The Lefts' Attack on Religion Exposed

[musicman]

I am saying the concept of religious sin doesn't apply to athiests any more than salvation does, and there will be no retraction forthcoming. There have been occasions where I have felt badly about something I have done, sure. Only a psychopath would deny that. I don't classify that as sin.

What, then?

 

[Bonnie]

I am saying the concept of religious sin doesn't apply to athiests any more than salvation does, and there will be no retraction forthcoming. There have been occasions where I have felt badly about something I have done, sure. Only a psychopath would deny that. I don't classify that as sin.

Actually the definition of sin also covers an offense of good taste or propriety, so in that sense I suppose we are all equally accountable. Bottom line is all actions have consequences good and bad so unless you live on an island somewhere id say chances are good you are a sinner and will be held accountable in some way.....]

 

[MissileMan]

What, then?

That's a good question. My posts were in reference to sins against god as opposed to doing something that violated my own sense of morality. I still think of sin as a religious thing.

 

[MissileMan]

Taking off for the airport...be back in 10 days to see how badly I get beaten up. A Happy Thanksgiving to all!

 

[dilloduck]

I never said Christians are hypocrites. But answer the question, "What is the consequence of sin, if it is forgiven for the asking?"

We're not talking about empty words here, Missle. We're talking about true feelings of remorse for having done something wrong to include even making a mistake. Then follows the admission of the mistake , accepting responsibilty and making a sincere effort not to do it again.

 

[5stringJeff]

I never said Christians are hypocrites. But answer the question, "What is the consequence of sin, if it is forgiven for the asking?"

First, forgiveness isn't/wasn't free. It came at a price - specifically, the death of Jesus Christ. The Bible specifically states that the penalty for sin is death, and that there can be no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. Jesus' death was an atoning sacrifice, meaning that He was atoning (paying) for the sins of the world through His sacrifice (death).

The good news of it all is that, because Jesus had no sin of His own to pay for, there was no reason for Him to die; thus, God raised Him from the dead, and He is now alive for all time. The corresponding good news is that God has promised the same eternal life to everyone who accepts Christ's death as a payment for their sins.

Which brings us to your question. Why should we stop sinning if we have this forgiveness? It's not a new question. Let's consult The book of Romans for the answer:

1Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more kindness and forgiveness? 2Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? 3Or have you forgotten that when we became Christians and were baptized to become one with Christ Jesus, we died with him? 4For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.
5Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised as he was. 6Our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. 7For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin. 8And since we died with Christ, we know we will also share his new life. 9We are sure of this because Christ rose from the dead, and he will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. 10He died once to defeat sin, and now he lives for the glory of God. 11So you should consider yourselves dead to sin and able to live for the glory of God through Christ Jesus.
12Do not let sin control the way you live;[1] do not give in to its lustful desires. 13Do not let any part of your body become a tool of wickedness, to be used for sinning. Instead, give yourselves completely to God since you have been given new life. And use your whole body as a tool to do what is right for the glory of God. 14Sin is no longer your master, for you are no longer subject to the law, which enslaves you to sin. Instead, you are free by God's grace.

 

[KarlMarx]

I watched that and the tone, laughter, and smiles all indicated that it was humor, she was joking, it was ironic.

So jokes about homosexuals, Jews, Blacks, feminists are fair game now? Oh wait.... they're better than the rest of us.... so jokes about them are "hate speech".... sorry

But since Maureen Dowd's remarks were all in good fun ... now I can tell my jokes and you'll laugh just as hard.....

Can't wait to take over America, that way I can keep Maureen Dowd barefoot, pregnant and chained to a stove! (laugh laugh laugh)

How can 59 million people be so dumb? A: Is that how many people read Maureen Dowd's column?

What the difference between Maureen's Dowd cranium and the sanitation department? A: Maureen Dowd's cranium has more s**t (laugh laugh laugh)

How do you know Maureen Dowd is saying something ignorant? A: Her lips are moving (laugh laugh laugh)

What's the difference between Maureen Dowd and a lesbian loving, man hating, sanctimonious, politcally correct bitch? A: there IS a difference? (laugh laugh laugh)

I'm sure by now your sides are aching from laughter.... so I'll stop

 

[KarlMarx]

My problem with religion in society is the fact that not all religions are fairly represented. I know that muslims and jews are the minority but that doesn't make them any less equal than the rest of us.

I also don't understand the need to have prayer in school. I have no problem with it but once you bring prayer to school you need to think of all the ramifications. There will children that are not christians that will be doing their own kind of prayer. Do you want your kids listening to that? What if these other kids try to get your child to convert? That is why religion has no place in schools.

The solution to this all is quite simple. Allow communities to decide whether to have prayer in their schools or not.

Frankly,the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. Banning prayer in school amounts to religious persecution.

