Why do the God-haters persist?

[orogenicman]

Morality does always originate with religion.

If your argument were true, all atheists would be rapists, thieves, and murderers. Except by and large, we are better behaved than many so-called moral-religious people. You don't see us building rape compounds like the Branch Davidians did, or like Jeff Warrems did, or feeding poisoned Kool-Aid to our family and friends, like Jim Jones did, do you?

So I am calling you out on your bullshite statement.

 

[koshergrl]

No, that's a logical fallacy.

Most atheists live in communities that are held together by laws...laws that have their basis in religion.

So your assumption is not valid.

 

[orogenicman]

No, that's a logical fallacy.

Most atheists live in communities that are held together by laws...laws that have their basis in religion.

So your assumption is not valid.

Do try to substantiate that claim. (this should be good)

 

[Boss]

Clearly the majority of the nation's people are Christian, and live by Christian traditions and standards, such as they are. But to suggest that our government is anything other than a secular one is to attempt to revise history. The United States is not a theocracy no matter how badly you may want it to be. The United States government is a republic, and that is just about as secular as it gets. If you are looking for a theocracy, may I suggest you move to the Vatican or else Iran may take you in.

History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.

The United States is NOT a theocracy, I never claimed it was. In fact, the United States can never BE a theocracy as long as we have a First Amendment, it is expressly forbidden.

Erm, the declaration of independence is not the law of the law. It was a letter to Mad King George declaring our independence from his tyranny. Next. And the establishment of a religious nation (particularly one based on Christianity) was never stated in the declaration as a goal, nor was it ever expressed as a goal in any other founding document. You really should read it before you make such silly claims.

It's not supposed to be "law of the land" and it wasn't written to be. It's the founding establishment of our nation. I didn't say it was our goal to establish a Christian theocracy. It certainly wasn't, or we wouldn't have had the First Amendment. Try to get this through your thick head, we were established on a Judeo-Christian principle that all men are created equally and endowed rights by a Creator, among those rights is the freedom to worship however we please without persecution. We can't BE a theocracy, unless we abolish the First Amendment.

It's certainly not a silly claim, it's right there in black and white for everyone to see. The silly claim is that we are a "secular" nation or else a "theocracy" when we are neither.

 

[Boss]

Do try to substantiate that claim. (this should be good)

Tell you what do... YOU pick a law, any law... and then I will give you the specific religious underpinning for that law.

 

[orogenicman]

History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.

The United States is NOT a theocracy, I never claimed it was. In fact, the United States can never BE a theocracy as long as we have a First Amendment, it is expressly forbidden.

Erm, the declaration of independence is not the law of the law. It was a letter to Mad King George declaring our independence from his tyranny. Next. And the establishment of a religious nation (particularly one based on Christianity) was never stated in the declaration as a goal, nor was it ever expressed as a goal in any other founding document. You really should read it before you make such silly claims.

It's not supposed to be "law of the land" and it wasn't written to be. It's the founding establishment of our nation. I didn't say it was our goal to establish a Christian theocracy. It certainly wasn't, or we wouldn't have had the First Amendment. Try to get this through your thick head, we were established on a Judeo-Christian principle that all men are created equally and endowed rights by a Creator, among those rights is the freedom to worship however we please without persecution. We can't BE a theocracy, unless we abolish the First Amendment.

It's certainly not a silly claim, it's right there in black and white for everyone to see. The silly claim is that we are a "secular" nation or else a "theocracy" when we are neither.

Except that the notion of equality didn't originate from Christianity or Judaism (far from it), and our founders weren't the first to express the idea. Thomas Jefferson and many other founders were slave holders, and didn't treat them very well either. That is the 'Christian' tradition that original founded our society. So sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Boss]

Erm, the declaration of independence is not the law of the law. It was a letter to Mad King George declaring our independence from his tyranny. Next. And the establishment of a religious nation (particularly one based on Christianity) was never stated in the declaration as a goal, nor was it ever expressed as a goal in any other founding document. You really should read it before you make such silly claims.

It's not supposed to be "law of the land" and it wasn't written to be. It's the founding establishment of our nation. I didn't say it was our goal to establish a Christian theocracy. It certainly wasn't, or we wouldn't have had the First Amendment. Try to get this through your thick head, we were established on a Judeo-Christian principle that all men are created equally and endowed rights by a Creator, among those rights is the freedom to worship however we please without persecution. We can't BE a theocracy, unless we abolish the First Amendment.

