One question for Christians and one for Muslims neither can answer

.

 

There is a good answer to both of your questions: god works in mysterious ways.

 

That works for me, but be advised that if you continue to talk nonsense I will answer it whether you see it or not. You atheist types with your faux outrage over your own made up theology bores me to tears, anyway. But you gave me an idea: at some point I want to start my own microbrewery. A while back I heard about a hard cider called "Angry Orchard", so I am going to call my first beer "Angry Atheist Pale Ale" - nice and bitter...

 

Its not quite so simple. Theres at least two distinct groups of Atheists- those who don't believe in god, and those who do believe that there is no god.

The first group cites a lack of proof as the basis for their lack of belief - fair enough.

The second group cites a lack of proof as proof to the contrary... a decidedly falacious equation. Imo they're not Atheists, but rather Antitheists... but w/e, they can call themselves what they wish.

 

This is just one example of the fact that God does not protect us from the ramifications of our acts.

I'm certainly not a Christian, but let's be real. This example of God not intervening is certainly NOT a reason for rejecting Christianity.

This question is IDENTICAL to your first question and must be rejected on the same grounds.

 

This has already been pointed out from the deist perspective that God is non-interventionist and has created a clockwork universe. Unfortunately few Christians have this point of view of the nature of their god Yahweh. They see (metaphorically) his finger pushing aside obstacles in the path of life instead of having them overcome the obstacles. My mother literally believes she can pray away and pray for rain and Yahweh will respond in less than 24 hours.

 

I'm not ready to accept your mother as the definition of Christian religious thought.

In general, Christians do believe in the intercessory power of prayer, but they do NOT believe that all prayers are answered or that God is watching to be sure each Christian is protected from life's adversities.

Perhaps more generally, Christianity sees Earth as a short testing ground for eternal life. As a percent of existence, life here is 0%.

Many of the tests Christians face are exceedingly difficult - disease, martyrdom, excruciating death of loved ones, etc.

The fact that human life isn't a bed of roses is not a rejection of Christianity.

 

I don't see how that applies to the "you knitted me in my mother's womb" statement. If God created a king, doesn't He also create the peasants?

No. The reason I'm atheist now is because I tried to prove God's existence logically, and what I managed to prove to myself is that since I'm imperfect, God must be imperfect, since perfection could not create imperfection, since that would imply imperfection in the creator. And then if God is imperfect, he's either too evil, too stubborn, or too stupid to change, or he's changeable. Either way, he wouldn't be worthy of worship. I wouldn't even know how to worship a changeable God, since he might change his mind tomorrow.

True, but the necessary implication is that sin doesn't exist, so therefore I'm fine just the way I am. I don't need forgiveness because I haven't done anything wrong.

I have dictatorial tendencies, but unlike most dictators, I don't want to tell you what to do, I just want you to get on with it. Let's face it, the reason we have liberals is because most people would rather have someone else do the work, pay the bills, and take responsibility. Unless you rein in that tendency, you get socialism, communism, economic and political collapse, and then a real dictator. Having me take over is the way to avoid that road.

 

Well, I never claimed that life not being a bed of roses as a reason to reject Christianity. What I do point out is that many Christians indeed thank Yahweh whenever things go well. True, they may also thank him for giving them strength and courage, but they also give credit for interventionist miracles like unlikely healing of illness.

By the way, in my first question it's not that God did not intervene but that he did. He is the creator and he just created. And that's supposed to be both a blessing (as life is supposed to be a blessing) and a consequence for sin. But then how can it be a blessing if that child could potentially end up in a life with very little blessing?

And as I said in another post, if that life is indeed a blessing, Yahweh should thank Satan or the sinners for offering the unplanned opportunity to send forth the blessing.

 

Nonsense. Since the Bible was written by men, and translated by men, no "translation" is any more "perfect" than any other. Your "literal translation" is just the one you like because it fits your preconceived notions. If you don't like being called a sinner, either stop sinning or stop caring. If an Amish person called you a sinner for using electricity (and yes, I know that's a mischaracterization of Amish belief), would you feel guilty? Would you punch him in the mouth and knock out his teeth? No, you wouldn't, you wouldn't care. So why do you feel guilty and punch men in the mouth for calling you a sinner for living in an unmarried relationship? It must strike home for you for some reason.

