Prayer and Religion in Public Life

[The Scott]

My friend Scott, I take a little bit of offense to what I emboldened in red.  First, I believe that there was a man a couple thousand years ago that existed who we now know as Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, Jesus of Nazareth, etc.  Next, I absolutely believe he was a force for good and change in the world.  Finally, the Sermon on the Mount and/or the Beatitudes is as fine a guide for living ones life and treating others as has ever been put to paper.  Even if Jesus never existed, the idea of Jesus and his words/message is a beautiful thing.  If only more Christians would focus on those teachings we could see a better world.

I am rarely offended here or in the real world.  Disgusted?  Yes. 

Some people feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeel they can belittle the Nazarene but fail to do so to the profit hoMohammed.  The latter was a degenerate asshole that was pissed that the Jews said the age of prophets was over and so, like other two legged dildos such as Joseph Smith of the Morons (Latter Day Taints) started his own bullshit based loosely on Judaism and Christianity.

Without the genuine existence of the Christ, there would be no Christianity.  Christians should focus on the Nazarene but, assholes like the one I berated are forever trying to belittle them and even when I had my faith I bitch slapped them, albeit not quite so firmly and with nowhere near the language.

They deserve to be put in their place. I would prefer that place to be muslime lands where they can be buggered to death by those they seem to idolize.  Alas, they only make fun of those that turn the other cheek and in secret want to spread their own cheeks before silicon negroes.  These fuckers here are the very definition of slack-jawed-phaggots. 

[ThisisOverload]

Do you feel this way about all offensive or annoying speech or just religious speech?

Both.

[ThisisOverload]

I'm sure that's true of some.  I also think a lot of atheists are former believers who experienced hardship and became nonbelievers because they were angry or frustrated.

I'm agnostic.

I grew up in a very religious family. Went to church and bible study for 18 years. I've studied every aspect of Christianity.

For me it was all the fake stories and lack of evidence that secured my agnostic status.

I've never really been frustrated by religion except when people tried to force it down my throat.

The older i get and the more educated i've gotten on science and history, i simply cannot believe the bible is anything but a bunch of interesting stories.

Just think, all these amazing things happen for thousands of years and then they just stopped. Nothing biblical happened after they issued the bible.

Also, the bible was edited by kings and released in a final version to stimulate people.

Doesn't work for me, i'm not the smartest person on the planet but it defies all logic and science.

[Agnostic007]

I'm agnostic.

I grew up in a very religious family. Went to church and bible study for 18 years. I've studied every aspect of Christianity.

For me it was all the fake stories and lack of evidence that secured my agnostic status.

I've never really been frustrated by religion except when people tried to force it down my throat.

The older i get and the more educated i've gotten on science and history, i simply cannot believe the bible is anything but a bunch of interesting stories.

Just think, all these amazing things happen for thousands of years and then they just stopped. Nothing biblical happened after they issued the bible.

Also, the bible was edited by kings and released in a final version to stimulate people.

Doesn't work for me, i'm not the smartest person on the planet but it defies all logic and science.

Pretty much the same here. I try to only believe things that are likely true, and resist believing things because I want them to be or hope they are. 

[Dos Equis]

I'm agnostic.

I grew up in a very religious family. Went to church and bible study for 18 years. I've studied every aspect of Christianity.

For me it was all the fake stories and lack of evidence that secured my agnostic status.

I've never really been frustrated by religion except when people tried to force it down my throat.

The older i get and the more educated i've gotten on science and history, i simply cannot believe the bible is anything but a bunch of interesting stories.

Just think, all these amazing things happen for thousands of years and then they just stopped. Nothing biblical happened after they issued the bible.

Also, the bible was edited by kings and released in a final version to stimulate people.

Doesn't work for me, i'm not the smartest person on the planet but it defies all logic and science.

I guess it partly depends on your perspective.  The Bible isn't a science book, so if someone is trying to view it as such they are going to get frustrated. 

In terms of stories, there are a lot of parables, which are by definition not factual.  But there are a lot of historical facts in the Bible.  You have to separate fact from story telling.

