The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Dead people have apparently learned how to vote, so why wouldn't they also know how to type?

History shows there has always been some percentage of voter fraud. It has probably swung a few local elections where the total n umber of voters is just a few thousand, but as the numbers increase the odds go WAY down for any appreciable effect. It's just the way number work. For example 2 is only 1 different from 1 but it is 200% as large as 1. One makes a huge difference in when only single digits are involved but less and less to the point of insignificant even with just double digits as in 1 : 99.

So I sincerely hope you weren't alluding to "The Steal" since even Trump appointed Republican leaders and the likes of Tucker Carlson told him it was impossible and made him look crazy. Frankly I have found considerable hope in Liz Cheney pointing out the proper hierarchy of Country before Party. I wish all politicians would learn that lesson but the odds of that are sadly slim. I can name some in any party who can't see past their own noses.

I second that! We had a perfect example of ballot-box stuffing in a London Borough called Tower Hamlets. A local Asian politician called Lutfur Rahman was elected mayor mainly on a postal vote and it turned out, after his election was challenged in court, that his helpers were responsible for most of the votes.

You can do that in a place like Tower Hamlets where everyone knows everyone else. To do it across the United States would take thousands of agents!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Dead people have apparently learned how to vote, so why wouldn't they also know how to type?

Only their names are needed, since it's no longer necessary to vote in person at in a single home precinct. I have zero faith there was not material fraud perpetrated by interested parties with unlimited funds to pay hackers to vote the same names in multiple places, living or not, via internet. Voting should require physical presence at a voting booth for the vast majority of voters, and special precautions for heavily limited exceptions, such as physical presence with proof of ID and citizenship at the registrar of elections at a no more than one location per election to apply for one exception ballot.

Speaking of faith: "I don't have the faith to be an atheist". I've seen many if not all of Turek's video series based upon his book. They're available via Roku several times each week on CTN Lifestyle, as well as OTA on 22.4 in the Tampa Bay OTA TV market area. If I wasn't already convinced of God and young earth, those videos would be adequate to task.

Darwinism isn't science. It's faith. Old earth is faith. Life springing from non-life has never been proven, or created by man's "scientific" experiments. It's much easier to have faith in the Bible, which has never had any portion proven wrong, and whose historical record has been widely corroborated or supported by archaeology, writings sourced from other than Jews, Christians or the Bible, and simple observations of ourselves, our surroundings, and the universe, than it is to believe the blather that contradicts the laws of physics, or postulation that anything happened at any particular time millions, billions or trillions of years before humans began creating records of observations and experiments.

@mrmazda, I actually have a hardcover copy of Darwin's Origin of Species, and I have actually read it.

Darwin chose his title very carefully and stuck to it. The only form of evolution that we can observe is at the "species" level, and in his presentations of fact he did not deviate from that.

But there was also a philosophical element to it – "what else might(!) this explain, without apparent contradiction?" That's a perfectly fair question, implicitly understood by his intended audience to be one without a factual answer. All of them understood the terms of intellectual engagement.

Religion – and "myth" – to me is also a perfectly legitimate approach to "these many urgent questions that we cannot otherwise answer." We're human, after all ...

"OPINION ANALYSIS
Court strikes down Maine’s ban on using public funds at religious schools
By Amy Howe
on Jun 21, 2022 at 12:13 pm

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Maine violated the Constitution when it refused to make public funding available for students to attend schools that provide religious instruction. The opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts was a broad ruling, making clear that when state and local governments choose to subsidize private schools, they must allow families to use taxpayer funds to pay for religious schools." https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/c...gious-schools/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1088_dbfi.pdf

Oh Boy! Looks like this thread has finally attracted QAnon fantasies and the concomitant assertions without a shred of evidence.

As for the unsurprising but eminently dangerous Supreme Court ruling (thanks to stuffing of the likes of Clarence Thomas and worse) I'm hoping some measure of sanity will ultimately prevail once it is recognized it is nearly impossible, and certainly unlikely, such a ruling of Law can be enforced and utilized with impartiality. This is precisely the danger our Founding Fathers tried to short circuit with Separation of Church and State.

To my way of thinking, @enorbet, "it is a school." And, if you are going to allow the use of public funds for one type of "school," you must equally allow the use of those funds for all of them.

I don't consider this to be a "separation of church and state" issue: a church can run "a school" just as the state can, so long as the final outcome of the enterprise is to provide education that is up to state standards. If they then want to add a "religious" element to the picture, that's entirely up to them. If one type of "school" is entitled to public assistance, all qualifying schools should be. The only goal is education.

Yes, I attended the local "Lutheran School" for many years, and they had "chapel services" every Wednesday morning, but it was very low-key. (A couple of years, I noticed that a couple of students declined to attend, and the school did not require it.) The primary purpose of the whole thing was still to be "a school." And, as I came to realize when I finally transferred to public schooling, it was "a damned good one." I'm not Lutheran, but I didn't mind at all. I know now that they ran a good school: tough, but fair.

