Posted on 05/13/2007 10:48:35 PM PDT by goldstategop
This past week an ABC News debate aired on "Nightline," which pitted popular theists against Internet atheists. While I'll have more to say about that battle of wits in my next article, it testifies to the growing number (30 million Americans) of those who profess there is no God. Add to that what I believe is possibly three times the number of functional atheists, those who believe in a God but practically don't show it, and America is facing a new religious horizon in which atheism is becoming a formidable foe.
Though the majority of Americans continue to claim to be Christians, a Gallup poll discovered 45 percent of us would support an atheist for president, 55 percent would support a homosexual candidate and 72 percent would support a Mormon candidate.
Such a survey is a clear indication that most Americans are simply confused about what it means to be Christian. It also shows that the secularization of society is alive and well, especially when almost half would endorse an atheist president.
The opponents of God
Once upon a time, years ago, it seemed that the only major fire for atheism burned from the anti-Christian work of Madelyn Murray O'Hair and the American Atheist organization, whose claim to fame was the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in 1963.
Today many more antagonist groups and individuals to theism abound, and they are using every means possible for global proliferation – from local government to the World Wide Web. Such secular progressives include the Institute for Humanist Studies, Secular Coalition of America, American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Internet Infidels, the Atheist Alliance International, Secular Student Alliance, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, etc. Of course no list of atheistic advocates would be complete without mentioning the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as the anti-God militancy of men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
Though the U.S. Constitution outlaws religious discrimination, these organizations and individuals would love nothing more than to help society look with disdain upon Christianity and, ultimately, make its components illegal. In fact, right now, they are coalescing and rallying at least 5 million of their troops to mount counter offensives to Christianity.
For that reason I believe theistic patriots need to be wise to atheists' overt and covert schemes, exposing their agenda and fighting to lay waste to their plans.
Step 1: Initiate restrictions and legislation against theism and Christianity
In God we bust
For these liberal groups to win the war of ideological dominance, they know they must minimize the effects of Christianity, which many are doing (unbeknownst to others) behind the scenes through lobbying and legislation. In fact, two significant actions occurred on the National Day of Prayer just two weeks ago!
The London Telegraph noted that, while American Christians were praying across the land on the National Day of Prayer, atheists were petitioning the Texas Legislature against the civic display of the words, "In God We Trust."
Eroding and erasing theistic language in culture is a growing trend. Earlier this year George Washington dollar coins were not only inscribed with the words "In God We Trust" on their edges, but many excluded them entirely! Such minting modifications are a flagrant defiance against theism and a public reflection of the place God is now relegated – to the fringes of society.
Secularists of course have made repeated attempts to rid "under God" from "The Pledge of Allegiance." Thank God the Legislature of Texas is moving along a bill to include the words in our state pledge: "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God and indivisible." I was also grateful to read in the Dallas Morning News May 1 that the House also embraced legislation "that seeks to clarify the rights of Texas public school students to offer public prayers at football games or graduation, hand out religious messages or hold religious meetings during the school day if they want."
Another example of atheistic advocacy can be found in the 10,000-member Freedom from Religion Foundation initiation of a Supreme Court case, which asserts that President Bush's faith-based initiatives pose a violation of the wall of separation between church and state.
Atheists also received a proverbial shot in the arm by locating a representative and advocate of sorts in Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who "is the first member of Congress – and the highest-ranking elected official in the country – to make known that he is a nontheist."
His election stands in stark contrast to the wishes of our Founding Fathers, who encouraged American citizens to vote Christians into public office. As John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
The tyranny of the state over the church
The other legal disgrace that occurred on the National Day of Prayer was that Congress passed what might become one of the most religiously restrictive pieces of legislation in history: H.R. 1592, "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act." With Senate approval, this bill will expand the law against such hate crimes, allowing federal funds and other resources to assist local law enforcement to deter and punish acts of violence committed against an individual because of the victim's race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.
