War on Christianity

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
I've never seen such letters or any references to them. What's your source? Do you really think a few letters to that editor are very indicative of our society or influential on its direction?

It's worth noting also that some prominent Christians blamed 9/11 on a lack of Christian beliefs in the U.S. Jerry Falwell said "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."

There are many people that will tell you the reason that God lets bad things happen is so people will be driven back to him when they realize everything isn't so hunky-dory without his help. Churches filled up after 9/11 (for less than a month), which I think speaks to this. Unfortunately, even if this were the case, most Americans are too wishy-washy to care.

In my opinion, people in the US need to recognize that more than 80% of the people here (according to other people in this thread, anyway) are Christian. Therefore, Christian influence in society is inevitable, and does not necessarily constitute Christians trying to force their religion down your throat. Religion, by its nature, is a social activity. As such, its members seek comraderie in society. Even if you're not Christian, I doubt you can be easily offended by the major Christian ideals, which are basically in tune with general good will towards men. In any case, not all references to 'God' are necessarily Christian. Jews and Muslims believe in the same God, and even Hindus believe in a God (they're not really polytheists - they believe that one God has many manifestations - can't remember the term used for it). If atheists don't believe in God, then they should simply put no stock in such things - the word God being on money doesn't hurt them in any way, and if they are that offended by the possibility of God as to attempt to villify any references regarding God, maybe they shouldn't live in a country founded on generally religious precepts.

But the Atheists need to keep the religious in check to ensure that the laws are based on protecting the people and their intrinsic rights and not on religious grounds. The word God on cash etc... I don't really care. I say keep it there since it has historic value.

 

[jaydee]

You refuse to take certain verses at face value because you want desperately to believe your money-grubbing is consistent with Christ's message. He says it's nearly impossible for a rich person to get into heaven. Now even with prositutes they can get into heaven by accepting Jesus. So they're on the same footing. You refuse to accept the plain-meaning of Jesus' words.

1 Tim 6:9-10: "But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows"

Read the about the rich young ruler in Matt 19:16-26. The young ruler turned away because he could not part with his possesions when asked by Christ, not because he had them in the first place. His desire was for his earthly belongings and not God. It is what's in a persons heart that matters, not what he/she owns. I can not explain it any more clearly than this.

Ecclesiastes 5:19: "Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work?this is a gift of God."

David, Solomon, Job and many others in the Old Testament had great possesions. God was the one who blessed them with this, how can he then condemn them for it!!



There are plenty of people who look at GWB as a Christian leader. Your denial of this fact just reminds me it's so hard to deal with blind zealots.

He is a leader in this country and he also is a Christian. If that automatically classifies him as a Christain leader to you, then were at a difference of opinion over the definition, so it's moot. My definition of a Christian leader is someone who is looked up to for spiritual leadership. I do not know anyone that looks up to GWB for spiritual guidance. He says "God Bless America" every once in awhile, there's much more than that in being a spiritual leader.




So Jesus being peaceful and non-violent and saying loving your enemy has no biblical backing? :roll:

You know what I mean. The carrying-over of the "turn the other cheek" phrase to non-personal matters has no Biblical backing. Matt 5:38-39

The Bible also says in Matt 5:42 "Give to him who asks of you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away". On the same level you're saying that if you're a Christian and a banker by trade, you should loan $1 billion to anyone off the street that asks for it. The fact is that's it's not YOUR money you're lending, it's the people who put the money in the bank. Likewise, it's not YOUR cheek your turning in defense of a country that you were put in charge of. It's the people who entrusted you with that power.

Think about it.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: cquark
I've never seen such letters or any references to them. What's your source? Do you really think a few letters to that editor are very indicative of our society or influential on its direction?

It's worth noting also that some prominent Christians blamed 9/11 on a lack of Christian beliefs in the U.S. Jerry Falwell said "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."

