Secularism: Good or Bad?

[Harpers Ferry]

P-p-proof. Or, at the very least, evidence.

What do I need proof for?

Oh, I don't know, maybe that bit about saying thousands upon thousands of religious faiths are wrong except yours? Yeah, that might be it.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Secularism is based on the concept of allowing people to believe or disbelieve in anything they choose to do.

People have different Gods and beliefs. Secularism prevents conflict between them.

If people "trusted" their Gods enough, there would more religious conflicts and wars.

You're simply wrong on every level.
I'm not proposing that we take the Middle East and Christianize it.
What I'm proposing is, that if Christians wish to live under Christian laws, they should be able to, and if heathens want to live under heathen laws they can. (My use of heathen is a joke, but the point still stands.) Strong decentralization. I don;t want to live in a society where nude people walk around in the streets, where I see people making out everywhere I turn my head, where churches have to marry gays, where people can have incestuous relations, if you do, that's fine. You can have an atheist society, I want a Christian one. Why not have a Cromwellian republic and a secular-anti Muslim country like France? Do all people have to live like you? Do all people have to live in a secular wet-dream?

What you are describing IS a Christianized Middle East in effect.

[The Alma Mater]

Don't waste your time, he doesn't have any.

Oh I know. Hopefully asking will push him out of the thread.

Why would you want that ? It is refreshing to see a christian who is not twisting and turning but just honest. Silly, but honest.

[Seno Zhou Varada]

Secularism is based on the concept of allowing people to believe or disbelieve in anything they choose to do.

People have different Gods and beliefs. Secularism prevents conflict between them.

If people "trusted" their Gods enough, there would more religious conflicts and wars.

You're simply wrong on every level.
I'm not proposing that we take the Middle East and Christianize it.
What I'm proposing is, that if Christians wish to live under Christian laws, they should be able to, and if heathens want to live under heathen laws they can. (My use of heathen is a joke, but the point still stands.) Strong decentralization. I don;t want to live in a society where nude people walk around in the streets, where I see people making out everywhere I turn my head, where churches have to marry gays, where people can have incestuous relations, if you do, that's fine. You can have an atheist society, I want a Christian one. Why not have a Cromwellian republic and a secular-anti Muslim country like France? Do all people have to live like you? Do all people have to live in a secular wet-dream?

BS learn the definition of secularism.

Nude people won't walk around on the streets, people making out is already normal deal with it, churches won't have to marry gays in a secular society, incestuous relationships? You do realize that it will be very rare to see one. And basically your saying segregation. Why should Atheists be forced to leave their home or other religions due to the Totalitarian, theocratic, government.

[The Alma Mater]

Secularism is based on the concept of allowing people to believe or disbelieve in anything they choose to do.

People have different Gods and beliefs. Secularism prevents conflict between them.

If people "trusted" their Gods enough, there would more religious conflicts and wars.

You're simply wrong on every level.
I'm not proposing that we take the Middle East and Christianize it.
What I'm proposing is, that if Christians wish to live under Christian laws, they should be able to, and if heathens want to live under heathen laws they can. (My use of heathen is a joke, but the point still stands.) Strong decentralization. I don;t want to live in a society where nude people walk around in the streets, where I see people making out everywhere I turn my head, where churches have to marry gays, where people can have incestuous relations, if you do, that's fine. You can have an atheist society, I want a Christian one. Why not have a Cromwellian republic and a secular-anti Muslim country like France? Do all people have to live like you? Do all people have to live in a secular wet-dream?

When did incest stop being christian approved btw ?

[Communist Volkstrad]

When did incest stop being christian approved btw ?

^This^

[Genivaria]

I think that secularism is the basic problem with humankind. Secularism is based on two things: relativism, and distrust for religion in some way.
If people did not believe in relativism, there would be no need for secularism because people would realize that there is only one true way of living.
If people did not distrust religion/God, there would be no need for secularism because people would want their God to be the basis for their society/lives.

I also believe that if people trusted God enough, there would be no problems and the the world would be perfect. Because of this, people who spread secularism spread disbelief, and by extension a worse society.
Any act of evil is at base an act of not trusting in God's will enough, thus, secularism is advocating evil.

Then you understand nothing about secularism.

[Genivaria]

You're simply wrong on every level.
I'm not proposing that we take the Middle East and Christianize it.
What I'm proposing is, that if Christians wish to live under Christian laws, they should be able to, and if heathens want to live under heathen laws they can. (My use of heathen is a joke, but the point still stands.) Strong decentralization. I don;t want to live in a society where nude people walk around in the streets, where I see people making out everywhere I turn my head, where churches have to marry gays, where people can have incestuous relations, if you do, that's fine. You can have an atheist society, I want a Christian one. Why not have a Cromwellian republic and a secular-anti Muslim country like France? Do all people have to live like you? Do all people have to live in a secular wet-dream?

What you are describing IS a Christianized Middle East in effect.

What I find amusing is that if you have to FORCE people in a society to live a certain way then they'll all leave to our 'secular wet-dream'.
A society that finds it acceptable to force beliefs on people will also find it acceptable to invade its infidel neighbor.

