100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
What is Faith?
|
|
Faith is the belief in a proposition without evidence. Faith is lazy, its unreasonable and uncompromising, its the last thing I would consider virtuous. Yet faith is an absolute necessity in life - without it you would be a paranoid schizophrenic scared to death to walk out of your house or to deal with and communicate with anyone - on any level. You might want to reconsider your stance on this - else not "paint your complaint" with such a broad brush. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main problem I have with the OP is that it goes on and on about all the bad things "religion" is responsible for, but when it comes to the good things, suddenly it's not "religion" that's responsible anymore, it's "people". To illustrate, I'd like to change just three words and restate the first sentence in the last paragraph of the OP. "While religion can be said to accomplish bad things such as (fill in the blank), it is not religion itself that accomplishes these things. It is the individuals that make up that religion, and make choices themselves, that truly accomplishes bad things." Why is that only "people" are responsible for the good things and only "religion" is responsible for the bad things? Why are "people" not responsible for the bad things as well as the good things? After all, any action taken by "a religion", is an action taken by a person I have to agree. One cannot blame "religion" for anything because that is way too vague. You have to find out where the buck stops. You have to find the people responsible and the people partly responsible for the vague entity you are calling "religion." Religion is not responsible, people are responsible. People are responsible for their beliefs, and their actions. If you try to destroy 'religion' you will be destroying people, because people are who make up 'religion.' If you want to change the face of religion the place to start is with the individual. Start with the people. You 2 must be fans of the NRA. That's exactly the same argument they made, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people". Religions aren't bad. People are bad. While there is some truth in those statements, you fail to acknowledge the influence those things have on some people. Actually, quite a lot of people. And the two idiots who walked into Columbine were staunch Darwinists - but I don't see you wanting to knock down any school houses and burn them biology books. Television and film has more influence on people than religion - why aren't you screaming about Hollywood? "There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not Christ like, and I am sorry these are the types of experiences you have had. In trying to follow the example of Christ, I do not feel superior to anyone, I feel we all sin and that is mostly what I get the most flack about. I never say that I am better than anyone because I dont believe I am. I do aknowledge wrong from right though, regardless of if I am the transgressor or someone else,, and I get flack for that as well. Actually it is Christ like because it is the practice of Christians. Christianity cannot teach equality because it teaches divisiveness ie "my religion is the one true and right religion", it teaches superiority ie "some humans will go to hell because of what they believe but it won't be me the great Christian", it teaches hypocrisy ie "I am not held responsible for my sins because I go to church on Sunday and get forgiven" Until religions embrace all other religions and non religious as equal and deserving of heaven including all sexual orientations they will be discriminatory and not healthy for humans to follow. This is flawed logic in my opinion. First,Christ like means like Christ, of whom there was only one,, not like any and every one who claims to be christian. I dont believe anyones RELIGION(religious title or affiliation) makes them any better or worse than anyone else. It is how we live our lives that will be judged by God , not what title we give ourself. I also dont believe I know who will go to heaven or who will not, I was taught that only God knows or will decide. I do know the paths that Christ set out for us to follow and I choose that path hoping to reach the destination I seek. I also have never not felt responsible for sin, forgiveness doesnt absolve one of responsibility and I was never taught this either. I embrace religious beliefs, I dont embrace all actions and words anymore than a non religious person does. I dont think it would be healthy to have an everything is fine to do attitude(regardless of religious or non religious affiliation). I do think there are paths to heaven and paths which dont lead to heaven, just as some paths will get me from Las Vegas to Los Angeles and others wont. If I am trying to get to Los Angeles, I just follow those paths,, it doesnt mean I feel better than those trying to get to Arizona, or those trying to get to Los Angeles by way of Indianapolis. I just feel we all choose different paths and they dont all end up at the same destination. You did not dispute any of what I stated on my post...lol There is no way around the divisiveness, superiority and hypocrisy of the religion. I am glad that you feel as though you are doing yourself a favor by believing it. Humans are not better off because of religion. It hasn't done anything to help the human condition at all. I am not here just