TIME magazine, October 28th, 2002

"...ban all these religions, cults, and man-made concepts of how to worship God. Bar the different religious leaders from spreading their views as the only absolute....Forbid religions, and there will be fewer fights."
- Jorma Kajaste - Espoo, Finland

"If there were no religions, and only empathy, altruism, and humanism to lead the way, the world would truly be an enlightened place."
- Preeti Kumar - Harlington, England

Those are the snippets in the front of the book Soon. The source and text of the full letters can be found in the issue of Time magazine listed above.

It is my opinion that Falwell is an ass, like most evangelists.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
But the Atheists need to keep the religious in check to ensure that the laws are based on protecting the people and their intrinsic rights and not on religious grounds. The word God on cash etc... I don't really care. I say keep it there since it has historic value.

This is a catch-22 though, because without God, there are no intrinsic rights. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are granted by a 'Creator,' who endowed us with rights. Government is in place for the purpose of protecting these rights. I doubt atheists would agree with a creator, as this is essentially the same as a god. If they do, it's semantics and no reason for us to change our ways.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: TuxDave
But the Atheists need to keep the religious in check to ensure that the laws are based on protecting the people and their intrinsic rights and not on religious grounds. The word God on cash etc... I don't really care. I say keep it there since it has historic value.

This is a catch-22 though, because without God, there are no intrinsic rights. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are granted by a 'Creator,' who endowed us with rights. Government is in place for the purpose of protecting these rights. I doubt atheists would agree with a creator, as this is essentially the same as a god. If they do, it's semantics and no reason for us to change our ways.

While the Declaration was written to appeal to the almost unanimously Christian colonies, there's no necessary connection between rights and deities. For example, Platonists would have no problem with intrinisic rights.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: cquark
I've never seen such letters or any references to them. What's your source? Do you really think a few letters to that editor are very indicative of our society or influential on its direction?

It's worth noting also that some prominent Christians blamed 9/11 on a lack of Christian beliefs in the U.S. Jerry Falwell said "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."

TIME magazine, October 28th, 2002

"...ban all these religions, cults, and man-made concepts of how to worship God. Bar the different religious leaders from spreading their views as the only absolute....Forbid religions, and there will be fewer fights."
- Jorma Kajaste - Espoo, Finland

"If there were no religions, and only empathy, altruism, and humanism to lead the way, the world would truly be an enlightened place."
- Preeti Kumar - Harlington, England

Those are the snippets in the front of the book Soon. The source and text of the full letters can be found in the issue of Time magazine listed above.

It is my opinion that Falwell is an ass, like most evangelists.

Thanks for the source and repeating the comments. While I disagree with the first one, I think the second comment is reasonable hypothetical--the Torah/OT advocates horrendous amounts of violence in the name of God and all three Abrahamic religions have been historically violent. However, the better side of human nature has tamed the barbaric character of the Abrahamic religions to some degree. Unfortunately, they have a tendency to revert to that barbaric nature, as we have seen to our sorrow in the terrorism sponsored by some modern fundamentalist movements.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If atheists don't believe in God, then they should simply put no stock in such things - the word God being on money doesn't hurt them in any way, and if they are that offended by the possibility of God as to attempt to villify any references regarding God, maybe they shouldn't live in a country founded on generally religious precepts.

I'm not terribly offending by having "In God We Trust" on money, but it seems to me to be a violation of the establishment clause as a Congressionally-approved promotion of a religion. However, you're love it or leave it attitude above is offensive.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: TuxDave
But the Atheists need to keep the religious in check to ensure that the laws are based on protecting the people and their intrinsic rights and not on religious grounds. The word God on cash etc... I don't really care. I say keep it there since it has historic value.

This is a catch-22 though, because without God, there are no intrinsic rights. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are granted by a 'Creator,' who endowed us with rights. Government is in place for the purpose of protecting these rights. I doubt atheists would agree with a creator, as this is essentially the same as a god. If they do, it's semantics and no reason for us to change our ways.

While the Declaration was written to appeal to the almost unanimously Christian colonies, there's no necessary connection between rights and deities. For example, Platonists would have no problem with intrinisic rights.

