# How come



## Bamafan4life (Jul 9, 2010)

How come athiest always raise heck just because i beleave in something? i hate how they always tell me how stupid i am for being christian  why cant they just keep there mouths shut if they dont beleave in god why do they raise cain when he is mentioned?  seriously why do they care does me beleaving in god hurt there chances of doing nuthing when they die or what ever they think will happen to them?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jul 9, 2010)

Bamafan4life said:


> How come athiest always raise heck just because i beleave in something? i hate how they always tell me how stupid i am for being christian  why cant they just keep there mouths shut if they dont beleave in god why do they raise cain when he is mentioned?  seriously why do they care does me beleaving in god hurt there chances of doing nuthing when they die or what ever they think will happen to them?



I'm not an atheist, but I can say that your gripe goes both ways. 

The atheists wish you Christians would just leave them alone, too.  

At least we live in a country where (so far, at least!) you have the right to believe what you want... freely.


----------



## Bamafan4life (Jul 9, 2010)

I just dont understand why they care? i guess nobodys ever ganna leave each other alone they've been fighting over this stuff since the beggining of time and they will till the end of time no matter what some politican tells you.


----------



## Israel (Jul 9, 2010)

The question brother, is not why they care.
Why do you?


----------



## jason4445 (Jul 9, 2010)

The Atheist could care less what kind of God(s) you have created for yourself to worship.  Keep your beliefs and your God(s) to yourself and there is no problem.  But when you make an Atheist participate in rituals you think your God(s) like in public places, or tell the Atheist they are going to the bad place because they don't believe in your exact God(s) then there is trouble.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 9, 2010)

Bamafan4life said:


> i hate how they always tell me how stupid i am for being christian



I don't know about everybody else, but I tell people they're stupid for a whole variety of reasons.  Religion is not one of them.


----------



## Bamafan4life (Jul 9, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I don't know about everybody else, but I tell people they're stupid for a whole variety of reasons.  Religion is not one of them.



i remember back in 6th grade i had a science teacher he was a nice guy and everything then one day he asked us who in here is a christian? everybody in the class raised there hands then he yelled ''your ignorant!'' everybody was in aww and remember we where just 11


----------



## sea trout (Jul 15, 2010)

Israel said:


> The question brother, is not why they care.
> Why do you?


 thank you! thats good!


bamafan i heard this over the winter and its simple. if the non beleiver dies and there is a heaven...he may have lost

if a believer dies and there is no heaven...nothing to lose


----------



## tomtlb66 (Jul 15, 2010)

People are going to believe what they want. I personally believe in Jesus Christ and I know there are people who don't, with that said I am going to pursue God and if they don't like it, oh well. I believe if an atheist wants to put up a billboard expressing their beliefs, don't get offended when Christians do it. If they want to stand up for their rights, we can to. I am not going to argue with any of them though about it.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 15, 2010)

Why Would you care what atheist think ?, if they can't figure out that something doesn't come out of nothing without something interfering , then I would want to be too close to such dumb person, lOL


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jul 15, 2010)

Israel said:


> The question brother, is not why they care.
> Why do you?



X's 2


----------



## pnome (Jul 16, 2010)

Bamafan4life said:


> I just dont understand why they care?



Why can't I buy beer from the store on a Sunday?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 16, 2010)

pnome said:


> Why can't I buy beer from the store on a Sunday?



Now THAT....is a good question.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 16, 2010)

pnome said:


> Why can't I buy beer from the store on a Sunday?



I don't know...... perhaps it is the law. 

Your inability to plan your beverage alcohol purchases and consumption really sounds like a personal problem. Kind of like the bank closing at 4:00 p.m. and you wanting to withdraw cash without an atm card at 4:10.

Do you typically whine about such minor inconveniences?


----------



## pnome (Jul 17, 2010)

gtparts said:


> I don't know...... perhaps it is the law.
> 
> Your inability to plan your beverage alcohol purchases and consumption really sounds like a personal problem. Kind of like the bank closing at 4:00 p.m. and you wanting to withdraw cash without an atm card at 4:10.
> 
> Do you typically whine about such minor inconveniences?



I think you missed my larger point.

Which is:

We care because the believers care.  The believers will constantly be trying to use force (aka government) to get others to believe what they believe, or act the way they act.  Or to otherwise pay respect to their religion.

No beer on Sunday is just an example.  A symptom if you will.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 17, 2010)

pnome said:


> I think you missed my larger point.
> 
> Which is:
> 
> ...




I have never tried, or even desired, to ram my beliefs down someone elses throat.
I've never hassled a non-believer.
I've never gone searching for an atheist with the purpose of confronting them.
I don't believe you, if you are an unbeliever, should be forced to pay respect to my religion.

But I do believe that I have the right to practice my religion anyway that I see fit, as long as it doesn't infringe upon you in any way.

A prayer at a ballgame does not infringe on you.
Prayer in school does not infringe on you.
This forum does not infringe on you.
You probably enjoy Christmas as much, or more, than I do.

In the event you are ever attending a venue and someone takes the opportunity to say a blessing for the food; or prayer is said publicly; all I ask you to do is stand/sit there quietly as we pray.  You can yawn, pick you nose or sort the money in your wallet.  But I would appreciate it if you would allow me the opportunity to serve the God I believe in to the absolute fullest.

And I would be most greatful to you.  Honestly.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 17, 2010)

Israel said:


> The question brother, is not why they care.
> Why do you?



*“We  must not suppose that if we succeeded in making everyone nice we 
should  have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their 
own  niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as
 desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world.” — C.S. Lewis*

That Christians have opposition is a given. The question that needs asking is "Am I offensive in my actions and speech or is it the Gospel that is offensive?" The former condition points to one not really "having the mind of Christ". The latter embodies  the truth concerning light and darkness. 

Caring, as our Lord does, requires us to behave with humility and compassion, for where the lost now stands, we once stood. Find out what Christ cares about and follow His lead. What breaks His heart should break ours as well. Living out what causes Him joy should raise us to heights we'd have never scaled otherwise.


----------



## pnome (Jul 17, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> I have never tried, or even desired, to ram my beliefs down someone elses throat.
> I've never hassled a non-believer.
> I've never gone searching for an atheist with the purpose of confronting them.
> I don't believe you, if you are an unbeliever, should be forced to pay respect to my religion.



I'm not pointing any fingers at you Ronnie. 



> But I do believe that I have the right to practice my religion anyway that I see fit, as long as it doesn't infringe upon you in any way.



I will fight along side you to protect that right.



> A prayer at a ballgame does not infringe on you.
> Prayer in school does not infringe on you.



As long as my taxes arn't leading it.



> This forum does not infringe on you.



No, I actively participate in it. (even though I should know better by now I'm not going to change anyone's mind)



> You probably enjoy Christmas as much, or more, than I do.



Sure do!



