Enough To Make Fair-Minded Christians Sick To Their Stomachs

[stvdv]

nce/yet again, you didnt read it all, obviously and clearly, becuse Abimelek isn't the only one Abraham did that too.

Here I replied to this story and this story alone. So I read the whole story.
Not correct to add other stories afterwards .. unless you create a new thread

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is there evidence of this? At best it's circumstantial.

He deliberatly withheld information that allowed for himself and his sister-wife to be misrepresented, and this misrepresentation/lie caused undue suffering upon those lied to. This isnt circumstancial, but it is the story, as it goes, as it is written in Genesis. Abraham lied, yet Abimelek was threatened with death and Pharoahs entire household cursed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here we talk about this story and this story alone. So I read the whole story.

If you had Abimelek wouldnt be the only one your discussing. This story covers several chapters in Genesis, not one.

 

[stvdv]

If you had Abimelek wouldnt be the only one your discussing. This story covers several chapters in Genesis, not one.

I specified exactly the story I was talking about (Book + chapter + verse number).
If you want to discuss other chapters you should add them in the conversation
You did not specify them, so then don't bring these verses into the discussion

Again ... let's agree to disagree on this, and stop this conversation

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I specified exactly the story I was talking about (Book + chapter + verse number).
If you want to discuss other chapters you should add them in the conversation
You did not specify them, so they don't bring these verses into the discussion

Again ... let's agree to disagree on this, and stop this conversation

The story starts on Genesis 12. And I can bring these encounters up, because they are in the Bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

What "secular religion"?

This is an example. These three rogues aren't called "dead white males" because
that would be blasphemy.

 

[PruePhillip]

Then it's unfair to call a secular position a religious one, or use "religion" in conjunction with secularism, isn't it.

.

When things get treated as religion then I suppose they ARE a religion.
Some things have all the hallmarks of religion, ie a belief of where we
came from, why we are here and where we are going. They have their
own high priests, sacred texts, special causes, enemies, blasphemy
ideas and purpose to live by.
And for a growing number of people this isn't Judea-Christianity because
that demands a moral standard of them they are not willing to give.

 

[stvdv]

The story starts on Genesis 12. And I can bring these encounters up, because they are in the Bible

 

[stvdv]

In my country the push against the teaching of religion has led to the promotion of anti-religion;
corporate figures belonging to religion are attacked; celebrities espousing religion have lost
corporate sponsorship; ministers charged with sexism, racism, whatever; children taught
secularist attitudes towards religion etc..

Seems a natural and healthy response to Christian habit to impose their religion on non-Christians ... seems even fair to me
I do hope the Christians learn their lesson ... If you don't want others to impose anti-religion on you, then don't impose Christianity on others

 

[dybmh]

this misrepresentation/lie caused undue suffering upon those lied to... as it is written in Genesis.

I propose that the lie did not cause the suffering. All we have in the text is Pharoah's assumption that the cause was the dececption. But this assumes that Pharaoh would not have behaved improperly ( by God's standards ) had Pharoah known Sarah was already married.

But that doesn't make sense. If Pharoah had known that Sarah was married, according to the text, Abraham would have been killed, and Pharoah would have advanced on Sarah anyway. It's possible that this was the cause of the affliction. Maybe Sarah was 'off limits' to Pharoah.

It makes sense for us, the readers, to take Pharoah's explanation and judgement of cause and effect as the root cause of the afflictions in Gen 12; because, it is the only explanation that is given. It makes sense; but , it's not the only possible cause.

In the text, we are only given 1 side of the story. Abraham was at scene of the crime; Abraham lied while he was there, and God afflicted Egypt. Pharoah shifts blame onto Abraham... understandable.

That's why I maintain my claim that a judgement against Abraham as the cause of the afflictions in Gen 12 is circumstantial at best.

 

[PruePhillip]

Seems a natural and healthy response to Christian habit to impose their religion on non-Christians ... seems even fair to me
I do hope the Christians learn their lesson ... If you don't want others to impose anti-religion on you, then don't impose Christianity on others

What you are saying is that you support this. In Australia there has never been the imposition of religion
upon other people. But with the attack on religion it's a given that there's an attack on freedom - not just
religious freedom. There's a chilling effect growing upon all sorts of beliefs - people self-censor or are
fired, demoted, dragged through the courts or publicly ridiculed. We are in for interesting times.

 

[stvdv]

What you are saying is that you support this.

I only said that it's wrong to impose one's belief on others ... whether Christians do it or Atheists. But Christians do it more with evangelizing

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is completely nonsensical. Seriously though - can you even answer to the inanity of this reply? How does this quote:

resemble some stereotypical statement of a "hardcore drug addict?" Are you even able to answer? 10-1 odds I don't get an answer from you. What a waste of time your words are most of the time.


