Butch Jones embraces team chaplain Tim Miller

[OneVolNation]

You need to read the previous 2-3 and following 2-3. Look them up and you'll
see they're taken out of context. This is a troll job. Ex. Romans 1:27. Read Romans 1:16-32. These are the "vile" things Paul is saying you'll be punished for.

Exactly. When you take a single text without reading the preceding and following verses of the text that surround it, you take it out of context and distort its meaning.

Many years ago, a wise bible teacher taught me an easy way to remember this can be encapsulated in the following rule of thumb,

"A text without context is a pretext."

The "pre-" simply means you're only reading part of the story before you read the whole required for its proper context.

I hope this helps the person who sincerely misunderstood how to understand verses out of context.
Just read the surrounding texts that come before and after it in light of the whole book and in this case, the entire body of scriptures.

 

[chargervol]

Exactly. When you take a single text without reading the preceding and following verses of the text that surround it, you take it out of context and distort its meaning.

Many years ago, a wise bible teacher taught me an easy way to remember this can be encapsulated in the following rule of thumb,

"A text without context is a pretext."

The "pre-" simply means you're only reading part of the story before you read the whole required for its proper context.

I hope this helps the person who sincerely misunderstood how to understand verses out of context.
Just read the surrounding texts that come before and after it in light of the whole book and in this case, the entire body of scriptures.

Yeah, now that Miramar explained why God wanted infants and sucklings slain, it doesn't sound so harsh.

I'm being facetious only because there is no way to expect everyone to fully understand, every event or story in the Bible.

 

[MiramarVol]

the bible is full of absolute nonsense

read 1 Timothy 2:12

read 1 Samuel 15:3

read Psalm 137

read Romans 1:27

read Genesis 22

read Judges 19:25-28

read Judges 11:30-1, 34-5

read Ephesians 5:22

read 1 Peter 2:18

Yeah, now that Miramar explained why God wanted infants and sucklings slain, it doesn't sound so harsh.

Nothing like proper context on a good baby slaying.

The Amalekites were attempting to stop the Jews from coming out of Eygpt. They were attacked and raided continuously. It's all about God's plan for His people. If they don't make it out, there's no Isaac, Jacob, 12 tribes, Jesse, David and finally no Jesus. The Amalekites had rejected God and His statutes. The babies would have been a perpetuation of their fathers actions against the Jews. They were the "Reprobates" of the OT. Just because God doesn't do an Ananias and Sapphira every time someone rejects Him these days doesn't mean He doesn't have the Power to do so.

Jhn 20:29 - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[MiramarVol]

One thing I would like everyone to take into an account, especially my Christian Brothers and Sisters.

Colossians 4:6 - Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Show Grace and understanding to those that have not yet answered the call.

 

[jakez4ut]

Yeah, now that Miramar explained why God wanted infants and sucklings slain, it doesn't sound so harsh.

Nothing like proper context on a good baby slaying.

literal interpretations of the bible (or any holy text for that matter) have been getting people in trouble for a very, very long time.

it's an assumption, and a poor one, that people that have faith, or that christians in general, take each verse literally, and act accordingly.

someone said it earlier in the thread....there's a reason there's an old testament and a new testament, and something that shouldn't be lost on anyone, believer or not, is that all of it was written by man, no matter how "divinely inspired" it may be. at best it's still man's interpretation of God's word.

it's still a choice as to what you get out of it. not everyone chooses wisely. those same extreme religious right that take it literally as THE word of the Lord, and act on it as literally described (yes, there are people out there that use ultra right christian beliefs as a basis for all kinds of very un christian things--racial genocide, polygamy, sexism, slavery etc...)..., are no different than muslim extremists that believe killing all the infidels is THE literal word of Allah.

these people are basically the same, as far as their "wiring" goes, and if you want to categorize those type of people as weak minded, you'll find agreement here.

past that.....that i pray, that i may go to church, that i raise my kids that way....my choice because i can decide on my own what to believe, and what not to.

it is, has been, and will always be short sighted to manage any of these groups by exception, when by far, the majority of people that believe in God, Allah, Buddah, or whatever, do it for the right reasons.

