Envoy Says Trump Willing to ‘Stand Up and Push’ for Global Religious Freedom
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump is committed to pushing for greater tolerance of different faiths by governments around the world and dismantling an “iron curtain of religious persecution,” his envoy for religious freedom said in an interview with The Daily Signal.
“Most people in the world move by what their faith tells them,” Sam Brownback, the former Kansas governor who is Trump’s international ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, said in the interview.
“Much of the world — we’re looking at numbers now — nearly 80 percent live in a religiously restrictive atmosphere, so they don’t have freedom of religion,” he said.
But in the United States, Brownback said, “religious freedom is a foundational right, it’s a God-given right,” and “governments don’t have the right to interfere with it.”
“So we’re going to push on it,” he said. “And the reason it’s so important is it impacts so many people, and so few countries are willing to really stand up and push for it.”
Trump nominated the Kansas Republican for the job in July 2017, while he was in his second term as governor after a stint in the Senate from 1996 to 2011. He resigned as governor and assumed the ambassadorship Feb. 1.
Brownback grew up a Methodist, converted to Catholicism in 2002, and as of last year attended a nondenominational evangelical church in Topeka, Kansas, according to an article by the Religion News Service.
Brownback, 62, called the current state of international religious freedom “not good” for citizens of countries such as Iran who live in “restrictive atmospheres.”
“Unfortunately, I think the religious restrictions have been growing over the last 20 years,” he told The Daily Signal in the Nov. 30 interview. “There are places where it’s quite good. But the trend line has been against religious freedom.”
“Yet,” Brownback added, “I think [the administration can make progress] with the United States really leaning in on this, pushing on this, and then showing to countries, ‘If you want to grow, one of the key things you can do is provide religious freedom.’”
Iran’s Islamist regime is a sobering example of what people face in countries that actively restrict religious liberty, he said.
“In Iran, you get caught, you’re going to jail, or you can get a hand cut off, or you’ll be killed for practicing a faith that’s different than the dominant Shia religion there.”
Brownback said Trump has made international religious freedom a focus of his administration. He said the inaugural Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, a conference hosted by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, showcased the president’s commitment.
A total of 84 countries participated in the meeting, held July 24-26 in Washington, and the gathering included 1,000 representatives of civil society and religious groups, he said.
“I think what we found, because we did this on such short notice, is that we’ve hit a vein. This is something that touches a lot of people, and it touches them very deeply,” Brownback said, emphasizing that governments around the world not only have fallen short in providing their citizens with religious freedom, but also have taken steps to prevent it.
“Governments have been messing in this space in an increasing role for the last three decades,” he said. “It needs to stop.”
Brownback said organizers plan to hold a second international gathering next year and to set up regional meetings on specific topics in other countries.
“There are a number of countries who are stepping up to do this,” he said. “And my hope is, really, we can bring this iron curtain of religious persecution down. The same way as the Iron Curtain of communism came down, so you can get that burst of freedom as the world wakes up.”
Brownback said the release in October of Andrew Brunson, an American pastor held for two years in Turkey on terror and treason charges, showcases Trump’s commitment to religious freedom.
“He’s an amazing man, Andrew Brunson, and President Trump’s an amazing president,” Brownback said. “He, the president, Trump, got that done.”
Trump’s work for Brunson’s release was remarkable, he said, including tariffs on aluminum and steel from Turkey that “tanked” that country’s currency.
“It was gratifying to see an administration go to bat for somebody that was innocent, in spite of all the other equities and all the other relationship issues we have with Turkey,” Brownback said. “They said, ‘This guy is an American citizen being wrongly treated, and we’re going to go to bat for him,’ and they did. I was delighted to see him get on out.”
Brownback said his role as international ambassador-at-large for religious freedom has given him the opportunity to hear many stories of people like Brunson who are faithful even in adversity.
“You can elevate the topics, and that’s been very gratifying, but the most gratifying thing is when you talk with people that you help get out of jail,” he said, adding:
“The beauty of their soul that’s gone through such persecution just really grows my faith, because I look at that and I’m just so impressed with the peace and the joy that they have. You can’t counterfeit it. You can’t act this way. It has to be a real thing that flows out of you. And I get to meet people and work with people like that every day.”
Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program.
A version of this article previously appeared on The Daily Signal website under the headline, “Envoy Says Trump Willing to ‘Stand Up and Push’ for Global Religious Freedom.”
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
“A total of 84 countries participated in the meeting, held July 24-26 in Washington, and the gathering included 1,000 representatives of civil society and religious groups, he said.
“I think what we found, because we did this on such short notice, is that we’ve hit a vein. This is something that touches a lot of people, and it touches them very deeply,” Brownback said, emphasizing that governments around the world not only have fallen short in providing their citizens with religious freedom, but also have taken steps to prevent it.
“Governments have been messing in this space in an increasing role for the last three decades,” he said. “It needs to stop.”
Brownback said organizers plan to hold a second international gathering next year and to set up regional meetings on specific topics in other countries.
“There are a number of countries who are stepping up to do this,” he said. “And my hope is, really, we can bring this iron curtain of religious persecution down. The same way as the Iron Curtain of communism came down, so you can get that burst of freedom as the world wakes up.””
I look forward to participating in the aggressive and permanent rebuke of theocracy on American soil.
There has never been any real attempt at establishing a theocracy on American soil since we broke away from England.
I’m not aware of nor have ever met any Christian who wants a theocracy in America
left out of the project blitz loop because of age, what a pity. tough shit.
Just another Chicken Little afraid he will have to hear the word "God" or "religion".
Sad, isn't it?
shouldn't have to listen to bible babble in public. an obvious defect in the establishment clause.
Just look up David Barton.
You cannot be so uninformed to not know about dominionists? If one religion gets preferential treatment over others by the government by enacting laws that promote its beliefs that is a start down then road to a theocracy, even if they do not use that term directly. The Abrahamic religions all seek to enforce their beliefs with the power of the government. Why would any religious group oppose the strict separation of church and state or secular and religious equal rights for all beliefs if they didn't have a desire to create a country with an official religion? Many people claim incorrectly that the US was founded as a Christian country and point to the Declaration of Independence as proof.
Oh, please, report it to your local police that someone forced you to listen to something.
Should be an interesting case!
I’ve never met one in nearly 40 years of ministry. There are very few of them
What are your opinions of David Barton? Do you support the strict separation of church and state? Do you support teacher-led prayer in public schools
Me either.
