-31 votes

The trolls win...I'm taking a break!

This liberty movement is becoming more hostile towards biblical Christianity; essentially, in the name of tolerance and inclusion(courting the left), they are becoming more bold in their mocking and diminishing of the well-documented origin of our founders WISE and immovable principles wherein government is limited by the giver of life and liberty.

Oh, we call them trolls, and we encourage posters to move on and make their point anyway; and I'll admit, it's the homosexuality arguments and now the Easter jokes; but even if they don't "celebrate" Christian holidays, they should keep their mocking away from a place where our public reputation is so prominent...especially where a Christian Statesmen is revered for his trustworthiness; an attribute Christ-rejecters RARELY exhibit in American public office.

This movement is going in a bad way; sensing the inevitability of chaos and civil unrest to come, those unrestrained by any governing authority are throwing it all out there, only to exacerbate the confusion.

Liberty cannot flourish in such an environment; one that dethrones God, and replaces His authority with man's wisdom. The cream will rise to the top, but for now I'm not going to fight this uphill battle. I know who is to blame for this, it is the hypocrites who occupy the pews of our American churches, and their unregenerated, unsaved, never converted leadership professing to have a salvation they do not possess; nonetheless, using them as an excuse to reject and deny the Creator and His laws is lacking in logic, as well as an excuse to dismiss history only to rationalize more "sin for a season" under another disobedient government.

PSALM 74:18 Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O LORD, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

The time has come for me to take a sabbatical from the DP; the increase in frequency of mocking the purest and most long standing wisdom of men who stood up to tyranny from the underdog position has reached a fever pitch so disruptive to our intended path that I personally need to take this deliberate course of action knowing that what I know as truth, will be made known once again, by less than pleasant circumstances, if the liberty our founders desired for their posterity is to be achieved or enjoyed for another significant period of human history.

(during this time off: I will delve into reading The Magdeburg Confession...no doubt MUCH of our philosophical positions are contained there!)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2409826/posts




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

:o)

Well said.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Set theory and individuals

OK. I have seen the following pattern:
We humans organize objects, people, ideas, into sets. We create people sets by nationality, political beliefs, religious ideas, professions, etc.

Given a large enough number of members a set will have:
a. Excellent people who are true to the set's ideals.
b. People who just get by due to convenience but they follow the rules.
c. Hypocrites.
d. People who try to push their set's beliefs into other sets.
e. Really bad people.
F. PEOPLE WHO ARE ASLEEP
G. PEOPLE WHO ARE AWAKE

It is kind of naive to assess other sets (Christians-Atheists) looking at the worst or best possible examples. Let's try to be more honest in our discussions.

deng, I find your thoughts

deng, I find your thoughts intriguing. Would you flesh them out? I kinda got lost but felt there was something crucial I wanted to follow.

For example: We could

For example:
We could partition American people into different sets: Hispanics, Black, Asian, White... or Republican/Democrat or Urban vs. Rural folk, or Christian, Catholic, Jews, Atheist, Agnostic, Moslem, Buddhist. The partitions would be arbitrary and you can get good an bad in each partition.

Let's partition people by race and judge them using their stance on war as a basis. We could say:
a. Whites are for war. Examples: George Bush, Chenney, McCain, etc.
or
b. Whites are against war. Examples: Ron Paul, Dennis K, Tom Woods, etc.
both statements are accurate. We could also say:
a. Blacks are for war. Examples: Condolezza Rice, Obama, etc.
or
b. Blacks are against war. Examples: Tmot, Barbara Lee, etc.

An so it goes. If I wanted to discredit any group (in this thread it would be Atheist or Christian) I would just get the examples that make that group look bad. That is my whole point. Even if I am Catholic I do not hold that all Catholics are "good" (take Gingrich or Biden for example).

I was very impressed when reading "man's search for meaning" by Dr. Frankl. He was an immate at Auschwitz. While in the camps Frankl studied the lives of the German guards, the capos (Jewish guards), and the prisoners. He said that - even in this circumstances - there could be good and bad in all different groups ???!!!!. A quote follows:

"One of the most interesting, and disturbing, issues in the book was the idea of the Capo. These were were people put in charge of their fellow prisoners, in order to keep them in line. Dr. Frankl describes these people as, often, being more harsh than the actual guards. This seems to be a disturbing lesson in the abuse of power. This also goes along with Dr. Frankl's discussion of how the camps brought out the true personality of the people within it (after all the social trapping had been stripped away): The cretins, the saints, and all of those in between."

Ah, many thanks. I think I'm

Ah, many thanks. I think I'm getting your meaning. And I think I completely agree. We show our true colors when the chips are down; not when arguing nuances of religion or morality.

Calls the question:

Is the person who blasphemes God all the way to sacrificing his life for another more moral than the person who prays all the way to hiding under the table while his fellows are killed?

Which calls the question: Does God even give a rip whether we go all heroic or go all morally debased -- humanly speaking? Does God only care that we're praying either way we go?