you can cherry pick verses from any religious text and find the same things, ie, baby slaying. doesn't mean there's not any merit to the religion as a whole, and doesn't mean that everyone that believes in it is going to slay said babies or kill "infidels".

not allowing for "times a changin'" is really the same issue when people use, say, 2nd amendment to justify why they need an arsenal at home. factoring in the time the amendment was written, the right to bear arms meant something completely different 200 years ago than it does today.

i think the same can be said of a text written 2000 years ago.

and just for the record, i'm a gun owner, and i'd prefer to keep them. i'm not trying to start a tangent discussion, just using it as an example of why literal meaning of text written by human beings can, and usually should, actually change over time.

 

[chargervol]

The Amalekites were attempting to stop the Jews from coming out of Eygpt. They were attacked and raided continuously. It's all about God's plan for His people. If they don't make it out, there's no Isaac, Jacob, 12 tribes, Jesse, David and finally no Jesus. The Amalekites had rejected God and His statutes. The babies would have been a perpetuation of their fathers actions against the Jews. They were the "Reprobates" of the OT. Just because God doesn't do an Ananias and Sapphira every time someone rejects Him these days doesn't mean He doesn't have the Power to do so.

Jhn 20:29 - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I just believe you're better off letting people find the point or context of something like that for themselves.

No matter what a group of adults have done to anyone on this board, I don't see many justifying slaying their infants as a recourse.

In other words, let the other guy say he dislikes the verse. Trying to explain infants being slain, does not come off as helpful to anyone who can find no justification for such actions. Possibly even harmful.

And to add to my point, now Jake is saying that it was one of the non literal vs. When you start combining different people's explanations of something they themselves can't possibly understand, it comes off as excuses and not helpful. You guys are better just to let the guy not like the verse.

 

[OptimusPrimerib]

Ridicule is much easier than having an honest, open discussion about the merits or demerits of belief systems.

Armchair like everyone else operates on some system of faith.... some people don't even know they do because they've never thought it through. They've just trusted someone who gave them a "just so" answer without really "proving it".

He's likely a materialist. Probably thinks of himself as an atheist. The materialist says the only things that are real and "true" are material... things that can be tested and proven by science... and in saying so disprove their own position since that is a statement that is neither material nor subject to scientific proofs.

This definition of materialism is a little off and creates a non-sequitur.

 

[jakez4ut]

I just believe you're better off letting people find the point or context of something like that for themselves.

No matter what a group of adults have done to anyone on this board, I don't see many justifying slaying their infants as a recourse.

In other words, let the other guy say he dislikes the verse. Trying to explain infants being slain, does not come off as helpful to anyone who can find no justification for such actions. Possibly even harmful.

And to add to my point, now Jake is saying that it was one of the non literal vs. When you start combining different people's explanations of something they themselves can't possibly understand, it comes off as excuses and not helpful. You guys are better just to let the guy not like the verse.

no, to me, what i got out of his regurgitation of the verses was an attempt to debunk religion or faith as a whole, and that those verses are proof as to why it's ridiculous, and that those that choose to believe are wrong.

my point was simple. using the literal interpretation of those verses to one's end, is no different than using them for another's.

 

[chargervol]

no, to me, what i got out of his regurgitation of the verses was an attempt to debunk religion or faith as a whole, and that those verses are proof as to why it's ridiculous, and that those that choose to believe are wrong.

my point was simple. using the literal interpretation of those verses to one's end, is no different than using them for another's.

It's all good, I actually prefer the possibility of non literal has an explanation.
my great-grandfather read the Bible every evening until he passed. It was obvious that decades before he died, he knew every verse by heart. As a little kid, I asked him why he continued to read it, if he had it memorized.
"It is the word of God, for me to pretend that just because I can remember what he said that I fully understand it, would mean my ego has far outweighed myself. If I lived another hundred years, I would continue to read everyday in hopes for new understanding".

That made a world of sense, to me at least. And from that day on, any time I've heard a barbershop conversation or an internet message board, where people are trying to tell other people what God was saying and why, it just doesn't strike home with me. I've heard many great explanations in my day, but if someone truly wants to know, their best bet is to read it themselves, as many times as possible, and try to understand.