Yeah, and I feel I shouldn't have to hear rap music--ever.
Oh well, we don't always get what we want, now do we?
I guess lack of intelligence among the religiously challenged must be why they can't apply that same principle towards pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ people then. Thumpers can piss unconstitutional dogma into the wind all they want, but when it flies back in their face in the form of public rebuke, it's their fucking problem and no one else.
Well, in you are being forced by the government to listen to rap music against your will...in that case what you should do is contact your representatives in Congress and ask them to rescind the law forcing you to do that!
Thanks--that's good advice if the government ever does something like that.
A giy that cheated on all three of his wives? Yea he is a great representative for Christians...
/s
Brownback and Tony Perkins are our representatives for religious liberty. Trump simply appointed them and stands up for religious liberty rights of believers. I’m glad he is taking that stand for us globally and using the power of American diplomacy and even sanctions to press for it for us.
if Donald Trump is the kind of person who you hold out to be a upstanding Christian then this country will be a much better place when none of them exist.
The seed is not about Donald Trump. It is about the goal of the United States to promote all religious freedom around the world. You will never see a world where none of us exist.
The title...
First line of the article...
But the article has nothing to do with trump? You're joking....you have to be.
Thanks for pointing that out
no different from the world wide radical muslim terrorist agenda
should be "Brownback said"
(7 times?)
Like his sanctions on Saudi Arabia? Thumpers only want religious freedom for fundamentalist Christians.
Which is ironic since he's no Christian
Welcome back. Your input was missed.
True, but fundies love him since he supports their bigotry and their fight against equal rights.
Thank you! Been busy ... and also don't have much patience for the few totally ignorant idiots on this site
How is pushing for global religious freedom exhibiting bigotry?
Great to 'see' you katrix.
There are always those who have 'odd' perspectives and/or are obnoxious. But our friends and other interesting people make up for it.
Great to see you again Katrix!
The so-called push for global religious freedom is complete bullshit. Where is Trump's outrage and sanctions against Saudi Arabia and Russia, two major violators of religious rights? It doesn't exist, because he's a toadie to both of those countries. And the only religious freedom he gives a crap about is that for fundie Christians.
As my post indicted, the bigotry comes along with the fundie fight against equal rights for LGBT.
Sometimes all the interesting people in the world can't make up for the ignorant, hateful crap a few folks spew now that my time is more limited! But I have missed most of you. Hope you have a great Christmas!
Same here!
Complete bullshit??
Wow... so much wrong in your statement.
Sad.
Pushing for global religious freedom sounds like an excuse for the US to intrude in another country's business where we don't belong. And yes, it is BS!
She sounds right on.
Likewise. Hopefully the Christmas season will offer you a bit more free time.
Nope Katrix - EVERYTHING WAS RIGHT in your statement.
She is.
So sad those fighting the constant persecution for their 'christianity', snort.
My "bullshit" comment was in regards to the joke idea of Trump actually pushing for global religious freedom. He's not doing that, or the "sanctions" that C4P wrongly claimed exist would be ramping up against Saudi Arabia and Russia. And clearly, Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about any human rights violations in other countries, or he wouldn't worship dictators the way he does.
Although the idea of our doing it is also bullshit, as gordy mentioned. The Trump base claims to be all about us focusing on America and not the world - unless it involves pushing the fundie agenda onto other countries, apparently.
So, what do you see as "so much wrong" with either of those statements?
It is pointless and foolhardy to believe that because something can't be done all at once, it is pointless to even start something.
Were civil rights improved upon gradually, or all at once?
Please keep your personal "feelings" about Trump out of it.
The article title states that Trump is pushing for global religious freedom, and I pointed out why his actions make that impossible to believe. It's a fact that he hasn't done a single thing about any of the countries whose dictators he kowtows to, who are horrible violators of human rights. My personal feelings about Trump don't change these facts.
I see some progress where you ignore it, instead focusing only on two or three countries.
Of course, some people believe some progress is better than none.
How does he stand up for them? What exactly does he do?
Russia is very anti-Semitic and Saudi doesn't allow Christians.
Yes-- Trump is, and always has been, a fighter for the rights of persecuted minorities-- for example, the rights of persecuted Muslims...both in the U.S. and worldwide!
(/sarc)
You will never see a world where none of us exist.
That’s probably true. Some of you are so brainwashed that you’d still believe in your version of god even if you met the real god (FSM).
Is the FSM your real god?
So, you aren’t an atheist after all?
I guess not. First there was nothing, but then a plate of pasta, tomato sauce, and meatballs appeared, kicking off the creation of the universe. Sounds every bit as reasonable as your beliefs.
It will be interesting to see what the beliefs of the worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Moster are? Care to elaborate?
It’s just one belief: God is a farce.
Believe in the FSM or you shall be boiled until al dente for your sins. We have sous-vide technology, so this can last a very long time.
I refuse to believe in the FSM.
But He boiled for your sins!!!!!
Guy....damn cell phone.
LMAO!
Damned auto correct... Turning good spellers into bad spellers since 1992.
What the title of the article SHOULD be...
Ask John Allen Chau what happens when you try to force religion on people who don't want it....oh wait, you can't, he's dead.
Why people simply cannot understand that forcing religion on someone else is a BAD idea never ceases to amaze me.
1. Trump doesn’t represent Christianity and I’m unaware of any Christians or Christian organizations who say so.
2. Trump has so far been the greatest modern American President defender of our rights as Christians and Jews and to promote the important historical role of Christianity for our nation
John Jay, Constitutional Framer and First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court , letter to John Murray, a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, October 12, 1816
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
President Harry Truman Speech on Our Laws
Address Before the Attorney General's Conference on Law Enforcement Problems.
February 15, 1950
The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.
Try reading the article.
Larry, he has paid off women he slept with behind his wife's back, cheated on ALL of his wives and admits he walked in and out of teenage girls dressing rooms. Not to mention he condones sexual assault. And you are saying, "Trump has so far been the greatest modern American President defender of our rights as Christians and Jews"?
Are you fucking kidding me?
The rest of your post.....we are talking about trump, you are in the wrong millennium.
I read the article and nowhere does it say Trump is representing Christianity. NO president represents Christianity
everything you stated was PRIOR to his presidency so it is meaningless in the context of my statement. His actions as president in policies, legislation, EOs, meetings with Christians and Jews, and official statements have been the strongest of any modern American president.