I know my own heart on the matter. I don't know God's. The Bible's account of God's actions and reactions certainly can be interpreted both ways.

Religion keep that in your head

Hi,

Keep religion in your head. It has been abused too much. How many wars have we fought in the name of god? There is still a war going on now. I think if religion didn't exist we would have less problems..

Here are some good stats...

Go to the Guinness Book of World Records. Look up the category "Judicial" and under the subject of "Crimes: Mass Killings," the greatest massacre ever is of an atheist regime: 26.3 million Chinese killed during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978.

In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev (an atheist regime) at 66.7 million.

Finally, in Cambodia "as a percentage of a nation's total population, the worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot (an atheist regime), the founder of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day."

China under Mao Tse Tung (an atheistic regime), 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.

More: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527

A good way to defend your freedoms: www.libertymagazine.org

God - a non-atheist - has them all beat

Having killed every living person - but 8 - on the entire planet; including newborn babies and pregnant women. See Genesis chapters 6-9 for details.

What was the operative philosophy?

Was it something in Atheism that drove them to kill millions, or was it something else? Perhaps it was collectivism? Certainly there have been many atheists who have espoused strict respect for individual rights (Paine, Rand, Johnson) and there are religious believers who have killed without conscience (the Star Chamber, Jim Jones, McVeigh, Hitler's minions, the Crusades). Perhaps belief or non-belief in a supernatural power is irrelevant to mass killings.

If an atheist kills in order to advance the 'cause' of atheism, that is one thing. But I'm not aware of such a doctrine among atheists in general. I have no doubt that some nutjob somewhere has written about the need to kill believers, but I have also seen t-shirts with "Kill them all, let God sort them out."

We should not condemn a belief system as 'dangerous' unless, by its' own internal logic, it demands the killing of otherwise peaceful people.

Errant practitioners of any belief system should not be used to condemn all users of that belief system.

What's more frightening

Is that the secular society has only been a modern phenomenon and look at what the atheist can do in a single century.

Personally, i don't use this as fuel against the atheist worldview, but what it does mean is they need to stop taking the moral high ground with their worldview because it has committed far worse atrocities in a single century than what people have arguably done in the name of 'god' for millenia.

I think we have to be

I think we have to be truthful in our statements. We have to be more rational. What happens now is something like this - let's suppose we have a green and a blue team for the sake of argument - :
a. I am in the green team and I feel strongly towards certain topic.
b. Somebody in the blue team posts a fact that may expose the green team's practices.
c. I just smell blue and I downvote without even listening to the argument.
*** This is obviously wrong.

a. I am in the blue team an I have really good feelings for the blue ideology because my parents, friends, etc. have helped me out and they are part of the blue team.
b. I post a topic that has no fundament in reason and that it is just an opinion without any factual basis.
** This is obviously wrong as well.

Where is the learning if nobody ever proves me wrong? If I am wrong, so what, big deal, I learn and move on. Being wrong in one point does not bring down my whole belief system (Atheism or Christianity) unless it is a very shallow system.

God forgives

sinners and those who go astray.
Humans have a tougher time doing the same.

no idea what set you off but

Sounds to me like your the one who is being intolerant. So someone shares a different religious view. So what? Get mad and run away instead of either ignoring it or accepting it? Yes the founders set up our country around Christianity but there is also freedom of religion and expression. It's not like someone ran into your church and started shouting and harassing everyone. It works both ways my friend.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

Yep, that's his game

In the eyes of PatriotsUnderGod, or 'PUG', everyone who disagrees with him or points out a flaw in his logic, or anyone who isn't a Christian is a "troll". It's one of the favored labels of the DP used to dismiss criticism, and PUG uses it more than most.

A signature used to be here!

Well said

This site has,to me, lost its focus. There is no clear goal anymore. I used to regularly post and check out the site but not anymore. Just happened to pick today to look at the titles.

We are in another war for our Independence.

We can fix this divide....

We just have to be accepting of each other.....

Imagine if Atheist and Agnostics try to always be cognizant of the fact that faith is very important to the faithful, and never belittle their belief. Be respectful and possibly steer clear of all religious debate until respect can be given. Attacking people's core beliefs make it impossible to change minds in the cause of liberty.

Imagine if those with faith try to always be cognizant of the fact that Atheist and Agnostics think the religious are all "bat-sh#t crazy" because they believe in an invisible-all-powerful "God", who sent his only son to be crucified and turned into a zombie in order to somehow account for the sins committed by a species who were created imperfectly from the same previously mentioned omnipotent being. Honestly, how do you treat a crazy person when they try to intellectually debate you?

If we both realize where we're coming from, we can at least not try to step on each other's feet so much.

Hmmmm

I guess it was too tempting to go in significant detail in what atheists and agnostics think of Christians.

And then i guess it was too tempting to follow up with a question that is completely unrelated to the paragraph it is within given the paragraph was talking about a Christian seeing how atheists and agnostics see Christians.

