You're really on a roll! But, you ARE accusing science. And, wrongly so: Demanding that God be involved in evolution? Sorry. That is purely religion trying to SUBVERT science - not just co-opt science. Guns? The argument is that we SHOULD be studying the issue - science. We're pretty much not doing so. Those who are taking a more "belief" centered view are using garbage like accusing the other side of suggesting guns are "evil". That's YOU who said that, not some atheist. Racism? That's a problem of religion, not science. Loving v. Virginia. Hate for Islam. etc. This problem involves religious people hating those that don't look or believe like them. It's you, all over the internet trying to pitch as heretics all those who don't believe as you do. Climate change? Above, you're just flat out lying on this one. Socialism? We're not socialist. My bet is that what you actually hate is having government organized to help those in need. However, people (including churches) are NOT providing the help required, and if there is a better way, then PROPOSE IT! Understanding gender? Sorry. Biology has indeed progressed. We've LONG known that biology does not adhere to religious views on sexual identity, either in visible characteristics or in the range of characteristics that require more careful examination - chemistry, etc. What you are pointing out (in fact, what YOU are taking part in) is having religion co-opt science. If you don't want science to be hi-jacked - then stop hi-jacking science!! And, convince your religious friends to follow that lead.
This is the Devine Right of Kings according to scripture. 1 Samuel 8 King James Version (KJV) 1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba. 3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. 7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lordunto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord. 22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
Yeah, funny how it seems to exclusively be attempts to marginalize, ridicule or belittle Christians! I think of useless, unfunny so called 'comedians', who are petrified to marginalize, ridicule or belittle Muslims, bit are perfectly okay with targeting Christians!
Romans 13 is the divine right of kings according to scripture. It plainly states that ALL political authorities are personally appointed by God and it is a sin to resist them. The Reformers specifically appealed to Romans 13 to defend this doctrine, just as they appealed to other scriptures to defend religious persecution. The were, unfortunately, as depraved as their evil scriptures. It wasn't really until the secular influence of the Enlightenment that this started to change.
You misuse this passage, as the Papists did centuries before. Theirs was a denial of freedom of conscience, and a mandate for political conformity, as is the trend now. The reformation provided the basis for the enlightenment and the age of reason. It culminated in the American experiment. We are departing that ideal now, and are returning to dark ages mandates of conformity.
You immediately jump on the phony narratives and caricatures, and miss the actual debate. None of your 'counterpoints' addressed mine. You have strawmen, and i am not interested in defending them.
The chapter is clear, and even the Reformers read it this way. Look at Calvin or Luther's commentary on it if you like. The Enlightenment was made possible by things like challenging scriptural authority.
"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 "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 Progressive indoctrination and revisionism is rampant in this culture of enmity toward God, distortions, and phony narratives. The truth is there, for those who seek it, as are lies for those who prefer that.
I am not interested in a 'debate' where strawmen, distortions, ad hom, revisionism, and caricatures are presented as a 'rebuttal!' Do not expect a reply from me, if this is all you have.
Don't blame me that you do not know what Strawman and Ad Hom is. Hint - the above is a strawman I realize that the fact that the founders wanted a system where Laws were not made on the basis of religious belief may trouble you. That is no reason to make false accusations (demonization of the messenger) in order to avoid reality.
Needless to say the OP cannot refrain from the debunked theist canard about atheism/agnosticism. Everyone is BORN an atheist/agnostic. This post was purely an observation and no response is required.
Despite the gratuitous ad hom, i would say that everyone is born a sponge.. ignorant and bewildered at the amazing fact of their existence. Later on, they craft plausible scenarios for their existence, influenced by culture, upbringing, indoctrination, and personal experience. But whatever they come up with is still just a personal belief.. an opinion about the nature of the universe and their mysterious existence. No matter how they may try to convince themselves or others, their philosophical beliefs about these Questions remain religious opinions. It is when the promoters and True Believers of these beliefs stoop to attacking, mocking, or censoring alternate religious opinions that they move into the 'Religious Bigotry' camp.
No, you are the one who proposed a LIST of strawmen. You wrote: Had you EVER been interested in legitimate debate you would not be attaching yourself to nonsense like that.
The "pious" and the "wicked" - based on whether one accepts the religion of the author. And, there were so many authors! The root issue here was the schism in Christianity as each side labeled the other as heretical and wicked. I'm sure that was a step in the separation of church and state as in the end having such a rift in the majority religion required moving government toward separating itself from those issues. But, there was a long way to go.
