Freedom to Believe, or Not

[jomifl]

I don't think that this needs any comment from me.

http://www.rawstory.c...-god-doesnt-exist-on-

[seadogg]

It is a sad commentary on our times that religious intolerance is once more on the rise. I guess we know how the great majority on here will feel about the story.

[jomifl]

Yes Seadogg, some will be thinking 'why don't we do that?'

[Khandro]

I fail to see what he hoped to gain from making such a public statement within that society. Freedom of speech is all very well, but it does not extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. I think he is dimwitted, it isn't as if he was on the rack during the Spanish inquisition.

[mibn2cweus]

//Freedom of speech is all very well, but it does not extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.//

Yet if someone should say, "There is no Hell", they should be summarily executed? If I should ever come across a burning theatre filled with the likes of you perhaps you would prefer that I pass it by without issuing so much as a whisper of warning.

It is a sad commentary on our times that religious suppression of free speech is once more on the rise.

[jomifl]

And standing up to bullies is dimwitted? Perhaps the cartoons weren't a good idea bearing in mind that some muslims are unnaturally sensitive to them but how could any sane person think it mattered.

[slaney]

Always sad to read about such cases, and to think that this kind of intolerance is on the increase in the 21st century.
Tho only glimmer of light comes from his support from some Christians who don't have a easy time in Indonesia either...
http://www.huffington...src=sp&comm_ref=false

[sandyRoe]

We're, all of us, free to believe what we like. But sometimes it's not wise to tell the world what we think unless we're seeking the martyrs crown.

[goodlife]

//I thought ‘If God exists, why is there suffering? Why is there war, poverty, hell?’ Because, to me, God would not create this hell. My family would ask me my thoughts but I knew my answers would cause problems, so I kept quiet.”//


If you read-Acts 17:22, 23.
Consider how religious the Athenians were and how many idols they had, some of his listeners may have taken it as a compliment. Rather than attack their polytheism, The Athenians prized knowledge and logic. Still, they admitted that there was a god that was to them “unknown” It was only logical, then, that they should allow Paul to explain him to them. Nobody could find fault with that reasoning,

Well, what was this “unknown God” like? “The God” made the world and everything in it. No man would deny that the universe exists, that the plants and animals exist, that we humans exist. The power and intelligence, yes, wisdom, manifested in all of this pointed to its being the product of a wise and powerful Creator, rather than of chance. Actually, Paul’s line of reasoning is even more valid in our time. (Revelation 4:11)

[doctordb]

Why does it point to there being a god? why is it more valid? ^^^

[naomi24]

Khandro, I fail to understand how anyone can defend this - in any way whatsoever. Shades of '1984'.

[jomifl]

Goodlife, are you saying that the world as it is, with intolerance, disease,poverty and a host of other ills, is the creation of a /wise and powerful creator/? If so at least we know who to blame.

[goodlife]

Jomifl@ No,If atheist is right, then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible, which teaches ‘You must not lie,’ is itself guilty of lying in regard to man’s origin, why should what it says about other matters be respected? Why believe that ‘you must not steal’ and that ‘you must not commit adultery’? Why believe its promises for life in a new world? Why believe its explanation about man’s present condition?

On the other hand, if the Bible is right about man’s origin, then atheist is wrong. There is then basis for considering the Bible’s statements trustworthy.

[jomifl]

Goodlife, the bible does not have a monopoly on moral standards. The concept of right and wrong existed long before the bible.

[Khandro]

naomi; I am not defending anybody, let me paint you a scenario: It is Saturday evening, Tottenham Hotspur have just lost to Arsenal, a man walks into a large pub full of T.H. supporters, navigates deep into to room, stands on a chair, wraps an Arsenal flag round his neck and shouts "Tottenham Hotspur are crap!" Freedom of speech allows him to do it, but would you recommend it?

[naomi24]

Khandro, I understand what you’re saying, but is it right to continue to pacify madmen? Instead of speaking out for freedom, the Archbishop of Canterbury and other prominent western figures did that when the Danish cartoons that caused such mayhem were published – and shame on them all.

//I fail to see what he hoped to gain from making such a public statement within that society.//

As with any major injustice that has ever been remedied, dissent has to begin somewhere – and I sincerely hope that before too long the civilised world will have the courage to openly oppose the mindless philosophy of these people and say ‘no’.

[wildwood]

It seems that if we went by the logic of some comments, all women would still be tied to the kitchen sink and homosexuals would be virtually unheard of.