Many if not most private schools provide more advanced education than many, if not most public schools. That's not what's in question here. What is in question revolves around government funding for public schooling. Any educational system that teaches Myth as Fact is doing the public a great disservice and that is true whether the Myth is Christian, Islamic, Kali, Satanic, whatever. It is perfectly consistent with actual education to teach these things exist and what their precepts and dogma entail, but schools that exist to promote just one speculative religious assertion as Real and all others as False does flirt with State Religion an extremely dangerous condition and anathema to actual education.

If a person wants to send their children to a private "School of Our Lord Kali" (or Jesus, Mohammed, Satan ... your pick) I think that is misguided but it is their right as you say assuming the rest of the curriculum meets State standards. Since it is utterly common that people destroy various temples and churches of denominations with which they don't agree, it is likely that any public school with a religious agenda will conform to some perceived majority and disallow others. Such an education is therefore philosophically skewed and does result in State Approved Religion, exactly the reason for the Separation clause.

Of course it makes sense that you, sundialsvcs, don't find this a problem since it conforms, if loosely, with your predilections toward Christianity. At least Lutheran is still Christian but I doubt you would have attended "Lord Odin High School" though Mjolnir might.

Originally Posted by enorbet Any educational system that teaches Myth as Fact is doing the public a great disservice and that is true whether the Myth is Christian, Islamic, Kali, Satanic, whatever.

Old earth is as good as myth. It's certainly not fact, certainly not science, same as evolution types other than natural selection. Anything that starts out with the words "millions of years ago" or purports to describe events or conditions billions of years ago is a fairy tale.

Jesus Christ isn't myth. Besides the Bible, which has never had any portion disproven, there is ample evidence supporting his life. Those who ignore this are willingly ignorant, as prophesied in the Bible for the last days we are now living through.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts...II Peter 3:3 KJV

Originally Posted by mrmazda Old earth is as good as myth. It's certainly not fact, certainly not science, same as evolution types other than natural selection. Anything that starts out with the words "millions of years ago" or purports to describe events or conditions billions of years ago is a fairy tale.

Since Geologists, Archaeologists, Astronomers, Physicists... in fact every branch of Science and their scientists for hundreds if not thousands of years have researched and gathered evidence that ALL confirms our Earth is almost 4 Billion years old, and ONLY religious scripture makes vacuous claims it is roughly 6000 to 10,000 years old, I think the preponderance of evidence is against your assertion. This is true unless you have some corroborated, objective, repeatable evidence to the contrary... do you? Just saying it is so does not make it so. Citation, please.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Jesus Christ isn't myth. Besides the Bible, which has never had any portion disproven, there is ample evidence supporting his life. Those who ignore this are willingly ignorant, as prophesied in the Bible for the last days we are now living through.

I agree that there is enough evidence that a man, a sort of philosopher, named Jesus Christ probably existed. It is a tenuous conclusion since so little evidence exists and much is contradictory. It should be obvious that the Jesus described even by early proponents Mark, Luke, Matthew, Peter, Paul and John vary wildly, and largely depend on their own agendas and their followers predilections.

The Christian scriptures are filled with outright contradictions as well as Bronze Age ignorance of the nature of Nature. The sky is not firmament. The stars are not lights hanging on firmament. The Earth is not even the center of our solar system let alone the Universe. Those who wrote Christian scripture were not even aware of many other nations on the same continent let alone other continents on Earth. To view scripture as literal truth implies there has been zero progress in over 2000 years. Talk about willful ignorance!

You have every right to believe whatever you choose, but frankly I would no sooner count on your views on Science than I would count on a plumber to do brain surgery on my Mother. I sincerely don't mean disrespect, but you simply apparently lack any scientific understanding or even logical, critical thinking. \

There is an old Sicilian saying that carries some wisdom that I think applies here, "Only a true friend will tell you when your face is dirty". I am hopeful you would not be offended by hearing that but would be grateful to know you should wash your face to look presentable.

I found an interesting site https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/ which deals in detail with the evidence for evolution and an old earth from the perspective of an evangelical christian.

On this site, I will discuss: God's two revelations: the creation and the Bible The evidence for evolution Why I do not believe evolution conflicts with belief in Jesus Christ. Why evolution does not conflict with the Bible I don't believe there's any reason to resort to lying, deceit, or intellectual dishonesty. God made everything! And his handiwork, according to the Bible, shows his glory; it does not take away from it! In other words, God doesn't need us to protect him from proof of evolution. He certainly doesn't want us to lie in his defense. He can take care of himself.

Originally Posted by enorbet Since Geologists, Archaeologists, Astronomers, Physicists... in fact every branch of Science and their scientists for hundreds if not thousands of years have researched and gathered evidence that ALL confirms our Earth is almost 4 Billion years old, and ONLY religious scripture makes vacuous claims it is roughly 6000 to 10,000 years old, I think the preponderance of evidence is against your assertion.

