Skip to comments.My brother the militant atheist (VANITY)
Posted on 09/16/2012 8:03:11 PM PDT by Thorliveshere
My brother and I have been going back and forth over the last few years, his atheism has really taken a sharp curve into aggravating territory. I got this message from him, and I'm trying to let my anger subside before I respond. I'm curious what you would say:
The only two things you should ever worry about getting married to each other are big government and big religion. While many are very vocally opposed to "redefining marriage" (even, though there are more than one definition of marriage if you bother to look in a dictionary) they don't realize that, in the process, they are redefining the word "liberty". Anyone who believes that big government is too intrusive on their personal lives, but also believes that using religion to dictate the liberty of others isn't intrusive, needs to look in a mirror... for there they will most definitely find the definition of "hypocrite".
Come back asking him if he agrees with Polygamy and marriage to animals. If he says no, ask him why he would deny those who were in love with two people, or a goat, the chance to be truly happy.
Always works for me when shutting up “marriage equality” fanatics.
Marriage is NOT a right.
Be sure to tell him you love him every chance you get.
Ask him what he thinks of Palestine.....and “Big Islam”. Have him ‘splain that.
The queers and atheists seem to just LOVE the “Pallies”.
Ask him what he thinks of SHARIA.
If your brother is an atheist, why does the religious definition bother him so?
What problem does he have with civil unions if they afford rights?
Seems he just wants to punish people who have the faith he lacks.
And that seems a destructive angle to take in the argument—for what reason? To make himself feel better about being without faith.
Just reword his last line back to him...
Anyone who believes that big government is too intrusive on their personal lives, but also believes that it should be used to redefine an institution older than civilization, needs to look in the mirror... for there they will most definitely find the definition of "cognitive dissonance".
The things you send me are in opposition to God’s Word.
Here is God’s word on the subject:
**Jesus’s comments on marriage**
You should not reject God’s word. There is still hope for you. Repent.
Use the above as a framework for every response to every screed.
Either he will repent; or, he’ll hate hearing the Bible and leave you alone.
God’s word is the powerful thing and gets to the heart of the matter. And that is what is wrong; his heart.
The state recognizes it for the purposes of property transfer.
They have no right redefining someone's religious beliefs.
He is correct and it has happened in the form of Democrats and The Church of Global Warming.
Takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Likely he has issues with his earthly father. Undermining the family is central to the destruction of the US.
Hit the fool on his illiteracy and grammar and ignore everything else, that'll learn 'im!
“Government married to religion = Shariah today. And they are killing people today to spread their religion. Why do you consider me a threat? I want government out of both our lives.”
“Socialist and communist nations have generally imploded horrifically or descended into Hell on Earth, from socialist Zimbabwe to Communist North Korea to Argentina’s economic implosion to the Weimar republic. None of those places had Christianity at the helm, but many of them were atheist. And none of us, of any religion, wants to live through a social and economic collapse like that today.”
Send him a card this Christmas to demonstrate your tolerance. I think it started with Kinky Friedman, and it says, “May the god of your choice bless you in this holiday season.”
Ha! It's not "many", it's a majority. Gay marriage has gone down to defeat in every state that has voted on it.
Your brother doesn't believe in democracy. Consequently, he doesn't believe in true liberty but rather anarchy.
The athiests sure spend a huge amount of time and energy protesting against a God they claim is not real!
Atheists use the term “hypocrite” exactly as liberals use the term “racist.”
Any association they can imagine between their opponent’s behavior and “magic word,” no matter how contrived, is an instant “checkmate” as far as they are concerned. At that point, they no longer have to pay any attention to what the opposition asserts.
At bottom, it is the tool they use to give themselves permission to reject opposing viewpoints without giving the benefit of a fair hearing.
“Why is government involved in a Holy Sacrament to begin with? “
When you mention “government” don’t think of Washington, DC and the festering morass that the Federal Government has become. Instead think of government at its earliest beginnings and smallest unit. Think of the village or the extended family.
To answer your question:
To keep Big Caveman from knocking you over the head because he wants your woman.
To cut down on the number of unsupported children running around. (original intent - this function of government abdicated several decades ago)
To publicly establish commitment between man & wife.
I read a SciFI novel back in the 60’s called “Earth Abides” (George R. Stewart - 1949) one of the early “after the Apocalypse” novels. The protagonist slowly accumulates a band of survivors and begins to reestablish a society. He has to deal with this issue of roving, uncommitted males looking to have their pleasure and move on, leaving the products thereof to be raised & supported by others.
The need for the larger community to establish, support & defend the institution of marriage was stated in the beginning by God. Man, in his infinite wisdom (/ sarc), continually tried to abandon “marriage”, only to find that God had a number of really good reasons for establishing it.
