Are your religious freedoms in danger?

The reason this poster thinks the case is so strong is because he steadfastly refuses to read anything that is contrary to what he already believes. He has stated such elsewhere. He won't study anything that calls his beliefs into question, so his certainty is self fulfilling. When he claims to have studied and refers to "real theologians" or "real academics", he is ALWAYS referring to the evangelical conservative wing of these traditions, and all others are considered "not real", not because of methodology, but because of conclusions.

 

I thought morality and god did not change, but apparently, you think they do. Jesus himself said that the old laws are still in effect:

Now, you might say "oh, he fulfilled them, so that means they're done with," but he says he did not come to abolish them, therefore, they still stand.

To fulfill (from dictionary.com):

1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.

To abolish:

1. To do away with; annul.
2. To destroy completely.

How exactly does he mean he's ending or destroying the laws when he says he did NOT come to do that?

Some people will say "well, all is accomplished because Jesus died and went back to heaven blah blah blah."

Well, it should be rather obvious to you that heaven (at least, in your view, heaven still exists) and earth have not passed away, and therefore, that desperate misinterpretation cannot be true.

You are failing as a Christian for not obeying Old Testament laws and teaching others that you don't have to follow them. You're actually pissing god off.


And whether or not the laws changed, as he said, it's still the same god. You can't just rip up the OT and pretend it's not part of your god's (imaginary) history and morality. And the god of the NT is also a vengeful god. He wants vengeance still. He's still blood thirsty and just itching to torture people for all eternity, simply for not stroking his ego.

 

And a hundred times, it has been wrong. Try this thought exercise. A child is raised in seclusion without any exposure to religion or God. When the child has become an adult, what religion is he? Obviously, none. He knows no Gods therefore does not believe in any. Now this man meets a theist who tells him that their is a God. Who has the burden of proof and why? If you can give me an airtight logical reason why the non-believer has the burden of proof, I will create a new thread where I will publicly declare that I am wrong and that atheism is a religion. Does that sound good?

It is funny that you get after me about making pre-existing conclusions when you do the exact same thing to me. I did not just grab my conclusions out of the aether nor did my parents implant them in me when I was young. I was raised a good little Catholic boy. We went to mass and I was even a alter boy (and no, I was never molested by the priest). When I got into high school I really got into religion and started to read the bible. I had a real thirst for knowing where I came for, what my purpose was and where I was going. I was shocked however, by all the contradictions in the Bible. It made no sense to me. So when I got into college I started studying religion. I studied Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and even Sihkism. I visited temples of different faiths and talked to the believers of those faiths. I also studied science looking for answers and eventually it was science that was able to answer my questions. It is not that I disbelieve there is a God, I just don't see any evidence for a God. Everything I see around me can be explained without one. So I don't know if there is a God or not, but it doesn't really matter to me. I'm still going to live my life they way I see fit.

As for your article, it does not apply and I will tell you why. Yes, we can never say with absolute certainty that something does not exist, but there comes a time where you have to draw the line. If you were accused in court of murder, you do not have to prove that you didn't do it, the prosecution would have to prove that you did. You are not responsible for trying to prove a negative (that you didn't commit a crime). Science works the same way. In fact I will use a quote from you own article to show you why science does not try to prove the negative.

"However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, d infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative."

If scientists had to prove every negative, no new theories would ever be accepted and human knowledge would never expand.

As for using analogies, I apologize. I have always liked them. It was my favorite thing about Jesus, his use of analogies and parables to explain what he was talking about. Now if you think my analogy is illogical, feel free to point out the logical errors in it. I would be grateful.

 

every religion has kooks that want to meddle in others peoples lives. This is not new. Why do the Islamist come to my country and try to force their belief on me? Because they can't do it in their country of birth. They are a lot freeer here and any where else on earth

 

Yep, and then there is Jesus and the adulterous woman, who makes the case. Adultry is still wrong - the stoning is not. Go figure.

I am sure, as a former Christian, that someone explained this to you?

See above, this is the problem when atheists try and treat a single sentence like it is all encompassing and explains everything. Let me show you how this works in reverse, and then YOU tell me whether or not it is ... acceptable.

Here is the quote:

"[Israel] has founded a sort of democratic state which isn't any worse in its practice than many others with equally dubious origins."

The author is Chris Hitchens, and if I JUST quote that one sentence, it would appear to make him a supporter of the Israeli state and ardent Zionist - the reality is anything but.

Now, why is this tactic valid for the Bible?

More probable just a deliberate misinterpretation from an atheist - happens quite frequently actually.

Atonement. You really haven't read, nor do you understand our faith - even as you clumisly attempt to weaponize it by, as atheists tend to do, leaving out critic, and common, aspects of the faith.

See the first line, and then tell me how you could be so singularly ignorant of one of the most famous of Christian parables? Not knowing the High and Low laws is one thing, but ignoring our most obvious aspects? Pure silliness.

 

Let me make a few short points here:

#1 - You are not actually making a case - which, if your faith is not a faith, which is a positive claim, you have to do. That id a different statement entirely than,"there is no God, (Maybe?)" You are saying definitively that your faith is not a faith. OK, so prove it.

But please stop thinking that peole who read that statement are so stupid that we don;t think that there should be support for such a extreme declaration.

#2 - In a murder trial, once the prosecution presents a compelling case, and your rebuttal is - I am sorry, but I have no burden of proof, you are going to jail brother.

And God is not a criminal case where you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, its a civil case - where preponderance carries the day. Why? Because the evidential state is inconclusive and cannot be definitively proven one way or another - hence all the arguementation in the proof that you summarily dismissed ... because then you might have to answer a simple question:

Why are you an atheist?

