Religious Zealotry

[Hoping]

Some do, and they could certainly be wrong. Especially when they assume that force is acceptable in that quest. Yet it's precisely because they believe this that it will not accur to them that they might be wrong. A man that cannot be wrong is a man that thinks he is a god. Or an extension of God. Which is exactly why such an man is so dangerous and toxic to everyone around him. The man-god has no conscience at all. He thinks he is righteous in everything he does.

If he has no conscience, he will use force.
But the Godly do have a conscience, and love their neighbors as they love themselves.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Most of it is however. For example, your ideal

Is not toxic, except to those who love wickedness, which isn't really toxic at all.

of society would be one ruled by a king and one whereby every citizen - regardless of their beliefs - would be ruled under a set of laws that comported with your notion of what should be crimes, correct?

Not quite.

It would be under a set of laws that comport with God's notion of what IS crimes, provided for us in the Bible.

You're on record here for stating that homosexuality and adultery should be capital crimes (you're not alone on that obviously).

Correct. And that those who are convicted of it should be put to death.

that unmarried couples having sex should be forced into wedlock

Those who are caught, yes.

with no possibility of divorce

Correct.

and children as young as five being tried and even executed if found guilty of committing a capital crime.

If they intentionally commit a capital crime, yes.

 

[Hoping]

Particularly the Christian who believes they cannot sin because all their sins have been covered by Christ's redemption. I don't know their exact terminology, I don't usually follow those conversations, but they literally think they cannot sin.

I have not run into that yet.
Most have some doctrine that accommodates sin, but none of them "don't sin".
Only the real Christians don't commit sin.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Like forcing women to adhere to the particular belief that abortion is murder?

That's not just a belief. It's reality.

Abortion IS murder. You can believe it or not, but it doesn't change the reality that it's the taking of an innocent life.

Or forcing homosexuals to adhere to the particular belief that homosexuality is a sin?

As above, homosexuality IS a sin (and a crime, and should be a crime).

 

[annabenedetti]

I have extreme black and white thinking.

Black and white: Stealing is wrong. Never steal.

Gray: Ukraine war zone: my children are starving, I'm going to steal those Russian rations to feed them.

Are you always extreme black and white, with never any shades of gray?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Is not toxic, except to those who love wickedness, which isn't really toxic at all.



Not quite.

It would be under a set of laws that comport with God's notion of what IS crimes, provided for us in the Bible.



Correct. And that those who are convicted of it should be put to death.



Those who are caught, yes.



Correct.



If they intentionally commit a capital crime, yes.

No, it's toxic to those who value logic, reason, compassion, empathy and also faith frankly.

You've pretty much underlined Pure X's point about zealotry. You would have people enforced to live under your ideal based on your beliefs of how a Godly society should be. So would others in differing ways who use the same source material so thankfully, it's all kinda moot.

Frankly, you've no support for the trying and executing of five year old children whatsoever. The Bible doesn't help you on that score and you've never managed to support it with any specific verse either. Nor will you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's not just a belief. It's reality.

Abortion IS murder. You can believe it or not, but it doesn't change the reality that it's the taking of an innocent life.



As above, homosexuality IS a sin (and a crime, and should be a crime).

Homosexuality isn't a crime, simple as. That you think it should be and punishable by death doesn't make it so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I have extreme black and white thinking.

As anna has already alluded to, to what degree? Some things are black and white sure. If someone forces themselves on another including in marriage then it's rape.

Other things aren't quite so clear cut so I'm reckoning you have shades of grey also.

An obvious example being: You're harboring Jews or any other undesirable in Nazi Germany and a Gestapo squad call around your house and ask if you're hiding them. What do you do? Tell the truth or lie?

 

[marke]

Some do, and they could certainly be wrong. Especially when they assume that force is acceptable in that quest. Yet it's precisely because they believe this that it will not accur to them that they might be wrong. A man that cannot be wrong is a man that thinks he is a god. Or an extension of God. Which is exactly why such an man is so dangerous and toxic to everyone around him. The man-god has no conscience at all. He thinks he is righteous in everything he does.

Christians do not force themselves on others. Ungodly abortionists force American Christians to donate to their bloody practice of baby-killing. Ungodly sodomites force bakers to make them a homocake to celebrate their perverted sexual barbarism. Ungodly politicians force Christians to keep silent about their faith in public and government buildings. And so forth.

 

[PureX]

They have black and white thinking, anything in between is compromise and compromise is anathema.

Worse then that, doubt is anathema. Forbidden, even. How can one have a conscience without the ability to doubt one’s own motives and behaviors?

 

[PureX]

Christians do not force themselves on others.

But many do force their religious beliefs on others. Or they try to. Placing their religious symbols in public buildings, forcing prayer in public schools, denying medical procedures to women and banning homosexual unions. These are all examples of religious believers trying to force everyone else to comply with their religious beliefs.

Ungodly abortionists force American Christians to donate to their bloody practice of baby-killing. Ungodly sodomites force bakers to make them a homocake to celebrate their perverted sexual barbarism. Ungodly politicians force Christians to keep silent about their faith in public and government buildings. And so forth.

None of that is happening.

 

[PureX]

Are you excluding the religion of Secular Humanism?

Secular humanism is not a religion, it’s an ideology. The difference is that the secular humanist doesn’t see himself as an anointed and approved extension of God.

 

[PureX]

If he has no conscience, he will use force.
But the Godly do have a conscience, and love their neighbors as they love themselves.

I fully agree. But Godliness and religion are often estranged from each other.

 

[marke]

But many do force their religious beliefs on others. Or they try to. Placing their religious symbols in public buildings,

Is that like forcing others to honor Martin Luther King by placing his images or statues in public places? Is the placement of symbols, images, memorials, and the like to be banned entirely so as not to offend the few who find them offensive?

forcing prayer in public schools,

Is taking the liberty to pray in schools to be considered some sort of force but prohibiting praying in public not some sort of force?

denying medical procedures to women and banning homosexual unions.

Are decency laws unlawful? Is it OK to outlaw rape and other sexual crimes and perversions or should we legalize any form of sexual perversion the most wicked barbarians among us want to practice?

These are all examples of religious believers trying to force everyone else to comply with their religious beliefs.
None of that is happening.

Forcing acceptance of immoral perversions and ungodly practices on Christians is unjust.

 

[Jefferson]

Secular humanism is not a religion, it’s an ideology. The difference is that the secular humanist doesn’t see himself as an anointed and approved extension of God.

In 2014 a federal district court held that “Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes.”

In the 1961 decision Torcaso v. Watkins, the court stated that the Establishment Clause prevents government from aiding “those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

Since you cannot scientifically prove humanism to be true, you ultimately have to take a "blind leap of faith" in order to believe in it.

Furthermore, since you appear to subscribe to the fundamentals of humanism, not only are you religious, you are a religious fundamentalist.

 

[ok doser]

In 2014 a federal district court held that “Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes.”

In the 1961 decision Torcaso v. Watkins, the court stated that the Establishment Clause prevents government from aiding “those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

Since you cannot scientifically prove humanism to be true, you ultimately have to take a "blind leap of faith" in order to believe in it.

Furthermore, since you appear to subscribe to the fundamentals of humanism, not only are you religious, you are a religious fundamentalist.

He is a zealot, the exact thing he's accusing others of being

 

[Arthur Brain]

But many do force their religious beliefs on others. Or they try to. Placing their religious symbols in public buildings, forcing prayer in public schools, denying medical procedures to women and banning homosexual unions. These are all examples of religious believers trying to force everyone else to comply with their religious beliefs.

None of that is happening.

All too often seen in places like Saudi Arabia and with the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan etc. Places where freedom is a word only and where human rights are an abstract. The only "good" thing with the zealotry displayed under the guise of Christianity here is that the usurping of freedoms and rights that we have in the West would remain a theoretical abstract instead of an actual one.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If he has no conscience, he will use force.
But the Godly do have a conscience, and love their neighbors as they love themselves.

Trouble with that is, some of the more ardent zealots think that it's actually loving to impose their beliefs on others and deny them any say so.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, it's toxic to those who value logic, reason, compassion, empathy and also faith frankly.

False.

You've pretty much underlined Pure X's point about zealotry. You would have people enforced to live under your ideal based on your beliefs of how a Godly society should be.

No, I wouldn't force them. They would be allowed to leave.

But again, it's not "my" ideals. It's God's.

So would others in differing ways who use the same source material so thankfully, it's all kinda moot.

False.

Frankly, you've no support for the trying and executing of five year old children whatsoever.

Also false.

The Bible doesn't help you on that score and you've never managed to support it with any specific verse either. Nor will you.

False.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Homosexuality isn't a crime, simple as.

False.

That you think it should be and punishable by death doesn't make it so.

I'm simply quoting what the Bible says about it. The Bible says it is, that settles it.