Strong evidence, multiple evidences support the idea that He REALLY does know what He is doing.
He is absolutely right in my minority opinion on this subject.
Marriage is a sacrament of traditional Faith, and I object to the state’s perversion of it.
Statism is not intrinsically a good thing.
Are you conflating atheism and libertarianism?
“Be sure to tell him you love him every chance you get.”
I totally agree with that.
And just don’t discuss religion or politics with him. He has made up his mind unless something happens in his life to change him. We can’t control our relatives but we can love them anyway.
Maybe you’re lucky. Listen to this. My sister is a regular churchgoer (RC), I’m not, and while I’m sorta goody-goody, she’s the devil in disguise.
I don’t know, maybe encouraging stability and responsibility that started with the Mycenaeans from a Western Civilization standpoint. Marriage and government coincided with each other way back in those days and continued all the way to today. In America before the 16th Amendment and expansion thereof the people did not have to worry about tax credits and stuff like that because they policed themselves in that regard plus the tax liability was not an issue because they understood why the Mycenaeans did what they did.. Enter big government, with a resentful Libertarian view and ta-da, 4,000 years of correct stability down the drain. Also, was a nifty way at organizing society thus the tradition of the wife to take the husband’s last name, would not want incest to be a problem one example...
It’s really very simple: marriage already has a definition and a function that has been observed, nurtured and promoted in every nation and/or culture on planet Earth throughout time and that definitely isn’t coincidence. Of what other custom or institution can anyone make that claim?
The definition is the key here because it provides the most unassailable base of logic, namely A is not transformed into B simply because someone says it is or wants it to be so.
The same goes for the rather bizarre argument that because problems such as divorce exist in marriage that married people are somehow ‘unworthy’ of its stewardship and that only gays can ‘rescue’ marriage. I hate cliches and motherly nagging but in this case two wrongs definitely don’t make a right.
Making a religious argument about marriage with an atheist is probably futile since they will be happy to attack religion all day in an attempt to redefine marriage. Ditto for religious objections to homosexuality, however justified.
For a nice head-spinner, ask him why he spends so much time attempting to disprove that which he is convinced is false already.
First amendment :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .
Marriage is an establishment of religion
Gay marriage is a government ruling regarding the religious establishment of marriage
American civics allows massive freedoms to transgress almost all known Christian ethic. To pretend we are close to or on the verge of theocracy is absurd and betrays gross ignorance of such governance would look like. That ignorance is further betrayed by the abundance of such odious governments around the world that are rightly opposed by America.
Ignore the elephant in the living room. Got it.
No... Government, at ANY level has no business in a Holy Sacrament.
Government doesn't keep Big Caveman from knocking anyone over the head, or knocking anyone up.
Move marriage back to the Church, and away from government.
Well, may the living God in His mercy convict them otherwise!
We do not advocate laws promoting addiction.
That is not a loving thing to do either for society or the individual.
Government or authority generally has been for many, many centuries, even before Christianity.
It makes things like a Brad Pitt & Angie Jolie divorce easier.
19 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today. 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.
8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.
9 Jesus said to him, Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.
Graham Cooke explained this story like this...
So in those days to have a man of Honor stay at your house was a gigantic honor in that community. It was the ultimate shout out, or retweet that you were “it”. So why did Jesus honor him? Look what he says in verse 8. If I have cheated anyone (the term “if” in original language is ... “if,and um.. I have” I will pay them back 4 xs that amount” By Jesus honoring Zacheaus the entire community was blessed because he changed his heart in the present, went back and repaid 4 times that amount for the past. And would not abuse the community in the future....
Ok, so... whats the point. The point is, Jesus showed up loving Zacheaus first. Did he say, “ zacheaus you ripped people off you suck. You are going to hell if you dont repent!” No, he loved him. I would contend that your brother is blind, and you wouldnt mock a blind man for tripping over the furniture. You would love him and show him mercy.... his atheism does not invalidate your faith. You have something he does not, peace. Show up loving him and have a sense of peace as you do it. That will be what screams to him more than telling him he will go to hell.
Islam, Mormonism, and the SanFranatheist animal farm church, defining marriage? No thanks.
Yes, the radical left agenda of theirs does match up with atheism.
Marriage has definitely existed in (almost) every culture.
But the definition and form of marriage has varied quite dramatically, along with its social and legal implications and consequences.
What has never existed before, AFAIK, is anything resembling true “gay marriage,” but the variety of marriages between men and women is quite large.
So they can make a buck off of divorce
Separation means the state is a hired servant and has no beans in how its master worships. That being said, the master has a say in how the state shall behave, that, definitely so, according to certain guidelines that can be traced back to religion but which involve no worship.
As for the “Under God” allegiance, that is an allegiance of the citizen to his Country and some form of higher powers, and it has nothing to do with allegiance to the state or a church police state like in the Vatican. A nation can have a church or a religious like character, and it is not a state.
