Atheists Least Trusted

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
The desire of America’s forefathers was to establish a country in which the separation of church and state, and the freedom to practice one’s faith without fear of persecution, was guaranteed. That guarantee was written in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

Regardless of what their personal beliefs were, they garanteed that we can practice what we choose.

[Maverick]

Chairboy,

I really didn't think my post was vague os obscure. Excel1 pretty much has it nailed.

Like I said, words to a liar or hypocrite are mere tools to gain what they want and have no real meaning or trust behind them.

Let me try a few examples and see it this clarifies it for you.

If you have a person who says they are your friend and will back you up when you are looking through an abandoned building who then stabs you in the back with a knife (for real, not metaphorically) when you turn your back on him, was he in fact a friend even though he said he was?

If you have a person who claims to be a doctor of medicine, has documents hanging on the wall that seem to confirm it and says the only way to cure your hangnail on your foot is to remove your left hand, do you still think he's a doctor??

If you deal with a person who says they are a banker, barrister or lawyer will provide you with a vast reward if you cash a check for them and send them 20% of the total amount before the check clears are you going to believe them??

In each one of these examples I listed, the person CLAIMED to be one thing but acted diametrically opposed to their stated position. Does that mean that anyone who claims to be a friend is an enemy, who claims to be a doctor is a quack, who claims to be a banker, etc. is a scam artist, or are their ACTIONS more important than their words that they used to get their way? You can't really be that freaking dense guy.

hitler could have claimed to be a new Jewish messiah leading the Jews to the promissed land via crematoriums but that doesn't mean he believes in the Jewish faith and the examples of Moses et al any more than jeffrey dahmer was a great baby sitter.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Maverick
......any more than jeffrey dahmer was a great baby sitter.

ROFL..

gawd, now that paints a heluva mental picture. Nothin like drivin tacks with nukes.

[Seagoon]

Perhaps a little history of the church in Germany during the reign of national socialism might help in the Hitler discussion.

Hitler was not a Christian, philosophically, like most Nazis of the period he was a Nietzschian. For those of you not familiar with the 19th century German philosopher, here is a brief synopsis of his life and thought regarding Christianity written by Simon Kistemaker:

"Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, born in 1844, belonged to a family of preachers. His father was a minister of the gospel and so were numerous ancestors of his mother. Studying theology, he developed a deep aversion to the Christian faith. He portrayed Jesus as a weakling who shamefully died on a cross in utter failure. Nietzsche despised not only Jesus but also all who believe Christ’s gospel. According to Nietzsche, Christians favor suffering, scorn riches and learning, and prefer the weak to the strong. For him, God was dead and Jesus a fool.

Hitler and the Nazis therefore saw Christianity as a weak and foolish religion that stood in the way of the strong dominating the weak. But Hitler realized that most Germans (though overwhelmingly theologically liberal - i.e. anti-supernaturalists) still had an attachment to the church. Therefore the Nazis made concerted efforts were made to co-opt and "Nazify" the churches in Germany and work towards the day when National Socialism and Aryanism would replace all other ideologies. In the "Nazi" church, nationalism and Aryanism became the central creeds, and Christ was in effect replaced by Hitler. An example of this would be the famous quote from Nazi church leader, Pastor Julius Leutheuser: "Christ has come to us through Adolf Hitler... We know today the Saviour has come... We have only one task, be German, not be Christian."

Eerdman's Handbook of Church History gives a good synopsis of this period and makes clear that Hitler cyncically first used the church for his own ends, and then worked to eliminate it entirely - I'll split this into two parts, the Nazi co-opting of the mainline churches and then the reaction against Nazification from religious conservatives:

The plight of Christians under the Nazi regime was also precarious. Born and reared a Catholic, Hitler abandoned whatever Christian principles he had in favour of the secular philosophies of the day. But he never formally cut his ties with the church, nor was he excommunicated. National Socialism itself was a new faith which appealed to the millions of Germans who longed for national regeneration. Hitler's hatred for the church was primarily political; he envied the power Catholicism had over its adherents, and despised Protestantism for its lack of unity and of authority. However, he courted both Protestant and Catholic support during his rise to power by emphasizing the nationalist aspects of his programme, and by claiming to support the church's position in the state.
...
Hitler's    policy    toward  the churches after January 1933 was purely pragmatic. He realized the power they possessed, and did not want to initiate another Kultur-kampf. But he assumed that, in time, the outdated Christian faith would die out. The Catholic bishops endorsed the new regime. The Catholic Centre Party voted for the measure which allowed Hitler to rule by decree, and the Centre and Catholic trade unions 'voluntarily' dissolved themselves.

In return the Fuhrer agreed to a concordat with the Vatican... The concordat greatly increased the prestige of Hitler's regime. By it the church sanctioned   the liquidation of the religious (confessional) political parties, and the barring of the clergy from politics. It formed a milestone in the consolidation of the totalitarian state. Many churchmen feared that open conflict with the regime might jeopardize  those privileges still protected by the agreement. The Nazis    violated the concordat almost from the very beginning; it gave no protection against attacks, and at the same time it undermined the developing Catholic resistance.

A movement swept the Protestant church in 1933 calling for 're-unification and 'nationalization' of the twenty-eight provincial churches (Landeskirchern) with a single "Reich-Bishop" at its head. This seemed in line with Hitler's policy of bringing all groups under the total control of the Fuhrer and the state.  The "German Christians" secured the election of Ludwig Muller, a fervent Nazi. They also restructured the church along Nazi lines, by introducing the Fuhrer principle into church government and adopting the 'Aryan paragraph' which provided for dismissal of all people of Jewish origin from church staffs.

[Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity pp. 576-577]

[Seagoon]

Hitler, however, took little notice of these steps, and rejected the 'German Christians' idea of a National Socialist state church. He felt that the church's sole function was to cater for benighted [benighted: intellectually unenlightened] people who still had religious needs.  Any church, even a Nazified one, threatened to divide loyalties; he would  tolerate  no such limitations to his power.

Hitler listened increasingly to anti-Christian Nazis who called for the elimination of both the 'German Christians' and their opponents in the church. After 1934 Nazi support for the 'German Christians' waned, although many continued to occupy church posts.  They became  even more extreme in their claims that the Nazi movement represented the true  fulfilment  of  Christianity, but they found that Nazi favour could be gained only by a wholehearted commitment to its racial ideas and the exaltation of the Fuhrer. With the creation of the Ministry of Church Affairs in 1935, under Hanns Kerrl, they and the Reich-bishop were put on one side.

The increasing encroachment of the Nazi state on religious matters alarmed  many  Protestants and Catholics, and what followed was the well-known Kirchen-kampf (church-struggle). In September 1933 Dr Martin Niemoller formed a Pastor's Emergency League to combat 'German Christian' ideas.  In the following year his group repudiated Muller and set up an alternative church   government   structure known as  the Confessing Church. Its theological basis was spelled out in the Barmen Declaration of May 1934.  ... the Declaration called the German church back to the central truths of Christianity and rejected the totalitarian claims of the state in religious and political matters.
...
Harassed by the Gestapo and repudiated by most Protestant leaders, the Confessing Church led a perilous existence. Its very presence was an embarrassment to the Nazis and its witness to Christ's Lordship over the world implicitly challenged Hitler's totalitarianism."

[Eerdamn's Handbook to the History of Christianity p.578

Several members of the Confessing Church movement ended up in concentration camps, and a few like Bohoeffer were active in the anti-Hitler resistance.

It's important to note that the resistance to the claims of Hitler and the Nazis on the allegiance of Christians came from the sectors of the church that actually believed the bible and considered the claims of Christ to be paramount. In other words it was by-and-large the evangelicals who resisted. A fact that is born out by the fact that the signers of the Barmen Declaration Available online here self-consciously identified themselves as evangelicals. The churches that were most easily co-opted and controlled by the Nazis were those which had dismissed the truth claims of the bible and thought Christianity was just another source of morals and national pride.

