Don't you have this totally backwards?

Religious people are the ones who need a daddy and can't face life on their own.

Eljay brought up the "Sin Problem"

Seriously, who do you think a genuine God would appreciate more,...

An atheist who does everything right simply because it's who they truly are,...

Or a religious person who is only curbing their desire to be nasty because of fear of punishment or lust of a reward?

Religious people are the one's who have no self-responsibility.

They are the one's who can't keep their own underware clean and feel they need to wear a savior as a diaper.

And even then they appear to be constantly falling down because they can't seem to walk on their own. Always praying for strength because they have none of their own.

Religion is nothing more than a crutch for people who can't deal with life directly.

I feel bad that I wrote this because I know that many people will find it highly offensive. It truly wasn't written with the heartless malice it appears to imply. I was merely responding in kind to a comment that non-religious people need a mommy to wash their underwear. I was just reflecting the same metaphor.

I’m truly a non emotional person. I don’t get upset with what anyone says. But I often use their own imagery as a mirror. It’s not my intent to purposefully upset people.

For me it’s a totally non-emotional subject. Even when I say that I ‘hate’ the religion I say that in the same way that I would say that I ‘hate’ cancer. It’s not the same kind of hate that you would have toward a sentient being. It’s not that kind of ‘hate’. I don’t hate Christians. I ‘hate’ the mythology they believe in and the terrible influence it has had on humanity over the millennia.

I forgive you, and the goddess forgives you, now go wash your underwear.

(or poo-poo undies, ~as they were called in the movie "Young Frankenstein"

JB

It's funny this came up, because that's exactly what I'm off to do right now. No joke!

I just came back from the spring with a load of water specifically to do my laundry and the first first load is going to be my underwear.

I'm off to put it in the machine right this very minute. Seriously! It's true.

hmmm don't you get it? it's not just the christian religion thats a sham - its "ALL" organized religions that are shams.man made farces.If man has had a hand in it it is not to be trusted. there is no organized religion i will ever accept as "the truth" there are no words in books or spoken that if man has put them forth as ultimate truths that are worth my or anyones time. The only truths that exsist are self evident, they need no defense, they need no one to believe them - they could give a crap less if anyone even cares about them - "they just are" - "natural truth's" are all i can or will believe "ever". Everything else is a spiritual and mental meatmarket of proverbial canard's.

squawked Rapunzel..as she dreamed of her love ones being tortured in Hell's fire

That’s true. But some religions are less harmful than others. Take Buddhism as an example. It doesn’t really matter whether the religion is true or false. It’s not demanding that everyone believe in it or be shunned by the religion because they have rejected its God.

I see nothing harmful with spiritualities that make no demands upon people to believe in them.

It’s the religions that claim that their gods are the ultimately authoritarian and if you reject their religion you are being rebellious and rejecting their God. Those are the harmful hateful religions.

All the religions that are based on the biblical picture of God are necessarily of this type because the biblical picture of God is a picture of an ultimate authoritarian who gets angry and hateful when people disobey his wishes.

This would include all of the religions that are based on the Mediterranean folklores. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They are ultimately all the same religion that just fell into three major parts. But their premise of an authoritarian jealous God who hates non-believers is the same.

I think that religions that are based on spirituality aren’t harmful. People can take them or leave them with no ill effects.

However, when a person rejects any of the religions that are based on a jealous authoritarian godhead all hell breaks. They are shunned by the believers of that religion. They are told that they are rejecting God, siding with demonic forces, possessed by the devil and all sorts of terrible things.

It’s ultimately the notion of a single authoritarian godhead who shuns anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship him that is the problem. How can those religions not help but become the focus of political and social unrest. They ultimately spread brother hate and intolerance, under the façade of pretending to worship an authoritarian godhead.

Those kinds of religions create hate, and call it love.

Hmmm... So, I see Christianity has been reduced to a religion that stones it's unruly children. Therefore, it can't be valid, and should be abandoned.

I wish I could say I admire this logical and critical thinking.

Really, you think you've got a grasp of Christianity?

Reduced?

You're funny Eljay.

Over the past year I have given literally hundreds of reasons why Christianity can't possibly be true and now you're trying to pretend that my rejection of Christianity is based on a single absurdity.

Do you really want me to list the myriad reasons why it can't possibly be true?

I think I will write up a summary post. Then every time someone tries to make it appear that I've reduced Christianity to just one stupidity I'll post an extremely long list of reasons why it can't be true. The fact that God commanded us to stone children certainly being one of them.

I should have thought of this a long time ago. I'll go make that post up right now, and I'll be back to post it, and then I'll start posting it over and over and over again just for fun.

Thanks for the idea.

i stand by what i say abra, i've had a few more years to look at it all - it's not a hard conclusion to come to - man;s religion's / spirituality is no good what ever type it is or whether you can walk away from it or not - but you my friend as other's have the freedom to do as you will. but what you follow as i and JB is only your truth - not "the truth"

Who ever claimed it is?

I don't claim to know the truth of our spiritual essence. For all I know atheists are correct. I can't deny atheism.

I have never claimed to know truth.

The only thing I claim is that the biblical picture of God can't be true for two reason,..

1. A genuinely all-wise supreme being couldn't possibly be as stupid as the bible makes it out to be.

2. The book is full of self-contraditions.

We may not be able to know what is true, but we can clearly see what must be false.

