Why do religious believers try to impose their beliefs on others?

[3sigma]

I've also read of peoples who did not believe in religion doing the same thing.
Ergo it is not religion. religion at the time was what they used to do it, at other times it's things other than religion.

Do you deny that the Bible and the Qur’an teach intolerance and violence towards non-believers? Do you think that Christians enacting laws against blasphemy are not doing so due to their religious beliefs? Do you think that Christians trying to force the teaching of creationism in public school science classes are not doing so due to their religious beliefs? How could anyone think that when it is obvious that their actions are due to their religious beliefs?

 

[3sigma]

Without an atheistic belief system--equating human beings with animals to be used and expended for the good of the herd--none of the horrors of atheistic communism (or rather socialism) would have even remotely been possible.

I’ve been thinking about this some more and going back over this discussion and I see now that it has given me the answer to my OP questions. Atheism is simply a disbelief that gods exist. It is not a belief system, a philosophy, a worldview or an ideology. There is no atheist doctrine teaching intolerance and violence.

However, Christianity and Islam are belief systems, philosophies, worldviews and ideologies. The doctrines of Christianity and Islam are filled with teachings of intolerance and violence towards non-believers. It is hardly surprising then that some Christians take these teachings to heart and exhibit intolerance and violence towards non-believers. This explains why Christians try to impose their beliefs on others. The answer is obvious now that I think about it. Their religion teaches them to behave this way.

 

[Jpark]

I’ve been thinking about this some more and going back over this discussion and I see now that it has given me the answer to my OP questions. Atheism is simply a disbelief that gods exist. It is not a belief system, a philosophy, a worldview or an ideology. There is no atheist doctrine teaching intolerance and violence.

However, Christianity and Islam are belief systems, philosophies, worldviews and ideologies. The doctrines of Christianity and Islam are filled with teachings of intolerance and violence towards non-believers. It is hardly surprising then that some Christians take these teachings to heart and exhibit intolerance and violence towards non-believers. This explains why Christians try to impose their beliefs on others. The answer is obvious now that I think about it. Their religion teaches them to behave this way.

The issue here is not religion. The issue here is the resurrection. Christianity completely depends on the real physical resurrection of the dead body of Christ; otherwise, Christianity is a lie.

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and our faith is also empty. We are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! (1 Corinthians 15:12-19)

If there is no resurrection, why not abandon sacrificial living in favor of self-indulgence? (1 Corinthians 15:30-32)

But now Christ is risen from the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:20) The living Christ makes possible a living hope. (1 Peter 1:3) Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. We know that hope of great future blessings will not turn out to be false, because the Holy Spirit gives lavish evidence in our hearts of God's love for us. (Romans 5:5; John 20:22) The resurrection is not a timeless philosophical idea, but an experience in human life. (Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 5:17)

The Pharisees were constantly demanding signs from Jesus to prove His messiahship. Not only did they reject the scriptural evidence concerning Him, which was sufficient in itself (Luke 16:29-31), but they did not receive the witness of the Resurrection (John 19:35), the greatest miracle of all. Acts 1:3 says To the apostles whom He had chosen, He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, having been seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Luke 24:39; John 20:20) The Resurrection of Christ is the bedrock of Christianity and the initiating even of Acts. (Acts 2:32-33)

John testifies that Longinus pierced Jesus' side with a spear, and blood and water came out (John 8:34). Only blood would have flowed from a living body. He knows that he is telling the truth. (John 19:35) One should believe John because he is giving an eyewitness account (John 19:34) and because these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled. (John 19:36) Both the lack of broken bones and the piercing of His side fulfilled prophecies recorded in the OT. (Exodus 12:46; Zechariah 12:10)

 

[packermann]

For example, why do Christians constantly try to enact laws to force the teaching of creationism in public school science classes?

There is a difference between ID and creationism. Creationism is using the Bible, namely Genesis, in the schools. Most Christians today realize that creationism should not be taught. ID (Intelligent Design) is not creationism. It does not quote from the Bible. It does not assume that the world was created from the Christian God. All it says is that there is too much design in the world to be explained by pure chance. It does not even rule out evolution. It just says that some intelligent being must be behind it all. It does not even assume this intelligent being to be a Judeo-Christian God. It could actually be a Deistic God, or some other being. It just says that there is too much design in the world for there not to be a Designer.

ID explains things that evolution-by-pure-chance does not. If everything happened by pure chance, how else do you explain the anthropic principle in the universe? The anthropic principle is that there are certain things that had to have happened for life to happen. For example, scientists now know that the Big Bang theory is correct. We know this is true because the universe is constantly expanding. This means that if we go back far enough in time, that the whole universe existed as a tiny ball. And then - BANG! This tiny ball exploded, and it formed the galaxies and solar systems we have today. Scientists have found another amazing thing - the rate at which all the particles separated from the explosion. If this rate is too fast, then stars would never be able to develop. If this rate was too slow, then gravity would have caused the universe to collapse back upon itself and become a tiny ball again. So the rate had to be exactly right for life to exist. It could not be too fast. And it could not be too slow. But if everything is by chance, this would be hard to explain. Evolution is about millions of different possibilties that happen by pure chance. Out of the millions of possibilities, it is conceivable than a few of these possibilities get it right to allow for life. But there is only one universe. And this one universe has only one chance to get it right for there to have life. It seems that odds are against this. The odds are far more likely that I could win the Mega Lotto than for the universe just out of pure chance expand at just the right speed to cause life.