 

[jakez4ut]

It's all good, I actually prefer the possibility of non literal has an explanation.
my great-grandfather read the Bible every evening until he passed. It was obvious that decades before he died, he knew every verse by heart. As a little kid, I asked him why he continued to read it, if he had it memorized.
"It is the word of God, for me to pretend that just because I can remember what he said that I fully understand it, would mean my ego has far outweighed myself. If I lived another hundred years, I would continue to read everyday in hopes for new understanding".

That made a world of sense, to me at least. And from that day on, any time I've heard a barbershop conversation or an internet message board, where people are trying to tell other people what God was saying and why, it just doesn't strike home with me. I've heard many great explanations in my day, but if someone truly wants to know, their best bet is to read it themselves, as many times as possible, and try to understand.

we're on the same page in this regard. it's about choice, and that's all i've ever gotten out of it. and really, that was kind of the point of what Christ was doing.

as a Catholic and having a fairly decent understanding of the history of catholicism, the evolution of the catholic faith wasn't what was intended when christianity came to be. it, like many religions, was corrupt, greedy, and power hungry, and those origins of the faith is what led to all the protestant christian faiths we have today.

again, depending on what you want to believe, there are many that will tell you that the whole point of Christianity was the church of one. it wasn't about brick buildings and ceremony, it was about one finding his own path.

i take a great deal of solace in that, because it leaves it up to the individual to believe, not because of guilt or fear. but because of choice. its all the external stuff that has basically turned religion, in and of itself, off for me. my church, for all intents and purposes, is in my bed at night when i decide to pray, ask for forgiveness, blessings for my my friends and family, and ask for the patience and guidance that most all of us need in our daily lives.

but, since it is about choice, if you need/want the brick buildings and ceremony, go for it.

too many people over too long a time for me to say one way or the other that this religion or that religion, this text or that text, is the only way to salvation.

 

[basspond]

God gave us the flexibility of choice. No one is forced to believe. Choose wisely.

Free will.

 

[chargervol]

Had to give you a like Jake. Now that's what I'm talking about.
I had edited my original post but you had quoted it first.
It's a personal journey, no matter where that journey leads.

I was trying to point out that if just tell someone in his state of questioning, that you just have to get the "context and reasons" of why we are 'slaying infants',
yeah, that's not going to be helpful to everyone.

I wasn't the one questioning it and the answer came off slightly offensive to me, I could only imagine what it looks like to someone that was forming the other side of the debate.

 

[jakez4ut]

Had to give you a like Jake. Now that's what I'm talking about.
I had edited my original post but you had quoted it first.
It's a personal journey, no matter where that journey leads.

I was trying to point out that if just tell someone in his state of questioning, that you just have to get the "context and reasons" of why we are 'slaying infants',
yeah, that's not going to be helpful to everyone.

I wasn't the one questioning it and the answer came off slightly offensive to me, I could only imagine what it looks like to someone that was forming the other side of the debate.

:thumbsup:

 

[zeppelin128]

we're on the same page in this regard. it's about choice, and that's all i've ever gotten out of it. and really, that was kind of the point of what Christ was doing.

as a Catholic and having a fairly decent understanding of the history of catholicism, the evolution of the catholic faith wasn't what was intended when christianity came to be. it, like many religions, was corrupt, greedy, and power hungry, and those origins of the faith is what led to all the protestant christian faiths we have today.

again, depending on what you want to believe, there are many that will tell you that the whole point of Christianity was the church of one. it wasn't about brick buildings and ceremony, it was about one finding his own path.

i take a great deal of solace in that, because it leaves it up to the individual to believe, not because of guilt or fear. but because of choice. its all the external stuff that has basically turned religion, in and of itself, off for me. my church, for all intents and purposes, is in my bed at night when i decide to pray, ask for forgiveness, blessings for my my friends and family, and ask for the patience and guidance that most all of us need in our daily lives.

but, since it is about choice, if you need/want the brick buildings and ceremony, go for it.

too many people over too long a time for me to say one way or the other that this religion or that religion, this text or that text, is the only way to salvation.