The brutalities of the Reformers were of the same kind as the brutalities of the Catholics. Calvin ordered the deaths of heretics, in keeping with Christian scripture, and Luther used those same scriptures to try to justify religious persecution as well. They did no better than to exchange one brutal authority for another: contemporary moral ignoramuses for the writings of Bronze/Iron Age moral ignoramuses. Neither were of the spirit of the Enlightenment, which called into question brutal authority altogether. You can read Romans 13 for yourself. Or of Calvin's involvement in the execution of Servetus. Or the way the Puritans in the colonies persecuted the Quakers. Or the way Luther tried justifying the persecution of the Anabaptists, which both Reformers and Catholics persecuted. Or read the Bible itself, which seeks to justify everything from slavery to infanticide as being the will of God. Here is Luther's own use of Romans 13 in an attempt to justify the use of government force in religious persecution: "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." And let's not forget: "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." I'm no "progressive." I'm a libertarian, not that I expect you care about any accuracy in this area since I seem to recall making this correction before. My enmity is toward unreasonable brutality, unjustified violence and evil cruelty, all of which can be found in the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. scriptures. I hate slavery, infanticide, religious persecution, punishment for thought crimes, punishing one person for the crimes of another, etc, while your scriptures support these things. That is the fault of your scriptures, not any fault of mine, and I despise those ideologies regardless of what religion teaches them, despite the victim narrative you are advancing here. My opinions on the Christian scriptures are the same as those the hero of the Enlightenment Thomas Paine, "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."
Atheists prefer NOT to indoctrinate their own children with superstitions. Instead they encourage their EDUCATION in the SCIENCES so that they can better understand the REALITY of the world that they live in. It is only theist bigots who are THREATENED by scientific knowledge who make up these asinine canards about atheists "beliefs" that don't actually exist.
Is this how your indoctrination went? ..and your beliefs about the Mysteries of the universe are NOT mere opinions, but are somehow Absolute fact? You believe this, and claim, 'No indoctrination!'? Me pointing out that ALL beliefs/opinions about the deep mysteries of the universe and our existence are just beliefs/opinions, is 'bigotry!' to you? No, you merely illustrate the OP, with YOUR religious bigotry, pretending that YOUR beliefs/opinions about origins and life's mysteries are Absolute Truth, and anyone who has a different opinion is 'superstitious!' But it is a perfect illustration, and though i doubt you will see the reasoning, i am glad for the illustration.
You can keep your revisionist history and distortions. Your information is flawed, and your history is revised. You seem to carry some hostility toward Christianity, but that should not flavor any facts of history. The reformers were NOT the same as the inquisitors. That is like saying the American founders were the same as the British. I don't care what your current political or philosophical belief spectrum is, but i see the vestiges of progressive indoctrination steeped in our nation's institutions. NOBODY escapes the propaganda, as it blares constantly, from every quarter. And if you parrot talking points and phony narratives about 'Christianity!!', i can only conclude the propaganda was effective. You are certainly welcome to believe whatever you want, about events and people in history, but that does not mean your beliefs are grounded in facts or empirical truth. This thread is about religious bigotry. Your anti-Christian rant here is a perfect illustration of the departure, in our culture, of tolerance and freedom of conscience, as the anti-Christianity propaganda drums pound their message of intolerance and bigotry toward this hated ideogy, even though it was the source of the freedoms we take for granted. Repeating the same tired phony narratives, while ignoring the facts of history, only illustrates the effectiveness of progressive propaganda. Here was my rebuttal earlier, to this same dubious 'proof!' that Luther wanted a theocracy:
Poor distortion. I said nothing about science, and only exposed YOUR religious bigotry. It is not surprising that most of the 'arguments!' from progressive indoctrinees are ad hom and other fallacies. All i can do is expose the lies, and present the truth. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
And yet you can't actually point out what about it is "revisionist," ignored every aspect of history I brought up and completely ignored Luther's words that I provided. Luther never wanted religious freedom. Go back and read his words. He wanted governments to punish blasphemers. There was no respect for freedom of religion or freedom of speech among the Protestants. Any claim that there was is completely unsubstantiated and is the actual revisionism. The only difference was scale. The Reformers also went around killing people over doctrine and persecuting people for not following Reform beliefs. I provided examples, but feel free to ignore them again. The Reformers were as bad as the Catholics when it came to religious persecution. Ask the Anabaptists, the Quakers or the Unitarians. The "talking points" I'm bringing up go back to the Enlightenment. For which I, again, provided an example. That's why I provided specific examples. It isn't anti-Christian, it is anti-Bible. I'm under no obligation to respect the Bible's praise of slavery, infanticide and religious persecution. The Bible is full of such religious bigotry. There are, however, plenty of Christians who have risen above the vulgarities of those scriptures, and I've gone into some detail and praise of those Christians in the past. I don't hate Christianity. I hate many Biblical doctrines, for reasons provided. No one should praise slavery, infanticide, religious persecution, etc. This never stops being comical: "If you don't believe what I believe, you will justifiably be tortured for eternity." "That's a silly and cruel belief." "*Gasp* bigot!!!!!!!!" Then point out anything about it that is phony. What fact have I gotten wrong, and why do you insist on dodging all of the facts provided? Then why did Luther try to justify religious persecution? Or did you not bother to read the quote I provided? "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."
