Prayer and Religion in Public Life

[Agnostic007]

Ex-priest charged with raping New Mexico girl in 1990s

Former Roman Catholic priest Sabine Griego was arrested Tuesday at his home in Las Vegas, N.M., accused of raping an 8-year-old Albuquerque girl nearly three decades ago. Griego, 81, has been charged by the state Attorney General’s Office with one count of sexual penetration of a minor and coercion resulting in great bodily harm and mental anguish.
Documents filed by the Attorney General’s Office this week suggest the Archdiocese of Santa Fe knew of the rape allegations made by “Jane Doe A” for at least 15 years and likely much longer.

The charges against Griego are the most recent; he has been accused of sexually assaulting more than 30 children over a period of decades while in the archdiocese. He is implicated in eight closed cases filed in New Mexico between 1993, the same year he was put on leave from the church, and 1995, according to court records.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/ex-priest-charged-with-raping-new-mexico-girl-in-s/article_9c40d7e7-fdc6-5ae4-bd82-2325faa88fd7.html

Religion of a piece...

[avxo]

Who is crowing about anything?  And why do you care?

I don’t know why he cares; me, I find it both sad and troubling that so many Americans believe that the Christian grimoire is true or that the nonsensical doctrines at the core of the Christian faith.

[Primemuscle]

New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger
Is churchgoing and religious adherence really in ‘widespread decline’ so much so that conservative believers should suffer ‘growing anxiety’? Absolutely not.
Glenn T. Stanton By Glenn T. Stanton
JANUARY 22, 2018

“Meanwhile, a widespread decline in churchgoing and religious affiliation had contributed to a growing anxiety among conservative believers.” Statements like this are uttered with such confidence and frequency that most Americans accept them as uncontested truisms. This one emerged just this month in an exceedingly silly article in The Atlantic on Vice President Mike Pence.

Religious faith in America is going the way of the Yellow Pages and travel maps, we keep hearing. It’s just a matter of time until Christianity’s total and happy extinction, chortle our cultural elites. Is this true? Is churchgoing and religious adherence really in “widespread decline” so much so that conservative believers should suffer “growing anxiety”?

Two words: Absolutely not.

New research published late last year by scholars at Harvard University and Indiana University Bloomington is just the latest to reveal the myth. This research questioned the “secularization thesis,” which holds that the United States is following most advanced industrial nations in the death of their once vibrant faith culture. Churches becoming mere landmarks, dance halls, boutique hotels, museums, and all that.

Not only did their examination find no support for this secularization in terms of actual practice and belief, the researchers proclaim that religion continues to enjoy “persistent and exceptional intensity” in America. These researchers hold our nation “remains an exceptional outlier and potential counter example to the secularization thesis.”

What Accounts for the Difference in Perceptions?
How can their findings appear so contrary to what we have been hearing from so many seemingly informed voices? It comes down primarily to what kind of faith one is talking about. Not the belief system itself, per se, but the intensity and seriousness with which people hold and practice that faith.

Mainline churches are tanking as if they have super-sized millstones around their necks. Yes, these churches are hemorrhaging members in startling numbers, but many of those folks are not leaving Christianity. They are simply going elsewhere. Because of this shifting, other very different kinds of churches are holding strong in crowds and have been for as long as such data has been collected. In some ways, they are even growing. This is what this new research has found.

The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as “patently persistent.”

The percentage of such people is also not small. One in three Americans prays multiple times a day, while one in 15 do so in other countries on average. Attending services more than once a week continues to be twice as high among Americans compared to the next highest-attending industrial country, and three times higher than the average comparable nation.

One-third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual word of God. Fewer than 10 percent believe so in similar countries. The United States “clearly stands out as exceptional,” and this exceptionalism has not been decreasing over time. In fact, these scholars determine that the percentages of Americans who are the most vibrant and serious in their faith is actually increasing a bit, “which is making the United States even more exceptional over time.”

This also means, of course, that those who take their faith seriously are becoming a markedly larger proportion of all religious people. In 1989, 39 percent of those who belonged to a religion held strong beliefs and practices. Today, these are 47 percent of all the religiously affiliated. This all has important implications for politics, indicating that the voting bloc of religious conservatives is not shrinking, but actually growing among the faithful. The declining influence of liberal believers at the polls has been demonstrated in many important elections recently.

