He is spot on. This is why our country was founded on religious morals, but allowed people to have the freedom not to be, unlike the middle ages.
The idea is that believing something good, having something that everyone can agree is good, helps guide our hands and our feet to making good happen.
It's why the people who loudly proclaim themselves as Atheist (capitalized for emphasis, as this has become a new deity to them) are generally directly in opposition of the values our country was founded on.
Then those Atheists try to point at priests and whatnot who end up in the positions and use that position to commit evil as a reason for why religions are all evil.
They're not. Any religion that can preach peace in the face of opposition, violence, false prophets, cannot be evil.
Even if you do not believe personally -- or even if you find yourself more agnostic and feel like you should respect it in spite of a lack of the proof you're looking for -- if you can at least rationalize and understand that the messaging is good, the morals are worth listening to, you can use that to form a solid moral foundation and accomplish great things.
Rather than directly opposing the flow of the river until it overflows, you can walk alongside it until you reach your destination.
This is a very good post. I just want to add, that whoever claims to be an Atheist, is bound to the religion of science, there is no other way. Personally I was raised being catholic, but when left the church. Having looked at most religions I practice now the way the buddha teached. I find he more or less teaches the same as Jesus. Before you change the world, change yourself.
I don't necessarily agree, but I don't disagree either.
A lot of the best scientists in history were religious to some degree and science shouldn't be pitted against religion. That has been a deliberate move throughout more recent history.
Even if you do not believe personally -- or even if you find yourself more agnostic and feel like you should respect it in spite of a lack of the proof you're looking for -- if you can at least rationalize and understand that the messaging is good, the morals are worth listening to, you can use that to form a solid moral foundation and accomplish great things
Religion is not a necessity for one to have morals. It absolutely has a big influence on how a religious person defines their own moral code, but non-religious people aren't any more or less likely to have morals than anyone else.
It's why the people who loudly proclaim themselves as Atheist (capitalized for emphasis, as this has become a new deity to them) are generally directly in opposition of the values our country was founded on.
I frequently see people say that the US was founded on religious principles, specifically Christianity. But whenever I ask them what those principles are, and how they are exclusive to religion, I never get an answer.
Could you tell me what you think those religious principles are, please? I truly would like to have a civilized conversation about this topic without people getting upset. I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. Just that I don't see the topic the way that you do, and I'm trying to understand your view better.
no, i'm saying IMO, that by following the 10 commandments it makes for a good society. if you build a society on those principles, i think we would be blessed.
The principles are from Jesus: 1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul; 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. Without responsibility to (and love for) a greater power, you will have no reason to do #2 when that gets tough.
I apologize for the late reply. I somehow missed the responses to my post from last week.
So where exactly do these principles show up in the founding of the country? It seems like you're saying that because many, or even most, of the people from that time believed in God and Jesus, that it automatically means that our country was founded on it.
Using that logic, our country was also founded on racism and male chauvinism, due to the beliefs of the majority of the people at that time and how minorities (especially black people) and women were treated.
Without responsibility to (and love for) a greater power, you will have no reason to do #2 when that gets tough.
Many people find they have no problem loving and helping their neighbor without having to believe in God. The concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is one that transcends religious belief.
Religion is not a necessity for one to have morals. It absolutely has a big influence on how a religious person defines their own moral code, but non-religious people aren't any more or less likely to have morals than anyone else.
There are verses, and it’s been long discussed, even in the Bible in some ways, about the righteous unbeliever. Virgil was considered one in Dante’s time. Note that this is not in contrast to the unrighteous claimed believer, but the person who actually does what the Bible teaches.
It’s so, so much harder to go that path, though, and there’s really no reason to not try and bring oneself into faith. I suspect that the hardest part for people like this is they can’t visualize what it looks like. Frankly, that was my problem on Sunday that was causing me to believe the prior day’s events were faked. Once I slipped over to just simple belief that it was miraculous grace instead, that problem went away.
It is perfectly possible for someone to live a just life without believing in God, but what is the benefit, at that point, in rejecting grace and forgiveness and guidance?
I frequently see people say that the US was founded on religious principles, specifically Christianity. But whenever I ask them what those principles are, and how they are exclusive to religion, I never get an answer.
I will happily write this up for you, but it’s going to take me some time. I know they’re there, but it’s going to be some effort to find them and aggregate and write and whatnot.
