angels

Originally posted by roigam
As far as 1 Thess. I don't have a concise ref. but it would seem that Jesus (Michael the archangel in his prehuman existence) would himself blow God's trumpet to start the war of the great day of God Almighty, especially since Jesus is leading God's army of angels to that war.
Also for Hebrews, this is a great privilege for Michael to be called God's Son.
T ...[text shortened]... of lawlessness!’
You seem to be a thoughtful person so these are just some points to consider.

You quote Matthew 7:21-23, like other JWs have in the past, as if it's talking about someone else besides YOU. YOU are the ones saying "Lord, Lord". "...did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?" You put "the name of God" above all other things in your dogma, even to the point of not believing on the deity of the Son of God.

This is the same thing done by those people who worship "the words" of the Bible over the concepts those words are teaching.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I don't think someone's religious beliefs makes them unsuitable for a job.

That would be discrimination.

I disagree entirely.

For example...

A doctor in a maternity unit who wont perform an abortion on religious grounds
even when it leads to the mothers death.

A politician in charge of setting energy policy who believes that the end of the
world is coming soon and thus we don't need to do anything about climate change.

A person believes in imaginary beings and fairy tales demonstrating a lack of ability
or inclination to think rationally which impacts on job performance and suitability.

A person who believes that homosexuality is a sin and makes you bad/dangerous
parents working in an adoption agency.

Ect ect ect.

Now I don't think that you should refuse a person a job based on beliefs they hold
that don't have a significant bearing on the ability to do the job... But when they
are relevant then they should absolutely be taken into consideration.

The fact that people strongly believe things that are not true that have a bearing on
their decision making cannot possibly be not relevant when deciding whether to hire
or vote for a person.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I disagree entirely.

For example...

A doctor in a maternity unit who wont perform an abortion on religious grounds
even when it leads to the mothers death.

A politician in charge of setting energy policy who believes that the end of the
world is coming soon and thus we don't need to do anything about climate change.

A person believes in i ...[text shortened]... ion making cannot possibly be not relevant when deciding whether to hire
or vote for a person.

I agree. A Secular Humanist would be unsuitable as the minister of a Christian Church. It is just common sense. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree. A Secular Humanist would be unsuitable as the minister of a Christian Church. It is just common sense. 😏

Although it should be noted that there are quite a few [some very popular]
ministers of churches who have discovered that they just don't believe any
more and are thus atheists, but don't know what to do because they are only
trained to be priests/ministers/vicars/whatever and live in societies and have
friends who are all religious and will likely shun/send death threats to them if
they reveal that fact.

There is a large and growing support group being run to help support them.

EDIT:
Also, Secular Humanism is not a religion. Neither is atheism.

Secular Humanism is not a, and does not include any, religious belief/s.

And is thus not a relevant category for discussions on whether religious belief
is a valid consideration in deciding if someone is suitable for a job.



It should be noted [I would say before you got the wrong idea, but that's all you have]
that I support protections to prevent people discriminating on the grounds of belief anywhere
where those beliefs do not have a materiel impact on the job performance.

Originally posted by googlefudge
EDIT:
Also, Secular Humanism is not a religion. Neither is atheism.

Secular Humanism is not a, and does not include any, religious belief/s.

Originally posted by RJHinds

Atheists Score Major Win In Federal Court

by Jack Jenkins Posted on November 3, 2014 at 9:59 am

A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.

On Thursday, October 30, Senior District Judge Ancer Haggerty issued a ruling on American Humanist Association v. United States, a case that was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and Jason Holden, a federal prisoner. Holden pushed for the lawsuit because he wanted Humanism — which the AHA defines as “an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces” — recognized as a religion so that his prison would allow for the creation of a Humanist study group. Haggerty sided with the plaintiffs in his decision, citing existing legal precedent and arguing that denying Humanists the same rights as groups such as Christianity would be highly suspect under the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which declares that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the ruling read.

The decision highlights the unusual position of the Humanist community, which has tried for years to obtain the same legal rights as more traditional religious groups while simultaneously rebuking the existence of a god or gods. But while some Humanists may chafe at being called a “religion,” others feel that the larger pursuit of equal rights trumps legal classifications.

Maybe Atheism has become a religion under the name of Secular Humanism.

Originally posted by divegeester
Now you have decided that you do want to return to your thread and address legitimate questions put to you, let's keep to the topic in hand rather going off into "side questions".

You say you "do not have a concise reference" and that "it would seem" ... that the archangels pre-human existence...

...how can we debate this topic if you base your u ...[text shortened]... ey are actually saying that they DID say it?

Let's be honest with each other shall we.

🙂

Actually it's both. I post sometimes in response to a good thought but it seems like I forget the thread headings or probably mix them up. I'm still learning but hopefully I'll get a system going that is orderly. Glad I found this thread again. It's kind of like eating at a buffet. I have to be selective. I can't eat it all.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHinds

[b]Atheists Score Major Win In Federal Court

by Jack Jenkins Posted on November 3, 2014 at 9:59 am

A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.