Atheistic scientists try to respond to this by saying that is not just one universe. They theorize that there are zillions upons zillions, maybe even an infinite number, of parallel universes out there. The huge majority of these multiverses either expand too fast or too slow and do not have life. But the odds are, given the huge number of multiverse, that at least one of them had it right. Anything is possible if there are an infinite number of multiverses.

The problem with this argument is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that these multiiple paralell universes even exist. How can there be. The argument is these multiverses are in other dimensions.

Also, as I stated before, these scientists argue that anything is possible given that there are an infinitely number of multiverses. But if that is true, how can the existence of God be ruled out? If there are an infinite number of universe so that anything is possible, then how can one say that at least one of these universes did not start out with a supreme being that creating everything else within that universe? Granted, as a Christian, this is not exactly how I view God. But it is still close to it.

So it then comes to this: atheistic evolutionists have to themselves believe in something that cannot be proven by science. So that is no different than the beliving scientists who believe in something that cannot be proven by science. In both groups, they believe in something that goes beyond what science can prove. So if believing scientists are disqualified from bringing their apriori faith in a Supreme Being to the classroom, then the other scientist should be disqualified from being their apriori faith in multiverses to the classroom.

This means that ID is just as scientific as atheistic evolution. They both have their scientific arguments and they both have their faith in something, someone, or some event that goes beyond science.

So why not let ID be taught in the classroom along with atheistic evolution? What are you atheists afraid of? Would not the truth win out? If ID is totally absurd, would not the shallowness of its arguments be evident to all? If the argument for ID is weak, would not exposing them in the classroom be the best thing to advance the cause of atheism. Would that not be the best thing to destroy religion in our culture - to expose to everybody the fallacies of our arguments. So I do not nuderstand it. I would think that atheists would gladly welcome this debate in the classrom. If atheists have truth on their side, they should have nothing to fear.

Mind you. We Christians are not the ones who are trying to silence the opposition. We are more than happy to have this debate in the classroom. We are the ones who feel that if both positions are presented openly and fairly, that most will opt for our position. But it is you who who want to suppress us from presenting our side. You argue that we should not be able to present our position because our position is not "scientific". But if our side is so unscientific, would that not be obvious to all when they hear our arguments? Why do you refuse to let the students themselves determine which poistion is the one is more scientific. It is the the exact opposite of what happened at the Scopes trial. Scopes was teaching evolution. The community tried to suppress his teaching. Now its the reverse. The ID people do not want to suppress any teaching. Its the atheists who want to suppress the ID position.

What are you afraid of? Are your arguments so flimsy that they cannot go through an open, honest debate in the classroom? Are you afraid that the flaws in your position will be exposed? If not, then lets have it out! A champion boxer who knows he is the best would welcome all challengers. A champion boxer who knows he would lose would avoid facing a promising challenger. So let's have it out in the classrom. And may the side with the best arguments win!

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

For example, why do Christians constantly try to enact laws to force the teaching of creationism in public school science classes? Why have religious believers around the world enacted blasphemy laws with penalties of imprisonment and death? Why do religious believers try to impose their unsubstantiated beliefs on others and force others to comply with those beliefs?

Because to not do so would be hypocritical. Let me explain -
Most people try to live as best they can. And yet we seem to think "My way of living is beneficial but I won't share these benefits with others." Why not? Probably because we are worried about offending them.

It seems vaguely selfish that we do what is best for ourselves but don't care too much about what is best for others because we don't want to upset them.

 

[ephraimanesti]

I’ve been thinking about this some more and going back over this discussion and I see now that it has given me the answer to my OP questions. Atheism is simply a disbelief that gods exist. It is not a belief system, a philosophy, a worldview or an ideology. There is no atheist doctrine teaching intolerance and violence.

MY BROTHER--Well, in my opinion, you have a lot more "thinking" to do before you get on the right track, headed in the right direction, and become cognizant of the light at the end of the tunnel.

Atheism is much much more than just an inability to believe the obvious--that God exists. Based upon this erroneous belief, a belief system/philosophy/worldview/ideology follows. Dostoevsky summed this end result of atheistic thinking up quite well by saying, "If there is no God, then everything is permitted"(The Brothers Karamazov). Thus the end result of their disbelief is that atheists tend to produce gulags (Soviet Russia, for example), support legalized pornography (Larry Flint, for example), promote the killing of unborn children (Margaret Sanger, for example), and attack the God-believing people who oppose them with little more than a woeful array of misinformation, innuendoes, and false assumptions (yourself, for example).

