America is a Christian Nation - Page 144
Page 144 of 156 FirstFirst ... 4494134142143144145146154 ... LastLast
Results 1,431 to 1,440 of 1554

Thread: America is a Christian Nation

  1. #1431
    nogods: Can you refer me to the Biblical principles that forbid the celebration of Christmas? I ask this not for the sake of an argument but because I have had this discussion many, many times because a relative married a JW and they do not believe in honoring Christmas and call it a pagan holiday. I have done a lot of research on this and can not find any prohibition in the Bible for the celebration of Jesus' birthday. It is a proven fact that He was not born on December 25 and his actual birthdate is unknown. Consequently, the provenance of the celebration of Christ's birthday was determined by Christians who, of like mind, settled on December 25 to be of one accord. This date was settled by personal convictions and the application of the principles of Romans 14 which stated that we must respect and accept one another with convictions different from ours. Gift giving and celebrations were different in different areas and some groups or sects considered this to be idolatrous and banned them....for a while. Christmas is now accepted as honoring the birth of Christ and a time when people become more open, go to church and to share Jesus with each other. It is a time to focus on Jesus and not be distracted by all the glitz and glitter and, in other words, celebrate the Reason for the season. If you can find anything contrary to that I would like to know because the problem with Christmas continues with the JW declaration of Easter being a pagan holiday and not to celebrate the Risen Christ. I guess they consider that idolatry also.

  3. #1432
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    Can you refer me to the Biblical principles that forbid the celebration of Christmas?
    Deuteronomy 12:30-32New International Version (NIV)

    30- and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same (imitate) .” 31- You must not worship the Lord your God in their way (imitate) , because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
    32 -See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it

    God says do not learn the way of the heathen (imitate), for they offer their children to other gods. They burnt their children in the fires. Don't learn how they worship their gods, the way of the heathen, and say you are doing it for me. DO NOT IMITATE the pagan traditions, IT IS AN ABOMINATION.

    There is no scripture in the Bible to even hint that Christians should celebrate (in feast or holiday) the birth of Jesus. We honor God in our obedience, or we honor the traditions of men (imitate) that God says ARE AN ABOMINATION. It's our choice.

    Life Is Good.
    ~ God Hates Religion ~
    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    It doesn't take more than 5 minutes to realize it is a load of crap nonsense. The Big Bang Theory sitcom has more real science in a half hour show than that flushable video has in 60 minutes.

    Wrong again Dufus!

  5. Here's a much shorter video of about 5 1/2 minutes, that proves God's existence for those of you with small minds and smaller attention span.

  6. #1435
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    State of Confusion
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    I ask again, are you referring to the Biblical principles that banned the celebration of Christmas and hung Quakers? Or are you a have-it-yahweh historian who picks and chooses the history that is relevant to your argument?
    No, I agree with you that there was a lot of violence in the Bible, both old and new testaments. But good Christians stopped their own extremists from hanging witches and burning scientists at the stake. Even the Klan is pretty much dead. Christianity has come so far as to accept alien forms of life; clearly something that would get you hung in the 16th century. Muslims are not at the point of stopping the radical fringe yet. The radical fringe is so extreme as to behead a child. The average Muslim in the middle-east is scared to death right now. I've seen various estimates as to how many of the 1.8 billion Muslims are radicalized or sympathize with fundamentalist extremists. And when we say "fundamentalist" we mean those who read the Quran, a book written in ancient times, and take the violence as literal and a command from God. The new testament doesn't condone violence, rape, murder, theft, etc. It teaches peace and love. I think we need to forget the acts of those who lived in the 1400's. The argument sounds like blacks trying to lay-off the civil war on the whites of today.

  7. Scientific proof of God.

    That deserves a double facepalm.

  8. #1437
    Barbi and Ken...funny

    sinful nature is always hostile to God....

  9. #1438
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    Here's a much shorter video of about 5 1/2 minutes, that proves God's existence for those of you with small minds and smaller attention span.
    Only for the brain dead.

    Besides the above discussed general weaknesses of Schroeder's case, his book contains a plethora of small and not so small specific erroneous statements and arguments. Some of those faults will be discussed in this section.

    1) The Bible code example.