I stated that our historical values are framed by Christianity and the quotes affirm that position
And you stated everything in your posts very well.
Because it's not true - as much as fundies want to pretend it is. Ever heard of the Magna Carta? Paul was against equal rights... and where does Exodus mention bail and our three branches of government? The immoral bible is not the basis for the Bill of Rights, with its condoning of rape and slavery, murder of your neighbors, stoning of your disobedient children, and such. Rather, many of our laws codify actual justice and equal rights.
A few choice quotes,
Clinton = 9 accusers
Trump = 13 accusers.
Newp, pretty sure I was talking about the current president.
One question-- where can I get some of that stuff that you are smoking?
Hate crimes against blacks and Jews drove big spike during Trump’s first year in office
Reports of hate crimes jumped by nearly 17 percent during President Trump’s first year in office, the FBI revealed Tuesday.
The new data, gleaned from local police reports submitted to the Uniform Crime Reporting federal database, showed that 7,175 hate crimes were reported to the federal agency in 2017 and 6,121 such crimes reported in 2016.
The majority of reported hate crimes in 2017 included bias against someone’s race, ethnicity or ancestry, according to the FBI data, which also counts acts of discrimination based on protected statuses like gender, disability, sexual orientation and religion. Victims were most often black or Jewish, and anti-Semitic crimes rose 37 percent in 2017, data shows. The FBI did not immediately return a VICE News request for comment as to why such crimes have risen.
I believe it's:
Clinton = 4 accusers (there were other claims of affairs but only four women accused him of sexual misconduct)
Trump = 19 accusers
"Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by four women"
Here's a list of all 19 of Trumps accusers with their names and accusations made:
I was just trying to make a point...
what religion would that be? Greed?
can anyone here tell me with a straight face that they honestly believe that trmp is a devout, honest, Christian? That he really does believe that Jesus died for his sins?
Wait.....does trmp have any sins? He claims he never prayed to God for forgiveness because there's nothing to forgive
evangelical xtian support and association with trump will lead to a death spiral in the court of public opinion
To evangelicals and tRump - god is green and he folds
Tho one can be forced to be a Christian. It is contrary to all that Jesus and the Apostles taught. One can only become a Christian by having a since hearts desire for a personal relationship with Jesus.
Keep your Bronze-age mythology out of the government and out of the secular rights of everyone else. You might seek to be intellectually handicapped by religious beliefs but that idea is far from universal for everyone else.
How can you possibly have a relationship with something that you cannot prove ever existed? Your idea is the endorsement of a self-delusion.
[DELETED]
Your post is a sign of a transparent ad hom attack and an erroneous sweeping generalization. How many does that make now?
Sin is a Christian concept so do all non-Christians have a reprobate mind? Why should any person believe in a god when there is no evidence to even suggest that a god exists? Do you also believe in unicorns and leprechauns, despite the fact that they also don't exist?
Does the use of logic make a person untrustworthy?
From my point of view, why would I want to hire someone who believes in what they cannot prove? Prayer doesn't solve problems. I've never seen an equation with a god factor. What button is that on my calculator? How it is written in mathematical notation?
Removed for context
Isn't it rather strange how some atheists have no problem telling anyone of faith how illogical they are, and yet still vote for illogical people?
It's so funny how some people equate intelligence with being a reprobate - while worshipping the biggest reprobate of them all, and one of the most unstable - Depraved Donnie.
Fundies are far more likely to be reprobates - after all, anyone who isn't moral enough to behave decently simply because it's the right thing to do, but who needs threats and promises from an evil boogeyman, obviously has no innate decency. This is why so many fundies can't accept that atheists are decent people - they project their own lack of morality onto us. It's rather pathetic.
Hi katrix. Long time no see
Hi Gordy!
You have been sorely missed kat.
An atheist is a person who is not convinced there is a god. The lack of evidence is the primary reason.
You are tacitly arguing that belief without evidence - belief that something is true simply because another human being claims it so - is the act of a disciplined and trustworthy mind.
Your arguments are amusing ... that is the most positive comment I can make.
I've missed you guys! Commuting again .. taking care of Mom ... and having lots of fun with friends. I have to get to bed by 10 now, so no more hanging out online at night after I get home from whatever I'm up to.
At least you're here. We'll take whatever kat we can get.
John Locke was right about religious liberty and about atheists. Nothing has happened over the centuries to counter how correct he was about atheists.
Are you suggesting that non-belief should not be tolerated as part of religious freedom?
First of all I’m not a fundamentalist which is a small segment within the Evangelical movement
secondly you and others here lack a fundamental understanding of the Biblical meaning of reprobate. It signifies a person who is found rejected by God by reason of their rejection of Him
“Reprobation” is the term used to describe those who by default are left in their fallen human nature to sin and to be eternally damned. It can be the only possible consequence if, as Scripture declares, God has foreknown and chosen others to eternal life through His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:4-5; Romans 9:24-25). In Acts 13:48, we read, “And all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” From this, we see that the decree of reprobation is a result of unbelief or, rather, the decree of reprobation results in unbelief.
adokimos (Greek text)
(b) of persons, Rom 1:28, of a "reprobate mind," a mind of which God cannot approve, and which must be rejected by Him, the effect of refusing "to have God in their knowledge;" in 1Cr 9:27 (for which see CAST, REJECTED); 2Cr 13:5, 6, 7, where the RV rightly translates the adjective "reprobate" (AV, "reprobates"), here the reference is to the great test as to whether Christ is in a person; in 2Ti 3:8 of those "reprobate concerning the faith," i.e., men whose moral sense is perverted and whose minds are beclouded with their own speculations; in Tts 1:16, of the defiled, who are "unto every good work reprobate," i.e., if they are put to the test in regard to any good work (in contrast to their profession), they can only be rejected. In the Sept., Pro 25:4; Isa 1:22.
Your comments would be amusing except they reveal your choosing hell over a relationship with God. That makes them tragically sad
Threatening people with eternal damnation is just never going to have any effect.
If someone is not convinced that there is a God or is not convinced that the God character described by ancient men with pens and agendas is the 'real' supreme entity then parroting a threat drawn by interpreting those ancient words means absolutely nothing.
In other words, if one were actually convinced that a God (or a particular God) existed then one would very likely NOT choose eternal damnation. See?
Your ad hom attack (again) aside, what makes you assume someone does not understand the bible? It's quite arrogant to not only make such an assumption, but to also infer your "understanding" is superior.
