NationStates Jolt Archive

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.

Maybe because Christians are the nly ones that feel they have to force you to belive in Christianity.

Christianity is the most threatening.

It happens, believe me. It just that since Christians are a majority, you hear more about them.

The atheists are also pretty vocal.

Maybe because Christians are the nly ones that feel they have to force you to belive in Christianity.
how do you think religions survive? All major faiths do it in some way or another

Christianity is the most threatening.

I'm gonna regret asking this but what do you base that on?

Christians are a powerful majority in the U.S. I've only run into people who call themselves Christians attempting to convert me and save my soul. I've never experienced a Jew or Muslim attempting to do this.

Let's take a brief look into history... Christians have went on missions to convert people (such as the Indigenous people of the Americas)... Islam did conquer many lands, but did not force Jews and Christians to convert to their religion, but only asked that they recognize their political authority. Jews through out history have been oppressed by many people... and plus they aren't trying to win converts, they just believe they are a chosen people of God.

It's been Christians throughout history that have forced people to convert and not really allowed people to keep their own religions.

The atheists are also pretty vocal.
:confused:
What does that have to do with the question?

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.

I'll answer that simply.

Number of Christians that have attempted to make me embrace jeebus : lots.

Number of members of other religions that have attempted to make me embrace their guy : zip.

They don't get off the hook because they're minorities with me, they get off the hook because they've genuinely never bothered me.

Even when I was in the market for a new religion they never bothered me.

In the western world people go after Christianity the most simply because it's the majority religion and thus the one that has the most influence in public life. I'm sure that some people have it out for Judaism in Israel, or Islam in the middle east (mind you in the latter case it is not so much spoken due to oppressive regimes in those states).

I don't mind 'Christians' so much as the weird 'Jesus-is-God' types, who've managed to do a total 180 spin on much of the best of what Mr. Christ had to offer.

Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.

There are 2 billion Muslims in the world. They are hardly a minority.

I don't mind 'Christians' so much as the weird 'Jesus-is-God' types, who've managed to do a total 180 spin on much of the best of what Mr. Christ had to offer.
Amen :D

Christianity is the most threatening.

Nah, Christians aren't threatening, they just like to tell you you're going to hell a lot, more than a lot...
The Muslims are the ones with a Holy Book encouraging the waging of Jihads against the infidels, which is a bit more than "believe or after you die of life, you will burn in Hell!"

Because Christianity is the most actively recruited religion in the world.

Most religions are content in simply having born adherents, while Christianity has always been a proselytizing religion because it is a religion born from converts.

I never get insane Muslims or Jews etc coming up to me in town trying to convert me. Just insane Christians (no I'm not calling all Christians insane...but its the psycho ones that actually think they can try and change my beliefs.)

Maybe because Christians are the nly ones that feel they have to force you to belive in Christianity.

Are you Christian?

It's just the same as when people refer to racism 90% of the time they'll be refering to white and black racism. That doesn't mean that everyone else in the world doesn't experience racism, just that it is the most commonly recognized one.

With religion, Christianity is the one most known to try and convert others. That or Jehova's (sorry if I spelt it wrong) witnesses... who go knocking on others doors and won't leave you be unless you scare the hell out of them our politely smile and nod the whole time... but that's just my experience.

As Kusarii said, I must admit that I have only ever had Christians attack me for my beliefs and say I'm going to hell. Most other religions I've come up against have either politely accepted my different view point and ignored me, or openly debated in a friendly manner with me. Minus Jehova's wtnesses... actually they kind of scare me. Honestly though any religious zeelot (again sorry for the spelling) scares me half to death. They are the ones who can convince themselves that any action they take in the name of their god, gods, or goddess is correct.

Jews through out history have been oppressed by many people... and plus they aren't trying to win converts, they just believe they are a chosen people of God.

wow... I wonder on which drug were they, when they thought of that idea.

But I guess it's because you mostly hear about christians and stuff. But I also think muslims must have some propaganda, I mean now and then you hear about a movie guy who wanted to be a muslim... well not lately, no movie star wants to be a terrorist... :)

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.

Christians are a minority in some parts of the world, for example in the UK

Second, Christianity is the religion that most of the players here would be familiar with. Islam is no more oxymoronic because Mohammed was a warrior than Christianity is for being the driving force behind the Crusades. That point was immaterial.

I think Jews get off the hook, as it were, because they don't evangelise. Nor do they have this 'holier than thou' attitude, or if they do they keep it to themselves. What REALLY gets people about Christians is the evangelism, the socially conservative side, the hypocrisy and the 'holier than thou' attitude. Sure, people are posting with religion in mind but I'm sure they are really referring to Christianity or Islam.

