Hostility Toward Religion: The Source

[hobelim]

Mans problem is a heart problem. Not a mind problem. The heart is exceedingly wicked. Who can know it? Only God knows the heart of a man. God looks upon the heart. Not upon the outer man.

In ancient times people believed that the spirit of man, consciousness, was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness, our term for the spirit, is seated in the organ of the brain. With this in mind you can now know that whenever scripture is speaking about what is going on in the heart, they are referring to what is going on in the brain where everything, thoughts, dreams, hopes, beliefs, emotions, - everything- is perceived..

The heart only pumps blood and may be affected for good or bad by whats going on in the brain, but nothing is perceived in the organ of the heart. It is not possible for a heart to be exceedingly wicked, but the mind of man can be...

This is but one of the many things that causes you to stumble into error in thought and belief...

Your problem is indeed a problem of the mind.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A significant source contributing to the myth of 'hostility' toward religion, of course, is the ignorance of, or contempt for, Establishment Clause jurisprudence, whereby the courts have consistently and correctly followed the doctrine of separation of church and state as originally intended by the Framers:

[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District | LII / Legal Information Institute

For example, when the state of Louisiana sought to conjoin church and state in violation of the First Amendment, by compelling the teaching of the religious dogma known as 'creationism' in public schools, the Supreme Court held:

The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Disallowing the state from violating the First Amendment, therefore, does not constitute 'hostility' toward religion, religious belief, or religious practice; students in Louisiana remain at liberty to believe in and discuss the religious dogma that is 'creationism,' to pray in school, to bring religious literature to school, provided it is done in a manner that is not disruptive to others.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies only to the state, not private individuals or organizations, where prohibiting the state from sanctioning or endorsing religious practice does not 'violate' religious liberty.

 

[Carla_Danger]

11. The provenance of the left and the leftist intellectual can be found beginning at the end of the eighteenth century....the French Revolution's misguided attempt to replace religion with reason...science, if you will. Some of it was amusing....such as applying the decimal system to the calendar.


And the antipathy to religion occurred at the same time.




Without a transcendent God to provide the connection with mankind, the agnostic intellectual found in progressive ideology, characterized by the utopia of a perfectly egalitarian society, a substitute god.



Communism could be seen as the only effective enemy of bourgeois society, and being utopian and egalitarian into the bargain, intellectuals moved to the left. That many of them became not merely sympathizers or fellow travelers but Party members, a few even spies for the Soviet Union, testifies to the enormous pull of the rhetoric and ideals of the left upon intellectuals.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 94




12. Although the aversion to all things relating to religion are regularly seen in communism, consider the reason: From Marx on, the Left has fought against religion because they understood how difficult it is to get religious people to engage in revolution for the purpose of bettering their material lives. Such folks often relegate the material world to lower priority than the spiritual, moral and intellectual world.

Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view: only material things are real. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.
Prager, “Still The Best Hope.”

Jesus was a liberal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hatred is a choice. I have a friend who survived Auschwitz death camp, lost family and she never hated a single human being in her entire life. If you choose to hate I cannot change your heart about it. As for me and my household? We will serve the LORD and we will not hate anyone. Hate sin? Absolutely! Hate people? Never. God's arm is not too short to reach the most wretched among us. He saved me so you ought to be a breeze.

And unfortunately too many of your fellow theists make the choice to hate as a consequence of their religious arrogance; and as a result of that hate they seek to compel conformity by codifying religious dogma into secular law all must obey, including those of other beliefs and those free from faith.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Mans problem is a heart problem. Not a mind problem. The heart is exceedingly wicked. Who can know it? Only God knows the heart of a man. God looks upon the heart. Not upon the outer man.

In ancient times people believed that the spirit of man, consciousness, was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness, our term for the spirit, is seated in the organ of the brain. With this in mind you can now know that whenever scripture is speaking about what is going on in the heart, they are referring to what is going on in the brain where everything, thoughts, dreams, hopes, beliefs, emotions, - everything- is perceived..

