Jythier Jythier

Freedom of Religion

▼

Freedom of Religion

It Doesn't Mean What They Want It To

from JoeUser Forums

The government’s got it wrong.

For a while now, there has been a push to redefine what freedom of religion means.  Freedom of religion comes from the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Here’s what people seem to think it says:

Congress shall not let anybody holding public office exercise their religion.  Anybody who works for the government cannot exercise their religion during work hours.  All exercise of religion outside of strictly religious organizations is prohibited.   Government money cannot go to any religious organization, even if it provides a service better or cheaper than the government could provide.

What I’m saying is that the violation of the Constitution wasn’t when we had the Ten Commandments at the court house.  It was when we removed them.

Now we have the issue of the prayer before starting a public meeting.  Everybody on the committee agrees with it, but people who aren’t involved are up in arms about it because it brings religion into government. You know what?  Those are people in the government.  And the law doesn’t say they need to stop praying.  The law says that you, concerned citizen, cannot stop them from praying.  That’s unconstitutional for you to do.

There’s a bunch of backwards rules that are coming out of the justice system because they can’t even read a document that spells it out clearly.  The very law of our nation that is supposed to keep the government from being able to stop us from praying, celebrating, and exercising our religion has been misinterpreted to mean that they MUST stop us.

I would urge any Christian specifically, because most of this seems to apply only to us, to fight back in two ways.  One, don’t let them trample on your rights.  Two, don’t trample on the rights of other religious groups.  If a Muslim wants to pray, too, that’s HIS right and you shouldn’t stop him, either.   Show the world that it is religious persecution against the Christians instead of just a societal struggle to eliminate all religion from public life.  If it’s not, we’re going to end up in the same place as the other religions.  But what it feels like, is that we’re going to end up with a country that doesn’t allow Christianity, but allows every other religion.  I hope I’m wrong.

religion
378,683 views 143 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

GFTESS, in #14, you asked what has the USG done to prohibit the free practice of your cult? NAME ONE!

I answered pass the 2,700 page "Obamacare" into law..you know, the same one Catholic hypocrite Nancy Pelosi said you have to pass it to know what's in it! 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 23
Why in the world would I want Obama care, or is it another of those things you have decided we atheists are supposed to desire? I could care less what it may or may not do to Christian medicine; I know what it will do to our failing healthcare system. What assault on religious liberties? What in the world are YOU being denied religiously?

"Obamacare" assaults freedom of religion amongst other things but mostly through its HHS (Health and Human Services) mandate.

Here is an article from a non-Catholic that completely answers your questions.

Forbes
The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
 
In one of the boldest, most audacious moves ever made by a President of the United States, President Barack Obama is on the brink of successfully rendering moot the very first clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added). If he forces the Catholic Church to comply with the Health and Human Services ruling to provide its employees with insurance that covers activities the Church has long held sinful — abortion via the morning after pill, sterilization and contraceptives — then the precedent is clear: when religious beliefs conflict with government decrees, religion must yield.
 
The story line that President Obama miscalculated in picking this fight with the Catholic Church vastly underestimates the man’s political skill and ambition. His initial approval of the ruling requiring the Church pay for abortion drugs and sterilization was but the first step in a calculated strategy to further his goal of transforming America.
President Obama chose to pick this fight with the Catholic Church by choosing to release the regulations first, and then, as he explained in last Friday’s statement to the press, spend “the next year (before the new regulations take effect) to find an equitable solution that would protect religious liberty and insure that every woman has access to the care that she needs.” The alternative would have been to find the “equitable solution” before announcing the regulations. In other words, this entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration.
 
The original HHS ruling put the Catholic Church into the position of choosing one of these two options:
Option A: The Church complies with the law and violates its own teachings and principles of faith. Such a choice would strip the Church of its legitimacy and make it a de facto vassal of the state. In this case, the ability of the Church to challenge the government’s political power is vastly reduced, if not completely destroyed. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.
 
Option B: The Church as a matter of conscience refuses to obey the law, and stops offering health insurance to its employees. In this case, the Church gets crushed by hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. As a consequence, its ability to fulfill its religious mission by funding hospitals, schools and charities is sharply reduced if not destroyed. As the Church is forced to withdraw from its active role in civil society, those who believe in government will rush to fill the void. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.
 
