Christianity in America

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I believe that the Bible is the word of God and is to be taken literally (although the precise definition of 'literally' is up for debate).

I believe the prophecies in the Book of Revelation will come true.

Does that make me an idiot? If it does, please define your use of the word idiot.....

Did you think the world was going to end in the year 2000? If so then I guess you do have some thinking problems anyway.

If you didn't then what I said didn't apply to you. I was clearly speaking of the people that thought the world was going to end in 2000.

However you do seem to have a highly compartmented mind. Parts are allowed to think freely. Other parts are heavily constrained by your belief in the Bible. Your definition of "literally" is unusual as well since you don't seem to think the world is a mere 6000 or so years old as it must be if all of the Bible is literally true in all respects.

If its open to broad interpretation thats different. Then its not literally true though.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Sava, that is without a doubt one of the best lines I've seen in quite a while. I'm gonna have to start using it.

thank you, my friend...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Care to show any mistakes I made? Or are you going to copy Europeans like Cybershy and continue to stick with personal attacks instead. The Puritans ran their colonies with religous laws that they weren't allowed in England.



Whatever that is supposed to mean it didn't come through. I get the feeling here that you think I am sort of kid. Thats strike two.

Now if you don't like what I said thats OK. But how about your try to show what was wrong in it instead this garbage your posting instead.

Can you explain the insanity that was the Salem Witch hunts in light of your claims about the Puritans wanting religious freedom? The US has religious freedom now at least in part because of the excesses the Puritans turned off the founding Fathers to the idea of official relgions.

Ok, point by point.
1) My statement stands that the Puritans came here for religious reasons, something you validate, but refuse to acknowledge, even though you draw a reference to that very fact.
My point also stands that their intent was not to break from the Anglican church. That's just histirical fact.

2) I don't think, know, or care if you're a "kid" or not.
Wrong is wrong, and you make a habit out of being wrong.

3) I don't get your reference to Salem. How does that enter into the equation?

4) Lets talk separation of Church and State.
What the Founding Fathers intended was that no religion would have official government sponsorship, which is as it should be; but then all the "educated" and "informed" people take it to a new zenith.


That's all. I'm done with you.

[DinoDoc]

Why do we have the time listed under our name?

[Saint Marcus]

You godless dutchies aern't the whole show you know.

The Christian Democrats just rose to power thier though. It should be interesting to see what sort of changes they bring.

None

Not in that regard anyway. The Christian Democratic PM already stated he won't reverse abortion, euthanasia and gay rights. Also, the other two parties in the governement are secularist libertarians to the extreme.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
None

Wishful thinking. The Dutch swing to the right is bound to have some effect.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Not in that regard anyway. The Christian Democratic PM already stated he won't reverse abortion, euthanasia and gay rights. Also, the other two parties in the governement are secularist libertarians to the extreme.

You hope.

Better brush up on the palsms, you will be reciting them soon.

Christian democrats!

And you say the US is over-religious!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ok, point by point.
1) My statement stands that the Puritans came here for religious reasons, something you validate, but refuse to acknowledge, even though you draw a reference to that very fact.

If that had been the original statement I would have agreed but it wasn't. The claim was religious freedom and its not exactly the case. They had religious freedom in England at that time and they didn't like it.

My point also stands that their intent was not to break from the Anglican church. That's just histirical fact.

That depends on what you call a break I suppose. They sure didn't seem to want the King in charge of their laws and its the Sovereign of England that is in charge of the Church of England.

2) I don't think, know, or care if you're a "kid" or not.
Wrong is wrong, and you make a habit out of being wrong.

You make a habit out making personal attacks instead using reason. Now that is wrong. If you want to show an error on my part there is nothing stopping you from doing so. There was and is no need for this personal hostility you tend to engage in.

3) I don't get your reference to Salem. How does that enter into the equation?

How can you not get it if you are so sure that I am wrong? How could any American not have heard of the Salem Witch Trials? Are you sure its not you who is the European? Those were religion based actions. By people you claimed came here for religious freedom.

4) Lets talk separation of Church and State.
What the Founding Fathers intended was that no religion would have official government sponsorship, which is as it should be; but then all the "educated" and "informed" people take it to a new zenith.

Oviously you have issues with me personally since separation of Church and State had nothing to do with this discussion. Still doesn't since you have not established a basis for that claim of yours.

That's all. I'm done with you.

Till the next time you choose to insult and run again anyway.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why do we have the time listed under our name?

I have been guessing that its the date and TIME that we registered at Apolyton. The software is being revised I suppose and I have noticed that there are odd things that show up and then go away when that happens.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's your definition of "literally" in this case?

I mean 'literally' as 'true in the context and language in which it was written'. I think the book was truely written, but does not necessarily mean what we would interpret it to mean in our modern day. So I would not say that the modern translations of the bible are literally true and without error. Equally, the modern interpretations may not be correct. But this is man's error, not God's.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Did you think the world was going to end in the year 2000? If so then I guess you do have some thinking problems anyway.

Of course not. Where in the bible does it say that the world will end in 2000? Nowhere!

If you didn't then what I said didn't apply to you. I was clearly speaking of the people that thought the world was going to end in 2000.

Why do you assuse I was replying to you? I was replying to the original post. I must say, I am very impressed by the size of your ego.

However you do seem to have a highly compartmented mind. Parts are allowed to think freely. Other parts are heavily constrained by your belief in the Bible.

Funnily enough, I would have said the same about you. You seem to understand parts of the world with reasonable ability, but you are constrained by trying to use your own physical experiences and faith in 'scientific method' to explain everything. It quite clearly cannot. Note that I use quotes in the previous statement since I think a proper scientific method takes into account the assumptions made and the limitations of the model - something which you do not appear to do.

Your definition of "literally" is unusual as well since you don't seem to think the world is a mere 6000 or so years old as it must be if all of the Bible is literally true in all respects.

Once again, the bible says no such thing.

[Rogan Josh]

Incidentally, the time under our names is clearly the local time of the poster when the page was last refreshed.

Nice idea

[Saint Marcus]

Wishful thinking. The Dutch swing to the right is bound to have some effect.

shows how much you know of Dutch politics. The 2 biggest right wing parties are also the most secularist and progresive/liberal.

[DinoDoc]

I can only go by what other Dutch tell me. Blame Hueij if my impressions are incorrect.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Guessing here:

More Catholics for one thing. At least in the US Catholics aren't into Revelations.

Poor education in the South where Fundamentalism is very strong.

Europe allready had its Apocalypse and noticed that the world is still there. Both in 1000 AD and in the horror that was World War II.

*stands up and applauses*

really.



this is one, if not THE, best thing I have read in Apolyton, showing great understanding, conscience and realization.

again

this, with the words you said it, may it will be known to the americans and never be forgotten by the new generations of europe.

[Chris 62]

Your getting nastier Paiktis, I was reading some of your old posts in the civ-2 general, go back and look, it's quite strange.