Godlessness and Freedom - mutually exclusive?

[Juanita]

Wow - Bill Collier had an EXCELLENT article published on this.

 

I think this is one of the best articles I have read on Godlessness and its impact on Freedom

AND the solution. 

 

I recommend it to you!

 

http://bit.ly/ajeanz

[Francis Thomas]

This is without doubt one of the poorest articles I have ever read. Not only is it poorly written but it is factually wrong.

There is no “moral collapse”. If you questioned people on the street whether they thought a menstruating woman was “unclean” I doubt many people would say “yes”, which of course contradicts the “great” moral code presented in the Bible. By the way the Bible also says you should kill people who don't listen to priests, kill witches, kill homosexuals, kill fortunetellers, kill anyone who curses their parents, kill adulterers, kill followers of other religions, kill nonbelievers, kill the entire town if one person worships another god, kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night, kill blasphemers and many others. It also condones slavery and child abuse.

The article refers to non-believers as though they were immoral barbarians. If someone is “godless” then they don’t have a god, it’s as simple as that; the term does not imply anything else such as moral standards.

I don’t see how the latter days of, for example, the Roman Empire were more “godless”. In fact the Christian faith had a stranglehold over the western world during the time which followed; it was aptly called The Dark Ages.

Godlessness and freedom aren’t opposed to each other. In fact we have more freedoms now than we have ever had. I’m not saying this was due to godlessness but due to society evolving from the Bronze Age societies in which the Abrahamic faiths are rooted in.

You could easily point to faith organizations like the Catholic Church to refute the claim that godlessness is related to “materialistic aims and pursuits constrained only by the raw limited of wealth and power”. Also, as far as I’m aware non-believers are still a minority so it is fair to blame them, materialism is as much a part of believers lives as it is for non-believers.

I also fail to see how “a new spiritual-cultural reality” is “good news”. There is enough irrationality in this “reality”. Furthermore the existence of any spiritual aspect to this Universe needs to be demonstrated before any such claim can be made.

It’s incredibly insulting and erroneous to claim that non-belief lacks a “creative and moral life-force”. Jedi jokes aside, while no “force” exists it is remarkable that someone could claim that the most creative period in history lacks creativity.

Godless doesn’t equal Social Darwinism, it’s a poor attempt at a strawman.

Need I bring up the example of The United States of America to refute the claim that “It is not possible to have religious freedom, the freedom to find God and follow God according to the dictates of enlightened conscience, when the institutions, especially the state, are governed by the ideas and ideals of godlessness”? The US is a secular country, yet religion flourishes like in no other. It grants its citizens both freedom from religion and freedom from religion. Freedom from religion means that the government isn’t allowed to take a stance on religious matters; it is not pro-religion OR anti-religion, it has no opinion regarding religion. It amuses me that you talk about rights being denied by freedom from religion yet it is protecting the rights of people who don’t happen to buy into your particular Bronze Age mythology. You would be against a pro-Hindu law, or a pro-Sikh law; a pro-Christian law is no different.

Freedom of religion doesn’t acknowledge that we were created by any god; freedom from religion doesn’t acknowledge god at all, that’s the point of it. The whole “bound in the sacred union of one man, one woman, in blessed matrimony, to pass on to the next generations the spiritual DNA of freedom to know God and serve God by the dictates of enlightened conscience” is absurd; not only is it discriminatory but also unscientific. The “spiritual DNA” bit was just moronic.

Godlessness does not deny human dignity. Wasn’t it the Christian faith which preaches that we are all nothing more than worthless sinners deserving of Hell? Humans are animals; it’s as simple as that. The main reason “godlessness is not going to be won over with rational argument or persuasive speech” is because generally religious people are irrational, so a rational argument would make no difference. It speaks volumes that you would not only admit that yours is not a rational belief but that you are proud of your senselessness.

Finally, the reason “godlessness” has never won a “battle” against freedom is because it has never had one. I don’t see rallies from atheists about being offended, whereas the religious think it’s their right not to be offended, and seek legislation to achieve this end. It wasn’t that long ago when you would be put to death for following another religion other than that of the ruling classes, or if you broke some “divine” law. Society has advanced; we don’t live in Bronze Age Jerusalem any more.