It's certainly not a silly claim, it's right there in black and white for everyone to see. The silly claim is that we are a "secular" nation or else a "theocracy" when we are neither.

Except that the notion of equality didn't originate from Christianity or Judaism (far from it), and our founders weren't the first to express the idea. Thomas Jefferson and many other founders were slave holders, and didn't treat them very well either. That is the 'Christian' tradition that original founded our society. So sorry to disappoint you.

The notion of a Creator who endows all men equally with rights, is most certainly a Judeo-Christian notion. The argument has nothing to do with who came up with the idea first or the institution of slavery which had existed since before Christianity. Again, we didn't establish a Christian Theocracy.

I don't know how Jefferson treated slaves and it doesn't matter. At the time, they weren't considered people. However, when Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves and ended slavery, he did so on the basis of the very same Judeo-Christian principle we were founded upon. He couldn't have done that if we had been a "secular" nation.

 

[koshergrl]

Jefferson was open about his struggle with his ideals vs. his slave ownership. He thought that our country was not in a position to deal with the issue at the same time it was dealing with revolution issues/new nation issues.

 

[orogenicman]

Jefferson was open about his struggle with his ideals vs. his slave ownership. He thought that our country was not in a position to deal with the issue at the same time it was dealing with revolution issues/new nation issues.

Actually, he was very secretive about the fact that he owned slave. Although he called slavery an abomination, his very livelihood depended on it:

Scientific American Frontiers . Unearthing Secret America . Slave Housing at Monticello | PBS

 

[Gadawg73]

No, that's a logical fallacy.

Most atheists live in communities that are held together by laws...laws that have their basis in religion.

So your assumption is not valid.

LOL, communities have been slaughtering each other since the inception of religion.
BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERENCES OF RELIGION.
If there is one common denominator of what TEARS APART communities over the last 4000 years it is RELIGION.
Where do you come up with your nonsense?
You WANT to believe this so it makes it true.

 

[Gadawg73]

Jefferson held a woman in bondage, fucked her, forced her to bear his children and felt real bad about it.
Sure, right.
This is the man that cut and pasted selective parts of the Bible because he labeled most of it folly.
If we want to stick to the facts.

 

[Gadawg73]

History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.

The United States is NOT a theocracy, I never claimed it was. In fact, the United States can never BE a theocracy as long as we have a First Amendment, it is expressly forbidden.

Erm, the declaration of independence is not the law of the law. It was a letter to Mad King George declaring our independence from his tyranny. Next. And the establishment of a religious nation (particularly one based on Christianity) was never stated in the declaration as a goal, nor was it ever expressed as a goal in any other founding document. You really should read it before you make such silly claims.

It's not supposed to be "law of the land" and it wasn't written to be. It's the founding establishment of our nation. I didn't say it was our goal to establish a Christian theocracy. It certainly wasn't, or we wouldn't have had the First Amendment. Try to get this through your thick head, we were established on a Judeo-Christian principle that all men are created equally and endowed rights by a Creator, among those rights is the freedom to worship however we please without persecution. We can't BE a theocracy, unless we abolish the First Amendment.

It's certainly not a silly claim, it's right there in black and white for everyone to see. The silly claim is that we are a "secular" nation or else a "theocracy" when we are neither.

We were founded as a nation OF LAWS, not God's laws as divine right was God's laws.
We were founded on MAN'S LAWS.
The United States Constitution, a document you spit on and take for granted the very rights it gave freeing you from the bondage religion had on man for centuries.

 

[koshergrl]

Anyway, back to the topic...laws that promote liberty and equality are all bible based.

Time for gaddawg to pass out shortly. It's been what, a 24 hour bender?

 

[orogenicman]

Anyway, back to the topic...laws that promote liberty and equality are all bible based.

Time for gaddawg to pass out shortly. It's been what, a 24 hour bender?

When is liberty and equality cited in the Bible? When Abraham owned slaves? When Jesus gave advice for to people who owned slaves? When?

 

[koshergrl]

You're kidding..or else you're painfully ignorant.