The risk to President Obama was the Church would create “Option C” and engage in a broad political battle to force the full repeal of the ruling or, if that fails, the defeat of President Obama in the November election followed by the repeal of ObamaCare. Under Option C, government’s power is reduced. Faith, charity and civil society win.
President Obama’s political skill is demonstrated by his anticipation and preparation for just this outcome. First, he has used the issue to energize his political base by positioning his Administration as the defender of “women’s health” and attacking his opponents for taking him up on his implicit dare to make it an issue in the Presidential campaign.
Second, last Friday’s decision to “retreat,” as proclaimed by the weekend Wall Street Journal’s page 1 headline and find a way to “accommodate” religious freedom, was pure subterfuge. The notion of retreat or compromise is pure spin. The President’s operative statement reflected zero tolerance for those that would disagree with his policies.
He announced: (the imperial) “we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains (emphasis added). But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.
 
Got that? The insurance company will be required to offer the service, but will be forbidden from explicitly billing the Catholic organization for providing this benefit. Such a construct is a fraud. Of course the employer will have to pay for these benefits. And, even if they didn’t, the Church is still being forced to support what it believes are sinful acts. This “equitable solution” is simply an attempt to soften the blow of forcing the Catholic Church to accommodate the dictates of the now supreme federal government. It’s a face saving version of Option A.

Before our very eyes, President Obama is on the verge of establishing the principle that the right to religious freedom comes not from our Creator, but from those who rule us. A government endowed right granted to women now trumps our unalienable right to act in accordance with our religious beliefs and conscience. Not only does this overturn the First Amendment, it also tramples the nation’s founding principles as announced in the Declaration of Independence. Such an achievement would be the true audacity of power.
 
The fundamental question is whether the Catholic Church, and by extension, individual Americans have to engage in activities according to the rulings of this and future Presidents, or are we free to live our lives as we choose as long as we do not harm another. Are we free to engage in long standing religious practices that have never before been deemed unlawful, or has the federal government established a de facto state “religion” that it is prepared to enforce through the full coercive power of its financial resources and the imposition of financial penalties.
If the Catholic Church and the American people choose the face saving “Option A” instead of “Option C,” then President Obama will have transformed America. We may be allowed the illusion of exercising our freedom, but in truth, we will be subjects in ObamaLand, required to do the bidding of this and future Presidents in the name of some higher, collective good.
 
However, the Catholic Church can turn the tables on the President by taking Option A off the table with a humble statement of principal that in the matters of religious practices and conscience, there is a higher authority than government Who it chooses to obey. If President Obama prevails and unleashes the full force of the federal government against the Church, the cost will be the closing of Catholic schools, hospitals and the loss of social services that play a vital part in communities across the nation. Such a stand would make clear to the American people that the alternative to religious freedom would be a mortal wound to our civil liberties and a complete disruption of civil society.

I am not a Catholic, nor do I believe in the Church’s opposition to contraception. But I pray that the leadership of the Catholic Church will have the faith and courage to stand for its core beliefs and use all of its moral power and political influence to defeat the President’s edict. I pray they will reach out across the political spectrum to people of all faiths, agnostics and atheists in the name of religious freedom and individual liberty. By so doing, they, and the institution of the Catholic Church, will have my love and respect for the rest of my life.
 

 

 

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Any health care reform that supposedly is fixing women's reproductive health issues, and is allowing them choice, but makes contraception coverage required but not midwifery care is absolutely idiotic.

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

GFTESS:

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 6
The first amendment to the constitution grants you this much …

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

GFTESS:

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 6
The constitution guarantees you nothing special, why should it (?) ... it is all in your mind.

The U.S. Constitution acknowledges and guarantees free exercise of religion...that fundamental right is indeed something special to many, many people of different religions. Pluralism is alive and well in the USA. 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 6
If you honestly believe this gives you some “RIGHT” to do and say whatever you want, then you are just being religiously foolish as usual.

No one has said the Constitutional free exercise of religion gives the right to do and say whatever we want.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 9
I am afraid there are other religions that would love a piece of that corrupt pie. Unlike you, I feel all religions should be given the same ‘consideration’ and that would be none at all.

Religious pluralism is a demographic fact in the USA...and that seems to be what the Founders wanted in the American experiment. 

Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and all the pagan religions, as well as Secular and Atheist Humanism are included in the First Amendment.

The attacks against free exercise of religion is focused on Christianity and that's what Jythier brought up in his article.    