These Are Not Isolated Findings
The findings of these scholars are not outliers. There has been a growing gulf between the faithful and the dabblers for quite some time, with the first group growing more numerous. Think about the church you attend, relative to its belief system. It is extremely likely that if your church teaches the Bible with seriousness, calls its people to real discipleship, and encourages daily intimacy with God, it has multiple services to handle the coming crowds.

Most decent-size American cities have a treasure trove of such churches for believers to choose from. This shows no sign of changing. If, however, your church is theologically liberal or merely lukewarm, it’s likely laying off staff and wondering how to pay this month’s light bill. People are navigating toward substantive Christianity.

The folks at Pew have been reporting for years that while the mainline churches are in drastic free fall, the group that “shows the most significant growth is the nondenominational family.” Of course, these nondenominational churches are 99.9 percent thorough-blooded evangelical. Pew also notes that “evangelical Protestantism and the historically black Protestant tradition have been more stable” over the years, with even a slight uptick in the last decade because many congregants leaving the mainline churches are migrating to evangelical churches that hold fast to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

When the so-called “progressive” churches question the historicity of Jesus, deny the reality of sin, support abortion, ordain clergy in same-sex relationships and perform their marriages, people desiring real Christianity head elsewhere. Fact: evangelical churches gain five new congregants exiled from the liberal churches for every one they lose for any reason. They also do a better job of retaining believers from childhood to adulthood than do mainline churches.

The Other Key Factor: Faithful People Grow More Children
There is another factor at work here beyond orthodox belief. The University of London’s Eric Kaufmann explains in his important book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” (he says yes) that the sustaining vitality, and even significant per capita growth, of serious Christian belief is as firmly rooted in fertility as it is in faithful teaching and evangelism. Globally, he says that the more robust baby-making practices of orthodox Jews and Christians, as opposed to the baby-limiting practices of liberals, create many more seriously religious people than a secular agenda can keep up with.

The growth of serious Christian belief is as firmly rooted in fertility as it is in faithful teaching and evangelism.
Fertility determines who influences the future in many important ways. He puts it bluntly, “The secular West and East Asia are aging and their share of the world population declining. This means the world is getting more religious even as people in the rich world shed their faith.”

Fertility is as important as fidelity for Christianity and Judaism’s triumph from generation to generation. Kaufmann contends, “Put high fertility and [faith] retention rates together with general population decline and you have a potent formula for change.”

It comes down to this: God laughs at the social Darwinists. Their theory is absolutely true, but just not in the way they think. Those who have the babies and raise and educate them well tend to direct the future of humanity. Serious Christians are doing this. Those redefining the faith and reality itself are not.

This why Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart proclaimed in First Things, long before the proposal of the Benedict Option, that the most “subversive and effective strategy we might undertake [to counter the culture] would be one of militant fecundity: abundant, relentless, exuberant, and defiant childbearing.” The future rests in the hands of the fertile.

What About All the Millennial Ex-Christians?
But what about our young people? We are constantly hearing that young people are “leaving the church in droves,” followed by wildly disturbing statistics. This also requires a closer look at who is actually leaving and from where. Pew reports that of young adults who left their faith, only 11 percent said they had a strong faith in childhood while 89 percent said they came from a home that had a very weak faith in belief and practice.

It’s not a news flash that kids don’t tend to hang onto what they never had in the first place. Leading sociologist of religion Christopher Smith has found through his work that most emerging adults “report little change in how religious they have been in the previous five years.” He surprisingly also found that those who do report a change say they have been more religious, not less. This certainly does not mean there is a major revival going on among young adults, but nor does it mean the sky is falling.

Add to this Rodney Stark’s warning that we should not confuse leaving the faith with attending less often. He and other scholars report that young adults begin to attend church less often in their “independent years” and have always done so for as long back as such data has been collected. It’s part of the nature of emerging adulthood. Just as sure as these young people do other things on Sunday morning, the leading sociologists of religion find they return to church when they get married, have children, and start to live a real adult life. It’s like clockwork and always has been. However, the increasing delay among young adults in entering marriage and family is likely lengthening this gap today.

More Americans Attend Church Now Than At the Founding
What is really counter-intuitive is what Stark and his colleagues at the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion found when looking at U.S. church attendance numbers going back to the days of our nation’s founding. They found that the percentage of church-attending Americans relative to overall population is more than four times greater today than it was in 1776. The number of attendees has continued to rise each and every decade over our nation’s history right up until the present day.

