|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
11-13-2006, 10:11 PM | #41 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you mean Unitarian Universalist Christian, that would be a Christian who is a member of the UUA or its affiliated churches and fellowships. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Pascal's Wager is logically unsound for a variety of reasons, but I'm sorry that your friend does this. You don't seem to like your friend doing that with you. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
People do have the right to say what a Christian is to them, even if this means we end up with dozens of slightly different interpretations of what it means, even if all of those differ from what being a Christian means to me. People do have the right to communicate what being a Christian means to them. I'm in favor of that, so long as it isn't done in an intrusive or forceful way. In fact, I think it does a Christian good to constantly be exploring what it means to be a Christian, adjusting and refining what that means to her. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Did you have a point to make with this? Quote:
For future reference, Gilda is a woman's name. Quote:
I expect that people will contradict what I say in just about every thread in which I post. I reacted to this personal comment: "You are not a christian, and you are intentionally leading others to believe something that is not true. Have fun with that..." You questioned my faith, called me a liar, and made a flip comment to close it out. Given the blatantly insulting nature of this comment and the repeated name calling and frequent distortions of what I've been saying that followed, I think I've been positively restrained in my responses. Quote:
Does treating others with respect include questioning their faith, questioning their honesty, making flip remarks, and repeated name calling? Pot, meet kettle. Quote:
Quote:
By the way, those are both independent clauses. Trust me on this. Quote:
Quote:
You might notice that the only response to my post before yours starts with a thank you, and that there are several other Christians and theists posting here as well. Are the other Christians also being antagonistic by posting in this thread? And it's late and I have work tomorrow. I'd have been done a good half hour ago if a crash hadn't eaten half my post.
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert Last edited by Gilda; 11-14-2006 at 11:04 AM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11-14-2006, 12:28 AM | #42 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
Anyway, carry on with your debate! [/endthreadjack] To get on-topic, though, I can't help but laugh at the blatant hypocrisy of some athiests. They spend their time pointing the finger at hardcore theists yet they spend far too much time trying to prove that God doesn't exist (See, flying spaghetti monster) or even trying to remove all references to God from society (See, pledge of allegiance). Theists try to spread their beliefs while athiests try to do the same. So what's the point in all this useless bickering? And to all the athiests who live in the United States and have a problem swearing on the Bible, can I have all your money which has the statement "In God We Trust" printed on it? After all, you don't believe in God
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 11-14-2006 at 01:25 AM.. |
|
11-14-2006, 01:33 AM | #43 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
However, when I compare that side-by-side with most of the major religions on the planet who HAVE done all those things at some point in time, and continue to give people shit for not believing as they do, atheists don't pan out nearly as "equally" in terms of how they believe. I was downtown for Halloween this year, and passed by a corner with about 20 people standing around, in the cold (yeah it was actually kind of cold even here in florida), with giant signs- some of them with megaphones- proclaiming how we're all going to hell for observing Halloween. How it's a pagan holiday and this and that and blah blah blah. The point is, while those are obviously the more "fervent" (to put it nicely) of their kind and not indicative of the whole... ...could you ever imagine ANYTHING of a truly comparitive sort being perpetrated by "atheists"? Even the most outspoken/fervent ones? People of religious belief are often compelled to try and convert a person because they believe 1. they're doing good, and/or 2. they believe you are a lesser/evil/bad person for NOT believing as they do. I've never encoutered a situation where an atheist was condescending, rude, or treated someone as a lesser person because they DID have religious beliefs- but I encounter interactions all the time where people are looked down upon because they express they are either wiccan, pagan, atheist, agnostic, or simply not the same religion as the other, "theist", person with whom they're talking. I'm Catholic, btw, if that puts anything I've written into better perspective than if you thought I was atheist. |
|
11-14-2006, 06:51 AM | #44 (permalink) | ||
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
Location: In the dust of the archives
|
Quote:
I am an athiest. I spend no more time trying to prove that your god doesn't exist than I do Zeus, Jupiter, Morrigan, Odin, or Quetzacoatl. What's the point? You cannot prove that something does not exist. Nor do I believe that "faith" is required in order to not believe. How is that Hypocrisy? Quote:
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. |
||
11-14-2006, 08:34 AM | #45 (permalink) | |
Wehret Den Anfängen!