Not only is this twisted thinking that "anything goes"--(after all, we are all just evolved animals)--the summation and end result of the atheistic "thought" processes, it is also, at the same time, the main reason for atheistic willful disbelief in the first place, the basic atheist stance being "Nobody is going to tell me what to do! I am my own 'god' and there is no higher power above and beyond me."

However, Christianity and Islam are belief systems, philosophies, worldviews and ideologies. The doctrines of Christianity and Islam are filled with teachings of intolerance and violence towards non-believers. It is hardly surprising then that some Christians take these teachings to heart and exhibit intolerance and violence towards non-believers. This explains why Christians try to impose their beliefs on others. The answer is obvious now that I think about it. Their religion teaches them to behave this way.

As a Christian, i find the above comments ludicrous to the max--showing a willful, and thus reprehensible, ignorance of that which you are attempting to attack.

As you well know, the "doctrines of Christianity" which you falsely contend teach "intolerance and violence towards non-believers" in point of fact only teach love and forgiveness of enemies for the simple reason that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of a God who IS Love: "Whoever does not love does not know God, BECAUSE GOD IS LOVE" (I John 4:8). Therefore, our Lord taught and practiced NOTHING but Love and Forgiveness throughout His Life, during His torturous Death on the Cross, and after His Resurrection. As examples:

TEACHINGS THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. "IF YOU LOVE THOSE WHO LOVE YOU, WHAT REWARD CAN YOU EXPECT?"(Matthew 5:43-46)

LOVE AND FORGIVENESS DURING HIS TORTURE AND MURDER BY HIS ENEMIES: "FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, for they do not know what they are doing."(Luke 23:34)

THROUGH HIS APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES AFTER HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION: "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow-man has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' LOVE DOES NO HARM TO ITS NEIGHBOR. THEREFORE LOVE IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW."(Romans 13:8-10)

As far as His followers--Christians--are concerned, our Lord enjoined them, "IF YOU LOVE ME YOU WILL KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS."(John 14:15) Those who choose to act contrary to our Lord's teachings--including the all-important Love of enemies--by so doing forfeit the right to the honorable appellation of "Christian," because they are no longer considered so by their Lord--"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I NEVER KNEW YOU. AWAY FROM ME, YOU EVILDOERS!' "(Matthew 7:21-23)

En fin, i would ask you to share the New Testament Scriptures you claim to have found which teach and encourage intolerance, hatred, and violence against non-believers. And please don't lower yourself to using the old "tried and true" Scriptures from the Old Testament of which atheists are so inordinately fond! That was another time and another place and has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices. As quoted above, our Lord clearly stated, "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' BUT I TELL YOU: Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."(Matthew 5:43-45. The rules changed on Christmas morning in Bethlehem, and Christians follow Jesus Christ--His teachings and example--both of which contain ONLY Love for others.

So as far as your "thinking" is concerned, i would urge you to forgo the straw-men and focus more on reality, and let go of your proclivity for Orwellian Newspeak according to which "Love is hate."

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[3sigma]

The issue here is not religion.

Actually, the issue here is religion and thank you for demonstrating the apparent compulsion to impose your beliefs on others with your proselytising response. Now if you could just tell me why you apparently feel compelled to proselytise then maybe you would come closer to actually answering the OP questions. Well?

 

[3sigma]

There is a difference between ID and creationism.

You’re right. ID is creationism with the word ‘God’ replaced with the word ‘Designer’ in a transparent attempt to circumvent the law. However, ID is a religious belief and your convoluted and contrived attempt to justify it does nothing to hide that fact. Your response is riddled with the same misconceptions, logical fallacies and misrepresentations that creationists have been using for years. For example:

“ID (Intelligent Design) is not creationism.” – Creationist claim CI001.2
“ID explains things that evolution-by-pure-chance does not.” – Creationist claims CI002 and CB940
“The anthropic principle is that there are certain things that had to have happened for life to happen.” – Creationist claim CI301
“This means that ID is just as scientific as atheistic evolution.” – Creationist claim CI001

I could point out every failed argument in your response if you like. Should I continue?

So let's have it out in the classrom. And may the side with the best arguments win!

The classroom is not the place to decide whether ID is science or a religious belief. Students are there to learn real science. The scientific forums and the courts are the places to decide this question and in both arenas, ID has suffered dismal defeats because it is quite clearly not science, but instead nothing more than a religious belief. Read the Dover ruling for the definitive answer on this question. So why do Christians constantly try to force the teaching of this religious belief in public school science classes?

 

[3sigma]

It seems vaguely selfish that we do what is best for ourselves but don't care too much about what is best for others because we don't want to upset them.

Let me get this straight. You think imprisoning and killing people for insulting an immaterial concept is what is best for them?

 

[3sigma]

Dostoevsky summed this end result of atheistic thinking up quite well by saying, "If there is no God, then everything is permitted"

Then Dostoevsky is wrong about that and so are you if you believe him. Atheists don’t think that without your immaterial God everything is permitted. There are rules within societies prescribing what behaviour is permitted and what is not. Plain human empathy also guides those who don’t believe your God exists. The Golden Rule is an almost universal norm in various societies.