Feel free to remain ignorant of the disproof of the that so-called proof, which is defective, mostly speculation, partly outright lies, and interpretation of evidence from a biased perspective. Millions of years ago is simply not subject to scientific proof. OTOH, the geological record is much better explained by young earth with whole earth catastrophic flood. Feel free to think anything but a catastrophic flood from a burst dam holding back many cubic miles of water could have caused the Grand Canyon, whose entrance point is currently thousands of feet below the canyon's top, as explained by Walt Brown's theory. E

This is true unless you have some corroborated, objective, repeatable evidence to the contrary... do you? Just saying it is so does not make it so. Citation, please.

You first. I'm not a libarary. Earlier in this thread I got no feedback from my scientific dissent link. I gave a starting point here yesterday, about which I've seen no feedback as yet. That obscure channel teases out a wealth of support for young earth, Biblical flood, and disproof of so-called "well-established scientific facts". Visit ADTV and AFTV on Roku, Youtube, and their web sites. Visit the Ark Encounter and Dinosaur Adventure Land. Do you get TBN? Most saturdays at 17:30 UTC is has a 30 minute program "Creation in the 21st Century" which you should try if you really want to know some things that better explain the available evidence. Listen to or watch the life story of Professor Walter Veith a Catholic/Protestant turned atheist turned Seventh Day Adventist Christian, then follow up with his scientific research productions and Biblical explanations.

I agree that there is enough evidence that a man, a sort of philosopher, named Jesus Christ probably existed. It is a tenuous conclusion since so little evidence exists and much is contradictory. It should be obvious that the Jesus described even by early proponents Mark, Luke, Matthew, Peter, Paul and John vary wildly, and largely depend on their own agendas and their followers predilections.

There's nothing contradictory about which the Gospel writers wrote. If they didn't experience what they wrote about, why were they, and so many other Christian martyrs, willing to die as they did over the centuries, and still today in China, Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere?

The Christian scriptures are filled with outright contradictions as well as Bronze Age ignorance of the nature of Nature.

They're not. Those who think otherwise simply don't have sufficient understanding.

It's a lot easier to have faith that God created than to believe all the things that defy physics and odds against it that a big bang of nothing produced everything, and that non-life somehow turned into the continuing miracle that life exists all by itself just by application of millions, billions or trillions of years. An atomic bomb blast creating an F-22 Raptor or a duplicate Sears Tower are more believable than the evolution taught in schools, or an earth older than thousands of years. God vs. not God is a question of where you place your faith, not whether you have faith. My faith is in creation by God, and the Biblical record.

The difficulty between us, mrmazda, is that you see everything through Faith and I see nothing through Faith. I accept that information will almost always be refined and even sometimes change somewhat drastically. You, apparently, require that fundamental concepts never change, always remain rigid. That's what "dogmatic" IS.

As far as I can tell the only evidence you need, the one that trumps all other 'cards" is "for the Bible tells me so". That isn't even close to sufficient for me. I am extremely confidant massive progress has been made over the past 2000 years. One cannot properly prove an hypothesis by the hypothesis, and it appears to me that's exactly what all literal fundamentalists of any faith, do. Again, just saying (or writing) something is so, doesn't make it so. The emperor has no clothes, despite what the masses choose to "see". Every bit of "evidence" you offer, falls back on religious dogma, NOT Science. That's OK for you. It's not for me.

BTW I did respond to Discovery Institute's claims of scientific dissent against Evolution. If not there, previously since it does get brought up from time to time, I posted links to the trial transcripts of Kitzmiller vs/ Dover School District (an overview with deeper links can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmi...chool_District ) in which it was revealed that despite the deception of Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design is just rebranded Creationism and, most importantly, they knew it. In fact first drafts of their book literally had "Creation" crossed out and "Intelligent Design" inserted in the margins. Discovery Institute has been thoroughly discredited.

Just as some in The South think they can reverse the outcome of The Civil War/War Between the States, many fundamentalists think they can reverse The Scopes trial.

I am somewhat curious though. Do you also believe in The Firmament and Flat Earth?

Originally Posted by enorbet I see nothing through Faith.

You're wrong about that. Everybody has faith. It's only a question of where placed and how much, such as with voting systems, eyes, government, Kellogg's, intelligent design, public water supplies, IPOs, bridges, brake pedals, Paypal, vaccines, and much more.

76 minutes to digest all the videos I pointed to and then compose a response too! Wow, you read and watch videos fast! I've spent hundreds of hours absorbing what those links and other sources have to offer. OTOH, I haven't looked at anything the Discovery Institute has to offer except the one .pdf doc I linked to that indicates many scientists do not believe in Darwinism, a doc which is comprised mostly those that have retired or otherwise don't depend on salaries from universities for their livelihoods. It's too expensive for many to come out of the closet on the issue, but more and more have been in recent decades as professors retire from academia, free to support irreducible complexity and Biblical text. Kitzmiller was yet another bad recent SCOTUS case that ignored 1892 Holy Trinity and other clear precedent. Unfortunately, there's no money to be made swimming against the tide, so it takes effort to expose the truth. It must be taken from wherever it can be found, so it won't come from world view interests.

Every bit of "evidence" you offer, falls back on religious dogma, NOT Science.

Again, not so. 76 minutes couldn't have covered a small fraction of it.