I apologize for the late reply. I just now saw the responses to my post from last week.
Note that this is not in contrast to the unrighteous claimed believer, but the person who actually does what the Bible teaches.
It’s so, so much harder to go that path, though, and there’s really no reason to not try and bring oneself into faith.
Especially when the Bible teaches you to stone adulterers to death. I would imagine that is a pretty tough one to carry through.
It is perfectly possible for someone to live a just life without believing in God, but what is the benefit, at that point, in rejecting grace and forgiveness and guidance?
It's not a matter of rejecting it. It's a matter of not believing it exists in the first place. To reject something means that one believes there is something there to reject.
It's not a matter of just deciding to believe in God or not. It's a matter of why you believe or not. If the concept of God makes no sense at all to someone, it's not simply a matter of rejecting God. It's a matter of not having a reason to believe in God in the first place.
Comments like yours are very common and it makes it seem that there's a lot of people who believe in God on a "just in case" basis, or a "everyone else is doing it" basis.
Don’t take my position as just-in-case. That position strikes me as being better than rejection in the case of someone on the fence is all.
Especially when the Bible teaches you to stone adulterers to death.
World can be a harsh place, anon. It’s not that stoning adulterers is good, it’s that adultery is bad and we should fear committing it, fear it for our lives if need be. Other things are of the same type. People will abandon what’s best for the long term all the time if they think they can get away with it in the moment. It’s just how we are, and it’s not among our best traits. There are many verses like this. “If you dare get that match near the stove again, you’ll see what’s going to happen”, but imposed from .. I currently prefer to keep the consequences I consider confined to the material plane, which tends to be true enough. Most of these consequences are for believers, too, though there are some things that get applied to everyone, regardless of their beliefs (“Hi, Planned Parenthood! God sees you.”). There have been longstanding connections that indicate to me that the God of Abraham is real. I actually tend to suspect that the old Pagan gods were real (in a bad way, obviously) and several of them are currently remanifesting themselves spiritually, which is … not a good thing for anyone, and also ascribes more reasoning for the behaviors and beliefs of our ancestors than mere superstition and mass cultural deceit. I don’t agree with their character, but if some supernatural being was imposing itself on your town, 4000 years ago, in the absence of an opposing force or directive, you’d probably do what it demanded, too!
It's not a matter of just deciding to believe in God or not. It's a matter of why you believe or not. If the concept of God makes no sense at all to someone, it's not simply a matter of rejecting God. It's a matter of not having a reason to believe in God in the first place.
Meanwhile, I have had proven to me, from a logical standpoint (mind you, not one that I can recreate for others, but to where I personally have zero doubt, as a fairly logic-based person) that spiritual existence is real. I have had experience with several “coincidental” miracles, and several “experiential” miracles, and have no doubt that a hand of providence, for whatever purpose, has guided aspects of my life and kept me here and safe, however much suffering it has taken me to get through some of those passages (which in my life are admittedly relatively minor compared to the shocking traumas of many people i know) and pointed me in this direction. To what ends, I don’t yet know.
It's not a matter of rejecting it. It's a matter of not believing it exists in the first place. To reject something means that one believes there is something there to reject.
The character of God is reflected in His instruction. Whether you believe some superior being exists or not, that instruction absolutely exists. Let it be known that I have a great deal of beef with the church for what I see as failing to teach it adequately or correctly, and in many cases, actively opposing what is written. The current church as a whole is a poor reflection of the scripture. No knock on any specific congregation.
I also don’t necessarily agree with the concept of “bringing everyone into the faith as converts” while neglecting to make disciples in full - to the point that there are almost no disciples at all. There is a lot of validity to the mockery of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with the way that Christians teach the Bible.
I’m not trying to convince you, but only to let you know that if we start getting it right, you will see the light, in a manifest way, as it once was, and that when we get there, you don’t need to be able to visualize or imagine God to believe, but only to know His character, and we have that character written down. It just takes a lot of earnest humility and struggle.
I will happily write this up for you, but it’s going to take me some time. I know they’re there, but it’s going to be some effort to find them and aggregate and write and whatnot.
Forgot all about this, but it should definitely be a thread. Marked it to my “topics” list.
Was just listening to the Trump Roasting Everybody video, got to the point where he was saying “what the hell do you have to lose, seriously?” 3 times in a row, instantly thought of this and grinned. You may or may not not be wrong, but we have the best positions here, folks! It’s true. It’s true.