Hitler believed that he was the savior of the German people, and dismissed all other claimants to that title including of course, Jesus.

- SEAGOON

[lazs2]

rolex... I believe that the founders believed as I do... that a strong central government or a strong religion in cahoots with the government were bad things.

I am not sure that you would have much use for how the founders felt about strong central government so it seems odd that you would even care how they felt about anything else.

lazs

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Rolex
Washington, Franklin, Madison and Jefferson were not Christian. They considered the divinity of Jesus Christ to be foolish, supernatural nonsense.

A letter to Benjamin Rush from Thomas Jefferson:

In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.  I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.  

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan....

"While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas; indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgment to them. Like humans, they are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events, and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All supernatural beings, as living entities, are a part of the six-part reincarnation cycle."

Is that your defenition of athiest?   Did you know that many buddhists were also christians and muslims?     I am failing to see how they would fall into the dishonest category as I have laid out.

Incorrect, both Islam and Christianity exclude Buddhism as part of their belief. You're only reading what you want to see from that paragraph lazs, read it again and tell me who buddhists think created the world.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by lazs2
WELCOMING ATHIESTS!  probly a plot to get them in their and eat their babies (well... if they hadn't aborted their babies but... yu get the point) or worse..... talk to em!

lazs

Hey lazs..I heard you were planning on opening an icecream stand..Is that true?

[Rolex]

Originally posted by lazs2
rolex...
I am not sure that you would have much use for how the founders felt about strong central government so it seems odd that you would even care how they felt about anything else.

lazs

I don't understand this. Are you insinuating something or being snide? Can you please just say it with words that allow the reader to understand your meaning since we no other clues from facial expressions or tone of voice.


Here is some more quotes from Jefferson. Complicated fellows, those founding fathers. Politics required they say things to appease the people under the spell of religion, the same people they were trying to free from its spell.

"The metaphysical abstractions of Athanasius, and the maniacal ravings of Calvin, tinctured plentifully with the foggy dreams of Plato, have so loaded [Christianity] with absurdities and incomprehensibilities..."

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as "the ravings of a maniac."

He even edited the New Testament, deleting all passages of supernatural, wizardry and evangelists. The University of Virginia was the first school without any religious affiliation and theology was not taught.

[Debonair]

Maybe, but Patrick Ewing pwnd Ralph Sampson.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Excel, YOU read his words:

"I believe actions count far more than words."

After saying that, is there ANY possible way that someone who did what Hitler did could EVER meet his criteria of a christian?  He just said that anyone who does bad stuff is no christian, by sheer virtue of their actions.

HEY!

come on guys, look closely at the wording and the technique used!

Attack?

How?

Do everything possible to twist the words, any words, toward the object you wish to demonized!

YO Chairboy  You wanted me to give an example of an attack?  LOL

[Chairboy]

What's the attack?

[z0rch]

After saying that, is there ANY possible way that someone who did what Hitler did could EVER meet his criteria of a christian?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=spanish+popes&btnG=Google+Search

[Seagoon]

Hi Crow,

Since I had to get up for a crying child, I figured I might as well seize the moment and answer your questions. I sense part of the problem we are going to have in discussing some of these points stems from the fact that I presuppose a supernatural worldview, whereas you don't. This means that when I speak of the work of the Holy Spirit in changing the heart, you translate it (or "demythologize" if you prefer) into something along the lines of "attempted behavior modification due to a changed outlook or belief system."

Originally posted by crowMAW
Seagoon...thanks for taking the time to respond.  I can certainly relate to busy weeks.  But this week I'm enjoying a nice quiet vacation.

I would take your meaning of "untrustworthy" to be someone who may lie, cheat, steal or break all of God's commandments...is that about right?

If that is the case, I really don't see how Christians are anymore trustworthy than non-theists since you clearly state that Christians will sin. They are just as likely to lie, cheat, steal or break God's commandmants as the non-theist.

