Posted on 10/20/2005 11:09:48 AM PDT by Millee
An Ellettsville family whose home is decorated for Halloween contacted police after someone placed on its porch a flier that suggests Halloween praises the devil.
Dalene Gully told Indianapolis television station WRTV that she took offense to the flier, which was placed outside her home by the House of Prayer Church of Bloomington.
"I started reading it, and I was very, very upset by it. I found it very accusatory and very threatening," Gully said.
The church's pastor, Larry Mitchell, said the people who left the flier would have preferred to talk with Gully, but she wasn't there.
Mitchell said the church didn't intend to upset the Gully family, but rather tell people that Halloween isn't harmless fun.
"Halloween is not fantasy," Mitchell said. "We're training up our children, and obviously this lady was trained up in this. Halloween seems like it is taking just as much prominence as Christmas."
The Gully family filed a complaint with the Ellettsville Police Department. The incident also prompted the family to install an alarm system at the home, the station reported.
"This is my home, and I like Halloween. If I want to decorate my home, I have every right to decorate my home," Gully said.
Let's use the more specific example that you have given which applies only to religion.
You are making the claim that if God allows a child to be born into a family with a certain religion, then God must not have a problem with that religion or He would not allow the child to be born into a family of that religion.
Is this your point? Please clarify where I am mistating your viewpoint so that I may understand it clearly enough to test it.
Most monotheists beleive that it is only God who can endow the body with the soul. So if God is opposed to non-monotheistic religions, why would he send souls into babies that he knows are going to be raised as pagans?
Sending "people" to anyone's home to tell them Halloween is devil worship is ridiculous. They need to relax a bit. Its for the kids. We all celebrated this day by eating candy and dressing up. We never sacrificed animals and praised Satan.
Now lets apply your viewpoint logically.
If God allows a baby to be born into a family that has a religion that practices the sacrifice of babies, then God must approve of a religion that practices the sacrifice of babies, since he allowed a baby to be born into that particular family that practices that religion.
Just as I said before, you are saying that if God allows it (in this case He allowed the family involved in a religion of baby sacrifice to produce offspring), then God must not have a problem with a religion that practices baby sacrifice.
I of course disagree with your viewpoint. I don't think a religion is justified by the fact that members can have children.
Agreed.
they will always leave after I tell them I'm not interested and shut the door on their faces
I agree that the vast majority behave that way. One time one of them put his hand on my shoulder (as I walked by him on my way out) after being told twice that we weren't interested. I stopped speaking, looked at his hand then looked at him and he took it off. I wasn't amused.
Is a delivery man 'trespassing' by knocking on your door to tell you about a package for you?
No, because I invited him onto the property (though indirectly) by ordering a package through his delivery service. If I hadn't ordered anything, yes he is most certainly trespassing.
[What a cry baby!]
I agree. Spineless doesn't begin to describe her.
Do you think that a 'no soliciting/no trespassing' sign will prevent a religious pamphleteer from leaving a flyer on your fence or door?
It has so far.
The US Supreme Court struck down the ordinance in Stratton. Jehovah's Witnesses said they are protected by the First Amendment, and they don't need to get permission from anyone to knock on doors
Nothing SCOTUS does surprises me. Their constitutionally ignorant decisions have made them a joke, albeit not a funny one.
The hand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary evangelism-as old as the history of printing presses. It has been a potent force in various religious movements down through the years. [, , ,]
No trespassing signs are pretty old too, but both those facts are utterly irrelevent. It doesn't matter why someone trespasses, and evangelists are no more or less prohibited than anyone else: They are either invited on the property or they are not. The decision you cite is typical of the activism of the court.
This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits. It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion.
"High estate" under the First Amendment????!!!!!!! Apparently SCOTUS thinks some people are more equal than others! Government has no business WHATSOEVER deciding what speech is preferable, that's the entire purpose of the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment! The irony, the arrogance, UGH!
It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion.