In other words, by mixing state and nation, your brother is thinking of a Nazi or a church or cult nation-state like culture colonizing and privately/corporatitavely, so to speak, owning an entire nation. So, the atheists are the ones militanting for a full blown establishment of religion, mores and cults by the government.
This is because atheists are inherently government animals who want to take over their master and tell their master what to do and how to worship.
I think you should tell him that when you marry a rock and a cloud the kids will be eoither a crock or a croud...make that a crowd.
When kids believe in Santa Claus there’s a naughty and nice list. Does one child get to declare I don’t believe in Santa therefore I get a gift from Santa no matter what I do, while the other child plays by the rules to get a gift from Santa? Usually the non-believing child no longer gets a gift from Santa but from mom and dad.
Marriage is a gift from God and we believers live under His law, if you don’t believe and live by Gods law, why should you get a gift of God that is for His believers? Have a civil union that isn’t a gift from God but a gift of mans law.
Does a Mathematician rant and rave and go ape-chit offended with a book containing words because it is not all numbers? Atheists and homosexuals just want to snatch the lolly from another. Miserable Nellie Olesons...the lot of them!
I’m afraid you’re disputing something I didn’t say. I never claimed that there wasn’t variety. In fact, I implied that there was.
Now, as for marriage, it is the story of the union between man and woman, as masters of the state, to their fruitfulness, which defines marriage.
It is not the reverse, marriage which defines what a union is.
This is historical revisionist stuff. THey do not understand what defines what. They redefine the word marriage.
Homosexuals can have contracts with each other, but, that, in and of itself, is not marriage per say, it is another form of a union or allegiance to each other, however horrifying in this instance, because it inherently makes for sexual slavery and exploitation.
How can atheists who have been howlering against marriage as a way of enslaving women now say it is ok for a man to enslave another one. It makes no sense at all.
This is a loophole for sexual exploitation and sex trade that they are seeking, as well as all the other sorts of cannibalisms.
Food makes blood, blood makes not food. Man and woman makes marriage, marriage does not make man and woman. Just as when a muslim tells me Jesus came down from the cross unharmed, I tell him that is not the same Jesus as mine. The story is what makes the name, and the name cannot be ascribe to stories that keep changing, this is utter corruption and weak mindedness, a cop out.
Gays are like that, they have to live a “Bagdad Bob” life of true denial in the ways they harm themselves. They cannot think of any other way to hide their shame and repent. They are inherently unforgivors and dangerous. Taboos or restriction against sin or compulsive human impulses that do exist is not true denial, it’s temptation.
THey are mixing everything up and confusing themselves and us in the process. It is a mental disease of theirs which can be contagious.
The comparison was to libertarianism, not Libertarianism.
Furthermore atheism and libertarianism are definitively unrelated, but in terms of allegiance to govt, “what would Jesus say?”
There is a huge difference in not believing in God and being militantly anti-God.
It’s in the English common law, along with such trivial religious based notions like Habeaus Corpus and trial by jury.
For me at least, God and organized religion are two different entities. It seems like your brother’s problem is with organized religion more than with God.
What would a libertarian care what Jesus would say?
Libertariansm doesn’t jive much with Christianity.
it’s very simple. your brother has it historically backwards. it is he who is the hypocrite, imposing his *elimination* of the elements of God’s original, pure Law of Marriage to suit his own purposes. it is man and his government that has gradually encroached on God’s Law of marriage, making it into no more than a secular contract. it is your brother and his leftist ilk (yes atheists are the worst kind of leftist) who are imposing their own idol (the anti-god; or man the god) in place of the true God.
God was First. there can be no question. the Law of marriage was written by God on man long before man could make his own law. God’s law must take precedence or there is no civil society possible. period. a nation divided cannot stand. a nation of laws imposed by opposing gods cannot stand either. so your brother’s ignorant or, perhaps, unstated purpose is the destruction of our civil society which was crafted by our founders specifically for and can therefore continue to exist only under the one true God.
denial of this truth for atheists is paramount. ergo, the need for atheists to *separate* God from government and polities, which is an absurdity on it’s face.
again. man cannot change the defintion of true Marriage. that is writ large by the Almighty Himself. to the extent that he imposes his changes on that original definition on all of us, he must enslave us and destroy society. this is why we conservatives oppose all attempts to eliminate God’s precepts from marriage.
Indeed, I cannot stand the hypocrisy when people say Christians were Nazis. The point is that the elite Nazis were staffed by former communists and socialists who were all too happy and jubilant about Hitler. Christians were rather embarassed in this and were dragged along.
The same crap is happening with liberal judges who try to reshape society today despite the people’s legislature opposing their views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.