Religion is not a necessity for one to have morals.
I absolutely agree, but the point I was making is that by specifically acting in direct opposition to the religions that have shaped our morals for thousands of years you are more likely to toss those morals away.
You need only look at the people who oppose everything that Christianity stands for no matter how much they debase themselves or everyone and everything around them, because they grew up in a family that thumped them too hard with the Bible.
The "half" of the country that hates Christianity is running around grooming children, getting rid of self agency, and so many other things.
There are other people who are better able to quantify into words what religious morals have guided this country at its foundation, so I'll leave that bit to them.
He is spot on. This is why our country was founded on religious morals, but allowed people to have the freedom not to be, unlike the middle ages.
The idea is that believing something good, having something that everyone can agree is good, helps guide our hands and our feet to making good happen.
It's why the people who loudly proclaim themselves as Atheist (capitalized for emphasis, as this has become a new deity to them) are generally directly in opposition of the values our country was founded on.
Then those Atheists try to point at priests and whatnot who end up in the positions and use that position to commit evil as a reason for why religions are all evil.
They're not. Any religion that can preach peace in the face of opposition, violence, false prophets, cannot be evil.
Even if you do not believe personally -- or even if you find yourself more agnostic and feel like you should respect it in spite of a lack of the proof you're looking for -- if you can at least rationalize and understand that the messaging is good, the morals are worth listening to, you can use that to form a solid moral foundation and accomplish great things.
Rather than directly opposing the flow of the river until it overflows, you can walk alongside it until you reach your destination.
Good post.
Without free will, there can be no true faith.
"For it is God who works in you both to will and do of His good pleasure..." Philippians 2:13
This is a very good post. I just want to add, that whoever claims to be an Atheist, is bound to the religion of science, there is no other way. Personally I was raised being catholic, but when left the church. Having looked at most religions I practice now the way the buddha teached. I find he more or less teaches the same as Jesus. Before you change the world, change yourself.
I don't necessarily agree, but I don't disagree either.
A lot of the best scientists in history were religious to some degree and science shouldn't be pitted against religion. That has been a deliberate move throughout more recent history.
Religion is not a necessity for one to have morals. It absolutely has a big influence on how a religious person defines their own moral code, but non-religious people aren't any more or less likely to have morals than anyone else.
I frequently see people say that the US was founded on religious principles, specifically Christianity. But whenever I ask them what those principles are, and how they are exclusive to religion, I never get an answer.
Could you tell me what you think those religious principles are, please? I truly would like to have a civilized conversation about this topic without people getting upset. I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. Just that I don't see the topic the way that you do, and I'm trying to understand your view better.
IMO, the Ten Commandments
I apologize for the late reply. I somehow missed the responses to my post.
Are you saying that the principles the US was founded on is based on the Ten Commandments?
Other than laws concerning murder and stealing, and perhaps perjury, I don't see where the rest factor in at all.
And every country has laws against murder, stealing, and perjury, so I don't see how that is exclusive to Christianity.
no, i'm saying IMO, that by following the 10 commandments it makes for a good society. if you build a society on those principles, i think we would be blessed.
The principles are from Jesus: 1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul; 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. Without responsibility to (and love for) a greater power, you will have no reason to do #2 when that gets tough.
I apologize for the late reply. I somehow missed the responses to my post from last week.
So where exactly do these principles show up in the founding of the country? It seems like you're saying that because many, or even most, of the people from that time believed in God and Jesus, that it automatically means that our country was founded on it.
Using that logic, our country was also founded on racism and male chauvinism, due to the beliefs of the majority of the people at that time and how minorities (especially black people) and women were treated.
Many people find they have no problem loving and helping their neighbor without having to believe in God. The concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is one that transcends religious belief.
There are verses, and it’s been long discussed, even in the Bible in some ways, about the righteous unbeliever. Virgil was considered one in Dante’s time. Note that this is not in contrast to the unrighteous claimed believer, but the person who actually does what the Bible teaches.
It’s so, so much harder to go that path, though, and there’s really no reason to not try and bring oneself into faith. I suspect that the hardest part for people like this is they can’t visualize what it looks like. Frankly, that was my problem on Sunday that was causing me to believe the prior day’s events were faked. Once I slipped over to just simple belief that it was miraculous grace instead, that problem went away.