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
Removing one non-rational belief pattern (supernatural power) from play does not prevent someone from using a different pattern (materialist historical predestination) and committing the same kind of horrible mass sins on its behalf.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. |
|
11-14-2006, 10:22 AM | #46 (permalink) |
<3 TFP
Location: 17TLH2445607250
|
I don't really understand how theism (or lack thereof) and morality have any relationship to one another at all.
You have moral: Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Satanists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et cetera. You have immoral: Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Satanists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et cetera. So... what gives? I suppose I consider myself a spiritualist, in so much as I believe in something beyond our mortal coil, but do not adhere to any organized religion. I am moral because I believe in being a good person. I also make mistakes because I am human. My upbringing, my spiritual concepts nor any other specific device is cause for my morality. People suck...
__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible... -- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato My Homepage |
11-14-2006, 10:40 AM | #47 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Quote:
In it, religion has been banned and the Unified Athiest League, the United Athiest Alliance and Allied Athiest Allegiance all fight to expand their brand of athiesm (The one "True" athiesm). It's pretty funny. The entire two-part episode could be summed up by these two quotes: Cartman: "Oh my God!" Athiest #1: "Haha! You still believe in religion!" --- I believe Yakk said it best. You can remove religion entirely; People will simply find another rationale to base their actions on.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. |
|
11-14-2006, 11:01 AM | #48 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: South Florida
|
This issues has been talked about time and time again on TFP. All of these discussions have come to the same conclussion: Everybody disagrees with everybody.
I mean talk about beating a dead horse. Somebody should have used the search function. This is so redundant. This topic always leads to each side trying prove that either God exists or he doesn't. Neither side really wins or make any arguement that cannot be refuted(don't know how that is spelled.) Anyway I think that everybody just simply needs to drop it and agree to disagree. Stop trying to discredit eachother, becuase I guarantee nobody is going to change their view or opinion. People in TFP are way too stubborn and some just cannot pull their heads out their ass long enough to see daylight, let alone consider where somebody else might be coming from. Anyway Just my thought on this old and never say DIE topic.
__________________
"Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right." |
11-14-2006, 11:07 AM | #49 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
I don't know man, I was very surprised at the tone of this thread. That is atheists find themselves under fire or ostracised in our society. In my experience, it has been the exact opposite. It has never been cool to be religious unless it was a non-Western variety. All my life as a Christian, I have been teased, ridiculed and subjected to some pretty heavy bashing. I always thought atheism was the cool thing to be.
|
11-14-2006, 11:20 AM | #50 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
but there is validation in this "persecution" isn't there, jorgelito?
it works the same way for all sides. isn't that what every version of this thread is ultimately about?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
11-14-2006, 11:33 AM | #51 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
I think so Roach (although I'm not too clear what you mean by validation?)
At least in some philosphical sense. That is to say that at the end of the day we're all the same: There are some nice religious folk and there are some not-nice religious folk. There are some nice atheists (non-religious folk) and not-nice religious folk. I guess there is one adage all religious and non-religious can agree on and live by: "Do unto others....." For me at least, I adopt the philosophy of Cynthetiques signature. |
11-14-2006, 12:29 PM | #52 (permalink) | |
Wehret Den Anfängen!
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
Both Communist "materilistic historical determinism" and Muslim/Jewish/Christian "omnipotent singular diety" are horribly dangerous and evil ideas. Both place entire realms of thought into the "this is true, and if you disagree with it, you must be surpressed". They encourage fanatacism and a belief that "what you are doing doesn't really matter -- everything is going according to plan", which disassociates people from the true horror of the actions they are doing. By providing a "greater good" to worship, they both excuse real physical evil done in the "greater good"s name. I'm glad you understand the danger. I am pretty sure there are monothiestic religious belief systems that aren't as dangerous as Communism is. The Dieism that was popular around the time of the American revolution (there exists a god, but we can't know much about him), for example. Once you have generated docterine that states "You must be certain that people who disagree with this docterine deserve to be destroyed", the belief system passes the threshold into the valley of death. On the other hand, most such belief systems have dogma that gets in the way of their believers gaining knowledge about the world. However, with the advent of nuclear bombs, the crippling features of dogmatic religion matter less -- the dogmatic fanatics don't need to figure out the laws of physics well enough to build nukes, they just need to possess them, and threaten to destroy other people unless one kowtows to them. Sad, really.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. |
|
11-14-2006, 01:29 PM | #53 (permalink) | |
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
Quote:
Many people do treat their religion as a pick and choose what benefits them type of thing. I understand that you think Christians shouldn't do this, but that doesn't change the fact that many do. Some religions even encourage this. Shintoists don't actually have to believe in any of the spiritual aspects of the religion to be members of the religion. Participation in certain rituals is enough.