> In the event you are ever attending a venue and someone takes the opportunity to say a blessing for the food; or prayer is said publicly; all I ask you to do is stand/sit there quietly as we pray.  You can yawn, pick you nose or sort the money in your wallet.  But I would appreciate it if you would allow me the opportunity to serve the God I believe in to the absolute fullest.



Sure thing.  You go ahead pray all ya want.  I won't bother you.

But in exchange, I'd like it if you encouraged other Christians to stop proselytizing.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 17, 2010)

pnome said:


> But in exchange, I'd like it if you encouraged other Christians to stop proselytizing.



And you know that isn't going to happen. 

Maybe you should just throw in the towel on that atheism stuff.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 17, 2010)

pnome said:


> I think you missed my larger point.
> 
> Which is:
> 
> ...



So if you were able to buy beer on Sunday , you would convert ? LOL


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 17, 2010)

pnome said:


> But in exchange, I'd like it if you encouraged other Christians to stop proselytizing.



I suspect the proselytizing isn't so bad.  That should be very low-key and quick.
But those who show up with shotguns trying to force you can be a little tooooooo much I suspect.


----------



## emtguy (Jul 18, 2010)

pnome said:


> Why can't I buy beer from the store on a Sunday?



you cant buy beer on sunday for the same reason folks vote to keep their countys dry but ride to the next one to get their liquor....you in the south. 
they think doing " works/things" will get them to heaven.

Just old school wrong religion that no one ever bothered changing...i mean if my county sales beer on sun. or tue. dont matter to me cuz im not gonna buy it either day.

hate your a atheist but i respect it. i just hope for your sake im wrong in my beleifs and your right in yours...


----------



## pnome (Jul 19, 2010)

emtguy said:


> i just hope for your sake im wrong in my beleifs and your right in yours...



I believe in a god that doesn't mind that I don't believe in him.




> "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
> --  Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Israel (Jul 19, 2010)

emtguy said:


> you cant buy beer on sunday for the same reason folks vote to keep their countys dry but ride to the next one to get their liquor....you in the south.
> they think doing " works/things" will get them to heaven.
> 
> Just old school wrong religion that no one ever bothered changing...i mean if my county sales beer on sun. or tue. dont matter to me cuz im not gonna buy it either day.
> ...



I don't quite get the last bit there brother.

I could see where one might be inclined to hope God is even more merciful than I have yet perceived...but frankly, if for someone else's sake you hope that they are correct, that is, that there is no God...well, really, how does that work?
I am not sure that hoping God does not exist helps the unbeliever in any way...and what does it say about the faith?
Can we simply have this attitude which I gather from the statement made...
"You believe this way, I believe that, no one knows yet which is according to the truth, therefore when it all finally gets shaken out...we'll see"?
How does a believer leave such a wide invitation for God's non existence? Or worse, how does one insult the being of one who's integrity is displayed daily to him...or at least of whose integrity the believer should be daily discovering?

A man came to me and said "I will be executed unless I can prove your wife is unfaithful" 
Do I say "Gee, I hope for your sake they find out she's been sleeping around"?
Or do I say "Gee I hope she hasn't been"?

Or do I tell him what I know to be the truth, not because I hope it isn't some other "truth", not because "well, it may go either way, but I sure don't want this guy to die, but I sure don't want my wife to be proved a liar.."

Or do I tell him, "get your things in order, a will made, a plot bought, a headstone carved..." Not because of what I want as a result or not want as a result...but simply because I know her, and know who she is.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 19, 2010)

emtguy said:


> you cant buy beer on sunday for the same reason folks vote to keep their countys dry but ride to the next one to get their liquor....you in the south.
> they think doing " works/things" will get them to heaven.
> 
> Just old school wrong religion that no one ever bothered changing...i mean if my county sales beer on sun. or tue. dont matter to me cuz im not gonna buy it either day.
> ...




Like Israel, I was a little shocked at your comment.  I think you probably did like I've been known to do...... think one thing but type another.
I pray that God will be merciful to myself, as well as pnome.  But I can't 'hope' God into or out of existance.
For me, God exists.  It's a fact.  I've felt Him, seen Him, been moved by Him.  I've been dealt with by Him.
For me, it is an impossibility for my Heavenly Father not to be.
And I'm sure you believe the same.


----------



## Tim L (Jul 19, 2010)

pnome said:


> Why can't I buy beer from the store on a Sunday?



For the same reason that Ray Goff isn't coaching college football today, yet he still is pulling strings behind the scene and controls most of the major college football programs east of the Mississippi, as well as controling the purse strings of many small rural counties in the south....Sometimes it's best not to ask the question; especially if the answer may be more than we can handle...


----------



## Keebs (Jul 19, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> I have never tried, or even desired, to ram my beliefs down someone elses throat.
> I've never hassled a non-believer.
> I've never gone searching for an atheist with the purpose of confronting them.
> I don't believe you, if you are an unbeliever, should be forced to pay respect to my religion.
> ...




 Thank you, I like the way you stated this!


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 19, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I don't know about everybody else, but I tell people they're stupid for a whole variety of reasons.  Religion is not one of them.


I bet you don't tell 'em to their face,big man.


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 19, 2010)

Rouster said:


> For the same reason that Ray Goff isn't coaching college football today, yet he still is pulling strings behind the scene and controls most of the major college football programs east of the Mississippi, as well as controling the purse strings of many small rural counties in the south....Sometimes it's best not to ask the question; especially if the answer may be more than we can handle...


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 19, 2010)

gtparts said:


> I don't know...... perhaps it is the law.
> 
> Your inability to plan your beverage alcohol purchases and consumption really sounds like a personal problem. Kind of like the bank closing at 4:00 p.m. and you wanting to withdraw cash without an atm card at 4:10.
> 
> Do you typically whine about such minor inconveniences?


----------



## emtguy (Jul 19, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Like Israel, I was a little shocked at your comment.  I think you probably did like I've been known to do...... think one thing but type another.
> I pray that God will be merciful to myself, as well as pnome.  But I can't 'hope' God into or out of existance.
> For me, God exists.  It's a fact.  I've felt Him, seen Him, been moved by Him.  I've been dealt with by Him.
> For me, it is an impossibility for my Heavenly Father not to be.
> And I'm sure you believe the same.



no i typed what i meant....i beleave in god, if im right that there is a god and heaven and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- then atheist are Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- bound...if he is right that there is no god then i just lived a good life and i  still have no eternity worries b/c there is no heaven or Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----...sounds harsh but do yall not agree with this theory? Didn t god say " the fool has said in his heart there is no god?"


----------



## gtparts (Jul 19, 2010)

What can I say, Dave. I've heard that silly "I can't buy ....on Sunday." so many times as if anyone really cares about such a minor blip on the radar of life. To the best of my knowledge, we aren't talking about pain and suffering. I guess next time an ice/snow storm warning occurs in the Atlanta area and the grocery store runs out of bread before I get there, I'll just pout and sulk because it is basically unfair to be without bread for a day or two.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jul 19, 2010)

I would argue that pnome's point still stands. Marginalizing his view because his suffering is not inhumane seems to be a very disturbing rationalization. Religious laws are alright as long as they are only a minor inconvenience on non-believers? That's rubbish, pure and simple. 

