Non Christian thought

[Baptist Believer]

The Dems and media want to eliminate all mention of the Lord Jesus...

Says who?

Nothing in the document cited in the original post says that or promotes that position.

The Dems and media ...want NOTHING to do with Godly morality and values!

Says who?

There are many people of the Christian faith who are Democrats and work in the mainstream media. Are they all pretending?

The Federal govt wants us to have No God but it!

That’s precisely the same issue that faced the early church. Caesar claimed to be divine. The statement, “Jesus is Lord,” carried a political consequence to it, causing serious persecution and loss of life among Christians.

So in what way does the US government demand that citizens declare that the government is God? Please be specific.

The Fed Govt wants to have all religions seen as being equal...

In terms of religious liberty, all religious views and irreligious view are treated neutrally. We have a secular government which avoids taking a stand on the truth claims of religious adherents or anti-religionists. We strive to ensure no religious/irreligious viewpoints are favored or discriminated against in our laws.

...so in the minds of the dem and Media...

You are mind-reading!

I hope that you realize that you are simply making assumptions.

...us witnessing for Jesus and speaking out against Islam and Homosexuals and abortion mills would be hate speech!

Hate speech is not illegal. Neither is expressing a social/political/religious perspective.

The Jesus of the Dems liberals and the medias is NOT the same Jesus of the Bible!

What about the Jesus of conservative Democrats? I know conservative, liberal, and progressive Democrats, and they seem quite focused on the teachings of Jesus.

A close friend of mine in the mainstream media (CBS News), was a fellow church member until he and his wife moved for new jobs. He and his wife believe in the Jesus described in the Bible, and tries to follows His teachings.

It seems that you have made your own social and political viewpoints to be the standard for Christian faithfulness. Let me suggest to you that Jesus is the true standard.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Federal govt wants us to have No God but it!

What.

 

[Yeshua1]

Says who?

Nothing in the document cited in the original post says that or promotes that position.


Says who?

There are many people of the Christian faith who are Democrats and work in the mainstream media. Are they all pretending?


That’s precisely the same issue that faced the early church. Caesar claimed to be divine. The statement, “Jesus is Lord,” carried a political consequence to it, causing serious persecution and loss of life among Christians.

So in what way does the US government demand that citizens declare that the government is God? Please be specific.


In terms of religious liberty, all religious views and irreligious view are treated neutrally. We have a secular government which avoids taking a stand on the truth claims of religious adherents or anti-religionists. We strive to ensure no religious/irreligious viewpoints are favored or discriminated against in our laws.


You are mind-reading!

I hope that you realize that you are simply making assumptions.


Hate speech is not illegal. Neither is expressing a social/political/religious perspective.


What about the Jesus of conservative Democrats? I know conservative, liberal, and progressive Democrats, and they seem quite focused on the teachings of Jesus.

A close friend of mine in the mainstream media (CBS News), was a fellow church member until he and his wife moved for new jobs. He and his wife believe in the Jesus described in the Bible, and tries to follows His teachings.

It seems that you have made your own social and political viewpoints to be the standard for Christian faithfulness. Let me suggest to you that Jesus is the true standard.

The Dems and Media now in power are very liberal and secular, and would want nothing better then saying we Christians shut up now and leave things alone!

 

[Yeshua1]

Says who?

Nothing in the document cited in the original post says that or promotes that position.


Says who?

There are many people of the Christian faith who are Democrats and work in the mainstream media. Are they all pretending?


That’s precisely the same issue that faced the early church. Caesar claimed to be divine. The statement, “Jesus is Lord,” carried a political consequence to it, causing serious persecution and loss of life among Christians.

So in what way does the US government demand that citizens declare that the government is God? Please be specific.


In terms of religious liberty, all religious views and irreligious view are treated neutrally. We have a secular government which avoids taking a stand on the truth claims of religious adherents or anti-religionists. We strive to ensure no religious/irreligious viewpoints are favored or discriminated against in our laws.


You are mind-reading!

I hope that you realize that you are simply making assumptions.


Hate speech is not illegal. Neither is expressing a social/political/religious perspective.


What about the Jesus of conservative Democrats? I know conservative, liberal, and progressive Democrats, and they seem quite focused on the teachings of Jesus.

A close friend of mine in the mainstream media (CBS News), was a fellow church member until he and his wife moved for new jobs. He and his wife believe in the Jesus described in the Bible, and tries to follows His teachings.

It seems that you have made your own social and political viewpoints to be the standard for Christian faithfulness. Let me suggest to you that Jesus is the true standard.

The Jesus of the Bible does not support lawlessness . nor gay weddings. nor Transgenderism, nor Infanticide!Unlike the Media and dems

 

[Baptist Believer]

The Dems and Media now in power are very liberal and secular, and would want nothing better then saying we Christians shut up now and leave things alone!