 

[holston]

Still it seems odd that a bunch of people who by your own admission would profess to some sort of Christian affiliation would be any more averse to having a nation based on those principles than the Jews would want one based on the enforced assumption of Jewish Supremacy.

Why? Because the colonies saw religious strife throughout it's history prior to the 13 colonies becoming a nation. The founding fathers wanted to mitigate such religious strife and said so on many occasions. That is the reason they included freedom of religion as the FIRST amendment. And you cannot have freedom of religion when one religion is ruling over another.

Everyone should want to mitigate religious strife. Not everyone does.

Yes. The Freedom of Religion was intended to prevent government interference in peoples religion, not to prevent people with religious beliefs from occupying positions within government or acting upon their own religious convictions. Otherwise Rabbi Joseph Lieberman would never have been admitted to Congress nor Ruth Ginsberg to the Supreme court. Ginsberg has stated openly that her Judaism influences her decisions. No doubt Lieberman's orthodox Judaism does as well.
I mentioned this before but you must have forgotten.

The JUDEO-xtians who serve Zion before Christ should be made aware that all Jews of religious convictions are Supremacists and are no more compromising about that than the Muslims are about Muhammed.

Because of these convictions, both the Jews and the Muslims will seek to eradicate Christianity if at all possible. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. People remain as free today to reject the teachings of Christ as they ever were. There is no man made law possible that could ever FORCE any person to accept Christ, not even an government authorization to torture those who don't

On the other hand, Talmudic Judaism as well as Islam would FORCE non Jews or non Muslims to serve Jews or Muslims respectively. Christian teachings permit as many people who desire to serve the devil as will.
However laws built on Christian principles would forbid ANYONE the "freedom" to just do whatever in hell they please despite whatever they think about Jesus Christ.

If you believe that the religiously devout are the only ones who understand and practice morality, then you don't know much about people outside of your own narrow world view. If you believe that religions have not been a party to barbarity and immoral behavior, then you don't know much about the history of religions.

I don't believe that and I never indicated that I did.

However I do believe that there is merit in preaching the teachings of Christ and that a society which practices those principles will benefit from them.

The Founders prohibition of government enacting laws to either censor or enforce the traditions of one particular religion over another was not intended to bar the belief in or respect of God. I stated this earlier with reference to Bloody Mary and King Henry.
It absolutely was not intended to prohibit Christianity or as a back door means of endorsing Judaism, Islam, Secular Humanism, or Godless Communism. That's exactly what some people are trying to sneak in under the guise of "separation of church and state".

If you are trying to suggest that the Founders were Darwinian atheists you have a lot of explaining to do.

What kind of fools do you take us for?


Romans 2:

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

The explanation as to why moral intuition exists even outside the declaration of Christ is given in the Bible itself.

What does this mean?
Does it mean that God has nothing to do with the moral instincts of man?

NOT in the least!

What that indicates is that the moral nature of man is a natural part of man.

Why?
Because God doesn't exist?

Absolutely not!

It's because God DOES exist and because God CREATED man, not the other way around.

You should consider the nature of "God" himself. The Bible states that God is "love".
What does this mean?
That God is Amoral?
No! Just the opposite.

It means that God is the fountain of morality because in essence "God" IS morality.

Since God created man, it is only natural that he should instinctively be aware of moral constructs which ought to govern the behavior of men.

You would have us believe that man CREATES morality. Or that moral standards have no commonality between one race or culture when they obviously do.
The differences exist because of the differences in traditions and differences between the doctrines which are taught.
Talmudic Judaism naturally bears some semblances to Christianity in it's rules and regulations. The chief difference lies in the Talmudic doctrine that places Jews above others and reserves certain aspects of charitable behavior to be practiced exclusively among Jews while condoning certain practices against outsiders which Christianity does not condone in any case.
Islam makes similar reservations.

There is no doubt that a man can be taught to behave one way or another and that these teachings can effect the way in which he treats others because there is no doubt that the moral instincts which we both admit can be found universally can be overridden by depraved and morally destitute individuals REGARDLESS of what they have been taught.


What you people keep missing is the difference between the TEACHINGS of CHRIST and the ACTIONS of MEN, whether they do them in this name or that one.
An act which is condemned by Christ remains condemned whether a "Christian" commits them or anyone else.
When this happens, those actions in no way nullify what Christ has spoken about them.

