Posted on 06/22/2009 5:33:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Do you believe in God? Really? And you're willing to admit it in public?
Oops. Sorry, for a moment I slipped back into the arrogant Atheism of my youth.
Before my parents had children, they decided to raise their kids in a secular home. We had gifts at Christmas time and chocolate covered matzoh during Passover, but there was no religion and certainly no God.
When I was in grade school, God was just a kind of nondescript character who popped up in Little House on the Prairie books from time to time. He seemed like a decent enough fellow, but was more or less a bit player who didn't have much to say.
After my grandfather died when I was seven, his Baptist minister lifted me up in his arms and told me, "It's all right, Grandpa's with God now." At that moment, I could feel my dress was hiked up in the back and all I could think about was pulling it back down. But later, I asked around and discovered that God was our Heavenly father, whatever that was supposed to mean.
I figured, who better to ask about my Heavenly father than my earthly father, but when I did he laughed.
He wasn't amused in a "kids say the darnedest things" kind of way. He was laughing derisively at the idea that my mother's family believed in God. And thus began my introduction to Atheism.
There are people who call themselves atheist who are simply nonbelievers, and then there are the big "A" Atheists for whom Atheism is almost a religion. This quasi-religious doctrine isn't neutral on the existence of other religions; rather, Atheism is a virulently anti-theistic creed characterized by sneering contempt for religion and a profoundly dogmatic bigotry toward people of faith.
Want to know how Atheists see the rest of us?
I grew up learning from my father that Atheism is rational, and therefore, religious belief is irrational; Atheism is defined by logic, religious faith by fantasy; and science is real while religion is make believe. Faith, I was taught, requires a willful stifling of reason.
The Torah, the Gospels, the Qur'an? All woefully inaccurate, laughably inconsistent fictions used to encourage belief in an illusion for the purpose of social control.
My curiosity in religion surfaced again in seventh grade when several of my friends were planning Bat Mitzvahs. Surely my friends weren't ignorant enough to actually believe in God, were they? The answer was no. For most of these Reform Jews, this celebration marked the official end to the tedium of Hebrew school. Most of their families were Ethical Culturists with a recreational interest in preserving their Jewish cultural identity. In other words, they too were Atheists.
By the time I reached high school, having had little contact with religion, I was convinced that people of faith were credulous and unenlightened. They gravitated toward soothing tales of God and afterlife to help them deal with their own mortality. At best, I considered belief in God an anachronism, a quaint vestige of days gone by, on par with superstitions about wicked thoughts causing birth defects.
At my extremely liberal college, I was exposed to even more militant Atheism. It was there that I learned the mere whiff of religiosity is worthy of denigration. Many of the people I met approached religion with something between disdain and loathing, and considered all religious belief a form of fanaticism. Christians in particular were characterized as knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fundies (and that was in polite company.)
Fortunately my mother taught me enough manners that I kept my bias to myself.
In this new environment, my Atheism was more than evidence of good reasoning, it was a socially desirable badge of intellectual superiority. Make no mistake: Atheists think they're smarter than you. Atheism isn't simple skepticism. It is a certainty that believers are wrong, and by extension, intellectually inferior. Religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, is nothing more than a crutch for dupes.
But Atheists aren't content to leave religion as a mere object of ridicule. They want it cleansed from public life. And enlightened as they are, they've come up with quite the pretense for justifying the righteousness of their bigotry: they are defending the vision of our Founding Fathers from a dominionist conspiracy to establish Christianity as the state religion.
You see, for liberal Atheists, the only thing worse than religion is the Religious Right, a term they use to encompass all Christian conservatives. And what better way to siphon fuel from the Religious Right than to convince Americans that the government is perpetually on the verge of becoming a theocracy?
And so, they accuse local governments of trampling the Constitution in the name of God and they find subliminal Christian iconography in political ads. They wring new meanings from Thomas Jefferson's notion of separation between church and state, and condemn our country's motto and the status of Christmas as a national holiday. But above all, Atheists stoke fear among religious and nonreligious alike that conservatives view government as a tool to force religion down your throat.
Pope-slandering buffoon Bill Maher, something of a patron saint among Atheists, has called religion "the ultimate hustle." Last fall, Maher's fellow liberal Chris Matthews, a self-described Catholic, roundly criticized Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for talking about prayer in a "secular environment" and complained that she made the Republican Party look more like a church tent than a big tent. In March, Matthews complained, "Why does everything sound like the '700 Club' with this Party now?" Such examples of anti-religious bias can be found every day on cable news, network television, and in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.