It is perfectly possible for someone to live a just life without believing in God, but what is the benefit, at that point, in rejecting grace and forgiveness and guidance?
I will happily write this up for you, but it’s going to take me some time. I know they’re there, but it’s going to be some effort to find them and aggregate and write and whatnot.
I apologize for the late reply. I just now saw the responses to my post from last week.
Especially when the Bible teaches you to stone adulterers to death. I would imagine that is a pretty tough one to carry through.
It's not a matter of rejecting it. It's a matter of not believing it exists in the first place. To reject something means that one believes there is something there to reject.
It's not a matter of just deciding to believe in God or not. It's a matter of why you believe or not. If the concept of God makes no sense at all to someone, it's not simply a matter of rejecting God. It's a matter of not having a reason to believe in God in the first place.
Comments like yours are very common and it makes it seem that there's a lot of people who believe in God on a "just in case" basis, or a "everyone else is doing it" basis.
Better late than never fren! No worries!
Don’t take my position as just-in-case. That position strikes me as being better than rejection in the case of someone on the fence is all.
World can be a harsh place, anon. It’s not that stoning adulterers is good, it’s that adultery is bad and we should fear committing it, fear it for our lives if need be. Other things are of the same type. People will abandon what’s best for the long term all the time if they think they can get away with it in the moment. It’s just how we are, and it’s not among our best traits. There are many verses like this. “If you dare get that match near the stove again, you’ll see what’s going to happen”, but imposed from .. I currently prefer to keep the consequences I consider confined to the material plane, which tends to be true enough. Most of these consequences are for believers, too, though there are some things that get applied to everyone, regardless of their beliefs (“Hi, Planned Parenthood! God sees you.”). There have been longstanding connections that indicate to me that the God of Abraham is real. I actually tend to suspect that the old Pagan gods were real (in a bad way, obviously) and several of them are currently remanifesting themselves spiritually, which is … not a good thing for anyone, and also ascribes more reasoning for the behaviors and beliefs of our ancestors than mere superstition and mass cultural deceit. I don’t agree with their character, but if some supernatural being was imposing itself on your town, 4000 years ago, in the absence of an opposing force or directive, you’d probably do what it demanded, too!
Meanwhile, I have had proven to me, from a logical standpoint (mind you, not one that I can recreate for others, but to where I personally have zero doubt, as a fairly logic-based person) that spiritual existence is real. I have had experience with several “coincidental” miracles, and several “experiential” miracles, and have no doubt that a hand of providence, for whatever purpose, has guided aspects of my life and kept me here and safe, however much suffering it has taken me to get through some of those passages (which in my life are admittedly relatively minor compared to the shocking traumas of many people i know) and pointed me in this direction. To what ends, I don’t yet know.
The character of God is reflected in His instruction. Whether you believe some superior being exists or not, that instruction absolutely exists. Let it be known that I have a great deal of beef with the church for what I see as failing to teach it adequately or correctly, and in many cases, actively opposing what is written. The current church as a whole is a poor reflection of the scripture. No knock on any specific congregation.
I also don’t necessarily agree with the concept of “bringing everyone into the faith as converts” while neglecting to make disciples in full - to the point that there are almost no disciples at all. There is a lot of validity to the mockery of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with the way that Christians teach the Bible.
I’m not trying to convince you, but only to let you know that if we start getting it right, you will see the light, in a manifest way, as it once was, and that when we get there, you don’t need to be able to visualize or imagine God to believe, but only to know His character, and we have that character written down. It just takes a lot of earnest humility and struggle.
Forgot all about this, but it should definitely be a thread. Marked it to my “topics” list.
Was just listening to the Trump Roasting Everybody video, got to the point where he was saying “what the hell do you have to lose, seriously?” 3 times in a row, instantly thought of this and grinned. You may or may not not be wrong, but we have the best positions here, folks! It’s true. It’s true.
I absolutely agree, but the point I was making is that by specifically acting in direct opposition to the religions that have shaped our morals for thousands of years you are more likely to toss those morals away.
You need only look at the people who oppose everything that Christianity stands for no matter how much they debase themselves or everyone and everything around them, because they grew up in a family that thumped them too hard with the Bible.
The "half" of the country that hates Christianity is running around grooming children, getting rid of self agency, and so many other things.
There are other people who are better able to quantify into words what religious morals have guided this country at its foundation, so I'll leave that bit to them.