While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, it could very easily end up (even inadvertently) restricting First Amendment rights of Christians to speak freely against such anti-biblical practices as homosexuality and transvestitism. As Janet Folger, the author of "Criminalizing Christianity," has pointed out, "H.R. 1592 isn't about hate. It isn't about crime. It's about silencing our speech."
As with other laws of this type, once enacted, local justices could easily expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. Once enforced, what would stop a clergy from being accused as an accessory to a hate crime, after he preached to his church on Sunday about the woes of same-sex marriage and discovered on Monday one of his congregants got in a fight with a homosexual co-worker as a result of a moral altercation? The fact is, if the hate-crime bill passes, pastors could easily become pulpit partners in crime.
I agree with Rev. Henry Jackson, who said the law would "mandate unequal protection under the law and will pave the way for criminalization of thoughts and religious beliefs contrary to politically correct ideas."
Hate-crime laws are not only a violation of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, but a violation of the 10th Amendment's limitations on the power of federal government.
Hang together or hang separately?
Thank God our President's senior advisers have gone on record that they will advise him to veto the bill if it reaches the doors of the White House. We, too, must follow his lead by speaking up and taking a stand against this unnecessary and unconstitutional bill – and any others like it. Just as atheists are gathering to combat God, we patriots must come together to sustain the godly heritage we've been handed. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."
I urge you to write the President and your representatives today to encourage the overturning of this ungodly, religiously restricting and unconstitutional piece of legislation, erroneously titled by the misnomer, "Hate Crimes Prevention Act."
You said — You are both right. There will be a lot of dead militant atheists in the future Tribulation period. We can also say that after the Tribulation there will be no more “atheists.”
—
Well, I was almost going to put that in there, but decided at the last moment to not say that on top of what I said. But, that’s right, during the Tribulation period that will be a time of great death and destruction. About 2/3 of the world’s population is killed (as a rough figure and estimate from what we read in the Bible)....
And that’s very true for after the Tribulation, during the Kingdom of God that Jesus Christ sets up for His Millennial reign over all the nations and all the peoples on the earth.
BUT, all is not totally well, even during the Millennial reign of Christ — as we can see by how many people rebel over Jesus Christ’s rule and reign at the end of the Millennium...
bookmark
Nicea was a forced council called by an emporer who wanted peace among the Christian denominations. It was a political decision, not one based on irrefutable scripture or revelation. As such it may or may not reflect the truth. It does reflect accepted tradition but tradition is not given the same merit as scripture. And for every scripture quoted to support the concept of the trinity (which isn’t in the scriptures as such), there are others to support the idea that the Father and the Son are separate, though totally unified in purpose, beings. To decide that only those who accept Nicea can be called Christian seems to me arrogant and makes about as much sense as the Democrat(ic)s stating that because they won the last election, they are the only true leaders of the House and Senate and anyone who votes against their hegemony from this point on cannot be considered American.
In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Savior made the point that the true neighbor was one who acted like a neighbor. The true Christian is one who acts like a Christian in following the Savior’s example, in accepting Him as the only way to approach the Father, in believing that He died for the sins of mankind and redeemed us from death and Hell, in believing that He is the Only Begotten of the Father, and that He is our Lord, Redeemer, Savior, and God.
It is true that different denominations define the Savior in different ways. That is to be expected among so many sects and so many different interpretations of scripture, but I seldom hear of Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses or others condemned as non-Christian claim that they are the only real Christians and everyone else is a non-Christian.
I did not post this as a flame and I hope you don’t take it that way. I sincerely believe that Nicea and the other councils were part of tradition. Prostestants rejected the Catholic Church’s claim of the authority of its tradition and yet when a religion rejects tradition that Prostestants accept, they are pilloried and rejected as “non-Christian”. Again, the Trinity is one interpretation of scripture. The council, so far as I know, never claimed to received heavenly messengers declaring the Trinity, never claimed prophets affirmed their interpretation, never claimed anything except a majority vote at the stacked council. It is tradition and as such it is neither necessarily correct or sacrosanct as far as I am concerned.