I see. You have no evidence and are just broad brushing everyone who is not like you. I'm trying to have a discussion with you, but all you have are baseless accusations. Bye.

 

[Yeshua1]

I see. You have no evidence and are just broad brushing everyone who is not like you. I'm trying to have a discussion with you, but all you have are baseless accusations. Bye.

What baseless? Do you not see what they want now to do to those of us who are conservative and also Christian?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The premise is that everyone has biases, and religious convictions should be left to one's own conscience, not supported or suppressed by the government.

There is a definite tension in the appeal, which is both subtly claiming (a restoration? hardly) and outright clamoring for special favor on the basis of unique neutrality which is an outright lie. They have already made many dangerous inroads in schools and universities.

One can appreciate that those who hold to a different worldview would want it to predominate, but that should never be allowed to happen, especially in the case of those whose tradition it is to persecute all other faiths, which secular atheism is the worst known.

It is paramount that these secularists not be allowed to gain an advantage by claiming neutrality. Theirs is most certainly a religious faith, or perhaps more correctly an anti-religious faith held by fanatics. These people are not “nonbelievers” when compared to all other worldviews, and it is a grave mistake to allow them such a claim.

An example from their appeal:

As your administration recommits the U.S. to its longstanding tradition of accepting and welcoming refugees, please ensure that atheist asylum cases, often individuals who are the targets of persecution through blasphemy, apostasy, and heresy laws, are given special consideration as a persecuted group.​

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

A slightly paraphrased retold debate exchange:

Christian: “Both of my parents and all four grandparents were Christians.”

Marxist: “That’s the trouble with religious people. You remain in the religion of your parents.”

Christian: “I’m curious. Were your parents atheists when you were growing up?”

Marxist: “Yes, my father was more of an agnostic, but my mother was an atheist.”

Christian: “Then you remained in the same faith your parents raised you.”

Marxist: “Oh, but atheism is not a faith.”

Christian: “Really? But I thought you said you believed it.”

Audience laughs. They get the point. And this was an atheist philosophy professor.

 

[Van]

I always chuckle when liberals claim they are supporting the separation of Church and State. The idea is those that govern should not dictate religious doctrine. But these same hypocrites are against school choice, where parents are empowered to put their kids into schools of their choice, rather than the government dictating attendance at schools that teach godlessness.

 

[Ronnie Vaughan]

Frankly, I think the church could stand a good purging. If the government did actually come after us, I would imagine the church in this country would drastically shrink rather quickly. Then any further growth we would know is real growth. Not growth from feel good rock-n-roll have some coffee and a doughnut church's idea of Christianity.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The premise is that everyone has biases, and religious convictions should be left to one's own conscience, not supported or suppressed by the government.

Again that is not their premise, only yours.

Another point to ponder is why these supposed "nonbelievers" would want to participate in military chaplaincy. If they don't believe anything, why would they need it, what would they have to offer?

The truth is that they do have a religious worldview which they want to impose on others, in the guise of having none, and they have been advancing their agenda this way for decades. They want to force everyone to accept atheistic naturalism as a neutral position.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Frankly, I think the church could stand a good purging. If the government did actually come after us, I would imagine the church in this country would drastically shrink rather quickly. Then any further growth we would know is real growth. Not growth from feel good rock-n-roll have some coffee and a doughnut church's idea of Christianity.

This country has been a missions base for a long time, reaching those in countries under such regimes. Perhaps some who have escaped that will return the favor when the time comes. I've no doubt many believers will be praying for it when it does.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Do you not see what they want now to do to those of us who are conservative and also Christian?

What do "they" want to do to those "who are conservative and also Christian?"

 

[Baptist Believer]

There is a definite tension in the appeal, which is both subtly claiming (a restoration? hardly) and outright clamoring for special favor on the basis of unique neutrality which is an outright lie. They have already made many dangerous inroads in schools and universities.

There has been a creeping movement toward federal tax monies going to faith groups for "secular" purposes, which is a violation of the separation of church and state. Strings of control come with government money (rightly so), which undermines the liberty of the faith group who receives it, as well as misuses tax money paid by citizens who would not want their money going to those faith groups. For instance, I wouldn't want my tax money going to support Mormon social ministries, which extend the influence of that group as they serve the community.

What they want is for us to hold tightly to the principle of the separation of church and state -- a Baptist principle.

One can appreciate that those who hold to a different worldview would want it to predominate, but that should never be allowed to happen, especially in the case of those whose tradition it is to persecute all other faiths, which secular atheism is the worst known.

I know a lot of atheists. I don't know any who want to persecute people of faith. Sometimes they tease Christians, but that is hardly persecution. Christians tells all kinds of tales about atheists that are cruel and unkind. Many atheists have taken that position because of abuse within Christian churches when they still believed. When they rightly reject the abuse piled on them, they often reject the faith that they abusers claim, and see it as part of the problem.

