In response to:

We Already Have a Viable Third Party

johninohio Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 1:45 PM
What Mr. Brown doesn't address are the reasons why those who call themselves Christian act so much like athiests. The truth is that the foundation of religion of all kinds has always been the fact that there were so many questions about the world and human life that couldn't be answered by anything else. The growth of scientific knowledge has changed that, and will continue to do so. In fact, the decline of religiosity witht the rise of science is a demonstrable fact. It isn't that some strange spiritual 'virus' has attacked Christians that needs to be cured by some undefined "awakening". This is the inevitable result of knowledge. To return to religiosity, you must reject what we know and any further attempts to know more. Good luck...
jmg11 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 11:00 PM
"In fact, the decline of religiosity witht the rise of science is a demonstrable fact."

This is idiocy. No more need be said.

But you might read some good book about the faith you slander in such ignorant fashion.
johninohio Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 12:22 AM
I stand corrected. Good point.
Zev7 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 2:30 PM
Science and religion address different questions. Science seeks to find out how the world works; it is becoming more successful every day and we no longer need religion to explain the physical workings of the material world. Religion addresses the nature of truth, the meaning and purpose of our lives. Scientists' methods are unsuited to explore such matters. As long as each sticks to its own sphere, they ought to get along fine. As Stephen J. Gould said, science and religion are "nonoverlapping magisteria."
Tacitus X Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:44 PM
Well-intended but not quite correct. Truth is the recognition of reality - religion deals not with empirical evidence but with the supposed next world. The nature of truth is the province of epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. Religion is essentially a primitive form of philosophy but is at a serious disadvantage because its metaphysical base is faith (belief in the absence of evidence or contrary to evidence) rather than reason.
Rondoman Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 1:50 PM
You completely left me on this one.???? True Christianity is totally in line with factual science, which is what science is.
Rondoman Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 5:35 PM
Christianity is NOT a religion. It is the revelation of God to man and provides the path to immortality. It is the ONLY way of life. The earth was constructed to respond to the correct actions of man. Any negative actions that are diametrically opposed to that construction are destructive to the world. That is why no one can believe and practice whatever he wants and be justified. If there is any conflict between science and someone's beliefs, either his beliefs are in error, or the science is in error. Anyone who espouses beliefs that are in contradiction to true science is a fool.
johninohio Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 6:29 PM
What you believe and what Christian doctrine claims to be the truth are irrelevent to the way the majority of other so-called Christians think and behave. Life is a lot less mysterious today and, just as importantly, the technology that has grown out of scientific knowledge has made life much easier and much more pleasant than when Christianity was in it's hayday. Praying to God to take away a headache, for instance, is far less effective than taking a pill. This and all the other advantages of technology are not lost on the common man and woman. They know where to place their bets.
Spikeygrrl Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 10:11 PM
Rondoman: You mean how the Earth was created in LITERALLY only seven days, 6,000 years ago?

Puh-LEEZ.
Rondoman Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 11:16 PM
Did you know it is scientifically impossible for billions and billions of planets and stars to be projected into space and maintain consistent, precise orbits? That is what "Big Bang" proponents would have us believe. There is also no way for planets and stars to spontaneously decide to form in totally different forms since the whole ball of expanding mass would be homogeneous and not distinct. Did you know that in order to form spinning galaxies, there would have to be a virtually infinite number of vortices of unspecified makeup to project those planets and stars into precise spins and make them stable? I am far more intelligent than you think Spikeygirl. {;-)
johninohio Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 12:18 AM
Rondoman:

Where did you get your PhD in Astrophysics? And how did you acquire this knowledge that so surpasses that of other Astrophysicists? And what's this got to do with believing Jesus is your savior?
Rondoman Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 11:22 AM
I majored in physics. I simply said that truth is truth. Biblical truth is not at all in contradiction to true science. If it were, then one or the other is incorrect. At every point I have first accepted Biblical truth and then sought to determine the errors of proclaimed "science." I am amazed at how much so-called science is simply conjecture based on someone else's unproven hypothesis. The Bible rules every time.
johninohio Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 12:06 PM
Rondoman: "I majored in physics"--pretty lame. You probably quit or flunked because you couldn't stand the implications of scientific knowledge for your religious fetish.

I'm amazed that someone with an ostensibly rational mind could believe that the claims of an ancient, pre-scientific book takes precedence over scientific research.

True, there is always some degree of speculation in any scientific discipline, more in some than others, but scripture is replete with assertions that can only be taken on faith. What you believe is static, and is constantly being chipped away by new knowledge. And I'm not talking about this person or that city as being historical. It's the basic tenents that purport to describe the world and the...
johninohio Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 12:07 PM
human condition, that must rely on an immaterial world to support it all.

You should re-read Tacitus X's prior post.
According to the latest polls, only one percent of voters will cast their ballot for a third party candidate, which means that all the talk of a protest vote against the two main parties will amount to little or nothing. Yet there is already a viable third party in America. It simply needs to awaken to its calling.

Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of this “third party” as well – although not in those terms – saying that it “must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of...