The heart only pumps blood and may be affected for good or bad by whats going on in the brain, but nothing is perceived in the organ of the heart. It is not possible for a heart to be exceedingly wicked, but the mind of man can be...

This is but one of the many things that causes you to stumble into error in thought and belief...

Your problem is indeed a problem of the mind.

I don't have any problem with my mind, Hobelim. We are made in the image of God, body, soul and spirit. We are a trichotomy made in the image of God - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. It is 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 We do not refer to ourselves as 3 persons but 1. 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Eventually this math is going to sink in and then we can settle that problem in your mind - ( multi gods versus One God - Hear O Israel the LORD thy God is One ) permanently. In the meanwhile the soul is the seat of the emotions, will, the mind, where your error is - is in your listening to truth with the mind of a lawyer... while others are presenting the truth of the Word of God to you - you are already working up your argument to deny whatever is being said. You refuse to allow your "heart" to receive the truth, Hobelim. You've hardened your heart against it which is why you reject Jesus Christ being God. Still - Jesus Christ is God whether you believe it or not.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Hatred is a choice. I have a friend who survived Auschwitz death camp, lost family and she never hated a single human being in her entire life. If you choose to hate I cannot change your heart about it. As for me and my household? We will serve the LORD and we will not hate anyone. Hate sin? Absolutely! Hate people? Never. God's arm is not too short to reach the most wretched among us. He saved me so you ought to be a breeze.

And unfortunately too many of your fellow theists make the choice to hate as a consequence of their religious arrogance; and as a result of that hate they seek to compel conformity by codifying religious dogma into secular law all must obey, including those of other beliefs and those free from faith.

I have not a clue as to where you are going with this but let me be clear that I believe government should stay out of the church's business and the church should stay out of the governments business. Alright? Let the will of the people prevail by a vote and stop the multiple voting over and over and over when you don't like the results you get. Enforce the laws of the land and uphold the Constitution and we'll be fine, Clayton.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hatred is a choice. I have a friend who survived Auschwitz death camp, lost family and she never hated a single human being in her entire life. If you choose to hate I cannot change your heart about it. As for me and my household? We will serve the LORD and we will not hate anyone. Hate sin? Absolutely! Hate people? Never. God's arm is not too short to reach the most wretched among us. He saved me so you ought to be a breeze.

And unfortunately too many of your fellow theists make the choice to hate as a consequence of their religious arrogance; and as a result of that hate they seek to compel conformity by codifying religious dogma into secular law all must obey, including those of other beliefs and those free from faith.

Dear Jeremiah:
I also see you separating off and hating/rejecting secular gentiles.
Many people have approached you and GISMYS about how you come across
backwards from the message and meaning of God's words and laws for all humanity.

Yet you continue to judge and reject instead of seeking mutual
correction and understanding.

So this adds to the misperception that Christianity is only for some people
and does not include secular gentiles under natural laws.

Some of this fault is mutual on the part of those who claim to represent
the message of Jesus in the Bible but equally fall short, as we all do.

I apologize if I came across to you or others as saying anything false or misleading.
I am willing to correct faults so we have agreement in truth,
but met with rejection and judgment from you and GISMYS who didn't want to bother.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hatred is a choice. I have a friend who survived Auschwitz death camp, lost family and she never hated a single human being in her entire life. If you choose to hate I cannot change your heart about it. As for me and my household? We will serve the LORD and we will not hate anyone. Hate sin? Absolutely! Hate people? Never. God's arm is not too short to reach the most wretched among us. He saved me so you ought to be a breeze.

And unfortunately too many of your fellow theists make the choice to hate as a consequence of their religious arrogance; and as a result of that hate they seek to compel conformity by codifying religious dogma into secular law all must obey, including those of other beliefs and those free from faith.