Atheists only care when your religion attempts to negatively affect their lives.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jul 19, 2010)

emtguy said:


> no i typed what i meant....i beleave in god, if im right that there is a god and heaven and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- then atheist are Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- bound...if he is right that there is no god then i just lived a good life and i  still have no eternity worries b/c there is no heaven or Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----...sounds harsh but do yall not agree with this theory? Didn t god say " the fool has said in his heart there is no god?"



This assumes that the relationship between christianity and atheism is simply different sides of a coin. It's not really. There are many religions that consider themselves exclusive - what if the muslims are right? Jews? Raelists? The wager is not a very good device for picking religion after all.

Calling atheists fools seems to teeter on ad hominem.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 19, 2010)

emtguy said:


> no i typed what i meant....i beleave in god, if im right that there is a god and heaven and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- then atheist are Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- bound...if he is right that there is no god then i just lived a good life and i  still have no eternity worries b/c there is no heaven or Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----...sounds harsh but do yall not agree with this theory? Didn t god say " the fool has said in his heart there is no god?"



So, what you're saying then is that there might not even be a God???????????????????????????????


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 20, 2010)

Foot in the door theory, Achilles (pardon the pun, it was too easy . . .) – every group seeking dominance does so incrementally, rationalizing with each small violation of the freedom of others to choose that the minority has suffered no real insult or demonstrable damage.  In this case the damage, from the Crusades to the burning of 'witches' in early New England, has created such a pervasive culture of terror over the centuries of the Christian dominance of Western thought that the minority are simply expected to 'know their place,' and never ask why Sunday is sacred under the Law of the dominant culture.  It is so because it is so, they tell us, and you are petty to complain.  

The rationalization goes: 'Just because we inconvenience your own freedoms with our own strictures does not mean that you are somehow oppressed, it just means that we are right, and you are wrong.'

Now, anyone who has spent any time at all in places like, say, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or China, or Korea, or Somalia, or even California can see the transparent nonsense of the logic employed.  Compelling others to do your will, through force of law, is exactly the misuse of 'democracy' that our Founding Fathers sought to prevent.  They sought, by Constitution fiat, to separate the dictates of religions from the common sense of rational governance.  They failed.  

For reasons that you can readily see, even these hundreds of years later.  

Folks seem to have no problem explaining, largely on religious grounds, why you need to do things their way, and in their infinite Christian charity, have no problem insulting and denigrating any protests you might raise.  

Gtparts, ever the master of the oddly biting retort, puts the problem in a nutshell: “To the best of my knowledge, we aren't talking about pain and suffering.”  No, I guess we aren't.  But then again, that wasn't what we were talking about to begin with.  The attempt to dismiss the thought that blithely, rather than address it, is where the problem is defined.

 In this view, the infringement of your freedoms, and the sublimation of them to the will of folks like himself, is no different than a natural occurrence that might prevent him from buying bread.  The difference between the event of a hurricane and the event of his own political and religious will is somehow made into a parallel – you are expected to simply live with it, and not voice any objections. The logic makes the religious will no different than a force of nature.  

Some of us think that not being able to buy bread because of a storm is quite different than not being able to buy beer on Sunday because of a set of firmly entrenched ancient religious convictions.  Others, obviously, think that we are just whining, idly, and that we simply don't understand that their religious tradition trumps our claims on our own individual freedoms, and that their traditions are, themselves, forces beyond our control .  

So, as you say, those of us who find no reason to 'believe' as others do, as well raised Americans, only find it useful and necessary to object when others try to tread on us.  

A belief is only a belief – it is not a license to compel.  Not everyone agrees with that thought, as our soldiers will readily attest.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 20, 2010)

Ronnie -- Nice shot.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 20, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> I would argue that pnome's point still stands. Marginalizing his view because his suffering is not inhumane seems to be a very disturbing rationalization. Religious laws are alright as long as they are only a minor inconvenience on non-believers? That's rubbish, pure and simple.
> 
> Atheists only care when your religion attempts to negatively affect their lives.



We are certainly getting off topic here, which wasn't pnome's or my intent.
However, there are many laws which are an inconvenience, particularly where the application infringes on the law abiding citizen in order to control or restrict the criminal element. The idea of a curfew for the sake of restricting criminal activity, that is specifically applied only to persons, aged "X" years or less is just one example.

Neither law-abiding "adults" nor  the "adult" criminal element are restricted. But, it is obvious that the law-abiding juvenile is being penalized for his youthfulness, not his activities.

In truth, pnome's discomfort is temporary and could have been avoided through his own lawful actions. If you find that rationalization disturbing then I suspect you are more anguished than pnome. A remedy was readily at hand. Not so for the 14 year old desiring to be out after 12:00. He has to wait years.



Why do some find the idea of delayed gratification so repugnant? Why is preparation for the mitigation of a known upcoming event (Sunday happens every seven days) so poorly considered, yet we have no problem buying insurance for those events which are unknown and may never occur?

Pnome offered a "slender piece of straw". Cling to it, if you will.

BACK to the original thread.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2010)

Equating a "blue law" based only on a predominant religious group's beliefs with a well researched statute designed to promote physical security, impact criminal activity and to protect minors from harm?

That's a stretch.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 20, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> Equating a "blue law" based only on a predominant religious group's beliefs with a well researched statute designed to promote physical security, impact criminal activity and to protect minors from harm?
> 
> That's a stretch.



I appreciate the response. Please step up to the plate on the central point of my post.



> Why do some find the idea of delayed gratification so repugnant? Why is  preparation for the mitigation of a known upcoming event (Sunday happens  every seven days) so poorly considered, yet we have no problem buying  insurance for those events which are unknown and may never occur?


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2010)

If one only wants to see from the viewpoint of the consumer, then your central point of delayed gratification is somewhat applicable.
Insurance is a financial service that SHARES risk.  It has nothing to do with gratification, but everything to do with one's financial security.

How about viewing it from the retailer's standpoint?  A law that tells them they can not sell their inventory or realize a profit on a specific day of the week.  How about the clerk who would like to make an income on that day?
Hmmmm.....


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2010)

Bamafan4life said:


> I just dont understand why they care?



People will make attempts to stimulate thought and to probe for answers.  Although I would NEVER agree with the tactic of namecalling or making any comment that belittles or insults others, good can come from a respectful challenge or questioning.
One can dig deeper into why they believe as they do, and they can find the reasons they need to defend such a belief.
Or, one can become enlightened to a different viewpoint.

It's all up to that individual.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Why do some find the idea of delayed gratification so repugnant? Why is preparation for the mitigation of a known upcoming event (Sunday happens every seven days) so poorly considered, yet we have no problem buying insurance for those events which are unknown and may never occur?



