The Search for Religious Tolerance.

[hobelim]

Its only slander if untrue.

I'm just giving a neighborly reminder about the truths which ya'll have rejected.

"...reminder about the truths which ya'll have rejected."


Such as?

If there is only one God who is incorporeal and has no visible shape or material form, whose existence is absolute and there is no other God above or below him then there is no such thing as a coequal triune God that became a man.

simple.

If Jesus was the Jewish messiah then he was just a man who spoke for God and conveyed all of his commands in fulfillment of the stated purpose of the messiah in Deuteronomy 18:18.

simple.

Jesus did not abolish divine law and in fact testified to the permanence of the law which makes Paul a liar.

simple.

Do you accept these truths as self evident or do you care to argue any point, or do you want to hear more?

The list goes on and on....

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...reminder about the truths which ya'll have rejected."


Such as?

If there is only one God who is incorporeal and has no visible shape or material form, whose existence is absolute and there is no other God above or below him then there is no such thing as a coequal triune God that became a man.

simple.

If Jesus was the Jewish messiah then he was just a man who spoke for God and conveyed all of his commands in fulfillment of the stated purpose of the messiah in Deuteronomy 18:18.

simple.

Jesus did not abolish divine law and in fact testified to the permanence of the law which makes Paul a liar.

simple.

Do you accept these truths as self evident or do you care to argue any point, or do you want to hear more?

The list goes on and on....

No, the list doesn't go on.

The subject was, from post #11.....not a particular religion, but religion versus the false religion of totalitarians.



Morality requires a belief in God.

Again:
a. "The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
The human mind may be worshiped, but it cannot be trusted. That is why we codify laws.

b. To embrace the philosophy of the Left, it is almost imperative that one reject the Bible, and religion in general. The urge of the Left to surrender choice and self government for illusion, to insist on statism and government rule rather than citizens ruling the government, is a rejection of the lesson of the Exodus.

c.The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000 BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder."

 

[hobelim]

If there is only one God who is incorporeal and has no visible shape or material form, whose existence is absolute and there is no other God above or below him then there is no such thing as a coequal triune God that became a man.

simple.

If Jesus was the Jewish messiah then he was just a man who spoke for God and conveyed all of his commands in fulfillment of the stated purpose of the messiah in Deuteronomy 18:18.

simple.

Jesus did not abolish divine law and in fact testified to the permanence of the law which makes Paul a liar.

simple.

Do you accept these truths as self evident or do you care to argue any point, or do you want to hear more?

The list goes on and on....

No, the list doesn't go on.

The subject was, from post #11.....not a particular religion, but religion versus the false religion of totalitarians.



Morality requires a belief in God.

Not necessarily. How moral is it to perpetuate a belief in a god that cannot possibly exist except in the most delusional and unrestrained imagination? How ethical is it to marginalize or oppress any individual who does have the morality to resist assimilation by refusing to believe?

In this case athesits are proven much more moral.



And there is no distinction between religion and the false religion of totalitarians. Many religions are as false as the 'religious' beliefs or unbelief's of any murderous atheist totalitarian system of governance. What religion doesn't claim to have exclusive distribution rights to the truth even though what many openly profess to believe is an obvious lie?

That's what I am pointing out.

How moral and ethical is it to tolerate beliefs on either side that have historically proven to only lead to the disintegration of society?

 

[Vox]

I do not believe religion should be involved in politics. I don't believe politics should use religion or religious leaders to gain points either. It should be left out completely. Across the board.

but you can not separate the two. It is life.

 

[Vox]

If you were a French person living in France before the revolution you would understand why the French peasants wanted the Church abolished along with the ancient regime that abused it's power and social status.Had the three higher tiers of French society had been more responsive to political reform such as in Britain, there would have been no French Revolution. But as we have seen with ancient regimes in Europe those at the bottom were tired of being exploited and abused. The middle class wanted more power and an assembly for a legislative body that would limit the monarchies power.

total bullshit. French peasants have had the least to do with French revolution.
and they suffered because of the destruction and terror caused by the revolution to the same extent as everybody else did. Including the ones which were the leaders.

NOBODY was spared.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, the list doesn't go on.

The subject was, from post #11.....not a particular religion, but religion versus the false religion of totalitarians.



Morality requires a belief in God.

Not necessarily. How moral is it to perpetuate a belief in a god that cannot possibly exist except in the most delusional and unrestrained imagination? How ethical is it to marginalize or oppress any individual who does have the morality to resist assimilation by refusing to believe?

In this case athesits are proven much more moral.



And there is no distinction between religion and the false religion of totalitarians. Many religions are as false as the 'religious' beliefs or unbelief's of any murderous atheist totalitarian system of governance. What religion doesn't claim to have exclusive distribution rights to the truth even though what many openly profess to believe is an obvious lie?

That's what I am pointing out.

How moral and ethical is it to tolerate beliefs on either side that have historically proven to only lead to the disintegration of society?

1. "Not necessarily."


Yeah....necessarily.





Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious people. But God is necessary for morality to survive.
There must be something above what man decides is in his own interest.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

And that is the situation when all power is in the hands of a government controlled by people.




'If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective. Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side. Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.'
Dennis Prager



2. "How moral and ethical is it to tolerate beliefs on either side that have historically proven to only lead to the disintegration of society?"

