Here's a "non-denominational symbol" for the atheists that
everyone should be able to understand.
Posted on 12/01/2005 7:13:41 AM PST by Andyman
A lawsuit against memorial crosses is set to be filed Thursday by a group that feels they violate the separation of church and state.
Three Utah atheists, backed by a national organization based in Texas, are filing suit against the state for allowing crosses to be erected in honor of highway patrol troopers, who have died in the line of duty.
Richard Andrews said, "I feel the same way a Jew might feel if you put a state symbol on a swastika"
According to the UHP Association, a support group for troopers and their families, many fallen troopers' relatives consider the memorial crosses just as important as the tombstones that mark their graves.
Sgt. Todd Royce of the UHP Association told ABC 4 News, "It's a sense of pride, I think. It's a... kind of a sacred feeling."
The atheists suggest the association could honor the troopers with a non-denominational symbol.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Only if they continue to profess Luther's anti-Jewish sentiments, which are clearly outside of Christian teaching.
Well, do they?
Gee, guess that wasn't so problematic as some would suggest, eh?
You dodged the question. Was Martin Luther a Christian, or not?
You didn't ask that question so how could I have dodged it?
Anyway, it is quite clear that Martin Luther made several statements concerning the Jews that were decidedly un-Christian and Christians, as a whole, are no more bound to those statements than all Americans are bound to statements from Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan.
Was Martin Luther a Christian, or not?
What makes you think I'm in a position to judge?
He certainly said he was, right?
He also said things there were un-Christian, right?
Here's a "non-denominational symbol" for the atheists that
everyone should be able to understand.
So were the Nazis Christians? Can you judge that?
And in any case, if you can't judge, why exactly did you get involved in this discussion?
Photoshopping images of the President is usually the kind of thing DUers do.
With rhetoric like that I dont think this groups has a snowball's chance in haiti of succeeding.
Because your statement "That makes the fact that major Christian denominations are to this day named after Martin Luther a bit problematic, no?" was too mind-bendingly stupid to allow it to pass unmocked!
Since atheists don't fear going before G-d, I say we start killing them wholesale.
So you think you mocked it? All I saw was you dodging the point. You are now claiming Christian denominations are named after a person of whose Christianity you are uncertain. Maybe we need the first Christian Church of Buddha, too?
Left-brained dorks with no sense of humor are such a riot!
Luther is a tough issue. Given that his society was one in which 100% of the people called themselves Christians, there was no exposure to an alternate belief system, and "Christian" was fairly synonymous with righteous, I'd say definitions have shifted significantly, and that if anyone were to appear today saying what Luther actually said about issues other than Jews, 100% of American, church-going "Lutherans" would denounce him as the very spawn of Satan himself.
Generally, it is sensible to allow someone to define themselves, particularly if that person is sincere, as Luther may well have been. But Luther insisted that no-one before him who had ever been recognized as a Christian leader was, in fact, really Christian, and created radical new beliefs (again, rejected by nearly all modern Protestants -- I'm not talking sola fidelis) and called them "true Christianity." He's plainly not lumping himself in with those who had previously called themselves Christians, so I think it is fair to not lump him in also.
Modern LutherANs should be called Christians, I would say, but not only do LutherANs reject Luther's planned enslavement of the Jews, they also reject his notion that human beings should sin to their heart's content.
Further, as warped as it sounds, Luther's evil plans were not nearly as removed from Christianity as Hitler's. Luther believed Jewish leaders were wilfully leading their people to Hell. As barbaric and foolish as his premises and remedies were, they were based on a presumption that Jews could be saved, if the obstacles to their salvation were removed, and that ultimately, the Jews would be saved by Christ. That value is not inherently anti-Christian.
On the other hand, Hitler's hatred of Jews was founded on racism; they were never God's people, and they never could be. All things Jewish, including Jesus of Nazareth, were inherently evil, and should be destroyed. (He thought that Jesus was a perversion of a non-Jewish, pre-existing notion of Christ.) That is inherently anti-Christian.
Well, if your definition of Christians is sufficiently narrow to exclude Martin Luther, then I'll concede you are also entitled to exclude the Nazis. On the other hand, you really ought to make it clear that you're using a definition at odds with common usage. I quickly checked several biographical sources; all had Luther listed as a Christian.
Further, as warped as it sounds, Luther's evil plans were not nearly as removed from Christianity as Hitler's. Luther believed Jewish leaders were wilfully leading their people to Hell. As barbaric and foolish as his premises and remedies were, they were based on a presumption that Jews could be saved, if the obstacles to their salvation were removed, and that ultimately, the Jews would be saved by Christ. That value is not inherently anti-Christian.
You'll have to appreciate, that as an atheist, I see no virtue at all in 'saving' Jews. Luther wanted to do bad things to Jews in pursuit of a deluded goal. Even Hitler, by Hitler's standards, had good intentions. That's why I don't give points for good intentions.
But thanks for the civil discussion; a rarity on this sort of thread.
Actually, I did mock it. Sorry if the mockery went over your head.
All I saw was you dodging the point.
There was no point in the original statement, other than an attempt to defame all Christians by being associated with this one man.
You are now claiming Christian denominations are named after a person of whose Christianity you are uncertain.
Actually, that's your claim.
My claim is that the sort of statements referenced where decidely un-Christian.
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.