for dispute. I am also here to share. I, as a christian, read many blatantly false things in these posts about what I supposedly was taught to believe. I just try to clarify what is the truth from what is broad generalization. Humans are no worse off because of religion. Humans would commit all the atrocities they commit without religion, they would just find some other scapegoat to blame it on besides personal responsibility. Funny, since christians are being labeled in this thread as those who dont take personal responsibility but the same people are claiming that they do horrible things not because of who they are personally but because they are christian....cant have it both ways I take full responsibility for my actions, I use Gods laws as a guide just as others use mans laws. When I do things wrong, it is not the fault of laws existing,, it is just my personal bad choice. I'll admit I do see christians, on the whole, as being inherently evil. Though this is not a predjudice w/o cause, I assure you. I've known far too many professed "good" christains who had no problems commiting blantantly evil acts. And history is repleat with such examples. And that pretty much goes for just about anyone with a belief system that has a godthing or things at it's head. However, I do make the effort to take into account any individuals actions or words. I have to disagree with you on the "fault of the laws existing" thing. There have been many many bad laws in human history that good people should've and indeed have, railed against. If I had been born in the mid 1800's or before, I would've been proud to break laws to free slaves. And I would've been quite happy to kill slave owners to do it too. I would've defended indians, women, or whatever group of intelligent lifeforms were being oppressed or enslaved. The laws be damned. God's or man's. Which brings me to another point, christianity has been an excuse for slavery and the oppression of women. For almost it's entire history. Doesn't that bother you? Actually - what is historically accurate is that were it not for two devoted Christians - there would still be slavery in England and in America. Christianity is not responsible for the creation or furtherance of slavery - but for the irratication of it. whatever you say eljay...lol Well - you've got Wilberforce (or however you spell it) in England - and Lincoln in the USA. Or perhaps you've never heard of these two men. Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He himself said he was more interested in "ending the war" than "ending slavery". In fact, Lincoln wanted the blacks sent back to Africa (Liberia is one result of this). The emancipation proclamation was a purely political move to make the agriculture business in the South dependent on Northern subsidization. Domestically, he threw reporters who disagreed with him in jail, ignored habeus corpus-pretty much everything that you would expect from a tyrant. So - I guess you're thinkin' "Good thing they assassinated him". I find it so interesting that you state these claims like you were there to verify them. Amaizing how you've stayed alive this long. How'd you do it? so - unless you witnessed these facts personally - how about a reference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As we have been told we are made in his image. and we are each of us able to be both good and evil... God itself must be both good and evil. Good exists... As does evil. As god is rumored to be 'all things' god itself must be both good and evil or 'all things' would be a lie. Same with this. Good and evil are not opposites - like East and West. They are quantities like Light and darkness. Warm and Cold. In the scientific world - you cannot measure darkness or cold - because they do not exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God created evil in a sence. But still nevertheless God does no evil. Cowboy this is a total contradiction if someone or some entity knowingly creates evil in any shape form or fashion....they at that point in time is in the act of doing evil this is why God can only be the root of all evil because all evil spawned from him Were evil a "thing" - you could say that were true. But in the strictist sense of the word - evil is not a quantitative thing, but a lack ther-of. It is analogous to darkness. And darkness is a word that describes the absence of something. You cannot "create" darkness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." Ouch! The zionist influence in Deuteronomy is well explained in "The Controversy Of Zion" as early as the first chapter. It's quite interesting, IMO. So you want me to read an anti-semite's conspiracy book for an answer? No thanks not interested. It is what it says... You confuse anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. The book does not oppose or espouse hate for Jews (it makes this very clear to the intelligent reader), but Zionists. It goes into a lot of Jewish history, in fact. Here is the bibliography of the book (note that these are legit historical sources you can check for yourself)- BIBLIOGRAPHY OK, so explain how this is out of context...or someone else's fault. "Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." This is explained in detail in Chapter 3, "The Levites and The Law". I'm not going to copy it for you when you can much more easily read it yourself. I don't read material that someone like David Duke uses to promote hatred...and that's why I do