Atheism, a Two-party Political System, the ACLU, and Me Generations Are the Major Sources of Any Forthcoming US Civil War
Yesterday, I used a teaching of Jesus Christ that I use often. This teaching is a mental sword and divides people into two groups. This teaching is found in the Bible at Matt. 10:34-35. There, Jesus said, 'Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword; for I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother; and the daughter in law against her mother in law.'
Using this mental sword yesterday, I divided people in the USA into ‘believers’ in God and ‘nonbelievers.’ I show why this division cannot exist long before a hot civil war will start. The ignition of such a war is started by a government that legislates arbitrary laws rather than natural laws. Arbitrary laws never serve all people. Always, a right of one group of people is robbed by another group of people. The robbers become the winners and the robbed become the losers. This robbing is very clear in the US economic laws because a rich and poor class was created. To eliminate this robbing, all people in a nation must believe in God. When all people believe in God, the rights of each person are equal since God creates all people equal.
To avoid a civil war, all arbitrary laws must be replaced by natural laws. This means that man’s freedom comes only from God and the natural rights we received from God. Atheism, the US two-party political system, and the ‘me generation’ of the new generations are major sources of nonbelievers. The ACLU is the most influential origin of any forthcoming civil war because it argues to remove God from the US government and our schools. Last evening, CNN reported that 26% of the people in the Democratic party are atheists. I believe that these divisions in the USA explain some of today’s terrorism. In Part IV of ‘The First Scientific Proof of God,’ I discuss these political and justice problems in detail.
Using this mental sword yesterday, I divided people in the USA into ‘believers’ in God and ‘nonbelievers.’ I show why this division cannot exist long before a hot civil war will start. The ignition of such a war is started by a government that legislates arbitrary laws rather than natural laws. Arbitrary laws never serve all people. Always, a right of one group of people is robbed by another group of people. The robbers become the winners and the robbed become the losers. This robbing is very clear in the US economic laws because a rich and poor class was created. To eliminate this robbing, all people in a nation must believe in God. When all people believe in God, the rights of each person are equal since God creates all people equal.
To avoid a civil war, all arbitrary laws must be replaced by natural laws. This means that man’s freedom comes only from God and the natural rights we received from God. Atheism, the US two-party political system, and the ‘me generation’ of the new generations are major sources of nonbelievers. The ACLU is the most influential origin of any forthcoming civil war because it argues to remove God from the US government and our schools. Last evening, CNN reported that 26% of the people in the Democratic party are atheists. I believe that these divisions in the USA explain some of today’s terrorism. In Part IV of ‘The First Scientific Proof of God,’ I discuss these political and justice problems in detail.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 1:25 PM
10 Comments:
At 11:17 PM,
Rev. BigDumbChimp said…
Proof George. Proof. you have yet to show a single shred of proof for any of your claims.
Evidence. George. Please.
At 6:03 AM,
zenstar said…
surely if your religion is so true and holy it does not need to be indoctrinated into children at schools?
surely only an adult can truly make the claim that they believe in something?
how is forcing a religion on a child in any way good?
by the way george: do you believe that your religion is right and that another religion (for example hinduism) is not?
and a final question: could god create a rock so large that even he could not move it?
At 11:04 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
To bigdumbchimp.
Althought lots of evidence is found in my book, just walk into nature or look into the evening sky and you will see only what God created. All finite things can be originated only by an infinite thing. Finite things cannot be originated by a finite thing.
At 11:38 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
To zenstar.
Children should be taught the truth. Force and indoctrination often teach falsities by ignorant teachers and parents.
All humans are free and thus make their own judgments. But, humans must be taught truths before they can make sound judgments. Children cannot make sound judgments if their parents have guesses but no truths in their minds.
No religions should be forced on any human. But a nation can enforce righteous laws onto its people.
I do not belong to a religion. My religion is Nature. I might join a formal religion, but only if that religion opens the minds of its members and increases the social relations of their members.
Since all knowledge of God and the universe can never be found, the true religion is a goal that cannot be achieved. This is why religions must unify.
What is right or wrong is a question of moral philosophy and what is true or false is a question of natural philosophy. What is right or wrong applies to human rigts. I believe that all human rights come from God, not from a godless government.
God is the motive agency of everything that moves. God can thus move anything.
