In conversation with so-called atheists I've found another suitable name that really fits them much better than the term atheist. They are Mockers. All they do is mock christianity and use any and every avenue to cast dispersion.
They have many gods - power and hedonism being the most worshipped. The other minor gods such as science, government, environmentalism and diversity are invoked as token dieties when convenient.
It is fascinating that the atheists point to the times Christians or those who claimed to be did wrong to others, but it never dawns on them that the real conclusion here is that sinful man is overall predisposed to pursuing evil which unchecked leads to these types of slaughters of millions of innocents. Not recognizing this historical repeated pattern in humanity, atheists have no restraint that would prevent them from pursuing those very paths that lead to such outcomes. Christianity however is specifically concerned with stopping mankind from choosing paths that lead to slaughtering millions at a time. Granted, the Christians themselves are imperfect and can still misapply truth in scripture to justify slaughtering people who disagree, but the counts of total number slaughtered are typically orders of magnitude lower by comparison. In this way Christianity is a restrainer of unbound evil
Christopher Hitchens did go off on all religions including Muslims who he really disliked. Known staunch atheist. Dead now though he was interesting as a person. Classical liberal but had some morals. He was pro life.
I had one example. Sorry. But yeah they are rare and I can't think of one now who is alive.
I come across this alot, you have to see the good, alot are mislead and hate the religious/ christian establishments and cant seperate the very real spiritual side.
A large number of them are lost souls, who're seeking community. They've found one, and it only requires them to mock something immaterial. But they are closing their minds, sadly.
"Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened. Ask, and it will be given unto you/"
That's why I in the past I used the term "apatheist" for myself when asked, I never outright denied the existence of God I just didn't worship him despite following general Christian morals.
You may be right friend, unless of course you believe in one true God, than
A-(without) theist (God) would pretty much cover everyone else.
I've no desire to rewrite definitions to "accommodate" those that would hide behind "separation of church and state" to poison the minds of our children, and embrace acts of perversion in our town square.
I simply claim masquerading around as a Secular, while aggressively assaulting the fundamental values of the Judaeo-Christian religious ethics that our society is based upon, is a calculated assault on our society itself and a distortion of "freedom of religion" to freedom from religion".
the fundamental values of the Judaeo-Christian religious ethics that our society is based upon
Why then did the Founding Fathers write their own document based on humanist morals instead of adopting the Torah? Why does the Constitution expressly state separation of church and state right out of the gate in Amendment One?
Because the Founding Fathers knew that religious institutions were capable of being corrupt to fulfill with will of tyrants as they had in the crusade and inquisition. Considering the current state of corporate mega churches, they found a way to seize some sort of power anyway...
Many seem to take issues with the terminology "Judaeo-Christian" tell me friend, you intend to separate the new testament from the old ?
True the constitution forbids a state sponsored church, (remember many of the individual colonies form around particular denomination, and to ensure religious ideology wasn't forced on citizens, "Freedom of Religion" was incorporate rightly so..
NOT "Freedom from Religion" as so many would have you believe.
You'll find no argument with me on the corruption of organized religion, or the evils of it past and present sins the world over. We could probably waste the day away discuss it.
This is not the one true God that I know, nor the scripture I follow. Many have been led astray with false prophets.
Regardless of if Paul was chosen by God or not, he's still a man capable of man failures. And considering how splintered and divided Christianity has become especially in America, I don't think even you have a definition that's consistent with others... And that's because we all uniquely see the world in different.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing until you try to implement it as a government. And unfortunately or fortunately Jesus didn't leave any such instruction manual aside from being a decent neighbor. And if we do love our neighbors, then even the most devout of us must recognize the need to preserve everyone else's right to choose.
The problem is the most devout end up thinking themselves correct on everything and end up forcing their ideologies on others hence why the First Amendment is structured the way it is.
Why does the Constitution expressly state separation of church and state right out of the gate in Amendment One?
It doesn't expressly state separation of church and state.
"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices."
Yes... They mock its authoritarian tendencies, but the reality is, they're right. The religion isn't used primarily to enlighten. Though it does some good it does evil too.
And I don't just mean catholics. All Christianity has done successfully is divide itself into oblivion to the point where we have forgotten what it means to be an American...
Religion should be able to express itself freely, but that expression ends when it starts to infringe. And this goes for ALL religions.
Choosing to follow God is a choice and when you rob people of that choice you become the monster you claim to be against...
We're a complicated species and we're a lot more than one small book or series of books with missing context tries to compact us into...
Lol. Cute. Just cause you declare such does not make it so.
What IS so, is that you are projecting. Why? Because you need me to fit into your worldview. I can't be correct, therefore in order to be wrong I must be "confused". But saying so in your head isn't good enough. No no no. You must manifest this into existence by declaring it for all to see! "I don't need to listen to Camaro's ideas! I have declared them insane!!! Therefore logic can hang!!!!!!!"
To which I contest as simply incorrect. No, I don't have all the answers. And neither do you or any delusional duck claiming they have it all figured out. Yes totally possible for you, out of 8 billion people and 6 thousand KNOWN religions to have scored the correct one.
