How long will I be allowed to remain a Christian?
“How long will I be allowed to remain a Christian?”
That was the deeply dismaying question posed to me by a friend with four young children as we discussed the plight of the Christian faith in America and around the world.
With each passing month, that shocking question becomes more relevant and even more disturbing.
To say that Christians and Christianity are under a withering and brutal attack in certain areas of the world would be an understatement.
In various parts of the Middle East, there is a genocidal cleansing of Christians being carried out. Women, men, and their young children are being slaughtered because of their faith and world leaders and most of the media turn their backs in bored indifference.
Here in the United States, Christians and Christianity are mocked, belittled, smeared and attacked by some on a daily basis. This is a bigoted practice that is not only increasing exponentially, but is being encouraged and sanctioned by a number on the left.
Too many of those who worship at the altar of political correctness have deemed that Christianity should no longer be respected. Rather, they assail it on a regular basis in a coordinated campaign to weaken the faith and its base.
The prevailing view in much of the media is that Christianity is aligned with Republicans, conservatives, or the views of President Trump – and therefore must be diminished and made suspect.
The New Yorker just described the opening of a few Chick-fil-A restaurants in New York City as “Pervasive Christian traditionalism,” and a “Creepy infiltration of New York City.”
Christianity is an “infiltration” to some on the left.
In college, they now teach about the evils of “Christian Privilege.” On Broadway and in theaters around the world, mocking Christians has become a massively profitable money-making venture.
In name, on the crucifix, and in art, Jesus Christ is desecrated in the most twisted and obscene of ways. In movies, on television and online, Christians are portrayed in the most dishonest, prejudiced and insulting of ways.
Across the country, Christian colleges are under constant assault from “social justice warriors” seeking to strip their accreditation and put them out of business.
Christian groups on campus are at times being persecuted, their offices and handouts vandalized, with members even being physically assaulted.
In a nation that is still majority Christian, those who follow the faith have been litigated or brow-beaten into being fearful to utter the words “Merry Christmas,” or to display a Nativity scene celebrating the one and only reason there is a Christmas Day.
Want to stay true to your Christian faith in the most innocuous and giving of ways?
To do so is becoming more perilous by the minute, when you stop to ponder just a sampling of the negative consequences. For example:
A high school football coach is fired for taking a knee in prayer. A teacher is fired for giving a Bible to a student who requested it. A Marine is cursed at and then court-martialed for not removing a Bible verse from her computer. Another Bible verse posted by sailors in a military hospital is labeled “extremism.”
For me personally, I continue to be ridiculed for writing and speaking about a vision I had regarding the 40 days after the resurrection.
If you are a practicing Christian in the United States and open about it, you, your congregation and your organization will become a target of some sort. It is only a matter of time.
Ironically, in some very real and ominous ways, it’s as if we are being transported back to ancient Rome.
Will we soon have to meet with fellow Christians in secret? Will we have to whisper our beliefs from the shadows? Will those Christians with “traditional” beliefs lose their jobs and livelihoods if discovered?
As more and more of the mainstream media, entertainment, academia and the hi-tech world continue to purge or discriminate against Christians, what future job fields will be open to young Christians?
Will those Christian children eventually be forced to renounce or deny their faith in order to get a job and provide for their families?
As a Christian, I truly do have the deepest respect for every faith. The vast majority of people of every faith are beyond good and do seek to follow the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Why do so many on the left, in the media, entertainment and academia not practice that most simple, loving and humane of rules when it comes to the Christian faith?
Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the memoir "The Forty Days: A Vision of Christ's Lost Weeks." (Simon & Schuster, 2016).
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/21/how-long-will-be-allowed-to-remain-christian.html
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
451 visitors
Calbab's Take: As a Christian, I truly do have the deepest respect for everybody. The vast majority of people are beyond good and do seek to follow the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
Has this become an issue for you or anyone else of any religion? You can believe and worship as you please until either your heart stops h beating or your brain quits functioning. The 1st Amendments Free Exercise clause says so.
I think Calbab agrees with you. I suspect he posted that whiny rant because it was so absurd, a truly great example of clueless privilege wrapped in a persecution complex.
People who ask these questions should be highly medicated and restrained, for both their welfare and the welfare of others.
In this case we know that the author really is delusional, possibly psychotic.
Those qualities are almost a requirement to be a fundamentalist minister. Where is he preaching tomorrow morning?
Unless he is a religious shyster who knows that religion is a sham but a very profitable sham, so he plays being outwardly devout for the bottom line.
What are you babbling about now?
The brains of theocrats stopped working long ago.
As a Christian, I truly do have the deepest respect for every faith
As a scientist I have no respect for faith based beliefs.
As a human being I have a healthy distrust of other human beings who lack faith in anything greater than themselves.
I wouldn't call that "healthy".
Deleted CoC {SP}
WAIT A MINUTE! Your views 'cancel out'— yourself ! How are you doing this? Now then, do you know of other faith-based scientists like Dr. Francis Collins ?
When I read that comment, I interpret more like:
As a believer, cj has faith in God despite knowing as a scientist that there is no way such a thing as the abstract of a God can exist.
It seems to me that many believers have a similar conflict.
One difference between you and I that we now know of.
Even the hypotheses phase of the scientific method has nothing to do with faith.
There’s your problem .... trying to equate science and faith
Thanks for sharing, Peter! Now, I'll ask you similarly to make sense of your comment in light of the personage of Dr. Francis Collins and many other likewise positioned scientists.(Smile.)
Dr. Francis Collins is a very credible scientist. Similar to Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Collins has found ways to explain (rationalize) to himself how his beliefs can coexist with his understanding of science.
This does not mean the Dr. Collins, Dr. Ross, et. al. have provided a shred of evidence supporting a god (especially the biblical god) or that science has a god hypothesis. It simply means that these two highly intelligent, competent men have adopted (respective) belief details that do not (at least in their minds) contradict their scientific knowledge.
You should read (or watch) Dr Ross now. He is an Old Earth Creationist who heavily relies upon the Bible (OT and NT) as the divine truth of God. He states that God has provided mankind with two ways to learn about Him. Through the Bible and through science. His explanations for what appear to be contradictions (starting with the Genesis creation account) are quite creative. I smile
at this display of human ingenuity working furiously to achieve a desired result, but I do so with respect for the knowledge and intelligence of Dr. Ross.
By the way, check out this video of Dr. Ross debating the Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham. An excellent example of how the Bible can be literally read in many (many) different ways. And every interpretation is held as truth.
why do you have a healthy distrust of other human beings who lack faith in anything greater than themselves ?
Why not?
Why? What does faith (or the lack of it) have to do with trust or someone being trustworthy?
Why should anyone believe in something that has no proof to support that belief? The Bible, like other religious books, is a relgious claim and not a proof. Proof must come from a 3rd party and be empirically provable. Believing in the Bible is not empirical proof.
My imaginary friend is more powerful than me. Does that count?
If you confound faith and reason, then you're a lousy scientist.
nice deflection - now, i'll ask the question again:
you've decided at some point that any human being who lacks faith in anything greater than themselves deserves your distrust and i'm curious as to why. I don't think faith or lack thereof has any bearing on whether you should trust someone or not
And there are an increasing number of us who have a distrust for those who put all of their eggs in the basket of an unseen and unknown being. The philosophy that you can murder, maim, rape, rob, terrorize, or do any other abhorrent act during your lifetime will mean nothing as long as you repent and accept the "truth" of Jesus in your heart and you are "born again" is disgusting. Your God sure as hell didn't do right by the victims of that criminal. I'd rather put my faith in 12 people listening to the evidence and then placing the guilty in a 6x8 for the rest of their life. Your people can give him absolution; my people will mete out punishment.
Excellent videos.
You won't be surprised that I'm very comfortable with the first... to the point that it wasn't as much "fun" as the second, although Dr Collins's remarks about cosmological constants get kinda close to ID. Thank God (literally?) for the multiverse!
Dr Ross seems to have his heart in the right place, insisting on the "who and why" of creation, rather than the "when". It's interesting to see how he deals with the semantics of inerrancy. If someone like Dr Ross can help the lost souls of fundamentalism to find tbeir way to the light of science... I can live with his compromises.
I would have been surprised if you did not find Dr. Collins a kindred spirit (so to speak).
I agree. BTW, Dr. Collins founded BioLogos so he also is working quite directly on the objective you desire.
Hello TiG! My friend, I am glad to have you 'arrive.' Yes, I noticed your short duration absence. Welcome! My sole point on this: There are scientists who are men and women of first-rate faith. That's it for that.
Also, on the other video I mentioned only by link, there is an interesting debate at about 31:00 regarding the duration of the creation event. (Really painful and arguably sad to watch.)
What is 'first-rate faith'?
I suspect most everyone will agree with your observation depending upon the meaning of the compound adjective.
First rate
Where do you get a notion that God is not a proper judge of mankind, Doc Phil? Please explain this farther. (BTW, you avatar is "sweet!")
Now apply that to faith (which of course is what I was asking).
What does it mean to have a first-rate faith? What makes a faith second-rate or third-rate?
How can one tell if the faith is first-rate ? Is it belief in the correct god? Or is belief in any god sufficient to be first-rate? Or is there a level of commitment / conviction that distinguishes first from second-rate? For example, what of those agnostic theists who are on the line and could easily step over into agnostic atheism? Could theirs be a first-rate faith?
BTW, the purpose of this comment is to illustrate why 'first-rate' faith is a vague notion. Merely defining the common cliche term 'first-rate' does not help unless the reader somehow had no clue what 'first-rate' means.
First rate means what it always has meant over the course of our lives - even with appropriate modifications. You imply you have a 'clue' already. As to anything else, . . .Watch this space.
You didn't address me, but I'll give you my take on it.
Any god which murders thousands of firstborn male humans and animals because it's pissed off at one specific pharaoh - rather than smiting the pharaoh it was angry at - is not a proper judge of mankind.
Any god which lets its fallen angels rape human women, and then drowns almost every living thing on the planet in its rage about their offspring, isn't a proper judge of mankind.
If something is a proper judge, it must be fair, rational, and unbiased, and not concerned with what those whom it judges think of it. And it can't go around murdering millions in a fit of rage.
That offers no information.
This is precisely why I took the time to clearly show what was vague and offered plenty of examples.
What is clear, however, -given my effort- is that you do not want to explain what you mean by 'first-rate faith'. You wish to be vague. As you wish.
Hi katrix! What is this standard of morality you are using? Where does it come from?
Start a new article and send me an invite - link. My 'effort' has been going on for days now (on several articles) and there is a GREAT discussion happening here already.
... and I will add that any God that does not condemn the practice of slavery but, instead, makes rules for proper slavery is immoral.
One of many examples of God weighing in on slavery :
I am not going to write an article on what Calbab means by 'first-rate faith'. That is silly. As I wrote, I realized that you choose to be vague and that was the end of it.
Just keeping it real, my friend. HEYYY!
The Golden Rule, which far predates Christianity, is one place it comes from; because humans are a social species and had to come up with rules for civilization. But you already know that .. so why are you pretending otherwise? It's not like this is the fist time you and I have had a discussion.
Do unto others as ye'd have them do unto you. That bans rape, slavery, child molestation, and all kinds of things your ten commandments don't ban - and pays no homage to any gods.
It's moral and it works for everyone.
It means "bona fide" Just watch O Brother Where Art Thou. It will become clear to you.
"Read," Ms. Katrix. As you observed, you GAVE me your take on this whether I wanted it or not. Please try not to let it disturb you if I want SOME MO' background on this specific comment.
Here is what I 'hear' from your expression of the rule that predates Christianity: That every man and woman can do what is right and his or her eyes.
Because, apart from God, I might not incline myself or plan to - "Do unto others as ye'd have them do unto you." I could decide to simply "do" to them whatever I will. Right or Wrong?
so how does your God make the difference ? why can't you figure out what is right or wrong without your God ? why do you need your God to follow the "Do unto others as ye'd have them do unto you" rule ? I follow that rule with quite well and don't have any current belief in a God - so why can't you do the same ?
Look up the definition of "Faith" in your Merriam Webster.
There's your answer.
The classic courtroom scene in the play and film, Inherit the Wind, was one of the best dramatic demonstrations of that one could hope to see. It's the fictionalized version of the Scopes evolution trial in Tennessee. The characters pseudonymically represent Clarence Darrow (Spencer Tracy) and William Jennings Bryan (Frederick March). The entire film is wonderful but the dialogue in that scene is worth committing to memory.
Faith is an emotional decision that is not based on logic or facts.
This idea doesn't help your argument. If I were you I would not have mentioned that definition.
And if i were you i'd be more careful with your "if i were you" quips. From the suggested source, Merriam Webster:
We have a judicial system for those with that attitude.
Ho DRHunk! That we do indeed! God operates with SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY over thinking believers - not 'brute' force as man does of itself! The point being to keep people who otherwise would flow into 'system' out of it. I daresay if all the people who followed after their own minds acted at once - the world's legal systems and 'order' would collapse in on itself! (Smile.)
Shouldn't we hold your "god" responsible for the psychotic and violent crimes which you admit he committed against Egyptian children and farm animals? Is there a statute of limitations on murder?
Go deeper. Ultimately, you will find that God is the source of all which exists in the Earth. Then, you will find that as you make God guilty of gross evil you would likewise be forced to consider all the gross good. Then, you would have to discover where the balance lies —which none in the Earth can know, because we are small, insignificant creatures and beings in the scheme of life. At some point along the way, you make encounter a revelation of just how 'encompassed about' we mortals are with our flesh and bone, small stature, and need to constantly have knowledge and wisdom fed into us.
We are in 'bad shape' as a creature to judge God, Shrekk. Picture that dog in your avatar sitting disapprovingly in judgement of your treatment of it in your own home!
Sounds like you have a double standard on murder, at least when it comes to the murder of innocent children and farm animals. That's one reason I'm an atheist because such a reprehensible, immoral and psychotically violent imaginary friend is undeserving of any respect whatsoever. It deserves condemnation and a fair trial.
I've made my case. It appears you are making a type of category mistake . God is not a man. God is Spirit.
In other words you engage in moral relativism and your "god" is of the "do as I say not as I do" form of that. Yet another reason not to subscribe to that reprehensible superstition.
.
What's a "spirit"? If it's something that murders people without just cause then it needs to be fixed, put down, or convicted and imprisoned.
Jack Daniels is a spirit.
No, in other words, you appear to be making a category mistake - such as would be the case if you treat a dog like its a human. The dog would hate it - the human would be confused. Moreover, God is not a 'creature' of any earthly type.
What's a "spirit"? You should delve into this more. (Smile.)
Indeed (as God is oft defined). And this is a premise for the following argument: (and others)
1. God is the source of all which exists on [in the] Earth
2. Evil exists on Earth
∴ God is the source of evil on Earth
I agree - it no more makes sense to hold your imaginary friend accountable for murder than it does to use him as a moral guide or even to praise him for making a touchdown.......much less to credit this imaginary creature with the existence of the universe. To do so is more than a little psychotic.
Indeed (as God is oft defined). And this is a premise for the following argument: (and others)
1. God is the source of all which exists on [in the] Earth
2. Evil exists on Earth
∴ God is the source of evil on Earth
i suppose that means, logically, that God is the source of Satan (creator) and that God could defeat Satan (since he's the source) and literally chooses not to - instead choosing to allow Satan to torture God's creations for eternity. is this correct ? (general question for anyone to answer - not directed at anyone personally, and no, i'm not attacking anyone's religion, i'm just asking a simple question)
It does!
Logic cuts through faith. That is why logic is ignored by many in matters of faith. Logic is just Satan trying to trick you. (This is essentially part of the masterstroke of religions - to effectively cause people to inhibit their own critical thinking because even considering this stuff is a sin.)
God is the source of all things: One God. Of course Satan is a creature of God. The Bible does not 'hide' this concept. More to the point, I wrote so much more than what you selected to break off twice:
Does giving God any credit for good in the Earth insult your rational mind? Do you want all the good for yourself/ves? Worship: Mankind? That's been tried before with household gods. Miserable fail. As to the rest of your comment its the average 'back-and-forth' you seem to enjoy hauling around from thread to thread. Nitty gritty time: TiG have you ever been a religious person of any sort?
What do you have against household gods and why aren't you giving them credit for the good things in life?
Do you believe that your "god" murdered all the innocent first-born sons of Egypt (including infants and farm animals) merely because he was pissed at the Pharaoh? Or do you believe he just has really bad aim?
the same question could be asked in respect to bad things - does giving God any credit for the bad in the Earth insult your rational mind ?
I can see why my question would have been awkward for you.