not regard the bible as "truth" either. Same reason. There's a lot of sadistic and immoral writings in that book...there's no logical explaination for the passage I posted...it is what it is. But play if that's all that can be done to answer a simple question. Yet you'll call Hitchen's a God, and think George Carlin was a wise man. You're a Hypocrite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh my cod, I misspelled a wUrd. Here's what the god appointed president did to science during his reign. "Panelists Decry Bush Science Policies by Paul Recer Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don't support policy positions. The speakers also said that Bush's proposed 2005 federal budget is slashing spending for basic research and reducing investments in education designed to produce the nation's future scientists. And there also was concern that increased restrictions and requirements for obtaining visas is diminishing the flow to the U.S. of foreign-born science students who have long been a major part of the American research community."This administration has distanced itself from scientific information," said Gottfried. He said this is part of a larger effort to let politics dominate pure science. He said scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency have been pressured to change their research to keep it consistent with the Bush political position on environmental issues. Because of such actions, he said, it has become more difficult for federal agencies to attract and retain top scientific talent. This becomes a critical issue, said Gottfried, because about 35 percent of EPA scientists will retire soon and the Bush administration can "mold the staff" of the agency through the hiring process." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0221-27.htm Shame! PS: Hitler a Darwinist? Got reference? I do http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm So you're taking references from the internet and expecting them to be evidence? Please tell me you aren't that idiotic. This post is a joke - right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh my cod, I misspelled a wUrd. Here's what the god appointed president did to science during his reign. "Panelists Decry Bush Science Policies by Paul Recer Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don't support policy positions. The speakers also said that Bush's proposed 2005 federal budget is slashing spending for basic research and reducing investments in education designed to produce the nation's future scientists. And there also was concern that increased restrictions and requirements for obtaining visas is diminishing the flow to the U.S. of foreign-born science students who have long been a major part of the American research community."This administration has distanced itself from scientific information," said Gottfried. He said this is part of a larger effort to let politics dominate pure science. He said scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency have been pressured to change their research to keep it consistent with the Bush political position on environmental issues. Because of such actions, he said, it has become more difficult for federal agencies to attract and retain top scientific talent. This becomes a critical issue, said Gottfried, because about 35 percent of EPA scientists will retire soon and the Bush administration can "mold the staff" of the agency through the hiring process." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0221-27.htm Shame! So who is this guy Gottfried - and why should anyone care what he thinks - or even believe him for that matter. How do i know he isn't making this &*(* up? And the same goes for Paul Recer. Who's he? How do you know he isn't making his stuff up? Where's the proof and evidence that either of these guys even exist. Maybe it's a plot by the Democrats to discredit republicans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is Christianity Immoral?
|
|
creative wrote: Let's think about the immorality aspect in a different 'light', one of which builds upon some of the fundamental aspects(beliefs) of Christianity. 1.)Every Christian calls 'God' - the father, the son, and the holy spirit(ghost). That is a fundamental aspect of Christianity - the holy trinity. The father meaning God the creator, the son meaning Jesus, the Holy Spirit meaning our guide in life(conscience). 2.)Another fundamental belief of Christianity is that we, as children of God, cannot possibly know the reasons for what God does because we cannot know God's will or plan. Yet no Christian can possibly deny that God has a plan because that is contained in scripture. 3.)Another fundamental belief in Christianity is that God is just, meaning one will get rewarded for their choices accordingly. 