When you prove there's a god, then maybe the premise of a god won't be rejected. Some of us do not simply accept baseless and empty claims without question, and certainly not without evidence.
What's sad is that you think some attempt at an appeal to emotion or similar such platitude actually means anything, especially to someone who thinks and analyzes things logically and critically.
I made no threat and your accusation given your rejection of the existence of God is a logical fallacy.
saying it makes me sad that you have freely chosen Hell cannot be considered a threat by any rational understanding of language.
if you are honest in this dialogue you would acknowledge that you have in all your past commentary denied the validity of the Biblical record declaring Jesus to be the creator God and the judge of all mankind. Therefore this most recent comment seems very disingenuous
I can only go by your response which indicated that lack of ubderstand. Or perhaps I misunderstood your attempt to seem ignorant of the term
Telling someone who is not convinced a God exists that they have chosen eternal damnation is in fact a threat of eternal damnation. But, as I noted (TiG @3.3.18: "means absolutely nothing"), the threat is meaningless unless someone actually believed in the God in question. Meaningless or not, it is still a threat.
Apparently you did not understand my prior comment. It is predicated on the fact that I am not convinced that a God exists who would damn people for all of eternity simply for not 'choosing' to believe. Here, read this:
Read the part in blue.
That's only your interpretation. I understand quite well. The difference is, I don't simply accept something without evidence or because it might be emotionally satisfying. I analyze things logically and rationally.
No, you just misunderstood. Either that, or you arrogantly assumed I would not understand.
Telling someone they're going to hell because they are not convinced or reject your claims of your god/beliefs, especially when you can't even substantiate them in the least, is a threat. At the very least, a thinly veiled one.
That's because there is no validity of such things outside the bible, which is a logical fallacy itself. Declarations alone are meaningless. If you were honest, you would acknowledge that your beliefs (and that's all they are) might be wrong.
No one is suggesting forcing religion on anyone.
No one is promoting war over this.
Did you not understand the article?
spending taxpayer dollars or using the government to promote a single religion is unconstitutional
So sue them instead of merely grousing about it on an internet chat room. Should be easy enough for you to prove!
After that, maybe you can learn the difference between promoting religious liberty and promoting a particular religion.
None of that will ever happen here.
I know.
But the Chicken Littles will always get twisted up over anything "religious"!
some thumpers seem to forget that true religious freedom is a progressive value, and has been for almost 400 years. when the thumper extremist version of religious freedom threatens to affect me or mine directly, rest assured that I will deal with it in the most efficient and permanent manner, and I'm looking forward to it. if and when thumper extremists grow enough fur to actually make their move in the US, they reap the whirlwind and deserve it.
AH!
Another keyboard warrior imagining things that aren't happening.
Stand strong against those imaginary dragons, o fair knight!
feel free to deny the continuous assault on the wall of separation by unamerican xtian extremists
I am as free to do that as you are to worry incessantly over basically nothing.
Indeed. Just remember state bans against same sex marriage a few years ago. Most of the arguments against SSM were religiously based. That's just 1 recent example.
I'm not worried, I'm anxious to watch history repeat itself with a few modern factors added.
O-k-i-e d-o-k-i-e then.
LMFAO!
I'm sorry that you feel equal rights and our Constitution are "basically nothing"
As I am sorry you didn't understand my position.
How am I supposed to view your position? Your response to devangelical's comment:
"feel free to deny the continuous assault on the wall of separation by unamerican xtian extremists "
was to tell him he's worrying over basically nothing. We see people like C4P and LFOD in here, providing explicit examples of how they want their religion to be codified into our laws, and to intrude in our schools and public grounds. We see how they want LBGT people to be denied the same rights the rest of us have. We see how they expect (and are working hard for) government to endorse their religion over all others. They fight hard against the separation of church and state, going so far as to deny it's part of our Constitution.
I get that you're not a religious extremist, but how can you not see what the extremists devangelical mentioned are attempting to do? To me, it's hardly "barely nothing" - it's no difference than if Muslims were attempting to introduce Sharia law. It's just the Biblical version instead of the Quran version.
We have a system of laws in this country that prevents the dire circumstances you describe.
What other posters say is on them, so please take up their statements with them, not me.
The mass hysteria over a relative handful of people is silly, to me. A complete and utter over-reaction.
We have a system of laws in this country that prevents the dire circumstances you describe.
Unfortunately, those laws aren't always enough. There's a constant (and sometimes effective, particularly in the South) effort to promote the teaching of the Christian creation myth as if it is science and deserves the same consideration as evolution. LGBT people are still being denied equal rights. And those are just 2 examples. It's not hysterical to acknowledge that these folks do continually assault the separation of church and state.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I.
And you have state senators like Jason Rapert who got a law passed in Arkansas to allow a 10 Commandments monument erected on state grounds, but gets pissy when ever somebody brings a lawsuit against it or tries to get equal consideration for their own monument.
There are people in this country who won't be happy until every single one of us bows down to their God and worships it in the manner that they choose. Jason Rapert is one of them. Google his name. It's enlightening
Katrix cited facts, not opinion.
Then you have people like David Barton, who purposely distorts history to promote a religious agenda and thinks the Constitution should be replaced with a bible.
Creation is science. Evolution is pseudoscience.
Has creationism ever been replicated in an experiment as reed for something to be proven true?
Are you afraid of them?
[deleted]
Still trying to peddle that nonsense, eh?
'tis the season...
More like year round.
I'm with you. Especially Islamic extremists. If I don't want Christianity shoved down my throat, I sure as shit don't want Islam shoved down my throat. Of course, they'll just take off my head, instead
As long as the evolutionists here use the term pseudoscience to censor the expression of the other sciences here I will be saying that.
As long as you keep believing creationism is a science, you will be wrong, and called out on it. It's clear you have no clue as to what science actually is.
What 'other sciences'?
When I and others note that evolution is the foundation of modern biology, that is not religious / irreligious posturing. It is not a platitude, a bumper sticker slogan or a desire that we really, really want to be true.
It is demonstrable fact.
The labeling of evolution as pseudoscience immediately exposes the labeler as one who either is entirely unaware of modern biology and the evolutionary sciences in general or one who is pushing an agenda with total disregard for truth. Of course that is what Young Earth Creationists must do because their fundamental beliefs are directly and thoroughly contradicted by multiple disciplines of modern science. To claim to be a YEC is to announce to everyone a total disregard for science. A declaration that a literal interpretation of a highly translated and transcribed ancient book will preempt anything contradictory that modern human beings have learned.
