes, both love and sex are free and exciting, but lets not settle for counterfeits. Pornography is not free and exciting. It's addicting. Yes, physical intamacy is a wonderful part of love, and I wouldn't have it any other way, but I will not think of any woman I love as meat!

Amen KrustyKidd. Look, the American system is not perfect. I don't expect to see a perfect system anywhere. The American system, however, is the best there is. The vast majority of the people in the Third World want to come here (this beint told to me by actually people from third world countries). The main opposition that the U.S. actually gets is: 1. from terrorists and third world dictators (yeah, wonderful people they are) 2. the U.N. (who really don't like the fact that without the U.S., they are nothing, and would like to think they rule the world and are rather upset that the overpresumptious yanks dare to defy them,) 3. Countries like France, who don't like the Americans because they think the U.S. has to much power as it is. Thelonius, I agree that morals are on the decline throughout the world, but the U.S. has no monopoly on this. The U.S. simply has better communications. Bad news being the bread and butter of the press, of course all of the real problems come up here, where as in Third world countries, the press held on far too tight a leash to be so negative, or realistic. Moral decline is everywhere, not just in America. Please show me a country that can compete with the U.S. for freedom, equality, and justice.

And that is why 86% of Americans believe there is a God? Craig, please watch what you call an "intelligent view of religion." You seem to believe you speak on behalf of all intelligent people. Let me assure you, you do not. Frankly, I'm sick of trying to convince you that Christ truly did exist. I guess I read my own posts. This is the worlds most useless arguement. It can not be won by intelligence, whit, cunning, or evidence. Can we please just drop it. We are getting no where here.

Thelonius, that is a very good question. I could very easily see a repeat of what happened when we tried prohibition. If it were to happen, it would have to happen incrementally, probably just like rehab off of any drug. You could go cold turkey, but it usually isn't pretty. Honestly, I don't know. I will fight to keep porn away from youth, and especially away from my family, but I don't know if I can safely take it away from the world. That is a very good question Thelonius. I hadn't really thought of that.

Funny, I'm not seeing too much objection to the banning of Pornography. I was hoping for a bit more debate on the subject. I can't say I'd blame anyone though, as stepping forward could very easily imply that you are pedophile or some other type of pervert. Not saying that that would be the case, but it probably is a factor. Thelonius, to answer your question, I can very easily see the rising number of porn-users as a threat. What could happen if the courts rule that pornography is only just a form of artistic expression, and all of the sudden it's given full access to teens, and children, or allowed to be blatantly advertised on Bill-boards. Should I have to blindfold my children?

Alright snakeyes. No one here has a clue as to whom your talking about. I would like to say that if it is a racial group, I've seen the kind of people you were describing come in every race, color, and class. Yes, they are a bit more common in the rough neighborhoods, but I've seen them among both the middle and upper-class as well. I live among African Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, Arabic Americans, and just about any other race or culture you can imagine. I've met thugs and I've met perfect ladies and Gentlemen among all of them. I've been threatened, defended, attacked, and befriended by people of all kinds of both race, class, and culture. I'm at a loss as to whom the heck you are talking about. Please do enlighten us all.