I have no problem with people accepting a concept of the Trinity. I have a real problem with the Trinitarians claiming no one else can be a disciple of Christ except Trinitarians.
Are you saying that those who don't hold to this statement are not true Christians?
Besides Homosexual act, people who commit these aberrant acts would also be protected under H.R. 1592:
Paraphilia - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person.
Pederasty - Sex between an adult and a child, usually an adult male and a male child.
Pedophilia - Sexual contact between an adult and a child.
Bisexual Pedophilia - term used for an adult who derives sexual gratification from sexual contact with a child without regard to the sex of the child.
Heterosexual Pedophilia - term used for an adult who derives sexual gratification from sexual contact with a child of the opposite sex.
Gay Pedophilia - term used for a male adult who derive sexual gratification from sexual contact with a child of the same sex.
Lesbian Pedophilia - term used for a female adult who derives sexual gratification from sexual contact with a child of the same sex.
Prostitution - the act of practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money.
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation.
Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement.
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls.
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia..
Transexual - A person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender.
Transvestite - A person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender.
Urophilia - Sexual arousal associated with urine.
Voyeurism - Obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engages in sexual activity.
Zoophilia/Bestiality - Engaging in sexual activity with animals..
I think I just said that defines a true Christian in my mind. One who accepts Christ as He claimed to be in the scriptures and follows His teachings as best they can.
OK, so unless my understanding of Mormon doctrine is wrong, then you are saying that they are not true Christians.
Well, if you can show where the Mormon understanding of Christ is different than that in the scriptures, then perhaps you have a point. I am saying that Mormons follow scripture information about Christ, profess Him to be the Only Begotten Son of God, the only way to the Father, the Savior and Redeemer of this world so what makes them non-Christian?
I agree with your earlier post. They deny the Deity of Christ.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form - Col. 2:9
They don’t. They hold that Christ is a separate being of the Godhead, subservient to God the Father but also Lord of this earth and completely united in purpose and love with the Father and the Holy Spirit. I’ll see your Col. 2:9 and raise you John 17:22.
Actually I’ve no desire to get into a Bible-bashing debate which hasn’t been resolved for 2,000 years. Both of us could easily quote numerous scriptures to back our disparate views. Even the participants at the Council of Nicea acknowledged that they were going extra-scriptural to reach agreement on something that would counter the threat of Arianism.
My point is that the Doctrine of the Trinity, old and widely-accepted as it is, is merely a paradigm to define God (who is ultimately undefinable anyway) and why is it that those who accept this Trinitarian paradigm over another equally scriptural paradigm have the right to decide that anyone who accepts the second paradigm can’t be properly classified a “Christian”. Mormons have no problem with accepting other denominations as Christian, so why do other so-called “Christian” denominations have problems with Mormons professing to follow the Christ in the scriptures? Mormons do not deny the divinity of Christ, they assert it unapologetically. They believe it when Christ says he sits at the right hand of the Father. Trinitarians believe in a metaphysical three separate beings with one substance. Mormons believe in three separate beings who together comprise the Godhead: God the Father, His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Both views are Biblical, layered with scriptural interpretation. Neither is “un-Christian”. Followers of both paradigms are trying their level best to follow the Savior’s example here and acknowledge Him as their Savior and advocate with the Father.
By the way, this entire discussion began with my comment that Norris was unnecessarily bashing potential allies in his crusade to bring back Christian values. I stand by that assertion. Six million conservatives should not be lightly trashed when you are looking for friends.
I believe here are two types of athiests. Those who do not believe in any god, and those who are essentially anti-religious. It is IMHO the anti-religious who are trying to enforce some kind of freedom from religion. That being said, there isn't much that can be done short of actively defending Christian values in court. You can't legislate people's religious beliefs or criminalize atheism. If we did, this would not be a free America anymore.