En fin, i would ask you to share the New Testament Scriptures you claim to have found which teach and encourage intolerance, hatred, and violence against non-believers. And please don't lower yourself to using the old "tried and true" Scriptures from the Old Testament of which atheists are so inordinately fond! That was another time and another place and has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices.

What, you think all Christians ignore the Old Testament? How is it then that there are creationists? How is it that self-proclaimed Christians exhibit intolerance and violence towards homosexuals? Do Christians ignore the Ten Commandments? Surely you can’t expect people to believe that the Old Testament has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices? Isn’t the very first Commandment one that breeds intolerance towards non-Christians?

Are we to assume that Christians accept these teachings…

Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

But these have no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices?

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
[Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

And these?

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,
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;
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:
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.

Are we to assume that Christians accept this Commandment…

Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

But this has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices?

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Are we to assume that Christians accept this Commandment…

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

But this has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices?

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.

Don’t you think that passage may have something to do with the Christian practice of passing laws against blasphemy with penalties up to and including death? To say that the Old Testament has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices truly beggars belief.

I can understand your desire to divert attention from the Old Testament with all its intolerance and violence. However, the New Testament contains its fair share of intolerance and violence as well.
Here’s an example from the New Testament of the tolerance and love Jesus displays.

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

If Jesus and God are one and the same then why would Christians accept the proclamations of Jesus in the New Testament, but ignore the proclamations of God in the Old Testament? As we’ve already seen, they don’t. Christians supposedly follow the Ten Commandments so it is obvious that the Old Testament does have a bearing on Christian beliefs and practices.

The basic message of Christianity is: believe or be damned. It is not a religion of tolerance and love towards non-Christians.

 

[Jpark]

Then Dostoevsky is wrong about that and so are you if you believe him. Atheists don’t think that without your immaterial God everything is permitted. There are rules within societies prescribing what behaviour is permitted and what is not. Plain human empathy also guides those who don’t believe your God exists. The Golden Rule is an almost universal norm in various societies.


What, you think all Christians ignore the Old Testament? How is it then that there are creationists? How is it that self-proclaimed Christians exhibit intolerance and violence towards homosexuals? Do Christians ignore the Ten Commandments? Surely you can’t expect people to believe that the Old Testament has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices? Isn’t the very first Commandment one that breeds intolerance towards non-Christians?

Are we to assume that Christians accept these teachings…


But these have no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices?


And these?




Are we to assume that Christians accept this Commandment…


But this has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices?




Are we to assume that Christians accept this Commandment…


But this has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices?


Don’t you think that passage may have something to do with the Christian practice of passing laws against blasphemy with penalties up to and including death? To say that the Old Testament has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices truly beggars belief.

I can understand your desire to divert attention from the Old Testament with all its intolerance and violence. However, the New Testament contains its fair share of intolerance and violence as well.
Here’s an example from the New Testament of the tolerance and love Jesus displays.


If Jesus and God are one and the same then why would Christians accept the proclamations of Jesus in the New Testament, but ignore the proclamations of God in the Old Testament? As we’ve already seen, they don’t. Christians supposedly follow the Ten Commandments so it is obvious that the Old Testament does have a bearing on Christian beliefs and practices.

The basic message of Christianity is: believe or be damned. It is not a religion of tolerance and love towards non-Christians.

The following excerpt is from a conversation I had last week on Yahoo! Messenger.

The law and the prophets were until John. (Luke 16:16) A rigid observation of the Law is no longer required. For John announced and proclaimed that repentance and belief were the means of entrance into heaven. (Matthew 3:2) Jesus also suggested a change of ways. (Matthew 4:17; Luke 13:4-5) Jesus came to fulfill the OT prophesies, bringing completion to its revelation of God, and what is known of Him. (Matthew 5:17) The world viewed Jesus' death as foolishness. (1 Corinthians 1:18-25) His followers saw Him as the fulfillment of prophecy. (John 19:34-37; John 2:21-22)

The Bible is a love letter; God's personal revelation of Himself to mankind. (2 Corinthians 4:6) Love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:10) On the great commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)

 

[Adoniram]

Why do religious believers try to impose their beliefs on others?

This question cannot be answered as asked other than to say simply "some do, some don't." There are too many varieties of religious belief to give a generalized answer to that question. Some countries have "state religions" and laws forbidding any other kind of worship, but others, including America, do not. Similarly, people in some parts of the world force their beliefs on others at gunpoint, people in other parts of the world, including America, do not.

For example, why do Christians constantly try to enact laws to force the teaching of creationism in public school science classes?

And the answer is... they do not. Yes, there have been a few localized cases which the media has turned into national issues recently, but these are few and far between. IF the whole body of Christians in this country had the desire to have the teaching of creationism enacted into federal law, they certainly have the votes to accomplish it and it indeed would be done. But the fact is- Christians in general have no desire to see such laws enacted. In simple terms, science is too limited in scope to handle creationism.