Craig, that was an eloquent post with plenty of information to back it up. Both sound and clear. I would like to point out that you have probably not changed one Christian's mind. As I said earlier, the above information will probably enrage some Catholics, but that's about it. I'm still a firm and devout Christian, but I'm not at all surprised that the early Church was fillled with such things. I personally believe that all Hell broke loose within the Church after the original Apostles were martyred. Without their leadership and guidance, the Church scattered and began take in some of these heathen practices. I, being a non-Catholic, am not bothered a bit that early Catholic officials spoke against the Church or had such problems as corruption, if in fact they did. No offense meant to the Catholic Church with any of these comments. I still support any organization that helps people come to Christ, the Catholic Church included. I don't agree with all of Catholic doctrine, but I certainly have no problems with those who do, and I respect the Catholic Church for the good it does and for the fact that they are one of the few who actually claim to have some line of authority. On their defense, the accusations made by the secular authorities you cited are not to be considered unbiased. The Romans and the Jews were not fans of the Christians as they demonstrated by throwing them to lions, having them formally executed for being Christians, etc., etc. It would stand to reason that Hebrew and Roman historians would have a slanted view on the matter. I don't know whether what they said was true or not, it makes little difference to me, but I'm not going to take it for granted. As for the Catholic officials who you cited, the Catholics are well used to people pointing fingers at their authority figures. It's really not all that different to hearing the same things about the American founding fathers. As for your Bible references, even a Christian must be careful in using the Bible. There are hundreds of translations, and pastors, priests, and just about anyone else, all seem to interpret their translation differently. You quoted the Sinai Bible. I personally go by the King James Version. Someone else may go by one of the thousands of others. I'm going to check the scriptures you listed, but I may find them to mean something completely different, or they may even say something completely different. I use my Bible references to put a foundation on my moral statements, to show where I got that particular idea. I don't find the Bible to be at all practical for proving or disproving anything to anyone. I use it for myself, but I've tried it before, and I will tell you that you can't prove something to someone else with the Bible. It's not what it was written for. Look, we could all go on and on about whether Christ existed, what Church is right or wrong, etc. etc. etc. We will never get anywhere. No one will back down on this, and I'm willing to bet no one will change their mind because of this. I'm a Christian who strongly advocates the spreading of Christianity and who actively participates in it. I'll tell you right now that you can not convert anyone to or from their faith in a debate, especially when you attack their faith. I've seen people converted and that's not how you do it. Craig, for all your information, evidence, and writing skills, you have picked an arguement that you can't win. Honestly, neither side can.

A Government role is to serve the it's people. That comes first and foremost in any situation. That's why we elect them, to serve us. If you want to look at this from a Christian perspective, the parable of the mote and the beam comes to mind. You can't take a mote from one persons eye when you have a beam in your own. Now I would love to see third world refugees taken care of. I would love to see some Government aid go their way (although I believe there already is some, I'd love to see more). I doubt that Congress or anyone else would be incredibly upset if they were to end world hunger. However, before they do that, they have their own problems. They have their own hungry, they have their own law problems, and their own reforms to make. That's why they were elected. Not to end world hunger, but to help the American people with their problems. If they can do that and help out the Third World, Great. If not, it's sad, but you can only help as much as you can help. I personally try to aid charities and the like as much as I can, but not at the expense of my family (my family comes before everything besides God.) I don't pay taxes to the government so that they can send it off for middle eastern villages, I pay taxes to support the laws that protect my rights, the millitary and law enforcement people who protect my life and my freedoms, and if a little is left over for Charity, that's fine. I do my own Charity, and I don't like being forced in it either. I support my family, and then I do whatever I can for those around me.

Nice post widowsmite. A little fiery, but it's good to show some conviction. Sirriff, on this one, you are absolutely right. A true Christian would be one of the greatest, and he probably would be very forgiving of those who secularize Christmas, although he wouldn't see the point of it. However, here we touch on what widowsmite is saying. Why is the true Christian such a wonderful person? Because Christ is the center. He or she realizes how much Christ gave us, thus, he or she wants to give. They realize what Christ was forgiving, and thus they will forgive (yes, Christ did throw the vendors out of the temple, but while I'm sure he forgave them, I doubt he was about to let them continue defiling his fathers house. You can kick someone out of your house without a grudge. On a previous thread Craig made the comment that Christ's teachings weren't new. It's true. They weren't. However, it's Christ who brought them forward to the world as we know it today. Long before anyone in Europe had a clue about Confucianism or Buddhism (besides superstitious myths of barbarians) people knew of Christianity. They knew Christ's words. However, knowing them isn't enough. You have to have something behind it, and Christ is that something. No one could ever live perfectly, even by those standards. It's the love of Christ, his mercy, that gives the inspiration necessary to be that true Christian. An atheist may be able to accept Christianity if there was no miracles, no God, but I need god to be a part of it. I need his mercy and I need his love. I don't do it out of guilt but gratitude. That's what makes me want to be that true Christian. It's the pure love of Christ, and it's Christ who helps me find that love. As for the Bible and it's composition, I can listen to both sides on this one. The Bible did come from many sources (most of which I believe to be God inspired), and were then compiled. However, there are so many translations, and then interpretations of those translations. In my opinion, this is one of the main reasons that Christianity is so divided. I was rather disturbed when I walked into a local bookstore and then saw "the Skaters Bible" and yes, it was supposed to be a Bible. In my oppinion, that's where prayer comes in (see James 1:5). I study my Scriptures, both in times of need and just casually, and always with prayer that I get the correct meaning. It actually has been quite helpful. As for the Catholic Church, I'm no Catholic, for various reasons that don't really need to be stated, but I have no quarrel with them. They are one of the few Churches who believe they actually have some line of authority from Christ, which I respect. I have a great respect for Protestants as well, as their Churches are usually a bit more perfectionist (I have a long range goal of being perfect.) While I do have my disagreements with the Catholic Church, I'm willing to acknowledge the good they do. Secular Christianity, I fail to see the point of it. Yes, you are taught the morals, but you loose the heart and soul of it. If all you see in Christianity is rules about how you should live, you miss a great deal of the message. Theirs a reason they call it the Gospel-good news. Christianity has not only helped morality, but it is in the roots of our culture, both morally, politically, and artisticly. The santa-claus-rudolph aspect of Christmas are cute, but for me, it's message, that makes the difference. While "Jolly Old Saint Nicholas" "Rudolph the Red-nosed reindeer" and "Santa Baby" maybe light and cheerful, it's O Holy Night and the Messiah that are moving. You can have a nice secular Christmas if you want, but you are missing out.