The problem with the Left is that they want everything to be "fair" and everyone to be equally represented. The fact is that life isn't like that. Balanced representation only exists on paper.

On another note, the Constitution protects freedom of political speech and no other type. Therefore each community should be allowed to establish its own decency standards instead of having the government involved. Of course, child porn should still be illegal since it violates the rights of minors.

We need to keep the Federal Government out of people's lives as much as possible and realize that we are accountable for our own actions. Plus we are all big boys and girls and we can solve our own problems without running to big brother government. In short we all need to grow up.

 

[Bonnie]

The solution to this all is quite simple. Allow communities to decide whether to have prayer in their schools or not.

Frankly,the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. Banning prayer in school amounts to religious persecution.

The problem with the Left is that they want everything to be "fair" and everyone to be equally represented. The fact is that life isn't like that. Balanced representation only exists on paper.

On another note, the Constitution protects freedom of political speech and no other type. Therefore each community should be allowed to establish its own decency standards instead of having the government involved. Of course, child porn should still be illegal since it violates the rights of minors.

We need to keep the Federal Government out of people's lives as much as possible and realize that we are accountable for our own actions. Plus we are all big boys and girls and we can solve our own problems without running to big brother government. In short we all need to grow up.

Karl You ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mariner]

might work if a community were completely homogenous--but even there, it would represent placing Christianity in a favored position for students, as expressed by a gov't entity (school). That seems wrong to me, on principle (and yes, I am against "under God" on coins, in the Pledge, etc.). Schools are there to teach everyone, and to make it seem that one religious has privileged status is discriminatory--because it doesn't represent the reality of planet earth, which is that Christianity is one of several major religions.

Also, if schools in one area voted for Hindu prayers, and those in another voted for Christian prayers, then you'd soon have people moving from community to community in order to find a place they felt comfortable. That would not serve the interests of diversity, of having kids mix with one another before they form hardened opinions of one anothers' cultures.

Would you really be happy if your Muslim-majority school district voted to pray to Allah before each public high school football game? Why not just avoid all this mess, and keep religion apart from schooling? What's the big need to force it in where it doesn't fit very well?

Mariner.

 

[KarlMarx]

might work if a community were completely homogenous--but even there, it would represent placing Christianity in a favored position for students, as expressed by a gov't entity (school). That seems wrong to me, on principle (and yes, I am against "under God" on coins, in the Pledge, etc.). Schools are there to teach everyone, and to make it seem that one religious has privileged status is discriminatory--because it doesn't represent the reality of planet earth, which is that Christianity is one of several major religions.

Also, if schools in one area voted for Hindu prayers, and those in another voted for Christian prayers, then you'd soon have people moving from community to community in order to find a place they felt comfortable. That would not serve the interests of diversity, of having kids mix with one another before they form hardened opinions of one anothers' cultures.

Would you really be happy if your Muslim-majority school district voted to pray to Allah before each public high school football game? Why not just avoid all this mess, and keep religion apart from schooling? What's the big need to force it in where it doesn't fit very well?

Mariner.

What I meant was that, people within a community can vote whether to have school prayer at all. Further, if there were prayers, they could be generic or even have a moment of silence at the start of each day with the Pledge.

Strange thing, you mention forcing something where it doesn't fit well at all. For generations, religion was part of school life. To this day, the Congress starts each day with a prayer and has done so ever since the first day of the first session of the First Continental Congress.

To make the claim that God does not belong anywhere in public life is going overboard. This country was founded by people who had a deep belief in God. Most of the founding fathers were ministers.

I believe that most people would be OK with schools that had references to God or a Superior Being, taught an absolute sense of right and wrong and had a moment of silence or even a generic prayer. What has happened though is that the right to decide has been taken out of the hands of people and has been usurped by a bunch of judges. Furthermore, the ACLU has gone wild and is trying to expunge every reference to God. That is what irks people.

People like you that want to go so far as to even expunge references to God from our money are a very tiny minority. Most people believe in God and want God in public life.

Many the situations that you describe may be the norm in larger cities, but in most of the country, it isn't. Where I live, we have people of different backgrounds, but almost entirely, they are Christian. Even in cases where people aren't, they share a definite set of moral codes with the rest of us. Most people believe adultery, theft, murder, envy, and telling lies are wrong. Perhaps that isn't the case with the liberal elite, but it is the case with 99.99% of Americans regardless of their religious affiliation.

As far as diversity is concerned... let me tell you something.... the motto of the United States is "E Pluribus Unum" - out of many one. Diversity focuses on people's differences, not their similarities. It also encourages people from different backgrounds to stay distinct, and not to assimilate to the American way of life.

We should be encouraging people to consider themselves as Americans FIRST and consider their differences as being something secondary. But that idea doesn't find a lot of favor with liberals, because after all being an American is somehow a bad thing.