[Juanita]

Francis,

You know, I don't think you are the 'audience' for this article. Just sayin'... ;-)

Francis Thomas said:

This is without doubt one of the poorest articles I have ever read. Not only is it poorly written but it is factually wrong.

There is no “moral collapse”. If you questioned people on the street whether they thought a menstruating woman was “unclean” I doubt many people would say “yes”, which of course contradicts the “great” moral code presented in the Bible. By the way the Bible also says you should kill people who don't listen to priests, kill witches, kill homosexuals, kill fortunetellers, kill anyone who curses their parents, kill adulterers, kill followers of other religions, kill nonbelievers, kill the entire town if one person worships another god, kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night, kill blasphemers and many others. It also condones slavery and child abuse.

The article refers to non-believers as though they were immoral barbarians. If someone is “godless” then they don’t have a god, it’s as simple as that; the term does not imply anything else such as moral standards.

I don’t see how the latter days of, for example, the Roman Empire were more “godless”. In fact the Christian faith had a stranglehold over the western world during the time which followed; it was aptly called The Dark Ages.

Godlessness and freedom aren’t opposed to each other. In fact we have more freedoms now than we have ever had. I’m not saying this was due to godlessness but due to society evolving from the Bronze Age societies in which the Abrahamic faiths are rooted in.

You could easily point to faith organizations like the Catholic Church to refute the claim that godlessness is related to “materialistic aims and pursuits constrained only by the raw limited of wealth and power”. Also, as far as I’m aware non-believers are still a minority so it is fair to blame them, materialism is as much a part of believers lives as it is for non-believers.

I also fail to see how “a new spiritual-cultural reality” is “good news”. There is enough irrationality in this “reality”. Furthermore the existence of any spiritual aspect to this Universe needs to be demonstrated before any such claim can be made.

It’s incredibly insulting and erroneous to claim that non-belief lacks a “creative and moral life-force”. Jedi jokes aside, while no “force” exists it is remarkable that someone could claim that the most creative period in history lacks creativity.

Godless doesn’t equal Social Darwinism, it’s a poor attempt at a strawman.

Need I bring up the example of The United States of America to refute the claim that “It is not possible to have religious freedom, the freedom to find God and follow God according to the dictates of enlightened conscience, when the institutions, especially the state, are governed by the ideas and ideals of godlessness”? The US is a secular country, yet religion flourishes like in no other. It grants its citizens both freedom from religion and freedom from religion. Freedom from religion means that the government isn’t allowed to take a stance on religious matters; it is not pro-religion OR anti-religion, it has no opinion regarding religion. It amuses me that you talk about rights being denied by freedom from religion yet it is protecting the rights of people who don’t happen to buy into your particular Bronze Age mythology. You would be against a pro-Hindu law, or a pro-Sikh law; a pro-Christian law is no different.

Freedom of religion doesn’t acknowledge that we were created by any god; freedom from religion doesn’t acknowledge god at all, that’s the point of it. The whole “bound in the sacred union of one man, one woman, in blessed matrimony, to pass on to the next generations the spiritual DNA of freedom to know God and serve God by the dictates of enlightened conscience” is absurd; not only is it discriminatory but also unscientific. The “spiritual DNA” bit was just moronic.

Godlessness does not deny human dignity. Wasn’t it the Christian faith which preaches that we are all nothing more than worthless sinners deserving of Hell? Humans are animals; it’s as simple as that. The main reason “godlessness is not going to be won over with rational argument or persuasive speech” is because generally religious people are irrational, so a rational argument would make no difference. It speaks volumes that you would not only admit that yours is not a rational belief but that you are proud of your senselessness.

Finally, the reason “godlessness” has never won a “battle” against freedom is because it has never had one. I don’t see rallies from atheists about being offended, whereas the religious think it’s their right not to be offended, and seek legislation to achieve this end. It wasn’t that long ago when you would be put to death for following another religion other than that of the ruling classes, or if you broke some “divine” law. Society has advanced; we don’t live in Bronze Age Jerusalem any more.