I don't have a problem with parents forcing their kids to be whatever religion they want as minors, but as adults, no one really forces anything on us.  We don't have to participate in church services, read the  Bible, etc.  It's all a choice.  I never get offended when someone talks about their faith (or lack of faith).  I've mentioned this before, but I've participated in all kinds of prayers from different religions and I do so respectfully.  It would be weird if I got offended by Buddha, when I don't believe Buddha exists.  I leave that kind of weirdness to some atheists (not talking about you).    

[AbrahamG]

I guess it partly depends on your perspective.  The Bible isn't a science book, so if someone is trying to view it as such they are going to get frustrated. 

In terms of stories, there are a lot of parables, which are by definition not factual.  But there are a lot of historical facts in the Bible.  You have to separate fact from story telling.

I don't have a problem with parents forcing their kids to be whatever religion they want as minors, but as adults, no one really forces anything on us.  We don't have to participate in church services, read the  Bible, etc.  It's all a choice.  I never get offended when someone talks about their faith (or lack of faith).  I've mentioned this before, but I've participated in all kinds of prayers from different religions and I do so respectfully.  It would be weird if I got offended by Buddha, when I don't believe Buddha exists.  I leave that kind of weirdness to some atheists (not talking about you).   

Respectfully, would you mind pointing out some of the historical facts in the Bible?

[The Scott]

Respectfully, would you mind pointing out some of the historical facts in the Bible?

The existence of the Apostle Peter and thereby the Christ are verified by the execution of Peter by Emperor Nero.  Who in their right mind would ask to be crucified upside down for a lie.  No one really.  Crucifixion is not a comfy way to die and I seriously doubt Peter was insane. He knew the Nazarene personally.  Walked with him, ate with him and witnessed his wisdom.

Others were also murdered by Rome for their faith and it has been documented in ancient texts.  I am NOT going to look them up and quote them for that fuckwit Agnoshitz007 but I have read them and while I have not read the actual original texts (I can barely read English, LOL!), I think that the ancient scholars and historians had no reason to lie.

Faith is just that.  FAITH.  Ask a modern day Smellivangelist to give  his life for the Nazarene and he will profess he would do so at the drop of a hat but then in the same breath say that hats are not allowed in his "church".

Just a thought.  If Peter died for something real...I am in trouble. But so too are assholes like the aforementioned Law Enfarcement Officer and Prime, Straw and many more.  I've been dead. Didn't see or hear anything as I don't recall anything but being back and alive.

I used to think that all this earth could not have been by chance. But then I looked at Chicago and all of isllime and said, what kind of intelligent being would allow that shit to go on?  The result was no more faith.

[Dos Equis]

Respectfully, would you mind pointing out some of the historical facts in the Bible?

Seriously bro?  Cities mentioned in the Bible.  Kings and other figures mentioned in the Bible.  Ethnic groups.  Wars.

[Dos Equis]

The existence of the Apostle Peter and thereby the Christ are verified by the execution of Peter by Emperor Nero.  Who in their right mind would ask to be crucified upside down for a lie.  No one really.  Crucifixion is not a comfy way to die and I seriously doubt Peter was insane. He knew the Nazarene personally.  Walked with him, ate with him and witnessed his wisdom.

Others were also murdered by Rome for their faith and it has been documented in ancient texts.  I am NOT going to look them up and quote them for that fuckwit Agnoshitz007 but I have read them and while I have not read the actual original texts (I can barely read English, LOL!), I think that the ancient scholars and historians had no reason to lie.

Faith is just that.  FAITH.  Ask a modern day Smellivangelist to give  his life for the Nazarene and he will profess he would do so at the drop of a hat but then in the same breath say that hats are not allowed in his "church".

Just a thought.  If Peter died for something real...I am in trouble. But so too are assholes like the aforementioned Law Enfarcement Officer and Prime, Straw and many more.  I've been dead. Didn't see or hear anything as I don't recall anything but being back and alive.

I used to think that all this earth could not have been by chance. But then I looked at Chicago and all of isllime and said, what kind of intelligent being would allow that shit to go on?  The result was no more faith.

Yeah.  This. 