4.)Another fundamental belief is that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and always present everywhere. Now referring back to the OP... The author proposed a simple consideration. That being one of redemption or salvation. God, through Jesus, has offered humans forgiveness for their own wrongdoings. All one has to do is ask Jesus to forgive them of their 'sins' and come into their heart and guide them in life. That is often referred to as 'being saved'. The act of doing so, as long as one is truly sorry for what they have previously done 'wrong', allows one to be 'reborn' or 'born again'. That is like a fresh start in life despite the wrongdoings that one may have already been guilty of, including acts against other people. Now think about that for just a few moments. With this given construct, one can self-justify any and all actions which they have taken against another - no matter what those effects caused - simply because the core belief system requires that 'God' will forgive any and all acts except one of blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. In addition to the "Do as I say, and not as I do" teaching methods consistently shown throughout the Old Testament, all of this seems very reprehensible to me. msharmony replied: I do not believe self justification can be present in true repentance. Repentance calls for accountability, not mere words. The common flaw in the logic is that JUST saying the words excuses people and they can therefore be atrocious with the intent of sayint the words after ,,,,which is not the case. Its more than saying you need forgiveness, it is REPENTING or truly taking accountability to right the wrongs and CEASE from repeating them. As I understand it as well...  The Lord, or God, judges that which is in a wo/man's heart. For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks... What bothers me most about the salvation aspect of Christianity is the idea that one can be truly sorry and repent for some atrocity committed against another who has never deliberately harmed anyone but has not been saved, and the repenter - even though the sum total of good deeds vs. bad deeds is immensely in favor of the bad gets the reward of heaven regardless. Now this may seem like a hopeful and just idea, but if the perpetrator goes to heaven and the victim goes to hell - because s/he has not been saved - where is the justice and fairness in that? But the issue is not one of quality - but quantity, and it is not whether one is a perpetrator or a victim - but is one of pride and willfull defiance. Because of this - justice and fairness is irrelivant, becuase none are justified, and no one is subject to what is "rightfully" fair. The wages of sin is death. Period. The "fairness" comes only in the perception of the value of time. Were man to suffer the consiquences of his actions immediately - there would likely be no one alive mature enough to pro-create. Now - naturally this all presumes the tennets of Judeo/Christainity, because any discussion of heaven and hell presumes it - as these terms are pretty unique to any offshoot of O.T. Judism - else the argument becomes moot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is Christianity Immoral?
|
|
Let's think about the immorality aspect in a different 'light', one of which builds upon some of the fundamental aspects(beliefs) of Christianity. 1.)Every Christian calls 'God' - the father, the son, and the holy spirit(ghost). That is a fundamental aspect of Christianity - the holy trinity. The father meaning God the creator, the son meaning Jesus, the Holy Spirit meaning our guide in life(conscience). 2.)Another fundamental belief of Christianity is that we, as children of God, cannot possibly know the reasons for what God does because we cannot know God's will or plan. Yet no Christian can possibly deny that God has a plan because that is contained in scripture. 3.)Another fundamental belief in Christianity is that God is just, meaning one will get rewarded for their choices accordingly. 4.)Another fundamental belief is that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and always present everywhere. Now referring back to the OP... The author proposed a simple consideration. That being one of redemption or salvation. God, through Jesus, has offered humans forgiveness for their own wrongdoings. All one has to do is ask Jesus to forgive them of their 'sins' and come into their heart and guide them in life. That is often referred to as 'being saved'. The act of doing so, as long as one is truly sorry for what they have previously done 'wrong', allows one to be 'reborn' or 'born again'. That is like a fresh start in life despite the wrongdoings that one may have already been guilty of, including acts against other people. Now think about that for just a few moments. C.S. So far - up to this point I would have to say that everything you've stated so far is right on - except that your "children of God" reference is a bit ambiguous. If you are refereing to "everyone" as children of God - we are in disagreement, for that is not the correct conclusion to the exegesis you have given. That being said... You've arrived at this: With this given construct, one can self-justify any and all actions which they have taken against another - no matter what those effects caused - simply because the core belief system requires that 'God' will forgive any and all acts except one of blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Actually - this is a bit of a "shifting-middle fallacy" and assumes facts not in evidence, and ignores those facts not stated. For a major omission in your overview of Christianity - is that once one is saved - (or born again, which is the layman's term for being "sealed with the Holy Spirit") - one walks in the light as Jesus did. And if one does not walk in the light - they deieve themselves, and the Holy spirit is not in them. (See writings of John and James) So - to perform the acts which you say are self-justifyable is a walking contradiction, and a demonstration that one is NOT saved if this particular stance is adopted. It's more or