[Steve Belttari]

Sir William Blackstone said that any government that was not based on God's law was not legit. Prior to 1789, 13 American colonies recognized God as the source of their laws. As fallen human beings they were not perfect in how they went about doing God's will, but that was their objective. It is only when the colonies/states lost their sovereignty under the godless U.S. Constitution, that the United States began the descent to godlessness. It will be the strong Christian base in America that will alter or abolish the godless government, as our Declaration of Independence teaches us.
The godless are immoral barbarians, there is some restraints that are in effect that keep them from acting out their barbarity. When the Church is no longer here, those atheists that are truely reprobates will become totally lawless and rape, murder and steal at will. Those atheists that are not reprobates will repent of their folly, receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and then will die as Christian Martyrs. Why wait Francis, today can be the day of your salvation.

Francis Thomas said:

This is without doubt one of the poorest articles I have ever read. Not only is it poorly written but it is factually wrong.

There is no “moral collapse”. If you questioned people on the street whether they thought a menstruating woman was “unclean” I doubt many people would say “yes”, which of course contradicts the “great” moral code presented in the Bible. By the way the Bible also says you should kill people who don't listen to priests, kill witches, kill homosexuals, kill fortunetellers, kill anyone who curses their parents, kill adulterers, kill followers of other religions, kill nonbelievers, kill the entire town if one person worships another god, kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night, kill blasphemers and many others. It also condones slavery and child abuse.

The article refers to non-believers as though they were immoral barbarians. If someone is “godless” then they don’t have a god, it’s as simple as that; the term does not imply anything else such as moral standards.

I don’t see how the latter days of, for example, the Roman Empire were more “godless”. In fact the Christian faith had a stranglehold over the western world during the time which followed; it was aptly called The Dark Ages.

Godlessness and freedom aren’t opposed to each other. In fact we have more freedoms now than we have ever had. I’m not saying this was due to godlessness but due to society evolving from the Bronze Age societies in which the Abrahamic faiths are rooted in.

You could easily point to faith organizations like the Catholic Church to refute the claim that godlessness is related to “materialistic aims and pursuits constrained only by the raw limited of wealth and power”. Also, as far as I’m aware non-believers are still a minority so it is fair to blame them, materialism is as much a part of believers lives as it is for non-believers.

I also fail to see how “a new spiritual-cultural reality” is “good news”. There is enough irrationality in this “reality”. Furthermore the existence of any spiritual aspect to this Universe needs to be demonstrated before any such claim can be made.

It’s incredibly insulting and erroneous to claim that non-belief lacks a “creative and moral life-force”. Jedi jokes aside, while no “force” exists it is remarkable that someone could claim that the most creative period in history lacks creativity.

Godless doesn’t equal Social Darwinism, it’s a poor attempt at a strawman.

Need I bring up the example of The United States of America to refute the claim that “It is not possible to have religious freedom, the freedom to find God and follow God according to the dictates of enlightened conscience, when the institutions, especially the state, are governed by the ideas and ideals of godlessness”? The US is a secular country, yet religion flourishes like in no other. It grants its citizens both freedom from religion and freedom from religion. Freedom from religion means that the government isn’t allowed to take a stance on religious matters; it is not pro-religion OR anti-religion, it has no opinion regarding religion. It amuses me that you talk about rights being denied by freedom from religion yet it is protecting the rights of people who don’t happen to buy into your particular Bronze Age mythology. You would be against a pro-Hindu law, or a pro-Sikh law; a pro-Christian law is no different.

Freedom of religion doesn’t acknowledge that we were created by any god; freedom from religion doesn’t acknowledge god at all, that’s the point of it. The whole “bound in the sacred union of one man, one woman, in blessed matrimony, to pass on to the next generations the spiritual DNA of freedom to know God and serve God by the dictates of enlightened conscience” is absurd; not only is it discriminatory but also unscientific. The “spiritual DNA” bit was just moronic.

