Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson
When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. Im sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I wondered the very same thing... :o)
Well I guess we can say this People who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of GOD and some people beleive he is not
WHY? because they come to an understanding of what they choose to believe from a religious point of view.
I beleive in Jesus Christ first because of a personal experience I had in knowing him after that what was in the Bible about him made me a believer. It was a choice.
Denying the exsistence of GOD is warpped and I feel sad for the people like MM that have no use for there soul other than fish eating there bodily flakes.
I'm not defending his atheism. I'm defending his right to it.
Great minds, etc. :-)
Roman society at the time of the emergence of Christianity was actually suffering from a widespread religious vacuum. During the reign of Augustus, which wrapped around the beginning of our era, the Emperor tried desperately to revive traditional Roman religion, much of which had been forgotten or was essentially ignored by his contemporaries. His attempts succeeded largely in politicizing religion - Romans of a century earlier were happy to worship Jove because they revered him; Romans of the first century A.D. were happy to worship Augustus because it scored political points.
Christianity burst into this spiritual vacuum the way that Islam is doing in modern-day Europe. Other cults (such as that of Isis, Cybele, Mithras, etc.) did so as well; over the course of the next four centuries, Christianity defeated all rivals and attained near-monopoly on Roman religious practice.
It is therefore inaccurate to say that the Romans adopted Christianity because their complex religious traditions had grown "tedious" or because they were burdensome. It's more accurate to say that they adopted Christianity because they no longer found their traditional practices meaningful, and had drifted into agnosticism.
"Is there a little masochism lurking beneath that very controlled surface? ;-)"
I'll have to get back to you later. I need to take my hair shirt out of the dryer and pick up my scourge at the leather shop, where it's being repaired.
Read up a message or two....[grin]
Do you defend the right of a woman to abort her babies?
Do you defend the rights of homosexuals to Marry?
And you defend the right of Atheists?
My question to you is does GOD defend those rights?
Ah, OK. Surely not this government. I can accept this as a statement of what modern governments are unable to do due to the cultural limitations. In principle, however, it should not be difficult to delineate between merely obnoxious and grossly insulting.
I understand...I know I have to work on those issues I have in getting or letting people upset me, I am a sinner and I need GOD daily and for eternity.
True. That committee is the Catholic Church, which canonized the Christian oral apostolic tradition.
Another good analysis, I think. By tedious, I meant that polytheism was no longer relevant to their society. As knowledge grew, it was tough to believe in those oh-so-human deities. So, we're both right, in a way.
Christianity was tailor-made for Rome, and of course, for the rest of Europe, as Rome went a-conquering. A perfect fit.
LOL I think you've earned a reprieve from the self-flagellation.
"Do you defend the right of a woman to abort her babies?
Do you defend the rights of homosexuals to Marry?
And you defend the right of Atheists?
"
Oh, missyme, you're confused again here. The first two have to do with actions. The last has to do with belief. There's a big difference between having an abortion or two gays getting married and disbelieving in deities. Beliefs are not actions; they're just beliefs.
"True. That committee is the Catholic Church, which canonized the Christian oral apostolic tradition."
Well, sort of, anyhow. They canonized part of it, at least. There's lots more that didn't make it into the New Testament, it seems.
The biggest puzzle to me is how the heck they decided to include Revelation. There's an oddity for you.
The RCC assembled the New Testament out of bits and pieces, moving them around and fiddling with them until it matched up with their beliefs at the time. It's a great story, and one that has affected Christianity enormously.
I wonder if the historical Jesus would recognize what has become of his teachings...
Awww...do I have to stop. It hurts so good.
Alas, I must hie me away from this thread, for I have kitchen duty. It's been fun, but let's not continue it into tommorow, OK?
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
I read that somewhere....[grin]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.