As my politics strayed right of center after college, I realized I wanted no part of that Maher/Matthews worldview based in elitism and the ridicule of others. I made the transition from Atheist to atheist to agnostic, and have since discovered why it is often said that religion is experiential.
There was a time when I would have preferred any manner of torture to admitting the possibility of a higher power. These days, I'm proud to say I lost my faith in the Atheist creed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Q. Public writes about news, politics, and the seedy underbelly of liberalism at JennQPublic.com.
I had posted an excerpt from the Bhagavad-Gita above. Please read it, carefully.
If that is a source of morality outside the Judaic idea of God, then it implies that morality is not a monopoly of one religion alone. And according to the followers of the Judaic God, the Hindu one is a false, man-made one. The Hindus would say the same about the Judaic God too, although I'm not so sure about this. Basically one cancels out the other.
Hold on to your horses, now.
Your comment history, from the beginning of the link to the FR thread provided, to your admission of atheism, after repeated questioning from me, tends to disagree, MyTwoCopperCoins. You were clearly misrepresenting yourself as Hindu.
A novel tactic, for sure. Most fundie atheists on FR disguise their evangelism by claiming to be Christian.
Must be. Another recent oddity in repitition would be "flux capacitor."
All spawned around the same bong, it would seem.
Trolling by your own admission.
But just for kicks, you can't prove anything wrong when you don't even know what *wrong* is. Since you have no basis for truth, you have no basis for making the determination of *not truth*.
MyTwoCopperCoins
Since Sep 13, 2008
That’s why I never deign to answer the “gotcha” questions (like “why did God create a man that could fall”) from a heel nipping chihuahua.
Anyone that truly wants answers to questions like that will receive my honest, apologetics research based answer.
If he’s just a heel nipper, talk to the hand.
Christianity doesn't allow for a spectrum of devotion. You don't know a persons heart and judging their devotion by a system of standards that you set up to judge them by, that has no connection to what God uses, is disingenuous.
I don't doubt it makes you feel real good to set up conditions for others, judge them by it, and find them wanting, therefore hypocrites. I also don't doubt that you feel that it gives you plenty of justification to not believe yourself.
Been there, done that.
The only problem is that it's a house of cards. It's not going to stand when you finally come face to face with God.
"...I’ve posted something about it in comment #161"
What I got from there is you accept the golden rule that's pushed by virtually all religions and is hard wired into us because because of an evolutionary need for the propagation of our race.
"...different cultures are able to come with more or less the same morality, it reveals only one thing: that the concepts are all man-made."
Wait a second. If different people make their own observations and arrive at the same description independently, then we conclude that neither is making it up and that they're all seeing something that actually exists outside their imaginations. That means if the golden rule came about as an evolutionary necessity, then it's the rule that made the race, not the other way around.
fwiw, I like humanity as much as the next guy, but off hand I can think of some other ideals that you and I would hold in even higher esteem.
What nonsense. Show me exactly where I’ve admitted to being a Hindu. Don’t make your inferences into my declarations.
As for the Wiki site, I thought that was already clarified on that thread itself, where I had clearly indicated to you that Wikipedia was merely a container page for the contents, which were from another source, altogether.
We specifically are proscribed from judging another’s salvation.
We may judge their behaviors against the standard of God’s Word,
but the judgement of salvation is up to God/Jesus, as He is the only One that knows the heart of the individual and what that individual was given to work with.
Creationists and believers tend to club various religions together in their fight against Atheists, and then complain when I rightfully remind all of you that if it were not for Atheists in the mix, you’d be arguing with each other about whose religion is the “truth”. Logical dissonance, some would say.
Oh, * YAWN * you’re back to your old habit of trying to argue through sloganeering. I have no basis for truth? What’s yours?
That's a judgment call, but the important thing here is what he's saying. He points out that the Golden Rule made humanity's appearance possible. The Word is at the beginning and the Word creates man.
Neat!
Please indicate how the Golden Rule, following which allows societies to become more stable, has anything to do with the Word, or whatever, written on animal skins by humans millenia after they began adhering to the Golden Rule?
But if you think that they’re wrong, then you must think atheism is truth.
On what basis?