Quoting Jythier, reply 7
Your hatred of my religion still doesn't give the government the right to prohibit the free exercise of my religion.

Well said, Jythier. You've pegged it...hatred of Christianity seems to be the gist of it. 

 

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 14
You seem to feel that because you vaguely belong to main stream Christianity, you (they) should receive preferential treatment ... WHY??? I and others have told you repeatedly that we (free thinkers) consider ALL religions foolish to the point of idiocy. But as usual, you and your brethren feel compelled to make this ridiculous argument anyway, that it is just the poor misunderstood Christians that are being denied their "RIGHTS", nothing but pure conceit.

As to "free thinkers"....I agree with Jythier's brilliant response. 

Quoting Jythier, reply 15
The problem with your free thinking is that it leaves being alive as idiocy.  Why live with no purpose?  Even better, why live with any moral compass with no higher accountability for your actions?

So, purposeless, no better than animals in their minds, with no moral compass, you will live and do 'whatever you want' and feel opressed by the laws that say you can't do things.  Laws that say a man marries a woman, laws that say abortion is infanticide, laws that say pornography is illegal, laws that allow certain people to have more than you.

You will march and say that it's wrong to enforce a moral code upon you, but your own march that it's wrong will show that you believe in a moral code as well.  Except that your moral code isn't defined, ancient, relevant, or helpful to society or individuals.  It's the next oldest code - that men should do what feels right.  And that will only lead to our destruction as a society, and your destruction as individuals. 

 

"Free thought" has been the nice sounding phrase that the Atheist crowd has played like a fiddle.

Any thinking person understands that "free thought" is an absurdity because thought is not free at all, rather, it is subject to the law of thought. For example, if 2 x 2 = 4, then we are not free to say it equals 5. If right is right and wrong is wrong, we are not free to say that right is wrong, and wrong is right. Thought is not free. What is free is your will, your power to reckon correctly or incorrectly, to do what you know to be right or wrong.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 14
You seem to feel that because you vaguely belong to main stream Christianity, you (they) should receive preferential treatment ... WHY??? I and others have told you repeatedly that we (free thinkers) consider ALL religions foolish to the point of idiocy. But as usual, you and your brethren feel compelled to make this ridiculous argument anyway, that it is just the poor misunderstood Christians that are being denied their "RIGHTS", nothing but pure conceit.

GFTess:

Here's something to consider. It's reasonable, if by "free thought", you mean freedom of inquiry, or investigation in order to learn the truth of the matter studied. But the question of freedom to investigate is not in the minds of advocates of "free thought" as shown by what you've been indicating here in this discussion.

You mean freedom to deny God and the moral law as interpreted by His revealed one true Christian religion.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 24
At some point you HAVE to understand comprehend that I don’t GaS about your definitions or your misguided conclusions and that I believe ALL bibles to be fictions to be treated as such. If you want to use terms like “the lord calls upon us, etc.”, you had better produce a recording. To my knowledge, the 'lord' has spoken to nobody publically who resides outside an insane asylum. Are you claiming to converse with ’him’ on such a personal level as to know and understand his will too? Hogwash! All you have is hearsay, unsubstantiated magic and here it is the 21st century. Where have you been?

Ya, I know "free thinkers" invariably assume that the intellect of believers, especially Catholics, is enslaved because Faith is the starting point of their study and acceptance of belief in the existence of the one Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Don't you realize that when these "free thinkers" send their children to school, they do so with the command that they do what they did, that is accept upon faith in their teachers, the belief that 2 x 2=4. Are the minds of those children free? Assuredly not. They are bound for life to the arithmetic they accepted from their teachers on faith. But objection is raised by "free thinkers" when the same principle, the same process, is followed in the sphere of religion, especially the Christian one.    

 

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula that is nothing but an advertisement for Romney. Bet it is tough to swallow the Mormon stuff though. Even if you can tolerate it I'll bet your perceived master won't be influenced by politics like you are. It is not like we have any options, as usual. You just don't get itthough. Anyway you are thinking way to small here ... try ~15 Trillion and you will be on my page.

PS - seems you have been buisy, geeze.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 26
Reply #26 lulapilgrim
I don’t know why you keep throwing this Obama care nonsense in my face, I cannot stand him or the policy? Or is this the only way to make your feeble points?