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert |
|
11-14-2006, 02:05 PM | #54 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
I just a have few things to say about the original purpose of this post. It is just as MORALLY WRONG to say you are morally superior to me because you are an atheist as it is for me to claim the same because I'm a follower of the bit purple blob.
In actuality I would define myself as a Christian, but I don't think that really matters. I would be very wrong to say that only my view is valid. Explain how that is bad, but you saying that only your way is right is not equally as bad? Where is the harm in beliefs? Is it harmful to others that I believe that a man was born from Immaculate Conception and that he died and was resurrected harmful to anyone? No in fact the harm only comes into play when I try to force others to believe that same idea, or when I harass or ridicule them for not. The same holds true for every faith driven person, agnostic, or atheist.
__________________
~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~ "A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." ~Erno Philips
|
11-14-2006, 02:19 PM | #55 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
Humans have been applying such tools to their life-course transitions and painful circumstances for thousands upon thousands of years; for that reason in itself, I cannot see to judge anyone for celebrating or grieving via a ritual (religious or otherwise), and I consider it a privilege when I am invited/allowed to participate. The range of human experience is too wide and beautiful for me to restrict myself to only practicing what I believe (or not practicing what I don't believe, which is even more narrow). I may be well on my way to atheism (or may just dwell permanently at agnosticism), but it is simply in my nature to want to experience and understand what other people do to get through life on their own terms. As long as their terms expect nothing from me, of course. Then I find it justifiable to be semi-militant...
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
11-14-2006, 10:15 PM | #56 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Saying that is an example of atheists forcibly converting, is like saying the Church of England is responsible for any spread of the British Monarchy after it was made the official religion- we're talking about a conversion of societal structure as a whole, more about the economic and governing powers. If those in power believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it wouldn't change the fact at all that it was Communism that was being forced on people, the center of the killings and violence. Atheism was just a part of the package that came with their brand of communism. |
||
11-14-2006, 11:17 PM | #58 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
11-15-2006, 04:26 AM | #59 (permalink) | |
Psycho
|
Quote:
__________________
"I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre |
|
11-15-2006, 04:34 AM | #60 (permalink) |
Upright
|
If you follow atheism to its logical conclusion you arrive at the realisation that there is nothing 'above' humanity. The human is the ultimate being in the universe, free to decide how to live their lives.
If there is no 'higher power' or being to have a guiding moral impact, then whatever each person decides is true. If I decide to kill you, and I believe that to be morally correct, what moral grounds do you have to say I'm wrong to do so? Law in most countries is derived from religion. Western countries law is based on Christian values (although unfortunately we're moving further from that) and Muslim countries often apply Sharia law. True atheists do not believe in morals, because they do not believe there is a source of moral guidance or right. They believe that man should decide what is right and wrong, or society. But what if society (for instance Nazi Germany or Communist Russia) decide that persecuting certain minorities was ok? Who do we look to then for moral guidance? Atheism is man's way of trying to make himself God. Also, in response to someone's previous statement that Christians 'can' believe the bible is flawed, then read 2 Timothy 3:16. "ALL scripture is God-breathed" etc, look it up. The Bible is easily misinterpreted by the atheist, or someone who wants to discredit Christianity. Even by someone who doesn't see the big picture of the Bible. The Pope makes mistakes. The Bible doesn't. |
11-15-2006, 04:47 AM | #61 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland
|
Quote:
Also, you cannot prove that the bible is not flawed because the bible says it is not flawed. It's just not a valid logical statement. |
|
11-15-2006, 05:36 AM | #62 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
And quite frankly, I prefer the company of atheists over Christians, since I feel the former don't have an agenda to press upon me regarding all of my life decisions (none of my atheist friends are "militants," I should add). They're simply human, not clouded up with ideas of being somehow "touched by God" or divinely ordained to smother their truth over me. I find that kind of person a lot easier to sit around and just BE with, than someone who is anxious to get me out of the fires of hell because I'm inherently corrupted, in their eyes. I imagine Jesus would be something like that... not quick to condemn or preach Bible verses at me, but willing to just sit and be, and get to know me as a person. I think that if Jesus saw the way that most evangelical Christians went about "asserting" themselves and their faith on the world, he'd get nauseous and throw up his hands at the whole lot. Shoving Bible verses down someone's throat when they have done you no harm is just plain insensitive, and self-righteous to boot. Shoving atheist dogma down someone's throat in the same manner is just as rude; both deserve a place in Dante's inferno, gnawing on each other for all eternity (now that would be justice!). Sometimes I think it's a pity that I no longer believe in hell.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
11-15-2006, 06:37 AM | #63 (permalink) | |||
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
Location: In the dust of the archives
|
Quote:
Sorry, MrVisitor. But I do know, and recognize, right from wrong. I do not walk the path of darkness simply because I refuse to fall to my knees and worship any mythological deity. Although I do not recognize the Bible as the word of God, I can, and do, recogize that the Ten Commandments are a pretty good set of rules to live by. Most of 'em, anyway. And that by themselves, form the basic structure of any society. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. |
|||
11-15-2006, 06:52 AM | #64 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Mr. Visitor... I'd really hate to live in the world you paint.
