Christmas Toy Drive Cancelled (Athiest Threatens Lawsuit)

[txbo]

It's not possible when you have books so ambiguous like the Bible or Q'uran. Leads me to believe that the authors designed them to be that way.

Jesus spoke in parables to confuse those who chose to reject him. If you believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, the true author is God and it would be reasonable and consistent to believe that it is written to confuse those he knows will reject his calling.

 

[Nerd-Vol]

Won't somebody think of the children?!

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Won't somebody think of the children?!

This generation gets everything handed to them on a silver platter. ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE! These kids will be fine without Xmas presents for one year.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I didn't tie Locke to conscience. I tied him to self interest.

The concept of self-interest is ubiquitous.

Personally, my belief is one of faith, derived from Scripture. In discussions of religious freedom such as this, that's not appropriate. I'd point to the chain of influences to our Declaration of Independence and first amendment. Locke was certainly the most influential natural law philosopher to Jefferson.

This is ambiguous.

If I read the first part of your post correctly, you are saying that our only rational is that you believe your religious scripture says so. I have no idea what you are trying to convey in the second part of your post.

Law, such as the Ten Commandments, is a gift that serves three purposes..... A mirror, a curb and a guide.

It would be completely unnecessary and redundant.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Jesus spoke in parables to confuse those who chose to reject him. If you believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, the true author is God and it would be reasonable and consistent to believe that it is written to confuse those he knows will reject his calling.

 

[Orangeslice13]

This is what Jesus said.
Go read threw the words in red.

 

[VOLatile]

Yeah...

 

[therealUT]

What that is referring to is something completely different. That is an element of the progression of justification.
The implication is that faith is a gift of God not something we come about on our own. He draws us to him.

It is not referring to something 'completely different'. It is referring to the Holy Spirit; it is explicitly stating that the Holy Spirit is what awakens faith. Feel free to ride the 'paradox' train all you want, a train that will force you to believe that one must believe in Jesus to have the gift of the Holy Spirit and one cannot believe in Jesus without the gift of the Holy Spirit. Just know that is absurd.

Further, as for the 'faith is a gift from God, not something we come about on our own', then faith is morally meaningless. You simply have a predestined elect and a predestined damned...and nothing else ****ing matters.

I'm not Catholic and I tend to leave explanations of their faith to people that live it. I would describe it less as puzzling and complicated and more as mysterious. I'd also say that their is an element of paradox that we accept.

The Catholic Church does its best to at all times avoid paradoxes and absurdities where it can. Sure, some remain, but the Catholic Church offers explanations (though not great ones) to suggest the paradox does not exist. This is quite different from a Kierkegaardian acceptance of paradox and absurdities. Not saying that accepting the paradoxes is absolutely prohibited, but, when one accepts a logical paradox, one is absolutely open to the charge of absurdity.

It's extremely difficult to make sense of theology without a true desire to understand Scripture. In other wards many try to make scripture fit theology when theology should fit scripture.

This line of thinking works as long as one neglects the historical events surrounding the compilation of the Christian Canon. A few centuries had passed since the supposed birth and death of Jesus; more than a couple centuries since the writings of supposed friends and eyewitnesses to Jesus's life; an failed rebellion and the diaspora...

No historian can ignore the fact that for a large percentage of Jews (not implying the majority), traditions and practices radically changed in the late first century. These traditions and practices were certainly more palatable to the Roman Empire than the traditions and practices of the earlier Jews. These traditions and practices also greatly incorporated Greco-Roman philosophy, providing some attraction to a society that had lost interest in their panthenon of Gods. These traditions and practices were also readily mutable to incorporate other individuals and cultures who wanted to join (the desire to join communities is not foreign). So, late in the fourth century, this community is now quite large and powerful, and decides it is time to officially list out the accounts that comprise their canon, thus which accounts can be read from and talked about during worship services and which cannot. So, the traditions and practices and beliefs (the theology) of these early Christians actually played a large role in selecting the Scripture.

So, saying that Scripture ought to inform theology is denying the fact that the Scripture to which you have access is absolutely informed and selected by a theology in which you do not particularly agree.

 

[txbo]

It is not referring to something 'completely different'. It is referring to the Holy Spirit; it is explicitly stating that the Holy Spirit is what awakens faith.......

Yes, it explicitly states that the Holy Spirit awakens faith. It does not say that the Holy Spirit and conscience are one and the same.

That's not even close to the same thing.

 

[txbo]

....

Further, as for the 'faith is a gift from God, not something we come about on our own', then faith is morally meaningless...
.....

That's correct we win no brownie points for having faith.

 

[therealUT]

That's correct we win no brownie points for having faith.

Aside from heavenly bliss...right? It's absurd.

 

[txbo]

.....

Further, as for the 'faith is a gift from God, not something we come about on our own', then faith is morally meaningless. You simply have a predestined elect and a predestined damned...and nothing else ****ing matters.

.....

Scripture certainly mentions predestination but theology is all over the board on that one. That also brings in sovereignty and foreknowledge but I'm at work and not willing to dive into that right now. lol

Faith as a gift and salvation through faith certainly eliminates salvation through any moral act of a human. It does not however revert to salvation by election if one is capable of denying that faith. Salvation would now become completely a gift while damnation is completely human's fault.

 

[therealUT]

Scripture certainly mentions predestination but theology is all over the board on that one. That also brings in sovereignty and foreknowledge but I'm at work and not willing to dive into that right now. lol

Faith as a gift and salvation through faith certainly eliminates salvation through any moral act of a human. It does not however revert to salvation by election if one is capable of denying that faith. Salvation would now become completely a gift while damnation is completely human's fault.

So, does everyone receive the gift of faith? Or, just some, and out of that pool some reject the gift? Still absurd. The only way around the absurd conclusion (also, a quite repugnant conclusion) is to assert that all humans receive this gift. That is, the Holy Spirit is in all humans, regardless of declared theological commitments. Thus, a Muslim is filled with the Holy Spirit. You might take this conclusion and use it as a premise to support the position that only Christians go to heaven, since, I take it, you would think the Holy Spirit would tell the Muslim to convert.

 

[txbo]

So, does everyone receive the gift of faith? Or, just some, and out of that pool some reject the gift? Still absurd. The only way around the absurd conclusion (also, a quite repugnant conclusion) is to assert that all humans receive this gift. That is, the Holy Spirit is in all humans, regardless of declared theological commitments. Thus, a Muslim is filled with the Holy Spirit. You might take this conclusion and use it as a premise to support the position that only Christians go to heaven, since, I take it, you would think the Holy Spirit would tell the Muslim to convert.

No, I don't believe everyone receives the gift of faith. The real question however is: "is everyone offered the gift of faith?" And that I can't answer. Scripture does say that God desires all to be saved.

 

[therealUT]

No, I don't believe everyone receives the gift of faith. The real question however is: "is everyone offered the gift of faith?" And that I can't answer. Scripture does say that God desires all to be saved.

How is this gift of faith offered? Is it offered through the Holy Spirit? Is it offered only once? Is it offered a multitude of times? If the former, then no second chances, which seems to contradict one entire string of Christian theology. If the latter, then two, or three, or four, etc.? Seems most reasonable to think it would be offered continuously. And, if offered via the Holy Spirit, this would be a continual presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus, every single person would be continually with the Holy Spirit, throughout their life. And, hence, the gift of the Holy Spirit, being in the presence of the Holy Spirit, having access to the Holy Spirit (whatever semantic distinction you care to make) occurs whether or not one has expressed or acknowledged any belief in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, you are going to have to make more distinctions that will make your God look incredibly repugnant.

 

[txbo]

How is this gift of faith offered? Is it offered through the Holy Spirit? Is it offered only once? Is it offered a multitude of times? If the former, then no second chances, which seems to contradict one entire string of Christian theology. If the latter, then two, or three, or four, etc.? Seems most reasonable to think it would be offered continuously. And, if offered via the Holy Spirit, this would be a continual presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus, every single person would be continually with the Holy Spirit, throughout their life. And, hence, the gift of the Holy Spirit, being in the presence of the Holy Spirit, having access to the Holy Spirit (whatever semantic distinction you care to make) occurs whether or not one has expressed or acknowledged any belief in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, you are going to have to make more distinctions that will make your God look incredibly repugnant.

I believe God is omnipotent, omnipresent and sovereign. Where and how often he reveals himself to the hearts of individuals, only he can know.

Reasonable? What's reasonable about a virgin birth, healing the sick, turning water to wine, or coming back from the dead after three days?

 

[therealUT]

I believe God is omnipotent, omnipresent and sovereign. Where and how often he reveals himself to the hearts of individuals, only he can know.

Reasonable? What's reasonable about a virgin birth, healing the sick, turning water to wine, or coming back from the dead after three days?

The latter are all logical possibilities. Thus, they can occur within the domain of reason. So, tests of reasonableness can still be used in theology. You don't get to just sit back and say, "Look, it's crazy ****" and stop there. Well, you can, but then you merely open yourself to the charge of absurdity (which, again, some Christians proudly accept; see Kierkegaard).

If someone labeling your set of beliefs 'absurd' bothers you, though, then you might want to modify your set of beliefs in a manner in which they are no longer absurd.

 

[therealUT]

I believe God is omnipotent, omnipresent and sovereign. Where and how often he reveals himself to the hearts of individuals, only he can know.

If he is omnipresent, it would be always. He would always be revealing himself to the hearts of individuals. That is kind of correct by definition.

If God is everywhere, then there is no where that God is not. Persons' hearts exist somewhere. Therefore, God is present in persons' hearts.

Pretty simple deductive argument there. Add that to the Christian theological notions of how it is that God is present in individuals, and you are going to get that he is present via the Holy Spirit. So, the Holy Spirit is, at all times, present in the hearts of everyone.

The Holy Spirit is God speaking to individuals. When God speaks, naturally one ought to listen. If God tells one how they ought to act, naturally one ought to act in such a manner. A proposition that tells another how they ought to act is a command. God is divine. Thus, dictates of the Holy Spirit are divine commands. Aquinas equated dictates of conscience with divine commands. Hence, dictates of the Holy Spirit are dictates of conscience and dictates of conscience are dictates of the Holy Spirit.

Looks like we are back where we started. Shall we play another round?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Nah... that's not really my style Sly. There's plenty of Christians who, inadvertently or not, take Christ out of Christmas themselves.

But why take the joy out of Christmas. Even if one doesn't believe in Jesus, even AHA (based on their own website) believes in doing good in the absence of a god.

Maybe because Christmas really doesn't have anything to do with Christ anyway.

I find it amusing how so many Christians get upset about "taking Christ" out of a hijacked celebration.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

If he is omnipresent, it would be always. He would always be revealing himself to the hearts of individuals. That is kind of correct by definition.

If God is everywhere, then there is no where that God is not. Persons' hearts exist somewhere. Therefore, God is present in persons' hearts.

Pretty simple deductive argument there. Add that to the Christian theological notions of how it is that God is present in individuals, and you are going to get that he is present via the Holy Spirit. So, the Holy Spirit is, at all times, present in the hearts of everyone.

Goodliness is present in everyone, but this connection to God imo is the conscious or soul and not the Holy Spirit. As I've mentioned previously, the Holy Spirit fills individuals (covers their spirit which is sinful) once they accept Christ as their Savior, and this is what enhances ones faith... and allows them to have a closer relationship with God. Jesus is the way, but the Holy Spirit is our advocate.

John 14:17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

"will be" in you... not "is" in you.

The Holy Spirit is God speaking to individuals. When God speaks, naturally one ought to listen. If God tells one how they ought to act, naturally one ought to act in such a manner. A proposition that tells another how they ought to act is a command. God is divine. Thus, dictates of the Holy Spirit are divine commands. Aquinas equated dictates of conscience with divine commands. Hence, dictates of the Holy Spirit are dictates of conscience and dictates of conscience are dictates of the Holy Spirit.

Looks like we are back where we started. Shall we play another round?

I agree with your first two sentences, but not the rest. As stated before, the Holy Spirit is not ones conscience. As far as God "talking" to others, I know you've studied the Bible so you are certainly aware that God speaks to people in many ways... one of which is through other people. To that extent, according to God's word, txbo (or perhaps even I) could be delivering a message to you from God.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Maybe because Christmas really doesn't have anything to do with Christ anyway.

I find it amusing how so many Christians get upset about "taking Christ" out of a hijacked celebration.

Of course it does. Christmas literally means Christ's Mass. The fact that it may not be celebrated on the actual date Jesus was born, or shares a date that was once a pagan holiday, does not in anyway mean it has nothing to do with Christ.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Atheists are wonderful, aren't they?

Most "atheists" are attention whore douchebags looking for their chance to bully that doesn't actually require having a pair of balls. I find it funny that many atheists have become just like the church, just more douchey. Modern atheists are a crock of pop culture sh!t.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Maybe because Christmas really doesn't have anything to do with Christ anyway.

I find it amusing how so many Christians get upset about "taking Christ" out of a hijacked celebration.

I celebrate the Pagan Winter Solstice Moon festival. I give the annual Yule Goat sacrifice to my pagan masters Aegir and Fenrir.

 

[VOLatile]

Most "atheists" are attention whore douchebags looking for their chance to bully that doesn't actually require having a pair of balls. I find it funny that many atheists have become just like the church, just more douchey. Modern atheists are a crock of pop culture sh!t.

Okay.

 

[Gramps]

I betcha the atheist that threatened this lawsuit enjoyed playing with the toys they received on Christmas when they were 5 year old. I betcha as teenagers they asked for some type of video game for Christmas.