Spot on my former Catholic brother.

 

[zeppelin128]

Just move on because it doesn't matter how it's explain you are not listening. If you want in depth discussion on the gap theory then Google it and read what it is. It does explain your question but is a theory and not law or fact but a theory. I have work to do and is much easier to discuss in a conversation than trying to type out what could be almost a book. Also, creationist object to it because it doesn't fit their beliefs of 6k. Do I know this is what happened? No but neither do you or anyone else. Thing is the entire universe is too big for our human minds to really grasp. I choose to believe in God others do not. I hope I am right and others hope they are. Regardless, it is called faith for a reason. I wrote this last sentence then saved it then read the post after it saying the same thing. Cool stuff and very much truth.

I've listened to and read every post. Not sure where this post came from.

 

[barknoxbrawler]

Even Jesus had to whipe the dust off His feet and move on guys......

 

[armchair]

I knew this thread would jump the shark! Once the bible aficionados hop on, it is off to la-la land.

I am an atheist, absolutely. I have a problem not with christians but with christians who push their silly views in the public sphere, and aggressively--whether it is a religious person saying a prayer before a sporting event (which is pushing religion on fans who may not be religious and don't want to be), or a religious figure like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, to name two, making stupid statements in the name of their wacky religious beliefs (I did not know that gays were responsible for earthquakes and other natural disasters before listening to those two and others) or whether it is some christian zealot trying to get creationism taught in public schools. I have a problem with christian/catholic businesses not wanting to offer contraception coverage on their health insurance plans because of their medieval views. It's not 1850, it's 2017, and the United States--thank god!--is not the Philippines.

There is a place for religious viewpoint--the church and one's home. Not in public places, not in public comments, not in public schools. Nothing showed how scared christian groups are of evolution and secularism than their comically lame attempt to create a bogus "scientific" veneer for creationism--"intelligent design." Please. Lots of gobblygook and nothing more. Christian groups are deeply scared of evolution because it puts the lie to creationism.

Christians complain that secularists ridicule them and their views--and yet feel they have the right to push their irrational beliefs on on everybody 24/7. What's wrong with that picture? Only fear explains why christian groups have become so aggressive and so political; what other motivation is there? And let's consider the many religious con artists--always dunning the gullible for money. How about those "prosperity preachers" who hit up the poor for what little money they have on the promise that the suckers will get rich one day. Somebody gets rich, alright--the immoral, unethical, con-artist preacher. I respect believers--but i do no like or respect proselytization. I mean, who asked religious sects to go around the world, or door to door, pushing their views? Whence comes this urge? There are atheist groups in America--but they don't go around knocking on doors or travel to Africa to spread their viewpoint. And let's be clear about this: morality and religion are two different things. Don't pretend that one needs to be religious to be moral. What we atheists need is a leader who takes a walk in Siberia and discovers, sitting in a river bed, an old book--the gospel of secularism. Once we have an old book with various feel-good tales, we can take our rightful place among the Mormans and the Muslim and the Christians. We have no old book! (Have you ever considered some of the tenants of Mormanism? Talk about wacky.

I look forward to the time when avowed atheists start running for political office. Actually, more than a few atheists run for political offices now, have for a long time, they just typically try to hide or downplay their viewpoint because religion means so much to so many people, and the don't want to lose votes. We need an atheist presidential candidate; I mean, what's the worst that can happen? If he's a Democrat, as he probably would be, that he'd lose the rural, red-state religious vote? I grew up with religion, too--listened to priests drone on week after week about bible parables, and then became a teenager and thought, 'What is this craziness that I'm listening to every week?' I grew out of it, and more people should do the same. Blessings to all!

 

[jakez4ut]

armchair, it's real simple. choose. you got a ball game and people start praying, don't pray. jerry fallwell is on the TV, turn the channel (i do that when Bill Mahr is on, just switch it...i've found it very successful way to not have to be inundated with ideas and beliefs i don't share or agree with). no one makes you do anything, in public or otherwise. that's a "you" issue, not a "they" issue.

to me, it simply sounds like you go looking for ways to be offended. and you're successful at it. like this thread....the title included the word chaplain.

skip it. no one made read one single post here. you chose to.

only you can fix that.