Godlessness does not deny human dignity. Wasn’t it the Christian faith which preaches that we are all nothing more than worthless sinners deserving of Hell? Humans are animals; it’s as simple as that. The main reason “godlessness is not going to be won over with rational argument or persuasive speech” is because generally religious people are irrational, so a rational argument would make no difference. It speaks volumes that you would not only admit that yours is not a rational belief but that you are proud of your senselessness.

Finally, the reason “godlessness” has never won a “battle” against freedom is because it has never had one. I don’t see rallies from atheists about being offended, whereas the religious think it’s their right not to be offended, and seek legislation to achieve this end. It wasn’t that long ago when you would be put to death for following another religion other than that of the ruling classes, or if you broke some “divine” law. Society has advanced; we don’t live in Bronze Age Jerusalem any more.

[Francis Thomas]

So what if I'm not? It still doesn't make the statements correct.

Juanita said:

Francis,

You know, I don't think you are the 'audience' for this article. Just sayin'... ;-)

[Francis Thomas]

Who cares what Sir William Blankstone has to say on this? Argument from Authority much?

The US constitution doesn’t advocate Atheism; it separates church and state.

Excuse me? Atheists aren’t immoral barbarians automatically because they are Atheists. What an ignorant thing to say. When you look back through history it is the Theists who have raped, murdered and stolen. Why wait? Why accept some Iron Age mythology without any evidence at all? Hmm because I’m not a moron….

It’s also very ironic for someone who has a torture device as they symbol to call anyone barbaric.

Steve Belttari said:

Sir William Blackstone said that any government that was not based on God's law was not legit. Prior to 1789, 13 American colonies recognized God as the source of their laws. As fallen human beings they were not perfect in how they went about doing God's will, but that was their objective. It is only when the colonies/states lost their sovereignty under the godless U.S. Constitution, that the United States began the descent to godlessness. It will be the strong Christian base in America that will alter or abolish the godless government, as our Declaration of Independence teaches us.
The godless are immoral barbarians, there is some restraints that are in effect that keep them from acting out their barbarity. When the Church is no longer here, those atheists that are truely reprobates will become totally lawless and rape, murder and steal at will. Those atheists that are not reprobates will repent of their folly, receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and then will die as Christian Martyrs. Why wait Francis, today can be the day of your salvation.

[Steve Belttari]

The U.S. Constitution does advocate atheism, because that is what it has produced. Many Americans at the founding of the United States(1775-1783) were influenced by Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, so he is a relevant authority to site. The cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to us who believe it is the power of God. Instead of following apostates who can't think for themselves, why not think for yourself and be intellectually honest about the Bible. Francis Thomas said:

Who cares what Sir William Blankstone has to say on this? Argument from Authority much?

The US constitution doesn’t advocate Atheism; it separates church and state.

Excuse me? Atheists aren’t immoral barbarians automatically because they are Atheists. What an ignorant thing to say. When you look back through history it is the Theists who have raped, murdered and stolen. Why wait? Why accept some Iron Age mythology without any evidence at all? Hmm because I’m not a moron….

It’s also very ironic for someone who has a torture device as they symbol to call anyone barbaric.

Steve Belttari said:

Sir William Blackstone said that any government that was not based on God's law was not legit. Prior to 1789, 13 American colonies recognized God as the source of their laws. As fallen human beings they were not perfect in how they went about doing God's will, but that was their objective. It is only when the colonies/states lost their sovereignty under the godless U.S. Constitution, that the United States began the descent to godlessness. It will be the strong Christian base in America that will alter or abolish the godless government, as our Declaration of Independence teaches us.
The godless are immoral barbarians, there is some restraints that are in effect that keep them from acting out their barbarity. When the Church is no longer here, those atheists that are truely reprobates will become totally lawless and rape, murder and steal at will. Those atheists that are not reprobates will repent of their folly, receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and then will die as Christian Martyrs. Why wait Francis, today can be the day of your salvation.

[Francis Thomas]

The US Constitution does NOT advocate ANY religion or irreligion. I fail to see how it is responsible for producing Atheism; I’m in the UK and it is technically a Christian Country yet Atheism is more common and accepted that in the US.

So on one hand you are complaining about the founding of the United States and yet against it on the other.