It is a staggering display of suppressed critical thinking.
It's also a display of willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
Wrong. I’m a Christian minarchist and do not believe in codifying my relationship with God.
I'm a Christian minarchist (a distinct type of libertarianism) who believes govt should be as small as possible. National defense, a uniform system of justice (court system), protection of creativity (patents), a uniform monetary system, and negotiation of treaties and trade. That is the legitimate function of our central govt. I oppose all drug laws, censorship, laws against prostitution, or laws on marriage and divorce. These are private moral issues and not the purview of government
Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning free will, human nature, and God-given inalienable rights with libertarian political philosophy. It is also an ideology to the extent that its supporters promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In contrast to the Christian left and the Christian right respectively, they believe charity and enforcement of personal-level morality should be the purview of the (voluntary) church and not the state. These responsibilities must not be abrogated, though any non-governmental organization (NGO) not publicly financed is free to pursue them as well.
Secular libertarianism, socialism, fascism, and crony capitalism are strongly opposed, as is theocracy. The latter does not include merely being influenced by Christian concepts; whereas in a theocracy, government derives its powers from a divine or religious authority directly exercising governmental control. The use of force is never justified to achieve purely political, social, or religious goals, but is reserved solely to uphold natural rights.
Sounds like a nasty bowel movement.
Name one SCIENTIFIC fact proving creationism? Just......ONE.
Evolution = science.
Creation = pseudoscience.
You have them exactly backwards.
[deleted]
The bottom line is that you don't seem to understand the difference between pseudoscience and actual science (or science in general for that matter). I also noticed you failed to actually address Frost's challenge. No surprise there.
[deleted]
[Meta, again...]
[Sweeping generalization including a CoC] to the [membership]
[More meta, off topic] and [no value.]
They're not censored. They're simply not being taken seriously, as they are not science and do not deserve to be regarded as such, much less taught as an alternative to science. It seems you fail to realize that belief is not the same as science.
You want your pseudoscience ID/creationism (that's giving them too much credit) to be taken seriously, then produce empirical evidence to support it. That's all. But since you nor any proponent of theistic nonsense cannot, then there is no reason to view them as valid points or alternatives.
You cannot censor what does not exist, despite your conspiracy theory. ID/creation science is a religious concept with nothing to support it other than religious belief.
[Meta comments (comments about the site] or [its members) are always off-topic.]
Is this the religious nonsense that you want to seed? Most of it is willful religious dishonesty trying to pass itself off as legitimate science. They misrepresent evolution and then try to claim that their religious beliefs are factual answers. It's the use of a strawman fallacy taken to the extreme.
The problem you're experiencing isn't that you can't access those websites and read all of their bull shit theories, you can, you just won't find it in any library under "non-fiction" and you won't find it on responsible websites debating "non-fiction". If you want to debate fantasy such as Harry Potters wizarding world, there are places where all sorts of fantasy opinion is welcome, as there is with bible websites such as the ones you mention. Fact based sites that present actual tested science shouldn't ever have to humor religious opinion being presented along side it as if it's an actual evidence based alternative.
So go, debate your fantasy with other religious fantasy roll players till you're blue in the face, but don't bother trying to pass it off as fact, you're only going to be disappointed.
You can put it under the opinion section. I don't think there would be a problem with that.
As opposed to your usual pure unadulterated BS!
You make it sound like that's a bad thing. I would wear that particular label with pride.
Which means very little!
Conspiracy theory nonsense. But if you think you're being censored or whatever, then you are free to go to another site and peddle your usual BS. I'm sure you can find a religious based/biased site which would eat up your nonsense like candy. Otherwise, all you're doing here is whining.
Maybe Heartland-forPalin-doesXXX could create his own private forum and post his religious claims there.
I haven't seen this much purple ink since a Prince autograph signing session.
Tell us how you really feel........................
Chou wasn’t going to force anyone to do anything. He was there to provide information so that people could make their own choice. Spreading the information about the good news of salvation , the gospel is not forcing anyone to believe or convert. It’s simply providing people with a choice they can freely make one way or another. The envoy has a mission to protect minority religions and establish tolerance for differing beliefs in every nation. It’s not at all about trying to force people to become Christians as you well know.
He broke the law thinking he knew better than the people who inhabit the island because he thought God wanted him to......God showed him what he thought of his plan.
He’s hardly the first to be martyrd for trying to reach out to people in previously unreached areas and he sadly won’t be the last. But the effort to get the gospel message out to all the people of the earth then living so that at a future point every living person will have heard of/ become aware of that salvation message and the opportunity to say I believe or I don’t accept will continue no matter what, come what may.
he rang the wrong doorbell and got what he deserved. god's will be done
Do you have an idea of how many Christians broke the law smuggling Bibles and other religious material into communist countries during the Cold War? Or are still doing it even now in the remaining communist nations? No one ever said that getting the message everywhere would be easy, though with short wave radio, satellite TV, and the internet it is possible to win believers in some places where sending a live person into would be difficult like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, China as presently run among others.
Any concern for the physical safety of his intended audience?
Good for them, if one has a death wish follow what Chou did but don't say we didn't warn you.
There are areas of the world that once were very difficult and dangerous for Christian missionaries but they went anyway and the places are now overwhelmingly Christian. No one said that it would be easy and our God told us we’d be hated for promoting His word.
Is there a legitimate reason why the audiences of such outreach should have to fear for their physical safety?
From Mr. Frost's link:
So christians are above the law....NO trespassing means NO trespassing....Keep OUT means keep OUT.....
And if an individual has a no trespassing sign or no soliciting sign for their personal dwelling, we comply with it and move on. No big deal. They can be reached by tv, radio, the mail or another means.
Why is it that you cannot respect others views and stop trying to convert them? You hate it when others demand equal religious rights but you just can't stop harassing others as a way to convert them. Do you think that the laws do not apply to you because of your religious beliefs, or do your religious beliefs supercede secular law? Is the concept of the Golden Rule foreign to you?
If others want to research Christianity and possibly convert it is very easy to do so in the US because of the internet, smartphones or libraries!
But not if they live on an island where it's illegal to travel, and where the natives don't use "no trespassing" signs, but arrows.
He said that they do not go where it is posted for no trespassing and the like, so what law are you. Thinking that they are breaking?