WHAT?!!!!!!!! The whole point of the establisment cluase of the 1st Amendment is government doesn't get to decide those things! (Please note, my anger is directed against SCOTUS, not you. I appreciate your research.)
Once again SCOTUS makes an absurd mockery of the document it was created to uphold. Then again, if they didn't do that they probably wouldn't know what to do with themselves. After decades of decisions like that, they have undermined their legitimcy and earned contempt. The only reason one need now take them seriously is because they can back up their rulings with guns.
Regardless, anyone thinking SCOTUS gives them the right to trespass on my property because some judge thinks they're special is in for a rude surprise.
Things you are missing here:
1) Nobody ever said those born into pagan households would all remain pagan forever. There is a thing called "religious conversion."
2) You seem to be of the impression that pagans serve no purpose in God's plan.
3) God never guarantees that all souls are created to be "saved."
4) We have free will. You seem to be arguing that it can not be possible for God to desire all men to be Christians because He very clearly created a world in which all men will not be Christians. This is to totally miss free will.
We are not actors on a stage playing out lines God pre-scripted.
After decades of decisions like that, they have undermined their legitimcy and earned contempt. The only reason one need now take them seriously is because they can back up their rulings with guns.Absolutely. That's why we have this fight about Miers.
I'm willing to let a truck driver sit in the SCOTUS, as long as he can read the simple language in the US Constitution, rule accordingly, and write in a clear, concise manner.
I find it amusing when the SCOTUS quotes itself to justify its unconstitutional rulings. I'm supposed to be impressed that some other judge got it wrong; therefore, I must accept their wrong decision.
Do you have some info that is not included in the post? Drawing conclusions with insufficient information is not cool either.
That would apply to Christianity too, correct?
If our soul's entry into this world is under God's power alone, then the standard monotheistic model of God doesn't make him look too good, does it? Especially when he's sending souls into a baby killing religion.
The standard definition of God is full of contradictions. In fact, it makes him look like a nutjob. I happen to disagree with most Christian models of God. Your mileage may vary.
What, exactly, is it that seems to be troubling you? Do you not understand that God reliquishes control when He endows us with a free will? Why would a person choosing to kill/rape/steal/etc. indict God?
If we are free beings, then we are free to do things that are other-than-pleasing to God.
SD
Harry Browne was quoted as saying his first question to potential SCOTUS nominees would be "Can you read?".
The funny thing is anyone who claims to be a constitutional originalist cannot be confirmed.
Imagine a nominee telling the Senate that they'd roll back the interstate commerce clause to pre-New Deal extents. Imagine how bad they'd be shot down after telling the Senate that they'd have absolutely no powers outside those specifically enumerated in Artice I, Section 8, that 95% of what they do is unconstitutional and they were going to put a stop to it.
I find it amusing when the SCOTUS quotes itself to justify its unconstitutional rulings.
Agreed. Stare Decisis is a poor substitute for the Constitution. If SCOTUS was in charge of science instead of law, the sun would still revolve around the Earth.
Nobody ever said those born into pagan households would all remain pagan forever. There is a thing called "religious conversion."
If a pagan if happy being a pagan, why convert?
You seem to be of the impression that pagans serve no purpose in God's plan.
That is not my belief at all. My impression is that God is not going to care whether I am an Episcopalian.
We have free will. You seem to be arguing that it can not be possible for God to desire all men to be Christians because He very clearly created a world in which all men will not be Christians. This is to totally miss free will.
God gives us free will therefore he must respect what we do with it, given that we do not use it to harm others. Praying to Vishnu or Buddha does not harm others.
We are not actors on a stage playing out lines God pre-scripted
I agree. There would be no point in being here otherwise
That would apply to Christianity too, correct?
Yes, I don't think your justification for religion applies well at all. Just because a child is born into a family of some type of belief, this does not mean that God approves of that particular belief.
The statement you made earlier that since God allows a baby to be born into a family of some type of religion proves He must not have a problem with that religion is what I was objecting to. I think your claim is wrong, I don't think a baby being born into a family of some religion proves the truthfulness or validity of that religion.