And the fact that you were invited means what? That you weren't breaking the law? So, if some unscrupulous-type invited you along on a bank heist, you'd be completely innocent of any crime when you helped bag the money from the vault, right?

The bit in red above is so ridiculous it makes my head spin. Omission of religious words/paraphernalia/etc. anywhere is the DEFAULT STATE of that place/thing. Think about it. Take religious words off of money and what is it? Is it suddenly "atheist money"?? Nope... still just money. Take the church off of a plot of land and what is it? Does it somehow become an atheist plot of land?? Nope... just a plot of land. Omissions of specific religious baggage from anything is doing nothing more than opening it up for consumption by anyone and everyone - rather than catering to a select minority of the world at large.

1) Sometimes when objectors reply here, I wonder if they are on opiates. Just an opinion.

2) I was not breaking the law by speaking freely about what I believe, while I was sharing in a classroom. Please cite the law I was breaking, to explain where separation of church and state intersects with freedom of speech, religion, expression and association.

3) To insist that, for example, "In God We Trust" comes off our money, is a res judicata religious objection.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What? You sound a bit insane. You broke the law. Like it or not proselytizing at public schools is both illegal and immoral. If a private school was foolish enough to do so that was their moral failure. But at least it was not a legal one.

As a US citizen, I have constitutional rights including freedom of religion, expression, speech and association. The courts have upheld the separation of church and state. Tell me how that means when I'm in a classroom, court of law, city commission meeting, etc. I stop expressing my beliefs or proselytizing.

I further frequent public spaces (like college campuses) to witness my faith. Tell me how proselytizing there breaks the law, because campus police see the preachers go at it with crowds of hundreds of people and do nothing.

{Waiting}

{Waiting}

{Waiting}

Also, praying you will NEVER be a judge, juror, cop or hold any kind of legal or government position, since you clearly do not know common or legal law!

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a US citizen, I have constitutional rights including freedom of religion, expression, speech and association. The courts have upheld the separation of church and state. Tell me how that means when I'm in a classroom, court of law, city commission meeting, etc. I stop expressing my beliefs or proselytizing.

I further frequent public spaces (like college campuses) to witness my faith. Tell me how proselytizing there breaks the law, because campus police see the preachers go at it with crowds of hundreds of people and do nothing.

{Waiting}

{Waiting}

{Waiting}

Also, praying you will NEVER be a judge, juror, cop or hold any kind of legal or government position, since you clearly do not know common or legal law!

Schools cannot cater to any particular belief. You clearly have no expertise in the field that you were speaking in and claimed to have broken the law yourself. Or did you forget that already.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1) Sometimes when objectors reply here, I wonder if they are on opiates. Just an opinion.

And since you look down on drug use, I would assume you don't use them... so what is your excuse? Hey man... just my opinion, know what I'm saying?

2) I was not breaking the law by speaking freely about what I believe, while I was sharing in a classroom. Please cite the law I was breaking, to explain where separation of church and state intersects with freedom of speech, religion, expression and association.

You were speaking about what you believe within a government-run institution (unless it was a private school - was it?) without the explicit consent of the parents of those kids for you to trod out your religiously-based material. If you were, at all, "bringing kids to Jesus" or had any intention of doing so, and you didn't have the express permission of the parents whose kids you were proselytizing to, then you could find yourself in hot water, easily. If my kid came home and told me he got explicitly preached to in class, with a clear prescription to adopt an entire worldview, you can bet I'd be calling to talk to the school, and if I didn't like what I heard, my next call would be to a lawyer.

3) To insist that, for example, "In God We Trust" comes off our money, is a res judicata religious objection.

So what? What does this have to do with my point? I mean... I know why you dodged my actual point... because I was RIGHT. Taking "In God we Trust" off of money doesn't make it "atheist money" - which is what you implied was being attempted by the people putting forth the litigation. Only a fool would believe that was what was going on... I handily displayed this, and you decided to reply to a different point entirely. This is common theistic behavior - and you guys then go on to wonder why people can't take you seriously. Amazing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As a US citizen, I have constitutional rights including freedom of religion, expression, speech and association. The courts have upheld the separation of church and state. Tell me how that means when I'm in a classroom, court of law, city commission meeting, etc. I stop expressing my beliefs or proselytizing.

I further frequent public spaces (like college campuses) to witness my faith. Tell me how proselytizing there breaks the law, because campus police see the preachers go at it with crowds of hundreds of people and do nothing.

{Waiting}

{Waiting}

{Waiting}

Also, praying you will NEVER be a judge, juror, cop or hold any kind of legal or government position, since you clearly do not know common or legal law!