There is only one reason that law is there and one reason only.  And it's not to teach me "time management" 

Come on gt.  I expect more from you.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 20, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> If one only wants to see from the viewpoint of the consumer, then your central point of delayed gratification is somewhat applicable.
> Insurance is a financial service that SHARES risk.  It has nothing to do with gratification, but everything to do with one's financial security.
> 
> How about viewing it from the retailer's standpoint?  A law that tells them they can not sell their inventory or realize a profit on a specific day of the week.  How about the clerk who would like to make an income on that day?
> Hmmmm.....



The retailer has the opportunity to sell 6 days a week to supply his customers' needs (??? ....I mean "desires") for seven days. Hardly constitutes a hardship on proprietor or customer, IMHO. He may even be spared additional payroll and related expenses while selling the same quantity in only six days.

The intelligent, prudent customer seeks to avoid outages by buying in sufficient quantities to supply his/her requirements. 

It seems no more onerous than certain businesses not being allowed to locate within a certain distance of  schools or churches. 

Whether one likes it or not, religious beliefs are part of local culture (albeit, they seem to be in flux, constantly pressured to lower the standard). Now, while they may seem antiquated, many of the "blue" laws had and continue to have social benefits not necessarily related to a particular religious belief. Those who have lost property, livelihood, friends, family, or quality of life to the abuse of beverage alcohol have cause to support those laws apart from any religious beliefs. If you lost your wife and two children to the criminal actions of a drunk driver, it probably wouldn't make any difference what your faith might be as to your attitude toward beverage alcohol. Somehow the issue might be prohibition rather than Sunday sales.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2010)

gtparts said:


> The retailer has the opportunity to sell 6 days a week to supply his customers' needs (??? ....I mean "desires") for seven days. Hardly constitutes a hardship on proprietor or customer, IMHO. He may even be spared additional payroll and related expenses while selling the same quantity in only six days.
> 
> The intelligent, prudent customer seeks to avoid outages by buying in sufficient quantities to supply his/her requirements.
> 
> ...



Yep.  That would seem most likely to result in a fight for outright prohibition, or a severe case of hatred and a desire to rip the scalp off one particular person who decided to drink and drive.

The ideal of telling a business owner they can not operate on a specific day based upon any religion influenced interpretaion of "social benefit" is purely a forced surrender of freedom.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 20, 2010)

pnome said:


> There is only one reason that law is there and one reason only.  And it's not to teach me "time management"
> 
> Come on gt.  I expect more from you.



I have no problem conceding the reason. But, until the law is changed, it is still the law. It reflects the culture of the community. If and when the culture changes, I am sure the laws will change also. Until it does, those who want to consume beverage alcohol on Sunday should quit whining and either practice "time management" or consider relocating to where the law suites them better. Of course, there is the option of working to have the law changed, but if unsuccessful, should we all have to listen to crybabies who didn't get their way?


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Of course, there is the option of working to have the law changed, but if unsuccessful, should we all have to listen to crybabies who didn't get their way?



I'll forgive the "crybaby" insult. 

You suggest that because the majority of the people in Georgia are Christians, then having laws on the books that respect the Christian faith is simply a reflection of the community.   

I'm guessing that the majority of people in Chicago would prefer to keep their handgun ban.  Does that make their handgun ban right?  Supreme court didn't think so.  Thank you Otis McDonald, you crybaby!


----------



## gtparts (Jul 20, 2010)

pnome said:


> I'll forgive the "crybaby" insult.
> 
> You suggest that because the majority of the people in Georgia are Christians, then having laws on the books that respect the Christian faith is simply a reflection of the community.
> 
> I'm guessing that the majority of people in Chicago would prefer to keep their handgun ban.  Does that make their handgun ban right?  Supreme court didn't think so.  Thank you Otis McDonald, you crybaby!



I promise you, if the law is changed locally, you won't hear me whining or crying. I would work to have it changed again, but that sure isn't a priority in my life. I don't really think it significantly affects consumption or sales. As the law stands, it sure doesn't make the irresponsible behave responsibly!


As to my suggesting anything, it appears to be your suggestion. I wouldn't begin to suggest the Christian community is remotely close to consensus on the matter of Sunday sales. Many do drink beverage alcohol, including on Sundays. They just purchase it by the drink at venues serving food or pre-purchase at the licensed retailer. I just hate to see people so focused on such an insignificant matter when there are much more pressing issues of living that have greater impact on more individuals. Things like having a mailbox next to my front door and the USPS no longer delivers to my door. I have to walk (or ride) all the way to the end of my driveway! .... and supply another mailbox at the street! If I wasn't so lazy, I'd stand up and ask them to kiss the back middle seam of my jeans! (insert a heavy note of sarcasm here)


----------



## McHargie (Jul 20, 2010)

Bamafan4life said:


> How come athiest always raise heck just because i beleave in something? i hate how they always tell me how stupid i am for being christian  why cant they just keep there mouths shut if they dont beleave in god why do they raise cain when he is mentioned?



Because there is a mistaken notion that Atheism is neutral...a non-religion as it were.

Even more interesting when in the context of Government.  

Government rests on the establishment and enforcement of Laws.  Laws are based upon a  systems of morality, i.e. wrong or right, good and bad, righteous, unrighteous...a topic that every religion, and every "non-religion" in the world claims ownership of...including Atheism

...do you see the conflict?

So our generation has sought to alleviate the problem through post-modernism, relativism, pluralism and universalism...but there is one serious hang up with all of these...

We are beginning to come to the realization that none of these neutralize the conflict...because they too make absolutes claims of morality and authority....

"There is no God" is an absolute claim
"There is no Truth, but instead there is your truth and my truth"...is an absolute claim
"All ways lead to God" is an absolute claim ect....

And with all these claims come systems of morality...and hence laws...and hence forms of Government.

And on and on and on the craziness goes....say what you want, all Governments are founded on some sort of religion...something or someone will be God

Grace and Peace 
*kyle


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 20, 2010)

Israel said:


> How does a believer leave such a wide invitation for God's non existence? Or worse, how does one insult the being of one who's integrity is displayed daily to him...or at least of whose integrity the believer should be daily discovering?


 
This was a powerful word to the body of Christ, and to my waywardness as well. Thank you.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2010)

McHargie said:


> "There is no God" is an absolute claim



Not even Richard Dawkins himself would make that claim.



> "There is no Truth, but instead there is your truth and my truth"...is an absolute claim



There is a truth.  I'll put my trust in science to tell me what that is and you can put your trust in the bible.


----------



## Israel (Jul 20, 2010)

The natural man cannot receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him.

I sometimes wonder if we are not as content with being God's fools as we might be. No condemnation in that at all, for I am always learning that there is where freedom is.
God invites us to partake of his foolishness, relish it, revel in it, rejoice in it, be made free in it.
There is little in this world that exerts as much pressure on a man as the desire to appear somewhere in the good opinion of others.


