How do you view God?

[Brent]

Clete is right. People who think the God of the Bible is a loving, gentle, ole St. Nick figure who ”knows their heart”, and “understands”... hasn’t read the Bible. The Christian God wasn’t powerful enough to hang on to his own creation. He went away to pout for a while, then he came back and started killing people. Sometimes he told “his” people to kill everyone. Other times, he did the killing himself. Occasionally, he would get pissed and start killing all of “his” people. Eventually he will destroy everything except for a few who have REALLY sucked up hard. They get to go to “heaven”. But I don’t know how they could call walking on thin ice, afraid to make one slip and get sent to hell, heaven. Does the Christian God like gays? Nope. He hates them. He wants to burn them in the lake of fire for ever and ever. Does he like Moslems? Are you kidding? Those demon worshipers will burn, burn, burn. Does he like Catholics? No way! Those pagan imitators of the Faith are the great whore who is drunk on the blood of the Saints. They will die, die, die! Does he like Protestants? NOT! They are the daughter of the whore. They are backsliders! They don’t have the Spirit. They’re lost, lost, lost. And what about the Pentecostals? Afraid not! They’ve faked the Spirit. Their eyes are only on the things of this world. Riches and fancy cars. They will be cast into HELL!!! All of them are going to Hell! MOVE OUT OF MY WAY MOSES SO I CAN KILL ALL OF THEM!!!

OK, so there’s your loving God.

Brent

 

[On Fire]

Welcome, Brent. Now SHUT UP you wacko!

 

[smaller]

I like your style Brent. You are right...

and all the while God can be like Mr. Boyd above...witty, entertaining, engaging, SO FULL OF energy and "good vibrations" and yet ready to strike his snake like fangs and inject his venom deep into all the things that he hates, not seeing that it was God who created them ALL in the first place. The God who even wanted to kill Moses.

Of course their "god" who's LOVE is basically WORTHLESS to heal, correct, soothe, raise, or overcome OR LOVE, and has become a god of absolute darkness and total perpetual destruction, always UNTO OTHERS of course.

A truthful expression of the very ANTI-Christ they seek to run from is really WITHIN them all as they continually express this LOOOOSER that they worship.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[1Way]

BChristianK - You do not understand my intentions, instead you ask about them. That is the biggest part of my point. If you jump to adverse judgmental conclusions about someone else, and then later you have no solid answers to questions about the initial intentions, then you have overstepped reasonable bounds by trying to establish what you do not understand. Without going back and re-examining everything, I think my name-calling was specifically over that isolated word selection, and that I most likely either explained my reasoning that we should be more inclusive towards others, or the emphasis was not towards you in general, it was specifically an emphasis on your word usage coupled without (an inclusive) explanation. But I will specifically check out these things in my next post.

When it comes to something you find fault in me, you seem very interested in spending lots of time and effort, even if your assumptions are not well founded. I hope you will put that much effort into our debate. And I hope I am not drawn to repeat ignoring large portions of your posts because of so much misunderstanding.

I'll get specific with what has not been dealt with soon, I just wanted to point these things out in the mean time. Thanks for the added notes of respectful consideration towards Clete and myself as well. And thanks for the prayers for opened doors in my local area. I have done no study about alternatives on divine foreknowledge. So far, I am of the type that says that either He has exhaustive foreknowledge or He does not.

I personally saw William Lane Craig at a local Christian college for a speaking engagement. I forget the topic, something about exposing the people who voted on whether or not red letter words were actually spoken by Jesus, "the people of the Jesus seminar" comes to mind, it's been quite a few years. He was exposing extremely liberal scholarship, he seemed pretty conservative and was a good speaker. Would you please give me a short and quick version of the differences between those views (save open theism of course)?