Because I have access to a bible and not a Koran, because I lived with a Jewish family and never was asked to convert or looked down on for not being Jewish, because a lot of Christians post threads whining about how they're not getting enough attention, because whenever I look there's a thread about Christianity and every time I start a thread it dies, because I used to be Christian so know more about it via forced sunday school, because Christians burned witches and I'm a witch.

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.



Not being sarcastic............but I thought Muhammad was a camel trader??

Not being sarcastic............but I thought Muhammad was a camel trader??

Muhammad was known as a 'leader of jihad' for a reason...

In the western world people go after Christianity the most simply because it's the majority religion and thus the one that has the most influence in public life. I'm sure that some people have it out for Judaism in Israel, or Islam in the middle east (mind you in the latter case it is not so much spoken due to oppressive regimes in those states).

Exactly, well said, huzzah. so on and so forth.

In the western world people go after Christianity the most simply because it's the majority religion and thus the one that has the most influence in public life. I'm sure that some people have it out for Judaism in Israel, or Islam in the middle east (mind you in the latter case it is not so much spoken due to oppressive regimes in those states).

I'd say that it's not so much that, but more the attitude Christianity has towards non-christians.

Alot of what you guys are saying is wrong your just saying stuff.
Most of you dont have muslims trying to convert you because they dont know you or live near you. How many muslims actually know you, this may be racist but generally muslims are arabic or simmilar. Now they would try and convert other people of there culture. How many of you try and tell other cultures about your religon/belive versus people of oyur own culture. Now i live in a place with alot of multicultirism so to be safe most people dont try and spread there faith to much as to not offend people.

I have to say christains are not the most threatning people. What happens when you try and tell people about christainity or any other religion except Islam... Thye chop your head off or throw you in jail. What about the Hindus they masacerd the Sikhs(sp). Now chiristains arent perfect either there was the crusades.. but every religion has bad people in it, there is the Islamic extremists that blow stuff up... they do not represent the majority either do many of these christains. Also dont confuse Mourmins and Jahova Witnesses with christains they claim to belive the same thing but its not and those are very often the "bible thumping" people.

There is alos the fact that in the bible it says go out into the world and spread the gospel, well thats what there trying to do. Maybe its not he most effective but they are trying.

Back to the original question, I think its mainly because the majority of peoplw voiceing things about there religion on this forum are christain. If this was a community that spoke arabic mostlikely there would be more muslims, if it was hebrew more jewish people...

Maybe because Christians are the nly ones that feel they have to force you to belive in Christianity.
No, Muslims would do the same thing, except.. it'd get hostile. Jews don't want to be a Jew, but no, Muslims prosletyze just as Christians do. If their countries were more wealthy and civilized, you'd have a bunch of Koran-thumpers.

Maybe because Christians are the nly ones that feel they have to force you to belive in Christianity.

Funny, I cant think of any Christian countries that say you have to be Christian to be a citizen? I can think of at least one Muslim country where thats true though.

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.
Exactly. Every time I say that I am religious, and that my beliefs are based on it, people say I'm christian. No I am not, I am Jewish. And no, I am not trying to convert you, I am just arguing my point against abortion/homosexuality/michael schiavo/etc based on the viewpoint of the Torah.

wow... I wonder on which drug were they, when they thought of that idea.

But I guess it's because you mostly hear about christians and stuff. But I also think muslims must have some propaganda, I mean now and then you hear about a movie guy who wanted to be a muslim... well not lately, no movie star wants to be a terrorist... :)
No drug, it says so in the Torah.

Funny, I cant think of any Christian countries that say you have to be Christian to be a citizen? I can think of at least one Muslim country where thats true though.

There's a reason for that: In almost every Western Democracy 'Christianity' is the main religion, but most people are pretty agnostic and apathetic towards it. The devout/practising Christians are the big minority.

I'd say that it's not so much that, but more the attitude Christianity has towards non-christians.
You can't generalise about Christians. The moderate/liberal majority of Christians are quite tolerant of non-Christians. It's really only the fundamentalists who rave about how non-Christians are going to burn in hell, and these types often even go after liberal Christians too.

Christianity is a religion that by definition does not compromise, is very evangelical, and isn't afraid to tell you that you are wrong.

Others see that as closeminded, agressive, and arrogant.

Oh, and Willamena summed it up quite nicely. We're a threat to their conscience because we tell them that they can't do things that they want to do.

Christianity is a religion that by definition does not compromise, is very evangelical, and isn't afraid to tell you that you are wrong.

Others see that as closeminded, agressive, and arrogant.

Oh, and Willamena summed it up quite nicely. We're a threat to their conscience because we tell them that they can't do things that they want to do.

Who are you to tell people what is wrong and what is right? It is arrogant, close-minded and aggressive because you have no proof behind you. neither do atheists, but that's not the point.

You have only the authority of a Latin-translated semi-fiction behind you, which YOU believe to be the word of God. Christians are a threat to Non-christians in the same way that the mentally unstable are a threat to the mentally stable: It's creepy. Not because we feel 'guilty'.