Oh my heart bleeds at the inhumanity. I hope you, by that I mean your bosses, decide for option two for expedience. I’m sure tht YOUR soup kitchens will suffer as well as most of YOUR charities, but the opulent Church owned castles and mansions (tax free) won’t be lacking anything for quite some time. Good luck with forcing society to conform to your standards of lunacy, it isn’t going to happen. So YOU whine and cry about having to deal with the same thing everyone else here does. Oh that’s right YOU have religious rights that guarantee YOU preferential treatment, right. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness about does it for me. The only stipulation is to conform to societal dictates. Now if YOU are so ill informed as to become a cult member, then YOU are responsible for following it’s dictates (within the law) … as I am under no obligation to even consider them at all … and I don’t. YOUR religious problems real or perceived are between YOU and YOUR masters who unerringly know the path to YOUR god. The RCC has no stomach to do anything to interrupt their cash flow so be prepared to capitulate to the state that protects you.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 28
Pluralism is alive and well in the USA.
Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies … just look out a window. Unfortunately, Christians have no desire to embrace any other religion or any of their practices being solely interested in forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else without question. As to the non-religious, well they would be treated like the queers are treated today (religiously speaking of course). Just look at your own rhetoric ... you do not have a mollifying bone in your body and we both know it. The best solution would be to tax the money sucking institutions which would remove much of the incentive to become rich executive ‘MEN of god’.

You just don’t get it and I suppose you never will. I am free to say yes or no to any question put to me. What comes next depends on the circumstances. I can and do reject your god because you cannot even prove it exists.  Your adherence to a midlevel world view is appalling and your disrespect and loathing for the best minds on the planet makes me sick. You would control the country without the first shred of proof or the even the truth to back you up. That is BLIND, blind faith.

Listening to the debate now and your man just guaranteed all women contraceptives for the asking, just thought you might be interested, hahaha, sorry.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

They aren't the best minds on the planet if they can't even figure out that God exists.  They make the assumption that there is no God.  They make the assumption that the researcher before them didn't make faulty assumptions.  They assume the Bible isn't the Word of God. 

Other researchers assume the Bible is the Word of God, that there is a God, that the researchers before them may have made faulty assumptions, and they come to vastly different conclusions using the same evidence.  The thing changing the conclusions is the assumptions, not the evidence. 

And I should believe these are the best minds?

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

"Freedom of religion"... What happened to "Freedom of NO religion?"

Religions want everybody to tolerate them, but isn't tolerance supposed to go two ways? For example; The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam & Christianity) are by default not tolerant religions. They are designed that way. Why should people tolerate what does not tolerate them?

I think there should be a quid pro quo here. If for example Christianity is willing to re-write the bible and exclude everything in it that discriminate groups of people that are non-Christian, then they have truly taken a step towards being tolerated. But until then, Christianity is just hostile by default(unless you're a Christian, of course)...

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 33
They assume the Bible isn't the Word of God.
Is it ... then prove it. Your god didn't write it, your god didn't dictate it and your god didn't repeatedly edit it trying to make it a little more palatable. All you have is hearsay ... he said she said they said. Try taking this silly opinion to a court of law. Personally I don't know the people enough to make such fraudulent stipulations. Any of those researchers that ASSUME the bible is the word of god are just incompetents like yourself (assuming that you are even correct). Got any names or is this just generic slamming which is all you got, so sad. Truth is you don’t even know who wrote your bible … the word of god my arse.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting ExpressoKid, reply 34
"Freedom of religion"... What happened to "Freedom of NO religion?"

Religions want everybody to tolerate them, but isn't tolerance supposed to go two ways? For example; The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam & Christianity) are by default not tolerant religions. They are designed that way. Why should people tolerate what does not tolerate them?

I think there should be a quid pro quo here. If for example Christianity is willing to re-write the bible and exclude everything in it that discriminate groups of people that are non-Christian, then they have truly taken a step towards being tolerated. But until then, Christianity is just hostile by default(unless you're a Christian, of course)...

 

Hostile to whom, exactly?

This is what Christianity says:

"If you want to, you can be in eternity with God forever.  If you don't want to, you don't have to."

Is that really that hostile?

The problem is, there won't be God in Hell with you, therefore bad, horrible things are all that's left for you there.  Why didn't you want to be with God, then?  You knew the way.

