Why do atheists...

Isn't a prayer, dictated by government, and recited by government employees, in government schools, an establishment of religion?

 

Look at your questions and look at my answers. What part of them do you fail to understand? Couldn't be more clear. Reread them until you understand.

You couldn't have picked a more obvious case for the 1st being applied. But a judge deciding to hang the 10 in his court or a teacher deciding to wear a cross outside of her clothing don't meet the clear standards of the 1st.

 

There is a significant number of Christians out there who seem to find Satan's influence under every rock and bush, often using it as an excuse to mask their own (or someone else's) free will, or to give them a safe target to get mad about rather than calling a sin a sin.

For that reason, many contemporary churches have become hesitant to teach about the influence of Satan on both a personal and global level. Blaming everything on the 'boogeyman' isn't really conducive to spiritual growth.

 

This is sort of what I was referring to in my original post. Looking at the big picture, the church has given those outside of it good cause to be defensive.

But if you read about Christian martyrdom outside the U.S., the tide seems to be turning a bit. In several regions of the world, Christians are being imprisoned, tortured, and killed in large numbers. There have been more Christians martyred in the 20th century than there were in the previous 19 (source: Voice of the Martyrs).

 

If you subscribe to the Biblical viewpoint of human nature (and for the most part, I do), the desire to rebel against authority is rooted in a 'default setting' to be the apex of our own world. Submission is not something that usually comes without at least some resistance or ill will.

From what I've heard and read, after WWII our culture became indulgent of that core desire to believe we control our own lives and our own piece of the world. It continually fed that desire (especially in the youth) until collectively, long-established authorities were being challenged left and right, often with no other purpose or agenda other than to simply remove it or lessen it somehow, thereby bringing the individual closer to that level of authority, or more likely, that level of power and control.

We live in a nation that actually celebrates its victory over authoritarian rule, having been a motley collection of militiamen who threw off the yoke of the most powerful government in the world at the time. It doesn't get much more empowering than that. And pretty much every other nation who's taken a shot at bringing Lady Liberty into submission has gone back home with their collective asses in a sling.

But with all that rah-rah, puffing ourselves up tradition comes a lot of responsibility to keep it in balance, which I don't think we as a country have done a very good job of for quite a long time now. And I tend to think that imbalance has led to many of the problems we face in our society today, namely this "victim mode" mentality that's become so common, in which entitlement is king, and consequences are an afterthought at best.

 

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I think the current global society may be moving in that direction, but I don't think we're there yet. Every poll I've seen (both religious and secular) indicate that atheists tend to comprise roughly 10% of the world's population, and that may be a little generous.

 

Admittedly, I agree that there probably never has been a 'spontaneous' Christian, but Christianity really isn't set up for one to figure out even the simplest form of the gospel by himself. But that doesn't mean a person can't look around at the world around him, especially focusing on nature, and discern that a higher power exists. Arguably, that's how most major religions were born.

It depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for something that will make you feel better, then your options remain very broad. If you're looking for truth, then a process of elimination takes place based on several factors, ultimately leading to one best option, then a choice to accept or reject.

 

a baby is born without a belief system, thus belieiving in something requires an action whereas continuing to believe in nothing is completely passive. that's all i really meant by that.

 

agreed -- religion formed by people looking around and trying to answer the questions that occured to them (or the people who looked to them for answers).

i serously doubt the people that made up the various religions just stumbled onto the truth when coming up with stuff. if i took people at their word that they had visions or saw miracles or god spoke to them, then why wouldn't i look at all the religions where people claimed this? joseph smith comes to mind in this regard. lots of folks think he was profit... i mean, prophet.

 

I don't know the intricacies of most world religions to answer that intelligently, but as it applies to several of them, I think it's a great question. There have been several religions that have featured terribly oppressive and control-hungry deities, most of which have died out over time. I would think that if these were legitimate gods, the character portrayed in their doctrines and legends would indicate a desire to force the world to worship them. Somehow, though, that never seemed to work out. For whatever reason, the world has never united in such a way to the best of my knowledge.

But regarding the Biblical God, particularly in the age of grace, will not make people believe in Him. He has given each man, woman, and child a choice whether to believe in Him. That is not to say that one day, there will be consequences for those who reject Him, but at least they have the choice.