The number of church attendees has continued to rise each and every decade over our nation’s history right up until the present day.
People are making theological statements with their feet, shuffling to certain churches because they offer what people come seeking: clear, faithful, practical teaching of the scriptures, help in living intimately with and obediently to God, and making friends with people who will challenge and encourage them in their faith. To paraphrase the great Southern novelist Flannery O’Connor, if your church isn’t going to believe and practice actual Christianity, then “to hell with it.” This is what people are saying with their choices.

Or as Eric Kaufmann asserts, “Once secularism rears its head and fundamentalism responds with a clear alternative, moderate religion strikes many as redundant. Either you believe the stuff or you don’t. If you do, it makes sense to go for the real thing, which takes a firm stand against godlessness.”

If your Christianity is reconstituted to the day’s fashion, don’t be surprised if people lose interest in it. Few are seeking 2 Percent Christianity. They want the genuine deal, and the demographics on religion of the last few decades unmistakably support the fact.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/guy/?fbclid=IwAR0LFsrsT4KdHwhXfFj4uHsSC_fW_TmSKEGxD8vcpWUez9RnybegL_G49mA#.XH7kV-iIzB6.facebook

Judging from where I live, I would have to agree that Christianity is one the rise.

The Willamette Christian Church in West Linn, was founded in 1957. Several years ago, the church broke ground on a new facility near where I live. It is much more than a church, it is a community center open to all. They also have an after school club - hangout for middle school kids. On Sunday's they set up special crosswalks with crossing guards to facilitate folks getting to their cars at the Safeway overflow parking lot. I think this is a good example of a new age Christian Church that is enjoying huge success because it serves most of the needs of the West Linn community. https://www.facebook.com/pg/willamettecc/about/?ref=page_internal

Resurrection Catholic Parrish was built within the last ten years. It replaced a smaller Catholic Church in the same location. While there is only one Synagogue and no Mosques in the immediate area, there are a number of other Christian based churches sprinkled throughout West Linn. West Linn also has a Mormon Church.

[Dos Equis]

I don’t know why he cares; me, I find it both sad and troubling that so many Americans believe that the Christian grimoire is true or that the nonsensical doctrines at the core of the Christian faith.

So many Americans, including the founders of our country and the overwhelming majority of the country since its inception.  Just mentioning that for context purposes. 

As for me, I'm neither sad nor troubled by people who don't share my faith, or practice no religion at all, or atheists, etc.  I particularly don't get worked up over things that I don't believe exist.  A truly confounding aspect of activist atheists. 

[avxo]

So many Americans, including the founders of our country and the overwhelming majority of the country since its inception.  Just mentioning that for context purposes.

Appealing to numbers and authorities won’t help your case. The overwhelming majority used to believe in burning witches and that the Sun revolved around the earth.

As for what the Founding Fathers believed in, most seem to have been either deists or Christians of the blandest and most milquetoast variety. But regardless of their beliefs, what is important is that they intentionally opted to not include their beliefs on the founding document of our country and chose instead to form a Government of people and not priests and that they explicitly shackled the government they were instituting from proclaiming a state religion or even endorsing one.

As for me, I'm neither sad nor troubled by people who don't share my faith, or practice no religion at all, or atheists, etc.  I particularly don't get worked up over things that I don't believe exist.  A truly confounding aspect of activist atheists. 

I’m not saddened or troubled by what people believe; they’re entitled to believe whatever they want. I’m saddened and troubled when they use their beliefs to justify absurd positions and to attempt to impose their simplistic morality on the rest of us. I’m especially offended when the morality in question is so flawed as to be harmful.

If you want to believe in Jesus and the promise of everlasting life in the presence of a loving God,  in a city paved with gold more power to you. I got no beef with that.

If you want to believe in Allah and the promise of several virgins waiting for you in a land of milk and honey more power to you. I got no beef with that either.

The moment you start suggesting that others are bound by the rules in your grimoire or demanding that we adopt your religious dogma as a standard of morality and the foundation of a rational system of laws that binds us all, then I do have a beef with you.

[Dos Equis]

Appealing to numbers and authorities won’t help your case. The overwhelming majority used to believe in burning witches and that the Sun revolved around the earth.

As for what the Founding Fathers believed in, most seem to have been either deists or Christians of the blandest and most milquetoast variety. But regardless of their beliefs, what is important is that they intentionally opted to not include their beliefs on the founding document of our country and chose instead to form a Government of people and not priests and that they explicitly shackled the government they were instituting from proclaiming a state religion or even endorsing one.