Actually, it was very late and I didn't care to take the time to dissect your post. The problem that I saw was that you had some accurate statements with some erroneous statements. What I observed in your comment, and the one above, is that you adhere to the mainstream/ most prevalent belief system of them all: that you, and your intellect, are superior to God and religion, as is evidenced from your self- proclaimed objectivity. I would say that to come to God, first requires humility and a sincere desire to know the Truth. Humility would require that you first realize that if there is a God, His thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and His ways higher than your ways. That His judgement, logic, and wisdom are beyond your own and worth seeking out. If that is not a possible starting point, then you are in essence the God of your own world. Humanism. It is hard for intellectuals to accept God... until they sincerely seek Him. C.S. Lewis made that journey. He writes about it in Mere Christianity. You probably won't find a better source for an intense scrutiny of it all. Edit: typos
Unless one is able to distinguish between God's purpose for a religion and the accomplishment or lack thereof by those that practice it, one cannot avoid focusing on the trees, not the forest.
What is a religion? It is an institution, founded for a certain purpose, but which necessarily involves flawed human beings. Because flawed human beings are contradictory beings, whatever they engage in has the potential to do either good or evil.
But, I think it's mistaken to see the institution purely as some creature of its own, rather than fundamentally being a collection of people engaged in an endeavor. In other words, it's mistaken to imagine that a religion can somehow exist separate from the people that practice and drive it.
Instead of saying 'the religion does some good', its more correct to say that the people who practice the religion do some good, but they also do evil. Even better, some of the people who practice the religion do good, but others do evil.
Marx wanted to separate the two and somehow give "religion" a status of its own, which is a really con job. "religion is the opiate of the people" really only stands when you give the religion a life of its own, instead of correctly ascribing the fruits of a religion to how those who practice it practice it.
Likewise, Atheists also tend strongly to highlight: It's the religion! Instead of "it's the people". Because then the denial can be one of the religion, instead of HOW the people are acting.
I'd say no book tries to do anything. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Exactly. Christianity is about the words of the Bible, the words of Jesus, and the personal relationship you have with the trinity. Big church buildings and Instagram pastors wearing Jordan’s have nothing to do with the actual doctrine
I'd go one step further. It's not really about doctrine. Doctrine is a formalization of a set of beliefs, but doctrine can be fallible.
But my point is that God inspires to individuals and people to found a religion because He has a purpose for that religion, and what he wants it to accomplish. But whether it accomplishes that or not is partly determined by what the individuals and people involved choose to do.
In the case of Christianity, to my mind, it's primary purpose is to lay and prepare the foundation for the second coming of Christ. Just as the primary purpose of Judaism was to prepare for the first coming of Christ.
So God inspired Abraham's family, and then delivered the core precepts via Moses, but time and again the Israelites fell into faithlessness and therefore ultimately hindered what God was hoping they would accomplish: a people purified and sanctified and fully ready to receive the Messiah, and unite with him.
Israel failed big time. (parable of the vineyard). Thus, once Jesus accomplished spiritual salvation via the offering of the Cross, God and Jesus inspired the disciples via the Holy Spirit to found what became Christianity.
Christianity grew, expanded and essentially became the foundation for a global civilization that recognizes Christ as king and the truth he taught as a fundamental guide on how to live and shape human society. But, along the way, many also failed. Corruption entered the Church, then the Vatican, and to greater or lesser degrees, Christians have lived up to or failed to live up to God's desire for them.
It's not the fault of "Christianity", but rather, the fault of individuals and groups who fall into a faithlessness that causes them to eventually cause evil instead of multiply the good God desires.
That was my point.
I don't think it's a coincidence that all around the world, Christianity is being reformed, in a completely new and vital way. Everywhere you find the Great Awakening, there is a powerful revival of Christian spirit that is tied to neither doctrine, denomination, or institutional churches, but people feeling revived in their relationship with God and Christ, and more and more focused on becoming genuine Christian in heart than on the external trappings that you mention (because your point, is of course, an essential one!).
You do you mate. I support freedom of religion, as well as freedom FROM religion. I don't try to persuade anyone. Man should be free to worship (or not) in accordance with his conscience and within the reasonable confines and dictates of a free and just society (i.e. No child sacrifice).
You must have both freedom of and from religion, unless you're okay with sharia law.
Yeah, that bugs me about about the "freedom from religion" argument. It violates freedom of speech, among other things.
That's not the kind of freedom from religion im talking about.
I have a Muslim coworker who absolutely LOVES America. I once asked him why it was better than his home country. He said he didn't like being told when to pray, or being pressured (or forced) to do so. He believes that should be between man and God, not man and the state.
I can't argue with his logic.
We still have people coming to this country for religious freedom - both to practice their religion, or to escape from an oppressive one.
Yes, I'm atheist. But I don't think religion is bad. It's like any other tool, or even a firearm - what you DO with religion makes your actions good or bad.
Preach and help the needy, spread you faith with joy, or even showing concern by warning others when you believe bad things are coming? I can't fault you for that. You're genuine and trying to help your fellow man.
Start a commune, abuse women, mary children, give 'em poison drinks, or steal men's wives, or try to start a race war by killing a pregnant woman, or
rename yourself Koresh and then let the feds burn to ashes the people you've promised to protect? Yeah, if there is a hell, some people used religion to get there.
Normal humans just doing their best to believe, live, love, work, fight, and befriend? I've no beef if they want to pray before a football game, or stand in a circle and call to Thor for strength. I've even once participated in a public asatru ritual. I don't believe in the gods or God, but I was invited, and they were a based group of 'folk'. I find it a bit silly, but it's important to THEM. And it was kinda cool.