You may want to trot out China and the USSR as examples of Christians being persecuted by atheists, but that is more a function of a political system trying to destroy anything that claims ultimate allegiance over the citizenry.

It is paramount that these secularists not be allowed to gain an advantage by claiming neutrality.

They are not claiming neutrality, they want our government to be neutral in regarding to religious convictions. They want separation of church and state to be consistently enforced.

Theirs is most certainly a religious faith, or perhaps more correctly an anti-religious faith held by fanatics. These people are not “nonbelievers” when compared to all other worldviews, and it is a grave mistake to allow them such a claim.

You are equating worldviews and religious faith, they are not the same.

An example from their appeal:

As your administration recommits the U.S. to its longstanding tradition of accepting and welcoming refugees, please ensure that atheist asylum cases, often individuals who are the targets of persecution through blasphemy, apostasy, and heresy laws, are given special consideration as a persecuted group.​

Yes, exactly. They want the US government to give consideration to those who are not religious when evaluating their refugee status, just like the government takes into consideration that a refugee who is Christian may well face persecution in a country where they are a religious minority. In other words, they seek equal treatment under our law. Why would you be against equal treatment for everyone under our law?

 

[Baptist Believer]

A slightly paraphrased retold debate exchange:

Christian: “Both of my parents and all four grandparents were Christians.”

Marxist: “That’s the trouble with religious people. You remain in the religion of your parents.”

Christian: “I’m curious. Were your parents atheists when you were growing up?”

Marxist: “Yes, my father was more of an agnostic, but my mother was an atheist.”

Christian: “Then you remained in the same faith your parents raised you.”

Marxist: “Oh, but atheism is not a faith.”

Christian: “Really? But I thought you said you believed it.”

Audience laughs. They get the point. And this was an atheist philosophy professor.

If you didn't witness this yourself, I wouldn't give this story any credence. There are a lot of Christian urban legends (made-up stories) about philosophy professors is college. The way you retell it, the "Marxist" (was it the atheist philosophy professor?) never claimed to believe atheism.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I always chuckle when liberals claim they are supporting the separation of Church and State.

I'm not sure why you assign support for separation of church and state to "liberals." It is the historical view among Baptists in the United States.

The idea is those that govern should not dictate religious doctrine.

That's part of it, but there is much more. Among other things, it also prevents faith groups from using the government to enforce their religious positions on others.

But these same hypocrites are against school choice...

Says who? Parents can enroll their children in any school they believe is appropriate, or even home school. Parents have all kinds of choices.

...where parents are empowered to put their kids into schools of their choice...

But here's the real issue. You won't actually write it out, but the phrase "where parents are empowered" means that they get tax money taken from you and me.

Why should I pay for a religious education that I don't agree with? I don't want my tax money paying for a Roman Catholic, Mormon, Presbyterian, Word of Faith, Scientologist, Islamic, or hyper-fundamentalist Baptist education.

...rather than the government dictating attendance at schools that teach godlessness.

I received a secular education (K-12) and the first two years of college. They did not teach godlessness. Religious faith should be taught in the home and assemblies of believers who are dedicated for that purpose. We need to keep our government out of regulating religious faith.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Again that is not their premise, only yours.

I talk to atheists just about every day. I know what I'm talking about. Do you have good relationships with atheists? If not, then maybe you should reach out and build a relationship with one.

Another point to ponder is why these supposed "nonbelievers" would want to participate in military chaplaincy. If they don't believe anything, why would they need it, what would they have to offer?

That's obvious: To provide counseling and encouragement to others from a non-religious perspective.

The truth is that they do have a religious worldview which they want to impose on others, in the guise of having none, and they have been advancing their agenda this way for decades. They want to force everyone to accept atheistic naturalism as a neutral position.

They could say the same things about most religious groups. They participate in the free exchange of ideas, like Christians, and like all sane people, believe their are correct in their views. The teachings of Jesus can stand up to anything that an atheist might propose. I know this because I do it every day. We don't need to be afraid of atheists. We need to help them work through their viewpoint/worldview and help prepare their mind and senses for an encounter with God.

 

[Van]

I'm not sure why you assign support for separation of church and state to "liberals." It is the historical view among Baptists in the United States. Opposite of what I said. Those that misrepresent others are untethered from truth.

That's part of it, but there is much more. Among other things, it also prevents faith groups from using the government to enforce their religious positions on others. Distinction without a difference, in America it is the godless left dictating godlessness.

Says who? Parents can enroll their children in any school they believe is appropriate, or even home school. Parents have all kinds of choices. To deny the Democrats are against school choice betrays a lack of candor.