That's where I'm coming from Tribo.

~~~

I should add here that I often suggest pantheism as a spiritual alternative for those people who see that the biblical picture can't be true but still seek a spiritual picture. They can turn to pantheism instead of atheism if they so choose. Pantheism actually makes much more sense then the bible and it hasn't been contradicted yet.

thnx for clearing up the last part stated for that was what i was refferingto

well "Eljay" it's apparent that you don't have a grasp of Christianity either as you try to be deceptive by presenting your illusions of denial...

your first illusion of denial was when you tried to give the illusion that the purpose of Hell was not to torture non-believers and then your second illusion of denial was when you try to create the illusion that God is not the CEO in charge of who get's tortured

all you need is one more illusion of denial and you'll be tied with St. Peter

Tribo;

Actually - it's LJ.

Yes, we did travel a similar path - up until the "contradictions" phase. I too wondered about that, but I did not rely on my own sense of logic to justify it, or dismiss it. I continued my research on it, and discovered the term "exegesis". I realized that conclusions needed to come from total examination of scripture, rather than matching one up against the other. (Case in point - the two different genieologies in Matthew and Luke) Suddenly, apparent contradictions just weren't so, but were merely two different ways of saying the same thing. But the most important thing I discovered was that I did not blindly accept others perceptions.

I don't disagree with you on what organized religion has become.
Too many self centered, egotistical pseudo-Christians leading others astray from the pulpet. But that's the way it is with "man". Be it religion, politics, education... I do disagree with you on the "needing the book". Unless your reference is that one needs the book to understand Christianity.
It would be difficult not to have anything but a subjective understanding of the God who claims to be the creator, and the plans for his creation without it. Else you have "organized religion".

Tribo;

Actually - it's LJ.

Yes, we did travel a similar path - up until the "contradictions" phase. I too wondered about that, but I did not rely on my own sense of logic to justify it, or dismiss it. I continued my research on it, and discovered the term "exegesis". I realized that conclusions needed to come from total examination of scripture, rather than matching one up against the other. (Case in point - the two different genieologies in Matthew and Luke) Suddenly, apparent contradictions just weren't so, but were merely two different ways of saying the same thing. But the most important thing I discovered was that I did not blindly accept others perceptions.

I don't disagree with you on what organized religion has become.
Too many self centered, egotistical pseudo-Christians leading others astray from the pulpit. But that's the way it is with "man". Be it religion, politics, education... I do disagree with you on the "needing the book". Unless your reference is that one needs the book to understand Christianity.
It would be difficult not to have anything but a subjective understanding of the God who claims to be the creator, and the plans for his creation without it. Else you have "organized religion".

tribo:

sorry "LJ" my apologies,
LJ:

I do disagree with you on the "needing the book". Unless your reference is that one needs the book to understand Christianity.

TRIBO:

One "needs" the "book" to KNOW of god or jesus, yes - but iwas reffering more to your statement that you had found him on your own?

LJ:

It would be difficult not to have anything but a subjective understanding of the God who claims to be the creator, and the plans for his creation without it. Else you have "organized religion".

tribo-

yet that is all they had in the bible before the book? and according to it they believed - even without the new testament -correct? to me that proves that all that was necessary was the first 2 chapters of gensis.

LJ:

and discovered the term "exegesis". I realized that conclusions needed to come from total examination of scripture, rather than matching one up against the other. (Case in point - the two different genieologies in Matthew and Luke) Suddenly, apparent contradictions just weren't so, but were merely two different ways of saying the same thing. But the most important thing I discovered was that I did not blindly accept others perceptions.


tribo:

I'm well aware of "exegisis" i had spent over 8 yrs with the use of hebrew and greek interlinear text and and scores of of exspensive lexicons, dictionary's of ancient languages,concordences,histories, and other related gems of "wisdom and knowledge" it was not just a mere comparison of verses it was an obsession to get to the truth! Since no two pastors or teacher's could agree on answers to question's i put to them. it always ended up that i was to "Pray" and "just have faith" and the holy spirit would reveal all to me??? well - he / it - did not! I have the same unanswered question's now that i had then. nothing has changed- when i stopped believing i got rid of all my books thinking i would never need or use them again - which was true till i started posting here - hahaha - but i would never spend another dime on anything to do with any religious books what so ever.

also if Jesus and the angels will be the ones that will actually throw the non-believers into the fires of Hell...then why is that type of behavior by Jesus acceptable to believers if Jesus's message is supposely one of "Peace"....

doesn't that makes Jesus a hypocrite since he is aiding and abeting in the torture of the love ones of his followers as he preach love peace and forgiveness to those same followers

so again what would be a rational explanation as to why believers would praise such a person as Jesus that is clearly not a man of peace and could even be considered as being evil and what does that state about the mental state of the believers that do

Had you been the only one to post that Abra - I wouldn't have said what I did. But you did not originate that thought, you only parrot-ed it. I give you more credit than merely rejecting Christianity for this absurd notion. I'm actually suprised you threw your hat in the ring on this one.

Funches;

The purpose of hell is for what? To torture non-believers you say. What does the bible say the purpose of hell is for? (Since the concept of hell is a biblical one)

Also, when you say "God" - who are you refering to? The CEO in charge of "who gets tortured" as you put it - is Jesus. If you are going to discuss biblical topics leaving the impresion that you understand them - at least get the facts right.

<<< ElJay >>>