Athiests too. But those rights are still grated by a Creator. Regardless if the receiver recognizes it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: TuxDave
But the Atheists need to keep the religious in check to ensure that the laws are based on protecting the people and their intrinsic rights and not on religious grounds. The word God on cash etc... I don't really care. I say keep it there since it has historic value.

This is a catch-22 though, because without God, there are no intrinsic rights. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are granted by a 'Creator,' who endowed us with rights. Government is in place for the purpose of protecting these rights. I doubt atheists would agree with a creator, as this is essentially the same as a god. If they do, it's semantics and no reason for us to change our ways.

While the Declaration was written to appeal to the almost unanimously Christian colonies, there's no necessary connection between rights and deities. For example, Platonists would have no problem with intrinisic rights.

Athiests too. But those rights are still grated by a Creator. Regardless if the receiver recognizes it.

How can they be granted by the Creator when there is no such thing?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: TuxDave
But the Atheists need to keep the religious in check to ensure that the laws are based on protecting the people and their intrinsic rights and not on religious grounds. The word God on cash etc... I don't really care. I say keep it there since it has historic value.

This is a catch-22 though, because without God, there are no intrinsic rights. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are granted by a 'Creator,' who endowed us with rights. Government is in place for the purpose of protecting these rights. I doubt atheists would agree with a creator, as this is essentially the same as a god. If they do, it's semantics and no reason for us to change our ways.

While the Declaration was written to appeal to the almost unanimously Christian colonies, there's no necessary connection between rights and deities. For example, Platonists would have no problem with intrinisic rights.

Athiests too. But those rights are still grated by a Creator. Regardless if the receiver recognizes it.

How can they be granted by the Creator when there is no such thing?

I saw a signature today that showed someone saying "I don't believe in God" and a priest's rebuttal: "It doesn't matter, he believes in you." Merely refusing to believe in something does not negate its existance. (I know, the opposite it true too.)

 

[plastick]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Being a Christian myself, I'm totally disgusted at how people view our religion. Sure, there are extreme fundamentalists but I assure you that not every Christian like that. I find it very offensive that members on this board kept dissing Christianity when they don't even know what it's all about.

Did you see Jesus ever once get disguested at anyone for coming against Him?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cquark
While the Declaration was written to appeal to the almost unanimously Christian colonies, there's no necessary connection between rights and deities. For example, Platonists would have no problem with intrinisic rights.

It specifically states that the rights are given by the creator.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Originally posted by: cquark
I'm not terribly offending by having "In God We Trust" on money, but it seems to me to be a violation of the establishment clause as a Congressionally-approved promotion of a religion. However, you're love it or leave it attitude above is offensive.

It doesn't promote any religion, that was what I was trying to get at. Sorry if you're offended by what I said, but how do you think the 80%+ of our population (the Christians) feel when atheists tell them to drop all mention of God in our society? Probably above 95% believe in God, whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or what have you.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Athiests too. But those rights are still grated by a Creator. Regardless if the receiver recognizes it.

How can they be granted by the Creator when there is no such thing?[/quote]
That was my point - if atheists don't believe in God, then they have no reason to expect rights in this country, per the Declaration, and therefore should have no right to argue against God in our society.
Of course, they are still granted rights - my sig says why. (It's from the Count of Monte Cristo)

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: TuxDave
But the Atheists need to keep the religious in check to ensure that the laws are based on protecting the people and their intrinsic rights and not on religious grounds. The word God on cash etc... I don't really care. I say keep it there since it has historic value.

This is a catch-22 though, because without God, there are no intrinsic rights. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are granted by a 'Creator,' who endowed us with rights. Government is in place for the purpose of protecting these rights. I doubt atheists would agree with a creator, as this is essentially the same as a god. If they do, it's semantics and no reason for us to change our ways.

Creator = the planet Earth.
Done.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: TuxDave
But the Atheists need to keep the religious in check to ensure that the laws are based on protecting the people and their intrinsic rights and not on religious grounds. The word God on cash etc... I don't really care. I say keep it there since it has historic value.

