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.
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.
They only attack Christians with strange passion. If something is fake, why would they hate it so much? Satan doesn't care about the atheist Buddha Muslim Hindu etc. You know you're doing something right if evildoers hate you.
In the societies where these faiths are indigenous, yes, certainly.
And, many atheists see all faiths as being wrong. There's a difference between a philosophical atheist, and a militant atheist.
Marxists, cultural Marxists and their ilk are not really atheists. It's what they profess, but like pretty much everything they profess, it's very often simply the image they project and delude themselves into believing to justify the spirit behind them, which is a satanic spirit.
It's very well established that Christianity is the key target for satanic materialism (aka Marxism, communism, and the globalist Agenda), because it is the key and cornerstone of bringing the world to God and opening the way for God to guide and influence humanity.
But it should be noted, that some atheists can be morally more aligned with God (ironically) than some who profess with their mouths to be Christians.
In my view, then, it's really important to distinguish between an atheist who conscientiously holds that belief because they are (trying to be) sincere, and a militant atheist who is in fact a Marxist or Communist and who wants to destroy Christianity because it is God's number one platform in the world.
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/"
As a relatively agnostic person (not atheistic, but open to the concept of a deity), atheists are fucking obnoxious. I’d take 100 Bible-thumping neighbors over one militant atheist.
Regardless of my beliefs, we are foundationally a Christian nation. Not Judeo-Christian, not “spiritual”. Christian. It’s the only nation that actively encourages people to practice and explore theology and metaphysics. I don’t want that to change, and the militant hate-my-daddy atheist types are blind to it.
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.
same. I follow general Christian morals but personally don’t believe in the historic Jesus Christ as son of God. I believe in the teachings regardless of the validity. Im sure I’ll get downvote for it but won’t really change my view at all
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."
Do you know why? Because they know Christians like me are good people and we are not going to do the same thing. They are bullies, that’s their names Bullies.
We are good people. And we won’t do the same things bc that’s not following Gods teachings. But it doesn’t mean we acquiesce or acknowledge they are right. It just means we need to find ways through our actions to inspire the spirit of God in them. Easier said than done.
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...
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!).
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
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.
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.
They only attack Christians with strange passion. If something is fake, why would they hate it so much? Satan doesn't care about the atheist Buddha Muslim Hindu etc. You know you're doing something right if evildoers hate you.
In the societies where these faiths are indigenous, yes, certainly.
And, many atheists see all faiths as being wrong. There's a difference between a philosophical atheist, and a militant atheist.
Marxists, cultural Marxists and their ilk are not really atheists. It's what they profess, but like pretty much everything they profess, it's very often simply the image they project and delude themselves into believing to justify the spirit behind them, which is a satanic spirit.
It's very well established that Christianity is the key target for satanic materialism (aka Marxism, communism, and the globalist Agenda), because it is the key and cornerstone of bringing the world to God and opening the way for God to guide and influence humanity.
But it should be noted, that some atheists can be morally more aligned with God (ironically) than some who profess with their mouths to be Christians.
In my view, then, it's really important to distinguish between an atheist who conscientiously holds that belief because they are (trying to be) sincere, and a militant atheist who is in fact a Marxist or Communist and who wants to destroy Christianity because it is God's number one platform in the world.
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.
As a relatively agnostic person (not atheistic, but open to the concept of a deity), atheists are fucking obnoxious. I’d take 100 Bible-thumping neighbors over one militant atheist.
Regardless of my beliefs, we are foundationally a Christian nation. Not Judeo-Christian, not “spiritual”. Christian. It’s the only nation that actively encourages people to practice and explore theology and metaphysics. I don’t want that to change, and the militant hate-my-daddy atheist types are blind to it.
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.
same. I follow general Christian morals but personally don’t believe in the historic Jesus Christ as son of God. I believe in the teachings regardless of the validity. Im sure I’ll get downvote for it but won’t really change my view at all
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.
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."
Do you know why? Because they know Christians like me are good people and we are not going to do the same thing. They are bullies, that’s their names Bullies.
We are good people. And we won’t do the same things bc that’s not following Gods teachings. But it doesn’t mean we acquiesce or acknowledge they are right. It just means we need to find ways through our actions to inspire the spirit of God in them. Easier said than done.
True. Most of them are technically just Christian-bashers.
Molockers will mock.
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...
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 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