But here's the real issue. You won't actually write it out, but the phrase "where parents are empowered" means that they get tax money taken from you and me. Spot on, the tax money now goes to closed schools run by dictatorial elitists. Here in California these schools rank at the bottom in efficacy. But if the parents had vouchers, they would move their kids to better schools.

Why should I pay for a religious education that I don't agree with? I don't want my tax money paying for a Roman Catholic, Mormon, Presbyterian, Word of Faith, Scientologist, Islamic, or hyper-fundamentalist Baptist education. Absurd argument, I do not what my money going to the worst schools. No amount of religious bigotry would prevent your tax dollars funding abortion, aid to China, NPR and all the pork in our budget.

I received a secular education (K-12) and the first two years of college. They did not teach godlessness. Religious faith should be taught in the home and assemblies of believers who are dedicated for that purpose. We need to keep our government out of regulating religious faith.

To claim godless creation is not teaching godlessness is without merit. If parents what their kids to attend a school that teaches critical thinking, rather than indoctrination, that is a good thing.

I always chuckle when liberals claim they are supporting the separation of Church and State. The idea is those that govern should not dictate religious doctrine. But these same hypocrites are against school choice, where parents are empowered to put their kids into schools of their choice, rather than the government dictating attendance at schools that teach godlessness.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

If you didn't witness this yourself, I wouldn't give this story any credence. There are a lot of Christian urban legends (made-up stories) about philosophy professors is college. The way you retell it, the "Marxist" (was it the atheist philosophy professor?) never claimed to believe atheism.

Although I can appreciate some skepticism, your extreme twisting of what I presented displays a remarkably devious talent for avoiding obvious truth. Anyway, since you chose to press the point, below is what was referred to (see beginning at 44:00). The entire debate is worth a listen, and contains more context. However, I was slightly inaccurate. The audience didn't just laugh, they applauded.

More to the point, who but someone completely out of touch would seriously doubt such a basic exchange? It is just too typical of the atheist mindset, though admittedly some of Singer's colleagues were purportedly taken aback that a professional philosopher of his credentials and experience could exhibit such evident ignorance of what it means to have a worldview.

Peter Singer vs John Lennox: Is There a God?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There has been a creeping movement toward federal tax monies going to faith groups for "secular" purposes, which is a violation of the separation of church and state. Strings of control come with government money (rightly so), which undermines the liberty of the faith group who receives it, as well as misuses tax money paid by citizens who would not want their money going to those faith groups. For instance, I wouldn't want my tax money going to support Mormon social ministries, which extend the influence of that group as they serve the community.

The federal government has taken over a great many areas where it doesn't rightfully belong, meaning it shouldn't have that money in the first place, and is uniquely unqualified to solve a great many of societies problems. Government tends to create more when it gets directly involved. While giving money to religious entities is hardly ideal, atheists posing as secularists controlling all the money is the worst of all worlds. In any case, government does not have the right to control any religious entity where it violates their constitutional rights.

I know a lot of atheists. I don't know any who want to persecute people of faith. Sometimes they tease Christians, but that is hardly persecution. Christians tells all kinds of tales about atheists that are cruel and unkind. Many atheists have taken that position because of abuse within Christian churches when they still believed. When they rightly reject the abuse piled on them, they often reject the faith that they abusers claim, and see it as part of the problem.

The religious views of atheistic naturalism have been making huge inroads into education and government in the guise of neutrality. It is as much a religious mindset as any, and what they mean by secularism. The "separation of church and state" is a Marxist expression. The Constitution opposes government control of religion, and never meant that atheism would be preferred much less allowed to reign.

You may want to trot out China and the USSR as examples of Christians being persecuted by atheists, but that is more a function of a political system trying to destroy anything that claims ultimate allegiance over the citizenry.

They are not claiming neutrality, they want our government to be neutral in regarding to religious convictions. They want separation of church and state to be consistently enforced.

You are equating worldviews and religious faith, they are not the same.

The USSR and the CCP are not anomalies, they are the natural norm for atheistic states. The Constitution is deadset against our political system claiming superiority over the religious convictions of US citizens, but the atheism of so-called secularists is precisely what they want to impose through the government. Their desire for chaplaincy is the perfect example of what they are about. They want their cake and eat ours too. They are equating worldview with religion precisely because theirs is a religious faith. It's all too obvious for anyone bothering to think.

Yes, exactly. They want the US government to give consideration to those who are not religious when evaluating their refugee status, just like the government takes into consideration that a refugee who is Christian may well face persecution in a country where they are a religious minority. In other words, they seek equal treatment under our law. Why would you be against equal treatment for everyone under our law?

You completely ignored their wording even when it was highlighted. They didn't ask for equal treatment but special consideration. But why? They have no religion. You and they are evidently confusing religion with worldview. Again, they are all too obvious to anyone bothering to think. No one should be fooled by their doublespeak, or your repeating it.