I have not a clue as to where you are going with this but let me be clear that I believe government should stay out of the church's business and the church should stay out of the governments business. Alright? Let the will of the people prevail by a vote and stop the multiple voting over and over and over when you don't like the results you get. Enforce the laws of the land and uphold the Constitution and we'll be fine, Clayton.

I believe if we resolved conflicts, with respect to democratic due process and right to petition to redress grievances, we would reach agreement in truth and have consensus on laws (which is also Biblical to establish truth by agreement among witnesses). Then we would not need to go back and keep arguing back and forth after a biased law is passed that does not reflect the consent of the entire public.

This requires faith in equal justice and truth to settle all conflicts.
That is where the spirit and authority of Christ Jesus fulfills the natural laws of the state
equally as the scriptural laws of the church.

Instead of dividing church and state in opposition or imposition,
we should focus where we agree on laws, and keep our differences out of public policy.

Jeremiah if this is what you mean, then I agree with you.
I have trouble with CCJones when he claims to be enforcing the default public position,
but is in fact imposing a bias or neglecting to include equal beliefs of others just because he disagrees. the truly public policies would reflect where all people agree, and leave the private issues for people to manage outside the state instead of imposing back and forth.

 

[Pennywise]

11. The provenance of the left and the leftist intellectual can be found beginning at the end of the eighteenth century....the French Revolution's misguided attempt to replace religion with reason...science, if you will. Some of it was amusing....such as applying the decimal system to the calendar.


And the antipathy to religion occurred at the same time.




Without a transcendent God to provide the connection with mankind, the agnostic intellectual found in progressive ideology, characterized by the utopia of a perfectly egalitarian society, a substitute god.



Communism could be seen as the only effective enemy of bourgeois society, and being utopian and egalitarian into the bargain, intellectuals moved to the left. That many of them became not merely sympathizers or fellow travelers but Party members, a few even spies for the Soviet Union, testifies to the enormous pull of the rhetoric and ideals of the left upon intellectuals.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 94




12. Although the aversion to all things relating to religion are regularly seen in communism, consider the reason: From Marx on, the Left has fought against religion because they understood how difficult it is to get religious people to engage in revolution for the purpose of bettering their material lives. Such folks often relegate the material world to lower priority than the spiritual, moral and intellectual world.

Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view: only material things are real. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.
Prager, “Still The Best Hope.”

Jesus was a liberal.

This is one of the sillier claims I have seen repeated. Assuming Jesus and the New Testament are real (I'm agnostic so I don't claim to know), then Jesus could never be categorized into some silly little box for some moron to use as political fodder. And really, how dare you.

Based on the stories of Jesus, he believed in individual salvation and individual responsibility including doing good deeds for those less fortunate. He did not say "Rob Peter to pay Paul", he told Peter to search his soul and do what is right and just. Put any name on that that floats your boat, but by doing so all you do is diminish the figure you claim to admire.

 

[Carla_Danger]

11. The provenance of the left and the leftist intellectual can be found beginning at the end of the eighteenth century....the French Revolution's misguided attempt to replace religion with reason...science, if you will. Some of it was amusing....such as applying the decimal system to the calendar.


And the antipathy to religion occurred at the same time.




Without a transcendent God to provide the connection with mankind, the agnostic intellectual found in progressive ideology, characterized by the utopia of a perfectly egalitarian society, a substitute god.



Communism could be seen as the only effective enemy of bourgeois society, and being utopian and egalitarian into the bargain, intellectuals moved to the left. That many of them became not merely sympathizers or fellow travelers but Party members, a few even spies for the Soviet Union, testifies to the enormous pull of the rhetoric and ideals of the left upon intellectuals.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 94




12. Although the aversion to all things relating to religion are regularly seen in communism, consider the reason: From Marx on, the Left has fought against religion because they understood how difficult it is to get religious people to engage in revolution for the purpose of bettering their material lives. Such folks often relegate the material world to lower priority than the spiritual, moral and intellectual world.

Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view: only material things are real. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.
Prager, “Still The Best Hope.”

Jesus was a liberal.