If it is anything like the differences between "libertarian" verses "compatiblistic" free will, it is a distinction that I find untenable and besides the point, much like I find Arminianism which is in my opinion, inconsistent Calvinism or inconsistent neo-Platonism via divine immutability. Thanks for your time. My actual specific response to your last post will come soon. So please do not see this as a set back, I'm just moving forward with other things as it happens to be easy enough to do.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Brent

Clete is right. People who think the God of the Bible is a loving, gentle, ole St. Nick figure who ”knows their heart”, and “understands”... hasn’t read the Bible. The Christian God wasn’t powerful enough to hang on to his own creation. He went away to pout for a while, then he came back and started killing people. Sometimes he told “his” people to kill everyone. Other times, he did the killing himself. Occasionally, he would get pissed and start killing all of “his” people. Eventually he will destroy everything except for a few who have REALLY sucked up hard. They get to go to “heaven”. But I don’t know how they could call walking on thin ice, afraid to make one slip and get sent to hell, heaven. Does the Christian God like gays? Nope. He hates them. He wants to burn them in the lake of fire for ever and ever. Does he like Moslems? Are you kidding? Those demon worshipers will burn, burn, burn. Does he like Catholics? No way! Those pagan imitators of the Faith are the great whore who is drunk on the blood of the Saints. They will die, die, die! Does he like Protestants? NOT! They are the daughter of the whore. They are backsliders! They don’t have the Spirit. They’re lost, lost, lost. And what about the Pentecostals? Afraid not! They’ve faked the Spirit. Their eyes are only on the things of this world. Riches and fancy cars. They will be cast into HELL!!! All of them are going to Hell! MOVE OUT OF MY WAY MOSES SO I CAN KILL ALL OF THEM!!!

OK, so there’s your loving God.

Brent

Another jaded soul wanders into TOL seeking light and knowledge. Welcome Brent.

By your mocking sarcasm, we understand what you loathe and disbelieve. Please tell us, in a sincere, positive manner, what you believe about God and what the chief duty of man is.

 

[BChristianK]

1Way said:

BChristianK - You do not understand my intentions, instead you ask about them. That is the biggest part of my point. If you jump to adverse judgmental conclusions about someone else, and then later you have no solid answers to questions about the initial intentions, then you have overstepped reasonable bounds by trying to establish what you do not understand.

As I said in my last post. I entertain this as a possibility.

Ok, so let’s assume that you are completely correct, and that I have totally misinterpreted your charges against me. If that’s the case, then I apologize for the misinterpretation.

Now it is incumbent on you to clarify what you have against me or drop it.

Only you and the Lord knew what you meant by Proverbs 6:19 in Post #71. Only you can confirm if it was meant as a personal attack or not. And the Lord is the One you will have to answer to [f]if[/b] you have used that verse inappropriately. I don’t even need to know at this point what your intentions were.

Without going back and re-examining everything, I think my name-calling was specifically over that isolated word selection, and that I most likely either explained my reasoning that we should be more inclusive towards others, or the emphasis was not towards you in general, it was specifically an emphasis on your word usage coupled without (an inclusive) explanation. But I will specifically check out these things in my next post.

Do what the Lord leads you to do.

Would you please give me a short and quick version of the differences between those views (save open theism of course)?

Sure. David Hunt takes the simple-foreknowledge which is basically the classic Arminian view. Hunt posits that we have free will but God foreknows the choices of free-will agents. In other words, Hunt proposes only one possible future world at the creation and that God knows which choice we will make.

William Lane Craig presents the middle-knowledge argument. This is quite a bit like Boyd’s argument except he posits that God knows not only the host of counterfactual circumstances that existed in the future at the time of creation, but what each person will do in each of those future worlds.

The difference between Boy and Craig is that Craig believes that God know what a person will do X in situation Y. While Boyd argues that God knows that a person may or may not do X in situation y.

And then there’s the Calvinist, Paul Helm, which says that it all happens the way it happens because God says so. You know this routine.

Hope that helps. The best thing about the book is that all the authors are given opportunities to respond to each others submission. So Boyd responds to Hunt, Craig and Helm. This is what I thought might be helpful to you.

Grace and Peace

 

[BChristianK]

Boyd, Eddy, and Beilby are all theolgy profs (or ex-profs) at Bethel College, my alma mater. I am the most familiar with Boyd, who is brilliant and hilarious all at the same time. Every now and again, I atend his church, because he gives incredible sermons and is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard. I also have a good buddy who plays basketball with Beilby at Bethel too.

That's cool.



Grace and Peace

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by BChristianK
The best thing about the book is that all the authors are given opportunities to respond to each others submission. So Boyd responds to Hunt, Craig and Helm. This is what I thought might be helpful to you.

1Way,

BChristianK is right about this book. I have it and have read much of it. It is excellent! Well worth the time to read! :thumb:

 

[1Way]

Clete and BChristian - Thanks for the updates on this foreknowledge issue, very interesting. I still wonder if these so called differences are somewhat like the so-called differences between libertarian and compatiblelistic (spl?) freewill. Every time after hearing these distinctions, I'm happy to stick with free will or not free will.