Why have religious believers around the world enacted blasphemy laws with penalties of imprisonment and death?

They have not done so in America. I will agree that some Muslim countries have. I suppose you would have to go to a Muslim run forum to get that question answered.

Why do religious believers try to impose their unsubstantiated beliefs on others and force others to comply with those beliefs?

Asked and answered above. And, for the record, as far as Christianity is concerned, it is merely your opinion that it is "unsubstantiated." So much for your unsubstantiated and uneducated questions.

 

[3sigma]

The Bible is a love letter; God's personal revelation of Himself to mankind.

If the Bible is teaching love then please explain why Christians around the world have proposed and passed laws against blasphemy with penalties up to and including death? If the Old Testament has no bearing on the beliefs and practices of Christians then are Christians just naturally the sort of people who would execute someone for insulting an immaterial concept?

 

[3sigma]

And the answer is... they do not. Yes, there have been a few localized cases which the media has turned into national issues recently, but these are few and far between. IF the whole body of Christians in this country had the desire to have the teaching of creationism enacted into federal law, they certainly have the votes to accomplish it and it indeed would be done.

Perhaps you should start with the Wikipedia article on creation and evolution in public education to obtain some background on the attempts to teach creationism in public school science classes. It began with attempts to teach creationism then, when that was defeated by the courts, the creationists tried to circumvent the law by renaming creationism to “creation science” then “intelligent design” and now there is a push for “academic freedom”.

The Pew Forum conducted a survey in August, 2005 in which 64% of all Americans favoured teaching creationism in public schools along with evolution and 38% favoured teaching only creationism (60 % of white evangelicals held this view) so there would appear to be wide public support for teaching creationism in public schools. I think we can be thankful that it isn’t easy to change the Constitution.

They have not done so in America.

Actually, laws against blasphemy with penalties of imprisonment have been passed in America. For example:

[link] Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

[link] If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months,
or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

And, for the record, as far as Christianity is concerned, it is merely your opinion that it is "unsubstantiated." So much for your unsubstantiated and uneducated questions.

So you think your beliefs have been substantiated? Well then, please show me the proof or competent evidence that established the belief that your God exists.

 

[Jpark]

If the Bible is teaching love then please explain why Christians around the world have proposed and passed laws against blasphemy with penalties up to and including death? If the Old Testament has no bearing on the beliefs and practices of Christians then are Christians just naturally the sort of people who would execute someone for insulting an immaterial concept?

The word Christian was a simple name given to the early followers of Christ. Now there are many supposed believers in the world that call themselves Christian. But do you believe that they really are that they claim to be? Where does Jesus command His followers to execute people who blasphemy?

A true Christian should not be ashamed of suffering as a Christian. (1 Peter 4:16)

A true Christian is loyal to righteousness. (Matthew 5:10)

A true Christian shows his faith by his works. (James 2:18)

A true Christian looks into God's Word and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work. (James 1:25)

A true Christian rightly divides God's Word. (2 Timothy 2:15)

This is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. (1 John 3:23)

Evidently, these people are not Christian. This is happening because many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. (Matthew 24:11) Matthew 24:12 says because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. (Matthew 24:13) The cowardly shall have their part in the lake of fire, the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

We are living in the end days. The rebirth of Israel as a nation was the beginning of birth pains. (Matthew 24:8) The Holocaust and the Six Day War are greatly involved with the birth of Israel. Now, then there will be many who call themselves Christian, but by their actions, they will prove to be fallacies. They will stray from the doctrine and deceive many. And because sin, which is lawlessness (1 John 3:4) will abound, the love of many will grow cold. In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)

 

[ephraimanesti]

Then Dostoevsky is wrong about that and so are you if you believe him. Atheists don’t think that without your immaterial God everything is permitted. There are rules within societies prescribing what behaviour is permitted and what is not. Plain human empathy also guides those who don’t believe your God exists. The Golden Rule is an almost universal norm in various societies.

Given that what atheists choose to do to themselves and others when given the opportunity and the power to act freely, is quite evident from the horrors of Soviet Russia, Communist China, etc., any honest person will have to agree that Dostoevsky was right on. You obviously have choosen to overlook the obvious fact that the "rules within societies prescribing what behavior is permitted" are based on religious beliefs--in our case in the West on the Judeo-Christian Bible and its God-revealed morality. i understand your dogmatic need to not give credit where credit is due--but come on now!

Given that in the eyes of atheists we are all nothing more than "evolved animals", how can there be any "plain human empathy" when empathy is an impossibility for animals because it demands, first of all, that one be self-aware on the one hand and, similtaneously, other-aware on the other hand, neither of which are evolved animal traits.

Of course the Golden Rule "is an almost a universal norm"--the same God created us all, and the evidences of His Holy Spirit exist in all places in all times. However, the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit alone allows the carrying out of its implications--as Jesus Christ illustrated to the nth degree.

