First, pretty much all religions have a claim about the afterlife, not just Christianity. Second, I have never understood why believers cry and are sad when a loved one (specially one who lived up to old age) dies and supposedly moves to a much nicer place, where again supposedly later on they will meet again. Or is it the opposite of "there is no atheist in a foxhole"? And no it isn't natural to question. If you haven't questioned your faith, why would you question it now?? It is only natural to question if you had doubt all along...
"Second, I have never understood why believers cry and are sad when a loved one (specially one who lived up to old age) dies and supposedly moves to a much nicer place, where again supposedly later on they will meet again. Or is it the opposite of "there is no atheist in a foxhole"?" I think it has to do with sadness of losing someone you love, be it a parent, child, wife, etc. I don't think it has to do with religion or atheism at all. So a believer thinks they are in a better place...why wouldn't they be sad that they lost their father, mother, child, etc. Why shouldn't they miss their loved ones even if the loved ones have gone to a better place? They are attached to a member of their family, and when that attachment is broken by death of a love one, they feel sadness at that loss. They aren't crying for the person who left, but they are crying because they are without the person who brought them happiness. They are crying at the loss, mourning the personal loss. Doubt is natural and a product of the intellect that can doubt everything but it self...except for the wise one who have come to doubt the certainty of the intellect, as they know the intellect is a limited instrument with a relativistic point of view when searching for truth beyond the reach of the human intellect. Doubting the doubts of the intellect is faith in something greater than the human intellect. Fear is natural. Acting against the natural fear is courage. Faith is not the absence of doubt, but a decision to believe in something greater than the intellectual doubts. Just like the courageous keep moving forward in the face of fear, the faithful keep moving forward in the face of doubt. Despite the advancement of technology and intellectualism over the past several millenniums, man is not really any more evolved emotionally than man was thousands of years ago. Same fears, same human weakness, same 7 deadly sins are thriving...just now we have the hubris of pure intellectuals who believe they are their own higher power. Pure intellectualism is the highest form of self delusion.
The average birther would put a family flag on top, then a flag of Jesus, then their state flag, then the Confederate flag, then the USA flag at the bottom.
Is that part of obamaloon training? Just make stuff up and hope no one corrects you? First I suggest you read about full faith and credit and see how it applies... then learn about rules of evidence and see what courts have to accept as proof. Then note.... something everyone learns in civics class... Citizenship of the United States is determined by federal law and governed by the constitution of the United States. You might want to read it and perhaps read the 14th amendment. For those who wish to begin learning you may wish to start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States have you paid any attention at all to the plight of the border states like Arizona getting waxed by the Federal govt on border and illegal alien issues?
the old testament uses a word echad for the word one... they could have used many words for one including a word which means solitary... however the Hebrew word used is echad. There are many other references to the Trinity in the old testament. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html
"Citizenship of the United States is determined by federal law and governed by the constitution of the United States." Yet you argue that the states have the right to decide what constitutes proof of citizenship and who gets on the ballot for a federal election accordingly? Do you realize how inconsistent your position actually is?
at least you would also agree.. there is no evidence of what reality is after we die. right? or do you have faith in nothing?
its not the least bit inconsistent. We know that states determine who gets on their ballot. if they overreach... someone may appeal on federal constitutional grounds. eventually if the Supreme court determines it is a question which touches on Federal law regarding citizenship and it is ripe and timely they will take jurisdiction and make the decision... similar to what happened to Bush and Gore. I see two main concepts. If the states say they need to see an copy of an original birth certificate for proof of citizenship... they may stay clear of the supreme court. it will be a tough issue but I am not so sure the U.S. Supreme court would get involved if the lower Federal courts uphold the states determinations. if the states say they need poof of natural born citizenship and they define it as say two american parents and born in america... that will probably go up the the U.S. supreme court very quickly. they might just jump in as soon as a federal suit is filed.
"and they define it as say two american parents and born in america" ...and there is the rub, because it is clear that the states do not have the ability or right to determine what is Federal law. You have stated it is a Federal issue here: "Citizenship of the United States is determined by federal law and governed by the constitution of the United States." So a state can be stupid, and pass a stupid law that will go immediately to a federal judge who will place a temporary stay on the state law...just like the federal courts did with the Arizona immigration law. You agree that this cannot be decided by the states, simply because they don't have the power or right to decide what is the federal Constitutional requirements. So let a stupid state pass a stupid law, and get squashed immediately, and have this work its way to the Supreme Court, who will make a ruling that will establish what the rule of law is by their interpretation of what is the necessary proof for the designation of a natural born citizen. I think the birthers are going to get creamed on this one, and it will come back to bite them. I could be wrong of course, but the odds favor a sitting president over the chaos that would result from a barbaric decision on a political basis.