Look around at the beastly structure and framework of a world that would grind you under foot, it all springs from man's desire to be something other than content with what God has made him to be.
Adam and Eve fell for the lie of being "incomplete" and put forth their hand to make of themselves something in disobedience, and all around are the fruits of that singular betrayal.
I, no less than any other struggle with this daily...have I "learned the secret" as Paul calls it, of being content in all things?
Have I learned this secret...that there is nothing I can do to get God to love me more, lavish more attention and meticulous care, be a better friend than he already is?
The only thing I can do is choose to ignore that, and it happens the moment I fall for the bait, the tawdry bit of man's approval that is dangled to get me to try and appear as anything before men at all.
Self esteem? 
Please.
For Christ's sake may we all come to see how absolutely impoverished, shallow, vain, worthless is the very pinnacle of esteem with which we could possibly inflate ourselves when compared to the blood that has set us free.
That is the esteem of God, all else not only pales before it, but is consumed and displayed as the dung it is in the brightness of His glory.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 20, 2010)

pnome said:


> Not even Richard Dawkins himself would make that claim.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a truth.  I'll put my trust in science to tell me what that is and you can put your trust in the bible.



Science has no moral context. It is amoral, making no declaration of good or evil, right or wrong. Suppose, for the sake of conversation, that science determined that the Earth was overpopulated... requiring an adjustment in the number of individuals. Suppose it further determined that the quickest, most efficient way to accomplish this reduction would be random elimination based on a computer selection. Out pops the randomly chosen name, "pnome" among others.
Do you accept this scientific "truth"? Do you continue to place your trust in the objectivity of science? Do you drink the Kool-Aid that science provides you?


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Science has no moral context. It is amoral, making no declaration of good or evil, right or wrong. Suppose, for the sake of conversation, that science determined that the Earth was overpopulated... requiring an adjustment in the number of individuals. Suppose it further determined that the quickest, most efficient way to accomplish this reduction would be random elimination based on a computer selection. Out pops the randomly chosen name, "pnome" among others.
> Do you accept this scientific "truth"? Do you continue to place your trust in the objectivity of science? Do you drink the Kool-Aid that science provides you?



Morals are simply a product of our survival instincts.  If the choice was for me to get pulled in your macabre lottery, in order for my wife and child to live...  

Wouldn't you make that choice?   People sacrifice themselves for others all the time.  That's empathy.  Which is itself part of our survival instincts, part of the survival instincts of many animals.  

The good moral choice is always the choice that you think is going to give the best chances for survival for yourself, or those with whom you empathize.  



> Matthew 7:12 (King James Version)
> 
> 12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.



This is _empathy_.


----------



## McHargie (Jul 20, 2010)

pnome said:


> There is a truth.  I'll put my trust in science to tell me what that is and you can put your trust in the bible.



Precisely.  Science will be your religion, and the bible mine...and the conflict will rage. 


...Something or someone will always be God


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2010)

McHargie said:


> Precisely.  Science will be your religion, and the bible mine...and the conflict will rage.
> 
> 
> ...Something or someone will always be God



If it makes you more comfortable to think of it that way then OK.  

This video may help:<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EvSljPf9on4&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EvSljPf9on4&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## Israel (Jul 21, 2010)

You will look for "laws"?
Where there are laws, there is a lawmaker.

But to put your hope in those laws will cause you to stumble when gravity no longer works, and time is broken, when the foundations of the earth are shaken.


----------



## Bamafan4life (Jul 21, 2010)

one quick question then get back on topic, pnome whats the retical in the scope in your picture.


----------



## pnome (Jul 21, 2010)

Bamafan4life said:


> one quick question then get back on topic, pnome whats the retical in the scope in your picture.



Questions like that are always "on-topic" for Woody's! 

It's the Circle-X from Bushnell.   Got this scope with it on my guide gun:
http://www.bushnell.com/products/scopes/riflescopes/banner/711432/


----------



## gtparts (Jul 21, 2010)

*pnome, lets try again......*

Suppose that science determined that the Earth was overpopulated... requiring an adjustment in the number of individuals. Suppose it further determined that the quickest, most efficient way to accomplish this reduction would be random elimination based on a computer selection. Out pops the randomly chosen name, "pnome" among others.


Now you added some detail that obfuscated the issue (no wife, no offspring, no family, no one close with which to empathize...just you), so I will ask again. 

Do you accept this scientific "truth"? Do you continue to place your trust in the objectivity of science? Do you drink the Kool-Aid that science provides you?

Would your devotion to science cause you to willingly give up your life for the sake of some unknown person that will live because he/she will receive the air, food, water, and other life essentials you would consume otherwise?


----------



## pnome (Jul 21, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Now you added some detail that obfuscated the issue (no wife, no offspring, no family,* no one close with which to empathize*...just you), so I will ask again.
> 
> Do you accept this scientific "truth"? Do you continue to place your trust in the objectivity of science? Do you drink the Kool-Aid that science provides you?
> 
> Would your devotion to science cause you to willingly give up your life for the sake of some unknown person that will live because he/she will receive the air, food, water, and other life essentials you would consume otherwise?



Your entire question could be re-worded to say:  

Could you empathize with someone you don't know?  

Soldiers can do this, sacrificing their lives for the greater good.  I'd like to think I could.  But I can't say for sure.

One thing I am certain of, I wouldn't be doing it "for science".  I would be doing it for "humanity."   

If I was convinced it needed to be done, and that my selection was fair, I'd like to think I would.  But you never know for sure till you get there.


----------



## fishbum2000 (Jul 21, 2010)

bamafan,
to anwser your original question:
people tend to mock what they don't understand. a non-believer dosen't understand God, therefore they can't truly understand christians. this causes them to feel uncomfortable around christians, or a person with any other religious view for that matter, and this causes them to mock you or talk about you.
just remember they mocked Jesus also you aren't the first and won't be the last. just pray for them, plant whatever small seed you can, and treat them with the love of a christian. if they still make you feel bad or make fun of you then move on. continue to pray for them but move on


----------



## gtparts (Jul 21, 2010)

pnome said:


> Your entire question could be re-worded to say:
> 
> Could you empathize with someone you don't know?
> 
> ...



Would it be accurate to say that you do not place all your trust in science for the answers to life's questions?

If not, then where do you place the trust you choose not to place in science? 

Do you believe science will answer all of life's questions?


----------



## pnome (Jul 21, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Would it be accurate to say that you do not place all your trust in science for the answers to life's questions?



I place my trust in the "method."   

It's as simple as saying "don't accept anything as true without adequate proof."   As opposed to religion which would be something like: "Accept only this one thing as truth and nothing else"



> If not, then where do you place the trust you choose not to place in science?



Like I said, I trust the method.



> Do you believe science will answer all of life's questions?



Unlikely.


----------



## McHargie (Jul 21, 2010)

pnome said:


> Morals are simply a product of our survival instincts.  If the choice was for me to get pulled in your macabre lottery, in order for my wife and child to live...
> 
> Wouldn't you make that choice?   People sacrifice themselves for others all the time.  That's empathy.  Which is itself part of our survival instincts, part of the survival instincts of many animals.
> 
> ...





pnome said:


> Your entire question could be re-worded to say:
> 
> Could you empathize with someone you don't know?
> 
> ...