Don't intepret the behaviour of non-christians incorrectly to suit your own opinions.

Who are you to tell people what is wrong and what is right? It is arrogant, close-minded and aggressive because you have no proof behind you. neither do atheists, but that's not the point.
Actually, I do. And so do they.
Which could spawn an entire series of threads. But I'll not go into that.

BTW, the authority that I have to tell people they are wrong is the same authority you have to tell people that 2+2=4. Who are you to tell me that 2+2 isn't 5? The truth is the truth, like it or not.

You have only the authority of a Latin-translated semi-fiction behind you, which YOU believe to be the word of God.
And you probably believe a lot of things that I choose not to believe. That does not make either one of us right, it just makes us have faith in something.

Christians are a threat to Non-christians in the same way that the mentally unstable are a threat to the mentally stable: It's creepy. Not because we feel 'guilty'.
Or perhaps Christians are a threat to your carefully constructed fantasy world. Perhaps it is you who is mentally unstable and resisting the push back into reality.

We could go on like this for days. It proves nothing other than we both have faith and we're both good at insulting the other.

Don't intepret the behaviour of non-christians incorrectly to suit your own opinions.
Don't interpret the behaviour of Christians incorrectly to suit your own opinions.

And how did I interpret it incorrectly? You told me yourself that you think we are closeminded, arrogant, and a threat.

Again, this proves nothing other than we're good at throwing clever quips at each other. I would love to find out which one of us is the cleverer quipper, but perhaps we should leave that to another time, since it wouldn't prove anything, yes?

Christians are a minority in some parts of the world, for example in the UK

Er... Since when is 71.6% of the population (2001 census) a minority?

Who are you to tell people what is wrong and what is right? It is arrogant, close-minded and aggressive because you have no proof behind you. neither do atheists, but that's not the point.

You have only the authority of a Latin-translated semi-fiction behind you, which YOU believe to be the word of God. Christians are a threat to Non-christians in the same way that the mentally unstable are a threat to the mentally stable: It's creepy. Not because we feel 'guilty'.

Don't intepret the behaviour of non-christians incorrectly to suit your own opinions.

WEll you can look at it that way or you can see it from another perspective. We are telling you what we think is wrong and then you fell threatend because deep down you know to some degree we/they are right.

You have to agree you have or atleast had a conscience. How do little children know that abuse is bad that murder is bad that lying is bad. Either there parents tell them or the conscience does, many people grow in a disfunctioanl home were they are not taught propper things but they still know that it is wrong.

Actually, I do. And so do they.
Which could spawn an entire series of threads. But I'll not go into that.

BTW, the authority that I have to tell people they are wrong is the same authority you have to tell people that 2+2=4. Who are you to tell me that 2+2 isn't 5? The truth is the truth, like it or not.


And you probably believe a lot of things that I choose not to believe. That does not make either one of us right, it just makes us have faith in something.


Or perhaps Christians are a threat to your carefully constructed fantasy world. Perhaps it is you who is mentally unstable and resisting the push back into reality.

We could go on like this for days. It proves nothing other than we both have faith and we're both good at insulting the other.


Don't interpret the behaviour of Christians incorrectly to suit your own opinions.

And how did I interpret it incorrectly? You told me yourself that you think we are closeminded, arrogant, and a threat.

Again, this proves nothing other than we're good at throwing clever quips at each other. I would love to find out which one of us is the cleverer quipper, but perhaps we should leave that to another time, since it wouldn't prove anything, yes?


Both of you are idiots.

Neither of you is 100% right. There's no call to attack someone else's faith, and there's no call to be smug and superior and "Well you'r ejust plain wrong because my way is the Truth" (you may be right, BUT, it really pisses people off when you act arrogant)

Er... Since when is 71.6% of the population (2001 census) a minority?

See the Christian by name thread on the general board. I can't be bothered to go into it. That said, the other 30% is mostly atheists/agnostics...but anyway, see the thread.

Christianity is a religion that by definition does not compromise, is very evangelical, and isn't afraid to tell you that you are wrong.

Others see that as closeminded, agressive, and arrogant.

Oh, and Willamena summed it up quite nicely. We're a threat to their conscience because we tell them that they can't do things that they want to do.


Christianity is perhaps the least close minded Judaic(SP?) religion, Chekt. Yeah, some of its followers aren't the most open minded, but Christianity as a religion has gone through so many changes to allow OTHER beliefs so that OTHERS would be more happy with the religion.

If you want to talk about aggressive, Islam is definitely the most aggressive religion. Yeah, Christians like to go from door to door selling bibles and preaching armaggedon, but since Islam was founded, it has waged Jihads throughout pretty much all of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Africa. That's one of the reasons Islam spread so rapdily, by the sword. Oh, and yeah, Christianity launched some Crusades, but how many, 4, 5? Islam has been launching Jihad after Jihad since its beginnings....

Arrogant? Not really, as said before, the religion Christianity itself has gone through a lot of changes to incorporate the common beliefs of others just so they would believe. And yeah, there are some pretty arrogant bastards that follow Christianity, but you can find those in Islam, Judaism, and even Athiesm.

Both of you are idiots.

Neither of you is 100% right. There's no call to attack someone else's faith, and there's no call to be smug and superior and "Well you'r ejust plain wrong because my way is the Truth" (you may be right, BUT, it really pisses people off when you act arrogant)
I never said I was, nor did I ever tell him he was wrong because I said so.

In fact, I haven't even said he was wrong. ;)

I never said I was, nor did I ever tell him he was wrong because I said so.

In fact, I haven't even said he was wrong. ;)

You called his beliefs a "fantasy world" and said "the truth is the truth, like it or not" with regards to your own beliefs. That's uncalled for.

See the Christian by name thread on the general board. I can't be bothered to go into it. That said, the other 30% is mostly atheists/agnostics...but anyway, see the thread.

So what? It doesn't make Christianity a minority in the UK, compared to any other country. There are churches everywhere, usually more than one in each town, and almost all of which have regularly attended services.

If you want to cite a country in which Christians are a minority, the UK is an incredibly poor example. Try Azerbaijan.

You called his beliefs a "fantasy world" and said "the truth is the truth, like it or not" with regards to your own beliefs. That's uncalled for.
I said perhaps his beliefs are a fantasy world, which is no worse than him saying that I'm mentally unstable for being a Christian.
In any case, I merely submitted an idea for thought, and left a clear opening: Perhaps, as in, maybe, not definitely. Maybe it's a fantasy, but maybe not.

And the truth is the truth. I did not say what the truth was. If he is right than he is right and there is nothing I can do about it. If I am right than I am right and there is nothing he can do about it. Believing one way or the other does not make it any more true, and not believing one way does not make it any less true.
But again, I never said Christianity was the truth. I just said there was a truth.

You hear mostly about Christians because Christianity was the dominant religion in the Western World for about 1500 years, and we live in the Western World. Also, Christians is a very big generalization because around 70% of those people who go about door to door are either Mormon or Jehovah's Witness (which is a Christian religion I believe). Muslims are not really a minority, as there are about 1.48 billion of them in the world. Historically, when a Muslim country took over a country, they would force those of other religions to convert or go to prison. They were very aggressive in the earlier years, and the Crusades were called because the Byzantium Empire asked Rome to help them when they came under attack. They also got out of hand and caused the deaths of many needlessly. The reason that Christianity is thoe one that is challenged is because the people questioning are too ignorant to know anything of other religions, and usually know next to nothing about Christianity either. In response to an earlier post, I would like to clarify that it would only be Muslim extremist governments and terrorists who cut off peoples heads.
Christianity, and especially Catholicism, are attacked because they usually have hard-line stances on socially unacceptable doctrines, like birth-control, abortion, and premarital sex. By them saying you shouldn't do these things, many people feel threatened as they are taught in school that these things are fine, and so they rebel, and feel that a Christian belief is utterly uninformed if they support such doctrines, and so they try to undermine that, because they feel society cannot be wrong.

So what? It doesn't make Christianity a minority in the UK, compared to any other country. There are churches everywhere, usually more than one in each town, and almost all of which have regularly attended services.

If you want to cite a country in which Christians are a minority, the UK is an incredibly poor example. Try Azerbaijan.
Actually, Christians are a minority in most places. They say 60-some% of Americans claim to be Christian.
Of that, only 50-some% actually believe that Jesus is God's son, which is kind of important to Christianity, don't you think? Of that original 60%, only about 33% are actually Christians.

Todays teens are only 2% real Christ beleivers. That is in America. It is sad how much lost faith there is.

Maybe because Christians are the nly ones that feel they have to force you to belive in Christianity.
Perhaps you could explain what a "Jihad" is for us all then?

Just in case...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Jihad

Thanks,
Gaar

this may be racist but generally muslims are arabic or simmilar

Less than 15% of the world's Muslims are Arabic.

Christians are usually the ones debating with us, so it seems appropriate to debate each others views.

I said perhaps his beliefs are a fantasy world, which is no worse than him saying that I'm mentally unstable for being a Christian.
In any case, I merely submitted an idea for thought, and left a clear opening: Perhaps, as in, maybe, not definitely. Maybe it's a fantasy, but maybe not.

And the truth is the truth. I did not say what the truth was. If he is right than he is right and there is nothing I can do about it. If I am right than I am right and there is nothing he can do about it. Believing one way or the other does not make it any more true, and not believing one way does not make it any less true.
But again, I never said Christianity was the truth. I just said there was a truth.

One, I said you'r eboth idiots, him for calling you mentally unstable as much as you.

Two, not true. You said PERHAPS he was upset because it was disrupting his fantasy. That implies that here is a fantasy and what is possible is that it disrupts it

Less than 15% of the world's Muslims are Arabic.
In fact Indonesia has the largest Muslim population.

Actually, Christians are a minority in most places. They say 60-some% of Americans claim to be Christian.
Of that, only 50-some% actually believe that Jesus is God's son, which is kind of important to Christianity, don't you think? Of that original 60%, only about 33% are actually Christians.

Well, no, you could belive that Jesus is God-made-man, thus God, thus preserving the monotheism nicely, and that "son" is a metaphor

There is alos the fact that in the bible it says go out into the world and spread the gospel, well thats what there trying to do. Maybe its not he most effective but they are trying.

There is a difference between spreading the gospel and attempting to force your own particular interpretation of it upon other people. There is not enough of the former and too much of the latter going on.

Meanwhile, I *do* know Muslims, and while I have had some good religious conversations with them, none have actively tried to convert me, but have respected my views and I respect theirs.

In fact Indonesia has the largest Muslim population.

Couple more tsunamis and that could change. :(

Christianity, and especially Catholicism, are attacked because they usually have hard-line stances on socially unacceptable doctrines, like birth-control, abortion, and premarital sex. By them saying you shouldn't do these things, many people feel threatened as they are taught in school that these things are fine, and so they rebel, and feel that a Christian belief is utterly uninformed if they support such doctrines, and so they try to undermine that, because they feel society cannot be wrong.

Someone taught you in school that "premarital sex is fine"?

Well, no, you could belive that Jesus is God-made-man, thus God, thus preserving the monotheism nicely, and that "son" is a metaphor
Which isn't Christian. If you do not believe Jesus is God's son, than the rest of the story falls away. If you do not believe Jesus is God's son than you are not a true Christian. Close, very close, but not quite it.

Someone taught you in school that "premarital sex is fine"?
Quite. The attitude I seem to receive is, as long as you don't get pregnant or STDs, sex is ok. Age of consent aside, obviously.
Freud had the whole sexual repression idea. Most psychology books say masturbation is healthy. And most schools follow Freud's ideas and most phsychology books.

And I've heard a fantastic number of stories about pregnant girls whose councelors told them pretty emphatically that the only thing they could do was get an abortion. Not to say that all schools are like that, but some are.

Which isn't Christian. If you do not believe Jesus is God's son, than the rest of the story falls away. If you do not believe Jesus is God's son than you are not a true Christian. Close, very close, but not quite it.

Funny, because you've gotten rid of a majority of the church. In fact, the argument over whether the "son" is a separate entity or a metaphor for another aspect of the same entity was a big part of the split between the Roman Catholocism and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Quite. The attitude I seem to receive is, as long as you don't get pregnant or STDs, sex is ok.

Attitudes and teaching are not the same. Did a teacher stand up in class and say "As long as you don't get pregnant or STDs, sex is ok, go have lots of it!"?

And I've heard a wonderful number of stories about pregnant girls whose councelors told them pretty emphatically that the only thing they could do was get an abortion. Not to say that all schools are like that, but some are.

You expect me to believe that children are taught something because a few counsellors should be fired?

Funny, because you've gotten rid of a majority of the church. In fact, the argument over whether the "son" is a separate entity or a metaphor for another aspect of the same entity was a big part of the split between the Roman Catholocism and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Thus, only 33% or less of 60% claiming are actually Christian.

You can't very well be a Christian if you don't believe in Christianity, now can you?


Granted, there are discrepencies, and I don't mean to come out and say that eastern orthodox isn't Christian. Point is, just because someone says they are a Christian, or even thinks they are a Christian, that does not make them a Christian.

I try to disprove all religions equally :D

"We don't hate religion,

just Christianity."

Attitudes and teaching are not the same. Did a teacher stand up in class and say "As long as you don't get pregnant or STDs, sex is ok, go have lots of it!"?
Not in so many words.
I remember in health one day the teacher told us that you're ready to have sex if you can say things like "penis" and "sex" without giggling or laughing or whatever. Ready as in you can go have sex now if you can do that.

So yes, a teacher has told me before that premarital sex is ok. Not in those exact words, no, but that was definitely what was meant to be said.

You expect me to believe that children are taught something because a few counsellors should be fired?
Not to say that all schools are like that, but some are.

Some children are taught that at some schools. It happens. That's all I'm saying here. Don't go putting words in my mouth.

Thus, only 33% or less of 60% claiming are actually Christian.

You can't very well be a Christian if you don't believe in Christianity, now can you?

And you personally decide what constitutes Christianity?

Funny, I would've thought that was a responsibility only left to Christ.