Unfortunately, the "golden rule" for atheists is "The Survival of the Fittest" as illustrated to the nth degree by Chairman Mao, Comrade Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

What, you think all Christians ignore the Old Testament? How is it then that there are creationists? How is it that self-proclaimed Christians exhibit intolerance and violence towards homosexuals? Do Christians ignore the Ten Commandments? Surely you can’t expect people to believe that the Old Testament has no bearing on Christian beliefs and practices? Isn’t the very first Commandment one that breeds intolerance towards non-Christians?

No, it is not that the Old Testament is ignored--it is, after all, the foundation and the precursor of the Christian faith. However, the rules of application have changed due to Jesus' victory over sin and death on Calvary. As per, for example, the previously quoted, "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."(Matthew 5:43-45) The difference?--the rule of LOVE has replaced the rule of the Law.

Christians--REAL as opposed to "self-proclaimed"--do not exhibit hatred towards homosexuals but are indeed intolerant towards homosexuality. God has given us a concrete standard of right and wrong--as differentiated by the "situational morality" extant in society today--and homosexuality is wrong given that it is a deviation from what God originally created humans to be. Perversions of God's original Creation and intent can never be accepted as "normal" or "a viable alternative lifestyle" because God does not accept them as such. Christians do not "hate" homosexuals or do them violence--the just refuse to accept their sin as being somehow"OK" when God hold otherwise.

Likewise, the First Commandments rightly teaches that there is only One God and He, alone, is to be worshiped and glorified by Believers. That belief, and all that follows from it, doesn't make Christians "intolerant" of other religions unless, of course, you would classify atheists as being "intolerant" of Christians due to their holding that Christians err in their beliefs.

Is it so hard to comprehend that a lack of acceptance does not necessarily entail intolerance. Intolerance is based upon a lack of Love, and God Loves Believers and non-believers equally, and Christians are called upon to do the same. "God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. . . .Be perfect in your love, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."(Matthew 5:45; 48)

The basic message of Christianity is: believe or be damned. It is not a religion of tolerance and love towards non-Christians.

NO, the basic message of Christianity is: "OUR CREATOR GOD LOVES EACH ONE OF US TO AN EXTENT THAT WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO FULLY COMPREHEND. ABOVE ALL ELSE, OUR GOD CRAVES AND THIRSTS FOR A LOVING RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL HIS CHILDREN. HIS THIRST AND CRAVING FOR US HAS LED HIM TO PAY THE PRICE OF OUR SINS AND OUR REBELLION HIMSELF--BY OFFERING HIS OWN BELOVED SON AS A RANSOM FOR EACH ONE OF OUR SOULS. THIS FREELY OFFERED GIFT OF GRACE IS AVAILABLE TO ALL WHO WILL REACH OUT AND TAKE IT AND ENTAILS GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT INDWELLING ALL WHO ARE WILLING AND TRANSPORTING THEM INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD--WHICH IS A ONENESS WITH HIM--BOTH NOW AND THROUGHOUT ETERNITY."

On the other hand, those who willfully refuse God's offer through the exercise of their God-given freewill, will have to live with the fruit of their choice--separation from God's Light and Love--both now and for all eternity. How can God be blamed for this state of separations when He did everything possible to keep it from occuring? Even for atheists, who are not real big on personal responsibility, blaming God for those who are lost, in spite of His best efforts, through their own rebellious choices, is, to my mind, a bit beyond the pale.

The fact that the Gospel is preached and held out freely to all shows both extreme Tolerance and Love towards non-Christians--both by God and by Believers. ALL are freely invited to allow God's Love to transform them from "evolved animals" into the Sons and Daughter of their Heavenly Father. WHAT COULD BE MORE LOVING THAN THAT?

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[3sigma]

Where does Jesus command His followers to execute people who blasphemy?

He has no need to do that because he’s going to kill them himself.

2THESS 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2THESS 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

The Bible is God’s word, is it not? So what does the Bible say Christians should do to blasphemers?

LEV 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.

You say a True Christian “shows his faith by his works” and “looks into God's Word and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work.” One presumes then that a True Christian should follow God’s word and kill blasphemers, right? According to the Bible, Jesus even said that he was determined to fulfil the Old Testament laws.

MT 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus reiterates the admonition against blasphemy.

MT 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

And if you go against Jesus your punishment will be worse than death.

HEB 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
HEB 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

So what should a True Christian do if not follow God’s word and kill blasphemers?

Evidently, these people are not Christian.

Well they certainly weren’t non-Christians. The people who proposed and passed laws against blasphemy with penalties including execution were religious believers who believed in the Christian God so what should they be called if not Christians? Why would anyone other than a Christian propose and pass a law against insulting just the Christian God? You don’t think they were non-Christians who proposed such a law do you?

Why would any rational person with a sense of justice and an ounce of compassion propose a law carrying the death penalty for the innocuous offence of insulting an immaterial, undetectable God that is indistinguishable from imagination? What sort of people would do that?