I have heard something of this about Boyd before, and though it is interesting, I find it pretty philosophically based. Although it is off topic to our ongoing discussion, it is on topic to the scope of this thread's topic, so, please help me with Boyd's thinking. Also, I must say that Hunt's "simple" knowledge sounds anything but simple, unless I would qualify it as being simply silly or irrational.

Quote.

• Boyd argues that God knows that a person may or may not do X in situation y.

That seems to me can be a very vague sort of knowing, because of the introduction of the full gambit of uncertainties (may or may not do) then this knowledge is potentially full of uncertainty. But if he means that concerning X, in situation Y, that man either will or will not do X, then I disagree with this formula. May or may not can mean yes or no in terms of action, or it can mean anything in between as well, so I would appreciate it if someone would clarify this not so small distinction for me. Thanks. Also, if I recall correctly, I assume that Boyd places this same exact formula concerning all yet future events, including ALL possible events. If that is also true, I also disagree with that postulation as well. More detailed info is requested, and no, I do not have the book, and no, I am not currently financially well suited enough to acquire it either. I'm going to see about going to a doctor today about my back pains from 4 months ago.

I bend the issue around certainty and varying levels of uncertainty, and some things are simply (to varying degrees) uncertain in the mind of God. God does not know many issues of yet future outcomes with much certainty. And I base a large part of that view from the biblical and rational acknowledgement of chance or random events, which have no moral or predictable determinants. So given this handy formula that applies to what extent I do not yet know concerning all things yet future, or all things possible yet future, etc. I would say the following.

• God (to some variable extent of certainty) knows that a person may or may not do X in situation y.

Bethel? Is that Bethel collage close to Mishawaka or South Bend Indiana? Or is that another Bethel?

 

[Brent]

"Another jaded soul wanders into TOL seeking light and knowledge. Welcome Brent.