    On page 182 of Schroeder's book, we read: "I offer here only two examples of the thousands of subtleties found in the Bible."

    The first example offered by Schroeder is that of the so-called Bible code. The Bible code controversy is discussed in detail, for example, at B-Codes Page where the lack of substantiation of the claims of the Bible code proponents is shown. Schroeder's discourse is limited to a few primitive examples which lack any statistical significance and testify to Schroeder's amateurish level of familiarity with the subject he endeavored to discuss

    2) Is weight and mass the same? Is kinetic energy proportional to velocity? Are the laws of physics "nothing more" than laws of nature?

    The above questions sound silly if one discusses statements by a physicist, especially one with a Ph.D. degree. Unfortunately, Schroeder provides reason to raise the above questions. For example, on page 40 of his book [1] Schroeder writes : "The mass (or weight) of the object while at rest is called, in technical terms, its rest mass." I find it hard to believe that a Ph.D. in physics could indeed think that mass and weight are the same. I prefer to interpret the above sentence as a display of sloppiness in style rather than of ignorance. This interpretation is reinforced by the use of the words "in technical terms" which do not seem to convey any meaning. In which non-technical terms is the mass "while at rest" called something else rather then rest mass?

    Unfortunately for the above relatively benign interpretation, Schroeder expresses himself in the same way more than once. The same expression "mass (or weight)" appears, for example, on page 37, giving rise to suspicion that Schroeder may actually believe that mass is the same as weight. Such a statement made by an undergraduate student on an exam in general physics would result in an immediate F grade. The rest mass is a body's property, a constant independent of the frame of reference, whereas the total (or relativistic) mass is a function of velocity, and, as such, depends on the choice of frame of reference. The body's weight is a completely different quantity, reflecting the interaction of the body in question with a planet. It depends on both the mass of the body in question and the mass of the planet and, in the first approximation, on the squared distance from that planet's center (assuming the body in question is much smaller than the planet or has spherical shape itself). I am sure Schroeder had studied these facts as a student.

    On the same page Schroeder writes: "It acquires velocity and in so doing acquires kinetic energy proportional to the velocity." Come on, Dr. Schroeder! Don't you know that kinetic energy is proportional to squared velocity? Is it sloppiness again?

    On page 41 we find one more expression which, to put it mildly, sounds strange from a Ph.D. in physics. I quote: "...laws of Physics (which are no more than laws of nature)...." Are they indeed? Schroeder seems to be unaware that laws of physics are postulates based on interpretation of experimental evidence. At the best, the laws of physics can be considered our guesses as to what the reasonable approximation of laws of nature can be. Laws of nature supposedly did not change from, say, the 17th to the 20th century, whereas the laws of physics have gone through drastic modifications and many amendments.

    There are more examples of very dubious statements by Schroeder, and it is immaterial whether they stemmed from a lack of knowledge or a lack of meticulousness in writing a book which supposedly sheds light on important matters.

    Just a couple more of examples of less than accurate ways Dr. Schroeder expresses himself. On page 100 we read: "We see randomness of entropy increase in every observable system." This is gobbledygook. Entropy itself is a measure of disorder, i.e. of randomness. The expression "randomness of entropy" is devoid of any meaning.

    Page 117: "The centrifugal force of the spin flattened the cloud into a disk." This is one more display of either a lack of sufficient understanding or of stylistic sloppiness. Centrifugal force is what is called in physics force of inertia. It is considered to be a fictional force. The real force in this case is centripetal force, caused by gravitation. It is convenient in certain cases to use the concept of centrifugal force when writing certain equations. (It is sometimes referred to as D'Alembert's principle). However, saying that centrifugal force "flattened the cloud" means veiling the essence of the matter in a cloud of a meaningless phraseology.


  10. #1439
    Pure athiest entertainment.

    sinful nature is always hostile to God....

  11. Well, the Catholic Church came to terms with science about 150 years ago. I guess we have to wait for the evangelicals to catch up in about 300 years.

Similar Threads

  1. Judge Declares Prayer Unconstitutional - Here's What You Can Do
    By Conservative Wife & Mom in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 08:48 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 05:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 07:32 PM
  4. Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?
    By HK4U in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 11:48 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts