|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Blasphemy Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
I deny that these people have even the foggiest notion whatsoever of the meaning of denial of the Holy Spirit. Ask them if they believe cheating behind their friend's back is right, and they will sing a different tune.
It has nothing to do with atheism, except in that atheists might be ignorant of Biblical language. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Don't know Ringo. If you don't believe in something, you can hardly blaspheme against it.
I would say we all know about our beliefs, we just don't know about anyone else's. But yes, I am aware that many people, atheist and christian alike, are not thinking in spiritual terms when they contemplate the words of the Bible.
OP writes: What divides atheist manipulation of children from Christian manipulation? Why does religion and/or Christianity reserve the right to teach children a particular viewpoint and criticize such actions by atheists? I personally do not see what is so wrong about what the Blasphemy Challenge is doing, though I think it is a crude method to bring the message across. See, I don't know why atheism is even mentioned. wWhat does the 'message' that is being taught amount to? It is about as pointless a 'message' as an anti-Shiva protest by Muslims. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Vacate writes: Though I agree that one can hardly commit blasphemy if you don't believe in what you are denying. How does this merit the response by the fox commentator that "This thing made me sick". I am thinking two things; One, it is an out-right mockery of the sacred beliefs of others, when dis-belief could be preached on its own 'merits'. Two, several of the participants are much too young to even understand what they are blaspheming against, or whether they will ever regret it in the future. And well, even if I wasn't Christian, I can't imagine feeling the need to blaspheme an Entity Who is described as 'The Comfortor'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
DorfMan writes: Denying the Holy Spirit, the sin against the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. Why not say deny God or Jesus? Because they know denying the Holy Spirit is more effective. Has more exquisite consequences. I'd say they know exactly what they are doing. Think about it carefully...have you ever heard a Christian say that blasphemy is unpardonable? Or that anything is unpardonable? The usual misunderstanding is that Christians get a free-pass for everything. I am telling you that it is just quote-mining of the Bible without understanding anything of the meaning. If you can take an in-depth answer I will elaborate, but I hope you will trust me that I have no fear of hell over mere words, and no belief that God will condemn anyone based on a misunderstanding of scripture alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: So, how is this any different from indoctinating very young children into any given religious belief when they are far too young to understand what they are being taught to believe, or before they have the cognitive capability to truly examine those beliefs and freely choose them, or even if they will regret the time wasted in irrational belief in the future? For one, it is not indoctrinating anything. It is a stupid dare with a reward. It is about as meaningless as making me deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Well, first off, teaching someone about a faith is not the same thing as daring them to 'blaspheme' something else. I, at least, did not have mockery of other religions as part of my religious training.
But more to the point, you will notice that when I said this;
anastasia writes:
Two, several of the participants are much too young to even understand what they are blaspheming against, or whether they will ever regret it in the future. It was only a GUESS about why a Fox commentator may have stated 'this makes me sick'. The question had been asked of me in the previous post. When I said this;
For one, it is not indoctrinating anything. It is a stupid dare with a reward. It is about as meaningless as making me deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was MY feelings on the matter. Again, the folks behind this challenge are quote-mining the Bible and putting forth this 'unforgiveable sin' that no christian has ever heard of. Atheism, if it wants to deny God, has much more ground to cover than just the christian variations. It is rather lovely that this group sees christianity as its main threat...and making such statements as 'this challenge will end when christianity ends' turns atheism to a hate-mongering religion of its own, and will probably only fire more zeal in the hearts of christians. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: I'm not convinced that intellectual attempts to end an ideology constitute "hate-mongering". Intellectual? You must be kidding. It's just a bunch of mall-rats and rock-star wanna-bes. Been to Hot Topic lately? Christianity, especially Catholicism, sells.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: Well, OK, but the point I was making, and still remains, is that using the issue of children being "too young to understand what they are blaspheming against and if they might regret their actions later in life" works both ways. So, how does one blaspheme against the gods of atheism? I really wouldn't worry too much. We all have time to un-believe, and if we don't, we haven't missed much. It takes a life-time to reach even a tenth of the perfection christianity asks of us, and only one moment to give it up. And it is not really challenging to teach atheism. Most so called 'christian' parents are doing a fine job of that already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: Never heard of it. Sorry, just one of those little stores which caters to the 'goth' and 'emo' kids...full of rosary beads, crosses, album covers with religious symbols and songs based on catholic chants, etc. 'Charity will end when poverty ends'. Hm. Charity, good. Poverty, bad. Atheism, good. Christianity, bad. Sounds like WAR to me. It is just a shame that militant atheism can't do anything without first referencing God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
RIngo writes: Charity is good because poverty is bad. If you're going to draw the parallel, then an atheist "war" on bad "Christianity" would be good. Sure, for atheists. Of course, atheism is a rebel without a cause, there is really no 'good' for which it stands. It's a non-starter. It must prove itself 'good' or better, to make christianity 'bad'. An atheist is what you call a person who can't describe themselves without first acknowledging God. The name says it all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: Christianity (or a subset of Christianity) could be "bad" compared to any alternative - e.g. Taoism, Wicca, Raelianism. So what IS bad?
An atheist doesn't "acknowledge" God any more than an amoral person acknowledges morality. An amoral person is likely not acknowledging his amorality. Amoral is what moral people call him. First, morality is recognized, then immorality. So, why do atheists use a word which recognizes God first?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
kuresu writes: really, what's your point? That you all need a better publicist.
i mean, we can stand for things that are good (and evil) just like any other group out there can. and we can describe ourselves without acknowledging God. I mean, atheism is just one of the things that describe. I'm also a bassist. guess that means I'm a person who can't describe myself without first acknowledging basses. Well. sort of. You have done an excellent job of standing up for 'good' just because its good, while at the same time insisting that 'good' is in our heads and is completely relative. And yes, you obviously can't be a bassist without first acknowledging basses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
kuresu writes: technically, atheist doesn't recognize god first. it recognizes "no" first. it recognizes the non-existance of God.besides, how else would you neatly say you don't believe in God? Don't mention God at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: Turning a blind eye to pedophilia, not speaking out against Naziism, pushing YECism into schools, discriminating against homosexuals.... I can go on if you can't come up with any examples of your own. No, Ringo, you have no proof that ANYTHING is bad except by some stupid relative moral standard. If your standard is relative, it can't be retro-active. It also can not be assumed to have been 'right' in any given situation. Oh, and christianity is a theology, not a group of priests, pastors, YEC's etc.
Amorality is the natural state - mosquitos are amoral. Bananas are amoral. Mosquitoes and bananas? You can't compare us to fruits and insects, sorry. Non-admissable.
We learn morality from our culture. "Immorality" is failure to learn. How did our culture learn morality? Why do we all fail to learn?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5983 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
If morality is learned from generation to generation, it is indeed relative to that generation, and not retro-active.
I have had no explanation in any other thread, save that of 'mal-function' which is quickly denied. Mosquitoes are irrelevent to any discussion of atheism, but they make great fish-food in their larval state.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024