 

[sjt18]

I knew this thread would jump the shark! Once the bible aficionados hop on, it is off to la-la land.

I am an atheist, absolutely. I have a problem not with christians but with christians who push their silly views in the public sphere, and aggressively--

So it is wrong to push one's worldview on others, correct? Especially if it is "aggressively" or with the force of gov't behind it?

whether it is a religious person saying a prayer before a sporting event (which is pushing religion on fans who may not be religious and don't want to be), or a religious figure like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, to name two, making stupid statements in the name of their wacky religious beliefs

So if you consider speech "stupid" then it should be shut down, right?

or whether it is some christian zealot trying to get creationism taught in public schools.

So you want your view and ONLY your view taught to children as the ONLY explanation for reality?

I have a problem with christian/catholic businesses not wanting to offer contraception coverage on their health insurance plans because of their medieval views. It's not 1850, it's 2017, and the United States--thank god!--is not the Philippines.

I thought you said it was wrong for someone to push their morals and worldview on other people? Frankly, this sounds pretty "aggressive".

There is a place for religious viewpoint--the church and one's home. Not in public places, not in public comments, not in public schools.

What if someone said there is a place for YOUR religious viewpoint... your home or club? Again, it is wrong to impose one's worldview on everyone else, right?

Nothing showed how scared christian groups are of evolution and secularism than their comically lame attempt to create a bogus "scientific" veneer for creationism--"intelligent design."

Christians and creationists are the ones who are "scared" but you are the one that doesn't want the two competing ideas compared critically in the classroom?

Please. Lots of gobblygook and nothing more. Christian groups are deeply scared of evolution because it puts the lie to creationism.

Evolutionists like you are terrified of a worldview that appeals to an intelligent force rather than chance, physics, and time to explain the universe... because it might force you to face the prospects of a God.

Christians complain that secularists ridicule them and their views--and yet feel they have the right to push their irrational beliefs on on everybody 24/7. What's wrong with that picture?

Nothing other than it is false in the extreme. Gov't is pushing YOUR irrational beliefs on everyone 24/7... not ours.

Only fear explains why christian groups have become so aggressive and so political; what other motivation is there?

Truth.

A few years ago Discovery Institutes produced a video. Part of it detailed the case of a Washington state HS science teacher. He didn't teach creationism. But he was fired because of his religion. His "crime"? He taught evolution critically. He offered the weaknesses of evolution as well as its stronger arguments.

And you really want to say the motive of people like you when you lash out isn't fear?

And let's consider the many religious con artists--always dunning the gullible for money. How about those "prosperity preachers" who hit up the poor for what little money they have on the promise that the suckers will get rich one day. Somebody gets rich, alright--the immoral, unethical, con-artist preacher.

Is it "rational" to judge a belief or worldview by those who claim it and do not exemplify its principles?

I respect believers--but i do no like or respect proselytization. I mean, who asked religious sects to go around the world, or door to door, pushing their views?

So it is wrong to push your views on other people, right? Perhaps like YOUR view that it is wrong to try to convince someone that your religious beliefs are true?

If you do not "respect" evangelism then you do not "respect" believers. The NT makes it a personal responsibility for every believer to share their faith... and not just in their homes and churches. A compartmentalized faith is no faith at all.

Whence comes this urge?

According to the Bible, it comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit of God that quickens a man's dead spirit and renews the relationship that God intended for man from the beginning. Of course, you having not experienced this will claim it isn't real... and will make fun of it.

There are atheist groups in America--but they don't go around knocking on doors or travel to Africa to spread their viewpoint.

No. You just spread it through the public education system.... Want to trade?

And let's be clear about this: morality and religion are two different things.

What is morally "good"? Why is it "good"?

Don't pretend that one needs to be religious to be moral.

Of course not. But tell us what morality is and why we should believe what you say about it.

What we atheists need is a leader who takes a walk in Siberia and discovers, sitting in a river bed, an old book--the gospel of secularism. Once we have an old book with various feel-good tales, we can take our rightful place among the Mormans and the Muslim and the Christians. We have no old book! (Have you ever considered some of the tenants of Mormanism? Talk about wacky.