less the litmus test for disproving a claim of Christianity - than the outcome the the premises you've laid out. Therefore - it is natural to say:  at the end of your conclusion - because it is a fallacious conclusion to the aforementioned premises. Therefore... In addition to the "Do as I say, and not as I do" teaching methods consistently shown throughout the Old Testament, all of this seems very reprehensible to me. As it should. For all fallacious logic should be reprehensible. It is the "sandy foundation" of all presumed refutations of christianity. While I appreciate how the argument is constructed - I'd like to see it flushed out a little bit more before the conclusion you reached was stated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main problem I have with the OP is that it goes on and on about all the bad things "religion" is responsible for, but when it comes to the good things, suddenly it's not "religion" that's responsible anymore, it's "people". To illustrate, I'd like to change just three words and restate the first sentence in the last paragraph of the OP. "While religion can be said to accomplish bad things such as (fill in the blank), it is not religion itself that accomplishes these things. It is the individuals that make up that religion, and make choices themselves, that truly accomplishes bad things." Why is that only "people" are responsible for the good things and only "religion" is responsible for the bad things? Why are "people" not responsible for the bad things as well as the good things? After all, any action taken by "a religion", is an action taken by a person I have to agree. One cannot blame "religion" for anything because that is way too vague. You have to find out where the buck stops. You have to find the people responsible and the people partly responsible for the vague entity you are calling "religion." Religion is not responsible, people are responsible. People are responsible for their beliefs, and their actions. If you try to destroy 'religion' you will be destroying people, because people are who make up 'religion.' If you want to change the face of religion the place to start is with the individual. Start with the people. Well, the disasters in history are not from people who believe in Peter Pan...egads. Some facts that hardcore religious people get wrong: Evolution is TRUE Unprovable. Certainly not a "fact" - since it is impossible to prove scientifically. Abstinence Only is NOT good sex education in our schools Could you support this with some pertinant facts since you declare they exist. Gays are born gay and gay marraige will not destroy society Absolutely false - even the "evidence" of evolution proves this wrong Stim cell research is ethical and moral I don't know about stim cell reasearch - but Stem cell research is viable and has been so for over a quarter century. Howeve, the only evidence of any success has been with adult stem cell. There is no record at this time of any embrionic stem cell - or cloning research having any successful outcomes. The record on that is ZERO!!! The devil did not send an earthquake to Haiti etc etc etc. Can't call this a fact either - because you can't provide evidence to support your claim. Sure you have any idea what "FACTS" mean? Did you skip math class the day they went over logic, proofs, and viable premises. Did you even take a math class? Ever read even a definition of logic - or fact? What makes you think we think you've got a clue? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
funny, can you please enlighten us with some ways Christianity in general has anything to do with gaining power for ones self? Gee, the mass slaughter of the Knights Templar authorized by the Catholic Church to gain their gold, money, lands and control. Where the actual Friday the 13th superstition comes from... Then you have the Church coming in to South America, baptizing the natives babies there and dashing out their brains immediately afterwards so they didn't grow up to be warriors. Not to mention destroying countless unknown historical and religious references because it was "pagan." these are people's actions. This is not what christianity in general teaches us. Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek. We are to be humble and loving to anyone and everyone. Yeah, that worked so well against the Nazis in WW2. Just to name one group... The Holocaust would have never happened if it were not for the support of the Christians...Hitler was a Christian as well and used his religion to justify killing 6 million Jews....among others he killed gays and mentally challenged people. Here's him with his own Pope: (Pius VII)  Hitler was a Darwanist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sun 01/31/10 03:04 PM
|
|