It's not okay to demand a ten commandment sculpture be removed from a courthouse, and it's not okay to try and restrict the beliefs of other sects, religions, pagans, believers, or force beliefs on non-believers. It's just that simple.
Jesus had it right - would you want someone to do it to you? No? Then don't do it to them.
What If someone else's belief or non belief offends you?
As Matt Gaetz says, "be offended".
The rest of us will get over it. And it's probably our turn to be offended next week. LOL @ humans.
I have a Muslim coworker who absolutely LOVES America. I once asked him why it was better than his home country. He said he didn't like being told when to pray, or being pressured (or forced) to do so. He believes that should be between man and God, not man and the state.
I've noticed that as well, I have some Muslim coworkers and they don't do the whole running off to a corner to pray X times a day at the exact same time like I saw happening at university with some of the Muslim students. I remember one complaining about another coworker (long gone) who was nagging him to come along every time he went to go pray.
On a philosophical level, you have a point. However, for me, there are two important considerations.
Datadude is talking about the pseudo-religious "non-religion" that Atheistic Marxism drives in order to destroy and undermine religion. It's good that you clarify your concept of "freedom from religion", but it needs to be recognized is that there are forces and people out there who will use certain sophistry and presented arguments with a duplicitous agenda; they are not being honest.
Regardless of what they say, their purpose is to destroy religion and religious thought and practice.
But really, what you define as "freedom from religion" is actually "freedom of religion". State-controlled religion is NOT "freedom of religion". Freedom of religion in the United States constitutional context means "government is NOT free to make laws that shape and determine what religious practice is and isn't".
When you say "freedom from religion" you really mean "freedom from religious oppression" don't you?
As is clear from a study of history, despite their many flaws, most of the long-lasting religions have consistency provide significant benefits to the populations that practice them. Religions that upheld certain values declined and were pushed out (i.e. child sacrifice, human sacrifice, etc) and others that upheld certain values prospered and delivered benefits. Many of those benefits you yourself, atheist though you are in terms of your faith, acknowledge. Why? Because they are tangible and real.
Thus, it needs to be recognized that not all religions are "created equal." Some are better than others. Some yield many more benefits than others. And the ones that deliver the greatest benefits are the ones that trend towards enhancing the freedom of individuals and groups to pursue the goals of their religion while upholding the innate rights of others.
It's not a coincidence that the concept of religious freedom evolved in the Christian sphere. Religious freedom is critical to religious practice, because freedom is a core ethic or virtue in Christian teaching.
It's also not a coincidence that the greatest equality of opportunity, value assigned to human life, and other ethical 'miracles' have emerged from the Christian sphere.
In any case, I very much agree with everything you've written except for one simple caveat: that something should not necessarily be tolerated simply because it calls itself 'a religion'. However, if government abstains from attempting to define or control religion, and if the innate (God-given) rights of human beings are upheld (aka people are not forced to practice religion or people are not abused and violated in the name of 'religion') then things would work themselves in rather wonderful way.
"Freedom of religion" is the ability to choose, all or none. "Freedom from religion" has been used to prohibited "Religions of Faith" from the public spaces.
That right there is the issue, the "freedom from religion" assholes cry that they're somehow being oppressed and want them outright banned. These people are bigger assholes than what they believe Bible thumpers to be.
Buddhism has been around for the better part of 2600 years, and is at its core: atheistic.
Truly a system of reaching enlightenment that should be checked lest their hidden intentions run wild.
What you call atheism and agnosticism has nothing to do with the trash that worships Moloch. Actually, they are theists .... like you, but they worship just another God. You drink wine, which symbolically represents the blood, and eat bread that represents the flesh. Human blood and human flesh.
From an atheistic point of view, your tradition could be deeply considered: disturbing.
I'm not sure Buddhism is atheistic. Maybe I'm not educated enough on it, but from what I understand the concept is to completely bypass the self we believe is us to find the true self within. Seems to me there's alot of "self" in there. Whenever poeple claim to be atheistic you eventually find they are worshippers of self. They believe they are gods and there is no room in there belief for and idol outside of self.
To somebody who is totally into believing in one sole cause which exists outside of you, yes, I do agree with the words you use to describe it. That is why redemption, reconciliation with an offended God comes in the form of sacrifice.
For the Jew, at least we are lead to belief based on the OT, it was based on animal sacrifice. The blood was essential. See for instance Yom Kippur: the tale of the two goats, of which one was the scapegoat, laden with the sins of the Nation, and the splatters of water, blood and corn seed before the Arc of the covenant in the temple behind the shroud. And of course the offering of two doves for having born a child, etc.
And if we have to go with the Talmud ...... I won' t go there right now.
For the Moloch worshippers: human sacrifice: the Children.
For the Christian, it is the blood of a human sacrifice, Jesus, who's blood is then abstracted into wine and his body into bread and depending on your church affiliation, celebrated once a year, or more often. There are groups who belief in transubstantiation, which means they belief to actually eat Jesus body and drink of his blood. Within Christendom, the martyr is of special importance because he or she suffers not because of wilful injustice on his or her part, but because of suffering for righteousness. In a way, this points towards self-lessness.
You could go along any system of belief of the past and today. You will find the idea of devotion to Gods to be important. In Greece, certain philosophers were persecuted for not showing the same degree of devotion.
Often times you will also find that what are called Gods, is merely representative of the forces of nature. And Homer, with his tales, shows how unenlightened these Gods actually are.
For the Buddhist? It is the enlightenment through the letting go of self, based on the recognition of the human being a duality: spirit in a material form. You' ll notice this is totally divorced from the concept of devotion/ sacrifice to a God, or even to one self. Hence, the idea of atheism.
The sort of atheism propagated by the types like Richard Dawkins is rather materialistic and misinterprets what a human being is. Then there are those who love left brain technocracy as a means to control the masses. Digitization as we see it today, is one such outgrowth. Submit to your new God, the all-powerfull, all-seeing, all-encompassing System-STATE. This is just another form of materialism.
Very few, I suppose, who are here would yield to such demands. Yet, we are further down the road and deeper into such systems than we like to admit.
And where this discussion began, is Moloch worshippers being atheistic. That is a rather quaint way of looking at it, because it is based on the premise there is only one God, namely, the one the poster beliefs in. Any other is not Theos. By that token, all devotion to Gods or enlightenment should then be considered atheistic.
Whereas the poster's problems with Moloch have nothing to do with atheism, but with the worship the God, theos: Moloch, and the way in which it is done.
I find it interesting that the basic premise of this poster is overlooked and simply accepted as if it is truth instead of corrected.
Interesting that he chose that as an example. He was making a point about how religious freedom is not limitless, but the only reason he would make that point right now is because the Moloch religion exists.
I doubt HW is a white hat ... W maybe, but I wouldn't trust him nor would I be surprised to learn he was the same level of human garbage as his mother and father. The only reason I think W might be a white hat is due to his reaction to the envelopes at his father's funeral.
Keep in mind these two appointed replacements based on the replacement judge's ideology, not their own. If a conservative was retiring, a conservative was appointed. They had to maintain the illusion of a split nation.
Dubya's relationship with his dad might be similar to the relationship between Hunter and his dad (at least as has been implied by Q).
It doesn't excuse anything that either have done, but it is worth considering that there are more than we might suspect who were born into the cult and have been looking for a way out all their life.
Especially all those celebrities, forcing their kids to be trannies is a loophole out of sacrificing the life of the child for their fame as killing their personality still counts.
They would have really liked if you had entered into one-sided deals regarding jabs, in which you took all the risk and did them "a big favor." Only an idiot agrees to a one sided deal...as they have. Moloch did not provide anything in return that will help them in the situations they are in now. He did not grant super speed or invisibility that will help them escape.
You didn't mention anything about the mark. You wanted me to remind you... Weren't you supposed to bring that up? Why delay? And what about the masks? Oh and John Constantine keeps calling, and I keep telling him you are not available but do you think he is getting suspicious? And the caller ID shows he's calling from Racine... Why is he in Racine? Anyway Umm... Let's see, your wife wanted me to tell you she can't make it to the BDSM quarterly social tomorrow. She said her boyfriend's husband was acting suicidal. She cut off his adrenochrome supply and he's going through withdrawal. She said they'll live stream for everyone if they want to watch, I guess they have something 'special' in mind for the group.
Oh, and Fauci sent one of his attorneys with new proposal, and he asked about a modification to the faustian contract. I told him it was above my pay grade, but you might want to call him.
Last thing, I briefed the new guy. He seems smart, but we should watch him. I wouldn't even mention it, except the NSA flagged him last week for reading GA.WIN so I figure you'll want to deal with it 'personally' just in case...
Alito is a unsung hero on the bench. One based freedom fighting mofo...
Atheism and it's lying little cousin Agnosticism have enjoyed the benefits of claiming no mans land.
A religion onto itself:
While claiming it believes in no religion at all, it goes where religions are not allowed.
Left unchecked, allowing it's true intentions to unfold, spreading doubt and disease, infecting the minds of the unsuspecting Innocent.
Long has this evil hidden in plain sight and has gone unchallenged, but now, times they are a changing...
In conversation with so-called atheists I've found another suitable name that really fits them much better than the term atheist. They are Mockers. All they do is mock christianity and use any and every avenue to cast dispersion.
If you call them out on that, they'll be like "YoU ArEN't ACkNoWlEdGiNG tHe SiNS of pAsT ChRiSTiAniTy"
Even if you acknowledge them.
Atheists won't admit that they made the government their god.
I would say science, but really what it ends up being is worshipping the science they're told to worship by the government.
They have many gods - power and hedonism being the most worshipped. The other minor gods such as science, government, environmentalism and diversity are invoked as token dieties when convenient.
It is fascinating that the atheists point to the times Christians or those who claimed to be did wrong to others, but it never dawns on them that the real conclusion here is that sinful man is overall predisposed to pursuing evil which unchecked leads to these types of slaughters of millions of innocents. Not recognizing this historical repeated pattern in humanity, atheists have no restraint that would prevent them from pursuing those very paths that lead to such outcomes. Christianity however is specifically concerned with stopping mankind from choosing paths that lead to slaughtering millions at a time. Granted, the Christians themselves are imperfect and can still misapply truth in scripture to justify slaughtering people who disagree, but the counts of total number slaughtered are typically orders of magnitude lower by comparison. In this way Christianity is a restrainer of unbound evil
I believe all religions and atheism are (and can be) humorous.
If a Sikh researcher develops superintelligent artificial intelligence, the world will experience a "Technological Singh-gularity".
Badum-tss
I'm here all night folks.
Exactly
Christopher Hitchens did go off on all religions including Muslims who he really disliked. Known staunch atheist. Dead now though he was interesting as a person. Classical liberal but had some morals. He was pro life.
I had one example. Sorry. But yeah they are rare and I can't think of one now who is alive.
At least he finally knows the truth.
I come across this alot, you have to see the good, alot are mislead and hate the religious/ christian establishments and cant seperate the very real spiritual side.
A large number of them are lost souls, who're seeking community. They've found one, and it only requires them to mock something immaterial. But they are closing their minds, sadly.
"Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened. Ask, and it will be given unto you/"
...but they aren't even seeking; just scoffing.
That's why I in the past I used the term "apatheist" for myself when asked, I never outright denied the existence of God I just didn't worship him despite following general Christian morals.
You may be right friend, unless of course you believe in one true God, than
A-(without) theist (God) would pretty much cover everyone else.
I've no desire to rewrite definitions to "accommodate" those that would hide behind "separation of church and state" to poison the minds of our children, and embrace acts of perversion in our town square.
I simply claim masquerading around as a Secular, while aggressively assaulting the fundamental values of the Judaeo-Christian religious ethics that our society is based upon, is a calculated assault on our society itself and a distortion of "freedom of religion" to freedom from religion".
Such a critical understanding, one that needs to become mainstream.
Thank you friend.
I completely agree with you.
Why then did the Founding Fathers write their own document based on humanist morals instead of adopting the Torah? Why does the Constitution expressly state separation of church and state right out of the gate in Amendment One?
Because the Founding Fathers knew that religious institutions were capable of being corrupt to fulfill with will of tyrants as they had in the crusade and inquisition. Considering the current state of corporate mega churches, they found a way to seize some sort of power anyway...
Many seem to take issues with the terminology "Judaeo-Christian" tell me friend, you intend to separate the new testament from the old ?
True the constitution forbids a state sponsored church, (remember many of the individual colonies form around particular denomination, and to ensure religious ideology wasn't forced on citizens, "Freedom of Religion" was incorporate rightly so.. NOT "Freedom from Religion" as so many would have you believe.
You'll find no argument with me on the corruption of organized religion, or the evils of it past and present sins the world over. We could probably waste the day away discuss it.
This is not the one true God that I know, nor the scripture I follow. Many have been led astray with false prophets.
Lots of false prophets? Like Paul?
Regardless of if Paul was chosen by God or not, he's still a man capable of man failures. And considering how splintered and divided Christianity has become especially in America, I don't think even you have a definition that's consistent with others... And that's because we all uniquely see the world in different.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing until you try to implement it as a government. And unfortunately or fortunately Jesus didn't leave any such instruction manual aside from being a decent neighbor. And if we do love our neighbors, then even the most devout of us must recognize the need to preserve everyone else's right to choose.
The problem is the most devout end up thinking themselves correct on everything and end up forcing their ideologies on others hence why the First Amendment is structured the way it is.
Have you read the Gospels? From Genesis to Revelation, Jesus left an instruction manual.
Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, not a false prophet. He wrote half of the New Testament.
It doesn't expressly state separation of church and state.
"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices."
Yes... They mock its authoritarian tendencies, but the reality is, they're right. The religion isn't used primarily to enlighten. Though it does some good it does evil too.
And I don't just mean catholics. All Christianity has done successfully is divide itself into oblivion to the point where we have forgotten what it means to be an American...
Religion should be able to express itself freely, but that expression ends when it starts to infringe. And this goes for ALL religions.
Choosing to follow God is a choice and when you rob people of that choice you become the monster you claim to be against...
We're a complicated species and we're a lot more than one small book or series of books with missing context tries to compact us into...
You are a confused individual.
Lol. Cute. Just cause you declare such does not make it so.
What IS so, is that you are projecting. Why? Because you need me to fit into your worldview. I can't be correct, therefore in order to be wrong I must be "confused". But saying so in your head isn't good enough. No no no. You must manifest this into existence by declaring it for all to see! "I don't need to listen to Camaro's ideas! I have declared them insane!!! Therefore logic can hang!!!!!!!"
To which I contest as simply incorrect. No, I don't have all the answers. And neither do you or any delusional duck claiming they have it all figured out. Yes totally possible for you, out of 8 billion people and 6 thousand KNOWN religions to have scored the correct one.
Actually, it was very late and I didn't care to take the time to dissect your post. The problem that I saw was that you had some accurate statements with some erroneous statements. What I observed in your comment, and the one above, is that you adhere to the mainstream/ most prevalent belief system of them all: that you, and your intellect, are superior to God and religion, as is evidenced from your self- proclaimed objectivity. I would say that to come to God, first requires humility and a sincere desire to know the Truth. Humility would require that you first realize that if there is a God, His thoughts are higher than your thoughts, and His ways higher than your ways. That His judgement, logic, and wisdom are beyond your own and worth seeking out. If that is not a possible starting point, then you are in essence the God of your own world. Humanism. It is hard for intellectuals to accept God... until they sincerely seek Him. C.S. Lewis made that journey. He writes about it in Mere Christianity. You probably won't find a better source for an intense scrutiny of it all. Edit: typos
Unless one is able to distinguish between God's purpose for a religion and the accomplishment or lack thereof by those that practice it, one cannot avoid focusing on the trees, not the forest.
What is a religion? It is an institution, founded for a certain purpose, but which necessarily involves flawed human beings. Because flawed human beings are contradictory beings, whatever they engage in has the potential to do either good or evil.
But, I think it's mistaken to see the institution purely as some creature of its own, rather than fundamentally being a collection of people engaged in an endeavor. In other words, it's mistaken to imagine that a religion can somehow exist separate from the people that practice and drive it.
Instead of saying 'the religion does some good', its more correct to say that the people who practice the religion do some good, but they also do evil. Even better, some of the people who practice the religion do good, but others do evil.
Marx wanted to separate the two and somehow give "religion" a status of its own, which is a really con job. "religion is the opiate of the people" really only stands when you give the religion a life of its own, instead of correctly ascribing the fruits of a religion to how those who practice it practice it.
Likewise, Atheists also tend strongly to highlight: It's the religion! Instead of "it's the people". Because then the denial can be one of the religion, instead of HOW the people are acting.
I'd say no book tries to do anything. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Exactly. Christianity is about the words of the Bible, the words of Jesus, and the personal relationship you have with the trinity. Big church buildings and Instagram pastors wearing Jordan’s have nothing to do with the actual doctrine
I'd go one step further. It's not really about doctrine. Doctrine is a formalization of a set of beliefs, but doctrine can be fallible.
But my point is that God inspires to individuals and people to found a religion because He has a purpose for that religion, and what he wants it to accomplish. But whether it accomplishes that or not is partly determined by what the individuals and people involved choose to do.
In the case of Christianity, to my mind, it's primary purpose is to lay and prepare the foundation for the second coming of Christ. Just as the primary purpose of Judaism was to prepare for the first coming of Christ.
So God inspired Abraham's family, and then delivered the core precepts via Moses, but time and again the Israelites fell into faithlessness and therefore ultimately hindered what God was hoping they would accomplish: a people purified and sanctified and fully ready to receive the Messiah, and unite with him.
Israel failed big time. (parable of the vineyard). Thus, once Jesus accomplished spiritual salvation via the offering of the Cross, God and Jesus inspired the disciples via the Holy Spirit to found what became Christianity.
Christianity grew, expanded and essentially became the foundation for a global civilization that recognizes Christ as king and the truth he taught as a fundamental guide on how to live and shape human society. But, along the way, many also failed. Corruption entered the Church, then the Vatican, and to greater or lesser degrees, Christians have lived up to or failed to live up to God's desire for them.
It's not the fault of "Christianity", but rather, the fault of individuals and groups who fall into a faithlessness that causes them to eventually cause evil instead of multiply the good God desires.
That was my point.
I don't think it's a coincidence that all around the world, Christianity is being reformed, in a completely new and vital way. Everywhere you find the Great Awakening, there is a powerful revival of Christian spirit that is tied to neither doctrine, denomination, or institutional churches, but people feeling revived in their relationship with God and Christ, and more and more focused on becoming genuine Christian in heart than on the external trappings that you mention (because your point, is of course, an essential one!).
You do you mate. I support freedom of religion, as well as freedom FROM religion. I don't try to persuade anyone. Man should be free to worship (or not) in accordance with his conscience and within the reasonable confines and dictates of a free and just society (i.e. No child sacrifice).
You must have both freedom of and from religion, unless you're okay with sharia law.
"Freedom of religion" is the ability to choose, all or none.
"Freedom from religion" has been used to prohibited "Religions of Faith" from the public spaces.
Yeah, that bugs me about about the "freedom from religion" argument. It violates freedom of speech, among other things.
That's not the kind of freedom from religion im talking about.
I have a Muslim coworker who absolutely LOVES America. I once asked him why it was better than his home country. He said he didn't like being told when to pray, or being pressured (or forced) to do so. He believes that should be between man and God, not man and the state.
I can't argue with his logic.
We still have people coming to this country for religious freedom - both to practice their religion, or to escape from an oppressive one.
Yes, I'm atheist. But I don't think religion is bad. It's like any other tool, or even a firearm - what you DO with religion makes your actions good or bad.
Preach and help the needy, spread you faith with joy, or even showing concern by warning others when you believe bad things are coming? I can't fault you for that. You're genuine and trying to help your fellow man.
Start a commune, abuse women, mary children, give 'em poison drinks, or steal men's wives, or try to start a race war by killing a pregnant woman, or rename yourself Koresh and then let the feds burn to ashes the people you've promised to protect? Yeah, if there is a hell, some people used religion to get there.
Normal humans just doing their best to believe, live, love, work, fight, and befriend? I've no beef if they want to pray before a football game, or stand in a circle and call to Thor for strength. I've even once participated in a public asatru ritual. I don't believe in the gods or God, but I was invited, and they were a based group of 'folk'. I find it a bit silly, but it's important to THEM. And it was kinda cool.
It's not okay to demand a ten commandment sculpture be removed from a courthouse, and it's not okay to try and restrict the beliefs of other sects, religions, pagans, believers, or force beliefs on non-believers. It's just that simple.
Jesus had it right - would you want someone to do it to you? No? Then don't do it to them.
What If someone else's belief or non belief offends you?
As Matt Gaetz says, "be offended".
The rest of us will get over it. And it's probably our turn to be offended next week. LOL @ humans.
I've noticed that as well, I have some Muslim coworkers and they don't do the whole running off to a corner to pray X times a day at the exact same time like I saw happening at university with some of the Muslim students. I remember one complaining about another coworker (long gone) who was nagging him to come along every time he went to go pray.