So, you're invited, man.  Come on in.  Want to know how to become a Christian?  I'll gladly tell you, and then you can be with God forever too.

If you don't want to believe, you're free to do so.  Nobody is going to stop you.  Christians should not be hating you for it.  Christians should not be hating people for any reason.  Sometimes we fail at not hating, though.  More often, though, we fail to love.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

What I feel the need to express to you, though, is that you are perfectly free to go about your business not believing in this country, same as I am free to go about my business believing.  If I pray, you don't have to join in.  If I read the Bible, you don't have to listen or learn from it.  However, I don't see where that gives you the right to stop me from praying, or stop me from reading the Bible, whether it's a public meeting or not.  If I'm at a public meeting, you better hope I asked for God's wisdom, or mistakes are going to be made.

Anyway, there is no lack of being free to not believe in this country.  It wasn't always like that, I know, but now it is.  So what are you complaining about?  Are you complaining about Christians being able to practice their religion, or about not being able to not practice anything? 

There is a caveat, of course, in that you cannot harm others in your (non)worship.  So if my religion told me to sacrifice you to my God, which it doesn't, but if it did, that's not okay.

As for not being tolerant, sin cannot be tolerated, but people are not sin.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 35
Quoting Jythier, reply 33They assume the Bible isn't the Word of God. Is it ... then prove it. Your god didn't write it, your god didn't dictate it and your god didn't repeatedly edit it trying to make it a little more palatable. All you have is hearsay ... he said she said they said. Try taking this silly opinion to a court of law. Personally I don't know the people enough to make such fraudulent stipulations. Any of those researchers that ASSUME the bible is the word of god are just idiots like yourself (assuming that you are even correct). Got any names or is this just generic slamming which is all you got, so sad. Truth is you don’t even know who wrote your bible … the word of god my arse.

 

I know who wrote the Bible... there are a couple of books that are toss-ups, like Hebrews, but for the most part, it's very clear who wrote them.  Moreover, when they were being brought into canon, Christians of the day were very careful not to take for scripture books that were not able to be traced back to either an apostle, or a close associate of an apostle.  Some writing, even good writings, were rejected simply because they could not trace the heritage of it.  Do you really think that these people, who were dying left and right as martyrs because of their faith, would allow things to just be 'altered' or 'changed' to be more palatable?  If you stuck by Jesus in the days of the Roman's persecution of the church, you would be fed to lions!  So they stuck to him because he was palatable? 

The people of that day knew how important it was to have the scriptures, so they would painstakingly copy the letters that would become books, to send them to different churches so that they could be taught too.

Recently, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.  In finding these, we found the oldest manuscripts of the old testament Bible ever.  In translating them, they found that there were no material differences between that and the version that we have today.  Changed to be more palatable, my butt.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 38
Do you really think that these people, who were dying left and right as martyrs because of their faith, would allow things to just be 'altered' or 'changed' to be more palatable
Yes I do. WHat does dying left and right have to do with it???

Quoting Jythier, reply 38
I know who wrote the Bible
Well that is about as informative as you usually are, just take your word for it right, wrong. Who wrote Matthew Mark Luke and John then because it sure wasn't Matthew Mark Luke and John? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: all four Gospels were anonymously written. The traditional names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not become associated with these writings until the second century. Whether or not these men were the actual authors is very controversial.

Oh I am sure they had plenty of time and opportunities to spell check their documents … when they weren’t dying left and right, geese. What do the Dead Sea scrolls have to do with the NT? Or is this an invitation to revisit the OT? And how could you possibly know how old they are because the sciences are so screwed up, or did you forget. Seems that science is just fine when you want to use them, but somehow they just don’t work when I want to use them, just typical Christian hypocrisy. How much of the OT do you incorporate in your life (rape, infanticide, murder, genocide, sexism, homophobic torture, death, persecution of ALL other religion, etc.). How many people have you put to death for violating the Sabbath? You are nothing but a cherry picker like all Christians who take it upon themselves to prioritize gods supposed word leaving most of the ridiculously inhuman aspects out. If the bible is the perfect word of your god as you stated, then why don’t you follow them verbatim … all of them?

 

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 36



Hostile to whom, exactly?

This is what Christianity says:

"If you want to, you can be in eternity with God forever.  If you don't want to, you don't have to."

Is that really that hostile?

The problem is, there won't be God in Hell with you, therefore bad, horrible things are all that's left for you there.  Why didn't you want to be with God, then?  You knew the way.