[AbrahamG]

Seriously bro?  Cities mentioned in the Bible.  Kings and other figures mentioned in the Bible.  Ethnic groups.  Wars.

Wasn't being a prick. Jerusalem is a city that's mentioned in the Bible. Yes, that is a fact. But, I was looking for a fact based story or something of that ilk.

[Dos Equis]

Wasn't being a prick. Jerusalem is a city that's mentioned in the Bible. Yes, that is a fact. But, I was looking for a fact based story or something of that ilk.

I don't think anyone can prove or disprove entire narrative stories, but there is evidence that a lot of those figures existed.  King David is one.

https://aleteia.org/2018/05/02/archaeologists-discover-evidence-that-may-prove-biblical-king-david-existed/

[Agnostic007]

Respectfully, would you mind pointing out some of the historical facts in the Bible?

It's a fair question. And like even agreed upon fictional novels, they may contain some historical facts. Even Avengers movies battle scenes  occur in real cities, contain automobiles that actually exists, but that doesn't make them any more realistic. When it comes to supporting the supernatural claims in the bible, historians are completely silent on them. Any mention like "Josephus mentions Jesus" falls apart when looked at. So bottom line, you're left suspending logic if you truly wish to believe some of the fables contained in the pages. And that's ok, just don't try pushing them into law etc. 

[ThisisOverload]

I don't think anyone can prove or disprove entire narrative stories, but there is evidence that a lot of those figures existed.  King David is one.

https://aleteia.org/2018/05/02/archaeologists-discover-evidence-that-may-prove-biblical-king-david-existed/

MAY prove.

That is not proof. That article is filled with speculation.

Just like i watched a series on Jesus's shroud and they said it "could" have been his because it was "similar" to what "might" have been around at that time period. That is 100% speculation. They don't even know where he was buried and rose from the dead, it's all a guess. I figured that would be pretty important?

Having the names of Cities is one thing, but proving any of these people existed is never going to happen. Many Cities changed names, so it is fair to not discredit it openly.

Even the story of the wise men visiting Jesus is 100% inaccurate and the astrology of the stars of that time has proven it.

Unless there was a special star that God created.

The Church claims 3 wise men visited, but the bible doesn't mention it, it is assumed based on bringing 3 gifts.

There are so many instances like this it's insane. It's all shenanigans.

I remember reading the bible and bringing up the inaccuracies my parents and people at church used to tell us, it used to piss them off. Everyone wants to interpret the words in the bible in a different way.

What i want to know, is why the other books of the original bible are hidden in the Vatican and nobody but the pope can see them. Why? Is the version edited by Kings not good enough?

[Agnostic007]

MAY prove.

That is not proof. That article is filled with speculation.

Just like i watched a series on Jesus's shroud and they said it "could" have been his because it was "similar" to what "might" have been around at that time period. That is 100% speculation. They don't even know where he was buried and rose from the dead, it's all a guess. I figured that would be pretty important?

Having the names of Cities is one thing, but proving any of these people existed is never going to happen. Many Cities changed names, so it is fair to not discredit it openly.

Even the story of the wise men visiting Jesus is 100% inaccurate and the astrology of the stars of that time has proven it.

Unless there was a special star that God created.

The Church claims 3 wise men visited, but the bible doesn't mention it, it is assumed based on bringing 3 gifts.

There are so many instances like this it's insane. It's all shenanigans.

I remember reading the bible and bringing up the inaccuracies my parents and people at church used to tell us, it used to piss them off. Everyone wants to interpret the words in the bible in a different way.

What i want to know, is why the other books of the original bible are hidden in the Vatican and nobody but the pope can see them. Why? Is the version edited by Kings not good enough?

I remember in my 30's after reading the bible a couple times, Josh McDowells "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Strobels "Case for Christ" and a handful of other apologetic books I was on the fence. I decided I would start and Geneses and read the bible again, this time taking notes of things that bothered me. By the time I got to Exodus, after making notes of all the books I had read so far, I threw in the towel. The implication that what I was reading was man made religious myths that were perfectly normal in that age was so overwhelming, I couldn't continue. It was clear.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate Jesus' sermon on the mount and his driving home the message of loving your fellow man. But knowing the vast majority of Christians today wouldn't give the real Jesus the time of day, it doesn't really help much.   