This is a catch-22 though, because without God, there are no intrinsic rights. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are granted by a 'Creator,' who endowed us with rights. Government is in place for the purpose of protecting these rights. I doubt atheists would agree with a creator, as this is essentially the same as a god. If they do, it's semantics and no reason for us to change our ways.

Creator = the planet Earth.
Done.

Yes, Earth has endowed you with inalienable rights... ;?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: TuxDave
But the Atheists need to keep the religious in check to ensure that the laws are based on protecting the people and their intrinsic rights and not on religious grounds. The word God on cash etc... I don't really care. I say keep it there since it has historic value.

This is a catch-22 though, because without God, there are no intrinsic rights. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are granted by a 'Creator,' who endowed us with rights. Government is in place for the purpose of protecting these rights. I doubt atheists would agree with a creator, as this is essentially the same as a god. If they do, it's semantics and no reason for us to change our ways.

Creator = the planet Earth.
Done.

Yes, Earth has endowed you with inalienable rights... ;?

No, that would be some pissed off colonists. The 'Creator' endowed men with life and ability to think freely. Intrinsic rights are rights related to, and originating from, the state or health of a thing. In this case the cummunity and the nation it is part of. They are not coming from a deity, but man, and man is calling his laws as inspired (or sometimes even dictated) by a deity.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Yes, Earth has endowed you with inalienable rights... ;?

No, that would be some pissed off colonists. The 'Creator' endowed men with life and ability to think freely. Intrinsic rights are rights related to, and originating from, the state or health of a thing. In this case the cummunity and the nation it is part of. They are not coming from a deity, but man, and man is calling his laws as inspired (or sometimes even dictated) by a deity.[/quote]
That's not what it says, though. It says that the Creator has endowed us with these rights (in other words, not given by man, but by the creator). It goes on to say that the government is in place only to protect these creator-given rights. This would seem to infer that the government cannot give rights that would supercede the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nor can it abridge these rights.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerb
Yes, Earth has endowed you with inalienable rights... ;?

No, that would be some pissed off colonists. The 'Creator' endowed men with life and ability to think freely. Intrinsic rights are rights related to, and originating from, the state or health of a thing. In this case the cummunity and the nation it is part of. They are not coming from a deity, but man, and man is calling his laws as inspired (or sometimes even dictated) by a deity.

That's not what it says, though. It says that the Creator has endowed us with these rights (in other words, not given by man, but by the creator). It goes on to say that the government is in place only to protect these creator-given rights. This would seem to infer that the government cannot give rights that would supercede the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nor can it abridge these rights.[/quote]And quite a bit of that is a jab at the Monarchy. The parts of the government enforcing the laws may give, uphold, or take away the rights of the people. The right to control those rights is given to all people, not merely the ruler(s).

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
While the Declaration was written to appeal to the almost unanimously Christian colonies, there's no necessary connection between rights and deities. For example, Platonists would have no problem with intrinisic rights.

It specifically states that the rights are given by the creator.

So? You said "without God, there are no intrinsic rights," which clearly isn't true as I pointed out with the counterexample of Platonists above.

If you want to talk about the Declaration of Independence, we should start with the fact that it is in no way a document that governs the United States. It's an inspirational document, but it does not establish any rules for the US government about rights or anything else.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Originally posted by: cquark
I'm not terribly offending by having "In God We Trust" on money, but it seems to me to be a violation of the establishment clause as a Congressionally-approved promotion of a religion. However, you're love it or leave it attitude above is offensive.

It doesn't promote any religion, that was what I was trying to get at. [/quote]

How can you say printing billions of religious slogans on items that everyone has to use in their daily lives isn't promoting religion?

Sorry if you're offended by what I said, but how do you think the 80%+ of our population (the Christians) feel when atheists tell them to drop all mention of God in our society?

That's not what I said and not what the vast majority of atheists say either. Taking God off the money isn't asking that people drop all mention of God; it's asking that the government stop promoting the Abrahamic religions that use that term.