The point was about God logically being the source of evil. Yes God, as defined, is also the source of good.
It is interesting to juxtapose the God of Love with the fact that this very God brought evil (and suffering) into this world yet is omniscient, omnipotent and perfect and clearly able to simply create creatures as He wished. This is one of the reasons why apologetics employs sometimes bizarre levels of illogic in the resultant explanations.
Sir or ma'am, no you did not go there. Household gods? (Smile.)
The crux is free will. If God made us "perfect"... we would be robots. "Good" and "evil" have no meaning unless we are free to choose either. A great white shark is fearsome... but not evil.
Personally, I lean toward "God provoked the Big Bang... and then sat back to watch". Evolution brought us intelligence (
) and that includes free will, and "good" and "evil".
Now it's up to us.
Indeed. So your 'biblical hypothesis' is that God created us with certain imperfections and then gave us 'free will' to go off an act imperfectly. But he also decided that certain rules needed to be in place to, I suppose, give some trip wires to cause the creatures to stumble. Kind of like a big game ... setup the little creatures and watch them stumble about racking up points and losing points that will be redeemed on judgment day.
Funny thing about that hypothesis is the notion of omniscience. Since God knows all, He pretty much knows how each of the imperfect little creatures are going to fail (and succeed) during their little lives. Since God is omnipotent He can engineer any outcome He wishes. So free will actually cannot exist. The little creatures make all sorts of choices and think they are free to do so but in actuality God is just watching His grand simulation play out knowing full well every little choice and consequence.
Kind of a setup.
That makes more sense than what the Bible describes. It would make better sense if God was not omniscient. Then His creations would actually be entertaining (and there could indeed be a free will - cosmological evolution may have been set up as non-deterministic).
No. I wouldn't elaborate any hypothesis on the basis of the Bible... or any other compendium of miscellaneous religious, historical, mythological, social texts, written millennia ago.
I don't understand your desire to incriminate God for our imperfections. Do you not believe in evolution? Would evolution produce "good"?
As I said, I imagine our origins being Darwinian rather than Intelligent Design, but if you absolutely need us to be God-created...
I use "God the Trickster" in the opposite direction. In my view, God cannot be a trickster. That would be a violation of "God is love". So any construction that depends on His being a trickster must be erroneous. It's a useful litmus.
IDK. I mean, god did force his only son to allow people to put a crown of thorns on his head and then drive spikes into the bones of his arms and legs to prop him up on that big cross. Today, we would at best call that domestic abuse.
It is not a desire, it is an observation based on how God is defined by the Bible. If omniscient, omnipotent God made us then God is the source of our imperfections. How is this not obvious?
Evolution produces variations and then trims based on ability to survive in a changing environment. The interpretation of good or evil would come from a sentient entity (a human being). Evolution appears to be simply an unguided (albeit incredibly complex) process.
Your approach also does not hold to the biblical definition of God. The trickster conclusion comes from following the Bible as if it were true. If one does not operate within those restrictions and views the Bible as the work of ancient men with agendas one can logically explain everything in the Bible.
Why not? Why are other gods, and those who did/do worship them, less worthy than the one you worship? Household gods predated your own personal Jesus.
But... you don't consider the Bible authoritative. Why do you take it as inerrant in this case?
Do you really presume to understand the thinking of an entity that is omnipotent and omniscient? Do you presume to know how to behave all across the universe, since the beginning of time? I desist...
Two responses. First, while you may feel yourself constrained by the Bible, I am not. Second, my approach is perfectly compatible with Jesus's "God of love" - I am an NT person, where you seem more fixated on the OT.
Friend katrix, I have a Lord!
You can have all the household gods and elemental gods and . . . . you want. I'm okay with that!
Great question. Really glad you asked it.
I do not consider it inerrant in this case. In fact, I consider the character God to be highly flawed.
No. Now read carefully what you quoted from me:
This is basic logic. It presumes nothing about the thinking of God. Here it is broken down for clarity:
1. God made all human beings
2. Human beings are imperfect
∴ God is the source of human imperfection.
How would I be constrained by the Bible? I do not follow your logic.
Right. And any part of the Bible that contradicts 'God of Love' you disregard. If that is not accurate then I do not understand your approach.
God is not imperfection. Creation desired its own corrupted state (God knew it must ) and now it, creation, groans for a return to it's 'first state' of innocence. Moving forward.
The reason why God is Holy is because God will not allow any corrupt creature or being within "ten-feet" - as the saying goes. Consider this:
Our human 'filthiness' will be burned away for how can it survive in the midst of a 'Set-apart' Holy God?
It was stated that God is the source of human imperfection, not that God is imperfection. (there's a difference)
wait.. now Creation is it's own sentient being too with desires ? (this is getting complicated - what else is it's own sentient being ?)
First, note how Phoenyx ( 1.2.80) corrected your misunderstanding of what I wrote.
However, per your restatement, the God character in the Bible is demonstrably imperfect. That is one of many biblical contradictions. Here is one of many examples. The omnipotent, omniscient, perfect creator of everything. The grandest entity possible is concerned about little creatures on Earth (one planet in a septillion - 10 24 - planets in the known universe) progressing in accomplishments:
Omnipotent God is concerned that Earth people are getting too advanced by building a brick structure? God did not realize the engineering limitations of building a structure made of brick and mortar? God did not realize that He did not have to do anything?? The lack of engineering knowledge and laws of physics would have ceased the production of the Tower of Babel. Omniscient God did not understand engineering or physics?? God responds like a nasty child smashing other's sand castles. Not the image of a perfect supreme entity.
The apologetic excuse is that this is simply a parable on hubris (the failure of the structure by natural forces would have addressed the hubris) and that God really did not do this. Okay by me. I would encourage people to treat everything in the Bible as a 'parable' - stories invented by ancient men in support of various agendas over time. Nonetheless, this is part of the definition of God as provided in the Bible. Hardly an endorsement of perfection.
And I know your response, Cal, will be ' who are you to judge God? ' along with ' what you think is imperfection is simply your lack of understanding '.
Well, I am judging a character in a book based on what the book contains. That character is a wealth of logical contradiction so the book that defines it, the Bible, is not the work of something divine. If there is a God, it surely is not the God defined by the Bible.
Well your compliments to everybody who agrees with you aside (yawn), I was advancing the discussion without going over well-trodden ground once again. I started this whole 'concept' in the thread here let read it once more in its entirety together:
Let us consider: "The Grandest Entity Possible" to use your designation of God is concerned about the only planet we know of that is blessed with life. . . .
And somehow that disturbs you or causes you to argue against attention? Furthermore, whether there is other life in the universe or not -- evidence oriented persons like yourself are disallowed to speculate. For now: Earth IS the living universe!
That was not agreement, that was Phoenyx correcting your misunderstanding of what I wrote. You misunderstood again.
So much denigration spewing forth there.
Only if you can not give God the benefits of omniscience to know what track the people were about to set themselves on. From the context of the statement, for argument sake, the people had bigger social and cultural issues to attend to for example 'blanketing' the planet, or some such thing. Heck! As far as our limited understanding can construct: half-way up to "heaven" mankind make have discovered technology to make a single/group of nuclear bomb(s) and we all know what can happen when you put major weapon power into the palms of undeveloped minds:
KABOOM!
Easy for you to (keep) saying, my friend. What? You still "no-speaka" my language?
What on Earth are you trying to say??
Omniscience of God is presumed and part of the point. You did not actually read what I wrote: "Omniscient God did not understand engineering or physics?? ".
Non sequitur
Not sure anyone speaks your language at this point.
What you are judging is a set of books clearly not intended for nonbelievers. (Aside: When I was a teenager Agnostic. I shut the book and walked away. Only returning to it when I could glean something useful of its many messages.) The "message" is not written for unbelievers, thus comes the shading you experience when you stare into its pages.
It would serve you better to read a mundane set of books. Leave spiritual perceptions to those who are so inclined to process them. What is clear to me is your bias against the Bible, "ancient men," Paul, Jesus, and God.
Again, you can not find God in the Bible, because of a concept known as: "Having eyes you can not see - and ears that can not here." Believers, have experienced where you are now. Being an informed person of faith does not detach us from the real world, we add to it our faith.
Write the article on the nature-character of God: I will meet you there.
so this is some secret club or society that gives out secret messages through this book that only believers (the chosen ones) can comprehend, correct ? (this is what your comment seems to be stating, as if no one but you and chosen followers could even begin to possibly understand the bible and it's many "messages", as if the rest of us don't have developed brains to understand these mysteries that you speak of)
the bible is written about God (and interactions with God etc) so obviously you would find God in the bible. It's akin to stating you won't find Alice in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland book".
Nice day we're having, Phoenyx13!
What is the source of postulate n° 1? Are you not a convinced evolutionist? You cannot (reasonably) play both sides of a debate. If you are an evolutionist, then you cannot start a logic series as you have done here.
.
I don't know why... but I observe that you often propose arguments taking the Bible as your base. In the present case, your base proposition ("God made all human beings") is one that... you yourself do not believe! So why are you making it? If your premise is false, then your conclusion cannot be right... so why are you doing this? It's not "logical", and that always bothers me, coming from someone who holds logic so high.
.
This is interesting...
A great many Americans, self-styled "Christians", are in fact "Bible-ians". They no longer follow Christ, they worship The Book. And even worse, they worship primarily the Old Testament! (I'll see if I can find a good article I read a couple days ago, but considered too long for NT.)
I am not a "Bible-ian". I am not even a Paulian! I am a "simple Christian". Any part of the Bible that is not part of Christ's message does not interest me, except inasmuch as I need to know a lot in order to explain what I believe to "Bible-ians"... and to atheists. So, YES: any part of the Bible that contradicts 'God of Love' I disregard.
a very interesting and smug reply, thanks Calbab, i will note it for future reference as it highlights my comment perfectly.
Bob, note the origin of this:
Have you never illustrated the consequence of a hypothetical statement? The word 'If' is rather important here.
See above regarding the word 'if'.
Okay, good, that was my understanding. Thanks for the confirmation.
Excuse my interruption, here... but... You are asking TiG to do something that I often reproach him for doing!
Asking a professed atheist to describe God is a great deal worse than asking a blind person to describe colors. God cannot be measured by scientific instruments. She is only accessible by faith. Someone like TiG who refuses to "believe" any hypothesis that cannot be demonstrated physically cannot "describe God".
The Bible states X and ~X. That is a logical contradiction.
You are welcome to your spiritual perceptions. I will stick with logic and evidence.
OK... Then may I edit your construction a bit?
1. If God made all human beings
2. If God is omniscient and omnipotent,
3. Observing that human beings are imperfect,
∴ Either Postulate 1 or Postulate 2 must be false.
It's a good argument against Creationism!
One must believe to believe.
Hi Bob! Okay, I will only add that. . . .God is Spirit and has no need of gender. (But, I am not willing to fall out over it.) (Smile!)
What it's really doing is asking a rational person to describe the delusions of another. It's necessarily an external perspective.
Lack of belief is not a decision, Bob. It is simply a function of not being persuaded to the affirmative.
Also, I am perfectly capable of discussing the God character as defined by the Bible. Just read the text, consider the context, consult the work of biblical scholars and offer a logical analysis of the character.
I could do the same for Voldemort, Darth Vader and Santa in the movie 'Miracle on 34th Street' yet I am not convinced any of those characters actually exist.
Calbab! You are wandering off into the weeds...
Beware, Calbab... Do you really want to say that the Bible is only for initiates? Try this answer, instead: "The Bible is as coherent as one might expect for a compendium of texts written by many different authors over a span of millennia." It is a dead end to try to wave away the Bible's very real discrepancies... so a believer must embrace them! All those authors, looking for God! Are they not an inspiration?
Absolutely! So, Calbab... we believers must find a way to recognize those contradictions, without their destroying our faith in God. You probably know many other Christians - real ones, who genuinely try to follow Christ's commandment to love one another. Do they agree on all aspects of their faith? Every detail? Of course not! Christians have disagreed about their faith since day 1. Now... why should it be different for the men who wrote the Bible? Yes, there are contradictions. Of course there are contradictions! Is it not wonderful for us to have so many paths to God, right there in that one Book?
No! The Bible is NOT for a closed community.
... and IMNAAHO, there is no contradiction...
No, It is not, But there are Humans out there that make it a "Closed" Issue, only relevant to believers. So what Calbab wrote, is essentially true.
What on Earth are you trying to say??
I didn't describe any "decision". I observed a case that exists. But I don't think the difference is significant.
The key portion is "the God character as defined by the Bible". As you often insist, the Bible is not consistent. Which of the Bible's several "Gods" will you retain? Why that one? You might do a scholarly analysis of the many different authors' perceptions of God. You would not be giving your own description of God, because you have none. You cannot have one because you do not believe He exists.
I suspect that any such conversation would be more about reading the Bible than about God.
You made explicit the context of the argument by including 'if'. Good if that helps.
However your resulting argument is not the one that I made and it is a bit awkward in structure. So I think you should claim authorship.
Sure you did, by claiming that I 'refuse'. That would be a conscious decision.
Yes! Indeed.
One retains the God as defined - with all of its contradictions.
More later. But no that is not what I am saying. . . . I'll explain then. (Smile.)
Is it not? Through all our conversations, I have always had the idea that you conscientiously refuse to believe anything that cannot be demonstrated by physical evidence.
Are you telling me that this is something other than a "conscious decision"? What is it then?
Nope. The word 'refuse' connotes deliberate negative intent. As in, 'if you do not show me physical evidence I will not even consider your argument'. The correct way to view my position is: 'I am not convinced'. Evidence and reason would be the very best way to make a persuasive argument, but I do not categorically dismiss other arguments. None have thus far been persuasive but I do not refuse to consider them.
For example, if the Bible had made specific predictions (not the vague, generalized Nostradamus style prediction) that came true then that would show capabilities beyond that of ordinary human beings. Not physical evidence, but it is evidence. I am not sure it is possible to formulate a persuasive argument for the existence of God without any evidence. The philosophical attempts I have reviewed (e.g. the Kalam) all are flawed.
For example:
The argument itself nets down to a definition of causation. Ultimately, if something has a beginning to its existence then there is a cause - something that initiated the existence. That cause is not necessarily sentient.
Now this ...
... is an argument from ignorance. The absence of a scientific explanation does not mean there is no natural explanation (i.e. non-sentient). This is simply 'God did it'. There is no justification to conclude that the cause is personal (" intentional action of a rational agent ").
Further, this argument presumes the existence of an eternal sentient entity. Thus it implicitly argues that God exists based on an implied premise that God exists.
Dr. Craig is probably the best known modern philosopher attempting to logically argue the existence of God. I have yet to find an argument of his that was not subtly flawed.
Not sure what happened there. Please elaborate.
No, the Bible is not for "initiates" and it is not some set of esoteric (mystery) writings. What the books, poems, letters, and etceteras are about is an accounting of the God of Israel and the God of the Church Age. If a reader is not looking into the biblical collection seeking a relation, knowledge, or expressing sincere interest in either of these things, s/he will come away with any number of "conclusions."
Moreover, the Bible is not equipped to answer all questions involving the nature and spiritual orders. It is partially a basis for faith!
After this manner, biblically, we are informed that our faith itself is a gift from God. In that we hear (a Messenger) the "Good news," we receive it (seal of the Spirit), and walk (develop) in it Some of us, "thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and a hundred fold.
No, the Bible is not written to a 'closed' community of initiates. However, our faith is theologically well-established and many of us obey the scripture in pondering the deep things which have been delivered to us when we, like the Bereans,
Thanks Bob!
OK. I see the distinction.
How does this help your argument about faith and the lack of proof to support that emotion? Faith is an emotional decision based on the lack of objective proof to support that idea.
Don't interpret my posts anymore. You got it wrong.
Some of us were just born with noses sensitive to bullshit.
Prove there's a god then! your entire "case" hinges on your ability to do so.
God is a Spirit and sadly Spirit is repellent to you Gordy.
Nice deflection. How about answering my question!
I obviously can't answer for Sparty On, but I'd like to give you my answer.
When he made his statement, did he mean the individual or humans in general? That is, did he mean he has a healthy distrust of any individual or was he talking about the human race in general?
In the first case, someone who lack faith in anything greater than themselves tend toward psychopathy or sociopathy, in my opinion. This isn't to say this is the case for people who don't believe in God. That isn't what I mean at all. Rather, most people, even atheists, believe in something greater than themselves. The rule of law, perhaps. Maybe it's logic. Maybe it's some ideal. But if one doesn't believe there is anything greater than themselves, I would not recommend trusting them, personally.
