Religious Bigotry

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not relevant to anything I said. Well done.
     
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You want to group science and "naturalism". But, those who pursue science aren't restricted to this category you want to oppose. There are many scientists of various religious beliefs.

    Your Venn diagram has a hole in it.

    In fact, one might wonder who these "naturalists" are.
     
  3. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that is just your phony caricature.. to try to cast me as 'anti science!' for propaganda purposes. I am one of the most scientific, logical posters in this forum, & have great respect for the scientific method. it is the MISUSE of science that irks me, & which i write against.

    But that is the narrative, promoted by the atheistic naturalists. That is their main 'argument', as they don't have any actual 'science', to support their claims, just ridicule & caricatures of the 'enemy!' who they try to portray as unscientific, superstitious fools. But these 'arguments', only expose the religious bigotry of the naturalists, who can't debate the science if it was handed to them on a plate.
     
  4. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    'Irrelevant' covers your posts pretty well. All you ever post to me is ridicule, smears, & lies. I ignore you, most of the time, & will probably go back to that, as history has shown rational discussion with you to be impossible.
     
  5. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol, we both know this is a complete lie. I routinely give you peer reviewed papers/journals and you hand waive them away and say "nuh uh".

    yes, you ignore things you don't like, or that go against your narrative. It's a cowardly thing to do.
     
    RiaRaeb likes this.
  6. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    His claims are backed by evidence. Either refute the evidence or concede the point.

    Luther and Calvin both advocated religious oppression.
     
  7. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    show me the 'evidence'. I only saw links. NO quotes, no application to an argument, just random links.

    This proves my point:

    www.myopinionistruth.edu

    How is this 'religious oppression!'' ??

    "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." ~Martin Luther
     
  8. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well when other people went “We want to be Anabaptists!” And Luther responded with “Kill them”, that was religious oppression.
     
  9. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ..and you have evidence for this belief? ..not just some revisionist opinion, but historical facts. I gave you an actual quote, from luther himself, regarding what he BELIEVES about freedom of conscience. Can you produce any quotes or facts that convey a different ideology?
     
  10. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/02/luther-favored-death-penalty-for-anabaptists.html

    Luther sanctioned capital punishment for doctrinal heresy most notably in his Commentary on the 82nd Psalm (vol. 13, pp. 39-72 in the 55-volume set, Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al), written in 1530, where he advocated the following:

    “A question arises in connection with these three verses [Psalm 82]. Since the gods, or rulers, beside their other virtues, are to advance God’s Word and its preachers, are they also to put down opposing doctrines or heresies, since no one can be forced to believe? The answer to this question is as follows: First, some heretics are seditious and teach openly that no rulers are to be tolerated; that no Christian may occupy a position of rulership; that no one ought to have property of his own but should run away from wife and child and leave house and home; or that all property shall be held in common. These teachers are immediately, and without doubt, to be punished by the rulers, as men who are resisting temporal law and government (Rom. 13:1, 2). They are not heretics only but rebels, who are attacking the rulers and their government, just as a thief attacks another’s goods, a murderer another’s body, an adulterer another’s wife; and this is not to be tolerated.

    Second. If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed—for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold—such teachers should not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers. For they are not mere heretics but open blasphemers; and rulers are in duty bound to punish blasphemers as they punish those who curse, swear, revile, abuse, defame, and slander. With their blasphemy such teachers defame the name of God and rob their neighbor of his honor in the eyes of the world. In like manner, the rulers should also punish—or certainly not tolerate—those who teach that Christ did not die for our sins, but that everyone shall make his own satisfaction for them. For that, too, is blasphemy against the Gospel and against the article we pray in the Creed: “I believe in the forgiveness of sins” and “in Jesus Christ, dead and risen.” Those should be treated in the same way who teach that the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting are nothing, that there is no hell, and like things, as did the Sadducees and the Epicureans, of whom many are now arising among the great wiseacres.”
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No scientist would mix the supernatural and science in that manner.

    Not one.

    And, you have objected to such well documented and universally accepted principles of science as evolution, while refusing to consider physical evidence. There is nothing sscientific about that.
     
  12. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I looked into this Commentary, a bit, but do not see the 'evidence!' you seem to think is there. This is & was a popular tu quoque fallacy, by the then roman catholic church, and also atheist critics of the reformers, to try to smear then as champions of human liberty. I am not convinced the 'translation' was accurate, from your source, & have read some other quoted about this passage, that seems to only be to divert the attention from the roman atrocities. This view is not congruent with the rest of luther's & other reformer's writings, or the central principles they upheld.

    I have no doubt that luther, calvin, & many other reformers said outrageous things.. some even preserved for posterity. but i challenge anyone to dispute that the ultimate goal of reformation theology was freedom of conscience, sola scriptura, & human equality.. the hallmarks of the Enlightenment, & the beginning of the end of the dark ages practices of religious oppression. Freedom was born, & it blossomed into the ultimate expression in the American Experiment, where it was codified into Law.

