Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have quietly and carefully read every single post in this thread. I'm still eager to find out how atheists target Christians and are attempting to deny Christians their legal rights. I have more comments to make; I just wanted to make a point that the question has still not been answered. Thanks.
Jo
Right? 620 posts in and the only thing they can complain about is that they are prevented from discriminating against a group of people who they regard and sinful and rebellious.
In fact, it looks to me as if they have given up the debate . Perhaps a little help for their side is in order .
Sure it exits but knowledge that the gospels do not qualify as historic documents or eyewitness accounts is common sense. Most people are sophisticated and educated enough to know the difference between what qualifies as a historic document or eyewitness account. I don't see how confirmation bias plays in here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The fact that the ancient writings in question were selected and used as sacred texts in a religion biases the interpretation of their content. This leads to the very dismissive attitude expressed here. Not EVERYTHING is all one thing or the other. I do not know why such "black or white" thinking is so prevalent. What happened to the middle ground or moderation in all things or just plain common sense. The majority of writing in that era was serious. It was a rarity and used for serious purposes. To pretend that there was widespread written fiction is simply ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
What does this have to do with my statement? I see no relation to what I said and this.
Being in a religious compilation does NOT automatically remove any ancient writing from a historical context, which you seem to be implying.
Quote:
My dismissive attitude about not understanding how anyone can be a bible literalist...especially in the 21st Century?
We agree about the silliness of Bible literalism, but that has nothing to do with what parts of the compilation of writings in the Bible contain historical elements. Dismissing them ALL is just as silly.
Quote:
Me either....seems very narrow and quite frightening.
Extreme bible beliefs require extreme mental conformation bias.
The OT might have been written with serious intent but is it a seriously flawed vile sick and twisted story book.
Only goes to show how barbaric humanity was back then. Of course we still see barbaric behavior in humans today but thankfully we have laws to deal with them vs. trying to condemn them to hell or forgiveness if they just believe in the god they are told to believe in.
I suspect it is an accurate depiction of our ancestors' barbarity as they were evolving their understanding of God.
Quote:
No it's actually ignorant to think that there was no widespread written religious fiction. How many religions evolved throughout human evolution? They all pretty much have the same theme....a special human who is going to save your soul only if you believe in them and or in the god that they tell you to believe in...and that there is no other way to evolve spiritually unless you do it their way.
Fiction today is written AS fiction. You cannot assume the same was true of the narratives in our ancient past. The cognitive landscape among our ancestors was very different from the ones that exist today, even among the more barbarous of us. The vast majority of us are trained in the left-brain disciplines of reading, writing and mathematics which significantly alters our way of seeing and interpreting reality.
Our ancestors were not so equipped. So what writing DID exist was of an entirely different character and had very different goals. The use of time itself was so vastly different from our sequential and linear use today that any chronology we might try to draw is unreliable. They were predominantly event-oriented, not time-oriented. This means that the order of events was not important, just the existence of them. I could go on, but I hope this serves to illustrate what I am referring to.
Right? 620 posts in and the only thing they can complain about is that they are prevented from discriminating against a group of people who they regard and sinful and rebellious.
In fact, it looks to me as if they have given up the debate . Perhaps a little help for their side is in order .
Atheists are restricting people's freedom of religion. Of course, that is a Constitutional issue so the OP disqualified that area. Just so he could gloat that no one has answered his challenge.
For once, can you leave the legal argument out of this and look at the moral perceptive? Christian groups are being FORCED to accept people who engage in a lifestyle that runs counter to the principles of that group. Would that really fly with any other group? You create a group with rules, oh but it's discrimination if you don't accept people who break the rules.
If a gay person became the leader of my Christian group, I would have to leave. I couldn't trust that their teachings were from God since their spiritual walk is in open rebellion against him.
I have no doubt this would not happen with a Muslim group. Christians are the only ones who are picked on and mocked in the media.
You're getting a lot of mileage out of that clip, right Jeff? How many times have you posted that now? 3? 5? 18?
He's posted it multiple times in multiple threads. Between this and the flaming hand video it's obvious Jeff has to rely on the same old, same old to promote his theories.
Atheists are restricting people's freedom of religion. Of course, that is a Constitutional issue so the OP disqualified that area. Just so he could gloat that no one has answered his challenge.
ALL Americans ability to discriminate are restricted . This does not just apply to Christians . Atheists are banned from discriminating against minorities, gays, religious believers, and women. Do you even grasp that the same law you gripe about prevents an atheist from refusing to rent a house or give a job to a Christian because they don't like their religion? The law applies to EVERYONE. The fact that your particular faith wants to violate other people's rights is not society's problem, it's yours .But the law did not target you . Your claims of mistreatment in this area are no more valid than the claims of an atheist saying he is being persecuted because the law doesn't allow him to refuse to rent to devout Christians . You both want to violate a law designed to protect against discrimination by anyone, not some particular group.
What YOU want is an exemption from a law that applies to EVERYONE that will allow you to discriminate based on your religious beliefs .
Last edited by wallflash; 03-13-2016 at 05:13 PM..
Atheists are restricting people's freedom of religion. Of course, that is a Constitutional issue so the OP disqualified that area. Just so he could gloat that no one has answered his challenge.
Are you actually saying that the only problem you have with atheists is that they protest when you try to violate the Constitution?
For once, can you leave the legal argument out of this and look at the moral perceptive? Christian groups are being FORCED to accept people who engage in a lifestyle that runs counter to the principles of that group. Would that really fly with any other group? You create a group with rules, oh but it's discrimination if you don't accept people who break the rules.
If a gay person became the leader of my Christian group, I would have to leave. I couldn't trust that their teachings were from God since their spiritual walk is in open rebellion against him.
I have no doubt this would not happen with a Muslim group. Christians are the only ones who are picked on and mocked in the media.
This is silly, even for you. Who chooses the leader of your church group? I bet it is not atheist. I bet it is not from those not of your church. If the people within your church decided to have a gay leader you would have every right to leave the group but don't blame it on atheists or gays but on those who no longer hold the same views as you.
It seems like you have no problem with people that you agree with breaking laws which are simply rules made by the government,. So what is your moral argument for someone not allowing her staff to do the legal duties assigned to them that they are willing to do but it is against what their supervisor beliefs? What is moral about you accusing a Christian judge of not being Christian because he did his job? You have no problem if the rules are broken to discriminate against gays.
The Muslim taxi drivers got no support for their attempt to use religion as a reason not to transport beer or dogs. Have you ever gone on the Islam forum here to read the hate towards them or never saw or read the visible anger at them from other Americans?
Posts like this one of yours makes wonder what kind of bubble you live in.
Also, let us not forget the tax-exempt status enjoyed by religious organizations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