I’m not saddened or troubled by what people believe; they’re entitled to believe whatever they want. I’m saddened and troubled when they use their beliefs to justify absurd positions and to attempt to impose their simplistic morality on the rest of us. I’m especially offended when the morality in question is so flawed as to be harmful.

If you want to believe in Jesus and the promise of everlasting life in the presence of a loving God,  in a city paved with gold more power to you. I got no beef with that.

If you want to believe in Allah and the promise of several virgins waiting for you in a land of milk and honey more power to you. I got no beef with that either.

The moment you start suggesting that others are bound by the rules in your grimoire or demanding that we adopt your religious dogma as a standard of morality and the foundation of a rational system of laws that binds us all, then I do have a beef with you.

Not trying to make a case, but your analogies aren't applicable.  The overwhelming majority of Americans didn't burn witches or believe the sun revolved around the earth, nor do those two things provide any kind of historical context. 

I'm not sure what a bland or milquetoast believer is.  The Founders were not a little pregnant.  They believed in God.  They were men of faith.  That is a part of our foundation as a country. 

I don't have a problem with proselytizing if that's partly what you are talking about.  I've been approached countless times and it never offends me.  The only bone I have to pick is those two old Jehovah's Witness ladies who I let into my house at age 15 to debate and they kicked the crap out of me.  As an adult, I met a Witness in training, who showed me some of their training materials, which teaches them how to argue.  So unfair when using that on a kid.  lol

Regarding standards of morality and a "rational system of laws," there is absolutely nothing wrong with people supporting or voting for laws that have a Christian origin or influence.  Some of those laws are good (like laws prohibiting stealing).  Some are way too intrusive (like laws that criminalized adultery).  But that's no different than any public policy, regardless of origin or influence:  some is good, some is bad. 

Some people have this mistaken belief that Christianity cannot influence policy making.  Or that the public square has to be completely free of any kind of religious references, etc.  That never was the case historically.  That's not what the Constitution requires.  And there is nothing wrong people using faith to influence policy.  If you or anyone else disagrees, show your disapproval at the ballot box. 

[avxo]

Not trying to make a case, but your analogies aren't applicable.  The overwhelming majority of Americans didn't burn witches or believe the sun revolved around the earth, nor do those two things provide any kind of historical context.

I didn’t use an analogy. I highlighted the fact that you started off using two logical fallacies.

I'm not sure what a bland or milquetoast believer is.  The Founders were not a little pregnant.  They believed in God.  They were men of faith.  That is a part of our foundation as a country.

The writings of the Founding Fathers don’t suggest that they were nominal Christians and not particularly observant. But hey, why let objective facts get in the way of a good myth like Christianity being a part of the country’s “foundation”.

I don't have a problem with proselytizing if that's partly what you are talking about.

I don’t much care if believers try to convince others to follow them. I care when believers think that their beliefs are special and that their particular “divinely inspired” morality should have the force of law in a secular society. If I wanted divinely inspired laws. I’d be living in some Muslim shithole, not the US.

Regarding standards of morality and a "rational system of laws," there is absolutely nothing wrong with people supporting or voting for laws that have a Christian origin or influence.  Some of those laws are good (like laws prohibiting stealing).  Some are way too intrusive (like laws that criminalized adultery).  But that's no different than any public policy, regardless of origin or influence:  some is good, some is bad.

Laws prohibiting stealing aren’t some uniquely Christian invention and it’s silly to claim that they are laws because of Christian morality. Stealing is objectively wrong.

Regarding Some people have this mistaken belief that Christianity cannot influence policy making.  Or that the public square has to be completely free of any kind of religious references, etc.  That never was the case historically.  That's not what the Constitution requires.  And there is nothing wrong people using faith to influence policy.  If you or anyone else disagrees, show your disapproval at the ballot box.  

I do think Christianity shouldn’t influence policy making, but not bevause of any Constitutional reasons. Rather, because it’s a nonsensical and irrational system of beliefs and promulgates a mystical morality that is based on rewards andthe capricious whims of a magical deity.

If you think Christian morality should inform policy making, then tell us, should divorced women be allowed to remarry? Matthew 5:32 says no. If you don’t think this is an appropriate law, why isn’t it? Why is “don’t steal” OK but “don’t remarry” isn’t? And, while you’re at it, should there be a law against coveting your neighbor’s ass?