On Thursday, O ...[text shortened]... ons.

Maybe Atheism has become a religion under the name of Secular Humanism.[/b]

Wow... babies aren't people until after they're born, gays want the right to get married, and now secular humanists want atheism to be recognized as a religion. I wonder what new and wondrous development will come next?

Originally posted by lemon lime
...and now secular humanists want atheism to be recognized as a religion.

In this case it seems to have been a way of securing things like freedom of speech and a reduction in discrimination against people with a certain non-religious philosophy. Deeming it to be "a religion" for this technical, legal purpose can hardly be seen as actually deeming secular humanism to be "a religion" alongside actual theistic religions.

Originally posted by FMF
In this case it seems to have been a way of securing things like freedom of speech and a reduction in discrimination against people with a certain non-religious philosophy. Deeming it to be "a religion" for this technical, legal purpose can hardly be seen as actually deeming secular humanism to be "a religion" alongside actual theistic religions.

In your opinion how have "people [in prison] with a certain non-religious philosophy" been discriminated against? If secular humanists are willing to call what they believe a religion (without actually believing it is a religion) then it appears what they really believe in is the end justifying the means. Some people will say anything in order to secure an outcome they want to secure, and in this case calling his philosophy a religion was his ticket for getting what he wanted.

Look at it this way, a guy in federal prison has found a way to start up his own legally sanctioned group for gabbing about whatever it is he wants to gab about... but why? Is he bored and working the system for the sake of exercising personal power? Is he simply making a point for the sake of making a point? Or is he really interesting in starting his own group just for the sake of being able to talk to like minded people? I doubt it's for the last reason, because unless he's stuck in solitary confinement there's nothing to stop him from chatting with other inmates. So I'm wondering what his primary purpose was for taking the sort of legal action he took to start up an organized group of like minded prisoners.

Originally posted by roigam
Actually it's both. I post sometimes in response to a good thought but it seems like I forget the thread headings or probably mix them up. I'm still learning but hopefully I'll get a system going that is orderly. Glad I found this thread again. It's kind of like eating at a buffet. I have to be selective. I can't eat it all.

You are being very "nice" and "pleasant" etc, but in the instance of this thread and me bumping it for you several times (some of which when you were online) and you responding elsewhere to me that you ignore people who you feel are set in their beliefs...I'm afraid simply don't believe you. Your attitude and behaviour here in this matter is similar to Galveston75. I don't believe him either.

Originally posted by lemon lime
In your opinion how have "people [in prison] with a certain non-religious philosophy" been discriminated against? If secular humanists are willing to call what they believe a religion (without actually believing it is a religion) then it appears what they really believe in is the end justifying the means. Some people will say anything in order to s ...[text shortened]... taking the sort of legal action he took to start up an organized group of like minded prisoners.

Be all that as it may, as I said, designating it as "a religion" for the technical, legal purpose cited can hardly be seen as actually placing secular humanism as "a religion" alongside the various theistic religions. Whatever his purpose was, he hasn't created "a religion".

Originally posted by FMF
Be all that as it may, as I said, designating it as "a religion" for the technical, legal purpose cited can hardly be seen as actually placing secular humanism as "a religion" alongside the various theistic religions. Whatever his purpose was, he hasn't created "a religion".

Of course he hasn't created a religion, and it should be apparent to anyone that creating a religion was never his intention. Calling it (or giving it the same status as) a religion was simply a means to an end... it's called lying in order to get what you want.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Of course he hasn't created a religion, and it should be apparent to anyone that creating a religion was never his intention. Calling it (or giving it the same status as) a religion was simply a means to an end... it's called lying in order to get what you want.

Well I am saying that it should be apparent to anyone that creating a religion was never his intention and it is not something he has achieved. As for him "lying", this was not something you said in the post I initially replied to. You said "secular humanists want atheism to be recognized as a religion" which I think is missing the point because all it was ~ which I think you are conceding ~ was merely a technical, legal device to claim the same freedoms as others.

Originally posted by FMF
Well I am saying that it should be apparent to anyone that creating a religion was never his intention and it is not something he has achieved. As for him "lying", this was not something you said in the post I initially replied to. You said "secular humanists want atheism to be recognized as a religion" which I think is missing the point because all it was ~ whi ...[text shortened]... k you are conceding ~ was merely a technical, legal device to claim the same freedoms as others.

Secular Humanism is becoming a religion legally. That's my point. However, it may take some time before most people think of it as a religion like they do Christianity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Secular Humanism is becoming a religion legally. That's my point. However, it may take some time before most people think of it as a religion like they do Christianity.

So then we will maybe have certain Christians going around saying "Christianity is NOT a religion" and then maybe some of the same Christians going around saying "Atheism IS a religion".