Because hell is not a happy place. If pagan thinks some pagan ritual directed to a non-existent pagan god is going to atone for his sins, he is sadly mistaken. If he is so far gone as to not even recognize sin, he is in even worse shape.
My impression is that God is not going to care whether I am an Episcopalian.
Yes, that is your impression. But that is not what God taught us when He was here. Jesus didn't come here to spread Indifferentism.
God gives us free will therefore he must respect what we do with it, given that we do not use it to harm others.
God respects our free will choices, by and large. He also went out of His way to let us know what it is He desires from us. And it is more than merely not harming others. We are to love God and love our neighbors. I fail to see how worshipping a false, non-esitent god, or no god at all is loving God.
Praying to Vishnu or Buddha does not harm others.
It leads others to conclude that these beings exist and are worthy of devotion, when we know that is not the case. This is harmful to the soul, especially the souls of the innocent.
SD
That was sort of the point I was trying to make to the original poster, albeit in a roundabout way. Only God (according to the standard definition) has control over the religion we are born into, so that doesn't make Christianity any more acceptable to him than Hinduism.
Then we are back to the original question. If paganism is so bad (according to you), why does God keep putting souls into babies that are going to be grow up as pagans?
But that is not what God taught us when He was here.
Given that we have about 200 different denominations, seems there's some disagreement as what exactly God taught. All scriptures were written by men. Not a single one was written by any divinity.
Where is your logic in this? Again, what about free will? You are saying that in order for God to favor worship of Him over worship of non-existent false gods, He must forcibly make each soul be born into a family of Christians.
Where did you get this idea and how do you reconcile it with free will? Wouldn't this make us all inbred religious automatons? If God is going to go this far, why give us any choice in the matter whatsoever. He should have just made us all to behave perfectly and serve Him perfectly without any question or doubt.
This is your standard for God. I wonder why you think He has to do things your way.
SD
Your original question is fraught with misconceptions and error. You might as well ask why God grows up little babies to be muggers and rapists and murderers. Couldn't God prevent that? Couldn't God make the world perfect and we would all grow up in 16 children Christian homes with loving moms and dads and eat sugerplums from trees and swim in rivers of bourbon?
Yeah, guess what? God didn't make the world like that. He made us free and that involves challenges and pitfalls. Some people are born into Christian families and have a "head start" and end up rebelling and going to hell. Others grow up as little pagans and find God through a conversion. It's a strange world God made. The consequences of our choices do not disprove the existence of God.
SD
Ok, we're connecting here. You are saying that God plays favorites and give some folks a head start by letting them be born into Christian families while others have to try to find him through a conversion? And if they fail to do so, he damns them to hell? That's not a very nice God, is it?
Both you and God know there are Buddhists living in the remote Himalayas who will never hear of Chrisitianity. If God knows that, why would he damn those folks to hell?
As I noted above, a "head start" doesn't necessarily put one at an advantage. Nonetheless, it is obviously true that God allows different people to be born into different situations. This is not disproof of His existence.
Things to keep in mind. God calls all people to Him, regardless of the situation of birth. And those to whom much has been given are expected to make much of any advantage they may have.
Both you and God know there are Buddhists living in the remote Himalayas who will never hear of Chrisitianity. If God knows that, why would he damn those folks to hell?
Well, I never said He would, necessarily. I am a Catholic and we don't believe in the cruel God of some other flavors of Christianity. I think God can indeed save those who are invincibly ignorant of the need for Christ, if He so desires. They would need to live their lives according to the highest principles they can discern in their disadvantaged position. And they must be truly invincibly ignorant, not merely ignorant or willfully ignorant.
So I don't believe God automatically damns those who have not heard the Gospel, but they certainly operate from a severe disadvantage compared to those who have. Then again, God can save whom He wants and those who have the advantage of the Gospel and the Sacraments have little excuse for not living up to their calling.
SD
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.