So, you're invited, man.  Come on in.  Want to know how to become a Christian?  I'll gladly tell you, and then you can be with God forever too.

If you don't want to believe, you're free to do so.  Nobody is going to stop you.  Christians should not be hating you for it.  Christians should not be hating people for any reason.  Sometimes we fail at not hating, though.  More often, though, we fail to love.

Hostile to anything not Christian. But there are some themes that Christians are told to be more hostile with then others, like homosexuality, abortion, other religions, atheism, etc... If you had true tolerance, you would realize that your version of freedom is not the same as everybody's version of freedom. Tolerance is about respecting that your freedom end, where mine begin. This means that if you're tolerant, you don't go impose your religion everywhere you go, which you're told to do by the bible. If your scripture does not preach tolerance, then there is no way that you can allow yourself to be tolerant without going against the will of your god or messiah.

I had to laugh when I saw your example, because there is no passage in the bible that has that passage. I might have overlooked it, but if it is not, then it is made up, and thus not Christian. Many Christians are "pick and choose"-Christians. They select what make them look like "good people" and what can justify bad behavior and the rest is just ignored. The rest of the sentence you present yourself - the little thing about being cast to hell, if you're not a believer. So we are still not talking tolerance, when fear is used as a means to manipulate the minds of people. That is actually how Christianity grew large - by force and fear. Not by common sense, evidence and peacefulness. "If you don't believe, you will be cast to hell" That does not sound like non-hostile words to me. You might as well put a gun to my head and say "Believe or I'll shoot your brains out"... I was in Thailand when the Tsunami hit. During the aftermath, I saw Christians offering help, but only to those whom first let themselves convert to Christianity. Come on! How are going to justify that? What happens there, is taking advantage of people when they need help the most, and that is as dirty as anything can get. That is not a help. That is called "hostile takeover".

 

But I'll tell you this... If it turns out that there is a God, I'd gladly become a devout Christian, just to get close enough to god to stab the malicious, narcissistic and psychotic bastard to death. There are so many flaws in Christianity at all levels, that it can not possibly be created by a perfect God. Among religions - Christianity is the Nigerian hoax...



All written with a kind condescending smile... 
 

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 37
What I feel the need to express to you, though, is that you are perfectly free to go about your business not believing in this country, same as I am free to go about my business believing.  If I pray, you don't have to join in.  If I read the Bible, you don't have to listen or learn from it.  However, I don't see where that gives you the right to stop me from praying, or stop me from reading the Bible, whether it's a public meeting or not.  If I'm at a public meeting, you better hope I asked for God's wisdom, or mistakes are going to be made.

Anyway, there is no lack of being free to not believe in this country.  It wasn't always like that, I know, but now it is.  So what are you complaining about?  Are you complaining about Christians being able to practice their religion, or about not being able to not practice anything? 

There is a caveat, of course, in that you cannot harm others in your (non)worship.  So if my religion told me to sacrifice you to my God, which it doesn't, but if it did, that's not okay.

As for not being tolerant, sin cannot be tolerated, but people are not sin.


No I am not perfectly free to go about my business, because I will be cast to hell if I do so. That is not freedom. You're allowed to live in your delusional fantasy, but not to impose it on others. That is the main theme here. Don't impose your delusions on other people, and most of all - leave the kids alone. Don't rape kids minds with delusional thinking. At least wait until people are like 21 to try to rape their minds. Leave people alone! 

Read your bible as much as you want. Eat it, burn it, whatever - just leave other people out of it. Your business is your business and what other people do, is then not your business. But leaving people alone is no an option for you, since the bible tell you to go and spread your virus as far as possible. So how do we do this? REwrite the bible? or we simply just build anti-Christian barricades to keep you from infesting everything.

As a Christian, your God tells you to stone homosexuals on sight. There is no way around that. It's in the bible, and your god has decided it to be so. If you don't, you go against your god. Going against your god, is exactly what Lucifer did before he was cast out(which is a weird flaw from an otherwise "perfect" god). If you pick and choose, then you're just the same as Lucifer, and what you're REALLY worshiping is then the rebellion of Lucifer, rather than the malicious psychotic nature of the Christian god. Easy as that.

By the way - the word "sin", is a violation against rules that your god has established. If there are rules, there can not be freedom... 