Not to say that all schools are like that, but some are.

Some children are taught that at some schools. It happens. That's all I'm saying here. Don't go putting words in my mouth.

And any couselor who lies and tells a student that abortion is her *only* choice should be fired, regardless of what school they are at.

And you personally decide what constitutes Christianity?

Funny, I would've thought that was a responsibility only left to Christ.
And he was very kind and thoughtful and gave us a big book all about it. That book happens to say that Jesus is God's son. Pretty emphatically, actually, I could quote some verses here and there, but the most obvious is probably John 3:16 "...only begotten son that whoever believes..."

Thus, people who choose to believe only in certain parts of the Bible actually choose not to believe the Bible at all.

So I most certainly have not decided what is Christian and what isn't. I've just told you what Christ told me through the Bible.
Don't shoot the messenger.

And any couselor who lies and tells a student that abortion is her *only* choice should be fired, regardless of what school they are at.
Agreed. S'not my point. I'm only going to say this one more time: I only meant to show that it happens. I never said it was good, I never said it was bad, I never said it happens all the time, I never said that public schooling is evil, I never said counselors are evil, I never said that children are being taught this.

I only meant to show that it happens sometimes in some places.

If you want to talk about aggressive, Islam is definitely the most aggressive religion. Yeah, Christians like to go from door to door selling bibles and preaching armaggedon, but since Islam was founded, it has waged Jihads throughout pretty much all of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Africa. That's one of the reasons Islam spread so rapdily, by the sword. Oh, and yeah, Christianity launched some Crusades, but how many, 4, 5? Islam has been launching Jihad after Jihad since its beginnings....
.

I can vouch for that. I am an Iranian, and no, I am not Muslim. I'm a Zoroastrian. Anyway, over 1500 years, the Muslim occupiers have reduced the Zoroastrian population of Iran from 30,000- 100,000 theres no estimate but the number is low. Fortunatley, the Islamic Republic isn't pursecuting the Zoroastrians, so that is fortunate.

And he was very kind and thoughtful and gave us a big book all about it. That book happens to say that Jesus is God's son. Pretty emphatically, actually, I could quote some verses here and there, but the most obvious is probably John 3:16 "...only begotten son that whoever believes..."

That book was compiled by a panel of politicians who may or may not have gotten it all right.

Meanwhile, a reference to Christ as God's son does not explain *how* he is God's son - which is what the argument was over. Is he God's son, but also God? Is he God's son of the same substance of God? Is he God's son and less than GOd?

Thus, people who choose to believe only in certain parts of the Bible actually choose not to believe the Bible at all.

Then there is no one on the planet who believes in the Bible at all.

So I most certainly have not decided what is Christian and what isn't. I've just told you what Christ told me through the Bible.
Don't shoot the messenger.

You have told me what you believe Christ told you through the Bible, which may or not be what I believe that Christ told me. If you attempt to say that you are absolutely correct, you have stated that *you* are the person who decides.

Agreed. S'not my point. I'm only going to say this one more time: I only meant to show that it happens. I never said it was good, I never said it was bad, I never said it happens all the time, I never said that public schooling is evil, I never said counselors are evil, I never said that children are being taught this.

I only meant to show that it happens sometimes in some places.

So you weren't actualy answering my question? I specificallly asked if you were *taught* these things. You answered yes - which is saying that children are taught these things.

And he was very kind and thoughtful and gave us a big book all about it. That book happens to say that Jesus is God's son. Pretty emphatically, actually, I could quote some verses here and there, but the most obvious is probably John 3:16 "...only begotten son that whoever believes..."

Thus, people who choose to believe only in certain parts of the Bible actually choose not to believe the Bible at all.

So I most certainly have not decided what is Christian and what isn't. I've just told you what Christ told me through the Bible.
Don't shoot the messenger.

You do realize, it is a historical fact Constantine had the texts doctored to his liking. The bible isn't really worth a flip when trying to prove something. Similarly, I doubt Jesus existed, he is a copy of the Persian Sun God Mithra.

Christians are a powerful majority in the U.S. I've only run into people who call themselves Christians attempting to convert me and save my soul. I've never experienced a Jew or Muslim attempting to do this.

Let's take a brief look into history... Christians have went on missions to convert people (such as the Indigenous people of the Americas)... Islam did conquer many lands, but did not force Jews and Christians to convert to their religion, but only asked that they recognize their political authority. Jews through out history have been oppressed by many people... and plus they aren't trying to win converts, they just believe they are a chosen people of God.

It's been Christians throughout history that have forced people to convert and not really allowed people to keep their own religions.


Agreed one hundred and ten percent, Costa Bella.

You do realize, it is a historical fact Constantine had the texts doctored to his liking. The bible isn't really worth a flip when trying to prove something. Similarly, I doubt Jesus existed, he is a copy of the Persian Sun God Mithra.
Historical fact according to whom? I'd like to see some proof of this.