This is not Christ like, and I am sorry these are the types of experiences you have had. In trying to follow the example of Christ, I do not feel superior to anyone, I feel we all sin and that is mostly what I get the most flack about. I never say that I am better than anyone because I dont believe I am. I do aknowledge wrong from right though, regardless of if I am the transgressor or someone else,, and I get flack for that as well. Actually it is Christ like because it is the practice of Christians. Christianity cannot teach equality because it teaches divisiveness ie "my religion is the one true and right religion", it teaches superiority ie "some humans will go to hell because of what they believe but it won't be me the great Christian", it teaches hypocrisy ie "I am not held responsible for my sins because I go to church on Sunday and get forgiven" Until religions embrace all other religions and non religious as equal and deserving of heaven including all sexual orientations they will be discriminatory and not healthy for humans to follow. This is flawed logic in my opinion. First,Christ like means like Christ, of whom there was only one,, not like any and every one who claims to be christian. I dont believe anyones RELIGION(religious title or affiliation) makes them any better or worse than anyone else. It is how we live our lives that will be judged by God , not what title we give ourself. I also dont believe I know who will go to heaven or who will not, I was taught that only God knows or will decide. I do know the paths that Christ set out for us to follow and I choose that path hoping to reach the destination I seek. I also have never not felt responsible for sin, forgiveness doesnt absolve one of responsibility and I was never taught this either. I embrace religious beliefs, I dont embrace all actions and words anymore than a non religious person does. I dont think it would be healthy to have an everything is fine to do attitude(regardless of religious or non religious affiliation). I do think there are paths to heaven and paths which dont lead to heaven, just as some paths will get me from Las Vegas to Los Angeles and others wont. If I am trying to get to Los Angeles, I just follow those paths,, it doesnt mean I feel better than those trying to get to Arizona, or those trying to get to Los Angeles by way of Indianapolis. I just feel we all choose different paths and they dont all end up at the same destination. You did not dispute any of what I stated on my post...lol There is no way around the divisiveness, superiority and hypocrisy of the religion. I am glad that you feel as though you are doing yourself a favor by believing it. Humans are not better off because of religion. It hasn't done anything to help the human condition at all. I am not here just for dispute. I am also here to share. I, as a christian, read many blatantly false things in these posts about what I supposedly was taught to believe. I just try to clarify what is the truth from what is broad generalization. Humans are no worse off because of religion. Humans would commit all the atrocities they commit without religion, they would just find some other scapegoat to blame it on besides personal responsibility. Funny, since christians are being labeled in this thread as those who dont take personal responsibility but the same people are claiming that they do horrible things not because of who they are personally but because they are christian....cant have it both ways I take full responsibility for my actions, I use Gods laws as a guide just as others use mans laws. When I do things wrong, it is not the fault of laws existing,, it is just my personal bad choice. I'll admit I do see christians, on the whole, as being inherently evil. Though this is not a predjudice w/o cause, I assure you. I've known far too many professed "good" christains who had no problems commiting blantantly evil acts. And history is repleat with such examples. And that pretty much goes for just about anyone with a belief system that has a godthing or things at it's head. However, I do make the effort to take into account any individuals actions or words. I have to disagree with you on the "fault of the laws existing" thing. There have been many many bad laws in human history that good people should've and indeed have, railed against. If I had been born in the mid 1800's or before, I would've been proud to break laws to free slaves. And I would've been quite happy to kill slave owners to do it too. I would've defended indians, women, or whatever group of intelligent lifeforms were being oppressed or enslaved. The laws be damned. God's or man's. Which brings me to another point, christianity has been an excuse for slavery and the oppression of women. For almost it's entire history. Doesn't that bother you? Actually - what is historically accurate is that were it not for two devoted Christians - there would still be slavery in England and in America. Christianity is not responsible for the creation or furtherance of slavery - but for the irratication of it. whatever you say eljay...lol Well - you've got Wilberforce (or however you spell it) in England - and Lincoln in the USA. Or perhaps you've never heard of these two men. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am assuming no such thing. An atheist is a person who believes in SOMETHING. But God is no one of them. The term atheist means a person who has no belief in God. Any other beliefs you think he may have that you think goes along with that is your own assumption and interpretation of the word. JB is correct. We can say that atheists have beliefs simply because they are human, not because they are atheists. There is only one belief universal to 'strong atheists' (the positive belief in the nonexistence of deities) , and there are no beliefs universal to 'weak atheists'. But you are assuming that an Atheist is without belief - however this is not true. The religion of most - if not all atheists is Secular Humanism, and if not that - it's Uniformalism. Just because a "God" isn't involved, or believed in - does not mean there isn't a "religion" present. This sounds like