Assimilation should be encouraged in America, not discouraged. I come from an immigrant family and grew up without diversity; I had to learn English since Italian was all that was spoken in my home. Learning English and American ways is a good thing. Like the old' saying goes.....when in Rome do as the Romans do.

One only has to go to Europe and see how well diversity works. There, a large Moslem population that remains distinct in its language and culture is a growing menace to the stability of Europe. An example is the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Holland on November 3rd by Moslem thugs who objected to a film he produced about Moslem misogyny. The terrorist attack in Spain was pulled off by a bunch of Moslems who thought of themselves as Moslems first and Spanish as a distinct second (if at all).

We should be teaching kids the meaning of the word "respect" instead of stuffing their heads with diversity. Sure, we should respect all people, regardless of whether they are different or the same, but that isn't diversity it's just plain old' respect. We should also teach them the Golden Rule (which is not only Christian, but is found in practically all religions), that is treat others as you would like to be treated.

 

[Mariner]

points. I'll tell you where my own sensitivities come from: for the part of my childhood that I spend in Great Britain, I was always the only non-white and non-Christian child in the school. My father was a superb surgeon, with an advanced surgical degree at a young age that only 10% of British surgeons attained; yet he was passed over for a promotion to chief of surgery--an older but less skilled white surgeon was chosen instead. My father responded by moving the family to America, even though it meant giving up being a surgeon (he would have had to repeat his residency, a rather hellish prospect). Here I always felt most at home in multicultural environments. Cambridge is 2/3 non-white, and has incredibly vibrant Haitian, Portuguese, Latino, and Asian populations, mixed in with the Italian, Irish, and other immigrants from the past century, plus the students at MIT and Harvard, who come from over 100 countries. I work at two of the best hospitals in the country, and the staff and patients there feel like the United Nations. I don't really see a need for greater assimilation--as long as all these groups respect each other, nothin gbad happens. They're all Americans, just different types.

Mariner

P.S. I agree that people who want to eliminate "under God" are a tiny minority--but I am constitionally sensitive (based on my own experiences) to the feelings of those who find it truly offensive (I don't, myself). It feels wrong to me that an avowed atheist could never win public office. It's not like atheism is pedophilia or something, so why are we so intolerant towards atheism? I think the separation of church from state is really good for both of them.

 

[KarlMarx]

P.S. I agree that people who want to eliminate "under God" are a tiny minority--but I am constitionally sensitive (based on my own experiences) to the feelings of those who find it truly offensive (I don't, myself). It feels wrong to me that an avowed atheist could never win public office. It's not like atheism is pedophilia or something, so why are we so intolerant towards atheism? I think the separation of church from state is really good for both of them.

On the pesonal side, I have known a few atheists and they seemed to be nice people. But it in the broader picture, well, to be honest with you, atheism's track record over the past century has been nothing short of frightening.

Many people like to point to how many deaths have been caused in the name of religion. True, there are many.

But in the single century that atheistic regimes have had power (I am of course talking about Communism) over 100 million people have died as a result. One only has to mention Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot, Each one of them is responsible for millions of deaths.

I believe that you don't want people who are rabidly religious to run the country, but at the same time, you don't want people who are atheists running it, either. Our country should be run by people who share the values of most American people. Most people will agree with me (and showed it on Nov 2nd). Belief in God is one of those values.

As for separation of Church and State, that really isn't the intent of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The intent was to prevent the establishment of a state church e.g. the Anglican Church was in England. In that case, membership was mandatory, you were taxed in order to support it and so on. The founding fathers did not want that. They wanted a country where people were free to practice their chosen religion (or non-religion). But that doesn't mean that they wanted God expunged from public life. One has only to read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the writings of the founding fathers to see that God's name is liberally used throughout these documents.

 

[Avatar4321]

On the pesonal side, I have known a few atheists and they seemed to be nice people. But it in the broader picture, well, to be honest with you, atheism's track record over the past century has been nothing short of frightening.

Many people like to point to how many deaths have been caused in the name of religion. True, there are many.

But in the single century that atheistic regimes have had power (I am of course talking about Communism) over 100 million people have died as a result. One only has to mention Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot, Each one of them is responsible for millions of deaths.

I believe that you don't want people who are rabidly religious to run the country, but at the same time, you don't want people who are atheists running it, either. Our country should be run by people who share the values of most American people. Most people will agree with me (and showed it on Nov 2nd). Belief in God is one of those values.

As for separation of Church and State, that really isn't the intent of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The intent was to prevent the establishment of a state church e.g. the Anglican Church was in England. In that case, membership was mandatory, you were taxed in order to support it and so on. The founding fathers did not want that. They wanted a country where people were free to practice their chosen religion (or non-religion). But that doesn't mean that they wanted God expunged from public life. One has only to read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the writings of the founding fathers to see that God's name is liberally used throughout these documents.