Stalin was an atheist. Stalin had millions of people killed. That makes you guilty of murder, right?

I look forward to the time when avowed atheists start running for political office. Actually, more than a few atheists run for political offices now, have for a long time, they just typically try to hide or downplay their viewpoint because religion means so much to so many people, and the don't want to lose votes. We need an atheist presidential candidate; I mean, what's the worst that can happen? If he's a Democrat, as he probably would be, that he'd lose the rural, red-state religious vote? I grew up with religion, too--listened to priests drone on week after week about bible parables, and then became a teenager and thought, 'What is this craziness that I'm listening to every week?' I grew out of it, and more people should do the same. Blessings to all!

So something can't be true because you had a bad experience with it?

As for politics, you have PLENTY of representation from the very kinds of hypocrites you condemn... people who claim religion for nothing more than personal benefit while living as functional atheists and supporting secularism.

Secularism is NOT "non-sectarian". It is not areligious or neutral. It is the effective imposition of atheism at worst and agnosticism at best. It IS a religious point of view being "imposed" on others.

 

[TechnoVol]

It's always fun to read the first post and last page (50 posts/page) of a thread. This thread didn't disappoint!

 

[LoudOrange]

I knew this thread would jump the shark! Once the bible aficionados hop on, it is off to la-la land.

I am an atheist, absolutely. I have a problem not with christians but with christians who push their silly views in the public sphere, and aggressively--whether it is a religious person saying a prayer before a sporting event (which is pushing religion on fans who may not be religious and don't want to be), or a religious figure like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, to name two, making stupid statements in the name of their wacky religious beliefs (I did not know that gays were responsible for earthquakes and other natural disasters before listening to those two and others) or whether it is some christian zealot trying to get creationism taught in public schools. I have a problem with christian/catholic businesses not wanting to offer contraception coverage on their health insurance plans because of their medieval views. It's not 1850, it's 2017, and the United States--thank god!--is not the Philippines.

There is a place for religious viewpoint--the church and one's home. Not in public places, not in public comments, not in public schools. Nothing showed how scared christian groups are of evolution and secularism than their comically lame attempt to create a bogus "scientific" veneer for creationism--"intelligent design." Please. Lots of gobblygook and nothing more. Christian groups are deeply scared of evolution because it puts the lie to creationism.

Christians complain that secularists ridicule them and their views--and yet feel they have the right to push their irrational beliefs on on everybody 24/7. What's wrong with that picture? Only fear explains why christian groups have become so aggressive and so political; what other motivation is there? And let's consider the many religious con artists--always dunning the gullible for money. How about those "prosperity preachers" who hit up the poor for what little money they have on the promise that the suckers will get rich one day. Somebody gets rich, alright--the immoral, unethical, con-artist preacher. I respect believers--but i do no like or respect proselytization. I mean, who asked religious sects to go around the world, or door to door, pushing their views? Whence comes this urge? There are atheist groups in America--but they don't go around knocking on doors or travel to Africa to spread their viewpoint. And let's be clear about this: morality and religion are two different things. Don't pretend that one needs to be religious to be moral. What we atheists need is a leader who takes a walk in Siberia and discovers, sitting in a river bed, an old book--the gospel of secularism. Once we have an old book with various feel-good tales, we can take our rightful place among the Mormans and the Muslim and the Christians. We have no old book! (Have you ever considered some of the tenants of Mormanism? Talk about wacky.

I look forward to the time when avowed atheists start running for political office. Actually, more than a few atheists run for political offices now, have for a long time, they just typically try to hide or downplay their viewpoint because religion means so much to so many people, and the don't want to lose votes. We need an atheist presidential candidate; I mean, what's the worst that can happen? If he's a Democrat, as he probably would be, that he'd lose the rural, red-state religious vote? I grew up with religion, too--listened to priests drone on week after week about bible parables, and then became a teenager and thought, 'What is this craziness that I'm listening to every week?' I grew out of it, and more people should do the same. Blessings to all!

FYI. Your atheism is a religion.

