We see it already. It's as if we said "God, leave us alone." And He said--- after a long period of patient forbearance --- "OK."
After which, all horrors.
Punishment? Perhaps. More like the natural and logical consequences of what we have chosen. The punishment is, getting what we asked for.
It's a rich reading, a prime example of God's "fellowship" with Abraham: God chose him to be a man of justice, and by God, he was.
But we still have hell to pay. Here come the natural and logical consequences of banishing God. Here come--- as Kipling said --- "The Gods of the Copy-Book Headings."
Lord, help us.
‘There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.’
And the consequences to our country?, Well, John Adams pointed it out:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Our system of government cannot survive without a Judeo-Christian society underpinning it. Kicking the underpinnings out, will collapse it.
Boy, I remember when Christopher Hitchens became America’s most famous atheist. His IQ points dropped by the minute.
Which is worse, a person who does wrong and believes they are right in doing so because they don't know any better or a person who knows right from wrong and does wrong anyway?
To the faith community: As a Jew or Christian, you knew what you should do in action and deed to assist others in their faith....but you did not.
So therefore, since you interpreted G-d's rules for your own pleasure and advancement, the injured parties of "faith" have multiplied in ever increasing numbers to reject and fight the "G-d" of your self serving interpretation.
I understand there is an industry built around the grievances of faith's "rejects"..but that does not remove the responsibility of G-d's people to repent and correct any wrongs done to others.
Many keep their repentance to themselves and expect earth shattering results because they had good intentions. Just praying to G-d for forgiveness is not going to heal our "social fabric". Sorry, my Christian brethren..but the Jews have this one right. G-d does not want you to keep communications between you and him a secret that stays with your Priest or at the foot of your bed. Oh yes, you can pray and ask for direct forgiveness from any human on the planet that you may have harmed.
There is so much work to do to rebuild our country and it may not be in building anymore mega church buildings to bring in more converts but in our own homes and communities.
…atheism isn't exempt from analysis or critique of its real world consequences. Atheism is a metaphysical stance -- there are no gods and no God, there is no intrinsic purpose to existence, there is no natural moral law, there is no accountability in an afterlife. Those are quite explicit and consequential assertions, just as the negation of those assertions -- that there is a God, that there is a purpose to existence... -- is an explicit and consequential assertion. Atheism lacks liturgy. It does not lack beliefs and consequences. It lacks belief in God; it does not lack belief in the intrinsic consequences of God's non-existence. As Nietzsche emphatically noted, if God is dead, everything changes....atheism is to sin as alcoholism is to angst. Stupor-- metaphysical or medicinal-- is a denial of reality and a denial of consequences, which feels good for an evening or a weekend.
- Michael Egnor
Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the U. of New Haven, who for 10 years authored the “Moral Moments” column in Philosophy Now, made the following statements in a 2010 article entitled, “An Amoral Manifesto.”
“This philosopher has been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…I experienced my shocking epiphany that religious fundamentalists are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.
Marks then quite boldly and candidly addresses the implications of his newfound beliefs:
“Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as say a description of child molesting. They do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality…yet we human beings can still discover plenty of completely naturally explainable resources for motivating certain preferences. Thus enough of us are sufficiently averse to the molestation of children and would likely continue to be…( An Amoral Manifesto Part I )
The only religions that can defeat this cult which is a socio-polical system are Judeo-Christianity and Communism and G_D help us if it the latter.....
Maybe the Buddists will help out as in Myanmar, but G_D help us if the religion of communism is the only thing that does the job....
Ahem . . . Jews are not conventionally proselytary. They do not have a mission to make Jews of all mankind. They do, however, have a mission to "compel" the nations of the earth to accept the Noachide Laws. This mission was largely forgotten for most of the past two millenia for the simple reason that if any Jew had caused a chrstian to defect, whole Jewish communities would have been exterminated.
Rabbi Sacks's unfortunate attitude about the validity of all religions has been the cause of opposition within the Torah world.
His dismissal of the Torah's account of the origin of the rainbow, the symbol of Noachism, is most disappointing. While there are Orthodox Jews (including among Charedim) who accept evolution, Orthodox Jews, almost unbrokenly, tend to accept the historical nature of everything recorded in the Torah after the conclusion of creation: Cain and Abel, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the 26 generations that span the historical distance between Adam and Moses. Even Rabbi Sacks in the source cited above invokes the covenant with Noach as a historical reality (though unfortunately he seems to be among those who believe that non-Jewish religions are legitimate partners in the Noachide covenant). Disappointing.
Oh well. At least he opposes historical criticism strong enough to have fired someone from Jews' College for accepting that belief (this was formerly referenced at Wikipedia, but for some reason no longer is).
Here is a section on Sacks' liberal ecumenicalism at a Noachide wiki.
I can see why the John Paul II fan club likes him, though.
Just curious, Mrs. Don-o . . . are you opposed to the Catholic Church “imposing a single truth on a plural world?”