I might also add that Hitler's regime was a secular one. He believed in nothing but his superman myth.

 

[KarlMarx]

I might also add that Hitler's regime was a secular one. He believed in nothing but his superman myth.

True, many of Hitler's henchmen were also deeply involved with the occult. Hitler did have a vision of replacing traditional Christianity with a state run religion based on paganism.

 

[Mariner]

an atheist, KarlMarx, doesn't it look like a state religion when a town erects a Christmas tree, a courthouse is decorated with the 10 commandments, etc. etc. "Reflecting the values of the American people"--I think one of their deepest (and best) values is respecting all religions equally. Back when everyone (except the kidnapped African slaves) were Christian, "under God" was fine. But now, a very large percentage of Americans does not attend church regularly, and the country has benefited from the arrival of millions of immigrants from various parts of the world where Christianity is not the main religion. Therefore it makes sense to reduce the amount of Christianity in gov't institutions and icons in order to do exactly what you say should be done: reflect the values of the American people.

I believe we will have reached true tolerance only when an atheist can feel completely comfortable--and run for office without anyone batting an eye. Right now atheism remains taboo. I think that's wrong, even though I am not an atheist myself.

Mariner

 

[Cameron]

Agreed---both factions need to take responsibilty for improving themselves and address the real suffering in the world. Time's a ticking.

I don't know where you live, but where I live, the religious right goes out of their way to do everything possible to help the community I live in. Not simply my church, but all the other churches in this community. I'm a member of the "frozen chosen," (Episcopalian, refered to as "the Frozen Chosen" because our services are very formal) but we are strong friends of another church that is all black where everything is very informal. We visit one another's church constantly, feed each other dinners, and work together to improve the community. We offer shelter to the homeless. We feed the homeless. We offer guidance for anyone in need of it; not just the homeless. We also sponsor AA classes at our church. We hold educational classes (for free, and not on religion but regular school classes for underpriviledged children). There are many people in the community who are Godless, who won't go to church, who deal drugs, steal... the whole nine yards, but they wouldn't seek help from us if we offered them money to attend, so what are you going to do? As the old adage goes: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." There are thousands of churches all over this country who do all of this and more.

 

[freeandfun1]

.....in order to do exactly what you say should be done: reflect the values of the American people.

Just as always, the values of the American people are what the majority think, not special interests. It has always been that way and it always should be that way. The values are established by the populace, not the minority. Again, the way it has always been and the way it was meant to be.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

an atheist, KarlMarx, doesn't it look like a state religion when a town erects a Christmas tree, a courthouse is decorated with the 10 commandments, etc. etc. "Reflecting the values of the American people"--I think one of their deepest (and best) values is respecting all religions equally. Back when everyone (except the kidnapped African slaves) were Christian, "under God" was fine. But now, a very large percentage of Americans does not attend church regularly, and the country has benefited from the arrival of millions of immigrants from various parts of the world where Christianity is not the main religion. Therefore it makes sense to reduce the amount of Christianity in gov't institutions and icons in order to do exactly what you say should be done: reflect the values of the American people.

I believe we will have reached true tolerance only when an atheist can feel completely comfortable--and run for office without anyone batting an eye. Right now atheism remains taboo. I think that's wrong, even though I am not an atheist myself.

Mariner

But the fact remains: you are free in america to be whatever religion you wish. ANy immigrant running in fear from a christmas tree should be caught, calmed down, and sent to civics class..

Why don't you deal with REAL, ACTUAL theocracies.

hey mariner, did you see the article where the EU rejected an Italian because he was too christian and had the WRONG values regarding homosexuality. Is this religious tolerance or intolerance?

 

[dilloduck]

I don't know where you live, but where I live, the religious right goes out of their way to do everything possible to help the community I live in. Not simply my church, but all the other churches in this community. I'm a member of the "frozen chosen," (Episcopalian, refered to as "the Frozen Chosen" because our services are very formal) but we are strong friends of another church that is all black where everything is very informal. We visit one another's church constantly, feed each other dinners, and work together to improve the community. We offer shelter to the homeless. We feed the homeless. We offer guidance for anyone in need of it; not just the homeless. We also sponsor AA classes at our church. We hold educational classes (for free, and not on religion but regular school classes for underpriviledged children). There are many people in the community who are Godless, who won't go to church, who deal drugs, steal... the whole nine yards, but they wouldn't seek help from us if we offered them money to attend, so what are you going to do? As the old adage goes: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." There are thousands of churches all over this country who do all of this and more.

I was merely pointing that there is always room for improvement, liberals and conservatives alike. I don't think that is "leading" that bothers liberals-it's the condemnation by a small minority of religious folks that they choose to spin into "ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE". While the 2 faction argue, people are starving inspite of the great efforts made my religious institutions.