Atheism Denies Freedom Of Thought, And Therefore Freedom Itself

[Sola_Fide]

you are wrong on all counts.
i have 12 years of catholic theology, and 4 years of protestant college theological study. i come to you as someone who has seeked the truth through serious theological study.

What protestant college would lead you to the conclusions you have today? Why didn't you just save money and get the standard humanistic education that most Americans get today?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I watched the vid in the OP. Very inarticulate. He sort of touches on the inductive fallacies some people use to "disprove" this and that about whatever religion. Altogether, it's so slipshod he defeats his own line of arguments in the end.

 

[torchbearer]

What protestant college would lead you to the conclusions you have today? Why didn't you just save money and get the standard humanistic education that most Americans get today?

Louisiana College in Pineville, LA.
my professors were men who had dug on the Tel's of Israel. Read Hebrew and Greek so they could read the original documents for themselves. They sought truth, and they knew more about the origins of the text than any i've studied under before.

 

[Sola_Fide]

perhaps you are in error-
the 12 apostles:
Simon, called Peter
Andrew, his brother
James, son of Zebedee
John, his brother
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew, the tax collector
James, son of Alphaeus
Thaddeus (also called Lebbaeus)
Simon the Cananaean
Judas Iscariot

Wow. Is this the Protestant college you went to that told you that Paul was not an apostle? Now I am curious as to where you went.

1 Corinthians 15:6-11 NASB

After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles.

 

[torchbearer]

Wow. Is this the Protestant college you went to that told you that Paul was not an apostle? Now I am curious as to where you went.



Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles.

the 12 apostles were students of jesus.
Paul didn't know Him.
its like say peter studied under ron paul, but paul knew a guy who studied under ron paul.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Romans
13 Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power. (god gives Obama domain over you)[SUP]2 [/SUP]People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. [SUP]4 [/SUP]After all, they are God’s servants, and it is their duty to help you.
If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God’s servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is. [SUP]5 [/SUP]But you should obey the rulers because you know it is the right thing to do, and not just because of God’s anger.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]You must also pay your taxes. The authorities are God’s servants, and it is their duty to take care of these matters. [SUP]7 [/SUP]Pay all that you owe, whether it is taxes and fees or respect and honor.

A commonly misunderstood text.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority – even civil authority – is limited.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?[/FONT]

 

[torchbearer]

Paul was a member of the Pharisee at the time of Jesus crucifiction.

Year*
AD 4 Augustus adopts Tiberius and recognizes him as the successor
c. 5 Born—an Israelite—in Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 22:3; Phil 3:5)
A Roman citizen by birthright (Acts 22:28)
7 Judea becomes a Roman Imperial province
14 Census of Caesar and Tiberius
Lyvia poisons Augustus; Tiberius comes into power
c.15-20 At the school of Gamaliel, Jerusalem (Acts 22:3)
26 Pilate begins serving as procurator of Judea
28 John the Baptist executed by Herod Antipas
30 Crucifixion of Christ
31(?) A Pharisee (Phil 3:5)
c. 32 Present at Stephen's stoning (Acts 7:58; 8:1)
c.33-34 Persecutor of the church (Acts 8:1-3; Phil 3:6)
34 Conversion on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9)

 

[torchbearer]

Wow. Is this the Protestant college you went to that told you that Paul was not an apostle? Now I am curious as to where you went.



Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles.

my professors at L.C. appreciated my insight. as most students taking their class blathered your bullshit sunday school routine.
they were impressed because they had an impression that catholic students didn't have much in the way of independent religious curiousty.
i explained that i attended three different churches regularly in my youth. pentacostal, roman catholic and southern baptist. early on i got a good dose of real religion as i would attend a 9 a.m. mass then go to a baptist service at 11 a.m. only to hear from the preacher that all catholics are going to hell. had to figure that one out early on.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Personally, I don't believe in God, but I do try to live up to Jesus' teachings. I respect his adherence to the non-agression principle and try to do the same. As to who he was. I really don't think it matters. If you want to call him God, that's fine. Some people call Siddhartha God, too, though he was humble enough to deny it many times. Maybe Jesus just liked the attention, or felt that he would have more influence as a God, than as just another spiritual teacher. Maybe he did. It doesn't really matter to me what is printed on the fake money or what silly notions people have about how the Earth came to be or if there is a spiritual being that runs everything. I only care if you use your beliefs to deny me my liberty to act for my own advancement without harming others.

I will quote scripture when it suits me, but not to make you believe anything, but only to emphasize the words of wise people who spoke truth. Solomon and Jesus both have a lot of good things to say. As does Siddhartha, Lao Tzu, Socrates, and Confucious. To deny truth because of who spoke it, or to believe lies just because of who wrote them makes you religious, but not spiritual. A seeker of spiritual truth must be open to explore all philosophies and determine for himself what is true and what is false.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." -Siddhartha Guatama (sometimes called "the enlightened one". "Buddha" in Sanskrit.)

 

[Sola_Fide]

the 12 apostles were students of jesus.
Paul didn't know Him.
its like say peter studied under ron paul, but paul knew a guy who studied under ron paul.

Paul knew Jesus:

Acts 22:6-11 NASB

"But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.'

And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.' But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus.

Your arguments sound like they have been ripped from Ehrman and Crossan. Those guys have all been refuted time and time again.

 

[jj-]

There are atheists who believe in free will. You're mixing up atheism with materialism. One doesn't necessarily imply the other.

 

[torchbearer]

Paul knew Jesus:



Your arguments sound like they have been ripped from Ehrman and Crossan. Those guys have all been refuted time and time again.

Acts was written after the time of jesus. there is a reason saul is not gospel.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Paul was a member of the Pharisee at the time of Jesus crucifiction.