    Luther was very big on separation of church & state. He did not advocate a theocracy, even in those times, where aristocracy & divine right of kings was the majority opinion. He believed a secular 'hangman' should enforce human law, & that was outside of the church's influence. these principles were radical in their day, & brought a death sentence upon Luther & other reformers.

    It is mostly revisionist history, with an ideological agenda, that distorts history, crafting a phony narrative, for propaganda purposes. The fact is, that many wise & learned men (and women) have for MILLENNIA been preserving Truth, pondering life's mysteries, making scientific discoveries, & recording their knowledge base for future generations. We owe a great debt to these giants, who have enabled us to stand on their shoulders, to see farther than they could.

    In fact, the very model of 'separation of church & state', comes from the principles Luther crafted in his 'Two Governments' writings, about the church being separate from the secular authorities.

    Any superficial study of Luther's writings can see this theme prominently throughout.

    "God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the Holy Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the secular, which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are obliged to keep the peace outwardly… The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God's government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another." Luther

    So other than a diversion, i don't really know what the obscure reference to 'anabaptists!' is all about. It does not change the basic principles of the reformation, and judging people from the 1500's with 2017 PC mandates is pretty bizarre.

    I only see luther putting the CONCEPT of capital punishment, or any 'hangman' justice issue as being in the realm of the secular state, not the church. I do not see any overt 'sanctioning!' of oppression, genocide, or social engineering in any of his writings, & certainly not in the commentary on the 82nd Psalm.

    Another Luther quote:
    "We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward matters… But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey it at all but rather lose our necks. Temporal authority and government extend no further than to matters which are external and corporeal."
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  13. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, sure, definitions are important for arguments, and debates often are made up of arguments, so they are important. However, I don't think that particular debate (on whether atheism can be considered a religion) is going to be very important in the end. Even if atheists agreed that atheism was a religion, that wouldn't resolve the issues at hand.
    I wasn't talking about "knowledge of reality", I said "knowledge about our knowledge of reality". The repetition is not a mistake. They are not statements about what reality is like. They are statements about how we should act, given that some knowledge is unavailable to us. The reason a secularist thinks religion should have no impact on government is not that there is no god, but because we don't know whether a god exists, or if he does, what such a god would think/do/say. An atheist could want to ban all things religious, but in practice, most do not, they tend to be happy to let people do their own thing on their own time.
    Not sure what you're referring to here. I think to some extent, blanket references to science are overused, but not necessarily to the point that I have heard argued in this thread.
    I agree that there are those whose understanding of science and atheism are blurrier than necessary. The problem is really what we are to do with a message that cannot be verified. We're not actually pitting religion vs atheism, we're pitting Christianity vs Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, theistic Buddhism, animism as well as a countless number of not-even-thought-of religions. If we are to be fair in that competition, then removing biases for everything is the only way to go.

    So, what would you expect a secular state to look like? What change would you propose for a court system that takes these issues into account? We know that the natural world exists, so it makes perfect sense to take it into account. The rest seems to be disputed and should thus be left alone. 'Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent'.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  14. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IMO, the American system is a good one, but where the govt stays OUT of religious opinions about origins. People have been duped to believe the false dichotomy.. the narrative:

    "Theism is religious, atheism is science!"

    But this has no objective, empirical evidence to support it, and ANY belief/opinion about origins is inherently 'religious.' It is a matter of faith or opinion.

    So the govt has taken sides, and now bans any God centered view of origins, and mandates the naturalistic one.

    We don't have a secular, unbiased govt, but a promoter of ideology. Progressive ideology has become the Official State Religion.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see it that way at all.

    There are many Christians and representatives of other religions in science. The two do NOT need to be seen in conflict. Even the Pope states that.

    Scientific method has been stupendously successful in exploring how our universe works. Seeing that as competing with religion doesn't really make sense.
     
  16. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't see the narrative, or you don't see science and religious beliefs in conflict?
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everyone can easily recognize that if the Bible is treated as a physics manual there will be differences between the Bible and our current understanding of physics.

    So, one CAN get worked up over that. Or, one can look for what the message actually is in each case. And, one can notice that various events are not fully described either by the Bible or by science. In both cases, we're humans and do not understand it all. Both the Bible and science state that we don't know it all.

    I would add that physics isn't the only case of the Bible not matching current understanding. But, those shouldn't lead us to reject one or the other, either.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was a young lady called Bright
    who could travel much faster than light.
    She departed one day
    in a relative way
    and returned on the previous night

    :cool:
     
    usfan likes this.
  19. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You're right. It's incredibly silly for someone who believes something that's unbelievable to make fun or denigrate someone who believes something different that's equally unbelievable.
     
    RiaRaeb likes this.
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see evidence of any "takeover" such as you propose there to be.

    In fact, we're moving AWAY from science and empiricism.

    We're moving AWAY from allowing science to inform public policy. We're moving AWAY from assuring that our population is educated in science to a level needed in public policy and the economy both here and abroad - in fact we're explicitly devaluing education. We're moving AWAY from valuing expert opinion and demonstrated capability. We're moving TOWARD accepting anything leaders say, even when it clearly shown to be false.

    You can express your opinions anywhere you want (as long as it isn't voiced as coming from the government).