And just what is this standard that the people believe in. Read around on this forum. It's very clear that we, the people, have different oppinions on both this and many matters. Our leaders our held by our standards to the point that we impeach them if they step to far out of line, and we may or may not reelect them if we think that they have been doing a bad job. The Constitution contains the base standard that our leaders are held to, which while it may have Christian roots, is not necessarily Christian. Beyond what is entailed there, a leader has the moral responsibility of any man. To hold himself accountable to the standard of his choosing. To do what he or she believes is right. I do think that leaders could get far if they did hold themselves to a Christian standard, although I'm sure other standards have their merits as well. That is their choice however. I vote to elect the people who I think will do the best job, the ones who I think hold themselves to a good enough standard. That's where the Republic elements come in. Hate to break it to you, but we don't live in a Democracy (not enough power to individuals, and just way to slow to get anything done, the minority just being left out to dry.) We live in a Republic, where EVERYONE does get fair representation by whom they elect. The main point of what I said is that we can't force our morality onto others. We can convince others of it (which I highly endorse) and we can elect officials who have that morality, or who will at least defend that morality, but we can't force it. That would be to go against every freedom we hold dear. If we take away ones freedom to act by his morality, we forfeit our own. We show serious disrespect we show for their own morality, their own standards, their own integrity, and their beliefs. Does this sound like Christian behaviour? (I do mean true, charitable, kind, non-judgemental Christianity, not the historical kill 'em if they don't believe Christianity, in case the local atheists are wondering.) It's persecution, something that both Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians have been on both ends of, and I would think with our extensive experience in this field, we'd know better!

I may just be showing my ignorance in legal matters and such, but since I'm sure the international comitee will be watching the Iraqi trial with great interest, can't he be brought up on international charges as well? If he has committed crimes against both, shouldn't he be tried by both? Now obviously we can't kill him twice, but just in case one doesn't cover everything. I'm certain that the crimes he committed--all of them--should come to light for both the Iraqi people and for the rest of the world. Like I said, I might just be showing my naivity here. If I am, please let me know.

I personally am very much against pornography. It's as addicting as any drug. You become desensitized, and then need to see more. Eventually, you stop thinking of women as free thinking people and see them as, to put it bluntly, meat! No, I'm not a woman, nor am I gay, but it does bother me to see that happen. I think women are very beautiful both physically and mentally, and it bothers me to see every aspect of them besides the body cast to the wind. This is my personal opinion on the matter. Now should it be restricted or done away with? It certainly wouldn't bother me if it were, but if someone wants to call that freedom of expression, things can get very complicated. I'm willing to bet though that the consumers in the porn industry aren't buying it for it's artistic value. They are buying it our of pure lust. I think it's prudent to at least have restrictions, at least as far as age goes. Let's keep it away from kids (the industry might have a problem with this, as I'm sure they make a lot of money of teenagers.) We don't consider underage kid's to be sexually responsible yet, so let's not go arousing those feelings in them. As for adults, that is a touchy issue, and I'll wait to see what some of the other arguements are before I put in my comments. It has the same effects on adults that it does on kids, but many will say that a willing adult is sexually responsible, and should have the choice. I hate the stuff, and like I said, it wouldn't bother me if it were completely banned, but that's just me. I'm wouldn't be incredibly surprised if there are a significant number of people who want to keep it. They have their rights. With adults I'm kind of caught between my respect for their rights and my utter loathing of the industry.

