And to underline your point, I would point out that Christians living in Islamic states are being persecuted in the name of Allah. That includes beheadings and crucifixions.
In Secular Europe or America.
And there are Christians and Jews who de-convert or convert to something else so I’m not sure what your point is.Notwithstanding the fact that it was almost entirely a Jewish group that started the Christian Church, and to this day Jews are still being converted to it.
Though there are secularists in Europe and America, there is no secular Europe nor a secular America. Both existing today have a Christian heritage, not a Muslim heritage or an atheist heritage. Eventually both may have a dominantly atheist heritage as things are going. Then we’ll see how that works. If the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea are examples of dominantly atheist cultures, probably not so well.
You will not find the teachings of Jesus in Deuteronomy.
Do you know what secular means? It doesn’t mean that it’s people are devoid of religion, but that it’s neutral on the subject of religion. A town could be filled with 100% weekly attendees of church and still be secular so long as the government does not enact laws that endorse religion or favor a particular religion. A town or country’s heritage has nothing to do with whether it is secular or not.
I have read it.
And he talks about the attributes of Christianity that he says makes him believe that it’s true and how other religions fall short on those attributes. (ex: “no other religion teaching that man is born in sin”). All of which work fine if you already agree with him on the selection of these attributes as a method for measuring the truth value of the religion. But he doesn’t seem to do anything to persuade some one of the attributes that he has selected.
Yes, it does. Medieval Europe was not secularist. It was Catholic pretty much to the core.
I agree with that, especially the word “was”. But are you saying that once an area is non-secular it can never become secular? Don’t governments change? If I describe a country as being secular I am talking about now, not what it used to be.
I agree that Pascal is thin on some of his points, but that’s attributable to the fact that *Pensees *was not the intended final product so much as a first draft or outline of what the final draft was to include. He died before he could finish this project.
O.K. I think I see your point. Let’s see if we can get on the same page.
At the time of the Inquisition, people were burned alive at the stake. I read somewhere that the guillotine was invented by a doctor who believed that this method of execution was less painful than others. OTOH, my guess is that burning someone alive at the stake is quite painful.
Not to justify certain practices of the Inquisition, but executions then were committed by the State after an extensive trial, as in the case of Joan of Arc. They were not commanded by Christ, nor are they commanded in the gospels. The terrorists of Islam hold that Islam condones executions of the infidels, and that the Muslim who is martyred earns 72 virgins, Is that promise likely to be real or illusory?
With respect to prophecy, the 18th century physicist Isaac Newton picked up where Pascal left off. Newton spent more words analyzing scriptural prophecy than he spent on physics. His writings were ignored after his death and gathered dust until 1936 when they were auctioned at Sotheby’s by his descendants. Close study of the manuscripts reveals Newton’s passionate belief that the secrets of the end times were encrypted in various biblical books, especially Daniel and Revelations. Speaking of the last days Newton predicted, “About the Time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.”
Not quite. What most secular groups are doing is making sure that each religion has equal footing in the public square. For most, it would be preferred that the government had no (name removed by moderator)ut for or against any religion (including any particular strain of it). Lacking that, if a government does allow for benefits to a particular religions the groups wish to assure that all religions and non-religion have the same benefits. For example, if a courthouse says that an invocation at the start of a council meeting then secular groups will try to make sure that it’s not limited to just one religion or one denomination.
When a driver’s license indicates the driver is bald that goes into the hair color section of the license. That doesn’t mean the person is hair color bald, just that it’s the best place to log that. The same goes for religion. Any personal file, military dogtag, or other item that lists a person’s religion will note it under religion. When laws are written to protect to rights of its citizens to believe as they see fit, it’s easier to classify athiesm as a religion than create an additional law each and every time a ruling about religion comes down the pike.
In the first instance it’s difficult, if not impossible, to see an atheist offering an invocation .
Even the tiniest bit of research will show this to occur:
From my experience, very few. But it’s done legally to assure we are given the same rights as the religious.
I suppose an atheist invoking Thomas Jefferson as an inspiring source of wisdom is quite unobjectionable.