    I don't know what got you so butt hurt, but your complaints here just plain hold no water at all.
     
  21. delade

    delade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Keeping with Sola Scripture would clear all of the other 'tenets' of faith and Christianity.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  22. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll repeat my point:

    It has been my observation, that the 'religion' of Atheistic Naturalism has taken over as the Official State Religious Belief. That belief system has become the dominant & exclusive belief in the State's education systems, the media, entertainment, National Parks, children's shows, the courts, & every institution of man. They have banned any competition from alternate religious views, & have mandated conformity of belief in their naturalistic opinions. These are not empirical 'scientific facts!', but are merely religious opinions, about the nature of man & the universe
    .

    If you cannot see the exclusive hold the ideology of atheistic naturalism has in the public discourse, academia, govt, media, national parks, etc, then i have no common observation to appeal to.

    And for you to label this as 'butt hurt!' Is ad hom, and beneath you.

    'Moving away', from science and empiricism is my point. They hijack 'science!' and put an 'Approved by Science!' sticker on everything, but it is just propaganda .. pseudoscience .. for the promotion of an agenda.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Children's shows? Entertainment? The media? Public discourse?

    Those guiding the items you list certainly aren't bothering to consult science.

    If I didn't know you better I'd think you were aggregating those things you don't see as consistent with your religion and then blaming them on science.
     
    RiaRaeb likes this.
  24. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yes. all of those are controlled by the RELIGION of atheistic naturalism. No alternate views are allowed, by court order & complicity.

    This is what you get when an ideology.. a worldview, departs scientific methodology, & sinks to mandates & demands of conformity. They stick an 'Approved by Science!' sticker on everything, & bluff the uninformed that all really smart people know these things to be proven fact. but it is a propaganda illusion, to promote a worldview.. a religious belief about the nature of man & the universe. There is no 'science!' to prove their bold claims, just mandates.

    They think that 'science!' approves & gives them the Absolute Truth, about whatever it is they are pitching this decade. And they conveniently censor any alternate views, or critical voices, to imply a universal assent among all 'scientists', when it is just censorship.

    Note some of the current academian beliefs:

    1. Guns are evil & should be banned.
    2. White people are inherently racist & privileged.. except liberals..
    3. Evolution proves universal common descent, and no mention of God is allowed.
    4. Man made global warming will destroy the planet, flood the coast lines, & kill us all, if we don't stop all fossil fuel burning, & give all our money to research scientists.
    5. Socialism can work.. it is a hip, trendy, New Thing, & we can make it work, this time!
    6. Your identity at birth is flexible.. you can be whatever gender, race, or creature you want to be!


    These and more are progressive propaganda memes, with no basis in empirical science. Young people can parrot the talking points for each of these things, but cannot spell simple words, or say what was said in the declaration of independence, or recite simple formulas. We are churning out brainwashed dupes, for the progressive agenda, not critical thinking, open minded, liberally educated humans. Almost all the principles from the enlightenment, that brought us America, ended slavery, & promoted self rule & individual freedom are under attack by the militant progressive religious fanatics, who tirelessly attack religious freedom & shamelessly promote their own, exclusively.

    I blame NONE of this on science. It has been hijacked, & is being held hostage by pseudo scientists, who suppose mandates can fool the scientifically minded. RELIGIOUS BIGOTS are the issue here, not true science. They have their agenda, & hide behind a pretense of 'science!' to promote their propaganda.
     
    it's just me likes this.
  25. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are many misunderstandings.

    1) I am quite sure you do not know much about the enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Rousseau and others. Those that formulated the principles on which this nation was founded as per "Classical Liberalism" and "Republicanism" .. the two are pretty much the same.

    DUDE ... the whole point of these thinkers was to come up with principles for a society that was not dependent on God.

    While it was theorized that individual liberty was a gift from the Creator - this term was deliberately chosen to not invoke the Christian God - or any God as the Creator could be the natural order of the Universe.

    Regardless - this premise was simply to put individual liberty ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't.

    The Authority of Gov't was to come from "we the people/consent of the Governed" as opposed to "Divine right/God" as was the case in the Past.

    The Gov't has no legitimate authority to make ANY Law outside its legitimate purview (which was protection from harm) never mind dictate religious belief.


    2) 'We must obey God, rather than man.' AKA, 'freedom of conscience'

    What on earth are you talking about ? the statement is a contradiction. How is "we must obey some human interpretation of some book claimed to be from God" ... Freedom of conscience ???

    This was the complete lack of freedom of conscience that the enlightenment thinkers were fighting against - That the state would compel people to obey "God's Law" as per the religious leaders and divine right of the King.

    That Gov't should not make law on the basis of religious belief was the main point of the first amendment. This gave freedom of religion but more importantly "Freedom From Religion"

    It is not like the founders did not make their intentions clear.

    The idea that the founders wanted to use Christianity as a basis for their new system of Gov't is complete and preposterous abject nonsense.

    The purpose of the founders was to create a system of Gov't that was based on reason and specifically not one that was based on religious belief.
     

Share This Page