The Gospel of Unbelief

[dmp]

I also think deeds get you into heaven, not just belief.

They go hand-in-hand often, from a Christian perspective. We're taught that having faith without appropriate behaviour makes one's faith worthless. Id Est, I believe in Christ's love for us. I share and FEEL his love. Because christ loved people, I do as well.

Goes back to the whole thing Christians can NOT 'hate' homosexuals. If anyone fosters HATE in their lives, they aren't following Christ.

 

[MissileMan]

When they accept Christ, and actively follow Christ's Teachings. It's a decision-point not a birthright.

So do children, not old enough to make that decision, wind up in Christian heaven or someplace else?

 

[dmp]

So do children, not old enough to make that decision, wind up in Christian heaven or someplace else?

Different Subject matte - I'm SURE we've covered it before....

When Children are old enough to understand Christ and what he offers...when they are old enough to know right from wrong, I believe God will judge them as any other sinner. That age isn't a number - but a maturity level. See also: Mentally Retarded/Ill folk.

 

[MissileMan]

An individuals religious belief is tied to the governement when the citizen is an elected member of the government. Should he be censored as to not impose his belief on others by doing something crazy like sponsor a bill or something?

We're not talking about a separation of citizen and state, but church and state. You haven't made a connection yet between and individual's religious beliefs and separation of church and state.

 

[dilloduck]

We're not talking about a separation of citizen and state, but church and state. You haven't made a connection yet between and individual's religious beliefs and separation of church and state.

PEOPLE are the state---some of them are religious. They are even allowed to hold postions that enabled them to make laws that afffect others.

 

[MissileMan]

Different Subject matte - I'm SURE we've covered it before....

When Children are old enough to understand Christ and what he offers...when they are old enough to know right from wrong, I believe God will judge them as any other sinner. That age isn't a number - but a maturity level. See also: Mentally Retarded/Ill folk.

I'm saying that if a baby dies and goes to heaven, wouldn't you have to assume the baby was "born" Christian?

 

[MissileMan]

PEOPLE are the state---some of them are religious. They are even allowed to hold postions that enabled them to make laws that afffect others.

They are in position to be a part of making laws that have to fit the framework of the Constitution. Just because a Muslim gets elected to Congress doesn't mean he can then make a law that all women have to start wearing veils.

 

[5stringJeff]

How about looking at it differently? I think religions are different languages with which we talk to our Creator and He's multi-lingual. :halo:

I also think deeds get you into heaven, not just belief.

As to different religions, how can two religions with mutually exclusive principles both be 'understood' by a God that some religions profess to deny?

As to deeds: what amount of good deeds makes one worthy to get into heaven?

 

[dmp]

I'm saying that if a baby dies and goes to heaven, wouldn't you have to assume the baby was "born" Christian?

No.

 

[dilloduck]

They are in position to be a part of making laws that have to fit the framework of the Constitution. Just because a Muslim gets elected to Congress doesn't mean he can then make a law that all women have to start wearing veils.

Sure he can.

 

[MissileMan]

Sure he can.

He can propose one, not make one.

 

[dilloduck]

He can propose one, not make one.

And your response would be---Don't try to impose you fashion statement on me?

 

[MissileMan]

No.

For clarification then, which is it? Young babies who die don't go to heaven or there is more than one way to get there?

 

[dmp]

For clarification then, which is it? Young babies who die don't go to heaven or there is more than one way to get there?

Your question simply doesn't make sense in the context of this topic - I'm a little confused.

A Christian is a 'follower of christ'. As CHRIST allows the new-born to find Heaven, He is still the ONLY way to God; whether that is because a person of apporpriate mental capacity has chosen Him, or a Baby died during childbirth.

Your 'either/or' and "Gotcha!" technics won't work on me, Jedi.

A newborn who dies is sinful by nature, as all humans are - however I'm very sure of instruction about age of accountability for those unable to choose Christ. gop_jeff is a better source on the specifics.

 

[MissileMan]

Your question simply doesn't make sense in the context of this topic - I'm a little confused.

A Christian is a 'follower of christ'. As CHRIST allows the new-born to find Heaven, He is still the ONLY way to God; whether that is because a person of apporpriate mental capacity has chosen Him, or a Baby died during childbirth.

Your 'either/or' and "Gotcha!" technics won't work on me, Jedi.

A newborn who dies is sinful by nature, as all humans are - however I'm very sure of instruction about age of accountability for those unable to choose Christ. gop_jeff is a better source on the specifics.

Your confusion stems from trying to defend two contradictory positions. Maybe I'm not asking the question well, so I'll rephrase it.
If a baby isn't "born" Christian, how does one who dies before reaching an age of decision make it into Christian heaven? Do babies born to couples of other faiths who die young get this same consideration?

 

[jillian]

They think what? That they are the only people 'right'?

Yuppers....

Sucks to be them, doesn't it? They are as wrong as ANYONE who doesn't follow Christ.

Heh! Just so ya know that they feel the same about you or me.

 

[LOki]

Such as?

I rejected the definition your theory rested on because it was logically invalid--you could have abandoned that definition, or adjusted it so that it was not logically invalid.

I also offered you other terminology better suited to the subject of your accusations.