What's amusing is that you don't realize that you are describing Liberalism, socialism.....not morality nor religion.

 

[Vox]

Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 72 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion.

read about the Terror which happens ALWAYS after any revolution - that's a rule.

The French Revolution

Much myth and romantic legend has been written on what some politicians would like the French Revolution to have been, but the reality was that the French Revolution was a monstrous horror. In the name of “liberty, equality, fraternity or death!” over 40,000 people lost their heads to the guillotine , 300,000 people were publically executed by firing squads, drownings and other methods of mass murder and ultimately many millions died in the 25 years of war and upheavals that resulted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I believe you and Jeri may have missed the point of the OP....contained here:

6. "As God retreated from the world, people reached out for a rival source of membership, and national identity seemed to answer to the need. Although the French revolutionaries paid homage with their heads to the Citizen, the Constitution, and the Republic, their hearts were capture by the Nation,...defined in terms of a visceral membership that demanded one thing above all else- namely, human sacrifice."
Scruton, "The West and the Rest," p.43.

7. "... understand the French Revolution.....as primarily a religious phenomenon. The inner compulsion was to dethrone the gods of the monarchical order, and to erect a new community in its place- but a community demanding sacrifice, devotion, and slaughter, establishing a right to obedience through the spilling of blood."
Ibid, p. 44.



Government is always based on one's religion.





From the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution, the religion has been one of 'reason.'

And it has been a mistake that has resulted in over one hundred million humans during the 'Century of Genocide,' far, far more than any other organized religion.


Just as there are several iterations of Christianity, there are many of the religion of 'rationalization,' including communism, socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, etc.




The proof of the power of the religion of the rational mind is that you, and most folks, don't see it as a religion.

The French Revolution WAS NOT based upon religion!!!!!

For more than six or seven centuries, European weather was most conducive to growing large crops, thus bringing about a large increase in the population. When the Mini Ice Age took effect, it seriously disrupted the growing of herds and crops, thus reducing the availability of foods.

Plagues eased some of the overpopulation but it still left thousands demanding their rulers do something to ease their plight. [Sound familiar? ] And, when the people saw their rulers living in luxury, they were ripe for certain forces to lead them into insurrection.

As a matter of fact, as a result of the French Revolution, church leaders were attacked, imprisoned, and even killed. Napoleon took the then Pope into custody and removed him from the Vatican, putting him in a place where he [Napoleon] controlled his activities.

The Papacy did the same during it's many years of wars. Why the Papacy is responsible for many deaths from it's use of political and military power. I hold no empathy for the backlash when societies had broken their power and revolted against their tyranny.

1. History is a complex and curious process.
While the Enlightenment may be seen as a reaction to the abuses of clerical authority, it must be remembered that the biblical imprecation that all humanity was equal, having been fashioned in the image of God, provided the template for liberty. And many Enlightenment thinkers were religious, albeit many were less Christians, but rather deists who believed in an impersonal god who did not interfere in human life.

a. Leibniz argued that the universe was composed of individual units in harmony with God’s divine ordinance.

b. John Locke thought that man’s duty to God to preserve mankind as part of Creation was the basic moral law of nature.

c. Isaac Newton and Joseph Priestly were devout Christians, but Dissenters.




2. In France, Enlightenment was joined not just with antipathy to clerical authority, but with religion itself.

a. Voltaire claimed that the infamy was not just the Catholic Church, but phrase refers to abuses to the people by royalty and the clergy that Voltaire saw around him. Christianity itself, he cried "écrasez l'infâme," or "crush the infamous".

b. Unlike France, thinkers in Britain and America embraced religion as an amalgamation with ‘social virture,’ in the former and ‘political liberty’, in the latter.

c. The French invested reason with the same dogmatic status as religion, creating a secular reflection of the Catholic Church.
Reason, or nature, or the general will, became the civil religion. Thus authoritarianism was there from the time of the French Revolution.

d. The philosopher Condorcet believed that the application of mathematics and statistics to social policy would result in general happiness, truth and virtue.

e. Henri de Saint-Simon, the articulator of socialism, argued for the supremacy of the sciences over religion, and predicted that, like religious, secular propaganda would employ artists and poets. His collaborator, Auguste Comte, also saw the need for a secular religion, a scientific materialism, which contends that the only reality is what can be detected and measured by human senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. His authoritarian thinking shapes today’s liberal’s doctrinaire insistence that science has the explanation for all things.

You might be interested in more detail in chapter 13 of 'Righteous Indignation,' Breitbart, and Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

 

[PoliticalChic]

It historically true that competing religions will go to war over theological issues.

But godless ideologies like secularism and communism will go to war over anything and murder everyone just because they can. ...

Did you mention 'godless'????

Let's consider the Church of Liberalism:




'Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion.
In "Godless," Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us
its sacraments (abortion),
its holy writ (Roe v. Wade),
its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal),
its clergy (public school teachers),
its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free),
its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland),
and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.'
From the Amazon review of "Godless," by Coulter…

 

[editec]

Poppycock.

Poppycock so loaded with historical nonsense it defies rational response.

Rather typical of this author's output I note/

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poppycock.

Poppycock so loaded with historical nonsense it defies rational response.

Rather typical of this author's output I note/

"Rather typical of this author's output I note."


Yet, strangely, you seem to have overlooked the fact that I have a proprietary pride in veracity.


Try to pay more attention.