In your post you tried to play the moral high ground of tolerance and understanding while doing your best to 'step on the feet of'/offend the Christian as much as possible.

Perhaps it is beyond an atheist and agnostic's capability to make peace in a meaningful way without being disrespectful or offensive? I guess i should be more understanding because of the inherent flaws in their worldview and one day i might be able to reach a common ground with them.
...see what i did there?

Yes I see what you did. You

Yes I see what you did. You ignored his point and decided to find a way to take offense. You saying that us stating our opinion is offensive... Is offensive. You absolutely refuse to see the other viewpoint. You are usually the ones creating the problems from what I have seen. You refuse to live and let live. I do see some cruel people but I see them on both sides, I don't see anyone reasonably saying that you need to stop going to church, yet I constantly feel bossed around by people with beliefs that I personally believe are B.S. What makes your beliefs so much higher priority than everyone else's?

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

No i did not ignore his point

"You ignored his point and decided to find a way to take offense. You saying that us stating our opinion is offensive... Is offensive. You absolutely refuse to see the other viewpoint."

I understand the atheist worldview as do most, but that does not mean he has to give a harsh opinion of it when trying to make peace, does he? Or do atheists and agnostics feel compelled to offend at every point possible? The excessive details, words like "bat-sh#t crazy" and talking about our God as a "zombie" and then calling us "crazy", why was it necessary in a post geared towards making peace?

"You are usually the ones creating the problems from what I have seen. You refuse to live and let live."

The tide on that has shifted. The militant atheist refuses now to live and let live. Maybe not on the DailyPaul, but go on any other forum on the internet and one comment about God will be bombarded with "fairytale", "Jesus never existed" and the Richard Dawkin like comments.

"What makes your beliefs so much higher priority than everyone else's?"

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And i never said it did so you shouldn't place words where they never existed. My comment was in reply to a comment which tried to take a moral high ground while purposefully making jabs at the same time.

If you want to make peace, then put down your pride down and put down those comments that you are itching to say with the person you disagree with and make peace.

Or do you think the following is ok to happen?

Scenario 1: Palestine and Israel are about to make two-state solution agreement when Netanyahu tells Abbas "your people are an invented people". Perhaps he thinks that, but is it really necessary?

Scenario 2: Palestine and Israel are about to make a two-state solution agreement when Abbas tells Netanyahu "the holocaust never happened". Perhaps he thinks that, but is it really necessary?

If the answer is 'no' to both, which it should be, then i appeal to you that the above comment was no different. We know what atheists think, but when trying to make peace, perhaps there is a better time to say such a thing?

Exactly

Well said.

Actually, I think it's

Actually, I think it's better. It's been a lot worse. Besides, I've seen people give their witness statements and praises that they were just saved or turned to God again on this site, that's a powerful thing too.

Towards elections, I expect it will be worse again, because trolls like to divide that way, and a huge number of people are professing Christians in the United States - #s, #voters, #divide from.

The world is a bad place. I'd rather see it here, where it's pretty much same, but I see some of my Christian family. My opinion could change, but it beats some other sites where they are just as hostile, and sometimes more sneaky.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Gilligan's picture

Your rights come from God ...

... or from the State.

I'd rather be a hungry patriot than a satisfied slave.

Before you go

can you tell me why God told "dubya" to kill all those people in iraq, afghanistan and everywhere else, so that we could force them to use FRN's and take control of their natural resources?

Or when half of the

Or when half of the republican nominees in 2012 said 'god told me to run for president!' it was hilarious. santorum, bachmann, romney, and cain. how could god tell them all the same thing? oh wait. he doesn't exist and they are liars.

You're deceived W was not a Christian many who say so are not

This is where a lot of the confusion comes from.

If you discern based on scripture that someone is not acting the part, then why do you turn again and thrust that devil on us Christians as being our leader when we have none but Christ.

You yourself are playing the role of deceiver and accuser at the same time... which is typical of the devil's work.

George Bush and Carl Rove have demonstrated that they no more represent the words of Christ than Satan himself.

Stop playing the role of a confused demon.

Whether or not

George W. Bush is a true Christian or not is up to God to determine.

I think we can be pretty clear though here, that it was probably not God whispering in his ear, but rather, "the other Guy."

maybe you are

the one being deceived. My granny is the most religious person I know and she says Bush is a wonderful man and a good christian. So...who shall I believe?

I will believe in myself. How bout that. And, it is not very Godly to vote me down. Shame on you.

Common'. Your granny is NOT a

Common'. Your granny is NOT a theologian or a professor or anything anyone recognizes except you and your family. Citing your granny as a representation of millions of people is mathematically incorrect. Use statistics.

my granny

is 88 years old. Her father was a pentecostal minister, as was her sister. My granny does nothing but read the bible all day..she can quote the Bible for hours. I do not believe the woman has ever sinned.

I can tell you that I know many christians and every one I know loves Bush and supports the wars because they believe the muslims are enemies of the jews and therefore are our enemies as well.

My granny may not have a degree but I promise you she is definately an expert on the bible.