 

[3sigma]

You obviously have choosen to overlook the obvious fact that the "rules within societies prescribing what behavior is permitted" are based on religious beliefs--in our case in the West on the Judeo-Christian Bible and its God-revealed morality. i understand your dogmatic need to not give credit where credit is due--but come on now!

The ‘rules within societies prescribing what behaviour is permitted’ are called laws. Would you say the United States is a Christian nation founded on Christian beliefs? I’m guessing you would (despite that being incorrect) so of all the laws in the United States, what percentage is based on religious beliefs? What vanishingly small percentage of constitutional law, federal law, criminal law, civil law, contract law or tort law is based on religious beliefs? I think you will struggle to provide a credible answer to that question so let’s look at it from the other direction. How many of the Ten Commandments, for instance, are the basis for laws in the United States? Let’s check, shall we…

You shall have no other gods before me – No
You shall not make for yourself an idol – No
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God – Sadly, yes
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy – No
Honour your father and mother – No
You shall not kill – Kill, no; murder, yes
You shall not commit adultery – No
You shall not steal – Yes
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour – Generally, no
You shall not covet your neighbour's wife or goods – No

So, of the Ten Commandments, only three are laws in the United States. Two of those are seen in virtually all societies regardless of their religious beliefs and the other one is the execrable law against blasphemy. Would you like to reconsider your statement that laws in Western societies are based on religious beliefs?

Given that in the eyes of atheists we are all nothing more than "evolved animals", how can there be any "plain human empathy" when empathy is an impossibility for animals because it demands, first of all, that one be self-aware on the one hand and, similtaneously, other-aware on the other hand, neither of which are evolved animal traits.

Yet what do you know; humans have evolved to the point of being self-aware and aware of others. Did you know that humans are not the only animals that are self-aware?

The difference?--the rule of LOVE has replaced the rule of the Law.

MT 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Christians--REAL as opposed to "self-proclaimed"--do not exhibit hatred towards homosexuals but are indeed intolerant towards homosexuality. God has given us a concrete standard of right and wrong--as differentiated by the "situational morality" extant in society today--and homosexuality is wrong given that it is a deviation from what God originally created humans to be. Perversions of God's original Creation and intent can never be accepted as "normal" or "a viable alternative lifestyle" because God does not accept them as such. Christians do not "hate" homosexuals or do them violence--the just refuse to accept their sin as being somehow"OK" when God hold otherwise.

LEV 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

You cannot say that someone’s behaviour is wrong, deviant, perverted, abnormal and unacceptable and then claim you are not behaving intolerantly towards the person exhibiting that behaviour. This ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ position is indefensible. If I said your behaviour was idiotic, would you not think I was calling you an idiot?

Is it so hard to comprehend that a lack of acceptance does not necessarily entail intolerance. Intolerance is based upon a lack of Love, and God Loves Believers and non-believers equally, and Christians are called upon to do the same.

DEUT 17:2 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,
DEUT 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;
DEUT 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:
DEUT 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.
DEUT 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
DEUT 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

The basic message of Christianity is: believe or be damned. It is not a religion of tolerance and love towards non-Christians.

NO, the basic message of Christianity is:…

MK 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
JN 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
JN 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
JN 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned.

The fact that the Gospel is preached and held out freely to all shows both extreme Tolerance and Love towards non-Christians--both by God and by Believers. ALL are freely invited to allow God's Love to transform them from "evolved animals" into the Sons and Daughter of their Heavenly Father. WHAT COULD BE MORE LOVING THAN THAT?

LEV 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.

What could be more loving than proposing and passing laws against blasphemy and then executing people for it? What should we think of people who believe, teach and practice such things?

 

[ephraimanesti]

MY BROTHER,

Would you say the United States is a Christian nation founded on Christian beliefs? I’m guessing you would (despite that being incorrect)

Yes, my assertions do indeed count for little. Perhaps a couple of sources with more weight would suffice to make the point your revisionist "history" of our Country is trying to obscure:

The Declaration of Independence contains four direct references to God:
#1. as Lawmaker ("the laws of nature and nature's God");
#2. as Creator ("endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights");
#3. as Supreme Judge ("the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions");
#4. and as Protector ("the protection of Divine Providence").

President John Quincy Adams raised the connection between Christianity and the Declaration of Independence--the foundation of our social compact, including our legal system, if you will recall--at a speech given on Independence Day, 1837 at Newburyport. He queried: "Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"

En fin, a timely warning by Thomas Jefferson, engraved on the wall of his Memorial in Washington D.C., regarding the above truths:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

What vanishingly small percentage of constitutional law, federal law, criminal law, civil law, contract law or tort law is based on religious beliefs?

Yes, you are correct that former laws based upon a Judeo-Christian moral world view are indeed "vanishing" under the atheist onslaught against all which once made this country great. Several prime examples would be the fact that it has become, thanks to atheist heroes such as Margaret Sanger, "legal" to murder helpless unborn children in their mother's wombs; pornography, is now legal and freely available to all--along with its toxic effects on relations between the sexes, thanks to that wonderful champion of atheist causes, the ACLU; the cessation of prayers of thanksgiving to the One whose patronage made this country what it is--or, rather, used to be--thanks to making it being made a criminal act to mention God in public schools or forums thanks to the crusades of benighted souls such Madeleine Murray O'Hare and others of her ilk.