I have a "no soliciting" sign on my door and yet those bible nuts knock on my door and leave their literature once a month. I asked them about it once when I was outside while they were canvassing on a Saturday morning and they said that they aren't solicting but they are trying to save me because I am a sinner. This dipstick tried to claim that "No Soliciting" signs only apply when they are trying to sell something in exchange for money.
I rolled my eyes so hard I saw the back of my head. My hair looked amazing that day.
Dammit, you almost made me choke on a carrot!
Was Keep America Great one of those that approached your door? Does one person doing something questionable mean the entire group is guilty of that offense?
Except we've been discussing a case in which they did, in fact, illegally go where he wasn't supposed to go. It had fatal consequences for the trespasser.
I didn't ask their names and they weren't wearing name tags, so I wouldn't know who if it was him. I might be able to identify them in a lineup, so if he could post a recent picture I might be able to say Yes or No.
I'm sorry about that. My sarcasm comes out when people say something incredibly stupid. I would slap them but that isn't as PC as sarcasm.
Don't apologize. The laugh was totally worth it!
That did not stop you from making the accusation.
No, I didn't say that the bible dipsticks at my door were Heartland-for-Palin. If you go back and read what I said that I that I do have a No Soliciting sign and these dipsticks ignore it because they don't believe that it applies to them. Heartland' claims to be in NorCal but I live more than 2000 miles away, so unless he is more determined than even I give him credit for being it isn't very likely that it was him.
I wasn't intentionally trying to be funny but I'm glad that some people appreciate my sarcasm. I can have a meaningful conversation with my BF just in sarcasm because he is also fluent in that language, but most people just cock their head like a confused puppy and look at me strangely when I let my sarcasm out to play.
It’s what secular progressives do.
I really and actually do live in Redding which is in far Northern California. https://www.visitredding.com/mobile/
Which of my secular Humanist beliefs do you disagree with? I assume that you disagree with the concept of strict separation of church and state and guarantreed equal religious and secular rights for all people.
My son and I joke that our primary language is sarcasm. Mine is more subtle than his, but I trust that time will refine his technique.
How far is it from Redding to Akron? I-80 is probably the fastest way.
Except, as epistte pointed out, she didn't. arkpdx made a false accusation in his eagerness to accuse epistte of the same.
When I do outreach locally be it for religious or political beliefs if I see a no trespass sign on the yard I leave whatever I have on a vehicle parked on the street in front and not enter and if there is a no soliciting sign I don’t ring the bell or knock. Just leave what I have and walk away.
You're a good mom.
My daughter understood mine but she wasn't fluent. She did learn how to troll males in engineering from me because when people meet her they don't expect that she is a degreed engineer and they try to BS her, until she decides to break out the geek. She laughs when they have to backtrack and pick their jaw up off the floor.
I can flirt with my BF purely in sarcasm and it seems perfectly natural. I'm a football widow this weekend because he is watching college/pro football with friends.
Do you have any idea how much it pisses most people off to have a piece of paper in which they have no interest (hence the "no trespassing" sign) stuck under their windshield wipers?
For me, if it's an ad for a business, that business goes immediately on my "not if they were the last company on Earth providing that service" list.
I have a nasty habit of putting those fliers in an envelope and sending it back to them postage due.
People who leave religious literature on my door with a SASE envelope get either Monolopy money or a photoshopped $20.00 in it.
You said:
To which I replied:
You never answered this question. Please do so now.
He also said that they don't knock on the door but they do leave literature, despite the sign.
And you still refuse to answer the question.
What question am I refusing to answer?
Is this fun for you because I find it to be quite annoying.
This question
I am nowhere near annoyed but I am a bit bored .You are giving me something to do
We are of course breaking no law. We don’t enter no trespass properties and we don’t solicit where sign says not to. They won’t be happy until they get a free speech ban and make religious speech unprotected by the 1st amendment.
The No Soliciting sign means that we don't want your stupid literature either. Go pester someone else and don't come back because we also have property rights.
Do you always need to feel persecuted for Jesus? Who has ever tried to restrict your religious beliefs or your free speech rights?
The no soliciting is as if the person wasn’t home, Just leave it on the door knob or in the door frame and leave only without knocking . I’m a bit shy and prefer it when no one is home. Just leave it and be on my way to the next house or apartment.
Did it ever cross your mind that if the person went to the trouble to put a No Soliciting sign on their door that they don't want religious literature either? Maybe you should stop trying to knock on doors to convert people? I find it to be extremely arrogant for someone to knock on my door or to leave literature informing me that I am improperly praying to a sociopathic sky fairy and that I should convert to the religious beliefs of a busybody who doesn't know well enough to leave others alone?
I feel the same way about people knocking on my door as I feel about telemarketers. I could easily adapt a few destructive mechanical testing machines to be used as torture machines for telemarketers as a way to punsh repeat offenders, but both the UN and the Geneva Conventions have rules strictly prohibiting that possibility.
And for every person like you there are ten others who are interested or happy to have someone to talk to about an issue or question they have or have something that they’d like to have a prayer over. It is not arrogance to be a part in any small way of the great commission.
How do you know this? Why would anyone have a serious discussion with an anonymous person dropping off religious literature door-to-door?
More people are leaving the church than joining because of the actions of conservative religious people.
It's arrogant to think your way/beliefs are the best (or only) way or to think others might or should be interested.
I only present what I believe in. It’s an option those who see or hear it can accept or reject on their own. I have no interest in forcing or coercing people to believe as I do, only to let them know what it is that I believe and let them make their own informed decision. Many here it seems want to prevent others who don’t know from ever finding out so that they have no opportunity to make such a decision.
Yeah, never mind actual facts or evidence, right? You seem to think mere belief prevails over fact. Belief does not equal fact.
It's dishonest at the very least. You present something that is at best with questionable credibility and at worst, an all out lie or falsehood. Then you clearly advocate for such a position regardless if actual truth or fact is established or not, while at the same time exposing your own bias in the matter.
Some here prefer others think rationally and critically and not succumb to emotional appeals or rhetoric, especially when evidence and proof is utterly lacking.
How so? Has anyone advocated for closing down churches? Executing pastors? Burning Bibles?
By wishing that they could prevent various or even all forms of proselytizing. Without that, many who might have learned of the message may well not.
Keep the religious proselytizing to private property where it is constitutionally protected.
I doubt that there is even 1% of the population that is unaware of the Charlatan religion.
