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. I’m 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 ...
OK.
Except I do not advocate sanctioning the obnoxious. I advocate sanctioning gross insults, to family, dignity or religion of the locale.
Our trouble as a nation is that these laws are too federal. The local community has no trouble understanding decency, pornography, or what have you. After all, they still ban public nudity and regulate porno shop licenses. So it is doable, given the will.
What do any of those issues have to do with my feeling that no one has the right to force anyone else to believe what they believe?
Regarding God's views on atheism, you tell me. You're the Biblical expert.
Haven't you taken enough abuse for one day? Sheesh. Some people are never satisfied.
This link has church attendance at 75-80% and says diests were never more than a small group. Certainly not the largest group as you portrayed them.
Thanks.
"But I don't mind if others believe in deities. It doesn't affect me."
You've been so very effective at fooling me all this time!
Congrats, I guess.
And here is the religion of the signers of the declaration. Notice how few are Diests or Unitarians.
Here's a similar link for signers of the Constitution.
Oh I see MM has taken abuse in your opinion but GOD hasn't taken any abuse with Atheists denying him?
I take it you have your priorites straight.
You seem to assume that everything that came from under someone's pen in the 1st century was divinely inspired (or as you would probably put it, described the historical Jesus). The early church had to look into the consistencies or lack thereof between documents, its oral tradition and its own, historically developed theological norm. Stuff that got rejected, -- typically the Gnostic writings, -- was at odds with the Epsitles, the earlier Gospels, the common sense, and with some fundamentals of the faith. For example, the notion of Jesus as a supernatural divine being locked in a struggle with the evil Old Testament Jewish God -- while evidence is plentiful that he slept, ate, was tired, irritable, felt pain, and kept a pious Jewish attitude through it all -- is clearly a fantasy.
The Apocalypse comes from a credible source and contains normative Christian eschatology, consistent with the eschatological vision in the Gospel parables. It also correctly predicted the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the emergence of the Chruch Triumphant.
Actually, the Roman Empire had essentially reached its greatest extent in Europe at about the same time that the apostle Paul arrived at Rome. The growth of Christianity was not coextensive with the political power of Rome; many of the barbarians outside the borders were predominantly Christian. The Romans did not engage in missionary conquest; this is a modern fantasy.
Christianity was actually very poorly suited to Rome. Roman greatness had been based on two ideas: one, that the idea of Rome itself was a deity (expressed as Quirinus, the god of the Roman race, the genius of the City of Rome, Jupiter Capitolinus, etc.), and two, that each individual essentially had a duty to attain as much early glory as possible (expressed in political life as the cursus honorum, or obligation to climb the political ladder, or in military life as the idea of taking enemy prizes to dedicate back home to the gods).
Christianity was antithetical to these ideals. First, it expressed that all men were equal - that it was meaningless to be a Roman citizen, or a slave, or a patrician, or any other earthly status. Second, it expressed that earthly glory was meaningless - being an emperor was pointless if your immortal soul was imperiled. The vivid contrasts between the Christian ideals and the old Roman ideals produced violent conflict in the first centuries of the Christian era, and (according to some) eventually contributed to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
Or correctly reported, at any rate.
Do you think that God is so weak that he can't handle the abuse that you imagine that he's suffered in this thread? I certainly don't.
I take it you have your priorites straight.
And you would be correct. I do.
I thought you would like this:
http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup-frame.html
It's been a delight, but one of my main priorities will be home soon and I have to make dinner.
Paul described the gnostics and warned of such in his writings.
This is as phony as your 17% early American statistic.
Simple, you can choose to pretend to believe. As a child and young adult, I tried and tried to believe, but it just didn't take. I 'pretended' to believe by going to church and even participating in bible study activities. Eventually, I realized that I really didn't believe, and also realized that church was largely a social occasion for me, and stopped going.
I thank you, sir, for taking the time to engage in this discussion. Wish that we could discuss sometime over a couple of glasses of cognac, or beverage of your choice.
Missyme, (assuming you are still with us), you scare me.
Why are you somewhat unwelcoming to people encouraging you to believe?
As an atheist I need not say to the believer "There is no God."
I only say "I disagree with the statement (There is a God) that you just made.
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.