This is one of the sillier claims I have seen repeated. Assuming Jesus and the New Testament are real (I'm agnostic so I don't claim to know), then Jesus could never be categorized into some silly little box for some moron to use as political fodder. And really, how dare you.

Based on the stories of Jesus, he believed in individual salvation and individual responsibility including doing good deeds for those less fortunate. He did not say "Rob Peter to pay Paul", he told Peter to search his soul and do what is right and just. Put any name on that that floats your boat, but by doing so all you do is diminish the figure you claim to admire.

Are you saying that it's a sin for the Government to try to end hunger? Paying taxes isn't illegal, in fact, it's patriotic....it's not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's how you run a civilized country.

Isn't it possible that Jesus did exist but wasn't the son of God? Maybe he was suffering from schizophrenia and just thought those voices were coming from a "God."

I think he did exist, as a radical leftie with an anger problem.

 

[Pennywise]

Jesus was a liberal.

This is one of the sillier claims I have seen repeated. Assuming Jesus and the New Testament are real (I'm agnostic so I don't claim to know), then Jesus could never be categorized into some silly little box for some moron to use as political fodder. And really, how dare you.

Based on the stories of Jesus, he believed in individual salvation and individual responsibility including doing good deeds for those less fortunate. He did not say "Rob Peter to pay Paul", he told Peter to search his soul and do what is right and just. Put any name on that that floats your boat, but by doing so all you do is diminish the figure you claim to admire.

Are you saying that it's a sin for the Government to try to end hunger? Paying taxes isn't illegal, in fact, it's patriotic....it's not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's how you run a civilized country.

Isn't it possible that Jesus did exist but wasn't the son of God? Maybe he was suffering from schizophrenia and just thought those voices were coming from a "God."

I think he did exist, as a radical leftie with an anger problem.

Taxes are necessary to fund certain infrastructure for society to function. Taking my taxes to give to useless sloths to fill their grocery carts with enough garbage to choke a small army of apes, is theft. I see them every week, grossly overweight pigs, likely on type 2 Diabetes meds, buying processed shit to get fatter, while I am paying for it. And I am likely paying their medical bills for conditions induced by their own slothful lifestyle. Based on the little I do know of scripture, something tells me Jesus would be disgusted by lazy people living off the hard work of others. There are seven deadly sins, and all are equally abhorrent.

I think it is possible that Jesus was not the son of God. I really do not know. I do have enough reverence for history and tradition that I would never try and proclaim him to be on "my side" of politics.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This is one of the sillier claims I have seen repeated. Assuming Jesus and the New Testament are real (I'm agnostic so I don't claim to know), then Jesus could never be categorized into some silly little box for some moron to use as political fodder. And really, how dare you.

Based on the stories of Jesus, he believed in individual salvation and individual responsibility including doing good deeds for those less fortunate. He did not say "Rob Peter to pay Paul", he told Peter to search his soul and do what is right and just. Put any name on that that floats your boat, but by doing so all you do is diminish the figure you claim to admire.

Are you saying that it's a sin for the Government to try to end hunger? Paying taxes isn't illegal, in fact, it's patriotic....it's not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's how you run a civilized country.

Isn't it possible that Jesus did exist but wasn't the son of God? Maybe he was suffering from schizophrenia and just thought those voices were coming from a "God."

I think he did exist, as a radical leftie with an anger problem.

Taxes are necessary to fund certain infrastructure for society to function. Taking my taxes to give to useless sloths to fill their grocery carts with enough garbage to choke a small army of apes, is theft. I see them every week, grossly overweight pigs, likely on type 2 Diabetes meds, buying processed shit to get fatter, while I am paying for it. And I am likely paying their medical bills for conditions induced by their own slothful lifestyle. Based on the little I do know of scripture, something tells me Jesus would be disgusted by lazy people living off the hard work of others. There are seven deadly sins, and all are equally abhorrent.