If humans in general is what is meant, meaning that we need look no farther than what is innate in the human condition and dismissing a need for something greater, then I see no reason to trust that, either. Humanists seem to believe that we have it in us to do better, yet history proves we cannot. Certainly there is no justification for trusting that we can.
More than likely, Sparty On was speaking about the individual and not people in general. I just included the possibility of people in general in order to make a point. That point is, regardless of one's personal belief, it certainly seems something greater than ourselves is necessary.
How so? What do you base that statement on?
That's a rather sweeping, and vague generalization.
"Belief" in one's (or another's) ideals is a possibility. However, I suspect that whenever someone reefer's to something 'greater than themselves," the inference is usually being a deity of some kind.
Again, based on what? How does belief, or a lack of it, speak as to whether an individual is trust worthy or not?
See previous statement.
Using history as an indicator, we also see much progress as a civilization and for doing better. Granted, we still have problem areas and still a ways to go. But we certainly can individually and collectively do better.
So why is something greater necessary? But then, you would also need to define or specify what that "something" is? Or perhaps it's not necessarily a need to believe in something greater, but rather a need or desire to dream of something greater, both individually and collectively. I'm reminded of something RFK once said: "Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not."
You did not present a question, Gordy. Furthermore, Hebrews 11:6
1. You do not want faith.
2. You do not have faith.
3. You do not seek God.
4. You do not believe God exist.
Humanity is indeed one answer. We can all believe in evolving human nature to the better. You note that this does not seem to work (we are not 'doing better') but you should recognize that religion has been part of the equation (belief in God) all the while this has not been 'doing better'. Regardless, I do not think one needs a higher entity to love thy neighbor.
Reality is another grander scale answer. We are all part the universe - we are all forms composed of atoms forged in stars. When we die our atoms are repurposed - used in other forms. Matter (energy) continues to be recycled into different forms.
It is easy to identify greater causes or concepts that one believes in (supports). Seems to me that it is more difficult to diminish these and believe primarily in oneself.
I believe in both.
GOD created life, man operates his.
Observation. Please note that I didn't say those who don't have any faith in anything greater than themselves are psychopaths or sociopaths, I said they tended toward those things. Such people are capable of good behavior, of course, but it's been my observation they are more cynical in general and act selfishly more often than those who do believe in something greater than themselves.
Yes, which is why I provided some examples.
I have not found this to be true. Most often when someone says they believe in something greater than themselves they are speaking about a cause, not a deity.
When someone believes in something higher than themselves it implies a set of standards they adhere to. For instance, someone who believes in environmentalism can probably be trusted farther than someone who doesn't when it comes to the environment. Psychopaths and sociopaths tend not to recognize any authority other than themselves and are least to be trusted, in my opinion.
You didn't make a statement. You asked a question. Do you have a question about something in the paragraph you quoted?
What do you consider progress? And if we can do better, why don't we? Granted, we behave decently here and there for a while, but it never lasts for long.
In my opinion, it seems to be built into us. We just seem to know there is something greater than just ourselves. For some, it's the universe they study. Others, it's some ideology they think will make everything better. Still others, like myself, believe God is what is greater. It could be anything.
I don't see why we would need to define or specify for the purposes of this discussion. My point was, those who lack faith in anything but themselves have what for standards? I know people who, as far as I can tell, don't believe in anything except satisfying the desires of the moment. Their whole life is centered around satisfying themselves. There is nothing greater to them, making bad decision after bad decision in pursuit of their personal pleasure right now. If they have faith in something else they certainly don't seem to act on it. And, they seem to be some of the unhappiest people I know, unless they are psychopaths or sociopaths. I think I know some of them, too.
I beg your pardon. Allow me to reiterate: why don't you answer my challenge then!
Your present iteration can not acknowledge God. The challenge is. . .futile.
How can a person acknowledge what has no proof of existing, unless you want to admit to creative writing? You can easily postulate that anything exists, but your imagination and creative writing is far from being factual.
May I ask you a question? What would happen in your life if we could conclusively prove that God did not exist? Since there was no god you would never miss anything but how would your worldview change? Would you be less moral since there is no threat of hell?
I understand that many people were taught from an early age that God exists and he must be obeyed but did you ever consider that your parents and teachers might have been wrong? Did you ever ask yourself if what you believe is really true or is that possibly too painful and unnerving to contemplate?
Have you ever considered critical thinking about what you believe?
Your continued deflection is...duly noted.
sure, i love to chat and see different viewpoints (even if they are opposing to my own - actually sometimes i prefer opposing to hopefully learn new information or a different view on the situation/topic being discussed)
good question - i took it as individuals, but the possibility does exist that he meant humans in general, he would have to clarify that i can't speak for him.
that may be your observation and it could be true in some cases but in general i disagree with your statement.
i know a few people who don't really have faith in anything greater than themselves and don't believe in something greater than themselves - we have no issues and they are perfectly good people (just like some of the religious people i know)
i disagree - look how far we have progressed overall. yes, we've had bumps and wars along the way, but compare us now to about 1,000 years ago and tell me that we have not done better with refining society's rules (women no longer property etc) and with progressing overall as a society (along with technology, efficiency etc).
i disagree - it seems that maybe some people have that inner need to believe in something greater than themselves, they seem to be unable to control themselves and not able to distinguish good behavior from bad behavior without an authority dictating each to them - but i wouldn't say that applies to people in general.
wait... are you suggesting that people need a set of standards and aren't smart enough to figure out good from bad for themselves ? i definitely wouldn't say that.
so those people are what you are basing your assumption on for everyone who don't believe in anything greater than themselves ? that's a bit of a skewed view. You are also making the assumption that anyone who doesn't believe in a deity or something greater than themselves are also nihilistic and i disagree with that assumption as a blanket statement as well. Sure, some people are unhappy until they have a "cause" or "something higher" to believe in but that doesn't apply to everyone - i know plenty of people who lead happy productive lives and don't believe in any "causes" or "anything higher", they have no problems figuring out right from wrong, and aren't psychopaths nor sociopaths, they don't need to be told to do something because it's "good" or given a set of standards or guidelines - they learn (just like most humans do) along the way and have become very good people.
ah yes, more of that smug attitude, suggesting another poster couldn't possibly understand God and doesn't have a developed enough brain to figure out God - as if he's just simply not one of the special chosen people. Unlike you, i think his present iteration is able to acknowledge God, but isn't convinced there is a God to acknowledge - some people need more information or "proof" before they put their belief or faith into something. It's odd how some people choose their beliefs and faiths - especially if they come to it later in life - i wonder what the criteria is for mystical entities to have humans put their faith and belief in them. why don't we have more worshipers of Fairies or Unicorns or Griffins ? they are all mystical entities as well, all have books (stories) written about them, all are unproven to exist and unproven to not exist, all have supernatural (magical, mystical, miracle) powers...
If you refuse to accept the simple meaning of the definition i gave you, were are wasting our time here. I suspected we would be.
The definition is concise and it's meaning is clear to any who have not completely closed their minds in that regard. That is to say, to the majority of the world.
Futile, Gordy. Futile.
The issue is you do not have an open mind to seek God and possibly find God, as I and many others have done some how makes me lacking of something? Thanks for this short video on critical thinking.
I will inform you that I listen to hours long videos on critical thinking, read books on critical thinking, and watch a plethora of topic related content and debates on critical thinking. I even mow my lawn and landscape (de-stressing) with critical thinking - Youtube - videos playing across my television using a device called, My Zone headphones .
Being informed is something I am about, Episste. I ask questions and I get answers, my dear! My books on critical thinking lie beside my Bible, and my science books!
Deflection, calbab. Deflection.
it reminds me of osmosis as the mechanism for gaining knowledge
WTF, did you just say without god you or other believers would go out raping and murdering just for funssies all at the same time?
No. I was without God for two decades and never did any of that for "funssies."
I am a critical thinker who does not seek anything but the truth. If I go into the endeavor seeking god then I have already made up my mind and will only look for evidence that confirms my previously held opinion.
Where is the evidence that supports the existence of a religious deity? Do we need a god to exist and be a moral person?
I accept your definition, but I am also saying that your definition doesn't advance your argument that god exists. You sincerely believe that God exists and have faith that God exists but yet there is no empirical proof that god exists.
I asked this to someone else, so I'll also ask you. What would happen in your life if there was positive proof that God doesn't exist? Would you be less moral because there is no hell, or have less reason to live a fulfilling life?
How were you without god for 20 years and then found god afterward? I am intrigued.
Ask God sincerely for reasons for Spirit life and then proceed with you life as you normally do. The "evidence" will come to you in the course of your life. It did to me and I lived as myself!
No, you do not need God to be a 'moral' person. So what is a moral person in society? For instance: Is somebody you judge to be a person not living up to any standard, 'moral'?
God/Spirit has a high standard of living.
I wrote an amazing article, if I say so myself, about it:
The One About FAITH
Be sure to read under: The Realm of Faith
The whole article and comment section is great stuff!
That is textbook circular logic. How can I ask what has no evidence of existing? You want to believe in god but you cannot provide a critical thinker a scintilla of evidence that god exists. Your belief that god exists is not proof that god exists.
What evidence conviced you that god exists and when did it come to you?
Well, the 'living' proof is sitting here in real-time discussing it with you. Also on, The One about FAITH, there is the witness of Captain John Newton and Boxer George Foreman. Other than me and them --there are millions of others like me who have the EXPERIENCE you question me about. But, what do we know, right Epistte?!
God is both amazing and coming at you from unexpected scenarios! How about that!
It's very late, so good night!
There is no proof in any of your claims. You can have faith in anything and sincerely believe that God exists but even the most devout faith is far from being proof.
What experience can possibly prove god exists? I am not doubting your belief in God and your faith in such but neither comes anywhere close to being proof, no matter how devout.
I hope that you slept well.
so the ship was in a storm, it rocked to one side and the cargo shifted to that side and stopped up a hole, later the storm stopped (as they normally do) - this is proof of God ? sounds like normal events to me. Please explain how this is evidence of God (i might be missing something ?)
No you don't. It's not possible by what you just said and one honestly wonders if you REALLY DO believe that you do accept the definition. That would be disturbing on several levels if you did. I mean really ..... how can one provide absolute empirical evidence for something that BY DEFINITION is not or has not been proven yet? Ridiculous! Your argument is obtuse at best and intentionally disingenuous at worst.
Not much would change for me. morals or otherwise. Life is not one dimensional for me. Is it for you? For example, I am solidly Christian but do not blindly follow every doctrine, perceived or otherwise, that the religion puts out there. Life is not one dimensional and will always have a component of self determination for me..
How would your life change if there was positive proof that God existed? Be honest .... it sure would shake your world up wouldn't it? Scratch that, i don't expect an intellectually honest answer to that one.
I think pretty much every agnostic atheist would be perfectly content answering that question. Obviously if a god existed that would be the biggest surprise imaginable and would absolutely shake up one's world.
Why would you think differently? Do you think atheists choose to not believe? That is flat out wrong. It is not a choice; it is the lack of being convinced.
I did sleep well! I, we, all, know stuff about ourselves that it is not necessary to put out to the world. So I take your declaration about my life with the routine grain of salt, my dear.
To the larger issue, it is as I said. The Bible is replete with people, those ancient men and women, who took the time to write down their experiences - for which men and women can line up in agreement with in their own lives today. For you to "write it off" with a long-distance non-investigation analysis is well. . . . By the way, that is not critical thinking at work -- it's more the process of bias.
Got to run back later.
can you explain then, what does Spiritual Authority have to do with your comment about everyone doing what is in their minds if you yourself was not restrained by spiritual authority and did not do what you just proposed everyone else would do.
Pheonyx13 and Episste, let me be clear I am not making ANY attempt whatsoever to provide you scientific evidence of God. What I am doing is sharing with you WITNESS statements from two men who changed the world around them: Former Slave Captain John Newton and George Foreman. Both men of notability (read limited statements of their lives on, The One About FAITH ). I share with you my own WITNESS statement. Plus, you can look around the world, and into the Bible to find WITNESS accounts of lives changed, attribution to faith in God, and myriad positive consequential paths in life taken.
NOTICE: I am going to share a story at-length, but it will convey a point I feel needs stating. Okay, here goes:
For the first and end of the account you can seek it out for yourself, for in the interest of brevity I present this portion. The message speaks for itself. Thanks.
That is a really good thing to address. Thank you, DRHunk! Let me answer you in a manner that is indulgent I'll admit, but I want to hopefully save my hands from a great amount of typing. Are you familiar with the biblical account of The Prodigal Son? I was raised as a church-going child, baptized at 8 years of age, but discovered my homosexual nature at puberty, struggled with church philosophy until 18 thereabouts (because my church 'orbit' was winding down on its own', left the church-world entirely, did not return until twenty years later thereabouts.
not sure that helps me any, but thanks for at least trying, i do appreciate it.
Well, I do not mind explaining more where constructive. Just been a "whew" time of typing for a few days. (Sadly, I am only one guy with two hands.) DRHunk, I can do more, if it helps! (Smile.)
again:
please explain how this is evidence of God - how this is a "witness" account of God and not just something that normally happens to a ship in a storm ?
that was a great story - how do you validate it to be the truth and not just a... story ?
It is not now and in the foreseeable future my responsibility to persuade you or anyone else here of anything, Phoenyx13! I simply support my own understanding with faith-based statements. After all, I am a person persuaded of the Christian faith by written word and Spirit.
I'm not asking you to persuade me of anything - i'm asking you to explain things to me (there is quite a difference between the two)
Former Slave Captain John Newton's accounting of his years and activities are in the book: Thought s Upon the African Slave Trade . The book is 50 pages thereabouts (short, but intense) in total reading. My article briefly encapsulates (dips into) several instances from his life. (As I attempted to write my blog article, I had to consider my audience's interest and time constraints.) Even so, in the article, I try to gather some sense for the reader of the intensity of Mr. Newton's life as being raised Baptist- Atheist -Christian and the travesties of life he encountered.
When we read the written words of others' live experiences, we should duly check for veracity and without reason to doubt—check our skepticism.
Lastly, I desire to keep my articles separate as much as I can. There are "spans" of time written into that short segment of Mr. Newton's life if you wish to discuss them farther we can do so there . Otherwise, I will end this with Mr. Newton's own words spanning his spiritual conversion 1748 to being Church Rector 1802 :
“How unworthy and unlikely was I to preach that faith which I had renounced and scorned! What
difficulties were in the way, which thou only couldst remove. But thou didst it; and hast now supported
me in it thirty-eight years , restraining me from those evils and errors which might have hurt my
character and prevented my usefulness, and from which, nothing short of thy power and grace could
restrain a heart so vile as mine.”
John Newton, Rector St Mary Woolnoth, London, 4 August 1802 [iii]
Hymn writer: Amazing Grace
As to the biblical account of the blind man receiving his sight (through Jesus' act), the significance of the story is that the Pharisee leaders played the role of skeptics! Having interviewed and investigated this man's family for confirmation of his past blindness, they did not accept his WITNESS for how he came to have sight - to see. In our day, many people do not accept the witness statements of others - these "investigators" do not check their skepticism.
As to the truth of the narrative, for people God-given a gift of faith, the account corresponds to like events of spiritual sight and insight coming into our individual lives .
again:
and:
are you stating that you have had a similar event and were born physically blind as well ? (you don't seem to be answering my questions, i would appreciate if you would directly answer the questions)
(best of luck)
Your comment speaks volumes. . . . I'm full. (Thank you.)
Would you accept that some people believe simply because of faith? Faith doesn't require logic, but it is emotional.
There are people that have "felt" the presence of God and were given the gift of faith as Calbab has said. If someone told me that's how they came to their faith, I would accept it and move on.
It's more fun to debate the finer points of the Bible.
my only question(s) would be - how do you know it was God that they "felt" the presence of ? how did they make that determination ?
i absolutely agree with that - it's emotional. yet some are trying to task it as "logical" instead, but aren't seemingly able to communicate that logic.
so either you cannot answer the questions directly or will not answer the questions directly. That speaks volumes as well - especially if you are tasked to spread the good word, you don't seem to be communicating it very effectively except to say "trust me, just believe !"
That I don't know, because I'm pretty sure I have never felt the presence of God. But I would accept an answer of "just because". You can't explain faith, it just is.
Cannot, IMO. From what I have observed, I am convinced the unstated answer is simply 'I just believe'. Applying reason is pointless since anything that illustrates a problem with the belief is rejected without consideration.