How do you determine what is Fair?  What is the standard?  who gives this standard?

Pnome thanks for the video post....I suppose I would respond with this...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ge6rZBXAszI&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ge6rZBXAszI&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

why not for science?  Why then for Humanity?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7PzZyQE7aE&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7PzZyQE7aE&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

you see...I have no great hate for science, I find it amazing!...but I think  science has its limits, it can only go so far.  I think there's a reason why our society has shifted from modernism (science) to post-modernism (relativism, pluralisms universalism)...people realized that science couldn't answer all their questions, and in the long run left them unfulfilled and unsatisfied.  And even though I suspect that you might say that you are not concerned with what leaves you or others “satisfied” or “fulfilled”…as your brother…a fellow human being, I have a hard time believing that.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/orsOx0LarJI&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/orsOx0LarJI&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

To me science and modernity and all its attempts to final truth or even "functional certainties" can all be summarized by a simple nursery rhyme I learned as a child...

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall;
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. 
All the King's horses 
And all the King's men
Couldn't  put Humpty together again.

Grace and Peace
*kyle


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 21, 2010)

Humpty Dumpty mistakenly depended on the .gov (King) to make him whole.
He should have taken out a financial risk insurance policy with an underwriter.


----------



## pnome (Jul 21, 2010)

McHargie said:


> people realized that science couldn't answer all their questions




Or rather, "science does not have all he answers."  That is a "functional certainty."   

But what "answers" does metaphysics give us?  What "functional certainties" does it provide us with?  In my mind it only raises more questions.

What has metaphysics _ever_ done for us?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 21, 2010)

In all honesty, it isn't fare, or even possible, for an unbeliever to have the understanding of God which a believer has.
They are ignorant of the things many of us have come to accept.

1Peter 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—


----------



## Achilles Return (Jul 21, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> In all honesty, it isn't fare, or even possible, for an unbeliever to have the understanding of God which a believer has.
> They are ignorant of the things many of us have come to accept.
> 
> 1Peter 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—



Well this isn't condescending or anything.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 21, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> I bet you don't tell 'em to their face,big man.


----------



## Israel (Jul 21, 2010)

To be "fair", believers are not here (in the world) to discuss the gospel or the Lord as though he or it  were a philosophical exercise.
Jesus sent and sends forth his disciples to be light in a dark place, hope in a hopeless world.
Representing the Lord can only be true when it is done without apology or compromise...though many seem to think this is too strident. As though faith in Christ is a "position" to be argued.
The man without God is lost. Lost in his own vain imaginations, lost in his own understanding, lost in his natural inclination to go no farther than what his eyes see and his senses perceive. God does not blame him, desire to shame him, or take any joy in his estate.
What the Lord does say, however, is arise O sleeper wake from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.
Anyone who names the name of Christ must know it is by God's grace alone he was awakened and can take no pride in anything of himself.
I am not sorry if this sounds condescending, for it is not. Nor can I, nor any other believer long embrace an exchange where we come to the table as though this is the presumption "You present your side, and I will consider its possibility, and I expect to be able to present mine with you doing the same."
I am not here to to engage you in the possibility that "Jesus is not the Lord of heaven and earth with all things subject to himself" or some other contention such as "perhaps he didn't even exist" or the obvious atheist position that there is no God at all.
I can share my testimony, share of the darkness in which I once partook with relish and ignorance, share the truth of God's mercy toward me, which is the same towards you...but that's the truth of it.
So when Ronnie speaks of those "ignorant and foolish men" he speaks rightly of those who oppose God, who despise the only one who has paid the price to set their soul free, the only true God and savior.
The sting of being found ignorant of God is nothing compared to the abysmal hopelessness one embraces if they persist.
But God loves you...has no shame for you.
But also, no apologies for who he is.


----------



## JWarren (Jul 21, 2010)

Israel said:


> To be "fair", believers are not here (in the world) to discuss the gospel or the Lord as though he or it  were a philosophical exercise.
> Jesus sent and sends forth his disciples to be light in a dark place, hope in a hopeless world.
> Representing the Lord can only be true when it is done without apology or compromise...though many seem to think this is too strident. As though faith in Christ is a "position" to be argued.
> The man without God is lost. Lost in his own vain imaginations, lost in his own understanding, lost in his natural inclination to go no farther than what his eyes see and his senses perceive. God does not blame him, desire to shame him, or take any joy in his estate.
> ...



Amen.....that should about do it. 

Never apologize for the Gospel nor become embroiled in extended engagements of verbal sparring with them, as this lends the ONLY credibility available  for their untenable position.The Truth will stand on it's own merit, it is their right to accept or reject it. The intellectual ramblings of non-believers serve only to distract from the Truth, and being a distraction is all they can accomplish. While they like to present themselves as "deep thinkers" in writing their essays and epistles of Christianity in the abstract, they actually show themselves to be very "shallow" due to their ability to dismiss the vast amount of historical evidence that Jesus lived, was crucified unto death and arose.


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 22, 2010)

JWarren said:


> Amen.....that should about do it.
> 
> Never apologize for the Gospel nor become embroiled in extended engagements of verbal sparring with them, as this lends the ONLY credibility available  for their untenable position.The Truth will stand on it's own merit, it is their right to accept or reject it. The intellectual ramblings of non-believers serve only to distract from the Truth, and being a distraction is all they can accomplish. While they like to present themselves as "deep thinkers" in writing their essays and epistles of Christianity in the abstract, they actually show themselves to be very "shallow" due to their ability to dismiss the vast amount of historical evidence that Jesus lived, was crucified unto death and arose.



Excellent post!


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 23, 2010)

Okay, Now I understand.  In the odd event that a hugely hypothetical and completely strained but still imaginable moral dilemma arises, science will be unable to help, and only God is the answer.

But now we are sowing our own fields, for the sole purpose of reaping the crops we alone have planted.   But is anyone standing to realize that the same moral dilemmas affect believer and non-believer alike?  Muslim and Christian and Buddhist and on and on . . .?

At which point does the fail-safe position --  the one that will surely be correct – accrue to only one believer, and not another?  Or only to Believers, and only certain Believers, and to no one else?  The example of the Blue Laws remains valid.  One can rationalize all day long,  and provide all manner of strained justifications after the fact,  about how the dominance of one point of view is hardly a problem for anyone else, in your own view,  and about how they can all just certainly find ways to deal with it . . .  but in arguing such a point of view you are admitting, not refuting.

Many of us, perhaps most, simply wish to be left alone to live our own lives as we see fit, without the overarching hand of your ‘God’ creeping into our every daily act, and without your proscriptions and prohibitions affecting us at every turn.  We see the hypocrisy, easily --  that Christians pretend and speak of tolerance and forgiveness, while practicing no such things. 