I think it is possible that Jesus was not the son of God. I really do not know. I do have enough reverence for history and tradition that I would never try and proclaim him to be on "my side" of politics.

You just turned Jesus into a NeoClown. LOL!

 

[Pennywise]

Are you saying that it's a sin for the Government to try to end hunger? Paying taxes isn't illegal, in fact, it's patriotic....it's not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's how you run a civilized country.

Isn't it possible that Jesus did exist but wasn't the son of God? Maybe he was suffering from schizophrenia and just thought those voices were coming from a "God."

I think he did exist, as a radical leftie with an anger problem.

Taxes are necessary to fund certain infrastructure for society to function. Taking my taxes to give to useless sloths to fill their grocery carts with enough garbage to choke a small army of apes, is theft. I see them every week, grossly overweight pigs, likely on type 2 Diabetes meds, buying processed shit to get fatter, while I am paying for it. And I am likely paying their medical bills for conditions induced by their own slothful lifestyle. Based on the little I do know of scripture, something tells me Jesus would be disgusted by lazy people living off the hard work of others. There are seven deadly sins, and all are equally abhorrent.

I think it is possible that Jesus was not the son of God. I really do not know. I do have enough reverence for history and tradition that I would never try and proclaim him to be on "my side" of politics.

You just turned Jesus into a NeoClown. LOL!

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, education is clearly the problem. First Jesus read Plato, and then he started ranting about the religious being a hypocritical den of vipers!

But seriously though, with the exception of the odd Pope Francis or Dalai Lama, all very religious people are hostile to religion (other than their own).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, education is clearly the problem. First Jesus read Plato, and then he started ranting about the religious being a hypocritical den of vipers!

But seriously though, with the exception of the odd Pope Francis or Dalai Lama, all very religious people are hostile to religion (other than their own).

The import of this thread is that it is university doctrine, that means Liberal doctrine, to slander religion, and attempt to make religious folks feel unwelcome.


13. There are as many reasons to be an atheist that don't require slandering the religious.
The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise, 'Ends and Means,' says the following:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves... For myself, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."
Aldous Huxley in 'Ends and Means,' 1937





a. "....NYU professor Thomas Nagel in his 1997 book 'The Last Word:' "...I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."
Were we fooled by Stephen J. Gould?




b. Robert Meyer: "There are those who would say Christianity is a place of refuge for the superstitous and weak-minded among us-it is merely a crutch. But look how easy that argument is turned around, especially considering Nagel's perspective. The denial of God is also a psychological crutch for the atheist who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system.
For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."

Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.
Ibid.

 

[Agit8r]

For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."

Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.
Ibid.

And yet, many non-believers are moralists, while many believers act as if all acts are equally forgivable. So you might try to build an argument out of something besides straw.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."

Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.
Ibid.

And yet, many non-believers are moralists, while many believers act as if all acts are equally forgivable. So you might try to build an argument out of something besides straw.

1."And yet, many non-believers are moralists, while many believers act as if all acts are equally forgivable."
Since no one said anything to the contrary, yours must be the straw argument you seek.



2.Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks?
Absolutely.

But God is necessary for morality to survive. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer.
Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.


3. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God."
I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.


a. As regards "He'll punish you" making God a "blackmailer in the sky," well, count me, my friends, as one who votes for such a "blackmailer in the sky." I pray with all my heart that the people who deliberately hurt people get punished. I would sit in depression if I truly believed that the torturers and their victims have the same fate.
Dennis Prager

 

[Agit8r]

But God is necessary for morality to survive. Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer.
Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

Oh?

I would sit in depression if I truly believed that the torturers and their victims have the same fate.
Dennis Prager

Which--according to Christianity--they would if neither believed

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Christians possess no 'monopoly' on morals and values – neither do any other religions, for that matter; and in the case of many theists, far from it.

 

[MaxGrit]

Christians possess no 'monopoly' on morals and values – neither do any other religions, for that matter; and in the case of many theists, far from it.

God has absolute monopoly on morality.