ardillacid Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 They have a divine mission to take away our rights as private citizens. I thought you didn't believe in rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 They have a divine mission to take away our rights as private citizens. I thought you didn't believe in rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 They have a divine mission to take away our rights as private citizens. I thought you didn't believe in rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 They have a divine mission to take away our rights as private citizens. I thought you didn't believe in rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 They have a divine mission to take away our rights as private citizens. I thought you didn't believe in rights? double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So Zabba...we should then reset the entire calendar, make everyone work on Sundays and holidays (holy days), burn the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (they invoke God), melt down all coins and burn all money (In God we Trust), and repeal all laws based on the 10 Commandments (murder, rape, robbery, 14th amendment, etc) because we need a complete separation of Church and state? sounds wacky to me you should check out this book http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Blessings-Religion-Benefits-Including/dp/1599474123/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358303401&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=everyone+benefits+from+religion Just because we have laws that are similar to things from the 10 commandments does not mean they are based on the commandments. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) If we take the atheist world view that we just cease to exist at the end of life and that we live out our days doing what makes us happy, why does it bother them so much that others believe in God? If it makes them happy, it fits right into their philosophy! The problem with this is that the church is a political actor. Modern society came about once the church's social authority was replaced with concepts like individual rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. The church has accommodated itself to modern society. It is still a political actor, but today it speaks through catchphrases like "religious liberty" and "human dignity" and "traditional marriage." Nevertheless, the church is still gasping for a social role, mourning its once exalted position in society. What offends me about this is not that the church wants to stick its nose in society. But the church makes the bold claim to speak in the name of Christ, and that is what offends me, because between the church and Christ there is a gulf that I cannot bridge, no matter how many mental gymnastics I put myself through. The idea that the man who said "turn the other cheek" and "the first among you shall be your slave" was founding what we've come to know throughout history as "the church," is for me almost impossible to believe. If I didn't think so highly of Christ, I wouldn't give the church two thoughts. I don't find its leaders particularly interesting, insightful, or courageous. Much of its history disgusts me. Catholics will glorify the martyrs in the Mexican revolution, but it was partly the church's fault that Mexican history developed the way it did...the church was unwilling to give up its power and influence in the old Spanish social order. The modern social order that we take for granted today only exists because people defied the church and the society it represented. There is also much I like about Christian history, though it rarely has anything to do with "the church" as such, rather with individuals. If I'm just looking at the church as an interesting religion in the history of humanity, then it's certainly an interesting story. But the church claims the name of Christ, and that is what makes it such an unbelievable organization. If this is what Christ intended, if this is what Christ died and rose for, then what's the point? What Christ said and did was quite remarkable...how can I believe in Christ when the church, supposedly his institution, is such a useless, conventional organization built to make old ladies happy and give soldiers a clear conscience? Forgive me for speaking freely. Edited January 16, 2013 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I thought you didn't believe in rights? I believe in rights. Under the American constitution I have a qualified right to free speech. I don't believe in rights in a transcendent sense outside of a legal context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I disagree with this. As far as I am concerned faith means optimistically refusing to consider plausible alternatives. E.g. a person involkes faith to choose the most optimistic option (for some this means choosing to believe in god). They then invoke faith in order to discount any evidence in support of the pessimistic options. Those of strong faith won't consider alternatives at all, those of faultering faith will investigate the alternatives. JESUS "seek and ye shall find." "knock and the door will be opened." "you will go where you believe you will go." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) <EDIT> JC "seek and ye shall find." "knock and the door will be opened." "ask and you will recieve.""you will go where you believe you will go." If your searching whole heartedly for a prostitute eventually you will find one, search for love eventually you will find love,search for peace eventually you will find peace, search for violence eventually you will find violence. Search for nothing and you will find nothing. Search for everything and you will recieve everything and possibly a sore brain like mine. :( And i agree with you, as far as i can see true faith isn't that open minded though for me it does respect other right to choose, without agreeing with somone whom says yellow is blue when obviously blue is blue and can only vary in shades of blue and will never be yellow. St francessca Cabrini. "A missionary should be fearless, he that dares nothing recieves nothing." openmindedness can be a bad thing and i think and if taken to far is a very hippy live and let live thing which sounds like the light but under close scrutiny is actually darkness. St paul. "beware