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".
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.
Make up with your Brother and only talk about positive stuff.
... or maybe the other way around. During the Soviet Union the elite would send their kids to private religious schools. This is the reason why teachers who belong to unions also send their kids to private schools that boast religion organized teaching. Yeah, how is that for separation of church and state in atheistic socialist and communist statist countries!
Yes indeed, that is the big hypocrisy of socialists and atheists right there. They hate God, but they like the discipline that engineers their sex gizmos at German factories.
Ok, first what do you think marriage is?
Does the government really have a roll in deciding what it is?
If someone wants to get married in the US there are hundreds of churches who will perform the ceremony.
Most states will grant a civil union certificate, which gives all the state’s rights of a married couple.
The federal government does not recognize civil unions for tax purposes.
I do not know of any insurance company that does not provide coverage for civil unions.
So what is it that you are angry over?
It is important for you to know what you think marriage is.
In my opinion marriage is the earthly representation of the marriage between Christ and His church.
No government can change that, it is what it is, God had ordained it.
Homosexuals want normalization, they do not care about “marriage in and of it self, they can already get married, they can all ready have a civil union....that is not their goal.
Homosexuality can never be normalized in the Eyes of God, no anger towards your brother will change that.
No anger towards homosexuals who are desperate to be normal will do that.
We can not redefine what God has defined.
Decide why you are angry, decide if your anger towards your brother is a valid.
Those are questions that can only be answered by you.
I pray for your wisdom.
>> They seem to go hand-in-hand quite often.
But there are also plenty of Pro-Abort Christians, and plenty of Conservative Statists. We’d probably see a will distributed graph of the various combinations of affiliations, principles, practices, and opinions.
Regarding “marriage”, the state has demonstrated that it will persecute Christian photographers that refuse to record homosexual celebratory gatherings.
I personally enjoy the benefits of DOMA, and it should be enforced as legislated. I wouldn’t be upset, however, if it went away along with the state law that requires citizens to support and service homosexuality. In my opinion, the govt does not belong in the marriage business save the utility value of civil contracts — contracts that in no way obligate third parties to the affairs of the signatories.
Ask him to explain the difference between liberty and anarchy.
A book that could be helpful for you in thinking through how to deal with him is “Evangelism Made Slightly Less Difficult”, by Nick Pollard.
I do not have direct references, but I talked to Polish people on the net, and they can tell you that indeed, strangely as it may seem, they had private schools back then during the Soviet Union.
This might help as it refers to a kidnapping at the St Augustine School in communist poland in the 50s.