[/b]

No Crow I was not saying that a true Christian will be just as likely to sin as a non-Christian. As I stated in the post you replied to, the Bible teaches that when they are regenerated Christians are given a new heart and a desire to obey God's commands:

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." (Ezek. 36:26-27)

The Christian does not become "instantly holy" overnight, rather there is a process by which he is gradually sanctified, that is conformed by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to the image of Christ. Put simply, a true Christian will be gradually growing more Christlike every day. He will hate sin, and love righteousness more and more. When he does sin, his conscience will be salamandered and his desire will be to repentent and turn away from it.

This we are told in scripture is a marked difference with the unregenerate person who does not desire to turn away from sin, but is spoken of as a "slave to sin" (Romans 6:6 - in fact in the biblical paradigm established by the Apostle Paul in his epistles there are only two categories, "slaves of sin" or "slaves of Christ"): "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." (Romans 8:7)

So if a professing Christian continues to sin in an unrepentant fashion, it is a likely indicator that they are not truly converted.  

The symantic difference is lost on me.  Perhaps you can explain further.  If a Christian sins while in his struggle, it is OK...forgiven by the party who was wronged by the Christian.  But a non-Christian violates a commandment, then they are evil-doers.  I'm sorry, I don't see where the wrong is any less, and therefore don't understand how one would be considered more trustworthy than the other.

No sin is sin, and ultimately all sins are transgressions of God's commandments. All sin, regardless of who does it, is wrong and evil. The Christian who sins against another - lets say by lying - should seek the forgiveness of the person he lied to, acknowledging that it was wrong. He should also seek God's forgiveness, repent, and "lie no more." The real difference is that the Christian has assurance that his sins are forgiven because they have been paid for by Christ's once for all sacrifice. "As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us." (Psalm 103:12) So in the end the real question is, who will pay for your transgressions - you or Christ?

You say that it is the inclination of the non-theist's heart to break God's commandments...but does that mean he will (save but one)?  Can a non-theist choose not to lie, cheat, and steal?  Do you believe that a non-Christian can be righteous in every way other than a lack of faith in God?

You see here you implicitly take the view that all men are born tabula rasa neither inclined to sin or righteousness, and that they choose to sin or do good. Ultimately of course, without an objective standard, there is no good or evil, merely what people or societies call good and evil.

Christ however, stated that the root of sin is the heart: Luke 6:44 "For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. 45 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." So unless the heart is made good, that is regenerated, it will continue to bring forth bad fruit.

Will unregenerate people always sin in their actions? No. But according to scripture, that's their inclination and that's why kids don't need to be taught to lie or hurt one another, and why we carry keys in our pockets.

And what should happen to a society that does not accept all of what God says is good?  Our society values the freedom to worship any god or gods, or no gods at all. So much so that it is codified in our founding documents.  However, #1 among God's commandments is to believe in only Him.  In order not to nullify what God says is good are you suggesting a shift to a theocracy for our nation?

No Crow, as I've stated time and again on this board, I do believe all men should worship God, but I don't believe we are going to create a Christian society by demanding everyone be Christian via legislation, or that this is a covenanted nation like the ancient nation of Israel. THE kingdom, and this particular kingdom are different realms.

As I've stated before, my belief is summed up well in the teaching of the Confession of faith I subscribed to, which as it concerns the civil magistrate and the spirituality of the church was modified shortly after the Revolution by some of the Christians who were highly influential in framing the foundational principles of this nation:

"III.  Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance." (Westminster Confession of Faith, 23.3)

and as the Book of Church Order of my denomination puts it:

"The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force.  The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events.  The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church.  They are as planets moving in concentric orbits:  "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21)." (BCO 3-4)

As far as the way I treat believers and unbelievers of whatever stripe, I try to follow Paul's commands as perfectly as I am able:

"Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion. Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:9-21)

Thanks as always for being entirely civil,

SEAGOON