At 1:24 PM,
zenstar said…
but making religious teachings in school a requirement *is* forcing a religion on children.
also: you seem to love the expression "natural rights."
how do they link to any form of god?
left to our own devices (ie: no human government or laws) we will revert to anarchy where "natural rights" are only those rights you can take and defend.
if we really did get rights from some all-powerful being then why doesn't said being enforce them? is it some sort of cosmic prank?
ps: if you mean he/she/it cannot create something that he/she/it cannot move, then you are assuming he/she/it is not omnipotent. be careful of this philisophical tangle.
At 5:08 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
To zenstar.
Your logic is not consistent. Making arithematic a requirement or making science a requirement is not a force on the children. What it taught should be the truth. This is why we teach arithematic and science and now must teach God because God is proven scientifically.
God creates everything in Nature. Anything God creates is thus natural. Accordingly, we get national rights, natural freedom, natural stones, natural suns, etc. from God.
We don't enforce natural right because our government does not seek them. The US government is really a tool of atheism. The right that God give to us are not a cosmic prank.
God is all-powerful. Is that clearer?
At 6:50 AM,
zenstar said…
I never said the government should enforce the natural rights. I asked why god does not enforce them. (you almost sidestepped the question)
my logic is not inconsistent. i believe children should be given the framework to make their own decisions, not forced into a single belief structure.
teaching children maths and science is not forcing them into a belief. you seem to get the two systems mixed up.
belief requires faith.
science requires proof.
science has a rigid set of logic to ensure fairness and lack of bias.
belief is subjective and therefor biased and only fair for the believer.
what happens if your beliefs turn out to be wrong?
in science you are taught to question everything and prove your standpoints.
religion states that you should not question your belief. why not? prehaps it is because there is no proof?
btw: "...because God is proven scientifically."
if you mean your book: then no it is not proven scientifically. as i have stated, science has rules about logic and proofs, you have already stated "Physical scientists do not use my forms of logic I use."
which means you do not use science to prove god, ergo: this is not a scientific proof.
prehaps it is a philisophical proof?
ps: i didn't ask for clarity. you need to dig through your theoligy and/or your philosophy a bit more to answer this one properly.
i at least expected something like "yes he could make it, but then he'd be able to move it once it came into existence."
At 10:25 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
To zenstar.
Now you are getting examples of our flawed symbolic language systems.
God does not enforce us. Those people who speak of God's commandments' troubles me. Our freedom is a reality. But, God's gift of freedom is a natural form of freedom. A natural form of freedom is a reasoned act. act freely and without reason.
You seem to be saying that God is merely a belief. God is no longer a belief because God has now been proven. After the law of gravity was proven, this law was no longer a belief. Your logic is inconsistent.
The subject of God has now entered the field of science. Your line of reasoning is highly biased.
You talk as if science rules the inner working of the human mind. Hell, we don't even know the abilities of our minds.
The scientific method requires one to distinguish theory from sensual data. That is the logic inherent in the scientific method. My proof of God follows this logic.
You are trying to critique my work without reading my book. Put your science hat back on and throw your political hat as far away as you can. You will not save logicians from God with your political inconsistnces.
God is now proven and is no longer a belief.
At 4:49 PM,
zenstar said…
"You are trying to critique my work without reading my book. Put your science hat back on and throw your political hat as far away as you can."
incorrect george.
i am trying to critique your comments here. i am not viewing this politically, but rather scientifically.
you see, scientifically i require certain steps of logic to be followed. you however insist that you logic is superior because you have combined it with certain "extra logic" that you refuse to state here and keep refering to the proof as being "in your book."
this discussion cannot come to any form of closure without said proof being made available to either accept or refute.
what you have stated here does not hold enough consistent grounds to be acceptable as proof, but you leave gaping holes that you claim will be filled by your book.
as such i hereby close my contibution to this discussion.
i am of the opinion that you are wrong. but that's ok because you're of the opinion that i am wrong and we are each allowed our opinions.
here endith my discussion.
At 12:22 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
To zenstar,
The great scientists at the University of Paris threw Aristotle's logic as far as they could in the 14th century because his logic closes the eyes of people to the whole world. With this act, they did mankind a great favor. Hopefully, you will eventually see the other half of the world that you cannot see now.
Post a Comment
<< Home