Fundamentalist Christian Kool Aid to me. If you are talking about a Secular Humanist, the intelligent thing to do is to say "Secular Humanist." To say "atheist" when you mean "Secular Humanist" is both dishonest and contrary to an intelligent development of thought, IMO. Its obvious to me, from listening to tons of Christian talk radio and reading many books on apologetics (intended for lay people, not theologians) that there is a massive trend of Fundamentalists Christians continuously repeating bizarre ideas, promoting false logic, and taking arguments out of their original context to obtain a kind of 'mass hypnosis' of the ridiculous . Saying that "atheism is a religion" is one of those phrases/memes/beliefs. It is complete an total nonsense, and obviously so if you just take a look at words composing the sentence. There are similar statements that an honest and intelligent person could make.... such as, "it looks like all humans, including atheists, have a belief system of some sort" or "it looks like all humans, including atheists, take a lot of their belief system on faith" or "many atheists participate in some cultural phenemona that are atheist in nature and yet which have the same qualities of religions" and on and on. Saying that "atheism is a religion" is at least as foolish as saying that "theism is a religion". Forgive my being absent, and trying to catch up here..... As I said in the second part of the post to Jeannie - that it is a matter of semantics. The issue is not one of defining an "Atheist" - I think Jeannie nailed it. However - What is at issue is what one considers "religion" and how one equates an Atheist's not believing in a "deity" to not being religious, and therefore not "quilty" of the OP's original accusation. Which is the point I'm trying to make. I've never met an Atheist who was not religious. And I lived in Harvard Square for years - and have met more than my share of strong-atheists, weak-atheists, strong agnostics, weak agnostics, agnostic-atheists, and atheistic-agnostics. Never met anyone who didn't believe in some religion or another. y'know, I was gonna comment on this...but what's the point? Such complete absurdity boggles my mind. ... Of course it's not as absurd as your statement - given that you commented on the post. So - next time - just comment, and you won't look like you don't know what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am always amazed at how some people attempt to discredit the interpretation of certain scripture(s) by claiming it is taken 'out of context'. Tell me please - anyone who believes - in exactly WHAT context is mercilessly killing women and children to be considered as 'good'? That is in the OT and most Christians conveniently dismiss the OT as "no longer applying". Which, if it no longer applies, why is it still a part of their Bible? it is in the bible still for mainly history of everything. Knowing the past is just as important and knowing the present and future. With knowing the past you can learn from others mistakes and not do the same things they did. Nothing is ever acheived by doing the same things looking for a different result, just doesn't work that way. So the past is put their so that we can learn from that and lead our personal lives in a better direction. Are you saying that those who mercilessly killed women and children because God commanded them to do such a thing(which is exactly what the Bible claims) made a mistake? What exactly do you mean by "mercilessly killing" - and what are you using to support your perception? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's amusing but shocking as well that some take the bible so literally. It's a book of contradictions that keeps it's readers confused and easily mis-led. It's no wonder that almost all conflicts and discriminations are created from it's writings.  "Is it any wonder the monkey's confused"...Roger Waters Here's the link, pick your favorites: http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/babble "For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12) "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4) "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31) "Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14) "And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18) "the whole world is under control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19) And Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world." (John 9:39) "I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47) "Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) We should fear God (Matthew 10:28) We should love God (Matthew 22:37) There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18) ~~~ "But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Mat 5:22 "You fools!" (Jesus) Luke 11:40 "You blind fools!" (Jesus) Mat 23:17 "How foolish you are" (Jesus) Luke 24:25 "But God said to him, 'You fool!' " (Jesus) Luke 12:20 "You foolish Galatians!" (St. Paul) Galatians 3:1 "You foolish man" James 2:20 Okay - now pay attention everybody. Here is a perfect example of Middle Earth practicing the very thing he preaches against. His major concerns about religion upset him so much - because he is the biggest practicioner of their cultish methods. Notice how he sets up a premise and goes out and finds the passages that support his argument - as though assuming his interpretation is trustworthy. The only problem I see with religion Middle Earth - is your continual practice of the aspects that make it dangerous. Maybe you should take the time someday and read the book for yourself - and this way you can formulate your own opinion - instead of blindly following the opinion of those Atheistic disciples that you so worship. my, but what a condecending little prick of post that is. You think? Sometimes one must communicate in the only language the listener will understand. Or in this case - the language of the OP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