[Threlizdun]

Secularism is based on the concept of allowing people to believe or disbelieve in anything they choose to do.

People have different Gods and beliefs. Secularism prevents conflict between them.

If people "trusted" their Gods enough, there would more religious conflicts and wars.

You're simply wrong on every level.
I'm not proposing that we take the Middle East and Christianize it.
What I'm proposing is, that if Christians wish to live under Christian laws, they should be able to, and if heathens want to live under heathen laws they can. (My use of heathen is a joke, but the point still stands.) Strong decentralization. I don;t want to live in a society where nude people walk around in the streets, where I see people making out everywhere I turn my head, where churches have to marry gays, where people can have incestuous relations, if you do, that's fine. You can have an atheist society, I want a Christian one. Why not have a Cromwellian republic and a secular-anti Muslim country like France? Do all people have to live like you? Do all people have to live in a secular wet-dream?

Why not just have people free to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone? You aren't being forced to go against your beliefs, so what's the issue?

[The Alma Mater]

You're simply wrong on every level.
I'm not proposing that we take the Middle East and Christianize it.
What I'm proposing is, that if Christians wish to live under Christian laws, they should be able to, and if heathens want to live under heathen laws they can. (My use of heathen is a joke, but the point still stands.) Strong decentralization. I don;t want to live in a society where nude people walk around in the streets, where I see people making out everywhere I turn my head, where churches have to marry gays, where people can have incestuous relations, if you do, that's fine. You can have an atheist society, I want a Christian one. Why not have a Cromwellian republic and a secular-anti Muslim country like France? Do all people have to live like you? Do all people have to live in a secular wet-dream?

Why not just have people free to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone? You aren't being forced to go against your beliefs, so what's the issue?

The issue is that other people are not forced to adhere to his beliefs, and so he sees them doing things he considers sinful. He does not want that, he wants to live in a place where everybody is like him. Pretty human.

[Genivaria]

Secular good of man? How does "secular" factor in to "Jesus"?

He would have wanted some Christian beliefs forced on others.

That sounds nothing like Jesus at all.

[Harpers Ferry]

You're simply wrong on every level.
I'm not proposing that we take the Middle East and Christianize it.
What I'm proposing is, that if Christians wish to live under Christian laws, they should be able to, and if heathens want to live under heathen laws they can. (My use of heathen is a joke, but the point still stands.) Strong decentralization. I don;t want to live in a society where nude people walk around in the streets, where I see people making out everywhere I turn my head, where churches have to marry gays, where people can have incestuous relations, if you do, that's fine. You can have an atheist society, I want a Christian one. Why not have a Cromwellian republic and a secular-anti Muslim country like France? Do all people have to live like you? Do all people have to live in a secular wet-dream?

Why not just have people free to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone? You aren't being forced to go against your beliefs, so what's the issue?

The fact that the rest of society isn't forced to go with his beliefs of course.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

He would have wanted some Christian beliefs forced on others.

That sounds nothing like Jesus at all.

orly?

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Why not just have people free to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone? You aren't being forced to go against your beliefs, so what's the issue?

The fact that the rest of society isn't forced to go with his beliefs of course.

Yes, this is correct as evidence shows.

[Genivaria]

That sounds nothing like Jesus at all.

orly?

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

That's Deuteronomy, OT.
Jesus is NT.

[The Alma Mater]

orly?

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

That's Deuteronomy, OT.
Jesus is NT.

And he did not change a letter of the old laws.

[Genivaria]

P-p-proof. Or, at the very least, evidence.

What do I need proof for?

Christian principles are just as 'invented' as anyone else's.

[Communist Volkstrad]

orly?

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

That's Deuteronomy, OT.
Jesus is NT.

And, I do believe, NT invalidates OT.

[Galloism]

That sounds nothing like Jesus at all.

orly?

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Jesus was a time traveler too?

[Galloism]

That's Deuteronomy, OT.
Jesus is NT.

And, I do believe, NT invalidates OT.

Uhh...

Sort of.

[Communist Volkstrad]

And, I do believe, NT invalidates OT.

Uhh...

Sort of.

I may have been informed of this in a simplified manner, what are the specifics on it?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

orly?

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Jesus was a time traveler too?

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).

Jesus was apparently fine with absolutely everything in the OT.

[Genivaria]

Uhh...

Sort of.

I may have been informed of this in a simplified manner, what are the specifics on it?

It depends on which Christian you're talking to and whether or not they need to back-pedal.

[Dyakovo]

Such as?

The laws against murder in particular.

Aren't a christian thing. "Unwarranted" killing of other people has been considered wrong longer than christianity has existed.

[Galloism]

Uhh...

Sort of.

I may have been informed of this in a simplified manner, what are the specifics on it?

Well, Jesus said he was there to "fulfill the law". He did say "he" wasn't there to destroy it.

Later, Paul said that basically the law didn't apply to Christians.

However, Jesus did prophecy that Jerusalem, and the temple, would be destroyed. When the temple was destroyed, it made the law an absolute impossibility to follow, as you could no longer perform ritual sacrifice at the temple (because it was destroyed).

So... depends on your interpretation I guess.