By your mocking sarcasm, we understand what you loathe and disbelieve. Please tell us, in a sincere, positive manner, what you believe about God and what the chief duty of man is. "

~~~ OK. I think God is bigger than your religion. I've had enough Textual Criticism in college to know the scoop on the Bible, and I've had 25 years of "church", in all flavors, to have more than a stomach full of religious people. I've found them to be some of the most hateful, mean and arrogant people that one could ever meet. Their "love" only applies to those who agree with them. If they manage to put you into their "devil" category, then they feel they have a mandate to go after the enemy of their God. Even in these discussion boards. They are so hateful and demeaning toward their Gods enemies (i.e. people who disagree with them). I think anything that gives someone the license, even encouragement, to hate other human beings should be against the law. For example, let's talk about homosexuals. I, personally, am kinda disgusted by it. Especially in males, since I'm a male, but I realize that they are consenting adults and that they are legal, tax paying citizens of this country and therefore are entitled to the same rights and liberties that we all enjoy. I, also realize, that if any one group has the right to ban the rights of a certain group, then, someone else could come and take away MY rights. Either we are all free, or none of us are free. I know people who are homosexual. It's kinda obvious, you know. However, I treat them the same as I would anyone else. I know that "my" sexuality is only a small part of who I am as a person, so, I realize that it's the same with them. Also, I don't like the way religions discriminate against women. They, also, are legal tax paying citizens of this country and are guaranteed equality under our constitution. Religions that try to regulate how a woman dresses, the jobs she can hold, her place in the family, etc., are discriminating against her for being born a woman. That is no different than hindering the desires and ambitions of a person who is born black or handicapped or whatever. Again, either we are all free, or none of us are free. I think that any group of people who claim to appeal to a higher authority the constitution of this country are subversive to our government and should be outlawed. It should not be legal, in this country, for religious groups to deny people rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. I've found our Constitution and Bill of Rights far more just than any religious book I've ever read. In fact, I've learned the hard way, over the years, that if it were not for the wisdom of our founding fathers, religious people would still be killing and murdering each other for their gods, just as they always have. The venom in their words, today, is the same spirit that drove in the knives years ago. Just take a look at the Middle East. I can't imagine putting someone into a burning fire where they are supposed to scream and shriek in agony and pain for ever and ever when their only fault is that they believed their mother when she rocked them as a baby and sang about "allah". When everybody they trusted and respected in life told them "allah" was God. If you'll just THINK for one minute, you'll know how stupid this is. And how utterly impossible it is for this to be true. A God who would do that is not the kinda person I would want to hang out with. I been exposed to enough of the paranormal and studied enough about a lot of the new Physics to realize that we have a soul and that it has a mass. But, I believe God is MUCH bigger than all of the religions. And it disgust me to see how all of the religious groups are so anxious to see other people be tortured and destroyed. They feed off it and it seems to be what holds them together. That is, their common hatred of a perceived enemy (i.e. "the devil"). I think this war on terrorism that we are in will help the U.S. government to take note of the ambitions of the Fundamentalists religions within our own country.

Brent

 

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Brent
A God who would do that is not the kinda person I would want to hang out with.

Good post, however, in this one statement you reveal the biggest mistake of your life. You propose to tell God how He should be? Now THAT'S silly.

 

[1Way]

Clete - Is that a sampling of a fractal set for your avatar? If so, then I agree with the randomness it implies. Click here for the website for this quote which I think says it fairly well.

• Chaos occurs when a system is very sensitive to initial conditions. Initial conditions are the values of measurements at a given starting time. The phenomenon of chaotic motion was considered a mathematical oddity at the time of its discovery, but now physicists know that it is very widespread and may even be the norm in the universe. The weather is an example of a chaotic system. In order to make long-term weather forecasts it would be necessary to take an infinite number of measurements, which would be impossible to do. Also, because the atmosphere is chaotic, tiny uncertainties would eventually overwhelm any calculations and defeat the accuracy of the forecast. The presence of chaotic systems in nature seems to place a limit on our ability to apply deterministic physical laws to predict motions with any degree of certainty.

I wouldn't say with "any" degree of certainty, nor would I lop the physical laws into this vast assertion of impossible certainty, but I would say the uncertainty in the universe, especially concerning random events and non-predetermined things like many free will choices, present real world limits in terms of predictability and certain knowledge. Many things may be known with great certainty, but the amount of some degree of uncertainty presents a huge caveat in the world of certain knowledge. I believe this applies to God as well, He really is uncertain about a great number of things because they are simply not very predictable.

Consider the chances of getting a prediction right, if the option set is infinite(!!!) and the selection process is random! Imagine God saying to a computer system which can select ANY real number, so God says, ok, pick a number, any real number and I'll try to guess it. When you seriously consider the infinite nature of the option set, and the amount of unpredictability in the selection process (I posit it as being a random process), it seems only reasonable to assume that even God could not be a good guesser at a completely random and infinitely broad situation. If the range of sections was only heads or tails, and no other information to consider, then I say He would get it right about half the time, just like we would. But when you broaden the statistical options to infinity, the likelihood of a correct guess becomes infinitely uncertain.