Not uncommon. I think this is a consequence of crossing the barrier where one accepts truth based solely on what others have stated (or written).
i could state the same - but because i've never felt the presence of God, i wouldn't know for sure unless i did feel the presence of God (comparison - feeling God vs not feeling God). It almost becomes circular logic at that point.
i have to disagree with that - "just because" isn't a good answer for really any question in my opinion. If you allow "just because" for this question then any future question involving religion can be answered "just because" and you would have to accept it. I won't set that precedence of having a "cop out". If someone cannot honestly explain something then they should state such and explain why. If i cannot tell you the answer to a question due to lack of knowledge - i'll tell you, and i'll tell you because quite simply i don't know. I can admit there are many things i don't know - i'm constantly on a mission to learn new things and gain knowledge.
Hi TG! Faith does require reason. However, this requires a Word and an experience to act on. That word is t he Bible for Christians (something else for others). That experience is being born-again for Christians as well.
Of course, the Christian faith is about love, even when it is love that "suffocates." That's wrong of course, but it is people trying to do what is right. Other than this, God is not going to take over our human experience. The seal of the Spirit ( I will not leave you orphans ) is not God overruling my humanity. It is God in me as guide.
Much more could be stated and probably should be as I feel this comment may not be delivering enough, but for now my fingers demand a break. (Smile.)
You're mistaken, I am not 'tasked' to spread anything. (Smile.) I especially am not under any compulsion to waste time in insincere exchanges!
I used to "feel" the presence of god. I believe it was because I was indoctrinated into believing in Yahweh as a toddler. I had not acquired my sense of self (separateness from others). My sense of self became tangled up with believing my voice of "self" was the voice of "god". And that voice was the voice that bound me to my family, my church, my community and all of humanity.
When I lost religion (just a few years ago), I finally lost the voice and learned to walk alone and face life without the safety net that I had been taught to believe in.
I am far happier without the voice to lean on or to blame for my decisions or to justify my decisions.
good points
well, 1. it's good you don't feel you are tasked with spreading anything - i don't think you are doing a very good job in my opinion (strictly my opinion, you could be doing a great job for all i know, but i'm basing my opinion on my interactions with you and that's it)
2. i thought all Christians were tasked with spreading "the good word" ?
Ok. But the problem for me is when folks use the Bible as their "reason". Unless, they felt (there's that word again) inspired after reading it. Using the Bible to find logic in their reason doesn't quite work (for me).
I think calbab is a good example of someone living his faith. He doesn't try to shove it down anyone's throats but does try to have reasoned discussions about it.
There are lots of things Christians are required to do, but I think some of them can be ignored, like spreading the Word.
I am happy you are happy!
Not really.
You should be able to explain anything that you are basing your entire life on.
The majority of people want lots of information and second opinions on decisions that have far less consequences than religion.
I remember the "Scared Straight" program where teens were taken to jails/prisons to be tormented by felons in the hopes that they would obey the laws of our society.
What better way to control children than teaching them that there was an invisible man, who knew everything they did and everything they thought and would roast them in eternal fire for all of eternity? Of course, reinforce this description of Hell with the most graphic images possible.
Most believers can describe Hell and its torments, few can describe Heaven or what would happen there.
Humans are programmed to fear things in order to survive. The Christian religion capitalizes and survives on preaching a message of gloom and doom with one tiny glimmer of hope if a person crosses all the Ts and dots all the Is to please Yahweh, Yeshua, and all of the people who proclaim to be their representatives on Earth.
I do miss the belief that I would be reunited with my mother (that died when I was an infant) and my adopted grandmother who I dearly loved.
Now I accept that life is happenstance. I am thankful for the truly benevolent and loving people that shaped my life far more than the barbaric, judgmental religious ones who used Biblical scripture to control and abuse me.
good points
Spreading the word (The Good News) is not a bad thing, it can even be a good thing, because it can affect lives life-changingly . What gets "touchy" and even dangerous is zealotry. Some Christian denominations are PRIMED for criticism because they simply go too far and too extreme in their efforts to bring people into the faith.
My philosophy on NT is to share and defend what is in me, and not necessarily in that order. Just like I see others doing with what is in them. Also, and this is important, it is Spirit's responsibility to grant gifts of faith:
So I share what I spiritually receive out of a good heart. However, I respectfully understand that I can not save nor do I have the power to condemn. It is not my job or under my prerogative. God gives the increase , and it is clear to me that God works on God's own time-table (appointed times).
In other words, giving good REASONS from scripture as to what one believes is sound. For, belief has to be grounded and anchored - not suspended in mid-air.
i didn't suggest otherwise - i'm quite sure calbab is living his faith according to his interpretation that he sees fits for him.
i disagree with this part based upon my own experiences
i have found this to be true - it speaks volumes about the religion and how to follow it, in my opinion. There's no uniform set of rules, yet everyone belongs to the same "team" somehow.
It's like having a baseball team under one coach - except everyone dresses differently (some uniforms, some causal clothing, some uniforms for other sports), the pitcher decides on Tuesdays to be in left field, the catcher always has his/her gear on backwards and rarely wears a mask (unless it's a new moon and his/her mother wore purple in the last 15 days but didn't touch any flour), 1st baseman rarely ever shows up to a game and the shortstop has been absent since the day after signups. The outfield considers themselves part of the team but their own separate team as well, unless it's 12 noon in California - then for 25 mins they are a different team altogether if it's an odd numbered day in October in any year ending with the numbers 1,5,9,3 and 8. The 3rd baseman is usually asleep and rejects the notion that he has to catch any balls hit towards him. Nobody has baseball mitts except for the 3rd, 7th and 5th people in the batter's lineup. Yet - they are all on the same "team" and playing the same "sport", right ? (please note: i'm not stating this is about all religions or all followers of religions and this is strictly just my opinion - direct the hate mail and hate comments to someone else)
I know, but you made me giggle and that's a good thing.
So glad you are free of all of it and happy!
Exactly!
And none of it would matter, except you are playing for your life, death and possibly eternal life.
It still doesn't require logic because it is belief.
Did you ever see the movie Dogma? Remember what the Muse tells the Scion near the beginning about belief? She pretty much says why can't people just say they have a good idea what it's all about? At the end of the movie, the Scion tells the Muse, I don't believe but I have a pretty good idea.
No, never saw that movie. However, you must consider that thinking Christians, informed Christians, have a personal (tangible) relationship with God through spirituality. All day long we WITNESS to others and the world about these things in us - and yet the world keeps remarking, "Say, it isn't so." Well, we can not say it is not so, because it is so!
Then, when a bible is placed in front of us, we learn, discover, 'clasp hands' with others dead and gone now, who wrote in a book the same things occurred in their lives.
Sadly, it is not something that the world has. As the song says, "The world did not give it; the world cannot take it away." (That just dropped in there, not sure if it helps!) (Smile.)
(Now, I have got to go rest up "me" fingers!) More later. Enjoy discussing with you!
oh sorry, i meant to state that the personal note was to the general audience and not directed at anyone specifically. My bad - i apologize !
No problem.
Me, too!
Just watched the entire movie, DOGMA. What the "h" was that? I remember many years ago seeing the 'trailer' on television and thinking I would not watch that with someone else eyes! Well, I just did and, what the "h" was that? Is all I can think. Thank goodness for the disclaimer stuck into the opening scene. TG, somebody went through a lot of 'trouble' to make that movie! (LOL!)
I understand the definition of faith but faith is an unsupported belief that must be subservient to logic that can be empirically proven. If you chose religious belief over the fact you have just taken the first step down a rabbit hole of false reality.
Yes I understand many of the talking points that get pushed by Atheists, I just don’t happen to agree with most of them. One persons reality is another persons fantasy. That’s how the world works. If it didn’t, the world would one helleva boring place. A world full of Spock’s if you will.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
- Albert Einstein
Two things:
Are you sincerely suggesting that your religious beliefs require you to reject logical thought and facts? There is not much point in having a conversation with someone who openly says that logic is subjective. I respect peoples religious beliefs but when those same religious beliefs require someone to reject logic and facts there is a line between reality and embracing fantasy that is crossed that I am not comfortable with. if your religious beliefs require you to reject logic then how do you determine what is moral?
What Einstein was referring to was the idea that in theoretical physics time doesn't really exist. Albert Einstein was not using time in the same way that you are.
Not at all. Are you suggesting that concepts like logic and faith can not exist together in the same reality? You would be sorely mistaken if you are.
And you are only partially correct on what Einstein meant what that comment. It wasn’t only time. He was referring to a concept that it’s impossible to prove that anything exists other than what's in your mind. So, “reality” could be viewed as only what’s in your mind, which in turn could be viewed as only an illusion.
Department of OOPS!
1. Faith (in God) is "unsupported" by individuals who do not have it, and in many cases, do not do anything to acquire it.
Question: Why is it so difficult for scientists to believe in a higher power?
Dr. Francis Collins: Science is about trying to get rigorous answers to questions about how nature works. And it’s a very important process that’s actually quite reliable if carried out correctly with generation of hypotheses and testing of those by accumulation of data and then drawing conclusions that are continually revisited to be sure they are right. So if you want to answer questions about how nature works, how biology works, for instance, science is the way to get there. Scientists believe in that they are very troubled by a suggestion that other kinds of approaches can be taken to derive truth about nature. And some I think have seen faith as therefore a threat to the scientific method and therefore it to be resisted.
But faith in its perspective is really asking a different set of questions. And that’s why I don’t think there needs to be a conflict here. The kinds of questions that faith can help one address are more in the philosophical realm. Why are we all here? Why is there something instead of nothing? Is there a God? Isn’t it clear that those aren't scientific questions and that science doesn’t have much to say about them? But you either have to say, well those are inappropriate questions and we can’t discuss them or you have to say, we need something besides science to pursue some of the things that humans are curious about. For me, that makes perfect sense. But I think for many scientists, particularly for those who have seen the shrill pronouncements from extreme views that threaten what they’re doing scientifically and feel therefore they can’t really include those thoughts into their own worldview, faith can be seen as an enemy.
And similarly, on the other side, some of my scientific colleagues who are of an atheist persuasion are sometimes using science as a club over the head of believers basically suggesting that anything that can’t be reduced to a scientific question isn’t important and just represents superstition that should be gotten rid of.
Part of the problem is, I think the extremists have occupied the stage. Those voices are the ones we hear. I think most people are actually kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way to learn about nature, but it’s not the whole story and there’s a place also for religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy. But that harmony perspective does not get as much attention, nobody’s as interested in harmony as they are in conflict, I’m afraid.
Question: How has your study of genetics influenced your faith?
Francis Collins: My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly that Darwin was right about the nature of how living things have arrived on the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural selection over very long periods of time. Darwin was amazingly insightful given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially it didn’t exist. And now with the digital code of the DNA, we have the best possible proof of Darwin’s theory that he could have imagined.
So that certainly tells me something about the nature of living things. But it actually adds to my sense that this is an answer to a "how?" question and it leaves the "why?" question still hanging in the air.
Other aspects of our universe I think also for me as for Einstein raised questions about the possibility of intelligence behind all of this. Why is it that, for instance, that the constance that determines the behavior of matter and energy, like the gravitational constant, for instance, have precisely the value that they have to in order for there to be any complexity at all in the Universe. That is fairly breathtaking in its lack of probability of ever having happened. And it does make you think that a mind might have been involved in setting the stage. At the same time that does not imply necessarily that that mind is controlling the specific manipulations of things that are going on in the natural world. In fact, I would very much resist that idea. I think the laws of nature potentially could be the product of a mind. I think that’s a defensible perspective. But once those laws are in place, then I think nature goes on and science has the chance to be able to perceive how that works and what its consequences are.
Cal, this discussion is way too bloated to be practical. Dr. Collins is a great guy and I would have no problem discussing his views but this would be best served in a fresh article.
Christianity is the largest religious group in the country. So I highly doubt it's under any serious threat. Neither is anyone threatened with having to change or give up their religion. And as long as the US Constitution is in effect, you'll never have to worry about it.
I just checked my local yellow pages. The heading for churches begins on page 95 and ends on page 104. In that light, I hold the opinion that there is little to no chance of christianity (small c) being persecuted to any extent.
Christian persecution is not happening here. If a Christian is whining about being persecuted, then they don't know the definition of persecution.
It isn't true that there's a church on every block, here in Yuma.
But it sure seems like it...
But feeling persecuted is what religion is all about.
Most of the threat is internal to the religion.
I think he means that bigoted right-wing Christian extremists are mocked and belittled on a daily basis. Perhaps the author needs to consider why that might be? However I seriously doubt he's capable of such introspection.
.
So that means he wants to be denied the right to marry, denied adoption rights, denied equal tax treatment, denied housing and employment, denied products and services from businesses, denied military service, and specifically denied serving in the Boy Scouts or being a teacher in our public schools. Or is it that he wants to be called an abomination and then lynched on a barbed wire fence? Or is he really asking to be subjected to electroshock aversion therapy as part of a program to convert him away from the vile Christian agenda? Perhaps he merely wants "Non-Christians only" signs to be displayed on drinking fountains, at the entrances to public restrooms, and in the windows of all the shops on Main St?
Howdy Shrekk! I modified the author's statement as you see it above. Did you recognize the distinction?
Everybody vs every faith? I fully agree with your distinction. The bias of the author is clear in that section.
On a side note what do you think about the Christian variant of the golden rule vs how it's phrased by Hillel and by most other cultures, ie that you should not do to someone anything which you would find hateful if it were done to you. Personally I think that's the better version.
Provide a copy of this rule you mention and I will check it out! (Smile.)
Sidebar: I messed up. I put the wrong statement under my signing. Thank you for not letting it 'throw' you off-point!
Hi Cal..... I truly understand that the vast majority of Christians in this country don't believe the tripe that comes out of MacKinnon's mouth. He spews Christian dominionism and dreams of a nation where the Christian is superior to everyone else and others live in this country at the whim of the majority.
MacKinnon has never known what discrimination really is in this nation. He never had to be a Muslim living in this country after 9/11. He never had to be a Jew living in this country during a century and a half of palpable anti-Semitism. He was never a slave in the south or a victim of lynchings like our Black brothers and sisters. He never had a wall built to keep him out of our country because his skin was Brown. He never watched thousands of his family die on the forced march of the ignominious Trail of Tears. From the first day his people came to this nation, he was the majority.
What McKinnon and other dominionists are afraid of is losing privilege. They are being asked to play by the same rules as everybody else and hope that by screaming the discrimination card, they can rally people to their view of America. It isn't going to work.
Yep. Plus the dude has no sense of irony much less any awareness of karma.
Beautifully stated. I do not know this opinion writer at all. I took a liberty in lifting this article from a FOX News location. I had my doubt about using it, but there are fair reasons for why I chose to post it under my name.
I continue to feel a sharp 'poke' and raw force of online criticism as a member of the liberal -Christian community. I have compelled myself to learn all about the humanists known as "The Four Horsemen"' - Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett & Harris and their works. I have learned of the " Nones ," and those who survey them for their own purposes. In this, in some ways, I can see eye to eye with this man, Mackinnon.
In the stellar expressing of your commentary; you are 'right on'! I can not and will not deny what you wrote!
You really shouldn't. Any philosophical discussions we might have or Dawkins or Harris might have are entirely different from what's going on with this whiny right winger who seems to be complaining that his bigotry and sense of privilege are no longer respected. I sure don't see you (or most Christians) in the same way as I see these Christofascists.
They are atheists. I am not aware of anything that says that they are aligned with the American Humanists. Not all atheists are Humanists.
Hmm. Food for thought.
I've often found that atheists are... intolerant. Too often, they have absolute faith that God does not exist. That's silly, of course, since it's impossible to prove a negative, but in the meantime, tbey can be very unpleasant.
TiG has a useful four-position grid, gnostic and agnostic believers, and gnostic and agnostic atheists. Both gnostic positions are illogical, and can be sustained only by faith. That a gnostic believer have faith isn't at all shocking... but for a (gnostic) atheist to depend on faith is... kinda comical.
Hi Epistte! Dawkins won the 2012 Humanist UK - Services to Humanism award . Christopher Hitchens was considered a great loss to Humanist Uk in 2011. Daniel C Dennett is a laureate of the International Academy of Humanism. Sam Harris appeared in 2011 at the British Humanist Association with Richard Dawkins . Very close affiliations and memberships with humanists societies.
Er episste, does my reply make sense to you about the "4 horsemens'" — Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett & Harris correlation with humanism? I would appreciate some
feedbackacknowledgement of this, please.Dawkins was the Humanist of the Year in 1996. I never liked him.