It is not that the Atheists will not leave you alone, at all.  It is that you will not leave anyone or anything at all alone, including the Law of the Land, until it is bent to your own will.  In that sense, you are separated from every totalitarian movement in all of history not  a whit.

Relax, fellas, and put a cork in it.  Quake, Shake, Witness away, Lay on Hands,  Sing, Evade Taxes, Heal the Sick, Save us from Asteroids, and just generally do whatever it is that you want to do.  We’re fine with that.  Just leave the rest of us out of it.

The facts are pretty clear.  And we’re pretty sure that books you failed to read are not really our problem. We’re pretty sure that contrived interpretations after the fact, which change almost daily as science progresses, are perhaps comforting to you, but are not in any way a substitute for the free education you forgot to take advantage of.

If you feel  somehow ‘persecuted’ because of a lack of total agreement with your own  point of view, well,  join the club . . .  Oddly enough, your point of view is still winning, as thing like Blue Laws will attest, and still you whine and wheedle and rationalize  as though you are the oppressed rather than the oppressors.  
Nonsense.  The only untenable position is one which asserts something that cannot be demonstrated to be true.


----------



## JWarren (Jul 23, 2010)

Okay, for those not familiar with the name.... DIOGENES ... 

DIOGENES.... was a Greek philosopher, whose life was an endless campaign to exploit and ridicule the social norms and institutions of society. He was renowned for his exploits that included going naked in public, urinating on people, defecating in the marketplace, performing lewd acts in the marketplace and mocking authority.

If my absolute refusal to be voluntarily connected in any fashion with this type of human debris defines me as uneducated, I am guilty as charged.

BTW, It appears as though our modern day DIOGENES protege has been relegated to house atheist for the GON forums, with a primary job description being to heckle the member believers as evidenced by 463 of his total 465 posts to theses forums over the last 13 month being placed in the Spiritual Discussion and Study forum.


----------



## Israel (Jul 23, 2010)

I tend to think if selling beer on Sunday is a bad thing, why isn't it bad on Monday?
And being beholden to any government of this world for the purpose of maintaining a tax exemption is not what the Lord has in mind for his church. Religious organizations, yes.
His church pays taxes because they are free not to.
Just so as not to give offense.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 23, 2010)

Israel said:


> I tend to think if selling beer on Sunday is a bad thing, why isn't it bad on Monday?
> And being beholden to any government of this world for the purpose of maintaining a tax exemption is not what the Lord has in mind for his church. Religious organizations, yes.
> His church pays taxes because they are free not to.
> Just so as not to give offense.



Now Israel, here you are bringing logic back into our discussions again.  Why can't you leave well enough alone.

Don't you think we Christians should have these "rights" to keep beer from being sold on Sunday?

Why I even recently heard someone pray asking God to  "Protect our American servicemen and women who are giving their lives so that we can assemble and worship you in peace this morning".

I bout had an episode right then and there.


----------



## Israel (Jul 24, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Now Israel, here you are bringing logic back into our discussions again.  Why can't you leave well enough alone.
> 
> Don't you think we Christians should have these "rights" to keep beer from being sold on Sunday?
> 
> ...



I am not sure the Lord dislikes beer.
Or wine.
Or the drinking of it.
I understand some abstain, I understand some partake. Did you ever wonder about this scripture?

Deu 14:24  And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 
Deu 14:25  Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: 
Deu 14:26  And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, 

I have always believed the Lord just doesn't want to be left out of the party.


I think we get into trouble when we let these things become ends in themselves. It is surely true the Kingdom of God is neither eat nor drink...but joy in the Holy Ghost does not preclude his including those as he wills.

But I also believe the Holy Spirit is more than able to keep us in the Lord's joy over all the things he has given us to enjoy...and also warn when they become a preoccupation.

Happy is the man whose heart does not condemn him in what he has faith to enjoy in the Lord's presence.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 24, 2010)

Israel, I think we sometimes use our liberty as if it relieved us of our responsibility.  

There are things from which I abstain because the Lord has spoken against it and there are things from which I abstain because others have shown or expressed a weakness from which God would have me withdraw, for their sake. His yoke is easy, His burden is light.

How often do we show dishonor toward a weaker brother or sister by openly participating in something that God has not shown them the liberty in which to engage?

Have you suggested an AYCE restaurant to someone struggling with obesity?  Or perhaps not suggested an alternative to his or her suggestion?

Have you shown everything but the peace of God in front of children during a stressful moment? In front of those new in Christ? Maybe they were just strangers?

The simple truth is that I too often sin because 1) I haven't been walking close to my Lord and 2) I haven't been sensitive to others. More times than I care to count, I have damaged my witness and given Christ a "black eye" in the same instant.  My need of forgiveness seems to match my self-centered thoughts and actions.

When the "chief of sinners" is asked to raise his/her hand, no one has the right to remain with hand lowered unless Jesus has told them, "Put your hand down."

Grace and peace.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 24, 2010)

Here is a truth you can count on.
"Said the Fool in his heart , there is no God"


----------



## Israel (Jul 24, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Israel, I think we sometimes use our liberty as if it relieved us of our responsibility.
> 
> There are things from which I abstain because the Lord has spoken against it and there are things from which I abstain because others have shown or expressed a weakness from which God would have me withdraw, for their sake. His yoke is easy, His burden is light.
> 
> ...



Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats...but God will destroy both it and them...
Liberty is never an excuse for sin.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 25, 2010)

Diogenes the Cynic, as Jwarren failed to mention, has also been dead for quite a long time, similar to religious icons.

Funny that the observation does not address the thought, but attacks only the screen name.  Shall we Google the name 'Warren,'?  There is quite a lot of fun to be had there, if one is so inclined . . .  (We could start with the 'Warren Commission' of paranoid and frightened fame, and work both backwards and forwards from there . . . ) But I fear that the Forum had in mind the end of this sort of mindless ad hominem assault which is always at the expense of making an actually contributory thought.  Closed-minded fire and brimstone condemnations, and admonitions to shun outsiders, such as, “ . . . 


Never apologize for the Gospel nor become embroiled in extended engagements of verbal sparring with them . . . “  tend to be outside of the spirit of a 'discussion.'


Most famously, Diogenes the Cynic was a man who never wrote a single word, but simply lived his philosophies, and the most notable of his acts was stalking the streets with a lantern in his hand.  When asked, he responded simply that he was looking for an honest man  . . .  In a sense, his search continues to this day . . . 

And no apologies for who we are either . . . we ask simple questions, and receive thundering and blustering 'answers,' which, in all cases, are no answer at all.  Attempting to bludgeon people with a Book you have not actually read or really analyzed is not a discussion at all.  

The original post, if you will remember, asked in essence why it is that non-believers continue to nettle the believers, and asked why it is that some might be concerned with what one believes or does not.   