Honestly Craig, we've been over the Christianity issue over and over and over. Last I checked there was already a discussion on this one. Your comments probably won't change many minds though. For me personally, they don't bother me at all. I peronally think that all hell broke loose in the church after the deaths of the original apostles. They weren't there to guide the church. That's just me though. Thus, this is no real revelation for me. You might infuriate a Catholic or two, but that's all you'd do, infuriate him. The debate over whether a religion is true is the most useless debate in the world, as neither side ever backs down no matter how cunning your arguements or how how valid your evidence. Can we just call a ceasefire on this one? God's role in government, abortion, gay marriage, now those are good places to discuss religion and politics. We might make a difference there. I do agree with udawg on one point. Many Christians could learn a thing or two from Muslims about making their faith a part of their everyday lives. There's a reason they call us infidels. Many Christians seem to think that just because they are saved (by confession, baptism, faith,etc. in the end all Christians believed they are saved by Christ) they can do whatever they please. This attitude is damaging to faith. As Christians, we should set an example, thus wanting people to come to the fold because they see so many good people in it. Christians haven't been doing as good a job of that lately. It's good for anyone really, as Islam does promote a certain amount of integrity. Tourists in Egypt don't have to worry about thieves, and Islamic law has something to do with it. Whether Islam is a dead faith or a hoax or not, there are certainly things we could learn from it, whether from their strengths or their mistakes. A wise man learns from the mistakes and strengths of others, the average learns from his own mistakes, and a fool learns not at all.

udawg, is it really fair to someone to hold them to a standard that they don't believe in? I do agree we need to be a little more tolerant and dare I say it, objective, in this area. People are governed by the moral standard that they themselves hold them too. If a leader wants to hold himself to a Christian Standard, wonderful, and the fact that I believe in a Christian Standard has nothing to do with it. If he wants to hold himself to a more objective standard, that's his choice, and it's none of my business to stop him, and he can probably do plenty of good as well. If a man wants to hold himself to a Muslim standard, good for him. So long as he does not try to force it (as many muslim governments have done in the past,) he can probably do a great deal of good up there. It is wrong to force a man to live by a standard that he doesn't believe in, and that includes political leaders, who have (or at least should have) the same rights we do, are just as much human beings as we are. Like I said earlier, I don't think that it pleases God at all to have people swear by his name when they don't believe in him (please see 10 commandments: thou shalt not take the Lords name in vain.) Atheists like to point out that just about every time a religion has had serious political power, it turned into oppression and mass murder (i.e. Inquisitions, the Taliban, Oliver Cromwell's Puritan regime in the British Isles, etc.) Sadly, this is true. Do you know why this happened? Because the religious leaders decided to force their religious convictions on to others who didn't share them. I'm sick of atheists holding that over our heads. I'd like to think that Christians have learned better. I think having good Christian men write the Constitution and including religious freedom was a step in the right direction. Let's not not lapse back into trying to force our way on others. I have no issues with using quiet methods of persuasion to spread the gospel, proselyting to actually bring someone to believe, but forcing it is wrong. I agree with logical1 that we should try to remember the individual . When we try to do good for others, we should do it for everyone, not just the majority, although certainly not just for the minority. We should try to meet everyones needs. Rich, poor, believer, atheist, man woman, majority, minority, all still have their rights. God loves all his children, right? not Just the majority. The main difference we have ist that I think that a leader will be able to do more good if he worries more about the people he represents than worrying about the next election, while logical1 believes that a leader will do best if he is more concerned with his own political career, thus not wanting to do anything seriously damaging and loosing popular support. Both systems have their merits and their weaknesses, and a leader has the right to choose what he wants.