So I give chance and or random causes authentic sway in reality, and that a free will moral agent involves a good deal of unpredictable determinants, even though I also affirm that we are comprised of a good deal of predictable determinants as well, but the total mix dictates that not all yet future responses can be certainly determined because of the desirable element of randomness, the personal freedom to act out of character, to create "new" insights and responses , to bring new thoughts and actions that otherwise would be nothing more than what was done before, i.e. predictable info!

Ya think?

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Brent

In fact, I've learned the hard way, over the years, that if it were not for the wisdom of our founding fathers...

Did you mean wisdom such as this:

Founding Father Quotations

If so, then I agree with you, 100%. Our founding fathers were simply representatives of who we are today, The United States is becoming anti-Christ, and anti-God; but it's citizens are willing to fight, even to the death, to defend the rights of her citizens to choose their own thoughts, and not to have them shoved down their throats, as you appear to do so well; i.e. your expressed desire for what you label as 'Fundamental religions.' We (Christians) believe in God, and those who don't aren't free, we're just trying to see that they have, at least, the opportunity to become free, before they meet their Maker.

 

[1Way]

Brent - You opened with this

• OK. I think God is bigger than your religion. I've had enough Textual Criticism in college to know the scoop on the Bible, and I've had 25 years of "church", in all flavors, to have more than a stomach full of religious people. I've found them to be some of the most hateful, mean and arrogant people that one could ever meet.

and then I quickly found this

• The venom in their words, today, is the same spirit that drove in the knives years ago. Just take a look at the Middle East. I can't imagine putting someone into a burning fire where they are supposed to scream and shriek in agony and pain for ever and ever when their only fault is that they believed their mother when she rocked them as a baby and sang about "allah". When everybody they trusted and respected in life told them "allah" was God.

This is hypocrisy. You site us (or a religious right) with being arrogant and wanting to thrust our views on society where they do not belong. Yet you are arrogant and want to outlaw us for doing what you want to do, you want to outlaw us! And we only want to outlaw crime and lawlessness. You are intolerant based upon your world view, and you prejudge based on religious faith, sounds like a budding little Hitler to me.

The conservative Christian view does not want have destructive venom. Middle East? You mean Judaism? They do not teach about eternal torment, you get more of that from Christianity. And you are completely wrong about the issue about native teachings about salvation, the gospel unto salvation allows for salvation for those who are ignorant of a formal understanding of the gospel message, i.e. someone who cannot represent how to accurately be saved or be right with God for all eternity.

I find you not at all filled with Bible knowledge; I find you filled with caustic venom and false accusations. By the way, the founding fathers of this country predominantly would have tossed you out to pasture for being a moron because they overwhelmingly included the Christian religion as the basis for how to govern this land. I agree that they got MANY things wrong, but I believe your entire argument against a higher authority other than the constitution is in and of it's self, self refuting. The allusion to God is throughout the founding documents for this country, even down to the dating of a document, it is a reference of affirmation to the most important person ever, God. Click here for the website for the following view.

Quote:

• I think human beings do have rights and those rights can only be properly justified and explained in the context of a theistic world view. That is the way they argued. If you read the Declaration of Independence, some form of the word God is used four different times and it is the very foundation of their entire case against England, the foundation for the Constitution, and our Republican way of government.
  

  Lincoln's particular objection was to disqualify rights of a human being--what the Constitution calls "inalienable"--because of some physical characteristic.

  I'm going to accept the argument because this brings us back to the slavery issue, which the writer here said was not a fair parallel. I think it is fair because of the way the Constitution is worded. Lincoln, when he had his debates with Douglas, argued in a particular way. In his private notes he developed an argument and said something like this: Now, if you are saying that a black man is inferior, then you have to be careful because if his inferiority is in basic lack of intelligence and that gives you the appropriate right to enslave him, then someone else can use that argument against you if they have a higher I.Q. than you. In other words, he is saying that whatever rule you establish becomes a rule-- rule to justify one kind of behavior can be applied consistently in other areas and it is going to have some very deleterious results. This ought to be a hint to us that our rule is a bad one.
  Lincoln's particular objection was to disqualify rights of a human being--what the Constitution calls "inalienable"--because of some physical characteristic. That was the foundation of his discussion. You can't say that because he is black, that he doesn't have rights. It is a physical quality. And anybody who is lighter than you are has more rights than you. That's your rule, isn't it? You can't say because Negroes are, to use his term, less intelligent gives you the right then to enslave them because somebody more intelligent can use your rule to enslave you.
  Lincoln points out that it misses the point entirely to ground rights in some kind of physical quality of the body. Isn't this precisely the way this argument against the personhood of the unborn goes? It says in the Constitution--and it was even quoted in this article--that men are endowed with certain rights. How are they endowed? What qualifies them for the endowment of this inalienable right? It certainly isn't anything about their physical body because we would claim that all men are created equal in the context of this discussion in the Declaration. When we ask the question, In what way is it true that all men are equal?, we will never come up with any physical criteria that makes us equal. This helps us to realize and understand that the point of this statement is that men are equal in a way that is non-physical. The particular thing that is in view here is that they are endowed as men. That's why I said man qua men. They are endowed with rights as human beings. It is the fact that they are human beings that allows us to acknowledge the endowment by God of their inalienable rights. So what the Constitution says is that human beings are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights, and the endowment is not related to any physical thing in itself--any particular physical thing. We are endowed in a metaphysical way that is not related to our physical characteristics, but it is related to our humanness.