Edit: I see now I was responding to the wrong person. For you, paladin, the short answer is you wanted Biblical evidence that premarital sex is sin, and I gave it to you. Changing the evidence isn't a valid rebuttal. I'll leave the above for @Greenleft.

 

Wow - you had me up to that last bit about "liberals" not wanting to do the work.

In that case, you got it 180 degrees backward. Liberals WANT to do the work.

America has tried it without having government involved in social safety net work. Each element of that legislation came after a long history of failure to address the issue in question. We know what happened without SS. We know what happened without Medicare and Medicaid. We know what happened without the VA. We know what happened when there was no organized approach to aid for food, shelter, heat, etc.

The fact of the matter is that Republicans do NOT want this work done. Instead, they want to pocket the cost for themselves.

I'm fine with the work churches, synagogues, mosques, Elks, Moose and other organizations do, but that has NEVER been sufficient to meet those needs as measured by we the people. And, that aid has not covered the population of America, as poverty aggregates in various locations rather than smoothly spread across the population adjacent to where the churches or BPOE lodges happen to be built.

So, a combination has been shown to be absolutely required.

 

That's not work, that's charity. And many (I won't say how many) of those who take charity are precisely those people who don't want to work. Why do people who are still perfectly healthy and able to work at age 65 retire? Because they can. Social Security has made it possible for healthy adults to quit working and live off the dole. Who is paying for that? Everyone else.

 

K. Assuming my preference fits my preconceptions as much as yours does the same, we'll just have to agree to disagree on Biblical interpretation and translation.

I would respond to the Amish the same I've responded to you. Do you feel like I've punched you in the teeth?

Are going to attempt to defend decontextualizing God's Word by breaking The Bible down into what amount to 'soundbytes' so they seem more relevent to your current point? (I really don't mean to single you out for this, it has become a custom in all Religions based on ancient texts, but its really disingenuous).

 

Well, I think we just went beyond my pay grade.

I do have some thoughts about this, but as an atheist I think I should defer to some Christian to defend their belief system. After all, I don't believe all Christians share exactly the same answers.

 

See my edited post above.

Since I haven't taken any of the above verses out of context, I haven't decontextualized anything. To decontextualize something, you have to change the meaning of the verse. The classic example is to say that the Bible says, "There is no God." That's a distinct change in the meaning of the verse, since the whole verse is, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" So if you want to accuse me of decontextualizing, you have to show where I have changed the meaning of the verses quoted and not just say, "Those are just soundbytes." That's lazy arguing, and unconvincing.

 

Of COURSE it's charity.

Anything a group or individual does to help someone in need without requiring payment is charity.

While there do exist people who "don't want to work" you are ignoring those for whom this is NOT THE ISSUE. Those needing help include the aged, the young, those with mental or physical disabilities, those who have been victims of crime, those who lost jobs in times of economic down turn (as per 200, etc., etc.

SS is one specific program, NOT a representation of all aid. And, it is paid for by those who worked, with those contributing more getting more and those contributing less getting less.

 

We have another monkey wrench with the authenticity.
Basically the hadeiths are in 3 catagories from strong to weak, and these change with the people who use the,.
Also, there is no chain of narration as is claimed, these "Proof" are written hundreds of years after the hadieths themselves, and claimed to be before.
A good example of the fabrication of insnads is the lineage of muhammed, all the way back to Ishmael.
Muhammed was nobody, who almost died as a neglected child, and thrown out of the town he was born.
Now hundreds of years after the fact, a lineage is created, claiming they have all these records.
Why him only, he would be a last choice, there were others far more important than him.
Also, everyone was illiterate.

 

Another thing to point out is your hadieths are Sunni, and much later than they are claimed to be from.
As I remember, there is only one from the original hadieths that says 72.

We have a lot of Islam, that was written from the 10th to 12th century, that is claimed to come from Muhammeds era.

 

It doesn't really matter if I believe it or you believe it, it only matters if THEY believe it, and they do.