 

[bray2milton]

Go Vols! Just want to get that in here one more time.

 

[jakez4ut]

FYI. Your atheism is a religion.

no, it's a political agenda for him.

Catholic and christian companies not covering contraceptive care? really?

sounds like he needs to quit his job, or go purchase some supplemental insurance then. cause i had no idea this was such an issue.:blink:

 

[OneVolNation]

Armchair, to me, just because we, as humans, most likely won't always agree on everything, that doesn't mean I value you, your life, soul, mind or spirit any less than my own. To do so, would be contrary to the commandment of the apostle Paul to the body of Christ to esteem others better than myself (Philippians Chapter 2:verse 3 for reference).

So I do want to be of help to you in answering a couple of the questions you asked.

I mean, who asked religious sects to go around the world, or door to door, pushing their views? Whence comes this urge?

The Lord Himself commanded his followers to do this when he said,

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This is known as "The Great Commission."

If you are ever curious or interested to read it for yourself, it is in the New Testament book of Mark, chapter 16.

Even in that time, there were some government officials who were afraid they'd lose control of the people if they found out about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ when His disciples obeyed His commandment to go share this news with every creature after His ascension. They threatened to beat them and put them in prison, but they continued to obey the Lord rather than men when it came to His commandments. One night around midnight in prison, the apostle Paul and Silas were praising the Lord and it pleased Him so He sent an earthquake to shake the prison that opened the doors and allowed them to escape. The jailer knew it was the Lord who did this and naturally he was afraid because he found himself working against God which is never a good idea.

He fell to his knees and begged Paul and Silas to tell him what he needed to do to be saved.

You can read what happened next in the book of Acts chapter 16: verses 25-40.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

So it is wrong to push one's worldview on others, correct? Especially if it is "aggressively" or with the force of gov't behind it?

So if you consider speech "stupid" then it should be shut down, right?
So you want your view and ONLY your view taught to children as the ONLY explanation for reality?

I thought you said it was wrong for someone to push their morals and worldview on other people? Frankly, this sounds pretty "aggressive".

What if someone said there is a place for YOUR religious viewpoint... your home or club? Again, it is wrong to impose one's worldview on everyone else, right?

Christians and creationists are the ones who are "scared" but you are the one that doesn't want the two competing ideas compared critically in the classroom?

Evolutionists like you are terrified of a worldview that appeals to an intelligent force rather than chance, physics, and time to explain the universe... because it might force you to face the prospects of a God.

Nothing other than it is false in the extreme. Gov't is pushing YOUR irrational beliefs on everyone 24/7... not ours.

Truth.

A few years ago Discovery Institutes produced a video. Part of it detailed the case of a Washington state HS science teacher. He didn't teach creationism. But he was fired because of his religion. His "crime"? He taught evolution critically. He offered the weaknesses of evolution as well as its stronger arguments.

And you really want to say the motive of people like you when you lash out isn't fear?

Is it "rational" to judge a belief or worldview by those who claim it and do not exemplify its principles?

So it is wrong to push your views on other people, right? Perhaps like YOUR view that it is wrong to try to convince someone that your religious beliefs are true?

If you do not "respect" evangelism then you do not "respect" believers. The NT makes it a personal responsibility for every believer to share their faith... and not just in their homes and churches. A compartmentalized faith is no faith at all.

According to the Bible, it comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit of God that quickens a man's dead spirit and renews the relationship that God intended for man from the beginning. Of course, you having not experienced this will claim it isn't real... and will make fun of it.

No. You just spread it through the public education system.... Want to trade?

What is morally "good"? Why is it "good"?

Of course not. But tell us what morality is and why we should believe what you say about it.

Stalin was an atheist. Stalin had millions of people killed. That makes you guilty of murder, right?



So something can't be true because you had a bad experience with it?

As for politics, you have PLENTY of representation from the very kinds of hypocrites you condemn... people who claim religion for nothing more than personal benefit while living as functional atheists and supporting secularism.

Secularism is NOT "non-sectarian". It is not areligious or neutral. It is the effective imposition of atheism at worst and agnosticism at best. It IS a religious point of view being "imposed" on others.

Boom. 👍