Besides, they have OT manuscripts dating before Constantine, I believe, that match present-day manuscripts pretty closely. Which, I could debate for days about just how close it is.

And the New Testament as a whole didn't exist when Constantine was around, so he couldn't have doctored that.

Proof, my friend, proof.

Historical fact according to whom? I'd like to see some proof of this.

Besides, they have OT manuscripts dating before Constantine, I believe, that match present-day manuscripts pretty closely. Which, I could debate for days about just how close it is.

And the New Testament as a whole didn't exist when Constantine was around, so he couldn't have doctored that.

Proof, my friend, proof.

Constantine (and all Roman emporers after him) did have an effect on the dogma of the church, which in turn had an effect on the scriptures included in the NT. In fact, the dogma often changed back and forth depending on who happened to be in political power at the time.

The reason Jews aren't accused of this isn't that they're Jewish. Have you ever tried to convert to Judaism? It's not easy. It used to be that a rabbi would turn you away three times before even discussing the matter with you to make sure you actually wanted to be Jewish.

Historical fact according to whom? I'd like to see some proof of this.

Besides, they have OT manuscripts dating before Constantine, I believe, that match present-day manuscripts pretty closely. Which, I could debate for days about just how close it is.

And the New Testament as a whole didn't exist when Constantine was around, so he couldn't have doctored that.

Proof, my friend, proof.

Well, I can name a very enlightening book I've read that is backed up with a lot of historical facts, documents, and other authors....Secrets of The Code, by Dan Burstein

I don't mind 'Christians' so much as the weird 'Jesus-is-God' types, who've managed to do a total 180 spin on much of the best of what Mr. Christ had to offer.

What do you mean exactly?

Historical fact according to whom? I'd like to see some proof of this.

Besides, they have OT manuscripts dating before Constantine, I believe, that match present-day manuscripts pretty closely. Which, I could debate for days about just how close it is.

And the New Testament as a whole didn't exist when Constantine was around, so he couldn't have doctored that.

Proof, my friend, proof.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

u guys think i was gone? well i agree i dont try to force my beliefs on you yet you attacked me is imply posted what i thought

And you personally decide what constitutes Christianity?

Funny, I would've thought that was a responsibility only left to Christ.
Christ wasn't a Christian. :p

Well, I can name a very enlightening book I've read that is backed up with a lot of historical facts, documents, and other authors....Secrets of The Code, by Dan Burstein
Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Josh McDowell.

Originally Posted by Thorograd
Christianity, and especially Catholicism, are attacked because they usually have hard-line stances on socially unacceptable doctrines, like birth-control, abortion, and premarital sex. By them saying you shouldn't do these things, many people feel threatened as they are taught in school that these things are fine, and so they rebel, and feel that a Christian belief is utterly uninformed if they support such doctrines, and so they try to undermine that, because they feel society cannot be wrong.
Another reason why genuine Christianity is so difficult, because so many would love to do nothing more than enforce their rules on the entire population, even if the entire population does not share a belief in their doctrine. I apologize for some of my "holier-than-thou" brothers and sisters in Christ. Sometimes I think that we Christians forget the fundamentals of Christianity (If taken to its literal meaning, the majority would not have a problem with fundamentalists, as the fundamentalists would be the ones that "loved the Lord God with all their heart, soul, and mind" but also "loved their neighbor as themself." Too many Christians sacrifice the second completely.

In this, I am not trying to belittle them, but I sometimes wish they could see how little good they are doing by things like bombing clinics, picketing with sometimes ridiculous signs, and forcing their legalisms onto the entire population.

Originally posted by Willamena
Christ wasn't a Christian. :p
Or, Christ was the only Christian . . . interesting thought, no?

Wow, if the religiocrats don't crucify me for that one . . . :rolleyes:

Final point:
I hope that you would not think that my beliefs are any weaker. I hold my beliefs to be very true. However, the one thing I always bring to the text of the Bible is a little phrase I made up:

Where the Bible is clear, be clear.
Where the Bible is vague (and yes, it is in some places), be vague.
Where the Bible is silent, SHUT UP!

This means that there are things that I know the Bible does not address specifically, and though I can have personal convictions on these issues, I would be presumptuous and prideful to sit in judgement of those whose convictions differ. It keeps me from teaching legalisms (rules that are not clear in Scripture, such as birth control, abortion (If I didn't tick them off before, I sure will with that.), stem cell research, and tithing) as biblical truths (Though I will readily admit that it is wrong for a Christian to have extramarital sex, though I wouldn't have any reason to expect those who aren't Christians to follow this, and I do not shame them for it.).