[Dos Equis]

I didn’t use an analogy. I highlighted the fact that you started off using two logical fallacies.


The writings of the Founding Fathers don’t suggest that they were nominal Christians and not particularly observant. But hey, why let objective facts get in the way of a good myth like Christianity being a part of the country’s “foundation”.

I don’t much care if believers try to convince others to follow them. I care when believers think that their beliefs are special and that their particular “divinely inspired” morality should have the force of law in a secular society. If I wanted divinely inspired laws. I’d be living in some Muslim shithole, not the US.


Laws prohibiting stealing aren’t some uniquely Christian invention and it’s silly to claim that they are laws because of Christian morality. Stealing is objectively wrong.


I do think Christianity shouldn’t influence policy making, but not bevause of any Constitutional reasons. Rather, because it’s a nonsensical and irrational system of beliefs and promulgates a mystical morality that is based on rewards andthe capricious whims of a magical deity.

If you think Christian morality should inform policy making, then tell us, should divorced women be allowed to remarry? Matthew 5:32 says no. If you don’t think this is an appropriate law, why isn’t it? Why is “don’t steal” OK but “don’t remarry” isn’t? And, while you’re at it, should there be a law against coveting your neighbor’s ass?

Yes you compared the faith of our Founders and beliefs held by the overwhelming majority of the country to burning witches and the sun, etc.  I think your analogy would work better if it used something that a majority of the country believed in. 

Like "bland" or "milquetoast" believers, I'm not sure what a "nominal" Christian is.  I've read their writings.  They believed in God.  Not blandly or nominally (whatever that actually means in this context).  They believed.  There is no reasonable dispute about that. 

I didn't call laws prohibiting stealing "uniquely" Christian.  I said laws prohibiting stealing have a Christian "origin or influence."  That's just a fact.  And I'm sure you know, as a Bible reading atheist, that prohibitions on stealing are contained in the Bible; the same Bible that predates the founding of the U.S.  And note you didn't mention adultery, another law that has a Christian origin or influence. 

I obviously disagree with your characterization of faith based beliefs.  We all have them, but not all of us are intellectually honest enough to admit them. 

I didn't say Christian morality should inform policy making.  I said there is nothing wrong with it and that if people like you or anyone else don't like it, then don't vote for it. 

Yes divorced women should be able to marry whomever the heck they want.  I don't think that is an appropriate law, because it doesn't make any sense and would be bad public policy.  I would never vote for or support that kind of law.  That's how the whole voting and public policy thing works. 

[Agnostic007]

Yes you compared the faith of our Founders and beliefs held by the overwhelming majority of the country to burning witches and the sun, etc.  I think your analogy would work better if it used something that a majority of the country believed in. 

Like "bland" or "milquetoast" believers, I'm not sure what a "nominal" Christian is.  I've read their writings.  They believed in God.  Not blandly or nominally (whatever that actually means in this context).  They believed.  There is no reasonable dispute about that. 

I didn't call laws prohibiting stealing "uniquely" Christian.  I said laws prohibiting stealing have a Christian "origin or influence."  That's just a fact.  And I'm sure you know, as a Bible reading atheist, that prohibitions on stealing are contained in the Bible; the same Bible that predates the founding of the U.S.  And note you didn't mention adultery, another law that has a Christian origin or influence. 

I obviously disagree with your characterization of faith based beliefs.  We all have them, but not all of us are intellectually honest enough to admit them. 

I didn't say Christian morality should inform policy making.  I said there is nothing wrong with it and that if people like you or anyone else don't like it, then don't vote for it. 

Yes divorced women should be able to marry whomever the heck they want.  I don't think that is an appropriate law, because it doesn't make any sense and would be bad public policy.  I would never vote for or support that kind of law.  That's how the whole voting and public policy thing works. 

It does sound like you are willing to support some parts of the bible, and then disavow other parts of the bible. How do you reconcile this as a Christian?

[The Scott]

It does sound like you are willing to support some parts of the bible, and then disavow other parts of the bible. How do you reconcile this as a Christian?

"Sigh"...

Christ is the completion of the Promise.  The Old Testament is for the Jews.  Exempli gratia, Leviticus is written for the Levites, the keepers of the Law if you will.  That the Nazarene took the place of the Law is shown in the vision of the sheet filled with "unclean" animals and God saying to the apostle, "Kill and eat" and the apostle replying, "Never, Lord!  I have never eaten that which is unclean!".  God ultimately says to this man, that which God has declared "clean" is clean.