Secular Humanism. Look. It. Up.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
11-15-2006, 07:37 AM | #65 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
There is a difference between having no exteranally placed moral compass and having no morals. Anyone that understands that he or she has the ability to harm others and makes the choice not to for the reason of not harming others and no other reason has morals.
The only difference between atheists and believers is that the believer bases his or her moral compass on the rules of his or her religion and the atheist bases his or her moral compass on an internal conscience. The only problem witht the internal conscience is that it is going to be different from person to person. but really is that any differnet from all the different exteral morals represented by different religions? Its really not, regardless of faith or lack of faith, every person is going to have slightly differnet moral beliefs. Thats why we have governments to set up a legal standard to meet the moral beliefs of those governed. Hopefully. The fact that I believe that my conscience is God whispering in my ear and nonbelievers think its just the natural guilt associated with doing what is wrong, the result is the same, meaning that neither is any way superior to the other.
__________________
~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~ "A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." ~Erno Philips
|
11-16-2006, 03:58 PM | #66 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Shoreline, WA, USA
|
Quote:
And you can avoid the Irish civil war examples all you want, but all sides in Ireland use "moral" highground all the time. Which religion is "right and moral" ? Religion doesn't stop unjust wars. (Crusades up to Iraq) Nor does it strengthen moral codes. It helps sometimes, but religion cannot be relied upon when its followers are wishy washy and covered with infighting. Lastly, you have avoided use of the term ethics. I posit that the same amount of athiests have functioning ethics as religious people have functioning morals. Ethics and morals are 99% synonyms except for the God part that is included in my definition of morals. Jonathan, the good agnostic.
__________________
"We are sure to be losers when we quarrel with ourselves. It is a civil war, and in all such contentions, triumphs are defeats." Mr Colton ================================== |
|
11-16-2006, 05:00 PM | #67 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Lake Mary, FL
|
Unlike theism, athiesm is an abstract concept with no concrete set of moral and ethical codes.
Anyway... Anyone who thinks that a lack of religion will ultimately be better than religion is kidding themselves.
__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. |
11-16-2006, 09:30 PM | #70 (permalink) | |
Wehret Den Anfängen!
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
Most uses of Religion in war are about increasing obedience to the secular powers. In the case of Communism, the Atheism requirement was about removing alternatives to the Communists social structure. By banning or surpressing organized religion, they removed organizations that did not line up with their belief systems. Religions, typically in the human experience, have been about governing people. The divine right of kings. Sharia law. The Church of England broke away from the Catholic church because the King wanted to do something against Catholic rules, and didn't want the Catholics messing with him. Abortion bans. Creationism teachings. It is only in a handful of recent Western nations do they claim that Religion and State are seperate spheres.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. |
|
11-16-2006, 09:55 PM | #71 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-17-2006, 04:23 AM | #72 (permalink) | |
Insane
Location: rural Indiana
|
Quote:
For those who wish to think an atheist's moral conscience is the same thing as religious guidelines, fine, interchange them if you wish ......but there is no way I'm going to believe in the ever present religious fairy tales.....thats just plain silly imo. So.....I'll go with my atheistic moral conscience.