The point was raised that hardly anyone at all would be bothered if y'all weren't so darned militant about it, insisting that everyone in the country follow the Laws as you wish to dictate them according only to your religious beliefs.  The follow-up was that nobody could quite understand how come doing things their way was a problem or a hardship for anyone else . . .  and the odd thing is that you really aren't kidding.  You might understand that we can freely substitute the word 'Christian' in that sort of logic for other words, many of them less than encouraging.  So what many of you see as an attack on your beliefs themselves is not, in fact, the case.

The attack is on a 'logic' and methodology that announces that there is only one way – yours – and that there is only one explanation – yours – and that there is no refuting the obvious and irrefutable Truth of your position.  Sorry, but as a body populus, we've been seduced by such nonsense before, and such seductions have authored nearly every major tragedy in all of human history.   Pardon our skepticism.

Only the zealously religious, 'representing' each and every religion, of which there are hundreds, dare to not only argue that they alone are right, but follow it up with the real and present threat of violence against all others  who might dare to disagree.  That violence is real, in Protestant/Catholic strife, in Muslim/Christian strife, in Sunni/Shiite strife, and on and on, factionally.  Additionally, each and all religions hold out the threat of eternal violence against those they cannot either kill or convert while alive, promising torment for all eternity against anyone who fails to see things their way.

I may be wrong, but I never saw a scientist threaten to kill anyone who failed to believe in the weak nuclear force.  

Empiricists, you see, don't much care what anyone believes.  We care about what can be proven.  This computer proves that we are winning.  God did not grant us computers and instantaneous communications through His Grace. Hard-nosed scientists worked out the problems, and solved them.  There was no belief involved.  

Left to be in charge, and to operate the entire world, the 'believers' would still having us on our knees praying for a cure for polio and the like, and you'll have to pardon us for thinking that those sorts of folks are fools.

So, no, not a single person bothers you simply because of what you choose to believe – you are free to believe that the Waitress God brought your breakfast, and the Chicken God made the eggs – but we part company the moment it is asserted that your 'beliefs' trump all other things, and need to be imposed on everyone so that they can be 'Saved,' as you were.  

Be Saved.  Revel in it.  Wallow in it.  Wash yourselves in the Glory that is Yours Alone.  Enjoy your tax deductions and pretend that Jesus' Work exempted you from actually doing anything useful or difficult, like learning things.  But leave us out of it.  We're pretty busy doing useful stuff that the Bible never thought of.  Like curing sickness with something other than the power of prayer and the laying on of hands.  

Unfortunately, modern society has reached a point where we barely tolerate religions and ancient strictures and outmoded nonsense that is aimed solely at enriching a few self-chosen elitists at the expense of all of the rest of humanity.   We want some proof of your position, since we have plenty of proof of our own.  Fear of the unknown, and of your undemonstrated 'eternal punishment' has waned, and belief in your equally undemonstrated 'eternal reward' has pretty much fallen away.  You have nothing to offer, and nothing to threaten.  Toothless, but blustering just the same.

So the OP seems to have it exactly backwards.  Having decided long ago that religious writings and restrictions and rituals of all sorts are sort of cute and quaint, but in practice are useless to actual life, the world got on with the business of improving human lives all by ourselves.  We've done a pretty good job of it, nearly doubling the average human life-span in less than a century and improving living conditions for nearly everyone immeasurably.  Scientifically.  So the actual question ought to be – Why are you religious remnants of a lost and failed way of life still nettling the rest of us?


----------



## Israel (Jul 25, 2010)

Diogenes, this is a bit more hubristic than I have even come to expect from you. 


"the world got on with the business of improving human lives all by ourselves."

"But leave us out of it. We're pretty busy doing useful stuff that the Bible never thought of. "

Apart from simply including yourself in the august company of those who have made the strides you trumpet, you would dismiss any and all such contributions to the (debatable) improvement of the human condition by any that have named the name of Christ; or of course, in your case, named any god at all.
You may want to rethink, and if inclined, research that opinion. Then perhaps, get back to us on what you consider legitimate efforts, discoveries, inventions, and advancements that either qualify or get disqualified.

I'll admit I've been a bit lazy here, but a copy and paste from a site includes some "christians" who are noteworthy for various discoveries and endeavors:


Most of the “giants” of the Scientific Revolution in Europe were Christians. The above quote is from one of the most well known scientists ever. Isaac Newton was most well known for his law of universal gravitation. He was also the inventor of Calculus. Dick Tripp quotes the book "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born", where D. James Kennedy gives a list of some of the famous Christians of the era. Here is some of it:
Antiseptic - Surgery Joseph Lister
Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur
Calculus - Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics - Johannes Kepler
Chemistry - Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy - Georges Cuvier
Dimensional Analysis - Lord Rayleigh
Dynamics - Isaac Newton
Electronics - John Ambrose Fleming
Electrodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday
Energetics - Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects - Henri Fabre
Field Theory - James Clerk Maxwell
Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy - Sir William Hershel
Gas Dynamics - Robert Boyle
Genetics - Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz
Gynaecology - James Simpson
Hydrography - Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsey
Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh
Natural History - John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernard Riemann
Oceanography - Matthew Maury


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 25, 2010)

Israel said:


> Diogenes, this is a bit more hubristic than I have even come to expect from you.
> 
> 
> "the world got on with the business of improving human lives all by ourselves."
> ...



I don't know Israel, I see a Lot of Sephardic Jewish names there, LOL


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 6, 2010)

And so it continues – 

C’mon fellas.

‘Some Christians made some advances.’  Okay.  Then, immediately – ‘Hey, wait a minute, some of them were Jewish.’  Okay.  Do you fellas even listen to your own words?

Would you argue that any of the contributions to actual civilization, which some would characterize as ‘debatable,’ were made on purely religious grounds?  Do you truly see the world in such purely polarized terms?

Are you really so completely factional that you wish to claim math in the name of the Islamics and heart surgery in the name of the Christians?  Are your religions so central to your self-identity that all things must be in terms of your various Holy Books, and in no other terms?  You have to admit, that is a pretty frightening view of the world, but, unfortunately, that view explains quite a lot of what has actually happened in this world, and continues to happen all around us.

The OP asked why anyone would dare poke at the selfish egotism of  ‘believers,’ who lay sole claim to an explanation and full ownership of all things, temporal and spiritual, and claim to hold the only legitimate point of view, to the peril of all others.

I think the two posts above this one demonstrate exactly why we might ask a question or two . . .


----------



## Israel (Aug 7, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> And so it continues –
> 
> C’mon fellas.
> 
> ...



What a completely disingenuous attempt to deflect from your previous statements.

You postured as though atheists alone, yourself included, are and have been the only "flavor" interested in any form of scientific discovery...which may or may not result in some advancement or form of relief for people.

(Lowjack was simply being facetious)...but whether Jew, or Muslim, Christian or Hindu, your contentions are false on their face...as though one who may have any inclination to consider a creator has disqualified himself from certain intellectual pursuits.

No, I categorically did not post those names to show "See, Christians alone are blah blah blah..." but plainly stated it was in response to your own canard...


----------