I, an Atheist, should not have to teach you these simple truths because you already know them and still you think it clever to ax others these painfully childish questions.   The truth is I am your worst nightmare because I know the Word and I knew Christ and that which the Nazarene taught and can honor his wisdom and easily confound fucktards with the truth of my words and more so my wit.  None here can match it save Kahn and I dare say he surpasses me with ease.

In plain speak, you know the answers to the questions you pose.  You just don't like them.

[AbrahamG]

"Sigh"...

Christ is the completion of the Promise.  The Old Testament is for the Jews.  Exempli gratia, Leviticus is written for the Levites, the keepers of the Law if you will.  That the Nazarene took the place of the Law is shown in the vision of the sheet filled with "unclean" animals and God saying to the apostle, "Kill and eat" and the apostle replying, "Never, Lord!  I have never eaten that which is unclean!".  God ultimately says to this man, that which God has declared "clean" is clean.

I, an Atheist, should not have to teach you these simple truths because you already know them and still you think it clever to ax others these painfully childish questions.   The truth is I am your worst nightmare because I know the Word and I knew Christ and that which the Nazarene taught and can honor his wisdom and easily confound fucktards with the truth of my words and more so my wit.  None here can match it save Kahn and I dare say he surpasses me with ease.

In plain speak, you know the answers to the questions you pose.  You just don't like them.

Translation:  The Scott knows he is too intelligent to believe in God yet he just cannot pull away. 

[The Scott]

Translation:  The Scott knows he is too intelligent to believe in God yet he just cannot pull away. 

LOL!  It is not my problem that your parents were closely related.  Look ace.  Be thankful this ain't the real world  because I don't give an intercourse in the real world. If I, a person of low intelligence can easily best you, you must truly be an inbred wigtard.  I don't dislike you.  You should be thankful for that. Reading you is akin to watching mongoloids fuck stuffed toys. Painful.  I weep for your parental siblings.

I hope you get the 0.8% and suffer terribly.  You deserve to because of what you present yourself as to the world.

[AbrahamG]

LOL!  It is not my problem that your parents were closely related.  Look ace.  Be thankful this ain't the real world  because I don't give an intercourse in the real world. If I, a person of low intelligence can easily best you, you must truly be an inbred wigtard.  I don't dislike you.  You should be thankful for that. Reading you is akin to watching mongoloids fuck stuffed toys. Painful.  I weep for your parental siblings.

I hope you get the 0.8% and suffer terribly.  You deserve to because of what you present yourself as to the world.

Holy shit.  I cannot quit laughing.  You are much more than a typist. 

[Agnostic007]

Translation:  The Scott knows he is too intelligent to believe in God yet he just cannot pull away. 

Exactly,, he has been a Jesus fan from day one, doesn't believe a word of the bible but ... for some reason, holds this Jesus character  up as a god. He's an atheist so I don't have to tell him the bible is fiction.. but here he is.. defending Jesus at every turn

[Agnostic007]

Holy shit.  I cannot quit laughing.  You are much more than a typist. 

I picture him pushing his chair back, and re reading his posts with this feeling of supremacy, like "Yeah..... that'll do pig.." It cracks me up

[AbrahamG]

I picture him pushing his chair back, and re reading his posts with this feeling of supremacy, like "Yeah..... that'll do pig.." It cracks me up

This made me laugh aloud.

[Dos Equis]

It does sound like you are willing to support some parts of the bible, and then disavow other parts of the bible. How do you reconcile this as a Christian?

It sounds like you just invented a position you want me to defend.  What precisely are you talking about? 

[The Scott]

Holy shit.  I cannot quit laughing.  You are much more than a typist. 

Most here are like you. A typist.   For the record, I don't think you're a "pig" like Babe.

More like the swine of "Animal Farm".  So it would read thus - "That'll do, Napoleon."  You may be able to find an abridged "children's" version of Orwell's classic with pictures to better assist your comprehension of the tale.  No...Not the pig's tail, but the "tale" as in "story". 

[AbrahamG]

Most here are like you. A typist.   For the record, I don't think you're a "pig" like Babe.