Would you like to reconsider your statement that laws in Western societies are based on religious beliefs?

Of course not. Western societies are--even if to a lessening extent each day as we turn further and further away from God--based upon religious beliefs--PRIMARY AMONG WHICH IS THE FACT THAT HUMAN BEINGS WERE CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE AND LIKENESS AND THUS EACH HUMAN BEING IS OF INFINITE WORTH AND VALUE JUST BECAUSE THEY EXIST.

We can see clearly from the examples of the contrary atheist worldview--as lived out experientially in Soviet Russia, Communist China, etc. during the last century--which holds that humans are just evolved animals, what the end result of this godless thinking is: the destruction of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which is our true birthright as children of God.

Yet what do you know; humans have evolved to the point of being self-aware and aware of others.

Self-awareness--like God-awareness--is not a materialistic phenomenon subject to the process of evolution; it is a gift from the Creator to His children and not shared with animals.

You cannot say that someone’s behaviour is wrong, deviant, perverted, abnormal and unacceptable and then claim you are not behaving intolerantly towards the person exhibiting that behaviour. This ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ position is indefensible. If I said your behaviour was idiotic, would you not think I was calling you an idiot?

According to God, the behavior is not the person. i sensibly choose to agree with Him. It is the ONLY position which IS defensible.

What could be more loving than proposing and passing laws against blasphemy and then executing people for it? What should we think of people who believe, teach and practice such things?

People "who believe, teach and practice such things" are not "christians" because their Lord did not "believe, teach and practice such things."

You--of necessity i understand, but dishonestly nonetheless--keep pointing accusing fingers at Christians for "intolerance" and "executing people" who hold other beliefs, while refusing to engage the fact that atheists have intolerently executed a vastly larger number of Christians and other theists/deists for their belief in God than Christians have ever thought of harming for their disbelief in God. Your lack of honesty gives the lie to your assertions that atheism is "the way out of darkness" rather than being the source of that darkness. Given the continually small percentage of people who choose disbelief over the Truth, not many above and beyond the perpetrators are falling for the ruse.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[3sigma]

The Declaration of Independence contains four direct references to God:

The Declaration of Independence simply declared the independence of thirteen States from Great Britain. It is not the basis of laws in the United States. The Constitution is the basis of laws in the United States and it doesn’t mention your religious beliefs at all. In fact, the First Amendment seeks to ensure that your religious beliefs will never play a part in the laws of the United States.

THE FACT THAT HUMAN BEINGS WERE CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE AND LIKENESS AND THUS EACH HUMAN BEING IS OF INFINITE WORTH AND VALUE JUST BECAUSE THEY EXIST.

Excuse me? Could you please demonstrate this “fact“? Please show us that your spittle-flecked assertion that human beings were created in God’s image is true.

Self-awareness--like God-awareness--is not a materialistic phenomenon subject to the process of evolution; it is a gift from the Creator to His children and not shared with animals.

Yet great apes, dolphins, Asian elephants and even magpies are self-aware despite what you may believe. Your beliefs are once again contradicted by reality.

According to God, the behavior is not the person. i sensibly choose to agree with Him. It is the ONLY position which IS defensible.

So you think people are not responsible for their behaviour? I guess you have to think that you aren’t responsible for your words and actions if you want to believe that your sins can be abrogated arbitrarily by some undetectable God.

People "who believe, teach and practice such things" are not "christians" because their Lord did not "believe, teach and practice such things."

Of course they were Christians who believed and practiced these things. What; do you think non-Christians would propose and pass laws against blaspheming only the Christian God and then execute people for it? Of course your religion teaches these things. Have you just been ignoring the Biblical quotes I’ve been giving you?

LEV 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.

1KINGS 21:13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, [even] against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.

EX 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

EX 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

NUM 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
NUM 15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
NUM 15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
NUM 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
NUM 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

The Christian Bible teaches that blasphemers and anyone who defiles the sabbath should be put to death.

You--of necessity i understand, but dishonestly nonetheless--keep pointing accusing fingers at Christians for "intolerance" and "executing people" who hold other beliefs, while refusing to engage the fact that atheists have intolerently executed a vastly larger number of Christians and other theists/deists for their belief in God than Christians have ever thought of harming for their disbelief in God.

Atheism does not teach atheists to execute people the way the Bible teaches these things. Show me the atheist “bible” that directly exhorts atheists to execute people in the same way the Christian Bible directly exhorts Christians to execute people for things as trivial as insulting an immaterial concept or gathering sticks on some arbitrarily designated day. Atheism is the realisation that your God is imaginary; it doesn’t teach atheists to execute anyone. It is Christianity that teaches its believers to execute people for trivial and contrived offences.