The cross contains no “power”. If Jesus died in the 20th century then you’d be wearing an electric chair round your neck instead…

Trust me I am thinking for myself and I am being intellectual honest about the Bible.

Steve Belttari said:

The U.S. Constitution does advocate atheism, because that is what it has produced. Many Americans at the founding of the United States(1775-1783) were influenced by Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, so he is a relevant authority to site. The cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to us who believe it is the power of God. Instead of following apostates who can't think for themselves, why not think for yourself and be intellectually honest about the Bible.

[Valia]

I know I shouldn't have laughed at this but I found your comment funny:

"The cross contains no “power”. If Jesus died in the 20th century then you’d be wearing an electric chair round your neck instead…"

*imagines people wearing metal electric chair necklaces*

Francis, I think you're missing the point. The cross is merely a SYMBOL of the sacrifice Jesus made. Of course the cross itself has no power, it's just a piece of rotted wood. If Jesus were persecuted today, the electric chair would be symbolic of the sacrifice He made.

Also, your comment made me think. Of all the people wearing a cross around their neck, I wonder how many actually understand what it means. Because, let's face it, anyone can wear a cross around their neck, but it doesn't automatically make them a Christian.

[Steve Belttari]

Francis,
I'm not complaining about the founding of the United States. The United States of America was founded during the American Revolutionary War(1775-1783). Our founding document is the Declaration of Independence which takes a definitive stand on God. The U.S. Constitution is a product of a coup, the state ratifying conventions were of dubious legality. The U.S. Constitution is a humanist document that is reliant on man's wisdom and not God's, therefore it does endorse atheism.
So how are you being intellectually honest about the Bible? It seems to me that you are listening to whatever loser of the day says about God not existing. There are 4 ways that you know that God exists: 1.) Nature 2.) Conscience 3.) Jesus Christ 4.) Holy Spirit. Assuming that you are not a reprobate, # 4 is at work trying to convict you of being a sinner in need of a savior #3. That is why it is essential that we mention this to you.

Francis Thomas said:

The US Constitution does NOT advocate ANY religion or irreligion. I fail to see how it is responsible for producing Atheism; I’m in the UK and it is technically a Christian Country yet Atheism is more common and accepted that in the US.

So on one hand you are complaining about the founding of the United States and yet against it on the other.

The cross contains no “power”. If Jesus died in the 20th century then you’d be wearing an electric chair round your neck instead…

Trust me I am thinking for myself and I am being intellectual honest about the Bible.

Steve Belttari said:

The U.S. Constitution does advocate atheism, because that is what it has produced. Many Americans at the founding of the United States(1775-1783) were influenced by Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, so he is a relevant authority to site. The cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to us who believe it is the power of God. Instead of following apostates who can't think for themselves, why not think for yourself and be intellectually honest about the Bible.

[Valia]

I just speed read that article. I am opinionated on everything so I can't hold back my opinion on this. Here's what I think. We will never, ever be a Christian nation so long as God is not here to rule the earth himself. Sure, we could have a pastor, like Rick Warren, be president of the United States but there would still be godlessness. The Bible says, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Maybe I'm just cynical. We can try to fix what's broken in this country, but it won't ever be a Christian nation, not as long as satan still holds dominion over the earth.

[Steve Belttari]

The scripture says that "God is angry with all nations", so in that sense we will never be 100% Christian nation. What we can be, which would be consistent with our Christian orgins, and would have popular support of the majority of the people, would be a theonomy.

Valia said:

I just speed read that article. I am opinionated on everything so I can't hold back my opinion on this. Here's what I think. We will never, ever be a Christian nation so long as God is not here to rule the earth himself. Sure, we could have a pastor, like Rick Warren, be president of the United States but there would still be godlessness. The Bible says, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Maybe I'm just cynical. We can try to fix what's broken in this country, but it won't ever be a Christian nation, not as long as satan still holds dominion over the earth.

[Juanita]

I think that Bills point is not that the US can be a Christian nation, but that pursuing freedom 'from' religion will take us into bondage.

REMEMBER THE BILL OF RIGHTS? Which is it? Freedom FROM religion or Freedom of Religion?