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting ExpressoKid, reply 40
Reply #40 ExpressoKid
Nice to have you here on JU. Hope you have fun. Well said by the way.

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

God doesn't tell me to stone homosexuals on sight.  That was part of a legal system that was given specifically to the Jewish nation, God's people, people who were supposed to be set apart and holy as a nation.  I am not of that nation, so I don't have to follow the laws to that nation.

 

Jesus came and gave many examples of grace (to you, common sense) where he, for example, didn't stone the woman caught in adultery, but let her go. 

 

If you don't trust Jesus to take away your sins, a just God is going to punish you for them.  If you do, a merciful God already punished Jesus for it, by His choice.  So really, you know the way to heaven, but you choose not to take it - why are you blaming God?  He offers you eternity with him, but under his rules, or you can go your own way and have no rules in eternity.  It wouldn't be just for him to let you get away with your sin, but the only thing stopping you from not going to hell is YOU, not God.  It's not even 'do this' or 'do that' to get in, it is just 'believe Jesus was God, came to earth, died on a cross to take the punishment for YOUR sin, because you are a sinner, and then rose from the dead on the third day.'  Look, it's obvious to anyone that it had to have happened - GFT will say I'm stupid for thinking so, but it's true when you look at the context that the disciples were CRUSHED when Jesus died, and would not have recovered had he not risen.  The sect would have died THEN, and there would be no New Testament today, unless Jesus had risen.  It existing doesn't make sense if the eye witnesses didn't verify the story in those days.

 

ExpressoKid, you are free.  Free to do what you want religiously.  It's a guaranteed right from the Constitution.  God also gives you the free will to choose him, or choose something else.  Yet you say, "I'm not free because of hell!"  No, you're still free.  There are just consequences for exercising that freedom, just like there are consequences for all things.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Also, I paraphrased the idea behind many scriptures.  If I quoted actual scripture I would give you the reference.  But that doesn't mean it's not Christian.  If we went with that, we'd have to say that the rapture isn't Christian, the trinity isn't Christian, because the words are not mentioned in scripture... no, they are, but they are words that describe things that the Bible talks about over many passages.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Romans 5:8

"when we were in our sin Christ Jesus came to die for us."

Romans 3:23
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

2 Corinthians 5:21

"He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we may be made the righteousness of God through Him."

Romans 10:9-10
"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

Romans 10:13
"for Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

You can do whatever, but if you don't do Romans 10:9-10, you can't get into heaven.  Confess, believe.  Easy.  Open to all.


Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Here's some things you don't have to do to be saved, according to that passage.

Stop being gay

Stop murdering people

Stop sleeping with your side piece

Etc.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

Too bad about those who were 'helping' Tsunami victims.  That's very sad to me.  They should have helped everyone first.  Sometimes physical needs should come first, in order to open a door to the spiritual need.  If they were going to pick and choose, they should have helped those nonbelievers first - the believers go to heaven if they die.  It doesn't sound right to me what they were doing.  It does sound like exploiting - what kind of conversions are you going to get from that, anyway?  Foolishness.

 

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 43
God doesn't tell me to stone homosexuals on sight.  That was part of a legal system that was given specifically to the Jewish nation, God's people, people who were supposed to be set apart and holy as a nation.  I am not of that nation, so I don't have to follow the laws to that nation.

 

Jesus came and gave many examples of grace (to you, common sense) where he, for example, didn't stone the woman caught in adultery, but let her go. 

 

If you don't trust Jesus to take away your sins, a just God is going to punish you for them.  If you do, a merciful God already punished Jesus for it, by His choice.  So really, you know the way to heaven, but you choose not to take it - why are you blaming God?  He offers you eternity with him, but under his rules, or you can go your own way and have no rules in eternity.  It wouldn't be just for him to let you get away with your sin, but the only thing stopping you from not going to hell is YOU, not God.  It's not even 'do this' or 'do that' to get in, it is just 'believe Jesus was God, came to earth, died on a cross to take the punishment for YOUR sin, because you are a sinner, and then rose from the dead on the third day.'  Look, it's obvious to anyone that it had to have happened - GFT will say I'm stupid for thinking so, but it's true when you look at the context that the disciples were CRUSHED when Jesus died, and would not have recovered had he not risen.  The sect would have died THEN, and there would be no New Testament today, unless Jesus had risen.  It existing doesn't make sense if the eye witnesses didn't verify the story in those days.