We're in agreement here; let's work on it together. We got the Golden Rule which is a set of written or spoken words and which presents a reciprocal ethics necessary for our existence. From your post 161:
|
So, when the majority of human beings want to live through life and pass on their genes and experiences through their offspring, it becomes imperative that they create a climate that favors this. I won’t go on a killing spree, because I don’t prefer chaos. The vast majority of human beings don’t prefer chaos, either. In order to guarantee a climate of reasonable security, the principle of reciprocity is paramount, which is, the power to empathize. |
[[How many Christians LIVE as if every aspect of what we profess to be true - God’s Word of the Bible - is actually true?]]
MOST do- We don’t worship idols, we don’t sacrifice our children to gods, we don’t constantly engage in direct opposition to God as the heathen do- MOST are there when their neighbor needs help, when the starving need assistence, when the sick need caring for. That’s ALL Christ asks- He doesn’t ask us al lto becoem super sinless saints
[[Your first discipleship responsibility is in your family.]]
Exactly. One of hte lessons of hte bible is that we shouldn’t be spending capital outside of hte family IF it’s goign to be hurting the family at home- that includes not only monetary capital, but physical and emotional as well.
[[I mean, really, wouldn’t we all live differently if we lived like we TRULY believed in the all powerful, all sovereign God?]]
we DO live differently- much much differently- peopel have htis mistaken notion that in order to be a ‘real Christian’ a person has to polish their halo every day, wear robes, lash htemselves 30 times each morning, and stand on the street corners preachign hte word till our voices are hoarse. That’s NOT What God expects, infact very few are called to be hte super saints non Christians think we should be. MOST are just called to be in the world, but seperate from the world (ie: NOT to worship false gods, not to actively engage in evil, and just to be aroudn if or when someone shoudl truly NEED a hand or help- even if that opportunity never arises- it is God and God ALONE who directs our paths, and if it’s His good pleasure to bring one opportunity after another our way, then al lthe better, but if it’s not His good pleasure, then we are NOT to force hte issue because we ‘FEEL’ irrelevent in His work, and htink we need to be ‘doing somethign for Him’ when He Himself has NOT called us to do so.
Beign a Christian doesn’t mean one automaticlly bcoems an ouitspkoen missionary, street corner evangelist, missionary to the downtrodden etc. Remember, The two women in the bible- one just sat doign nothign but listenign to Christ speak, while hte other worked furiously trying to make sure all the guests were taken care of- running herself raggad- she complained to Christ about it, and remember what Christ told her?
“”Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:38-42).”
Those criticising Christians for supposedly not ‘being Christian enough’ simply haven’t a clue about what it really means to be a Christian. They, like Martha- simply don’t udnerstand that God simply wants us just to BE- instead of always beign so busy we can’t see the real message, nor udnerstand the truth of life. In some people’s eyes, unless Christians are cosntantly preachign hte gospel, laying down hteir lives, givign up every modern convenience, then by golly, they must not be true Christians at all.
As Christians we ARE proclaiming hte truth by how we live- the world sees us- they see that we don’t revell in evil, they see that we don’t worship the same htings they do, and htey see that we ARE set apart- we ARE proclaimign His word without ever havign to utter one word- whiel some are called to missions, most are not- whiel some are called to feed the poor- most are not- while some are called to minister to hte sick, most are not. Most are just called to be set apart, and htis is NOT an all or nothign situation either- being set apart is a process- a prcoess worked by hte Holy spirit- some being more mature than others- but hte great majority being not as mature as the few- but ALL are wholly right where God has called them to be at that particular time-
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/jesusandwomen/marymartha.stm
***See post 161.***
That doesn’t really answer the question unless you consider mankind as just another species scrabbling in the dirt.
***If not God, who endows?
I had posted an excerpt from the Bhagavad-Gita above. Please read it, carefully.
If that is a source of morality outside the Judaic idea of God, then it implies that morality is not a monopoly of one religion alone. And according to the followers of the Judaic God, the Hindu one is a false, man-made one. The Hindus would say the same about the Judaic God too, although I’m not so sure about this. Basically one cancels out the other.***
Interesting concept. I would say that an equivalent would be a debate between, say, Einstein, and an English major in Papua New Guinea.
Einstein would say that E=mc**2; the English major might say that E=turning on a light switch. In your example, the two would merely cancel out, regardless of the validity of one over the other.
Well stated (although the preview button is our friend 0;^)
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.