If it isn't evidence? Well, perhaps you just blindly signed up for dogma of atheism without really thinking about it?

The former is not being presented, the later no doubt offends you, but it is what the lack of evidence points to. Whether Christianity exists of not, God may or may not. So if you say, "Well, I read the Bible and I just didn't believe," you haven't really explored have you? You aren't an atheists, you are an anti-Christian is that is all you have done to explore the possibility of God. Your atheism is nothing but, based on the lack of evidenced based or logical argumentation, a bad rebuttal.

Hardly a threat to legitimate faith now is it?

 

My freedoms? Well lets just say I think they need to remove it all from the public and private sector because I am getting rather pissed at Made up religions http://content.usatoday.com/communi...iercing-is-ordered-readmitted-/1#.UEuRTyqF9HU and Muslims http://www.christianpost.com/news/w...for-muslim-prayers-not-welcomed-by-all-66216/ doing as they please. All of nothing here. We are equal all the way or nobody gets any religious freedoms. This preference BS needs to stop.

 

The proof is in the answer to my thought experiment. Try it out.

You are absolutely correct. If the prosecution has a compelling case, then I will be going to jail. However, if the best the prosecution has is that someone claims they saw me murder the victim but no evidence to back it up, I don't have to prove anything. I will walk without having to do a single thing. Innocent until proven guilty.

I wonder if you read my post at all or you just gave it a cursory glance. I told you a brief history of how I came to my conclusion that there may or may not be a God. I studied Christianity, not just read the Bible but studied it. I asked theologians questions about it, but none of their answers made sense. It actually took a long time for me to come to my conclusions with much thought and meditation. It was more of an evolution than a revolution for me. I just didn't wake up one day and decide to be an atheist. In fact it has only been in the last year or so that I have even allow myself to accept that label.

You say that I didn't really explore whether God exists or not, so I ask you what should I have done differently? What step did I miss?

Also, calling me anti-Christian because you think that I didn't study Christianity well enough is just plain silly. Are you anti-Hindu or anti-Zoroastrianism because haven't you studied either religion? I have studied those religions and I can say that they have as much truth in them as Christianity.

So let's get down the the meat of it. First let's take a look at the First Amendment.

"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."

I went ahead and emphasized the parts of the First Amendment that apply to this argument. So if the government cannot establish a religion, then what religion can the government be?

 

You pay for gays to marry? That's new. I did not know that tax money was used to pay for weddings.

 

but why in God version 1.0 did he command people to be killed for picking up sticks on Sunday, or tell people to kill their children and then at the last minute, say gotcha, just kidding

is picking up sticks around the yard on Sunday still wrong? or is God 2.0 new and improved?


.

 

My religious (or lack of religion) freedoms are not in danger whether I be in Australia or here in Laos.

 

So what is a real religion and what is a fake religion... ?

 

So you weren't an atheist at all.

You might have lost your faith in God, but you never ceased to believe that he existed.

Is that the case, or do you have more to add to this revelation?

Can you see that it is quite impossible for an atheist to be 'angry with God'?

 

It's kinda of funny, my religious freedoms are in danger but it's often from my neighbors rather than the government.
Our houses of worship are vandalized, my kids are bullied because of their religion, and we are targeted for barbaric acts of cruelty. And when we say something about it, we're told we just need to "shut up and take it".

When I was a Christian, I was taught to treat people better than that.

And the government isn't blameless either, but that is more from omission rather than active discrimination.
It isn't as bad, but it still isn't right.

 

Never said fake I said made up. Well what if I (and a large group of people) decided we believed in the natural human and we were against wearing clothing at all; ever. We would cover with a leather bear skin if it was cold but otherwise were in the nude.

Do you want a bunch of naked people going around sitting their naked asses on public chairs and sitting in restaurants.

The Made up religions and the other force religions are setting precedents here. Christian prayer was taken out of school, they (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about everything Christian in schools but they sure like the long holidays of Easter and Christmas.

Take it all out!

No Christmas tree on the WH lawn, no Easter egg hunt. None of it. Tear ever piece of Religion out of the Government. Rip depictions of Moses off of everything. Destroy every reference to the ten commandment carved into out buildings. Tear it all down.

I am (*)(*)(*)(*) sick and tired of bending over backward for other religions. If we have no equal right then we have no religious rights of any kind for any person of any faith on public grounds.

 

That would be a public health hazard. How does that compare to a Church of Body Modification?

Students can pray. Teachers cannot. Schools cannot lead prayer. I do not see the issue in this.

How are Easter eggs and Christmas trees religious symbols?

 

So if you are not a Christian now, and you experience violence from your neighbors, I assume you are Muslim?

 

Well if they can pray and wear a nose ring then my rights are infringed by not allowing me to be naked!

So if Christians asked that they get 15m in the morning before class to pray and 15 before lunch to pray they should get it?

Christmas (CHRIST) and Easter resurrection. Well those are religious based. Strike them down.

 

That would be a public health hazard. How does that compare to a Church of Body Modification?

Assuming is does not disrupt regularly scheduled activities.

How are Easter eggs and Christmas trees religious symbols?
Please address the question.

 

No, I'm Jewish. Why would you assume I was Muslim?

 

Remove everything Christianity has brought this nation. That means strike down the (*)(*)(*)(*) foundations and start over.

Christian men brought forth the founding concepts you know.

So make it a tree and stop using the Lords name in vein if you dont believe in salvation why celebrate it? Rampant commercialism is all it is.

Screw the little secular children just have egg hunts and take Easter out of it.

I want no faith in any aspect respected or represented by this nation. Or I want due respect shown to Christianity as an equal to all.