We were just joking around about who gets the Muslim jackpot, anyway. Whatever the jackpot is, it's clear that it's reserved for those who die killing infidels, and that's why you get eternal war and Muslim terrorists by the hundreds.

 

Ugh. You're changing the subject. The subject was liberals not wanting to work. You were redefining work to mean handing out charity. Work means doing something productive, not redistributing wealth.

 

I addressed that directly.

What was going on before each element of social safety net legislation was failure.

Now, we are doing the WORK TO HELP THESE PEOPLE.

I'm sorry if that isn't free. But, nothing in life is free.

The fact that private contributions were FAILING as a methodology means that something more is required - that is, if you're ready to do the work.

 

I think I see the problem. You don't even know what the **** "work" means.

 

I know for a fact that the plan where individuals do the work absolutely failed.

The catch here is that there has to be a level of oversight that allows for consistent application of aid. Otherwise, areas of serious need simply don't get help.

Not even Catholic Charities is large enough or organized in a way to do that.

And again there is proof - all you have to do is look at the reasons for each piece of legislation.

All you've got is rudeness.

 

And I have one question that neither non Christian or non Muslim can answer.

When did God say sexual intercourse outside of Marriage was a 'sin'? And I have another question. could you please give references of what Christian or what Church or what Pastor said that sex outside of marriage was a sin before claiming that a Christian or a Church or a Pastor said that.


This kind of 'teaching' seems more like 'cultish' Christianity. Like the 'Moony' Christianity movement.


The Divine Principle, the central book of Unification Church teaching, asserts that love is the strongest force in the universe, more powerful than law or principle,[1] and true, unselfish love is Unificationism's highest value. A fundamental teaching of Divine Principle is that the original sin causing the human fall at the beginning of history was, in fact, selfish and inappropriate sexual relationships that corrupted true love.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church_views_on_sexuality


Remember. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia there are at least 33,000 Christian denominations in the United States.

http://thecompletepilgrim.com/many-churches-denominations-america-world/

And not all teach the same thing.

It's called self Autonomy. And/or Freedom of Religion . And/or Separation of Church and State.

Which could/might require: Caveat emptor

With over 33,000 different Denominations, Not Church Buildings, I'm sure there must be some profitability, wouldn't you say?

Just in case you might not know.

Roman Catholicism is a denomination.
Baptist is a denomination.
Anabaptist is a denomination.
Lutheran is a denomination.

etc.etc.

33,000 of them. supposedly according to the World Christian Encyclopedia

What other denominations can you name off the top your head?

Mormon
Jehovah Witness
Seventh Day Adventist
Unification
Pentecostal
Methodist


I can't even name 33,000 human names. 33,000 denominations? I doubt it.

Wanna know something strange?

There was only 1 Established Church in early Colonial America though. The Episcopalian Church.

How many years has it been since 1740? 278


-


Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace.

Toward mid-century the country experienced its first major religious revival. The Great Awakening swept the English-speaking world, as religious energy vibrated between England, Wales, Scotland and the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s. In America, the Awakening signaled the advent of an encompassing evangelicalism--the belief that the essence of religious experience was the "new birth," inspired by the preaching of the Word. It invigorated even as it divided churches. The supporters of the Awakening and its evangelical thrust--Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists--became the largest American Protestant denominations by the first decades of the nineteenth century. Opponents of the Awakening or those split by it--Anglicans, Quakers, and Congregationalists--were left behind.


https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html




An Early Episcopal Church
St. James Church, built in South Carolina's oldest Anglican parish outside of Charleston, is thought to have been constructed between 1711 and 1719 during the rectorate of the Reverend Francis le Jau, a missionary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts


From 1 Established Church to Separation of Church and State to 33,000 denominations within 350 years or so?


I would have to assume that before the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the 1787 Constitution, the Established Church in Colonial US was being sponsored and upkept by the British(?) Crown?

-

When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, "many pious people" complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained "no recognition of his mercies to us . . . or even of his existence." The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only "religious clause" in the document--the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six--was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.

That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.