In the end, there's only so much one is obligated to do to support an opponent.

Yes, Def.#2. Preventing law respecting the establishment of religion and total rejection of religion are two different things.

To clarify the record, the definition you're citing as "Def.#2" is:<blockquote>secularism:
the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education.</blockquote>If so, I see that definition as one that allows for the distinction you noted, and the observation I offered that that secularists practice various religions--including those that assert God exists--while asserting that religion should not enter into the functions of the state.

So far so good--just no promises we won't have to tweak it.

The way I look at it is, within the framework of our Constitution, people have all kinds of ideas and beliefs that are translated to or reflected in our laws and government.

Stipulated without contest.

You can't tell a person to only have "secular" thoughts.

Of course not.

For clarification only: You can't tell a person to only have "Christian" thoughts either. Right?

The constitution clearly and explicitly prohibits religion, or religious affiliation from being a qualifying consideration for public office--what make you imply that I am in disagreement with you here?

Yes, the Constitution, Article VI, says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I'm glad we can both read the constitution and agree.

It is your pov that our government must "be secular" that makes me think you disagree. Our government consists of not only laws but representatives as well, including representatives who are religious.

Of course, there is nothing in my stated point of view that suggests that people in government cannot be religious--only that the government cannot be religious.

Our government also includes expression of religion such as things like "In God We Trust" printed on our government money.

I stated earlier that such superstitious sentimentality registers much like "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck!" in my mind, and those bent on removing it are in desperate need of a hobby. It is rather presumptuous to assert that the god in "In God We Trust" must be Jesus.

But, if you really mean to assert freedom of religion, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that those in this country who believe in no god (or God in particular) on principle, have no point at all in claiming the government unconsitutionally promotes at least some manner of Deism directly contradictory to their faith.

How do you get around "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"?

There is a distinct difference between the excersize of your individual rights, and the excersize of governmental powers. Our consitution is set up to limit the excersize of powers. Being a representative of the people, or a representative of the government, is a privilege, NOT a right--and does not confer the right to excersize your religion (or free speech for that matter) through the function, or the coercive power, of your office.

I am fine with those laws too, provided only that they are not justified, or validated, by law in religious doctrine or beiliefs. I see zero conflict with the constitutional separation of church and state that a law should agree with religion--I will just draw the line where someone suggests that the law is the law because Allah deems it good.

Who cares what somebody says or claims about a law? As long as it is not establishing religion it passes the test.

As long as it does not establish a religion, or legislate in respect to the establishment of a religion it passes the test. My point is, to be constitutional, our laws must be our laws--not Allah's laws, not Yahweh's laws, not Shiva's laws, not Jehova's laws--ours.

It's a good thing then that religion cannot constitutionally govern government, and government cannot constitutionally govern religion.

Yes that's a good thing. However, it is not a good thing to have all expression of religion stamped out of our system.

I'm not sure it's worse than the current policy of special appeasement, and accomodation in the interest of "equal time" for every religion practiced in the country. The "majority rules" retort is going to get kicked on all too predictable and effective grounds, so please, if you go down that road, make the argument better than "we voted, and the majority says your religion sucks, so it doesn't get federal funding or consideration."

The ACLU crowd would have an apoplectic fit if they had to endure all the religious expression of earlier days in America.

They deserve one.

Don't you accept the definition that secular means the rejection of all things religious?

I swear, I'm just going to pretend you didn't post that. Ok?

If the Constitutuion seriously intended to erect this huge wall between Church and State, why did they not forbid religious people from running for office, voting and assembling to present thier grievances ?

Because forbidding religious people from running for office, voting and assembling to present thier grievances is unnecessary amongst rational folks who can respect the faiths of others, and their intellectual and moral discipline to not make their religion the defacto government.

I don't think there is supposed to be a huge wall between church and state. Just a chain fence.....

Yeah, without machine guns posted and snarly ACLU dogs patrolling... :firing:

As if the ACLU would allow the guns.

 

[jillian]

As to different religions, how can two religions with mutually exclusive principles both be 'understood' by a God that some religions profess to deny?

I figure no perfect being discriminates against any of his children if they are decent people. Thing is, none of us know for sure until we've left this world, so til then we just take what we believe on faith.

As to deeds: what amount of good deeds makes one worthy to get into heaven?

I don't know. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Seriously, I think we all just have to do the best we can to be decent. I really think that's all that's expected of us imperfect beings.

 

[Dr Grump]

And you would accept an anti-gay message as long as it weren't wrapped in religious text?

Nope. Just can't think of many homophobes who AREN'T religious. Look, their lifestyle ain't my thang either, but, bottom line? None of my business..

 

[dmp]

Your confusion stems from trying to defend two contradictory positions. Maybe I'm not asking the question well, so I'll rephrase it.
If a baby isn't "born" Christian, how does one who dies before reaching an age of decision make it into Christian heaven? Do babies born to couples of other faiths who die young get this same consideration?

As I explained - the path to Heaven is thru CHRIST. Those who FOLLOW christ, seriously - not just cuz their parents do - are Christians. CHRIST has made it so we don't have to DO anything to 'earn' salvation - he's already done it FOR us. Thus, we simply must 'believe'.

Babies, and Adults incapable of belief are under Christ's mercies.