Before I move back into the stream of consciousness on the topic, I wish to make a passing comment about the Barbara Bush funeral services. As a Christian and non-Episcopalian I am impressed with the non-assuming services rendered today by the Bush family of two presidents and several governors, with accompanying former presidents and wives in attendance. The non-assuming nature of any of the speakers, including Jeb Bush, and the mistake in the proceeding by the Rector himself in offering up a song, "Amazing Grace," out of program order. It is all very interesting to me.
Moreover, it speaks volumes about a family more interested in humility, and less interested in standing on pomp and circumstance.
Also, it tangentially strikes me that many times we as people do things differently from one another for a host of reasons, while still having a heart for goodness and righteousness for one another. As I can not be an atheist, I do not choose to be a republican, but as I watch the Bush family bury Mrs. Bush, I can see where our humanity can approach one another in hopes of connecting somewhere along an axis.
We are indeed all connected in the eyes of the Creator. We are all connected to all living beings and things on Mother Earth and Father Sky. We are all connected as one species cannot survive without the others on this planet, and that includes mankind.
No matter what, or how, one believes, we are all still connected. And as such, no one of us is better or more important to life on this planet than another. Whether or not someone believes in a Superior Being is a choice they are free to make, and no one individual or group has the right to condemn them for what they believe or don't believe.
We are all Brothers and Sisters in all things on this earth, and without one or the other, no one of us can survive. Thus, we are all connected as one.
This is the teachings and religious beliefs of my Cherokee ancestors, and goes back long before Christianity was born to this earth. It was the truth then, and is the truth today.
Beautiful comment. Simply beautiful. I will strive to keep a sense of investment in others—especially those who discourage attraction. Thank you for sharing, Raven!
Bravo !
Shameful!
Christians are indeed being killed because of their religion in some parts of the world, notably the Middle East. It is shameful to equate the comfortable situation of American Christians with that of genuine martyrs.
While I will be among the first to defend hand and hand with my fellow members on the Left on many political postures, in context of Douglas Mackinnon's statements relating to your comment, Mr. Mackinnon did separate the two 'conditions' into stand-alone paragraphs.
Even so, Mackinnon's umbrage at facing religious bigotry belies the disturbing intolerance from some members in the religious/faith communities against other citizens of this country whom conduct and activities he may controversially disapprove.
And I doubt he's aware of the irony or the hypocrisy in the fact that almost all of that intolerance comes from right wing Christian extremists like him and they usually direct it against Muslims, Wiccans, Jews and even other Christian sects like Catholics and Mormons.
Good points!
I agree 100%.
Where are Christians being physically attacked in the USA because they are Christian? That would be a hate crime.
People in the US are tired of conservatives Christians trying to insert their religious views into others lives and attempting to limit the constitutional rights of others because of conservative Christian beliefs. It is obvious to most people the social conservatives are both hypocrites and ignore core teachings of Jesus in favor of their cherry-picked beliefs that further their goal of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
This idea needs to be more widely known and taught,
Christians in the US do not have more rights than those of other faiths or even different Christian sects. Other people do not have to ask their permission to exercise our constitutional rights and we cannot be forced to obey Christian edicts as secular law. Until conservatives understand that fact the will continue to feel opposition at every turn and attempt to weaponize their faith.
This is a very strong comment across the board, even in the sense that you pointed out a 'culprit' and answered who, what, why, and how questions. Well done.
True, in the US it come more in the form of psychological attacks by a minority of people who are non believers. Atttempting to push their ideas of morality on the majority. Look no further than right here for proof of that.
Most believers, Christians included, could care less what non believers think but we also will not let non believers shit on and marginalize our beliefs without fighting back.
Get used to it.
Nobody's trying to force their morality on Christians. It's the exact opposite.
Don't want to marry someone of the same sex? Nobody's trying to force you to do that, but Christians are trying to force their morality onto everyone else and prevent others from having equal rights.
Nobody's trying to force Muslim or Wiccan prayers into our public schools, or the Atum masturbation creation myth, but Christians are trying to force their prayers, tenets, and their creation myth into our schools and laws. Well, the Satanic Temple (whose members don't actually believe in Satan) are doing the same thing, but only to prove the point about how our government cannot endorse one religion over any others. Generally, the Christians decide they'd rather not put their monument up rather than have to allow another group to put theirs up as well, as our Constitution requires.
No atheists come to your door trying to convince you that your god doesn't exist ... but Christians come to my door trying to sell me on their religion. It's just plain rude, as it would be if I did the same. (it's also horrible the way the Mormons make their teenagers dress in suits and yet make them offer to help me with yardwork ... if I took them up on it, their clothes would be ruined in 15 minutes).
Love your new screen name, btw.
I am giving you this vote up because this article encourages this type of discussion!
I am giving you this vote up because this article encourages this type of discussion, too!
Do you need a Christian safe space where you aren't disagreed with and you don't have to interact with people who think differently than you do? Is logic an unlearnable foreign language to you?
I like religious debates, unlike you. Feel free to criticize my Humanist views because I am not offended when you do so.
BS Like I said I could care less what your beliefs are. We’ve got no problem as long you don’t try to force your beliefs, or lack thereof, on me or mine
see above. You can marry your teddy bear as fas as i’m concerned. Again just don’t to force it on me or mine.
Nope, no one is forcing anything on you but you are trying to deny others. I know i’m Wasting my breath here but I’m saying it anyway. Christians are the majority here. Like it or not Christians founded this country. Not Wiccans, not Muslims. That said no one is forcing that on anyone. At least not most Christians. Like I said, we are good until you try to deny me and mine our faith. Then, we’ve got a problem
True and neither do most Christians. Atheists on the other hand regularly deride those of faith, sanctimoniously looking down their noses at them like they have some secret level intelligence unobtainable by those of faith. Look no further than NT for proof of that.
Thx, my ode to bad fish everywhere
Lol, you’ve got a serious case of projection going there epi.
Nice to know you still can’t debate without resorting to insults.
SOSDD for you towards those of unlike mind with you.
So? That doesn't entitle Christians to any more rights, privliedges, or recognition than any other religious or non-religious group.
Again, so what? That doesn't make this a Christian country.
While Christians seem to claim some monopoly on their idea of "truth" of think they have some special knowledge or understanding, especially when it comes to religion or god. Atheists simply challenge claims of "truth" made by Christians or other groups. Some Christians simply get upset when they're called out and challenged on it.
I've tried to figure out who has more rights for some time. Was it the 29 students who wanted to say a prayer at the start of the school day or the lone non-Christian who felt offended and thus we disallowed the prayer?
Food for thought
The 2 religious clauses of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution when taken together mandate that the government must be absolutely neutral on the issue of religion. If you want prayer as part of your children school day you are free to send them to a parochial school of your choosing on your own dime.
The 29 students have the right to pray separately or voluntarily in a group, but they do not have the right to force others to pray as part of a public school class.
We can test that claim buy putting the 1 objecting Christian student in a classroom of 29 students of non-christian faiths, such as Muslims, Hindu, pagan or Buddhists.
No one is stopping those students from engaging in superstitious rituals. They just can't do it in a way which interferes with school and no school official can lead those peculiar rituals.
Sounds like your comprehension of the 1st Amendment is extremely limited, to say the least.
I am not trying to change your views, unless you are willing to admit that being logical is a threat to your religious beliefs.
I am only saying that your religious beliefs do not supersede the US Constitution and the associated amendments. You have the right to believe and worship as you see fit, but you cannot try to force others to take in your religious rituals because they have the very same right to believe and worship or not to because of the very same Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
Actually, I think it's better than most. I posed a question and you really didn't get it. You reminded us that this has become a secular country and reminded us of the current rules for schools, but you didn't think about what I said. Try again, if you care to.
And if those same 29 students asked for a space to get together 15 minutes before school starts to pray together you would bItch and moan and cry about how it is not fair. How do you feel about schools that provide spaces for Muslim students to say their 5 daily prayers each day in private?
Whey do they need a separate space when they can stand outside or gather in the cafeteria to pray, as long as they don't disrupt others? I'd prefer that the state doesn't create religious meetings areas as part of our public schools. Why didn't they pray at home before they came to school or do it singularly on the bus?
That's one of my favorite slaps back at them, too! Well played!!! Don't they hate it when the words of their founder are used against them?
Its amusing to me that Christians need to be reminded of what their own Savior taught them to do, by a godless Humanist. I should not need to remind them of such because they should have a better grasp of these ideas than I do.
There are a few people who try to twist that passage to mean anything but what Jesus was trying to convey.
I'm not sure the ones we have here pontificating all the time about Jesus even know a tenth of the things that he's to have said in the Gospels. Or, maybe they just decide to ignore 90% of it and pretend it isn't there.
A fair question. . . .
Why must you be so pedantic?
I have never called you out by name as having denied anyone, myself or anyone else, their constitutional rights.
As far as I know, you are not a government employee so you could not deny someone their rights. I was referring to the idea that people of the conservative spectrum do not support equal religious rights for others of different religions or those of us who have no religions.
A fair response.
Keep in mind the religious Christian youth would ecumenically pray together and the other faiths would break into separate groups. In unique settings, "we all" accept an interfaith prayer:
A most beautiful 'service' indeed!
And they would prefer that they be able to pray together. Why should your preference be given any more weight than theirs. Are you special? Besides where did I say it had to be a "religious meeting room". An unused classroom would suffice .
Maybe they want to pray together as a group of friends. Who are you to decide when and where and how someone is to pray.
They're perfectly free to do that, but it's not the job of our public schools to subsidize or endorse religion by constructing the "prayer areas" you want. In fact it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment, something no bible-babbling conservative seems to comprehend.
What you really want is a madrasa.
What's to think about? If kids want to pray, they are free to do so. The school simply cannot lead, encourage, or support prayer. Especially during class time or school hours. Otherwise, it's a violation of the Constitution.
i think it's great that you feel this way about same sex marriage (and i wish more did), but it's dishonest to state that most Christians or religious feel the same way - or there wouldn't have been such a fight over same sex marriage and a SCOTUS decision having to be made on the matter. To this day there is one party that has in their party platform that they wish to reverse the SCOTUS decision and set a precedent of taking civil rights away from a group of citizens - and this party is known to be overwhelming religiously supported.
i don't see anyone trying to deny you or yours of your faith.
i disagree here since i've heard quite often (including NT) that i'm condemned to Hell etc because i don't believe the same way they do or believe in their religion. it's almost as if some of the religious feel they are better than those who don't follow that religion and feel superior to everyone else. All you have to do look at NT for proof of that.
In what way am I projecting? I come here for the debate because I like the logical exercise. If we all agreed and sang kumbaya it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
This debate and discussion forces me to strenghten my logical arguements, so take your best shot at me. I like it that way.
Hi Epistte. This verse in its proper setting is geared toward warning prayers against ostentatious attitudinal praying. Muslim ritual prayers with accompanying time for ablutions and proper considerations for others, though running a course spaced during the day and night, in effect, will humble a man or woman daily. Missed prayers even are expected to be made-up, accordingly!
Moreover, communal prayer, by definition, can not be conducted in secret. These types of prayers are shared. (I hope this adds something positive to the overall discussion.) If I am wrong about any of this - somebody feel free to add an explanation. (Smile.)
Friend Atheists, see 5.2.32 below, please.
Please Skrekk! Strike this phrase | bible-babbling and its derivatives | from any discussion I author. Let it be not too much to kindly ask.
Many "Christians" know only the Old Testament.
why would you want to censor someone's free speech ?
Hi Phoenyx13! No comment.
Our Constitution makes it clear that the majority doesn't get to rule. We are not a Democracy. C'mon, dude - you know that, and I know you know that.
Our founders didn't want Christian sharia law here, or that of any other religion. I used to be part of that majority; now I'm not. I wasn't any more worthy of ruling when I was a Christian, and I'm no less worthy now that I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm much more moral than some of the born-agains, those who brag about how they aren't capable of being decent people without threats and promises. My morals don't require belief in a god, that's all. And I believe in one fewer god than you do.
Amen !!
I don't need you or anyone else to recite the law. That wasn't the question. The question was not of rights but of degree of rights.
We can test that claim buy putting the 1 objecting Christian student in a classroom of 29 students of non-christian faiths, such as Muslims, Hindu, pagan or Buddhists.
Now your'e getting to the real question. In a Muslim country, the Muslim students would say their prayer and the Christian student would use the time to focus on what he/she wanted, thus in most countries group A prevails over group B etc. In some places group A plus group B prevails over group C. It is only in the US where group C prevails over A and B. I am not objecting to that, you understand, I'm simply explaining the Uniqueness of the United States.
‘When You’re Accustomed To Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression’
Brilliantly said!!!! Perfect! I honestly believe that that is how many Christians feel. When a change comes along like same sex marriage or gays and Transsexuals serving openly in the military it's a jarring change. It's something that challenges their beliefs, so they see it as an attack on them. An attack on their way of life and how they believe and the world that they live in. They believe it will change their world irrevocably and for the worse and that it is something that will be forced upon them when the truth is it will not stop them from living their lives just the same as they always have one bit. So, out of fear, they fight.
I am sorry, but I don't see the connection between my comment and yours? I didn't say anything about giving up anything I have or being homeless (which I have been when I was younger) or anything like that?
so you desire to limit/censor someone's free speech but can't/won't explain why... interesting...
It doesn't but neither does the minority ..... right?
Stop being so melodramatic. This isn't Afghanistan. Far from it actually. Tell you what, when someone forces you be a Christian or some other religion, give me a call. As a fellow American I'll be happy to defend your right to not be forced into it. With my life if need be.
Glad you apparently found some peace there. To each their own i always say .....
Well hallelujah and pass the wine! Something we can agree on.
Some people are just pricks. It's not the religion or lack thereof that makes that so. It's the individual. I'm glad you're a moral person but so am i and i happen to be Christian. So how about you stop with the sweeping generalizations and just agree that some people are just pricks. Muslims, Atheists, Christians, etc ..... it doesn't matter. Their choice of faith or lack thereof has little to nothing to do with it.
Atheists/Agnostics have no special high ground in this regard. Quite the opposite really. Look no further than NT for proof of that.
Really? I read NT quite a bit and i've seen very little of that. Now Atheists poking fun at people of faith who believe in "sky fairies" and such IS a regular occurrence on NT.
Do you disagree?
can you force people to be civil ? how would you enforce civility among everyone ?
absolutely, especially since i've been told that no matter how many good acts i commit, no matter how good my heart is - i'll always be condemned to Hell because i don't believe the same way those "good Christians" do. I see it going both ways, especially with a poster who loves to refer to non-believers as reprobates or having "reprobate minds" - i guess you see that as acceptable ?
You left a cogent part of my comment out of your quote. I said:
The key part you left out has been highlighted for your reading comprehension convenience.
To which you said:
So no, i'm not the one who needs a safe space to defend my beliefs when they get attacked. You are projecting because you apparently do. As i've clearly stated here, i could care less what your beliefs are. So why would i need a safe space to debate? I don't ..... you on the other hand ....
Well you aren't looking very hard then. Christians get attacked here all the time. I think you are being overly sensitive since i rarely see people of faith here start the shit fights. it's usually someone else, especially Atheists.
It may appear like have something against Atheists. I don't. I have something against people who treat other people like shit because of their faith and/or their lack thereof. Some Atheists here just happen to be the biggest problem on NT.
So no i don't think it's acceptable and you have NEVER seen me do that to you or anyone else here. How about you? Have you attacked others because they have faith and you don't?
really ? with articles like this you honestly think its the Atheists starting fights ? that's laughable at best. as i noted on my previous reply:
i reposted it for you in case you missed it
you are welcome 
some Atheists - along with some Theists are the biggest problem on NT. It's interesting you won't acknowledge that it's both sides and constantly defend the Theists.
I won't attack anyone with faith unless they use that faith as a weapon to deny others rights (ex: same sex marriage). Outside of that - i ask a lot of questions for better understanding (it seems the religious, including those who follow the same religion, all see things differently) but that's it. I know - to some Theists asking questions is "attacking" their faith and "persecuting" them.
well maybe for that poster - the reference used is being civil ? i know, you'd prefer no one ever say anything negative about your religious beliefs or beliefs in God or anything else - but that Utopia simply doesn't exist so i guess you'll have to feel "attacked" and "persecuted" instead ?. Some people will always say negative things about religions (just as some people will always say positive things about religions) - so it's probably best to avoid them, agreed ?
nope, you didn't say it, but your words and reactions seem to indicate it (as clearly shown here and other replies) - you should really relax, i'm not "attacking" you.
we get it - since we don't succumb to your idea of civility (which apparently means, indicated by your posts, that no one can say anything that would be negative or even possibly construed as negative towards religion) then we are all bad heathens who just "attack" religious people and "persecute" them. i'm sorry to offend your sensitive, fragile religious beliefs.