satan can appear as a false angel of light." Edited January 17, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) The problem with this is that the church is a political actor. Modern society came about once the church's social authority was replaced with concepts like individual rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. The church has accommodated itself to modern society. It is still a political actor, but today it speaks through catchphrases like "religious liberty" and "human dignity" and "traditional marriage." Nevertheless, the church is still gasping for a social role, mourning its once exalted position in society. What offends me about this is not that the church wants to stick its nose in society. But the church makes the bold claim to speak in the name of Christ, and that is what offends me, because between the church and Christ there is a gulf that I cannot bridge, no matter how many mental gymnastics I put myself through. The idea that the man who said "turn the other cheek" and "the first among you shall be your slave" was founding what we've come to know throughout history as "the church," is for me almost impossible to believe. If I didn't think so highly of Christ, I wouldn't give the church two thoughts. I don't find its leaders particularly interesting, insightful, or courageous. Much of its history disgusts me. Catholics will glorify the martyrs in the Mexican revolution, but it was partly the church's fault that Mexican history developed the way it did...the church was unwilling to give up its power and influence in the old Spanish social order. The modern social order that we take for granted today only exists because people defied the church and the society it represented. There is also much I like about Christian history, though it rarely has anything to do with "the church" as such, rather with individuals. If I'm just looking at the church as an interesting religion in the history of humanity, then it's certainly an interesting story. But the church claims the name of Christ, and that is what makes it such an unbelievable organization. If this is what Christ intended, if this is what Christ died and rose for, then what's the point? What Christ said and did was quite remarkable...how can I believe in Christ when the church, supposedly his institution, is such a useless, conventional organization built to make old ladies happy and give soldiers a clear conscience? Forgive me for speaking freely. So the Church on earth is made up of flawed, sinful human beings - with chaffe among the wheat, goats as well as sheep? Jesus Christ Himself told us as much. Even Peter himself denied Christ, and there's a reason the Pope has to go to confession like everyone else. Besides, the Church's primary purpose is spiritual - to provide the Sacraments, and hand down the teachings necessary for salvation, rather than to create some kind of earthly socio-economic utopia. Though I think there can be no denying that if every Catholic always wholeheartedly followed all the moral teachings of the Church, the world would be a much better place. (I would also argue, that overall, that even from an earthly perspective, the Church has done much good in the world, though I'm aware you likely disagree.) I believe in rights. Under the American constitution I have a qualified right to free speech. I don't believe in rights in a transcendent sense outside of a legal context. So, the State giveth, and the State taketh away. Edited January 20, 2013 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I believe in rights. Under the American constitution I have a qualified right to free speech. I don't believe in rights in a transcendent sense outside of a legal context. Would you agree that rights are actually shared principles and ideals, rather than Divine Decrees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 So, the State giveth, and the State taketh away. The legal system is the source of legal rights. Would you agree that rights are actually shared principles and ideals, rather than Divine Decrees? Sure. And I think that all sorts of things should be rights but that only becomes meaningful when others agree and are willing to defend those beliefs. The reason I am so quick to scoff at the notion of 'rights' here is because the sense in which it is used not because I don't think it's good for a society of people to used political and economic means to allow members of that society to actualize essential facets of human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 The legal system is the source of legal rights. So my point still stands. Would you agree that rights are actually shared principles and ideals, rather than Divine Decrees? Sure. And I think that all sorts of things should be rights but that only becomes meaningful when others agree and are willing to defend those beliefs. The reason I am so quick to scoff at the notion of 'rights' here is because the sense in which it is used not because I don't think it's good for a society of people to used political and economic means to allow members of that society to actualize essential facets of human nature. With nothing transcendent to appeal to, the basis of legal rights becomes nothing more than arbitrary, and often contradictory "wants." For example, pro-lifers say that unborn children have a right to life which others may not violate, while "pro-choicers" claim the unborn have no rights, and that women instead have a right to kill them whenever they wish. Catholics say we have a right to freedom to exercise our religion and not violate our conscience when choosing health-care plans, while Obama-supporters claim everyone instead has a right to free condoms. And the list goes on and on. Things such as "abortion rights" are certainly not values shared by myself. The only claim for authority for legal rights from the atheistic standpoint is that one's side happens to be in political power, or the majority. Notably,the Declaration of Independence states that everyone has an inalienable right to "life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" endowed by the Creator (God), rather than endowed by the State, or "the legal system." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) So my point still stands. Which was what, exactly? Edited January 24, 2013 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now