You are also kidding yourself if you think that the censorship or eradication of Christianity would eliminate the IMMORAL behaviors of men.

 

[BreezeWood]

History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.

An Outline of Baptist Persecution in Colonial America

The fight for religious liberty in America extended from the early 17th century to the early 19th century. Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.

just a snapshot, posted earlier ...


the problem fundies have, is not what the intent of the Constitution is but who actually wrote it .... they were the leading "Liberals" of the time and wrote a Liberal inspired document the reactionaries have desperately fought against since the ink began to dry.

Boss, the issue is Separation of Church and State not your latent religious rhetoric and was both the intent of those who convened to establish a Constitution but in most instances of these dispute was categorically "written" by the Liberal theology of that time to be indisputably understood.


Boss: To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.


no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.

.

 

[holston]

no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.

.

Show me your "Separation of Church and State" amendment.

Amendment I: 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.

This says that the government cannot establish a religion or interfere with a persons religious beliefs.

So why aren't you "liberals" up in arms about the Noahide House Resolution?

Do you want to venture a guess or shall I tell you?



Bill Text - 102nd Congress (1991-1992) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This was just a way setting a legal precedent for things to come, namely opening the door to Government enforced JUDAISM which means one set of rules and regulations for Jews and another for all the non-Jews. The one for non-Jews are called "Noahide" by the Jews.
This is clearly a VIOLATION of your "separation of church and synagogue" argument. Yet Papa Weenie Bush gave it his blessings and Bush the Boob Junior later became President.

No doubt the Founders had the prevention of something like this in mind when they wrote the first amendment.

If "WASP" America wants to surrender the US to Zionist Jews and their Secular Humanist, atheist Marxist allies then they will just have to suffer the consequences.

I for one will not if there is anything I can do to prevent it.


This is the problem with so called "multiculturalism" and "diversification".

I hear the mostly Jewish protagonists for it being featured by the "right wing" "Republican" NEO-CON talking heads off and on all the time.

Just today one of the female Laura what's her name had some Jewiss on hawking her new book and explaining how desirable it is to have "diversity" in everything.

The worst thing in the world that could happen according to her is to have a group of nothing but "white" men making decisions.

She would have us believe that a bunch of people having contrary religions, speaking different languages, and all vying for power and disagreeing on everything under the son is infinitely preferable to just leaving "white" men the hell alone.

I say "white" because "white" in the context in which she used it could only refer to "white" gentiles.
"White" Jews are a horse of a different color.

How long Oh Lord shall I have to tolerate this brood of vipers?

 

[koshergrl]

I love it when anti-Christian goons maintain that anyone who says this country was founded on Christian principles (as it definitely was) or disagrees with their ridiculous contention that the founding fathers were LIBERALS as liberals are defined today...are FUNDIES.

Sorry, Southern Baptist isn't *fundy*. Nor is Catholic. Nor is whatever Boss is.

 

[orogenicman]

Still it seems odd that a bunch of people who by your own admission would profess to some sort of Christian affiliation would be any more averse to having a nation based on those principles than the Jews would want one based on the enforced assumption of Jewish Supremacy.

Why? Because the colonies saw religious strife throughout it's history prior to the 13 colonies becoming a nation. The founding fathers wanted to mitigate such religious strife and said so on many occasions. That is the reason they included freedom of religion as the FIRST amendment. And you cannot have freedom of religion when one religion is ruling over another.

Everyone should want to mitigate religious strife. Not everyone does.

Yes. The Freedom of Religion was intended to prevent government interference in peoples religion, not to prevent people with religious beliefs from occupying positions within government or acting upon their own religious convictions. Otherwise Rabbi Joseph Lieberman would never have been admitted to Congress nor Ruth Ginsberg to the Supreme court. Ginsberg has stated openly that her Judaism influences her decisions. No doubt Lieberman's orthodox Judaism does as well.
I mentioned this before but you must have forgotten.

The JUDEO-xtians who serve Zion before Christ should be made aware that all Jews of religious convictions are Supremacists and are no more compromising about that than the Muslims are about Muhammed.

Because of these convictions, both the Jews and the Muslims will seek to eradicate Christianity if at all possible.

<snipped the remaining train wreck>

I think you are in the wrong forum. This should be posted in the flame zone. Moderators, can you move the post above to the rubber room? I think it qualifies.