In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Morality has a point of reference and the Judaeo/Christian point of reference is the 10 Commandments.

Atheists argue that they don’t believe in the God of the Ten Commandments and morality is relative.

So, according to them, a culture which teaches to love their neighbor and another were they eat their neighbor is morally equivalent.

Hitler and Stalin would have won being there is no accountability for them.

The Ten Commandments is the point of reference for a just society, regardless of how atheists try to spin it.

Even they will impose their own moral beliefs on society as we have seen in abortion and euthanasia.

So the best advice I can give is, stand firm in the traditions you have been given, whether in word of mouth or through the written word.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Atheists argue that they don’t believe in the God of the Ten Commandments and morality is relative.

So, according to them, a culture which teaches to love their neighbor and another were they eat their neighbor is morally equivalent.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s really not accurate and you should avoid putting words in other people’s mouths.
 
Usagi said:
I do not know a great deal about Mussolini’s specific evils, as he has been overshadowed in history by his German neighbors. Nazism also falls under the umbrella of fascism (though I’ll

grant you they did not use the capital-F term as much as Benito’s bunch did), and we are all aware of their abominable crimes.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

So, don’t you think it is strange that an action got called “fascist action”, when it could have been called “Nazi action” instead?

One reason for that is that the very etymology of word “Nazism” - an abbreviation of “National Socialism” - suggests that it is a branch of Socialism. And, as you might suspect, Socialists would prefer that people would not pay much attention to that.

Fascism was also related to Socialism (Mussolini was originally member of Italian Socialist Party), but at least the name does not suggest that. 🙂

And, of course, Socialists like to hurl the word “fascism” at people who are least related to it, that is conservatives, reactionaries, Christian democrats.
 
That’s not an issue today. The issue today are illiberals forcing their twisted beliefs on innocent (and all white and straight) Christians.
 
Well it comes from the atheists I’ve spoken with and also in debates with Dr Ravi Zacharias and Richard Dawkins.

In fact, I just read it today in Dr Zacharias book.

Jim
 
Last edited:
We know that we are created in the likeness and image of God.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.” - Romans 1:20
This, of course, speaks of ‘the natural law.’ The Ten Mitzvahs, Commandments, Works of The Law — clarified the law that humanity was already well aware.
In our society, pluralistic, as you say— it is our God Given Duty and privilege to do all we are able like The Good Samaritan to bring about moral law. For example,
not prudently, ardently, creatively, with sustained compassionate zeal, not listening
to The Prophets of The Gospel whose calling it is to witness to the Sacredness of Life — to clarify the God Given dignity of every child in the womb — and constant
clarity as to the extreme grave moral evil it is to omit or be complacent with our
consents as persons in ‘We The People,’ pierces the clouds all of the time.
I can only imagine what Jesus Christ Himself would be emphatically telling
The Whole Church, and all of good will or supposed good will these days.
Peace and warm regards.
 
You do realize that not everyone that is Christian is white and straight. I imagine that if Christianity was being attacked they would be attacking the church as a whole and not a particular race of people.
 
They can’t go after Muslim or minority Christian businesses or the Democratic Party would lose national elections repeatedly.

Remember, the welfare of the DNC elite come waaaayyy before any bogus notion of “equality, tolerance or diversity”.
 
You do not therefore believe in freedom of speech in the public arena if it does not accord with your personal religious views?
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
40.png
JimR-OCDS:
Atheists argue that they don’t believe in the God of the Ten Commandments and morality is relative.

So, according to them, a culture which teaches to love their neighbor and another were they eat their neighbor is morally equivalent.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s really not accurate and you should avoid putting words in other people’s mouths.
Click to expand...
Actually you may think that is inaccurate but in reality it is true. All one has to do is take the scenario that morality does not come from God but has evolved from humans.

It will end in mutual destruction of all morality except the morality of one. Mine and mine alone is the only morality that matters.
 
Imdaman said:
Mine and mine alone is the only morality that matters.
Click to expand...
Right up until you live with other people, and then you have to come to an accord with those other humans and your own morality has to exist alongside theirs.

You did however illustrate the typical miscommunication that usually occurs during these discussions. Often theists will discuss morality in terms of absolutes handed down from a deity with the ability to enforce them, and non-theists are discussing morality as the systems we create for our communities regarding the wellbeing of those in those communities. While these overlap they are actually not the same.