More like the swine of "Animal Farm".  So it would read thus - "That'll do, Napoleon."  You may be able to find an abridged "children's" version of Orwell's classic with pictures to better assist your comprehension of the tale.  No...Not the pig's tail, but the "tale" as in "story". 

I accept your apology.

[The Scott]

I accept your apology.

Your display of noblesse oblige is, while not genuine, at least  a step away from the egotistical precipice you seem to enjoy teetering on while straining your pinna for the echo of what is your own voice confirming your own voice . 

[avxo]

Yes you compared the faith of our Founders and beliefs held by the overwhelming majority of the country to burning witches and the sun, etc.

Belief is belief. The people that burned "witches" believed they were doing the right thing. They did so despite having no rational evidence to support their position; they had only their belief and their faith. Whether an "overwhelming majority" believe something is irrelevant. It's not a popularity contest.

 

Like "bland" or "milquetoast" believers, I'm not sure what a "nominal" Christian is.

A Christian that says "I'm a Christian" while not bothering to do any of the things Christians are directed to do.

I've read their writings.  They believed in God.  Not blandly or nominally (whatever that actually means in this context).  They believed.  There is no reasonable dispute about that.

It's completely crazy to suggest "there is no reasonable dispute about that." It defies objective reality. Books have been written about the faith of the Founding Fathers.

I said laws prohibiting stealing have a Christian "origin or influence."  That's just a fact.

Are you joking? Laws against stealing predate Christianity by millenia. The Code of Ur-Nammu, which existed over 4,000 years ago, explicitly imposed the death penalty for murder or robbery.

And I'm sure you know, as a Bible reading atheist, that prohibitions on stealing are contained in the Bible; the same Bible that predates the founding of the U.S.

Allow me to introduce you to a new logical fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

And note you didn't mention adultery, another law that has a Christian origin or influence.

BULLSHIT. Again, the Code of Ur-Nammu defined adultery and imposed penalties for adulterers. This is a full 2,000 years before Jesus, and at least 1,000 years before YHWH gave Moses the 10 Commandments.

I obviously disagree with your characterization of faith based beliefs.

You're allowed to disagree.

We all have them, but not all of us are intellectually honest enough to admit them.

I obviously disagree with you that "we all have [faith based beliefs]." I'd tell you that I don't have beliefs based on faith, but I'm sure you'll just assert that I'm lying or that I'm intellectually dishonest for not admitting the truth that is, to you anyways, so blatantly obvious.
 

I didn't say Christian morality should inform policy making.  I said there is nothing wrong with it and that if people like you or anyone else don't like it, then don't vote for it.

There's everything wrong with imposing your moral code on others, even if you have a plurality of votes. We live in a republic, not a democracy. What the majority can do is limited by the document which established this country: our Constitution. And rightly so.

Yes divorced women should be able to marry whomever the heck they want.  I don't think that is an appropriate law, because it doesn't make any sense and would be bad public policy.  I would never vote for or support that kind of law.  That's how the whole voting and public policy thing works.  

You just finished telling us that "there is nothing wrong with [Christian morality informing policy making] and that if people like you or anyone else don't like it, then don't vote for it."

And objective, observable facts suggest that this is exactly how it works. We could talk about gay marriage, a textbook example of this. Do you really want me to list comments by U.S. politicians explaining why their religious beliefs mean that they can prohibit what consenting adults can do?

[Dos Equis]

Belief is belief. The people that burned "witches" believed they were doing the right thing. They did so despite having no rational evidence to support their position; they had only their belief and their faith. Whether an "overwhelming majority" believe something is irrelevant. It's not a popularity contest.

 
A Christian that says "I'm a Christian" while not bothering to do any of the things Christians are directed to do.


It's completely crazy to suggest "there is no reasonable dispute about that." It defies objective reality. Books have been written about the faith of the Founding Fathers.

Are you joking? Laws against stealing predate Christianity by millenia. The Code of Ur-Nammu, which existed over 4,000 years ago, explicitly imposed the death penalty for murder or robbery.


Allow me to introduce you to a new logical fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.


BULLSHIT. Again, the Code of Ur-Nammu defined adultery and imposed penalties for adulterers. This is a full 2,000 years before Jesus, and at least 1,000 years before YHWH gave Moses the 10 Commandments.


You're allowed to disagree.


I obviously disagree with you that "we all have [faith based beliefs]." I'd tell you that I don't have beliefs based on faith, but I'm sure you'll just assert that I'm lying or that I'm intellectually dishonest for not admitting the truth that is, to you anyways, so blatantly obvious.
 

