Right at this moment, I don't think I can deal with the theistic arrogance involved in the idea that being an atheist - i.e. just not agreeing with people like you - would ever be "unifying."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Most everyone desires to raise their families in peace.
- Thread starter capumetu
- Start date
Not at all. The assumption that is made with that position is if there are no Christians, there is no God. But no... God still moves on people and depending on the bent of the heart, the quality of life.
My wife and I didn't know Jesus intimately until we were in our mid and upper 20's but we were still being moved on by God's Holy Spirit. In our families, both my wife and I were the ones who were more bent towards God.
One day, when my wife was young, she noticed that her mom's face was slowly looking more and more like a picture on a demon book. Her mom was involved in witchcraft.
Living in a dilapidated Spanish colonial style home, her mom rented rooms out and all the families shared a 55 gallon drum for a garbage can. As her mom was out, she unloaded the garbage, put over a dozen witchcraft books into the bottom of it and rolled out the 55 gallon drum to the street side so that the garbage collectors could take it away.
She may have not known Jesus intimately, but God was still moving as God loves all people. Her tender heart was still being influenced by God's Holy Spirit. So anyone can still have a better marriage and less violence if hearts are bent towards God even if they still don't know Him intimately.
In that sense, obviously no atheist can be unified with any theistic person. It isn't atheistic arrogance or theistic arrogance... it is simply that two people must agree to walk together. Depending on how important that position is on a person's life will depend on how much they can walk together.
Scripturally an atheist and a theist can walk together if love if they so choose.
I have friends, a married couple, one is Jewish (Holocaust survivor) and one is Pentecostal. They live quite happily together for decades as husband and wife.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Must be a peaceful family where theft/property destruction is tolerated.
If I were you, I'd lock my valuables when leaving the house and your wife stays.
Sounds like you have your blinders on so tight that you didn't get my point.
Suggesting that merely being an atheist - i.e. nothing more than not being a theist - could be "unifying" is a lot like suggesting that someone from France and someone from Japan have a lot in common because both are "foreigners" to an American.
Even if you see the diversity among atheists as irrelevant, why on Earth would you assume that atheists would consider it irrelevant, too? It's arrogant to assume that non-Christians should view the world through the lens of Christianity.
Too late to edit my post, so I need to add this, as it’s closer to what John meant (more than just “wickedness”).....
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.
capumetu
Active Member
I agree, do you agree then that it is necessary to remove wicked ones in order to have peace?
capumetu
Active Member
I assume you are speaking in a defensive way. If one attacked initially to protect his family, then they are obviously the aggressor taking away peace from others.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Depends heavily on what you call "wicked" and how you want to "remove" them. You won't get me to agree to capital punishment or accepting "shunning". (The first for the "remove" part, the second for the "wicked" part.)
exchemist
Veteran Member
Who said anything about "wicked ones"?
And what makes you think "removal" (whatever you mean by that - perhaps you could clarify?) is the only way of dealing with the problem?
I assume by wicked you mean harmful people, and by remove you mean safely isolate or destroy where the harm is severe enough and they can't be safely isolated.
If my assumptions are true then I agree that the wicked have to be removed, which is precisely why pacifism doesn't work - because it requires force to isolate or destroy the harmful.
capumetu
Active Member
(Psalm 50:16-20) . . .God will say to the wicked: “What right do you have to relate my regulations Or to speak about my covenant? 17 For you hate discipline, And you keep turning your back on my words. 18 When you see a thief, you approve of him, And you keep company with adulterers. 19 You use your mouth to spread what is bad, And deception is attached to your tongue. 20 You sit and speak against your own brother; You reveal the faults of your own mother’s son.
Even more applies to them, but those are some of the things that makes a person wicked
capumetu
Active Member
Simply put sir, if there is no wicked, there there will be no wickedness. Do you have an alternate plan that you consider better?
capumetu
Active Member
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes. People are complicated and commit crimes for a variety of reasons. Many criminals can be reformed. Real Christians - who try to follow Christ's example in the gospels - believe in the power of redemption, reconciliation and forgiveness, not just writing people off as "wicked" and doing away with them.
That is the reason one of the charities I have given to for many years is this one: The Howard League | Home
Heyo
Veteran Member
That sounds more like a rebellious teenager who needs a stern talking to than a criminal.
Which leads me back to the title question: what is peace for you? For me it is the absence of physical violence (between countries). For you it seems to be the peace and quiet of a graveyard.
capumetu
Active Member
Thank you for doing that for others sir, that is very kind of you. We look to a more permanent solution, therefore we promote the Kingdom of God as the only hope for mankind for real lasting peace. We do not believe that Jehovah will destroy any who could be reformed.
capumetu
Active Member
Great question sir. No doubt it is the lack of physical violence. I would even go further and state mental violence as well. Perhaps one could even say that ending things that promote stress could be considered as peace.
As a Christian, we believe that peace will be achieved when this prophecy comes to it's fulfillment: (Revelation 21:3, 4) . . .I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
Heyo
Veteran Member
I agree.
There was an OP posted recently All Your Contacts in One Single Church? and beside the theme being contacts limited to a small group, it had examples of people having been sexually molested in JW families. Would you agree that having molesters in your community isn't the kind of peace we are talking about or would you say that those who bring that grievance to light are the ones disturbing the peace?
capumetu
Active Member
Jehovah's witnesses do not accept molesters sir. It is a serious sin, if any of us are caught doing that, they would be disfellowshipped, and the victim would be encouraged to seek civil assistance, as that is a crime not only with God, but with most governments as well.