So when Dawkins or anyone says they don’t believe in universal absolutes of morality, yes it does stand to reason that in THAT sense the universe doesn’t care if we all get along great or we all tear each other apart. If you stop listening there you might conclude Dawkins himself believes the two are equal, but if you keep an open mind and listen you realize how the word morality is being used. If you consider moral behavior to be those behaviors which contribute to the well being of humans, or sentient creatures in general, you can still derive truths from this. Does allowing theft contribute to the well-being of us as individuals, communities, societies, etc? Enough of us say no that we were able to agree on that, pass laws, hire police, etc. As long as two people are talking about benefiting well-being you can consider that to be as close to an absolute as you’re going to get. If people aren’t using the same definition then they may not agree.

No no atheists don’t think eating your neighbor is the same as loving them. And they worked that out without invoking a god to explain where the idea came from.
 
In certain places in the United States, mostly tribalism exists. This is the sad result of radical individualism. No one needs my permission to do anything. Neither God or the Church will force anyone to follow Christian values or love God. The goal is to propose.

Pope Benedict:

The Holy Father says:
Code: 
If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.
Commentary by The Practical Catholic:

How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.

Source: The Practical Catholic
 
Last edited:
Imdaman said:
40.png
Dan123:
40.png
JimR-OCDS:
Atheists argue that they don’t believe in the God of the Ten Commandments and morality is relative.

So, according to them, a culture which teaches to love their neighbor and another were they eat their neighbor is morally equivalent.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s really not accurate and you should avoid putting words in other people’s mouths.
Click to expand...
Actually you may think that is inaccurate but in reality it is true. All one has to do is take the scenario that morality does not come from God but has evolved from humans.

It will end in mutual destruction of all morality except the morality of one. Mine and mine alone is the only morality that matters.
Click to expand...
I think you’re holding the wrong end of the stick. Morality as we perceive it has allowed us to survive. It has evolutionary benefits. If we had no morality as we now perveive it then we wouldn’t be here talking about it.
 
Star Trek “Mirror, Mirror” episode

Kirk: What I don’t understand is how you were able to identify our counterparts so quickly.

Spock: It was far easier for you as civilised men to behave like barbarians, than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilised men. I assume they returned to their Enterprise at the same time you appeared here.

Kirk: Probably. However, that Jim Kirk will find a few changes, if I read my Spocks correctly.

McCoy: Jim, I think I liked him with a beard better. It gave him character. Of course, almost any change would be a distinct improvement.

Kirk: What worries me is the easy way his counterpart fitted into that other universe. I always thought Spock was a bit of a pirate at heart.

Spock: Indeed, gentlemen. May I point out that I had an opportunity to observe your counterparts here quite closely. They were brutal, savage, unprincipled, uncivilised, treacherous; in every way, splendid examples of homo sapiens, the very flower of humanity. (deadpan)I found them quite refreshing. (With that parting shot, he returns to the science station)

Kirk: I’m not sure, but I think we’ve just been insulted.

McCoy: I’m sure.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Dan123 said:
So when Dawkins or anyone says they don’t believe in universal absolutes of morality,
Click to expand...
Dan, I don’t know your religious beliefs, but Imma go out on a limb and say that virtually everybody does believe in moral absolutes.
Ask a person who claims there are no moral absolutes what they think about torturing small children…
 
You can only help people believe what Jesus taught by how you live, and in voting against sinful positions. But God doesn’t want us to force our beliefs on others. We do have to take a stand; it’s not an imposition. Other people will decide how they want also.
 
Not universal in the sense of ‘held by all people’ but as in existing in some cosmic sense of right and wrong, whether you attribute that to a God or not. Sometimes called “objective moral truths”. You picked an obviously extreme and unpleasant example but most moral quandaries aren’t so clear.

To use a classic example, imagine you’re standing next to a train track with a switch to send the train left or right. A train is barreling towards you and you notice ahead of you, too far for you to reach in time, five people are tied to the track the train is on, and a single person on the other track. Switching the track would save 5 lives but kill 1 who’s not currently in danger, 1 you could save easily but only after the train had killed the other 5. Would you switch the train track? Is there a universal moral truth to this question? Does inaction absolve you of the decision you made to intervene or and the outcome you could have created?

That’s still an unlikely scenario, but when you step away of the extremes you find a lot more nuance can be needed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top