Be kind and leave it at "no comment." Though this is a public comment board, not every comment deserves to be explained to everyone!
If you did not catch this service in 'real-time' during Pope Francis' visit to the 9/11 Memorial. The above video is a treat!
Welcome Kathleen! (Warm Smile.)
the very same can be said of you taking offense to the word "cult", correct ?
but for some reason you do - quite often with a certain group of posters.
you created the straw man, so please don't complain it exists. Thanks
oh, so now you are suggesting i'm not a "decent" person ? thanks for resorting to personal attacks. you get upset by the word "cult" and as you stated:
so what you feel that poster stated and how you perceive what they said - is all on you. But since you can't take "personal responsibility" for your feelings - you sit here and whine, complain and blame everyone else for exercising free speech and using synonyms in the English language.
fair enough. It's your comment and if you don't wish to explain it in order to communicate more effectively - that is your choice. i will leave it at "no comment" as you wish.
i have taken no offense
(but nice dig stating that if i'm "decent" person i wouldn't be offended and if i'm offended then i'm obviously not a "decent" person - still gotta resort to those personal attacks huh ?) i don't take comments on here or on this site personally - it's just a social networking site and nothing more. you make out of it what you will.
congrats ! i think that's a great attitude
do you take offense to the word "cult" ?
Yes really. How does this article start a fight? It doesn't attack you or your beliefs unless you believe it's okay to attack others that are not of like mind with you. It's simply an opinion piece. It's not the articles problem if you take that opinion personal.
Then again, you aren't paying attention. I never said some people of faith aren't a problem as well. Quite the opposite actually. However, it is Atheists who do most of the attacking here on NT. You are blind if you don't see that.
Again and lastly, no one has a problem with respectful discussions. Simply mocking others that are not of like mind is not respectful. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Personally i think it's a huge inferiority complex for many folks with no faith. Many seem to have a pathological need to mock others that are not of like mind.
did you read the article ?
oh i'm sure that shouldn't start a fight, right ? no way !
well this shouldn't start a fight, right ? it's not like its just blaming an entire group of people (those considered the "left") or anything. nope, no fights, right ?
really ? which colleges are those ? which Broadway and theaters around the world mock Christians as a massively profitable money-making venture ? i'm sure this isn't meant to incite any kind of emotional response or fight, correct ? I'm not sure that you read the article. It most certainly is an opinion piece - the usual victim card being played over and over again. Ironically, with all these "attacks" it seems that Christianity is still the majority religion in this country (and seems to have the most members worldwide) - how odd huh ?
then again, you aren't paying attention. Atheists attack just as much as Theists do on NT - look at previous articles. You are blind if you don't see that.
Personally i think it's a huge inferiority complex with some people both sides since they both seem to have a pathological need to mock others that are not of like mind - again you are defending the theists, it's very interesting.
i'm not insulting anyone - if you are personally insulted by my comments, oh well. You'll get over it one day, right ?
seems you missed this question:
i reposted it for you. your thoughts ? thanks
from your own definition ! looks like this applies:
or this:
no matter how much you deny or spin it - you don't know the person's actual motivations better than they themselves do. i suggest if you are curious - you should ask. Otherwise - take the advice given above by a dear friend. have a great day !
Yes.
See, there's your problem. The correct answer is, no .... it isn't starting a fight. Simply because you don't like what you are reading does not rise to "starting a fight." Not in most reasonable peoples world anyway
No it shouldn't
Nope, not even close if you are paying attention.
Lol holy shit, no one is mocking you. I rest my case and leave this discussion with you at that.
darn, i flunked the "perception" quiz that apparently is only supposed to include your perception and no one else's. is this correct ? or are you resorting to a personal attack by suggesting i'm not a "reasonable person" since i do see it as starting a fight ?
and that would be your opinion - but the sad truth is the opposite, or we wouldn't all be here now would we ?
absolutely, and i could even name names (if we were allowed, but we aren't so i won't be doing that), but i guess you feel its ok for Theists to tell anyone who doesn't believe that they are just condemned to Hell period, no matter what they do or don't do - unless they start lock-stepping with their beliefs. if you aren't ok with that - then you'd be admitting it's a two-way street and not playing the "victim card".
looks like you aren't paying attention still - and still defending the Theists "religiously", i guess you can't accept that both sides are at fault equally, keep that "victim card" to yourself please.
absolutely nothing. When have i ever stated such a thing ?
I don't have a problem with interfaith services. The religious fundamentalists that I oppose rarely take part in them because they refuse to accept the fact that there are other belief systems that are just as relevant as their own. The Unitarian Universalist church that I support is essentially an interfaith religion because they teach that there are many different paths to enlightenment and morality and all are equally relevant.
LOL.
There is no degree of rights. They are all equal. Christians do not have more religious rights than other religions in the US because of their numbers due to the fact that our constitutional rights are not cumulative.
Our 1st Amendment religious rights say that we have the right to believe as we choose and worship or not as we choose. We cannot possibly have more religious rights than that because doing so would permit us to trample the religious rights of others or to allow other people to trample our religious rights. That idea would be legally untenable and lead to constant trouble. You do not have the right not to have your religious beliefs criticized because that would infringe the free speech rights of others.
I never said that you and I were having a conversation. I am merely laughing at your need to invoke the impass rule when your argument took a logical faceplant, again.
Isn't the place for an intimate conversation for two is a quiet table in a coffee shop, not on a website that's a discussion board or forum?
So, you agree that no right in any of those in the BoR is unlimited.
I wish that I could say that was my original idea but I read it somewhere.
I don't like Starbucks coffee, but thanks for the offer.
Get over yourself.
Only right-wing Christian extremists are attacked and that's primarily due to their bigotry and their efforts to use our secular government to impose their sharia laws on everyone else. If they didn't do that (or commit acts of terrorism) most people would just ignore those nuts.
In fact some of their primary critics are Christians themselves who don't share the bigoted and extremist views of right-wing Christians.
Tell that to one of your former Californians who had to go elswhere
oddly enough, i didn't even start the new conversation and was shut out of it after 1 question (that was obviously an incorrect assumption - especially given my public posting history that anyone can look up). i wonder if that's how the impasse rule is supposed to work - you ask someone a question and if you don't like their answer or their answer proves you wrong again then you just call impasse ?
The impass rule is a copout that allows people to refuse to admit that they were wrong nor to ignore a direct question.
Impasse is strictly for wimps! Hey, we should call it 'Wimpasse!'
BS!
All of Christianity gets attacked here on a regular basis. But then again how would you know right? You're only one of those that does that regularly.
You poor, poor, victimized, phonier than thou small c christians - eternal victims.
Please cite an example where I've criticized mainstream Christians like Episcopalians, the ELCA or social justice Catholics. I'll wait while you get your act together.
Lol, yeah right. You regularly clarify which Christians are okay in your opinion when you attack Christianity. /S
It's not a question of "if" you attack Christianity, it's a question of when you haven't. You regularly bag on Christianity in general. No need to waste time looking up examples as they are copious for anyone who may feel the need to waste their time looking back at that hatred.
I don't have that need. Not in the least.
In other words you can't find any examples of me ridiculing any Christians other than bigoted right-wing Christian extremists.
However I will admit that I find Christianity in general to be a silly superstition, just like the superstition that the disc of the world sits on the backs of giant elephants who stand on a giant tortoise. It's just as silly as Islam, Shintoism, Hinduism, the cult of Quetzalcoatl, or the belief that offerings to the goddess Oester will help your wife get pregnant. But that's a philosophic discussion which I have with folks like Calbab and TiG, not with right-wingers like you. You'll find than most atheists and non-Christians in general have much the same view about your superstitions and I suspect you're simply not accustomed to conversing with people who don't share your superstition.
In other words i'm not going to waste my time looking back at your hate strewn comments regarding the topic. No interest in reading that crap more than once. Don't need to actually as you start right back up in this post
I suspect you aren't used to conversing with someone who doesn't give a shit what your opinion is. If it wasn't such a closed minded, sanctimonious one i might actually care but it's all that with bells on so i don't.
Buh bye now .....
Don't much care where religionists pray as long as I don't see it happening on property I pay taxes on.
Does this include my support for some of the ideas of Pope Frankie as well as those churches that support minority rights and social justice?
There is an offshoot Catholic group that supports LGBT rights, even though that they are not formally recognized by Rome.
I only have a problem with hypocrites who pick and choose passages of the bible to support their previously held bigotry while ignoring the basic tenets of Jesus teachings. If you claim to be a Christian then you must implicitly follow the teachings of Jesus, at the expense of Leviticus, Romans, and Paul.
Absolute agreement.
I'm four days late into this conversation.
I really have no problem if a group of students ask the school's powers that be if they could be given a classroom, auditorium, gym, etc to pray together in as long as they are not missing classes or disrupting the school's normal day-to-day routine.
Christians in this country are not persecuted. Are they mocked? Yes, they are. Sometimes they bring it on themselves, most especially when they interrupt my Saturday morning routine to "witness" to me. They are also mocked when they insist that "In God We Trust" posters be placed in public schools, as they are doing here in Arkansas. They are mocked when they try to place 10 commandments monuments on public ground, like they did here today in Arkansas.
As a secularist, I sometimes feel like I am not welcome in my own town. Everywhere I go I see businesses with their Jesus fish. That's fine, but does that mean I have to endure a sermon if I want to shop there or eat there?
I will say some of you fine people, like yourself, are "hammered" by words like sky fairy, superstitious belief, and other words that make me cringe. Some others unlike yourself, deserve it because they really don't act very Christian-like.
I do like to talk to you, tho.
Yes and no. It just depends on how how much backlash you will face if you tell them that you wasn't shopping for a sermon.
I came here for a cheeseburger not a damn Bible reading!!!! LOL!
I probably would say something like that.
I would not eat the cheeseburger after I said it.
A few years ago, I was asked by a new co-worker (that picked up the mail) where I intended to spend eternity.
I just answered what immediately came to mind - "Doesn't matter. Anywhere without religious zealots would have to be a vacation."
When I was stationed in Texas, people there had no qualms about asking where you went to church and where you planned to spend eternity. Mind you, this is on a federal installation and I am wearing a military uniform. Problem was, you just couldn't be tell people to leave you alone because they got all offended and told your supervisor that you were rude and offensive. So I basically lied and told them what they wanted to hear.
I regret those fucking lies. I should have just "grown a pair" and told them they were violating workplace standards.
Depending on the situation, I still believe it is best to disengage with religious zealots as tactfully as possible so as not to become a target. These folks are not about love and turning the other cheek. They will do their damndest to ruin your career, reputation and life and feel justified in doing so under the guise of being a warrior for Christ and/or a Christian soldier.
Life in small town USA in the Bible Belt can be hazardous even to outsiders and newcomers who do go to church and who do try to "fit in".
As an "insider" in my hometown, I was once part of the crowd. I know that of which I type.
As an "insider", I was forgiven for being more liberal or a little "different", but there are limits even for me.
Friend TG, I am just now seeing this comment late Thursday evening around 8 Eastern. Thank you, and I appreciate your comment. I do understand the problems you express with some "Sold out" fundamentalists. (Smile.) Honestly, though I live in the West, I might can understand the 'pickle' these people find themselves in; scripturally told to "Go ye," and not understanding how their total immersion can make it hard for the people outside the faith to 'breathe.'
I rebuke such expressions and move on. As someone who routinely devours Atheists paraphernalia (including tapes by Robert G. Ingersoll) I understand what the "put-downs" are meant to convey.
About eighty percent of all Americans self identify as Christian though their ranks are divided into tens of thousands of denominations. Among those multitudes of individual belief sets are the fundamentalist evangelicals who believe in a "literal" interpretation of scriptures. Fundies are they are oft derisively referred to insist that biblical parables and myths of olde are historical record and they can trace the ancestry of man back to its beginning just a few thousand years ago based on biblical records of who begat whom. Literalist fundies openly advance bassackwards political views contrary to the interests of our modern open free society and our constitutional form of government. They propose we become a theocracy and that is why they are openly ridiculed by many. Fundies do not speak for mainstream Big C Christianity. Due to these fundamentalist zealots anti-American political ambitions they are scorned by much of society as small c christians whose ultimate plans betray unconstitutional aims and goals inconsistent with our free society..
The hardcore evangelical fundies have had an impact on how people self identify. Different polls have different results depending on how the poll is framed. Of course, you know this. It has practically become a pejorative to be called a christian exactly because fundamentalists continually make it so. Who would want to be associated with the flat earth know nothings posing as the authorities on all things Christian. I read the mean hateful demeaning ignorant comments of fundamentalists online and cringe to think anyone would think myself or my family was in any way in league with such ignorance and hate. The far right, the gop of today, has been parading around in Christ's cloak advocating for wars and for torturing people and for state sponsored executions and against helping the least among us in favor or giving more and more wealth and privilege to the already unconscionably rich and powerful which is absolutely contrary to the teaching of Christ and policy Jesus would have abhorred. Still most Americans celebrate Christmas and are if not in faith at least culturally small c christians and that tends to be how most self identify though that does seem to be in flux...
Nobody, I repeat, nobody in the US is being persecuted for Christian beliefs. The idea that there is some sort of a time limit on how long people will be allowed to profess belief in Christ is ridiculous. That a few nutter small c christians feel persecuted is almost funny except that those sorts of yahoos have a disproportionate amount of political power in by far the largest part of the land mass of the entire US. In any case, the premise of this article is bullshit. Nobody is being denied their personal beliefs no matter how irrational. The fundamentalists just need to get it through their thick heads they do not represent nor speak for the rest of us. People are increasingly frustrated with the far right fundamentalist zealots falsely representing what most of the rest of us really believe as that simply is not true. Still, the gop continues to abuse the names of God and Christ to advance ungodly anti-christian political policies and so more and more people do not want to be associated with that crap. Most of society want secular blind to belief equality under the law. The fundies want a theocracy. Fundies face fierce resistance in this regard. That is not persecution...
Isn't it "funny" how the Bible is literal to these fundamentalists until you get to Revelation. Then it's all allegory and imagery. The "Left Behind" books are a good example of this kind of thinking.
Are these the "institutions of higher education" that teach Creationism?
Tell this to the Jews and Muslims...
Christians elsewhere are being martyred... and you're upset about "Merry Christmas"? That's your standard for "persecution"?
Do you believe that God chooses the winner in all high school football games? Seriously? That's pretty demeaning, IMHO...
Why is this happening in school? I suspect that we're hearing only a small part of the story.
"Her" computer? Really? Or was it the computer that she uses at work,,, which belongs to the government and therefore should not have any religious texts on it. I'll bet it isn't actually "her" computer.
Same answer. A Navy hospital should be religiously neutral.
Ummmm.... Seriously? The guy has visions, and then he's surprised by ridicule?
.
The author is frankly ridiculous. His criteria for "persecution" are laughable.
LMAO!
I loved your line by line replies, but this was brilliant.
My cat is staring at me like there is something wrong.
My dog's told me that cat's do that because they are planning to eat you when cats take over the Earth...even my dogs are scared...just a warning...
My daughter's kitty snuck out their doggie door and slipped under their fence yesterday afternoon., She pranced back into the house 2 hours later with a dead bird in her mouth. That cat might be fixed but her hunting instincts are undiminished.
I suspect a bird ate my cat.....
suspected bird
I don't know, times are still hard for a lot of people, if you have other cats you should probably keep a good eye on them. I recall a bumper sticker on a van with which the owner stated they loved cats, they taste like chicken.
Between the coyotes, great horned owls, eagles and hawks where I live the cats have a rather high attrition rate. No wonder this last one always acted paranoid.
now that's funny
He was there after the resurrection? How old is this guy?
For info, another member has also seeded this same article.
Yeah....,but, I prefer calbab's.
I did not know. It would be nice if there is a way to tell. . . . I see it now. I got it up first: How RUDE!!! (Smile.)
Consider the source...
Don't worry, at least in your article there is room for actual civil discussion. Religious articles are not limited to the posting rights of only one person on this site. (smile)
Thank you, my dear Raven! I would so love to have conservatives here where I am - when I post articles, seeds, and other items of interest. Candidly-speaking, our conservative brothers and sisters lack of straight-forward interaction on my threads frustrate me, if only mildly.
You are most welcome. I am not affiliated with any organized religious sect, as I practice the religious beliefs of my ancient Cherokee ancestors. However, as Christianity play a large part in our world, I am not one to shun those who are that belief. I am mot happy that others find the fulfillment in their own lives in whatever religious beliefs they choose, as well as non-believers.