[AbrahamG]

I remember in my 30's after reading the bible a couple times, Josh McDowells "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Strobels "Case for Christ" and a handful of other apologetic books I was on the fence. I decided I would start and Geneses and read the bible again, this time taking notes of things that bothered me. By the time I got to Exodus, after making notes of all the books I had read so far, I threw in the towel. The implication that what I was reading was man made religious myths that were perfectly normal in that age was so overwhelming, I couldn't continue. It was clear.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate Jesus' sermon on the mount and his driving the home the message of loving your fellow man. But knowing the vast majority of Christians today wouldn't give the real Jesus the time of day, it doesn't really help much.   

Sounds like something I'd say only you are more eloquent.

[Agnostic007]

Sounds like something I'd say only you are more eloquent.

Thanks. I have an older brother who has spent years and years studying the bible. I consider myself above average in knowledge of the bible. But he is far advanced above the average pastor in that he studies the Hebrew language and examines every scripture, breaking it down into it's original form, then trying to correlate it to the language of that time. Very extensive effort. However, I think he is missing the point. There was a time when I had a goal of cutting through all the interpretations and translations and trying to determine to the closest of the original, what the authors of the manuscripts were saying. It became clear to me that no matter how much I dug, I would never be able to access the original undoctered text.  I would always be reading someones translation of someones translation. So knowing that, I read the bible once again... as a book. Not as something to disect. The Old Testament... that I had to conclude was what tribesmen thought a God should be and do. It was more about what they thought should be right. Hence Exodus when "Moses" gave the rules on slavery and rape that I think we all SHOULD agree would never come from a God.

But more importantly when I read the New Testament, with some exception, mostly from the Apostles who allegedly wrote the books,  what  was attributed to Jesus was pretty simple.. 1. When you have learned how to love your fellow man, you will have finally learned how to love God.  and 2. Love your fellow man with actions that demonstrate that love not just words. Matthew 25 is my best example of that in the parable of the sheep and the goats.
I've mentioned before that the Scott and I share similar admiration for "The Nazarene" and his message. I think for the most part his message is exactly on point. The thing I hate is that for those who "believe" he was the son of god, they butcher his message to fit their outlooks and opinions and if The Nazarene exists, he would be none too happy about it.   I have no contempt for the Jesus character, I have a lot of contempt for those who claim to follow him yet tarnish his name

[AbrahamG]

Thanks. I have an older brother who has spent years and years studying the bible. I consider myself above average in knowledge of the bible. But he is far advanced above the average pastor in that he studies the Hebrew language and examines every scripture, breaking it down into it's original form, then trying to correlate it to the language of that time. Very extensive effort. However, I think he is missing the point. There was a time when I had a goal of cutting through all the interpretations and translations and trying to determine to the closest of the original, what the authors of the manuscripts were saying. It became clear to me that no matter how much I dug, I would never be able to access the original undoctered text.  I would always be reading someones translation of someones translation. So knowing that, I read the bible once again... as a book. Not as something to disect. The Old Testament... that I had to conclude was what tribesmen thought a God should be and do. It was more about what they thought should be right. Hence Exodus when "Moses" gave the rules on slavery and rape that I think we all SHOULD agree would never come from a God.

But more importantly when I read the New Testament, with some exception, mostly from the Apostles who allegedly wrote the books,  what  was attributed to Jesus was pretty simple.. 1. When you have learned how to love your fellow man, you will have finally learned how to love God.  and 2. Love your fellow man with actions that demonstrate that love not just words. Matthew 25 is my best example of that in the parable of the sheep and the wolves. 

I've mentioned before that the Scott and I share similar admiration for "The Nazarene" and his message. I think for the most part his message is exactly on point. The thing I hate is that for those who "believe" he was the son of god, they butcher his message to fit their outlooks and opinions and if The Nazarene exists, he would be none too happy about it.   I have no contempt for the Jesus character, I have a lot of contempt for those who claim to follow him yet tarnish his name

Again, sounds like you are describing me. 