Probably above 95% believe in God, whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or what have you.

Perhaps believe in some type of miraculous aspects of the universe, but few Muslims use God to refer to their deity and essentially no Hindus use the term God to refer to the aspects of divinity in their religion. Frankly, Hinduism isn't as simple as you make it out to be. The Abrahamic model of religion and even the division between atheism and monotheism and polytheism don't fit the Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism well.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Good lord I knew I shouldn't have stepped foot in PnN. :frown:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cquark
So? You said "without God, there are no intrinsic rights," which clearly isn't true as I pointed out with the counterexample of Platonists above.

All I was saying is that the Declaration clearly states that the rights we have are given by the 'Creator,' not man. What exactly would Platonists think this meant? I'm not sure I follow.

If you want to talk about the Declaration of Independence, we should start with the fact that it is in no way a document that governs the United States. It's an inspirational document, but it does not establish any rules for the US government about rights or anything else.

Legal precedent would beg to differ. The rights stated in the Declaration have been used to establish a hierarchy that has been borne out since the inception of our court system.

Originally posted by: cquark
How can you say printing billions of religious slogans on items that everyone has to use in their daily lives isn't promoting religion?

It's not promoting a religion. It could be construed as promoting religion in general, which is not spoken against in the constitution or elsewhere.

That's not what I said and not what the vast majority of atheists say either. Taking God off the money isn't asking that people drop all mention of God; it's asking that the government stop promoting the Abrahamic religions that use that term.

Perhaps believe in some type of miraculous aspects of the universe, but few Muslims use God to refer to their deity and essentially no Hindus use the term God to refer to the aspects of divinity in their religion. Frankly, Hinduism isn't as simple as you make it out to be. The Abrahamic model of religion and even the division between atheism and monotheism and polytheism don't fit the Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism well.

Hinduism has been explained to me as I presented it by two Hindus - I assume that they know more than I do on the subject. Regardless, neither of them objected to the use of God to describe their deity/deities, whichever way you prefer to look at it. The model of religion doesn't matter at all: God is the same idea for all of these religions. If they don't object to such terminology, I don't see why you should on their behalf. As I said, sorry if you're offended, but removing it will offend a lot more people, and this is a democratic republic - the majority is more important than the individual.

 

[edmundoab]

its been always an excuse to go for war or kill.
what a shame though

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That was my point - if atheists don't believe in God, then they have no reason to expect rights in this country, per the Declaration, and therefore should have no right to argue against God in our society.
Of course, they are still granted rights - my sig says why. (It's from the Count of Monte Cristo)

According to you. Fortunately your opinion and the opinions of those like you have no bearing on much if anything at all.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That was my point - if atheists don't believe in God, then they have no reason to expect rights in this country, per the Declaration, and therefore should have no right to argue against God in our society.
Of course, they are still granted rights - my sig says why. (It's from the Count of Monte Cristo)

According to you. Fortunately your opinion and the opinions of those like you have no bearing on much if anything at all.

Fortunately, I'm getting you a sense of humor for Christmas.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That was my point - if atheists don't believe in God, then they have no reason to expect rights in this country, per the Declaration, and therefore should have no right to argue against God in our society.
Of course, they are still granted rights - my sig says why. (It's from the Count of Monte Cristo)

According to you. Fortunately your opinion and the opinions of those like you have no bearing on much if anything at all.

Fortunately, I'm getting you a sense of humor for Christmas.

I have a great sense of humor. I laugh at things that are actually funny..unlike your post.

As whacked out as most of your posts are it's hard to tell whether you are being serious or facetious even with the emoticons.


Edit: Forgive me, I was confusing you with Lord MagnusKain.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I have a great sense of humor. I laugh at things that are actually funny..unlike your post.

As whacked out as most of your posts are it's hard to tell whether you are being serious or facetious even with the emoticons.


Edit: Forgive me, I was confusing you with Lord MagnusKain.

Just for future reference, is not really a serious face. It's usually indicative of a joke.