However, I have little patience for those who try to force their own beliefs on others, and condemn them for not adhering to their own beliefs. Whether or not we believe in a Supreme Being or not, we are all Brothers and Sisters of Mother Earth, and as long as we live with goodness and kindness in our hearts, and treat others with dignity and respect, that is what is most important.
It is what is in our heart that is more important than the mere words we speak.
Amen, Raven. It's funny. My 'brand' of Christianity is so good-natured. I am perfectly happy in a diverse setting of others who do not want to harm me or other people. My philosophy is to be the best me I can be; yes, simply radiate this. Diversity is real and its a true blessing.
It seems that there are those who simply can not accept those who are different than themselves, who do not walk in lock-step with their own ideals and beliefs, so they try their best to 'reform' them to their own image.
If diversity was not meant to be part of the human species, then we would all be clones of Adam and Eve, with the robotic way of thinking like everyone else on earth. However, that is not how human kind re meant to be, and it is a good thing or else mankind would never have progressed past the Garden of Eden.
And we must remember, that there is another entity that has power of earth as well, and that all things done in the Creators's name are not of His doing or bidding. Those who profess to be devout Christians who do not act in good faith toward their fellow man are not those who have good in their hearts. And the longer time goes by here on earth, the more active that entity will become, so those who are true Christians must always keep an open mind about whom they give their trust.
I agree wholeheartedly. We must allow people to come as they are in their own good time. God is perfectly able to save everybody! God is patience.
My confession: God waited on me for many, many, many years as we mortals count. Of course, in the view of eternity, my journey was merely 'a twinkling of an eye' of time. One of my first inner acknowledgements of Spirit is a realization; with God, there is no urgency.
Please explain this further . . . . I may agree with you after you do.
All religions are to be respected by the branches of government according to the Constitution they are to remain religion neutral, this is why there are more than one religion practiced on military bases.
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It was that way when I was in the service and, it should be that way now.
True.
America has no established religion. 1st Amendment to the Constitution. If any religion has texts posted, then all religions must have the same. Gonna be crowded.
The military has chaplains, who visit the hospitals, so patients get the care they want/need. Those chaplains, it should be noted, are of all faiths, and are required to give help to service-people of other faiths if a perfect match is not available.
So true.
Ok Cal, we'll allow you to be a Christian until the 2020 election. After that, we will require you to face reality and be an atheist. I hope this fits in with your schedule.
Oh my! (Belly laughter.)
Only in Theocratic nations are differing religions being persecuted.
In the West, especially the US, is christianity under assault and this assault is being waged from within, by the Money Changers and those who profess 'the faith' only to do the work of The Deceiver by fostering fear, division and suspicion.
Very true. Those who wish to deceive others by doing hateful and bad things to others in God's name are the ones that people should be very wary of.
“How long will I be allowed to remain a Christian?”
For as long as you care to, I believe.
As religion or the lack of it is a personal matter, all you ever have to do is look inwardly.
And yet the majority of the hard core Christians support a man in the White House that mocks all of their values.
The real questions should have been...
“How long will I want to be associated with those who call themselves Christians?”
The bar is so low it seems any neo-Nazi, KKK member, white nationalist right wing extremist can be welcomed in.
Anyone read Doonsbury 4/22/18? Perfect for this.
That was brilliant!
That really seems to reflect the truth in today's world. Not only do we need better leaders, we also need more people who are willing to think for themselves.
Perfect and spot on. Must be Trump's Pastor.
That fact is rather scary. We need rational people running our government, not delusional morons with a persecution complex who don't understand our constitution.
“How long will I be allowed to remain a Christian?”
In America as long as you want to be. Simple question. Simple answer. There is nothing complicated about this. Of course I wish more of them would practice what they preach, but as long as it doesn't affect others then that's between them and their imaginary sky fairy when they die.
Next.
"Imaginary sky fairy" is an expression used to mock others' beliefs and alienate. Friend Randy, the rest of your message I wholeheartedly am in agreement.
you should do some research on Fairies - they are even in Christian mythology as "demoted angels" plus there are other legends associating them with elements. Since they are unproven to exist or not exist - they do seem to fall into the same realm as your God: they are unproven either way and are worshiped by people in different religions.
a good statement - quite common with humans, humans mock many things they don't understand including religion, lack of religion, homosexuality, races, economic status and many other things.
If one is secure in ones belief system, no amount of mocking would matter or make a difference. If ones religion is worthy and righteous, others would notice by words and actions of the followers. Anybody can pray anytime, anybody can believe anything they want. Live your ideals and people will notice (in a good way) if you are truly living by your high standards. Here's the problem for today's christians. The ideals they now hold are not worthy, the religion is being blatantly used to manipulate for political purposes. Hell no.
i just stated that humans mock and gave examples of what they mock - you still seem to have issues with synonyms and take personal insult to them or maybe don't understand their usage/purpose in the English language.
well if you are insulted then in the words of a dear friend:
that's from 5.2.70, have a great day
you do seem dreadfully confused on the English language, i just stated:
and agreed with your singular statement of "they mock what they don't understand" - but i expanded upon it. I never mentioned anything about synonyms or anything else. thanks !
you also seem to be confused about the concept of "projection" (i didn't want to upset you and state something like "speculation", i understand you don't like synonyms very much)
i hope you enjoy your day too ! it's beautiful outside today where i am ! (hopefully it's finally Spring lol)
to "win" something ?? that's hilarious ! do we get a trophy or something for "winning" on here ?
tell me what i'm trying to "win" and what my "prize" is (i can't wait to hear this)
My understanding is just fine - you hate synonyms like "cult" because you feel that all these "heathens" (Atheists) are using it solely to denigrate religious people (even when your own definition you provided stated that using the word in that way is still "unclear") and you seem to think you know people's motivations better than they themselves do. Trust me, i get it - you laid it out nicely for everyone.
no trouble at all - i've already laid it out and you agree with it. you can't prove why you are offended, or even if the use of the word is meant to be offensive (your own definition stated "unclear" on usage) - but you are going to be offended and lash out on everyone else, expecting them to accommodate you and your feelings that you won't take personal responsibility for. I had a conversation earlier with someone about being offended and they laid out some great advice - please see earlier comments in this thread.
oh dear... you must have missed this that i posted earlier:
i could be wrong - it happens. So far it seems by your posts that i'm not wrong, but i don't know you better than you so i can't state 100% sure that i'm correct - and it doesn't bother me either
whether i'm right or wrong - please see above comment and try to make someone else happy, ok ? i'm already happy 
I understand the Christian faith and religion in general quite well. I mock what is patently illogical and too often hypocritical.
thank you for admitting you like to "pick-n-choose"
it's very telling.
I think Tex is of the church of "I must get the last word in no matter what"
oh dear.. you must have dismissed this too:
i reposted it for you (from 17.1.18) - it's tough having a conversation with someone who admittedly doesn't read the conversation and dismisses it but i'll happily repost anything for you that you may need
have a great day 
You have a firm grasp of the shockingly obvious.
I hope the creator of this discussion will allow this entertaining and somewhat relevant aside:
Inherit the Wind--The bible scene
I do not care, friend Atheist. It is all been heard, viewed, and discussed before. Fine by me. Incidentally, did you ever share the meaning of the Hebrew words accompanying your avatar?
It's such a great scene with amazing actors and performances in such a classic film, isn't it worth a regular viewing? As for the Hebrew, I thought I'd leave it unexplained for a while and see if anyone figures it out.
I 'plugged' the words into a translator (how I know they are Hebrew!) but, I could not make sense of what came back. So, I did try. Friend Atheist, as to the film, what is missing from such productions - if missing indeed - is any acceptance of a spiritual law laid aside of natural law. The truth is, many Christians inherit their faith from family background. An equal truth is many Christians 'encounter' faith through hard experiences in life. Lastly, many Christians are "called" into a lifetime of service to a higher calling. Such a calling requires guidance and that is where spiritual books come in. So what am I saying. . . that believers have answers within the framework of our faiths - it is not for everyone to understand, accept, for even we did not accept it before we became thinking believers.
I must stop here before I can not 'update.'
People are mocked, belittled and smeared for their hypocrisy, not their religion.
i would have to agree but i constantly hear the excuse "well, we are only human" when they are held to the religious beliefs/standards they profess to have - seems to be a convenient excuse and "way out" so they can constantly commit "sins" but still get an eternal reward later (if that's what their belief dictates, they do vary). (please note, i'm not stating that all religious people do this - just a general note for anyone who reads this)
Pray, sin, repent, repeat.
Yes, it does matter when they repent and then do the same sinful action all over again, only to repeat again. The sacrament of repentance isn't meant to just be a spiritual delete key so they can continue the very same immoral or unethical behavior. People are supposed to learn from their behaviuor and change for the better.
Can you find anywhere in my posting history where I said it was?
Nope, never said it did. I think you may be projecting here.
My only point here is exactly as I said - "People are mocked, belittled and smeared for their hypocrisy, not their religion." It doesn't surprise me that some people can't tell the difference either.
Are you suggesting that you do not have a problem with unethical, immoral and hypocritical behavior?
It does affect us all on a personal basis because of various public policies and the actions of public servants such as politicians and judges, among many others.
Sounds like you're a straight white Christian man who didn't give a crap that until very recently various minorities in your state haven't enjoyed the same rights you have. That's one of the blessings of privilege.
You mean like the right to marry someone of the same sex or of a different race, or the right of same-sex couples to the same spousal employee benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy? Seems like Texas still has great difficulty understanding both the 1st and the 14th Amendments which is why the federal courts always have to fix these things for you. Heck, your state still has a nutty Christian sharia law about sodomy on the books!
Texas wasn't just "one of those states", it was the named defendant and its sharia law was the reason for the case. Texas still refuses to remove that law from its books.
.
Note that it was the California state courts which originally struck down their bans on mixed-race marriage and same-sex marriage. Texas never accomplished anything like that on its own, it's always needed federal help for minorities to gain equal rights.
And it's not a coincidence that the confederate states which still had sharia laws against mixed-race marriage in 1967 were pretty much all the same confederate states which still had sharia laws against same-sex marriage in 2015. Bible-babbling is the other common factor.
.
Ummm.....your state has continued to slow-walk equal rights on this issue and has fought every step of the way, including such things as how those marriages are treated under state and local laws. Most recently your supreme court has permitted a challenge to equal spousal employee benefits to proceed (with that challenge being supported by the governor and Lt governor). The governor and Lt governor also supported the referendum which repealed the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. Equal rights for all just ain't in your state's nature.
.
I presume you still have all your other Jim Crow laws on the books?
This is a sensible law due to all our trees which have roots coming up under sidewalks making it treacherous to navigate in heels. The city felt it better to ban them though they don't enforce the ban. It only comes into question when someone in heels tries to sue the city after they trip and fall on their face that the City can point out they shouldn't have been wearing heels.
We also had a ban on ice cream cones but one of our past Mayors, a Mr. Clint Eastwood, campaigned on overturning the ban which he did when elected back in the late 1980's.
Most of the other California laws have remained because no one enforces them and it's more trouble taking votes to remove or change them than to just ignore them. I thought laws like "Animals are banned from mating within 1500 feet of a tavern", which must have been to prevent drunks from joining in, weren't needed any longer but apparently there are some up in the imagined State of Jefferson where the law is still desperately needed.
LOL....there's a big difference between generally applicable laws which are silly and unenforceable and the Jim Crow laws which target a particular minority for harm.....particularly when the Republicans who run your benighted state are still trying to enforce those Jim Crow laws (even after they were struck down) or trying to pass new ones. Abbott, Paxton and Patrick are even coordinating with anti-LGBT hate groups to try pass new Jim Crow laws and try to work around SCOTUS rulings which require equal treatment under the law (Texas never did understand or agree with the 14th Amendment).
.
And as far as whether defunct Jim Crow laws are harmful when they remain on the books perhaps you should ask the folks who were unlawfully arrested in Louisiana in the last few years......more than a decade after Lawrence v Texas was ruled?
On a related note it's still technically legal for Texans to rape their sheep as long as they don't do it in public, thanks to the Republicans who refuse to repeal or revise their sodomy statute because they hate gays so much. When they passed that anti-gay law in the mid 1970s it replaced the former ban they had on bestiality. Consenting adults = bad, the rape of animals = OK.
Heck....even effing Alabama is more enlightened than Texas on this issue. They finally banned bestiality a couple of years ago to the outrage of bible-babblers throughout the confederacy. There's almost no point anymore to going to Mobil for the weekend.
Actually I was just bitching about your false and ignorant claim up thread a bit where you said this:
.
The good news is that within a few years Texas will be a blue state and these things will no longer be such a problem. In fact even now the business community and the general public are far more liberal and enlightened than the dumb and bigoted right wingers who control the state government.
Ummm....those are your examples so you should feel free to provide relevant citations. But the fact that you cite them again proves that you still don't understand the equal protection violation caused by the Jim Crow laws your state and other bigoted states have passed (and are still trying to pass or enforce in the case of Texas and other confederate states).
No, I'm actually griping about your state's continued efforts to avoid court decisions for equality, and your state's efforts to pass new Jim Crow laws against LGBT folks. Apparently the confederacy lives.
Coincidentally your fellow conservatives in Louisiana are refusing to ban bestiality for much the same reason your state has refused to do so:
.
The phrase "dumb bigot" seems to apply very well to these Republicans.
Has anyone asked the Lousiana Humane Society for a response?
When was the last time that the state of Louisana prosecuted a same-sex or even heterosexual couple for committing sodomy?
If you read up thread a bit, the cops in Baton Rouge have a habit of illegally arresting gay men in sex stings.....and then the DA declines to prosecute because he knows Louisiana's sodomy law is unconstitutional. And then the cops do it again.
Texas had a habit of doing the same thing most notably with the Rainbow Lounge raid in 2009. That's 6 years after the Lawrence v Texas ruling.
And just before his run for Virginia governor the former AG, Ken KookiNelli, desperately tried to keep their sodomy law on the books and enforced.
The US attrony in the middle district of Louisana needs to step in and put a stop to this police abuse. I'm suprised that the cops haven't been sued for misconduct.
I live in the deep south. Stand anywhere round here and you can hit a church or a liquor store with a rock. You don't even have to chunk it very hard.
My guess is you can be a drunk Christian for about as long as you see fit, which is fine by me as long as you stay off my mountain.
I'll stay off yours. How's that?
Pretty much the same here in WI although I think the bars and liquor stores very slightly outnumber the churches.
True here as well. Though not by much.
How long you been Podjo's with a Pyr? I've had these fellows slobbering up my house and trucks, driving neighbors in the next county insane with their vocalizing, and white hairs on everything I own for 30 yrs or so. They are serious Pains in the Buttocks at times but I do dearly love them. Pyrenean Mastiffs as well.
Speaking of religion, that's about the only good thing I can think of to say about Billy Graham and his brood. They have had Pyrs around forever. That might be just enough to like em. If I knew em.
My avatar isn't a Great Pyrenees, that's my arctic wolf / siberian husky / white shepherd mix at about 12 weeks. He was taller and and a good bit longer than most Pyrenees I've met, but had a similar fur problem and was definitely the source of all the white hair in the house. I've had 4 hybrids since 1979, and these last two had opposite fur problems - the arctic mix shed constantly all year around, while my current timber wolf / malamute mix doesn't really shed at all so I have to shave him when his coat makes him look like an obese yak. Apparently there's a genetic defect in some malamutes which results in "wooly malamute" syndrome, where the triple coat interlocks like velcro. Worst Coat Ever.
Well, he is a handsome devil and looks like a mighty fine friend!!
His shnoozle looks suspiciously like a Pyrs. I do hope that I did not offend him in any manner by my most crude assumption. Please relate my sincerest apologies to him.
What's he weighing at 12 weeks?
My Pyrs have all been big ol boys. Wade Hampton, requiescat in pace, ended up weighing my weight. 165. He might have produced that amount of slobbery and viscous goop out of his pie hole every ding dong day.
Used to drive up to Wolf Haven in Wa State with my daughter years ago. Love those critters too. I'd love to see your pal. There is a reason dog backward spells....
"The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's." mark twain
165 is pretty darn big for a Pyrenees! I've been able to keep both of the last 2 hybrids very lean at about 100 lbs but they ran at least 3-5 miles each day (it's 9.8 miles around my block). The white one in question was over 6' tip to tail (he croaked at 7-1/2 a few years ago). He was easily the smartest and best dog I've had. His buddy the malamute mix doesn't even score on the same IQ test but is a real sweetheart and still going strong at 12.
I am sorry to hear you lost your pal. He sounds like he was a magnificent fellow. Wish I could have known him. For me the death of a dog buddy is a pretty powerful emotional smack in the heart to bear.