End Quote:

Lincoln was right, the constitution of the US rules on the bases of inalienable "human" rights (given to us by God). See more from that web page why a materialistic view is insufficient, but a theistic view is the basis for the USA's (basic) form of government. Again, I do not say that our government is (simply) godly, but the clear intention and design of it was plainly founded on godly principles that find their roots from holy writ, again, bar the blatant mistakes, the point is only obvious, you argue against the very basis of righteousness for the constitution.

This is only but a small treatment to the fact that this nation was purposely created with the God of the Bible in mind (the creator of human life) as the supreme authority for matters of government and human rights. No reasonable assessment of the foundation for the USA discredits a purposeful and godly consideration with a deliberate emphasis on Christian articles of faith found in the bible, including the freedom of speech and religion. That is the hallmark of our free society and is what the bible teaches. I agree that hypocrites have done great damage to the reputation of the Christian faith, but a bad example is just that, a bad example, it makes the good example that much more authentic and respectable when it is properly emulated. Christians and Jews alike promote peace with their neighbors except to promote and protect inalienable rights to life and general liberties from harm and such. So, yes, the Islamic world view, which is more closely modeled by your worldview, which portrays religious bigotry by purposely targeting the Jews and Christians for persecution for being an infidel, while the Christian and Jew would live peaceably with ANY society of ANY worldview as long as they are not murdering and raping and other such violations of humanity. Are you sure you would outlaw us who support your right to not be Christian on the basis that these rights are inalienable human rights given to us by our creator?

 

[Brent]

Hi Aimiel,

You know, really, you should take some U.S. History classes before you post biased web links. I read some of your link and it was taken out of context. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was a deist and a skeptic? (i.e. “not a Christian"?). That is why Washington is laid out in all sorts of Masonic symbols. John Adams was a Unitarian (Search it on the Net). Our founding fathers were, as a result of the Church of England, weary of ALL religions and therefore enacted laws to protect the "State" from being controlled by any certain religion (i.e. separation of Church and State), and ensured freedom of all to participate in whatever religion, or lack thereof, that they chose. Btw, that is why the Declaration of Independence was written on a Mason's apron.

Brent

 

[Brent]

“sounds like a budding little Hitler to me.”


“tossed you out to pasture for being a moron“


.....I rest my case.


Brent

 

[1Way]

You rested nothing. I quoted you for sounding like a budding Hitler, I cautioned you to not be so violent against the rights of others. And I offered you ample evidence that you are self refuting by arguing for the constitution of the USA while also arguing against a foundation based on religious principles.

If these points of your contradictions are beyond your understanding, then perhaps you have rested your case.

 

[1Way]

Brent - You said

Our founding fathers were, as a result of the Church of England, weary of ALL religions and therefore enacted laws to protect the "State" from being controlled by any certain religion (i.e. separation of Church and State), and ensured freedom of all to participate in whatever religion, or lack thereof, that they chose.

That is not accurate. More accurate is that fact that they based the importance of religious freedoms on the teachings from scripture, that governments should not interfere in the realm of religion, but that the government should be directed specifically and overwhelmingly by the principles of what the bible teaches.

The fact that Franklin was liberal and some of the founding fathers taught error, does not in any way invalidate the entire thrust of the justification and rules for government that founded this nation, accross the board this nation was founded of principles taken out of the bible as the justification for a more perfect union. You are undone, you support the constitution, yet you attack the foundation or legs it stands on.

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Brent

You know, really, you should take some U.S. History classes before you post biased web links.

Maybe you should, since your knowledge seems to be rather shallow.

I read some of your link and it was taken out of context. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was a deist and a skeptic? (i.e. “not a Christian"?). That is why Washington is laid out in all sorts of Masonic symbols.

Did you know that Jefferson designed Washington D.C., for the most part?

Our founding fathers were, as a result of the Church of England, weary of ALL religions and therefore enacted laws to protect the "State" from being controlled by any certain religion (i.e. separation of Church and State), and ensured freedom of all to participate in whatever religion, or lack thereof, that they chose.

No, the only restriction they were attempting to create, which you, and all others of your ilk misconstrue, is that of restricting any laws from being enacted which might inhibit our religious liberty, which, by the way, is precisely what you espouse.

Btw, that is why the Declaration of Independence was written on a Mason's apron.

No, it is written on paper. I've seen it. Have you? What country are you from?

 

[1Way]

I suggest that you either admit that you discredit the bulk of history which proves beyond a shadow of doubt the religious foundation for the way this nation was formed, which subjective irresponsibility is ridiculous, or simply amend your views against certain inalienable rights, that to a significant extent, you agree with the liberties taught in the bible concerning human rights.

You may not like the religion, but you seem to agree with it's teachings concerning government and freedoms and rights.