100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Religion Endangers Humanity And Its Future | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Each has their own perception, thank God for diversity..how boring life we be if we all thought the same way...  boring, but more logical, if it was my way.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Well of course, if a religion's "bible" were ignored then it'd just be a book on a shelf but that's not the reality. Some people cannot take a schit without a Psalm...and sure good things have been done in the name of religion...er, but those same good things could have easily been done and are done by anyone with a good heart, has nothing to do with religion unless you deceive to think that a person must have a religion to be a good person. As long as any religion has power there will NEVER be peace on this planet. As long as people vote their faith, like the German people did to elect Hitler and the American Christians did to elect/install the Dippic then we will continue to be at the mercy of wars pigs, discriminations, and stagnations in progressing our species on this planet. Enough already... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Abstinence Only is NOT good sex education in our schools Gays are born gay and gay marraige will not destroy society Stim cell research is ethical and moral The devil did not send an earthquake to Haiti etc etc etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Abstinence Only is NOT good sex education in our schools Gays are born gay and gay marraige will not destroy society Stim cell research is ethical and moral The devil did not send an earthquake to Haiti etc etc etc. Abstinence is good education in our schools. If everyone did as they were suppose to and was with only 1 person there would be no such thing as STD's. Stim cell research is not ethical or moral, that is trying to be God. Cloning is absolutely wrong, those people will not be made with souls cause they were not created by God if and when they get cloning right. Gays are born gays that is a fact. That does not meen they have to induldge in homosexuality. They would just be faced with a hard life of abstanence. Regardless if being homosexual is in the DNA or not, it is still against God. Heck since you are all for allowing gays marry because it is in their DNA to be queer, why not let pysco's go around killing people? it's not different it is in their DNA for some. How do you know the devil didn't send the earthquake? Doesn't it seem strange to you how weather most every where is getting worse? With hurricanes, earthquakes, ect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MiddleEarthling
on
Sun 01/31/10 03:30 PM
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution is TRUE Unprovable. Certainly not a "fact" - since it is impossible to prove scientifically. IMO both pro and con are likely to spin their wheels in the mud of misunderstandings when they speak casually yet definitively of 'evolution' as if the word mapped to a single idea whose clear and specific definition was applied universally. I have no idea if any of the 'authoritative' definitions on this page ought to be consider canonical, but this page has an some interesting comments on the inadequacy of 'common' definitions. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Mon 02/01/10 12:58 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. http://www.aaas.org/ Back on topic!  "Jesus teaches us how to turn the cheek and forgive those who trespass against us... "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father." [Matt. x, 33.] "Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness." [Mark iii, 29.] "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee ... tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." [Matt. xviii, 15-17.]" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