[ThisisOverload]

Thanks. I have an older brother who has spent years and years studying the bible. I consider myself above average in knowledge of the bible. But he is far advanced above the average pastor in that he studies the Hebrew language and examines every scripture, breaking it down into it's original form, then trying to correlate it to the language of that time. Very extensive effort. However, I think he is missing the point. There was a time when I had a goal of cutting through all the interpretations and translations and trying to determine to the closest of the original, what the authors of the manuscripts were saying. It became clear to me that no matter how much I dug, I would never be able to access the original undoctered text.  I would always be reading someones translation of someones translation. So knowing that, I read the bible once again... as a book. Not as something to disect. The Old Testament... that I had to conclude was what tribesmen thought a God should be and do. It was more about what they thought should be right. Hence Exodus when "Moses" gave the rules on slavery and rape that I think we all SHOULD agree would never come from a God.

But more importantly when I read the New Testament, with some exception, mostly from the Apostles who allegedly wrote the books,  what  was attributed to Jesus was pretty simple.. 1. When you have learned how to love your fellow man, you will have finally learned how to love God.  and 2. Love your fellow man with actions that demonstrate that love not just words. Matthew 25 is my best example of that in the parable of the sheep and the wolves. 

I've mentioned before that the Scott and I share similar admiration for "The Nazarene" and his message. I think for the most part his message is exactly on point. The thing I hate is that for those who "believe" he was the son of god, they butcher his message to fit their outlooks and opinions and if The Nazarene exists, he would be none too happy about it.   I have no contempt for the Jesus character, I have a lot of contempt for those who claim to follow him yet tarnish his name

Well put my dude.

I understand you and i have similar backgrounds.

I appreciate your input. No homo. 

[Agnostic007]

It's a shame when agnostics get thrown into a category of "They don't believe because they fall short". It really just highlights that persons ignorance of the bible. We ALL fall short according to Romans 3:23 but as I said, it somehow lets them sleep better at night thinking "we" just couldn't live up the the bar... like Gaetz, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Robert Tilton,  Jim Bakker, etc.

[Dos Equis]

MAY prove.

That is not proof. That article is filled with speculation.

Just like i watched a series on Jesus's shroud and they said it "could" have been his because it was "similar" to what "might" have been around at that time period. That is 100% speculation. They don't even know where he was buried and rose from the dead, it's all a guess. I figured that would be pretty important?

Having the names of Cities is one thing, but proving any of these people existed is never going to happen. Many Cities changed names, so it is fair to not discredit it openly.

Even the story of the wise men visiting Jesus is 100% inaccurate and the astrology of the stars of that time has proven it.

Unless there was a special star that God created.

The Church claims 3 wise men visited, but the bible doesn't mention it, it is assumed based on bringing 3 gifts.

There are so many instances like this it's insane. It's all shenanigans.

I remember reading the bible and bringing up the inaccuracies my parents and people at church used to tell us, it used to piss them off. Everyone wants to interpret the words in the bible in a different way.

What i want to know, is why the other books of the original bible are hidden in the Vatican and nobody but the pope can see them. Why? Is the version edited by Kings not good enough?

You are applying an unreasonable proof standard.  It's difficult to apply an absolute proof standard to events that happened and people who existed thousands of years ago.  And calling it "100% speculation" is an overstatement.  You're smarter than that.

Regarding Biblical interpretation, I agree there are many people who interpret things differently.  I don't get hung up on it.  There are some things I don't understand, but I just apply a commonsense standard to everything else.  That's why I don't accept everything my church teaches, because some of it doesn't make sense to me.  Good thing my church doesn't have control over my personal relationship with God.   

[Dos Equis]

They probably suffered emotional distress when they saw the banner.