The Creed states: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified”. Of course, there are [brackets] around [and the Son] because those at the Council of Nicea could not agree on whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or only the Son. Of course, that leads to the obvious conclusion that they did not agree on the Father and the Son being one in the same being. So, it is illogical to conclude that the Nicene Creed is the basis for an orthodox or universal understanding of the Trinity. Indeed, it demonstrates that the nature of God and the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are probably more than we can grasp. They couldn’t figure it out at Nicea so people need to stop pretending they did. The Council of Nicea Solved Nothing on the Nature of the Trinity — the division manifest there still lives on. I just hope that Christ Jesus is merciful upon us all for pretending to understand more than we do.
Finally, it is sad to see people condemn others to hell for not believing in different extra-biblical texts than they believe in. Jesus taught us to be united, to be one, as He is one with the Father. He wants us to be united, not divided over how He and the Father and the Holy Spirit are united. How Satan, the great divider and deceiver, must rejoice when he sees Christians condemning others (especially other believers in Christ) to hell over points that scripture does not answer. Only our judge, Christ Jesus, can determine who goes where.
Mormonism is not Christianity.
The gospel according to jacknife? This whole old debate was on what authority any group has to define who is and who isn’t Christian. It’s an unwinnable debate unless there is one universally accepted authority and that doesn’t exist. You can state what the mainline churches define as Christianity but you can’t state that it applies to the Lord’s definition of His followers. Unless you have some revelation, you can only state man’s definition of Christianity.
Mormons are as Christian as Muslims are. They both have about the same amount of a Judea Christian base.
Mormons have a lot of really good traits; family oriented, self sufficient, etc.
But they are not Christians.
Exactly.
“Mormons are as Christian as Muslims are.”
Have you considered that today’s Christian’s are about as close to the original teachings of Christ as Scientologists are? So many made-up doctrines, and they accuse the Mormons of false teaching?
One thing Christ taught about false prophets in this day, is that “by their fruits you will know them”. If that’s the case, I’ll pick the wholesome Mormons over the degenerate carnal Christians any day, and I think God, weather in the form of Trinity or not, will be on their side. Righteousness and Faith, not doctrine, is what both Christ and Scipture counts as important.
The “Christian” doctrine of “Faith-alone” has Killed God in America, and they are to blame for the sweeping athiesm of recent decades. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has at least kept it’s purity, and is a “city on a hill” - and good for them. If Christ returns today, I think he’ll visit them first. He wouldn’t set foot in an evangelical church of today...
Which “made up doctrines” do you refer to? Some mainline ones have certainly gotten off course.
But Bible believing evangelical churches stress that their teachings should be measured against Biblical truth.
The LDS folks deny the divinity of Christ. They treat Him more as Islam does. He was a good teacher, but one of many.
Well I mentioned one made-up doctrine, that of being saved by “Faith Alone”, and denying that we must work-out our salvation, and that Faith is just the first step to a real saving grace. Another good one would be that the Bible alone is the only source of truth. The bible as it stands today was only put together by the proto-orhodox church of the 4rd & 4th centuries, the very same church that taught celibacy as an ideal, the bodily presence of christ in the eucharist, and other doctrines that were rejected by modern-day “reformers”. Evangelical Christianity today doesn’t have any more claim to “truth” than Latter-Day Saints do. In fact, they have less, because they deny the very power of revelation that comes from the Holy Ghost.
To your second point, LDS do not deny the divinity of Christ. He is and always has been God. One of three Gods of this world who are of the same will and power, one “Godhead”. If you do your homework on 1st & 2nd century Christianity, you’ll find that this belief is much closer to those held by the apostles and their immediate predecesors.
LDS also do not believe that Jesus was just one of many “good teachers”. That is ridiculous. In that respect they believe as the evangelicals do. He is the very word of God, and all revelation and scripture comes through the “light of christ”. Where LDS differ is in that they acknowledge and accept ongoing revelation from the holy ghost, not in conflict with the teachings of Christ, but alongside them. The evangelicals deny this power of the holy ghost, and limit God to the bible, a very misguided and sorry doctrine, if you ask me...
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.