religious extreemist members
Edited by
Eljay
on
Wed 01/27/10 07:12 PM
|
|
i find it odd that some members here talk like religious extreemists in the topic sections. but if they were actualy fundamentalists they wouldnt have accounts here. there just hipacrits who want it both ways. i know im going to get some hate mail for this one but i dont care. i say they need to pick a side. no matter how you try to jusafy it this is against the fundamentalist teachings of any major religion. modeates need not send hate mail this dosnt apply to you. okay - so I plowed through the spelling errors. Still trying to figure out what the $%^&&^%% you're talking about. Could you explain the part about "wouldn't have accounts here" - why is that again?..... And I assume you are refering to Fundamentalist New Agers and Secular Humanists as well. I would think a Fundamentalist Satanist would have a field day here. This is exactly where they belong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
religious extreemist members
|
|
I understand the question. why are people acting double sided, feeding both sides. I dont even know how people do it. I am on the side of doubt, I find it hard to believe that A supreme being creates faulty products (humans) and then blames them for being the way they are. truth be told, if you are a creator of anything, and there are flaws in your creation. the flaws in the creation REFLECT flaws in the creator. if there are flaws in the creator then the creator cannot be all powerful. so therefore, the idea of god is a flaw because It was made with the human Mind. God therefore didnt make humans, humans made God Could you enlighten us on what it is that God created in man that is a flaw, and not something that is a result of the choices of man and the degradation of the planet, society, and his physical well being which are a result of the choices of man and not the creation of God? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bible was written to be ambiguous so it can be interpreted to mean a whole lot of things....lol To say anyone has a grasp on it shows that some people have only studied it with biased view to begin with, which doesn't allow them to view it objectively. You sound like one of those supreme court idiots who thought the first amendment said anything about separation of church and state. I think you've got it wrong. The constitution is supposed to be a "living breathing document" - although you won't find that quoted from a single founding father. On the other hand - the bible is set in stone, and doesn't change "one jot or tittle". Interpretations may change, but there's nothing to verify the truth behind interpretation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's amusing but shocking as well that some take the bible so literally. It's a book of contradictions that keeps it's readers confused and easily mis-led. It's no wonder that almost all conflicts and discriminations are created from it's writings. "Is it any wonder the monkey's confused"...Roger Waters Here's the link, pick your favorites: http://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/babble "For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12) "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4) "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31) "Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14) "And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18) "the whole world is under control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19) And Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world." (John 9:39) "I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47) "Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) We should fear God (Matthew 10:28) We should love God (Matthew 22:37) There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18) ~~~ "But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Mat 5:22 "You fools!" (Jesus) Luke 11:40 "You blind fools!" (Jesus) Mat 23:17 "How foolish you are" (Jesus) Luke 24:25 "But God said to him, 'You fool!' " (Jesus) Luke 12:20 "You foolish Galatians!" (St. Paul) Galatians 3:1 "You foolish man" James 2:20 Okay - now pay attention everybody. Here is a perfect example of Middle Earth practicing the very thing he preaches against. His major concerns about religion upset him so much - because he is the biggest practicioner of their cultish methods. Notice how he sets up a premise and goes out and finds the passages that support his argument - as though assuming his interpretation is trustworthy. The only problem I see with religion Middle Earth - is your continual practice of the aspects that make it dangerous. Maybe you should take the time someday and read the book for yourself - and this way you can formulate your own opinion - instead of blindly following the opinion of those Atheistic disciples that you so worship. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