So you would be okay with a Satanist coming to your children's school and expressing their beliefs and proselytizing to your children? How about a Muslim?

 

[We Never Know]

To say nothing of non-Christians.

"One of the best things about Christians breaking the law and promoting their religion in public schools is that they can’t stop publicly bragging about it, making it easier to stop.

A couple of weeks ago, the Pulaski County Schools in Kentucky invited Michelle Cooper of the AIM Pregnancy Support Center to speak with 8th grade health classes at Northern and Southern middle schools all about “sex, STDs and abortion.”

The problem is that AIM is a Christian organization. And even though Cooper is listed on the group’s website as a “Medical Team Supervisor,” she has no medical training. And she freely boasted about how she “was FREE to talk about how amazing God is! Minds were changed today concerning abortion!!!!”

​

Now the Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling for more details about why this partnership occurred and demanding the District put a stop to it. No students should be taught about health education from an unlicensed ministry leader with no qualifications and a very clear right-wing agenda.

“Inviting a self-described Christian ministry to hijack public school health classes in furtherance of its evangelistic agenda is not only a grave injury to your students’ education, but a plain violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment,” [FFRF Legal Fellow Colin] McNamara wrote to Superintendent Patrick Richardson.

FFRF also pointed out the troubling history of crisis pregnancy centers commandeering public schools to proselytize to students and the constitutional concerns with such tactics.
“Public schools exist to educate; CPCs like AIM exist to indoctrinate — by AIM’s own admission, they did not come to the district’s middle schools to teach sex education, but so that ‘minds would be changed concerning abortion,’” McNamara added. “The district can play no part in helping a private religious organization gain access to other people’s children to further their evangelism.”


Finally, FFRF addresses the danger that results from denying students comprehensive, science-based sex education in favor of widely discredited religious rhetoric.


“It is wildly irresponsible for these public schools to allow members of a faith-based anti-abortion ministry access to impressionable students,” said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “This infiltration of church dogma into Kentucky classrooms senselessly endangers the health of students and must stop.”
​

Incidentally, AIM isn’t even a healthcare provider. They offer pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and a Bible Study. No medical professionals work there. Their stated goal is to offer “the gospel of Jesus Christ in both word and deed to men and women dealing with pregnancy.”
source​

Q. Is it really Christian to misrepresent oneself and dupe others so as to illegally push an agenda?

.

.​

A medical team supervisor simply plans, directs, and/or coordinates medical and health services in hospitals, clinics, managed care organizations, public health agencies, or similar organizations.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Schools cannot cater to any particular belief. You clearly have no expertise in the field that you were speaking in and claimed to have broken the law yourself. Or did you forget that already.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

"Schools cannot cater to any particular belief?"

They often cater to creation or evolution, secular or private . . . so I call baloney.

"Schools cannot cater to any particular belief" is not a legal statute.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And since you look down on drug use, I would assume you don't use them... so what is your excuse? Hey man... just my opinion, know what I'm saying?


You were speaking about what you believe within a government-run institution (unless it was a private school - was it?) without the explicit consent of the parents of those kids for you to trod out your religiously-based material. If you were, at all, "bringing kids to Jesus" or had any intention of doing so, and you didn't have the express permission of the parents whose kids you were proselytizing to, then you could find yourself in hot water, easily. If my kid came home and told me he got explicitly preached to in class, with a clear prescription to adopt an entire worldview, you can bet I'd be calling to talk to the school, and if I didn't like what I heard, my next call would be to a lawyer.


So what? What does this have to do with my point? I mean... I know why you dodged my actual point... because I was RIGHT. Taking "In God we Trust" off of money doesn't make it "atheist money" - which is what you implied was being attempted by the people putting forth the litigation. Only a fool would believe that was what was going on... I handily displayed this, and you decided to reply to a different point entirely. This is common theistic behavior - and you guys then go on to wonder why people can't take you seriously. Amazing.

You seem assumptive, for example, "I didn't have parental permission to proselytize." Even if I did not, your attorney would have to do some hard climbing to separate me from my protected freedoms of speech, religion, right to associate, etc.

I didn't say, "taking God off money makes it atheist money". Money is neither religious nor secular in itself. I said, "When atheists complain about God printed on money, should they pursue those claims in a court of law, they would be anti-religious claims based on the legal principle of res judicata, and thus a religious objection".

This leads to a larger point for RF. It is overly convenient to say "atheism is not a religion," thus allowing atheists:

* To say their RF memberships are NOT to conduct anti-religious business, that is, religious business

* To dodge the no proselytizing rules at RF "all religion is stupid, your religion HAS TO BECOME no religion, yet I'm not proselytizing (CONVERTING YOU RELIGIOUSLY)