Pyrs, luckily for me, are quite lazy most of the time and not the sort of critter to particularly need to be around you 24/7. They "exercise" in spurts. 5 minutes usually does it for heavy lifting but they'll walk till they get tired and then they wont. It's either drag them home, pick them up or wait till they are good to go. Not the easiest dog to train nor the most mindful of canines. Stubborn and, at least the ones I've had, too smart for their own good.
The great grandpaw of my first weighed in at just a hair under 200 lb. Mighty big for a lap dog.
Here's hoping you and yours always have a canine pard beside you.
best your way.
Likewise - I can't imagine being without one! Here's a pic when they were being lazy while playing:
They're on a slope but this sort of shows the comparative size even though they're not nearly full grown here - the white one ended up 4" taller at the shoulder and about 10" longer overall, but the same weight.
Sounds like you are describing an Akita.
Well, they do give you wine at church. So....you might be on to something here.
Calling yourself a Christian does not make you one who is approved of by Jesus
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? Matthew 16:24-26
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:13,14
John 15:5-6 “Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers. Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned.
Howdy Pard.
Hope all is well in your neck o the woods.
"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven......The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable in taste." Mark Twain
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have take them at second hand from other non examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." Mark Twain
"Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in." Mark Twain
"Imagine the Creator as a low comedian, and at once the world becomes explicable" HL Mencken
"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right." HL Mencken
"Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love." HL Mencken
Hey Ho. Rock n Roll. Best atcha.
I like Mencken's libertarianism, but he was dead wrong about Evangelical beliefs.
Hatred of others cannot be found in any Christian teaching supported by the National Association of Evangelicals. Christianity is NOT about religion, it's about restoring a personal relationship with God.
Twain whom I also like was wrong about Biblical teachings. First of all, the Bible is silent on whether animals will be in the kingdom of heaven.
There is NO teaching in Christianity to murder others, including over religious differences.
An interesting claim given your support for Trump and your opposition to equal civil rights for gays.
Well, Pard, I have to respectfully disagree with your point of view here. And Ayn Rand and all she stood for is distinctly antithetical to Christ and his teachings. I'm not sure you can really be an Ayn Rand Libertarian and still get to say you are a follower of Christ.
I don't know what kind of evangelicals you support. There are the Trump supporting witless and small minded and then there are the sojourner/social justice evangelicals. The first group evidently likes nazis and such the latter do not. Remember what Dietrich Bonhoeffer had to say about that devil's brew? Which side are you on?
And, yeah, I realize Christ taught things quite differently than the apparent perception of the WandSME. Which is the point. All Religion, Christianity included, has cut a bloody and murderous swath through humanity over the ages. And, in the name of whatever god they adhere. The modern right wing evangelicals are cut from the same cloth.
Whether there are no teachings about corporatism, endless war, dogs, gay folks and anything else these folks are terrified of in the bible evidently makes no difference to their point of view. To argue that murder, torture and oppression has not and has never is a part of the religion is more about ignoring history that don't suite. If you catch my drift.
In fact I'm gonna have to go with Karl on this one. Though I must admit I am more of a Groucho than a Karl.
"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes"
best your way despite difference, affliction or affiliation .
cha togar m'fhearg gun dioladh
I like you.
As long as you want to.
Amen.
BULLETIN:
Peter of the Real Tea Party. I have been explained that I owe you something of an apology for I thrice removed your comment:
I found it derogatory and reported it - causing its screen collapse and removal. I am told that this is something of an internet 'tome' or something else that rages back and forth. Well, I thought you were defaming Jesus. So I acted in my capacity as author of the thread to remove it. I now know better.
I am sincerely sorry, Peter of the Real Tea Party!
I will not delete your replacement comment again should you desire to repost it. Of course, I adamantly disagree with the sentiment, but at least I will know you may have not meant a personal insult to believers.
I appreciate your comment.
However, I will note a couple things related to that.
A) I am completely entitled to defame Jesus should I desire to do so. Your opinion on that isn't relevant as long as I am on topic. Since the topic was centered directly around belief and the ability to maintain yours, and the comment I was actually responding to was lauding Jesus, it would be on topic regardless of my intent.
B) My comment was intentionally abrasive. The point was to drive home a point, which is that nobody can legit claim I am wrong about Jesus, using the logic that secures a believer faith in anything not represented by or founded in reality.
C) I see no reason to be offended by that anyway. If Jesus being gay is offensive, then people should re-evaluate the way they perceive things. I'm sure there are at least one or two closeted gays here who are religious and are shamed for being gay. Some might even take on a vow of celibacy in an attempt to "fix" themselves for all I know. But, they are still gay and in theory pursuing their alleged redemption. Maybe Jesus felt the same?
Peter loves the Real Tea Party do you feel you can rightly establish "gay" Jesus? Please proceed. . . . Or, maybe an article: If you build it - I will come! (Smile.)
I only really need the faith to believe.
Think of it Calbab, most men were married and, had children by the time they reached 18 years of age, Jesus was thirty when he started his ministry, he wasn't married, never had been married and, then there is this.
Jesus is said to have loved one disciple differently than the rest, not that he loved this one more, just differently, he is the disciple that Jesus gave charge to care for Mary the day he was crucified. It is said that he lay with this disciple as well.
I don't wish to kill anyones belief in Jesus or, in Yahweh but, there are things that even in the Bible, in the New Testament, that makes one ask questions about Jesus and, the relationship he had with his disciples, questions that put into question the ideas and, ideals held by Christians today.
this is a point that will fall on intentionally deaf ears and have no effect, but i definitely applaud the effort.
GMR,
This is interesting... You use the same technique ("take an innocuous factoid and read something into it that objectively isn't actually there") as the fundies... but for rather different purposes.
Why? What is your purpose in trying to "prove" Jesus was gay? Is that a good thing, in your eyes? Is it a bad thing in your eyes? What is your agenda?
None of the above, I am simply pointing out information that I heard somewhere at some point, probably on the History Channel in one of those stupid things about Jesus and, the times he lived in. I could care less if Jesus was Gay, Straight or, Bi, I have no interest in any of it. It was simply something that was asked of one poster to either prove or, STFU about and, I provided a little of what I had heard. If it bothers you, don't read it.
It's really just a curiosity given how profoundly homophobic Christianity has been ever since Thomas Aquinas, given that the mythology would seem to indicate that if Jesus actually existed he probably was gay. At least some theologians think so;
Not at all. I was just wondering what your purpose was.
None, apparently.
So. . .'bi-sexual' Jesus too? What about the mission of Messiah Jesus reportedly knew of since his childhood? What about OT Israel's law against homosexuality? You think Jesus removed OT civil law by conspicuously and flippantly breaking OT law?
Galen, this is important, though I will come off strong across the distance on this topic, I do appreciate you (and the others below) for broaching the subject. Respect! Now then. . . . (Smile.)
It can be called speculation, rumor, or innuendo. Sometimes it comes from cross-cultural lack of understanding; or, cross-eras use of terms. Anachronisms, and so on and so forth.
For example: David and Jonathan in I Samuel 18: 1 - 4 (Hover over link, please.)
What do you see? Lovers? Or, bonded brothers? Remember to 'dail in' to OT Israel culture.
As to Apostle John, "The disciple Jesus loved," . . . more later.
This literally applies to all things religion.
Wasn't this his M.O. in general?
The real anachronism in these discussions is the claim that biblical texts condemn certain sexual orientations, given that the concept of sexual orientation didn't exist in middle east or western society until the mid to late 1800s.
Your choice. It is undeniable, all systems have its perpetual critics. Just look at any and every form of government on Earth. ♪ That's the way of the world.♫
Jesus fulfilled OT Law during his life and ministry (by restoring it to its proper stance by pushing back on the "traditions" of men crept into the Law of Moses cross the centuries).
The New covenant came into actuality after his death, burial, and resurrection (in the form of a sect called, People of the Way, and ultimately, Christians).
Some systems are better than others, but you aren't wrong that every system has its issues and its critics.
Sometimes I just post things that have no "purpose" behind them except to get people to think.
I see things from a historical perspective, I know that back in that time period it wasn't unusual for soldiers to "lay" with each other in a Biblical way but, to have wives waiting at home for them and, rape wasn't out of the question when they took villages from the enemy, after all the survivors became slaves. What happened between David and, Jonathan is not really known but, I would say that they were good friends, it is possible with the court of Saul that there was some bi-sexual behavior, Saul didn't really follow what the Temple wanted at times.
So let me ask you this about David and Jonathan: 2 Samuel 1:25 - 27 (Hover over link, please.)
Does this strong expression of devotion voiced at the death of Jonathan signify same-sex attraction or friendship bonding (aka in today's world: "bromance")?
So when we read across the spectrum, comparing scripture with scripture we can get a fuller dimension of some biblical occurrences.
With this statement it can go both ways, he could have meant as a lover here.
I'm not trying to get into a tit for tat on this Calbab, if you want to believe that David and, Jonathan were straight good, go for it, it's your religion, not mine, the same goes for Jesus, go for it, believe he is straight, I DON'T GIVE A SHIT one way or, the other. All I did was post something that I had heard, if you want to believe it is wrong then fucking do so. I don't like to argue over religion and, I won't do it.
We are not arguing, Galen. Although if you, "Ctrl + F" this article you will find the "F" word used only once. I do not think I deserved it, for we were simply sharing together. No matter, I'll get over it. I have no choice.
Strangely god is also sure about homosexuality and gender identity but on other issues, they revert to "God works in mysterious ways" when things do go as planned.
It seems that their god's omnipotence doesn't apply to the US Supreme Court.
The person who assembled the Protestant Bible, King James was definitely a gay man.
Of the religions that believe in one God 100% believe that Jesus existed, however, two thirds of them believe that he was a prophet and, nothing more, not the Son of God or, the Messiah, it is the one third, the Christians who have come to believe that he is the Son of God and, the Messiah sought so long by the Jewish faith. I think that both the Muslims and, the Jews have a healthy belief about Jesus, you may question this and, that is your right to do so because, I don't follow any of the three religions, I do believe that Yahweh exists and, I believe that Jesus did exist, there is too much Roman history that has been written about such a man to doubt it.
Here's the difference in what I believe and, what Christians believe about Jesus, during the time that the Bible was being put together by a Roman Emperor and, Roman scholars, there was a belief in the Roman Empire of a god that was born of man, a woman was visited by one of the gods and, she produced a child who was like Jesus in his teachings, this demigod was thought to have been born during the celebration of what is called Yule, his mother became the goddess of spring, the goddess we call Oester. Why is this important? The Romans needed a way to understand Yahweh getting a virgin pregnant with his seed and, producing a Jewish child that was the savior of the world so, the Emperor had the scholars meld the two story's together to make it more "palatable" for the Roman citizens to understand and, accept. According to the records of the time, mostly Roman, the census that was taken at the time of Jesus's birth, that census took place in the spring, not in the winter, if it is true then Jesus was born in the spring, which would put his birth at the time of the Passover, this is why it was so difficult for Joseph and, Mary to find a place to stay, in their home town it would have been full of people who couldn't leave because of the rules of Passover, Joseph's family would have been at the family home and, it would have been crowded to the point where giving birth to a child would have been impossible in the home but, there were as in many homes of the time a stable close to the house, a place were animals could have been kept and, made clean enough to give birth to a child and, the women of the house would have been available to help with such an event. Anyway, this is the "new" belief in how and, where Jesus was born.
If you will notice the name of the goddess, Oester, that has become known today as Easter and, of course Yule has become Christmas.
Sidenote A) why would you of all people consider that defamatory? I understand that it's not what you personally believe but why would you have that reaction? It's like taking offense because someone observed that "Jesus" might be left-handed or have dark hair.
Sidenote B) I'm glad you recognized it was wrong to ask for deletion but why would any mod ever agree to delete the comment? That's moderation run seriously amuck.
Defamatory: adjective - damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libelous.
Considering we don't know whether Jesus was gay or not, it's hard to claim it "slanderous or libelous" which require the written or spoken claims to be false.
I think what he really meant was he considers claims that Jesus was gay to be "blasphemous".
Blasphemy: noun - the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.
It seems apparent that he was simply offended by comments he disagreed with made about something he considers "sacred".
Understood, but it just seems odd that someone who has been very open about the fact that he isn't straight would be so upset by that comment. I don't want to be too critical since I understand that religion can mess people up and make them self-conflicted but in this particular case it seems weird. It's also not exactly a new idea - I know that I've mentioned it to him before.
So I guess this would be a good time to talk about something that is still in beta.
We are testing a system where authors (people who actually write their own article), can delete off topic and no value comments and the mods can review and also restore these comments, if they have abused the privilege. We are working out some of the kinks. So in this case Cal made the call, and we reviewed it.
Thanks - I think I understand now.
Actually, what I said about the "good reputation" of Jesus stands. We can speculate until Jesus returns about matters the Bible is utterly silent on; such as what became of Joseph (the earthly father of Jesus)? Officially, we are not told what his life and end was. So, what useful purpose does it serve to spin his circumstances and whereabouts?
Indeed, it is a great many of just such 'tales' that form the basis for a lot of lore about bible personages.
Shrekk, I'm right here. So you can ask me any thing you wish! Depending on what it is, the time of day, and its relevancy I may answer your question/s. As to online psycho-analysis I would not recommend it for myself. (Smile.) By the way, are you a man or woman? I hope you do not mind sharing. . . .
That's why I asked. Your reaction seemed odd based on what I know about you.
.
Straight white guy who went through ex-Christian conversion therapy when I was 13. Can't you tell from my pic that I'm an extra white guy?
Hi Perrie! Since the new method was established it has been my norm to use the "moderator review" option in the flag options. However, I felt that I could handle it this time - for to me it seemed 'blatant.' Incidentally, there are "way" many choices under that flag that will collapse a comment! May be I, we, do not understand the intent of them all? I do not know. So, there is a learning curve.
As I stated to Peter, I own my misunderstanding of what he meant, my deletions of his attempts to post the same thing multiple times, and my private confusion over what distinguishes each flag choice (in terms or senting to mods or deleting outright).
As always much respect to our Hostess and this fine set of rooms! It's 'groovy.'
LOL! No, I am not the easiest guy to take a hunch. Even when it is right out there! "Ex-Christian conversion therapy" — Oh my. Welllllll, we're have to sat down and talk about that over internet coffee one day! It's not necessary for me, but I am all 'ears'! (Smile.)
Just like there is a bit of a grace period where new mods attempt to figure out how to actually be moderate in moderation, so too will there be a learning curve with authors trying to moderate.
One thing you can't ever do is personalize under those circumstances. You can't allow your own beliefs, political bent, etc...to have any impact on things when functioning with that particular hat on.
When you really cut through all the different types of flags and violations, at their core, most are obvious, and if they aren't, then you really need to consider not moderating, or as an alternative, offer a clear reason why and also request a moderator review so another pair of eyes can be had on the comment(s) at hand.
Typically, if we get 50 flags in a day (and we definitely get at least that many most days), the bulk will be from the same people, and will be false flags born from disagreements and an inability to actually debate. The bulk of legit flags are the same people saying the same pointed and personal things about each other, over and over, year in and year out. As we get new members, they also bring their grudges with them.
Anyway, if there is any doubt at all, then the best course of action is always to leave the comment alone (either temporarily while you consider the issue more, or permanently if there is no clear course of action). Additionally, a person can and should seek a second opinion if it's too sensitive to ignore, but there is still no real clear resolution. At least that way, you are guaranteeing that you are allowing objectivity to play a greater role than subjectivity.
Oh wow! I must have seen your 'handle' multiple times since I joined in October 2017! You are a site moderator and 'long-term' mod too! See? Well, there you go. My bad. It is my norm to give respect where respect is due. I could have come to you about the 'conflict' but it blew up in my lap! LOL!
I will not forget your status now that I, we, have weathered this mild conflagration together. Thank you, Peter Loves The Real Tea Party!!
Now then. . . .
* One more thing. You extended the term, "moderator" to what we who seed and write articles do out here with these "mod" tools. Hmm. I do not, er, have not thought of myself in this way. Probably, because I am a major component in the whole of what goes on with the articles I post. Hmm. Food for thought.
Interesting.
Well, there is no need to be overly nice to me
(I get that you are a nice person, I'm just saying.....).
As a participant in a thread, I deserve no special treatment.
Anyway, all that said, I appreciate the sentiment regardless.
I appreciate this time of sharing together. We're talk as your time permits about any and everything! I will heed your advice too! And, it is fair to know who the players are and what they bring to the 'table.' Respect.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING! This Article Is Now Locked. —Babs.