Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18319)	12/2/2003 3:22:57 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) of 794365

The problem is that in Edwards’ day, acceptance of “the unerring authority of the Bible” was not fundamentally incompatible with reasoned thought. Today that has changed. It’s pretty much impossible to submit to the idea of an inerrant Bible without turning off significant portions of your mind. I can’t see why anybody would do that voluntarily, and I can’t see the appeal of submission overall, especially when the submission in question is not to some hypothetical deity, but to self-appointed religious intermediaries. Well at least now I understand why you ranted so often about Boykin's remarks. As an atheist the issue for you was never really which God or whose God he spoke about...The issue was your personal objection to his mentioning God period. The point was that an honest expression of our actual policy would be more productive than preaching a moral position that we aren’t willing to follow in practice. The mere fact that you disagree with and do not care to adhere to a specific moral position does not make it wrong. America is a religious based society. "In God We Trust" is a national motto. We are not about to apologize for that to anyone.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next