Amen, Craig. We do enjoy many rights and priveleges. We do have a lot to be greatful for. We have the right to worship or not worship as we please. We have the chance to make something of our lives. Let us truly be grateful.

Funny, I thought the liberals were more for clawing up the ladder (i.e. Al Gore.) They put out these charity taxes in order to gain the support of the usually less well-to-do masses. Logical1, I think you misunderstood me slightly. Despite my desire to make a difference, I want to do it myself, not with other people's money. Taxing people for the poor is not necessarily for the greater good. I was refering more to the protection of rights. I wasn't talking about putting the poor in front of the rich or fixing peoples lives. Only one person can fix your life, and that's you. My point is, a leader is supposed to serve the people he leads. He should see what he thinks is wrong with the situation, and be willing to reform it. He is supposed to do the people some good. Otherwise, what good is he? I do agree, that the collection plate is the best policy. You do not force charity. When someone forces charity on me, I don't feel like I'm making a difference, as I'm being forced to do it. I doubt it pleases God either (for whatever that's worth to you) as I think he'd like for his children to choose to follow him, not be forced into it. Conscripts make excellent cannon fodder, but volunteers are the ones who make a difference. I equally agree that a laissez faire government is the way to go, however, there are ways to do good for your people and look out for their well-being without interfering in their rights. While I think we have the greatest government system on Earth, I think there are places where we could fix some things. At the very least, one could make the difference in the government to help eliminate some of these idiotic taxes which don't even help the greater good that much. They just make those who they support even more dependant. That's just my opinion though.

Agreed. If the point of view you have at the moment is insufficient, than one must strive to see it from another. If you don't have enough information, you don't just go off the info you have, that's asking for disaster. You get more. In this issue, a lot of people have been deciding whether or not the U.S. actually needs the U.N. I personally doubt that we do. However, many other countries may need to the U.S. to stick with the U.N. and use the power that it has there to try to stop some of these problems it has. The statement was made that the U.N. is anti-Jewish. I'm not going to argue with it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was true. However, the U.S. could probably do something about that. If the U.S. were to leave, there's no chance that reform in the U.N. could ever happen. That's from different perspective that sees what the U.S. can do for the U.N., not what good the U.N. is doing the U.S.

On the contrary. I know all about moral's based on reason and individual rights. From my point of view, they don't clash at all with Christian values. Individual rights and reason is what taught me that my beliefs should not be forced down people's throats, although the Christian doctrine of "judge not" certainly did help. As I see it, God gave all men the abillity to choose what they wanted, and let them decide whether or not they wanted to follow him or not. If He gave them the right to choose, who am I to take it away. However, I knew these things before I applied God to them. I do go by my own reasoning, however, there are times when I don't trust my reasoning, where I don't always know what is right and what is wrong, and that's where I turn to Christianity, to Christ. I personally think (I'm not going to pass off as doctrine or anything like that, it's just my own speculation) that God wants to see if we can handle ourselves with these freedoms. I also believe that when he told us the things that are right and wrong, he left some things up to us, trusting that we were reasoning, intelligent beings who could tell right from wrong. Many atheists call Christianity a crutch. I don't think you will disagree when I state that when I look around the world, I see many who are morally crippled. If you believe yourself not to need such a crutch, and stick it out on your own, judging by your own reasons, then that is your choice. Christianity is for those who believe themselves to be imperfect and long to be changed, for those who see themselves as dirty (anywhere from a smudge here or there, or just downright filthy) and want to be clean so they can see their Father in Heaven. People see themselves as imperfect by both Christian Doctrine and their own moral reasoning, and see themselves as. What I do in the name of Christianity, I do not do it out of guilt, but out of gratitude. If you don't believe this, if you don't believe in God, or you don't believe that you have such a need to be cleaned, if you don't feel grateful to God for anything that you have, if you don't believe Christianity, then it isn't for you. You should act by what you believe to be right, and if Christianity isn't what you believe to be right, than so be it. When I wrote my last post, I didn't at all mean or believe that Christianity has some monopoly on morality. I believe that it's guidelines certainly help with morality, but so do many other philosophies. I know many morally strong atheists, and if you truly live by what you said in your last post, you would be one of them. I know many Christians who take their beliefs in ways that I see as flawed (although I'm really not much of one to talk, as I'm not always sure I understand God's meaning correctly) and do harm with it. I don't judge them for it, as for all I know, they were following their conscience, and they may know something about the issue that I don't. The same goes for any action I see anyone make. Often, when I make a mistake, I think I'm doing the right thing. I certainly have no jurisdiction over the actions of others to say what they do is right or wrong. I believe the main difference in our two standards is what we want. You believe in looking out for your rational self interest. You believe in using your rational self interest. You believe in persuing your happiness in a way that does not get in the way of others persuing their happiness, realizing if their rights aren't upheld, neither are yours, (funny enough, it sounds kind of like the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you.) Truly admirable sentiments, showing the same respect for others that you show for yourself, and I'm sure it gets you through your problems. This isn't enough for me though. I have a desire in me that surpasses all other desires. I have a desire to make a difference. I don't care if I get the glory, a reward, or anything like that, so long as I make a difference. In order to do this, focusing on myself will not help at all. My own well-being is certainly in the picture, and I personally believe that God can make a lot more out of my life than I can, but in order to make a difference, I'm going to have to look beyond myself, to try to make a difference in the lives of others. Part of this comes from the Christian concept of gratitude and loving my neighbor. I am grateful for all I have, and thus I want to share it. Another part of this is a deeper one. I see Christ as an example of perfection. That is my second deep desire, I want to be perfect. I obviously have a long way to go, and I'm sure I'll die first, but I can't deny this longing. Now looking at Christ's life, no one will deny that it was largely based on service, and in that he made a difference in the lives of many, and still makes differences. If Christ was the example of perfection, than by trying to be like him and trying to do what he did, I will come that much closer to perfection. My morality is not out of any guilt or debt. Don't get me wrong, I believe that I was unclean, and that by Christ I am redeemed. However, that is not why I try to make a difference, why I try to be like him. If it was a matter of debt, I'd have lost by now, as there is now human way that it could ever be paid (how do pay for both existence and salvation.) It's a matter of caring about the people around me, wanting them to be happy more than I want my self to be happy. It's about wanting to make a significant difference, about wanting to be perfect. I certainly have my own ambitions. Now, lets look at some of these attributes that Christianity helps incite at least in me. A desire to make a difference, to serve and placing needs of others before my own. Now would not these attributes help a politician? Would it not be nice if we knew that the people who represented us put our needs in front of their own? That they wanted to serve us the best way they could while in office, not just claw their way up the latter to power for themselves? What if we knew our politicians wanted to make a difference for the better? I'm not saying that these attributes are only held by Christians, or even that all Christians have these attributes, but Christianity helped give them to me. If Christianity could do that for public officials, wouldn't it be nice?

Granted, Christianity's ideals of service and charity are not always in keeping with the American economic system. In my opinion, that's why taxes should not be raised up to force charity onto people. However, if it were done by choice, if the someone who works hard to earn their money decides on their own to help those around him or her, I see no great threat to the American economy. It is true, that just about any time a Religion took absolute political power, they tried to force it down everyone's throat. That is not an effective or ethical way of spreading a religion anyway. However, that was not the Religion corrupting officials. That was officials exploiting religion. Religion has every place with the individual. I don't think that a religion should have a political power, but I do believe that religious people can do a great deal of good in power. I don't think that any ideal should be forced on to someone by the Government, however, there is certainly no harm done in Government officials supporting, condoning, and acting by an ideal. Christian ideals prove themselves when applied by the individual. Serving those around does nothing but good, so long as you are willingly and voluntarily doing it, so long as you believe in it. The more you act by a principle, the more you come to realize whether it actually works or not. Being accepting and friendly to others despite their flaws, trying to understand them and not condemning them for it (Christian concept of judge not, well, at least the way I see it) certainly does no harm. You can be objective this way, seeing someone for what they are, what kind of weaknesses and strengths they might have and how they might affect you certainly can be beneficial without thinking of a person as "good" or "evil," a judgement I think best left to God. I rephrase my remark. Christian Doctrine does not have to be counterproductive to the American way if done properly by the individual, by his own choice or volition. Let people live by their own beliefs. A man often bases his moral code by what he believes in. Let people do what they believe to be right. That's what our freedoms are about isn't it?

I can see both logical1's and Farrius' point. A standard that people can be held accountable too is very important. However, not everyone is going to have the same standard. I personally view the Bible an excellent resource for morality, as far as it is translated correctly. I also believe my conscience to be a good source. A Muslim may reserve that spot for the Koran. The Atheist will stick to his own conscience alone, unless they have something else I'm not aware of. A Christian Leader will probably govern by his morals, which will hopefully be Christian. The same goes for any other religious or atheist leader. They will govern by the morals that they have and that they were taught. God has as much a place in Government as there are officials who believe in him and follow him. Questioning which morals are best is for a different discussion, and ultimately a pointless debate that will never be won until judgement day (if the believers are right, God will let them know, if the Atheists are right, there won't be a judgement day, and we won't ever stop arguing about it.) As I said before, to each his own. I don't think God should automatically be written into swearing in. It should be the statesman's choice. If he or she doesn't believe, than it is a vain oath that mocks God's name to the Believers, and a lie to the Atheists.

I'm not sure you can very easily remove God from our culture, and that includes our government. I'm quite sure that I'm not alone when I thank God for the rights and freedoms which I enjoy today. No discredit to the politicians and freedom fighters who struggled, worked, fought and died for them. I hold them in very high esteem. However, I do believe that God helped guide these men somewhat. That's just me personally. I do agree that the day we rely on the Government for moral guidance is the day that we abandon all virtue. Moral guidance is best done in the home. My view is if the man being sworn in or what not believes in God, than there is no reason why he shouldn't swear in the name of God, since if he takes his beliefs seriously, it may help him honor the promise. If the official does not believe in God, than he shouldn't have to swear in the name of God, in fact he really has no business swearing in the name of God. To each his own.

logical1, I would love to see examples of Christian Doctrine that is counterproductive to our capitalist society. Oh, please do realize that behaviour by those who profess to be Christians is not always necessarily the same thing as Christian Doctrine. Please, crack open the Bible and show me some examples. I do however agree, that Christian Doctrine is meant for the individual, and is not always very effective with the government.