There's everything wrong with imposing your moral code on others, even if you have a plurality of votes. We live in a republic, not a democracy. What the majority can do is limited by the document which established this country: our Constitution. And rightly so.


You just finished telling us that "there is nothing wrong with [Christian morality informing policy making] and that if people like you or anyone else don't like it, then don't vote for it."

And objective, observable facts suggest that this is exactly how it works. We could talk about gay marriage, a textbook example of this. Do you really want me to list comments by U.S. politicians explaining why their religious beliefs mean that they can prohibit what consenting adults can do?

I’m talking about context.  The fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans have believed in God since our country’s inception is absolutely relevant.  So if you’re going to compare a belief or practice that has extensive historical roots, you need to find an example that has widespread historical roots.  That’s why your analogy is nonsensical. 

Meh.  You have a false impression about what Christianity is all about.  It isn’t necessarily about what someone does.  It’s about what that person believes, what’s in that person’s heart, and that person’s private personal relationship with God.  While it’s true that someone who is a Christian will typically act a certain way, you don’t know what happens behind closed doors or what’s in a person’s heart. 

It’s completely crazy to read about our history then conclude there is a reasonable debate about whether the Founders believed in God.  But ensure we are talking about the same thing.  I’m talking about whether they believed in God, not whether they were practicing Christians. 

I don’t know anything about the “Code of Ur-Nammu.”  Are you suggesting this Code was followed by the Founders and other early Americans?  Proof?  What I do know is that the Bible condemns stealing, the Bible predates America’s origin, and that early Americans were influenced by Biblical principles (some good, some bad).  If you have evidence that Americans were actually influence by the “Code of Ur-Nammu,” please share it. 

I don’t remember if you participated in the thread I started on here years ago about the scientific explanation for the origin of life on earth, but it was pretty revealing.  I recall more than one person saying they had no opinion, because it would force them to accept that they have a faith-based belief in how life began on day 1.  That’s one example.  There is no scientific proof for the origin of life on day 1. 
 
Bruh we impose our moral code on society all the time.  That’s exactly what our body of laws is:  society’s view on what is morally good and bad.  It doesn’t matter what influences someone (individual voter or legislator).  What matters is whether the proposal is good or bad policy.  And yes, if you like it, vote for it, if you don’t like it, vote against it.   

Who cares if religious beliefs form the foundation of someone’s view on traditional marriage?  Or if science forms that foundation?  Or just plain commonsense?  Like I said, what matters is whether that particular law is good or bad policy. 

[avxo]

You realize you come across as crazy, right?

You claim that laws against stealing are influenced by Christianity and when I point out that societies that predate not only Christianity but Judaism had laws against stealing on the proverbial books, your response is “well nobody knew about that so there!”

Also, your flippant comment about adultery backfired; far from something that Christian morality introduced, the fact is that civilizations had laws against adultery millenia before Christ, and hundreds, if not thousands of years, before God allegedly communicated the 10 Commandments to Moses.

[Agnostic007]

AVXO won this round... logical well thought out responses

[Dos Equis]

You realize you come across as crazy, right?

You claim that laws against stealing are influenced by Christianity and when I point out that societies that predate not only Christianity but Judaism had laws against stealing on the proverbial books, your response is “well nobody knew about that so there!”

Also, your flippant comment about adultery backfired; far from something that Christian morality introduced, the fact is that civilizations had laws against adultery millenia before Christ, and hundreds, if not thousands of years, before God allegedly communicated the 10 Commandments to Moses.

I am NOT crazy.  At least that's what the voices in my head said the last time we had a discussion. 

No need to makeup some ridiculous quote.  Just rely on what I actually said.  Focus.  I am saying the Founders and early Americans were heavily influenced by their faith and belief in God.  That faith and belief was grounded on the Bible.  The Bible predated the founding of the country. 

No that doesn't mean that at some point before the founding of the country that some other "Code" didn't exist that had similar values.  It means that other "Code" wasn't what influenced the Founders and early Americans.  Unless of course you have some proof that they did rely on this "Code" when forming their laws in early America?  I've read a great deal of history about early America, but maybe I missed how the "Code of Ur-Nammu" formed the foundation of early American laws.  If so, please enlighten me. 

I didn't make a flippant comment about adultery.  I stated that the early American laws criminalizing adultery were influenced by the Bible.