 

ExpressoKid, you are free.  Free to do what you want religiously.  It's a guaranteed right from the Constitution.  God also gives you the free will to choose him, or choose something else.  Yet you say, "I'm not free because of hell!"  No, you're still free.  There are just consequences for exercising that freedom, just like there are consequences for all things.

 

Jewish Nation??? Was Jesus not Jewish? Is that what you're saying? That the God Jesus spoke with on the cross, isn't the same God that you worship? When did that get twisted around to feel better in your pocket? Are you saying, that the God that made the old testament happen, is not the same god that had made the new testament happen? What god are you referring to? Or are you really referring to Lucifer, because it sounds more to me that you're worshiping the ideas of Lucifer, than the ideas of the Christian god.

If you really think that the old testament does not apply anymore, then tell me where it says in the new testament, the god make a mistake with the old testament and it's only the new testament that apply... Please do that for me.

 

So okay - What you're saying is, that I have freedom - as long as it is the "right kind" of freedom I choose. If I choose the wrong kind of freedom, I will be punished. Can't you see how messed up that is? How can some freedom be either "right" or "wrong". If there is such a thing as "wrong freedom" there is no freedom at all. Christianity does not promise freedom. The Christian god does not promise freedom. So constitution or not - I am not free, because Christianity, by default, doesn't want me to be free - because according to Christianity my type of freedom is a wrong kind of freedom.
 

Here is a little list, that indicate clearly how the Christian god does not support neither freedom or tolerance of anyone that is not worshiping him:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests   (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Witches (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

 Kill Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

 Death for Hitting Dad (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

 Death for Cursing Parents (Proverbs 20:20 NAB) (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

 Death for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

 Death for Fornication  (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

 Death to Followers of Other Religions (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

 Kill Nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

 Kill False Prophets (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

 Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

 Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

 Kill Followers of Other Religions. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

 Death for Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

 Kill False Prophets  (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)  (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

 Infidels and Gays Should Die (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

 

Let's not forget a few passages from the supposed peaceful and oh-so-wise Jesus:

"Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.   (Matthew 10:34)"

"I am the vine; you are the branches.  If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.  If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away an withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.  (John 15:5-6)" 

 "So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.  To those who sold doves he said, 'Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!.'  (John 2:15)"

"He [Jesus] said to them, 'Go!' so they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.  (Matthew 8:32)"

 

 Come on! This should set off several alarms in your head that something truly is not right. That maybe - just maybe Christianity is the religious version of a Nigerian Computer scam.

Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 47
Too bad about those who were 'helping' Tsunami victims.  That's very sad to me.  They should have helped everyone first.  Sometimes physical needs should come first, in order to open a door to the spiritual need.  If they were going to pick and choose, they should have helped those nonbelievers first - the believers go to heaven if they die.  It doesn't sound right to me what they were doing.  It does sound like exploiting - what kind of conversions are you going to get from that, anyway?  Foolishness.

 

 

"Sad for you?" You should be thrilled! They are convinced they are doing the work of Jesus and saving a spot for themselves in heaven. So you should be happy for them. But you're not - because it is wrong. Even you can see this. If any religion can be corrupted and used to take advantage of people, it is a flaw not only in the construct of the religion but also in the god behind the religion. Why not leave this corrupted version of religion called Christianity and carry your own belief in your heart, which is not in conflict with your way of life. Each individual carry a seed of existence, that grows in to something unique. This unique construct can not be named, because it is different for each person, as it should be. Your beliefs are not the same as the beliefs of the nest person. Will never be. For you to call yourself this or that, does not fit together with the concept of freedom. If you're free in your development, it also means that each individual ha a unique set of beliefs, which again means that no belief is more right or wrong than the next belief. It also means that the belief you carry would be incompatible with another person around you, which makes preaching obsolete.

In other words - You're created in the image of your god. God has no religion, therefore you can not have a religion either. God does not worship, hence you should not worship either, and so forth. It's not so hard to understand the non-corrupted type of religion. Filter out all the bullshit, and what you have left is individuality, anarchy(in its true meaning), and true freedom.

+1 Loading…
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 46
Here's some things you don't have to do to be saved, according to that passage.

Stop being gay

Stop murdering people

Stop sleeping with your side piece

Etc.


Still these things are spoken of as "wrong", right? That's the point...