__________________
Happy atheist |
|
11-17-2006, 06:11 AM | #73 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
11-17-2006, 07:16 AM | #74 (permalink) | ||||
Wehret Den Anfängen!
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
By spreading their religion, they produced people more governable by their Empire. By blocking out and supressing other religions, they made the people resistant to opposing the Empire. Communist cared if people where athiests -- religion was a counter-revolutionary force, and other pseudo-theological hand-wavey labels where used to explain why having a Religion was evil. Same shit, different pile. Quote:
There where many points of friction between secular authorities and the Pope. Most of the changes done in the Anglican Catholic Church where simple repeals of the Authority of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops of England. Acts done after the fact, such as the claiming of large tracts of Church land for the nobility, point out exactly how much secular governance the Bishops of that era where engaged in. And why, again, was the divorce desired? He thought the people of England where not ready for a Queen, and his first wife had only produced a live Daughter. A secular matter of inheritance was the reason behind the religious schism in England. The continuance of the Anglican church, and the religious wars that followed, where shockingly lined up with the succession. Mary, Queen of Scots, was legitimate if and only if the schism with the Catholic church was invalid, and Elizabeth was legitimate if and only if the schism with the Catholic church was valid. Can you guess what the professed religion of Mary and Elizabeth was? Saying that "Communism used Atheism as a means to and end", and not acknowleging that religions, historically, have been an important part of social glue that was merged continuously with secular life. The seperate of church and state is a historical anomoly -- one that I like -- but claiming secular motives for religious wars and crimes is no evidence that the wars where not religious in nature. If that was your standard, then you get to throw out most religious wars -- even the Crusades involved secular kingdoms. I see little difference significant between the "religion" of Communism and the "religion" of Catholicism and the "religion" of Anglicanism. The Communist religion is Athieistic, the Catholic and Anglican religions are monotheistic. Quote:
Quote:
I'm not saying that "normal" is good. "Normal" is just what usually happens when you don't explicitly try to do something. "The normal state of affairs for a rock is lieing on the ground. The normal state of affairs for water is flowing downhill." America, the USA, was created because of tax disagreements with an incompetent regency in England. You had a king who was being run by a regency who where bleeding the soon-to-be American colonies dry. There was, by this time, a heck of alot of religious freedom in the British Empire. As an example, a huge number of Penn. Amish fled the USA for the colony of upper Canada (Ontario, the Waterloo/Kitchener region) because they knew the British Empire was tolerant of religious minorities, and didn't trust the newly formed USA to be nearly so tolerant. The US revolution was a tax revolt, first and foremost, and those that led it also added the newfangled French idea of "the state and the church are seperate" in order to help pacify fears by the large number of religious groups in the USA that they would be surpressed by a new state religion. We are living in strange times. Failing to realize this will make you see history with a seriously warped bend.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. |
||||
12-11-2006, 01:42 AM | #75 (permalink) | ||
Crazy
Location: Shoreline, WA, USA
|
Quote:
Morals and ethics change over time and not set in concrete by either theists or atheists. I went to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit today and it was amazing the large number of deletions, mistakes, and additions to the bible over a thousand years. The Psalms were particularly edited, cut, and revamped many many times. And even the messiah myth of the coming of the son of God changed many times as well. At some points the messiah was to be a violent warrior and later he was rewritten to be a bringer of peace and healer. Some of the changes could be due to translation errors, but other deletions could only be scribes and priests changing their ethics and morals as they saw fit. Jonathan Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_...ce_Plantations And for awhile Massachussets had laws against Quakers, Amish, and other religions. I think they had 2-3 days to leave the state or they would be hanged. However some cities were more liberal than others. That is why MA is still called a Commonwealth to this day. However, I don't think many people were hanged during the Revolutionary war because of religion. Mostly just for being Loyalists to the English Crown. Which some of them were actually Anglican faith and maybe they never were doing anything like treason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachussets It wasn't until 1818 that Connecticut separated church and state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Colony Virginia had 4 religions and they all banded together mostly to fight the English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Virginia New Jersey allowed all religions, but probably mainly encouraged Christian religions only. I couldn't find much info on New Hampshire. Another good thing to read is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_State Jonathan
__________________
"We are sure to be losers when we quarrel with ourselves. It is a civil war, and in all such contentions, triumphs are defeats." Mr Colton ================================== Last edited by opus123; 12-11-2006 at 02:30 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
Tags |
atheists, militant, outspoken, thread |
|
|