I agree with everything you said and I cling to the teachings if Jesus.
On a philosophical level, you have a point. However, for me, there are two important considerations.
Datadude is talking about the pseudo-religious "non-religion" that Atheistic Marxism drives in order to destroy and undermine religion. It's good that you clarify your concept of "freedom from religion", but it needs to be recognized is that there are forces and people out there who will use certain sophistry and presented arguments with a duplicitous agenda; they are not being honest.
Regardless of what they say, their purpose is to destroy religion and religious thought and practice.
But really, what you define as "freedom from religion" is actually "freedom of religion". State-controlled religion is NOT "freedom of religion". Freedom of religion in the United States constitutional context means "government is NOT free to make laws that shape and determine what religious practice is and isn't".
When you say "freedom from religion" you really mean "freedom from religious oppression" don't you?
As is clear from a study of history, despite their many flaws, most of the long-lasting religions have consistency provide significant benefits to the populations that practice them. Religions that upheld certain values declined and were pushed out (i.e. child sacrifice, human sacrifice, etc) and others that upheld certain values prospered and delivered benefits. Many of those benefits you yourself, atheist though you are in terms of your faith, acknowledge. Why? Because they are tangible and real.
Thus, it needs to be recognized that not all religions are "created equal." Some are better than others. Some yield many more benefits than others. And the ones that deliver the greatest benefits are the ones that trend towards enhancing the freedom of individuals and groups to pursue the goals of their religion while upholding the innate rights of others.
It's not a coincidence that the concept of religious freedom evolved in the Christian sphere. Religious freedom is critical to religious practice, because freedom is a core ethic or virtue in Christian teaching.
It's also not a coincidence that the greatest equality of opportunity, value assigned to human life, and other ethical 'miracles' have emerged from the Christian sphere.
In any case, I very much agree with everything you've written except for one simple caveat: that something should not necessarily be tolerated simply because it calls itself 'a religion'. However, if government abstains from attempting to define or control religion, and if the innate (God-given) rights of human beings are upheld (aka people are not forced to practice religion or people are not abused and violated in the name of 'religion') then things would work themselves in rather wonderful way.
Freedom from religious oppression. Yes, that is exactly what I mean.
I've nothing to add.
Wonderful post.
That right there is the issue, the "freedom from religion" assholes cry that they're somehow being oppressed and want them outright banned. These people are bigger assholes than what they believe Bible thumpers to be.
While the secular progressives are free to spin their evil craft.
They are emboldened because they enjoy a undefended field with a unfair advantage.
They are but a small minority, head to head, toe to toe they will not survive, and they know this. Time we catch on as well.
interesting you got 21 upvotes for your drivel.
Buddhism has been around for the better part of 2600 years, and is at its core: atheistic.
Truly a system of reaching enlightenment that should be checked lest their hidden intentions run wild.
What you call atheism and agnosticism has nothing to do with the trash that worships Moloch. Actually, they are theists .... like you, but they worship just another God. You drink wine, which symbolically represents the blood, and eat bread that represents the flesh. Human blood and human flesh.
From an atheistic point of view, your tradition could be deeply considered: disturbing.
Did you just say Buddhism is atheistic?
Because that is so inherently stupid.
You ability to reason shines blindingly through. Thank you.
Pure Land Buddhism is not atheist.
I'm not sure Buddhism is atheistic. Maybe I'm not educated enough on it, but from what I understand the concept is to completely bypass the self we believe is us to find the true self within. Seems to me there's alot of "self" in there. Whenever poeple claim to be atheistic you eventually find they are worshippers of self. They believe they are gods and there is no room in there belief for and idol outside of self.
To somebody who is totally into believing in one sole cause which exists outside of you, yes, I do agree with the words you use to describe it. That is why redemption, reconciliation with an offended God comes in the form of sacrifice.
For the Jew, at least we are lead to belief based on the OT, it was based on animal sacrifice. The blood was essential. See for instance Yom Kippur: the tale of the two goats, of which one was the scapegoat, laden with the sins of the Nation, and the splatters of water, blood and corn seed before the Arc of the covenant in the temple behind the shroud. And of course the offering of two doves for having born a child, etc.
And if we have to go with the Talmud ...... I won' t go there right now.
For the Moloch worshippers: human sacrifice: the Children.
For the Christian, it is the blood of a human sacrifice, Jesus, who's blood is then abstracted into wine and his body into bread and depending on your church affiliation, celebrated once a year, or more often. There are groups who belief in transubstantiation, which means they belief to actually eat Jesus body and drink of his blood. Within Christendom, the martyr is of special importance because he or she suffers not because of wilful injustice on his or her part, but because of suffering for righteousness. In a way, this points towards self-lessness.
You could go along any system of belief of the past and today. You will find the idea of devotion to Gods to be important. In Greece, certain philosophers were persecuted for not showing the same degree of devotion.
Often times you will also find that what are called Gods, is merely representative of the forces of nature. And Homer, with his tales, shows how unenlightened these Gods actually are.
For the Buddhist? It is the enlightenment through the letting go of self, based on the recognition of the human being a duality: spirit in a material form. You' ll notice this is totally divorced from the concept of devotion/ sacrifice to a God, or even to one self. Hence, the idea of atheism.