A few on the subject of pushing your religion on others,
Nobody has advocated for that, that I've seen.
freedom of religion is not confined to private property
like free speech... not matter how much you want to?
you can not remove freedom of religion from the public square.
cheers
And that’s the bottom line. Religious speech and expression is just as protected by the 1st amendment as any other form of free speech is.
You do not have free speech rights on property that is owned by others. The right to harass and proselytize to others on their property is not protected by the Constitution. People need to learn to keep their religious beliefs to themsleves. If you want to convert people I suggest that you do it by not being a religious hypocrite and instead act like Jesus and not either Judas Iscariot or Caligula.
never said we did.
the public square is not private property.
is this the sliding conversation technique again?
Or moving the goal posts.
Do you think you have the right to litter my property with your silly literature?
It's hard to understand anything when someone never actually takes a position in the first place.
This comment was not to any of my friends here
[deleted]
[deleted]
removed for context
TG, I made no threat and your accusation given your rejection of the existence of God is a logical fallacy.
saying it makes me sad that you have freely chosen Hell cannot be considered a threat by any rational understanding of language.
if you are honest in this dialogue you would acknowledge that you have in all your past commentary denied the validity of the Biblical record declaring Jesus to be the creator God and the judge of all mankind. Therefore this most recent comment seems very disingenuous
Saying you're "sad" because you believe someone has chosen to be tortured and tormented by your God by not following your interpretations of a 2000 year old compilation of letters put together by a Roman Emperor 300 years after the events, is an implied threat.
If I told you that I was sad you'd chosen to oppose the FSM because you're not doing what I told you the FSM wants of you, and if you don't do what I tell you the FSM demands, you're going to spend eternity being anally raped by a giant noodle, that would seem to be a bit of a threat. No matter how sincere I was at being sad by the thought of you being bent over and just deeply reamed, over and over, by an impossibly thick noodle, it would still seem to be a threat on the face of it.
If you are honest in this dialogue you would have to acknowledge that you have in all your past commentary denied the validity of the noodle record declaring the FSM to be the creator God and the judge of all mankind. Therefore, your most recent comment seems disingenuous.
I know of no Christian who would feel "threatened" by that example. Some may indeed laugh at it, but threatened?
Whoo boy!!
LMAO!
Wrong. The Bible is true because God came to earth in the flesh as the man Jesus. He declared these judgments so it is for everyone to make the choice of believing or not believing Him
and your characterization of how the Bible was established is completely erroneous. I have to leave for a meeting but will return later.
Well, I know a few who might feel excited about it like Denny Hastert, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig...
And yes, it was intended to point out the ridiculousness of the hellfire threat, but if there was someone who truly believed you're going to be raped by the FSM if they don't convert you then they are using that as a threat, just as LFoD was using his supposed "sadness" at others torture at the hands of his supposed loving God to extort compliance.
In effect, your claim is that the Bible is true because the Bible proclaims itself to be true.
I have never, ever, not even once in my entire life, felt "threatened" by something I don't believe exists.
I kind of feel sorry for people who do feel that way, because it isn't logical, right?
"The First Council of Nicaea ( / n aɪ ˈ s iː ə / ; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa] ) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Bursa province, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325."
"Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones." The emperor was present as an overseer and presider, but did not cast any official vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate."
"With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom".
Neither have I, but does that mean the intent of those proposing torture or torment isn't a threat? Just because you don't believe in Allah, does that make a terrorists threats of damnation any less a threat?
If anything it's downright rude and insulting
Of course it does.
No credible, rational, logical person should consider it a threat if they don't believe in Allah.
The terrorists may do things that are threatening, or hurtful to others, but I don't fear Allah at all. Do you?
How can you credibly claim fear of some threat when you don't believe the entity who could dispense such punishment exists? That isn't logical!
I'm not. I'm not afraid of you, LFoD or any Gods you may believe in. May any of your empty Gods strike me down this instant if they're real.
The original comment was:
"Threatening people with eternal damnation is just never going to have any effect. " TiG
then:
"saying it makes me sad that you have freely chosen Hell cannot be considered a threat by any rational understanding of language." LFoD
I simply pointed out that it is a threat regardless of whether it's an expression of sadness or whether or not the recipient of the threat believes in the possibility of actual torture at the hands of an unproven invisible wizard.
I am glad you aren't scared.
Because there was no threat.
LFOD never claimed he would have anything to do with it, just what he considers the possibility is that the God he believes in will do.
That isn't a threat.
By any stretch of your imagination.
"Your comments would be amusing except they reveal your choosing hell over a relationship with God" LFoD
"Threatening people with eternal damnation is just never going to have any effect." TiG
So TiG was saying, in general many Christians use, as LFoD just did, the threat of Hell (which we all know what that implies) as a tool or threat to get someone else to change their position.
Saying "Well we wouldn't want anything bad to happen to those who stick their noses in other peoples business, now would we?" is definitely a threat even though it never directly said "I'm gonna punch you if you don't get your nose out of my business.". It is an implied threat, and LFoD did imply that TiG would be tormented for eternity if he didn't stop "choosing hell" by having his own beliefs.
Yahweh sure is touchy about having a relationship with Him. Rather than condemn us to an eternity of damnation why not provide a little evidence? Expecting modern human beings to all accept as true -without any evidence- the writings of ancient men or else be eternally damned seems a little over the top to me.
I did not state that LFOD personally threatened me. I stated (correctly) that what he wrote was a threat.
I am well aware that LFOD does not think he can condemn me to eternal damnation.
On second thought, not so sure. 😉
Yup, same here. And if you read my comment you would see that I made that crystal clear.
That's nice. Prove it!
For anyone not believing on God, how can Hell be a threat or even possible?
Only if you can concede that such a punishment is possible would you be able to claim it as a credible threat.
A threat can be raised without the person being threatened.
Even if the person is not threatened (as in this case) the threat itself still exists.
Come on Texan, this is not complicated. What is the point of this silliness?
I did read your comments.
And that is why none of my comments were directed to you.
There is and was no threat. From what I can tell, you don't believe in God, and I have yet to meet someone who didn't believe in God who believed in Hell.
It is like me telling you "I'm gonna send you to the moon!"
We both know it isn't going to happen, so no threat.
But if you read my comments you would see that this debate over the concept of a threat is pointless.
See? You say you read my comments yet the basic idea does not register.
It IS pointless, and wrong. There simply IS NO THREAT. I don't care how it gets spun, there IS NO THREAT.