Forgive me, but any cognitive man of reason knows that for everything that he thinks he knows, there are probably 100 (and that is a huge understatement) things he doesn't know. A man who only by what his believes only his own perceptions doesn't know much. You refuse to admit that for all of mankinds wisdom in regards to the universe around them, we are a far cry from knowing everything. We have a lot of discoveries to make before we reach that point. Is it all that implausible that God would want to be subtle in his work, to let us live out our lives the way we choose, but still let us know how he would like it to be? It is not a chaotic universe because it is governed by the supernatural. Otherwise, how would anything have even come to exist? Science's view of the universe is in actuallity a lot more chaotic than Religions, do to the gaping holes in our knowledge that I am confident will be filled in the future sooner or later, and I look forward to these discoveries. As for your comment on that mentality despising conscious effort not wishing to be accountable for ones actions, religious people know that they are responsible for keeping themselves and their families alive (heck they are usually even more responsible as far as the family is concerned!) They also believe that they are accountable for their actions to God. We actually believe there is more to life that we have to be responsible for than mere survival, but also we have to be responsible for our ethics, for our thoughts, and we are responsible to try to help those around us (a far better sentiment than simply acting in your own rational self interest for your own survival. If you would like evidence of this in Christian Doctrine, check James 1:22-27 (be ye doers of the word and not hearers only,) James 2:14-26 (faith without works is dead,) Galatians 5:13 (serve one another,) and Galatians 6:2-5 (bear one another's burdens......bear your own burden.)It is true that many Christians hide behind their faith as an excuse for immoral actions, however, they miss the point of the doctrine. Yes we believe that Christ did suffer for our sins, but that is because we know that perfection, while it is certainly worth striving for, is in the end, not quite attainable. It's what we pickup on the way that makes it worth while. Christians aren't perfect people either. Many atheists decide that if there is no God, than there is no reason to be moral, that if death is the end anyway than there is not much to live for. Are they much better off? As for the comment on the supernatural not having produced anything, decent moral behaviour (something this world desperately needs to pay attention to) is often based on religious principals. It matters not that Christ's doctrine wasn't necessarily new. The truth has always been the truth, especially when it comes to moral behaviour. It stands to reason that intelligent people figured it out before God had to spell it out for is. Christ just helped more people believe it. Having God endorse a moral code does wonders for it's popularity. Refering to the comment on force being the arbitrator, that is simply human nature. Christian Doctrine actually deplores these actions. They just further examples that Christians are still human, still imperfect, and are still going to make mistakes, even in the name of religion. The whole debate on my religion is better than your religion is a petty useless debate that Christ did warn against. For more info, there is a discussion on this forum. Please see. "Christianity, the Fractured Faith." Christians do not believe their beliefs to be abstracted. We believe that God truly did reveal himself to the prophets of old, and truly did come forth among man. We believe in the miracles (why couldn't a more powerful being do such things?) and we believe that they still happen today. I've heard tell of miraculous healings and God talking to men today, and I'm not talking about the tabloids either. I'm not always sure if it's the real thing, but as I wasn't there, who am I to say it isn't. Perhaps God doesn't reveal himself often simply because he wants us to actually live by his laws without having him standing to remind us every minute. Perhaps he wants us to prove to him that we can have faith in him even if he isn't always right in front of us. If everytime we wanted to do something wrong, he shouted down "THOW SHALT NOT DO THAT!" there would be no point in us existing. So he did it once, so that we could choose whether to follow him or not. We also choose the consequences when we do that. I am not at all opposed to the persuit of knowledge in society. Nowhere in the Bible do I see any ban on learning. I believe that man has a great deal to learn about the universe, and I await each discovery. I love science, and truly wish that I did know everything. Sadly, I have not the knowledge or temperment to be a scientist. I lack the patience or the focus necessary (not to mention I loathe doing any form of Math.) I do support scientists in the field of learning though. We don't know everything about the universe yet (I'm sure we are an extremely long way off from there.) Many religious people do frown upon science. In my opinion they just can't accept science as it is, imperfect. To them I say, be patient. Let the work continue. It will get better. It stands to reason that the knowledge of imperfect beings would be imperfect. To those who actually study Christian Doctrine, the Bible actually promotes the persuit of knowledge (check 1st Samuel 2:3 and 2nd Peter 1:5.) I believe that we still have a great deal to know about God. I find it difficult to believe that all the Mysteries of God have been revealed. No, the religious mind does not necessarily have to be opposed to the persuit of knowledge. Albert Einstein, one of my personal heroes and arguably the most renowned physicist of all time, was a firm believer in God and that science was about learning of him. By my logic, a closed mind that won't believe anything that it doesn't percieve or have evidence to is a huge detriment to new discoveries. Franky, you can't conclusively prove whether Christ was the son of God or not. We just don't know enough yet. In my opinion, that's how he wanted it. He wanted us to prove ourselves, that we could be faithful and abide by his teachings without having him babying us all the way. If we absolutely knew, it would be too easy. We all choose for ourselves what we believe. Whether we believe science, religion, history, your own reasoning, or just about anything, it's your choice. All of the above have one thing in common. They aren't perfect--yet.

The U.N. Definitely has it's many faillings. The question is, can it be fixed, or is it a lost cause. If it can be fixed, than I think we should stay and fix it. It was a good idea way back when it was first started, although it has since decayed. If it can be reformed, then it is worth reforming. If it's too far gone, let it die. Let it fall apart so we can get something new in it's place.

Granted, the profit based corporations are not innocent in the matter; business is rarely about innocence. However, eco-imperialists are only capitalizing on that. It's easy to further your own aims when you've got a target to set the crowd on. I'm sure most of those volunteers are worried about the planet. But is it those ecology minded volunteers who care about the planet who are pulling the strings on the movement. It's not the volunteers I'm against. It's the ones behind the scenes I'm more suspicious of. That's why I'd like more info on who's in charge of these movements. Volunteers can easily be mislead. No offense towards them, it's just easy to play on strong feelings. I'm all in favor of taking care of the planet. I'm not in favor of forcing other people to do it if they don't want to.