'Jesus' banner yanked from Fort Sill's main gate, Military Religious Freedom Foundation says
By Mark A. Kellner - The Washington Times - Friday, June 4, 2021

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation took credit for forcing the removal of a banner advertising a Vacation Bible School program, which bore the slogan, "Jesus Pulls Us Through," from the main gate at the Fort Sill Army Base in Oklahoma. (Photo courtesy of MRFF)

An advocacy group that says it fights “church/state violations and noxious abuse” in the military said Friday it forced the removal of a banner advertising a Vacation Bible School program from the main gate at the Fort Sill Army Base in Oklahoma.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said the banner’s slogan, “Jesus Pulls Us Through,” was objectionable when displayed at the base entrance.

“Which ‘us’” did the banner refer to?” asked Mikey Weinstein, a lawyer and founder/president of the group. He said advertising the program on the base’s chapel grounds or on a military religious services webpage was one thing, but to hang the banner at the gate entrance suggested what Mr. Weinstein termed “an unconstitutional sectarian endorsement of fundamentalist Christianity.”

Frontier Chapel Gospel Service, one of several ministries on the Army base, is holding the “Rocky Railroad” Bible school for children ages 4-11. The program’s curriculum is a product of Group Publishing of Loveland, Colorado, an evangelical Christian publisher. Such programs generally offer instruction in Christian teachings and often feature an invitation to participants to commit to follow Christianity. Parents must give permission for their children to attend, and many parents participate in the sessions.

Sarah Kline, who said she is the wife of an active duty service member at the base, learned about the Vacation Bible School sign from James M. Branum, a Lawton, Oklahoma, lawyer who defends military personnel in courts-martial and administrative actions.

“Due to the VBS being the only event that was being advertised, it gave the impression that events or individuals of other faiths, and those who have no faith, were not being equally promoted or valued. And it also appeared the U.S. Army was endorsing an evangelical Christian event,” Ms. Kline said.

On Tuesday, she sent an email protesting the banner’s location to Col. Rhett A. Taylor, commander of the Army’s garrison at Fort Sill. By noon on Wednesday, Col. Taylor wrote back saying that “after legal review … there is concern with the signage” and the banner would be removed, she said.

Ms. Kline told The Washington Times, “We were very happy with that outcome, to be quite honest. I was elated at how quickly and swiftly the Fort Sill command team acted to rectify this issue. I’ve been at other installations where we’ve had similar complaints. And I wish that all complaints have worked out within such a swift manner.”

She said she could not “actually confirm or deny” that other religious or non-religious events were promoted by the base at other times of the year, adding, “I have my own suspicions.”

Ms. Kline, 33 who said she’s the mother of 10-year-old triplets, said “we are a secular humanist household” when asked about her family’s faith affiliation.

Marie Pihulic, public affairs officer for the Fort Sill garrison, said via email the unit “has no comment at this time” on the matter. A representative of the Frontier Chapel Gospel Service was unreachable by phone and did not respond to an email request for comment.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/4/jesus-pulls-us-through-banner-yanked-fort-sill-mil/

[Agnostic007]

Sad that it had to be done. Seems some people don't understand the concept of a government entity not playing favorites about religions matters. IF they ignored this seemingly harmless affront, it wouldn't be long before they'd take another step across the line and another. It's happened enough times we just can't afford to let the little things go. So yeah, on the surface it seems silly. But it always goes deeper than it appears.

[Dos Equis]

Sad that it had to be done. Seems some people don't understand the concept of a government entity not playing favorites about religions matters. IF they ignored this seemingly harmless affront, it wouldn't be long before they'd take another step across the line and another. It's happened enough times we just can't afford to let the little things go. So yeah, on the surface it seems silly. But it always goes deeper than it appears.

It's silly both on and below the surface. 

On the other hand, if they let something like this go, next thing you know there will be multiple chapels on the military base, chaplains from various religions, prayers before events, etc.  The horror.   

[Agnostic007]

It's silly both on and below the surface. 

On the other hand, if they let something like this go, next thing you know there will be multiple chapels on the military base, chaplains from various religions, prayers before events, etc.  The horror.   

You really don't see the issue? I mean ... really? You seem to be saying that because there are a variety of religious services on bases, to include those that aren't Christian based, that it's perfectly fine to put up any religious signs at the entrance to a military installation. Is that your position?

[Humble Narcissist]

It's all an assault on Christianity.