Period, end of discussion.
Not a threat?
LOL! I loved that show!
Great point well made. You are exactly right.
An"empty threat" is still a threat.
It is interesting that those who don’t believe God exists or deny that he does or know that he does and hate Him are all worried about their eternal fate yet if they truly believe He doesn’t exist there would be no afterlife for them anyway.
Your understanding of atheism is profoundly flawed.
As is his understanding of science.
Who's worried? I just challenged any of your empty powerless weak Gods to strike me down if they're real. I'm still here. It's apparently very hard for conservative Christians to see the difference, but whether someone was making threats versus someone feeling threatened are two completely different things.
And why would anyone hate something they don't believe in? Do you cry yourself to sleep at night because the tooth fairy didn't bring you any money even though you've lost all your teeth so now you hate her? It's a ridiculous statement. What you perceive as "hate" of your God is nothing but the annoyance you feel coming from those who are sick and tired of Christians trying to tell them what's fact and what's fiction. They proclaim all other religions as fiction but propose their own as fact even though they have the EXACT same amount of evidence proving their religion as every other religion on the planet does, that is, none, zip, zilch, nada, bupkis.
Christians telling other people they're going to hell if they don't act in accordance with the morals they've been told are in the bible (most haven't read it) is a prime example of a Christian making a threat. The other people who are told they're going to be tortured and tormented for eternity can either accept that threat and accept some other humans beliefs and thus change their actions based on that fear instilled in them, just as LFoD was trying to do with TiG. That is his ultimate goal, otherwise why would he even mention hell when debating someone he has a difference of opinion with? If he didn't intend it as any threat that could lead to action he wouldn't have said it. It also likely gave him some mild satisfaction as he faked his concern telling TiG he was sad for him because he was imagining TiG being brutally tormented by devils and demons when he said "Your comments would be amusing except they reveal your choosing hell". It's a way conservative Christians can be smug and walk away from a debate they lost, they just imagine their opponent that just creamed them with logic and reason being brutally stabbed with pitch forks or being roasted on a spit by some goat hooved devil.
So what's truly interesting are those who believe in God and claim to be righteous but constantly judge others, threaten them, discriminate against them and attempt to prevent those who don't share their religious convictions from having the same rights as they enjoy.
I find it rather humorous that because God doesn't strike you down, you take that as evidence He doesn't exist.
Have you ever thought that God lets heretic alone so the rest of the world who believe in Him can see his generosity and good spirit?
Or maybe you have given up on God, but perhaps He hasn't given up on you.
I'm not presenting that as evidence he doesn't exist, I presented that as evidence I don't fear your fantasy, which is what HA's claim was.
Why would God ever want to punish someone for simply, honestly not thinking He exists? Why would it bother God at all? Do you think God has low self-esteem or something? If I ever stand before God on judgement day, I will explain to him exactly why I never thought He existed, and I don't think He will punish me for it at all.
Your actual words tell a different story.
I didn't claim God wants to punish anyone.
I don't think it would bother God at all.
I don't think God has an ego or any self-esteem issues.
Good luck with the last part.
A threat doesn't have to be credible to still be a threat. It's simply an empty threat.
To an atheist hell is no threat because after the judgement and the fire is out, the ones not saved and in heaven will simply cease to exist and there will be for them no afterlife as they always believed would be the case anyway. And those who are believers will get the afterlife that they always believed would happen.
You are wrong. The threat of hell is meaningless to an atheist because hell doesn't exist. There is no judgement or heaven and there will be no rapture.
Woulds it be superfluous to notice the circular reasoning, or is that already obvious? You need 3rd party evidence of proof to be true. A claim is not true because someone believes that claim to be true.
So, no real threat, nothing to get all upset over.
Interesting how you can be so certain of future events never happening and that there isn’t a certain place some thousands to millions of light years away from here. The eternal destination of all humanity is based on faith or a lack there of. Those who deny all will ultimately achieve their claim that there is no afterlife for them.
To anyone with a rational mind, hell is no "threat" since no such thing exists.
Key word there is "believe," as in that's all it is and nothing more. But whatever makes you feel better I suppose.
Funny how you say that, and then follow it with this:
So what makes you so certain of such an event? Where is your evidence or proof to support such an assertion?
The threat is still there. It's just meaningless. And who says anyone is upset about it? I find such threats of hell to be utterly laughable. You might as well say Zeus will cast me in the pits of Tartarus (which the Christian version of hell seems to borrow heavily from. Coincidence?). It's no different and just as laughable.
Your reply is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Where is your proof that Hell exists since you are the one who is claiming that it is an actual place? I assume that you remember the 50 previous times that I have explained to you that the burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim that something exists. You can imagine what Hell may be like and I'm certain that you believe that it exists but belief and proof are 1000 light years apart logically.
Sure a lot of talk from people claiming that the "threa"t is no big deal.
Indeed there is. They seem not too be so sure of their position. The idea of a judgement where lives pass before the eyes of the non believing lost where they see every opportunity they had to change their situation and bow down before God while facing the New Jerusalem admitting He was just and seeing the afterlife that they denied would exist before them and then God granting them their wish to be separate from him and have no afterlife. God will just be giving them what they always believed and wanted others to believe, no afterlife.
You presume too much.
Nothing more than emotional rhetoric and meaningless tripe. Funny, but not surprising that you can't prove any of that, much less that your god actually exists.
Does a threat need to be a big deal to be a threat?
Don't see where anyone claimed it did.
But an inordinate amount of time and discussion spent over a "threat: no one is taking seriously.
Have fun with it, I am done with that.
It’s interesting how a seed about our President protecting the religious liberty of people here and advocating said freedom for all believers abroad to avoid persecution here or there turned into a threat to non believers who wish that they could persecute believers here more as well?
It isn't unexpected.
what an ironic comment !
interesting how you can be so certain of future events happening and that there is no chance of them actually not happening at all.
The bottom line well stated.
Sorry I missed your comment earlier. It is so right on and correct in every way. Thanks for your very good contribution to this seed.
Remember that the seed is about our efforts through the President and his Ambassador to promote religious liberty and religious freedom all through out the world. The seed really had nothing to do with heaven or hell in the afterlife. It is all about the rights of minority religious groups to freely worship according to their conscience regardless of what the majority or even state religion might be.
Speaking of which, Iraq is now taking steps to protect its Christian population and has now made Christmas as national Holiday for all of its people.