The sort of atheism propagated by the types like Richard Dawkins is rather materialistic and misinterprets what a human being is. Then there are those who love left brain technocracy as a means to control the masses. Digitization as we see it today, is one such outgrowth. Submit to your new God, the all-powerfull, all-seeing, all-encompassing System-STATE. This is just another form of materialism.
Very few, I suppose, who are here would yield to such demands. Yet, we are further down the road and deeper into such systems than we like to admit.
And where this discussion began, is Moloch worshippers being atheistic. That is a rather quaint way of looking at it, because it is based on the premise there is only one God, namely, the one the poster beliefs in. Any other is not Theos. By that token, all devotion to Gods or enlightenment should then be considered atheistic.
Whereas the poster's problems with Moloch have nothing to do with atheism, but with the worship the God, theos: Moloch, and the way in which it is done.
I find it interesting that the basic premise of this poster is overlooked and simply accepted as if it is truth instead of corrected.
Nice reply! That's a lot packed into such a small amount of text fren! Almost feel like we need a theology.win
Dylan lyrics have come home to roost
Well said!
Thank you friend,
it kinda just said itself.
Keep the faith.
This truth is about to come out, me thinks.
https://youtu.be/uci4uni608E
Full vid. Comment begins at 22:40
https://youtu.be/watch?v=uci4uni608E&t=22m40s
Link with timestamp for your convenience
Ty
Interdasting choice of devolved pagans to reference. Lmao.
Interesting that he chose that as an example. He was making a point about how religious freedom is not limitless, but the only reason he would make that point right now is because the Moloch religion exists.
THIS!!👆
Makes sense, since the top post of atheism was about Satanic ritual sacrifice being a freedom of religion issue
Natural rights do not overlap. A person's right to freedom of religion can not interfere with another's right to life.
Shutdown incoming
Why are the two most Based SCOTUS judges the ones nominated by GHWB and GWB?
Because white hats.
I doubt HW is a white hat ... W maybe, but I wouldn't trust him nor would I be surprised to learn he was the same level of human garbage as his mother and father. The only reason I think W might be a white hat is due to his reaction to the envelopes at his father's funeral.
Keep in mind these two appointed replacements based on the replacement judge's ideology, not their own. If a conservative was retiring, a conservative was appointed. They had to maintain the illusion of a split nation.
Dubya's relationship with his dad might be similar to the relationship between Hunter and his dad (at least as has been implied by Q).
It doesn't excuse anything that either have done, but it is worth considering that there are more than we might suspect who were born into the cult and have been looking for a way out all their life.
A broken clock is right twice a day. Don't forget W nominated Roberts.
So the complex web is unwinding
I would argue that “transgender kids” and their celebratory parents are a form of modern child sacrifice to the “diversity gods.”
I agree with you ..totally right on
Especially all those celebrities, forcing their kids to be trannies is a loophole out of sacrificing the life of the child for their fame as killing their personality still counts.
"Equality gods" hate all humanity the same. 😂😭
My misanthropy has been getting worse over this last week.
Human beings are REALLY shitty to each other.
Per the Declaration of Independence, religious liberty is subject to Natural Law, so satanists can GTFO.
Well sure, but 'real' Satanism has never been tried!
He went there right to the cabal’s face
Why is he saying this?
Hmmmm 🤔🤔.
They would have really liked if you had entered into one-sided deals regarding jabs, in which you took all the risk and did them "a big favor." Only an idiot agrees to a one sided deal...as they have. Moloch did not provide anything in return that will help them in the situations they are in now. He did not grant super speed or invisibility that will help them escape.
Whoah
Well, that's interesting. Here's a post from GAW about that very thing as referenced on r/Atheism recently.
Top Post of the Month
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IrL0KiZ9/top-post-of-the-month/c/
Their stated goal is that the only society of the future will tolerate that.
And whatever else they desire.
Lest anyone who refuses to tolerate, be the next in line.
"progressive" is the most regressive political philosophy on Earth.
And then we got Roe V. Wade and Planned Parenthood. Suddenly Moloch is back in business.
Interesting how the Vox news website had an "accidental" publication of his death notice yesterday....Not an accident.
...but tomorrow... ?
Boy, is he wrong.....
Not today, not tomorrow, not ever!!!
Today? Didnt the Romans completely destory Carthage?
"No society"??? He hasn't met many commies, has he?
Except that we ARE tolerating it, and funding it.
You didn't mention anything about the mark. You wanted me to remind you... Weren't you supposed to bring that up? Why delay? And what about the masks? Oh and John Constantine keeps calling, and I keep telling him you are not available but do you think he is getting suspicious? And the caller ID shows he's calling from Racine... Why is he in Racine? Anyway Umm... Let's see, your wife wanted me to tell you she can't make it to the BDSM quarterly social tomorrow. She said her boyfriend's husband was acting suicidal. She cut off his adrenochrome supply and he's going through withdrawal. She said they'll live stream for everyone if they want to watch, I guess they have something 'special' in mind for the group.
Oh, and Fauci sent one of his attorneys with new proposal, and he asked about a modification to the faustian contract. I told him it was above my pay grade, but you might want to call him.
Last thing, I briefed the new guy. He seems smart, but we should watch him. I wouldn't even mention it, except the NSA flagged him last week for reading GA.WIN so I figure you'll want to deal with it 'personally' just in case...
-- frustrated assistant
"It's my eternal torture.. erm... pleasure.. to serve."