Year*
AD 4 Augustus adopts Tiberius and recognizes him as the successor
c. 5 Born—an Israelite—in Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 22:3; Phil 3:5)
A Roman citizen by birthright (Acts 22:28)
7 Judea becomes a Roman Imperial province
14 Census of Caesar and Tiberius
Lyvia poisons Augustus; Tiberius comes into power
c.15-20 At the school of Gamaliel, Jerusalem (Acts 22:3)
26 Pilate begins serving as procurator of Judea
28 John the Baptist executed by Herod Antipas
30 Crucifixion of Christ
31(?) A Pharisee (Phil 3:5)
c. 32 Present at Stephen's stoning (Acts 7:58; 8:1)
c.33-34 Persecutor of the church (Acts 8:1-3; Phil 3:6)
34 Conversion on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9)

Yes. The point is that he was one "untimely born" (as in the passage I quoted in Corinthians)...not one of the original twelve, but an apostle nonetheless.

Are you being serious or joking around? This is the stuff that Sunday school kids learn...you know, who the apostles were and things like that....

 

[jj-]

Yeah, but my intention wasn't name-calling. The OP video lays out a 2 minute argument that shows why the philosophical foundations of atheism do not support the freedom of the mind to think apart from random biological processes.

The problem is that there is no such thing as "the philosophical foundation of atheism". Somebody who isn't convinced by an argument for the existence of God and believe such being doesn't exist might be some punk who doesn't even have a philosophy, but he is an atheist.

 

[torchbearer]

Yes. The point is that he was one "untimely born" (as in the passage I quoted in Corinthians)...not one of the original twelve, but an apostle nonetheless.

Are you being serious or joking around? This is the stuff that Sunday school kids learn...you know, who the apostles were and things like that....

the sunday school reference was covered in a previous post. i've had plenty of those.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Acts was written after the time of jesus. there is a reason saul is not gospel.

Luke wrote both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts after Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected. Every book of the New Testament was written after the time Jesus walked the earth. There was no internet blog in that day where there were minute-by-minute reports happening the same time as the events themselves. Furthermore, there is no need for there to be this kind of reporting from the Christian perspective, because we believe (as the Scriptures say) that God inspired the writers of the books of the NT to convey the words He wanted to express.

And the wonder of the Bible is how historically sound the text is. The New Testament text is the most well-attested work of antiquity in the world....by far. It is a wonder of God's providence that we have such a well preserved text. It is unlike anything else in the world.

 

[torchbearer]

Luke wrote both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts after Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected. Every book of the New Testament was written after the time Jesus walked the earth. There was no internet blog in that day where there were minute-by-minute reports happening the same time as the events themselves. Furthermore, there is no need for there to be this kind of reporting from the Christian perspective, because we believe (as the Scriptures say) that God inspired the writers of the books of the NT to convey the words He wanted to express.

And the wonder of the Bible is how historically sound the text is. The New Testament text is the most well-attested work of antiquity in the world....by far. It is a wonder of God's providence that we have such a well preserved text. It is unlike anything else in the world.

i give you a timeline in post 87. lets start there.

 

[Sola_Fide]

i give you a timeline in post 87. lets start there.

Well, what exactly is your point? It is popular today with Jesus Seminar people and other assorted theological liberals to attack Paul at virtually every turn. Just about every kind of attack you can think of is levied on Paul, from denials of his apostleship to accusing him of being gay. Why the attack on Paul? Because the bulk of Christian theology comes from Paul's epistles. Theological liberalism must strike at the heart of Christian theology itself to be effective, so Paul is a target in their eyes.

I think we've already shown that Paul was an apostle and that he did speak to the Lord and that the Lord sent him to the Gentiles. I can post more texts if you want.

 

[torchbearer]

Well, what exactly is your point? It is popular today with Jesus Seminar people and other assorted theological liberals to attack Paul at virtually every turn. Just about every kind of attack you can think of is levied on Paul, from denials of his apostleship to accusing him of being gay. Why the attack on Paul? Because the bulk of Christian theology comes from Paul's epistles. Theological liberalism must strike at the heart of Christian theology itself to be effective, so Paul is a target in their eyes.

I think we've already shown that Paul was an apostle and that he did speak to the Lord and that the Lord sent him to the Gentiles. I can post more texts if you want.

I don't dislike Paul. but he has been hyped beyond his station.
He was a product of his time. He treated women as second class citizens. His teachings should be tought as his teachings and not the word of god. his words are not equal to those of jesus. thus the gospel will always trump acts, and paul's teaching should be kept in those context. at least with peter, you can say he was a direct student of jesus.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I don't dislike Paul. but he has been hyped beyond his station.

No. This isn't about Paul, it is about you not giving authority to the Word of God. There are no "more authoritative" and "less authoritative" parts of God's Word.

He was a product of his time. He treated women as second class citizens.

There is no such thing as "Paul's teachings". Since Paul was an apostle and he wrote by inspiration of the Spirit, God spoke through Paul. What God said through Paul about women not teaching over men in the church and men loving their wives as Christ loves the church does not make them second class citizens.

His teachings should be tought as his teachings and not the word of god. his words are not equal to those of jesus. thus the gospel will always trump acts, and paul's teaching should be kept in those context. at least with peter, you can say he was a direct student of jesus.

You do know that Jesus did not write any of the gospels, right? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did. The red letters on the page were written by men, not Jesus.

Secondly, you do not have a biblical view of inspiration. Peter called Paul's writings "Scripture". Christians have a different view of inspiration than other religions. We believe God is sovereign in the process of conveying His word to men. He brought His word to the writers of the NT so that what they wrote was what He wanted them to write, using their language and style. So there is no apostle who is more authoritative than the other and there is no book or section that is more authoritative than the other. All of it is God's Word.