Franklin Requests Prayers in the Constitutional Convention
Benjamin Franklin delivered this famous speech, asking that the Convention begin each day's session with prayers, at a particularly contentious period, when it appeared that the Convention might break up over its failure to resolve the dispute between the large and small states over representation in the new government. The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth--that God governs in the Affairs of Men." "I also believe," Franklin continued, that "without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel." Franklin's motion failed, ostensibly because the Convention had no funds to pay local clergymen to act as chaplains.

rgb(102, 0, 153); text-decoration: underline;">
Speech to the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787. Benjamin Franklin, Holograph manuscript. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (145)


https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html


Such as this pre 1776

Christ Church, Philadelphia
Christ Church of Philadelphia is an example of how colonial American congregations, once they became well established and prosperous, built magnificent churches to glorify God. Enlarged and remodelled, the Christ Church building was completed in 1744. A steeple was added ten years later. Contemporaries were in awe of the finished house of worship, one remarking that "it was the handsomest structure of the kind that I ever saw in any part of the world; uniting in the peculiar features of that species of architecture, the most elegant variety of forms, with the most chaste simplicity of combination."




The funds must have come from England?


I am unsure of the details but sometime after this, there was a fight between the British. Ones who were loyal to England and the others who were not, supposedly. I do know that somewhere along these lines, the French had a part in the whole Colonial U.S. also.

In fact, I think that it was the French that spoiled the settlement of St. Augustine in the South and drove the Spanish off. And this was around the year 1565 so obviously the French was already on the contiguous U.S. or had been.


1562
Jean Ribault was sent to North America to settle a colony for France. Three ships with 150 French Huguenots, landed in Florida around present day Jacksonville. Ribault continued sailing north and established Charlesfort and the settlement of Port Royal in present day South Carolina. Ribault returned to France after establishing the outpost, however he was unable to return with supplies. The settlements were abandoned by 1564.

https://www.visitstaugustine.com/history/timeline/history-ribault.php


1565
King Phillip II of Spain learned of French intrusion onto Spanish lands in the New World. To prevent the loss of territory to the French, Phillip II sent Pedro Menendez de Aviles to Florida. He arrived on the Florida coast by September 1565, with orders to eliminate the French settlements and establish an outpost for Spain along the coast.

https://www.visitstaugustine.com/history/timeline/history-ribault.php

• 1513: Ponce de Leon in Florida

• 1521: Juan Ponce de León tries and fails to settle in Florida

• 1539: Hernando de Soto explores the interior from Florida to Arkansas.

Between 1521 to 1600, there were many 'failed attempts' to establish settlements, both from the Spanish and the French, which could mean that it was met with opposition from the residents who lived there pre colonziation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_European_colonization_of_North_America


Nonetheless, the fight between the Loyalists and Separatists which deestablished British Colonies in the U.S.and formed the basis of an Independent Country is what has allowed for so many denominations of Christianity to be on the land. I do not believe that there is ANY other Country in the World who has more than 3 or 4 accepted and honored denominations in their Countries.

Some have the 'Orthodox' others have Church of... But separate and independently started Churches? I don't think there are too many except for maybe the traditional ones such as Lutheran or Calvinism maybe being the cornerstones to Protestant Christianity.

 

The beginnings of the Protestant Movement, or Reformation, was not because individuals wanted more Godliness in their lives. It was because they began to feel the oppression of Corrupt Church.

People were fine living with the 1-4 times a year mass. But all those requirements before Mass that they had to follow began to become a burden.

And so within these 'freedoms', the Religious persons, the monks of certain 'orders', who had a heart and desire to serve God, even when Mass was only 1-4 times a year, began to flourish, which Martin Luther was a member of.

And these Religious were as Church Fathers. St. Augustine being one of them. They had a heart to serve God, not elected to serve God or forced into serving God, when serving God was not a required thing to do and often times with more responsibilities and duties than citizen.

Each and every person who desired 'self autonomy' of worship were allowed through the printing of The Holy Bible into the common vernacular when The Texts of The Bible were only in the possession of The High Church. From the Latin of the educated to the common spoken language for anyone to receive if they desired. This was the self autonomy they spoke about. The right to receive The Holy Bible as they received The Word by reading it themselves. And from this right being demanded, Countries and Nations have adopted the same concept into their everyday Political/citizened life.