Please know that there are Christians out there that are not religiocrats*. We are not going to try to beat our "doctrines" down your throat or expect you to follow anything that we hold to be morally right if you do not believe as we do. This doesn't mean that we think you are right in doing so and that there are many ways to heaven. I still believe there is one way, but I cannot force you to take that way and I would never try, as I am not making it any easier on you or myself.

Thank you for reading.

Another reason why genuine Christianity is so difficult, because so many would love to do nothing more than enforce their rules on the entire population, even if the entire population does not share a belief in their doctrine. I apologize for some of my "holier-than-thou" brothers and sisters in Christ. Sometimes I think that we Christians forget the fundamentals of Christianity (If taken to its literal meaning, the majority would not have a problem with fundamentalists, as the fundamentalists would be the ones that "loved the Lord God with all their heart, soul, and mind" but also "loved their neighbor as themself." Too many Christians sacrifice the second completely.

In this, I am not trying to belittle them, but I sometimes wish they could see how little good they are doing by things like bombing clinics, picketing with sometimes ridiculous signs, and forcing their legalisms onto the entire population.


Or, Christ was the only Christian . . . interesting thought, no?

Wow, if the religiocrats don't crucify me for that one . . . :rolleyes:

Final point:
I hope that you would not think that my beliefs are any weaker. I hold my beliefs to be very true. However, the one thing I always bring to the text of the Bible is a little phrase I made up:

Where the Bible is clear, be clear.
Where the Bible is vague (and yes, it is in some places), be vague.
Where the Bible is silent, SHUT UP!

This means that there are things that I know the Bible does not address specifically, and though I can have personal convictions on these issues, I would be presumptuous and prideful to sit in judgement of those whose convictions differ. It keeps me from teaching legalisms (rules that are not clear in Scripture, such as birth control, abortion (If I didn't tick them off before, I sure will with that.), stem cell research, and tithing) as biblical truths (Though I will readily admit that it is wrong for a Christian to have extramarital sex, though I wouldn't have any reason to expect those who aren't Christians to follow this, and I do not shame them for it.).

Please know that there are Christians out there that are not religiocrats*. We are not going to try to beat our "doctrines" down your throat or expect you to follow anything that we hold to be morally right if you do not believe as we do. This doesn't mean that we think you are right in doing so and that there are many ways to heaven. I still believe there is one way, but I cannot force you to take that way and I would never try, as I am not making it any easier on you or myself.

Thank you for reading.
Excellently put! I applaud you heartily!
And if you happen to be female, :fluffle: ;) (Kidding, of course)

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.
Well a lot of reasons
1) prevalance (a lot of us are familiar with it and run into it more)
2) past (many of us were once catholic)
3) Religion itself (the posture and teachings of the faith make it rather .... anoying sometimes)

A combination of them usualy starts it

I really had tought that whether Christ was real or not was settled long ago. Specific mention to him was made by Josephus, a Jew who did not hold the beliefs of what he taught. Other Roman historians also make mention to him, albeit not by name, and probably second-hand. However, it would seem impossible, especially in the Jewish community, to make up a man and expect such an idea not to be completely smothered by Jewish authorities. I am sure that there would be documents about the 'made-up' man who is tearing their religion into two very distinct sects. Even documents that consider Jesus a son of the devil and accused Mary of being a prostitute never said he did not exist. The idea that Jesus never existed, I feel, is foolish.
As for Constantine, there are very specific documents which explained that Constantine called a few bishops to do it himself, but did not directly exert his influence over the process. If you had actually read the documents that were rejected, you would also understand why. The argument at the COuncil of Nicaea was not to decide if God was divine and beaten by a relatively close vote, the argument was whether he existed after the father or they were both equal. It is known as the Arian Heresy and was defeated 300 - 3.
Also, in a book writen by Irenaeus in the Second Century B.C., clearly states that there are only four authentic gospels, and also addresses the notion that there was such a thing as heresy, long before Constantine. As a further note, never mention Dan Brown or his book if you want your contribution to be considered intelligent.
As a side note, do you think that Judaea knew much about Persia?
In any case, I just felt I would add that to spare people who wish to continue the actual debate, so they wouldn't waste time or message on trying to. Sorry it was so long, but I really can't make short posts, I've tried.

As for Constantine, there are very specific documents which explained that Constantine called a few bishops to do it himself, but did not directly exert his influence over the process. If you had actually read the documents that were rejected, you would also understand why. The argument at the COuncil of Nicaea was not to decide if God was divine and beaten by a relatively close vote, the argument was whether he existed after the father or they were both equal. It is known as the Arian Heresy and was defeated 300 - 3.

The Arian heresy was that Christ was not fully God, but was a man who became the son of God after death. There were several "heresys" on this issue because the whole idea of fully man and fully God is difficult to explain. There was the idea that God was simply enclosed in human skin and Christ was not man at all, there was the Arian idea that Christ was not fully God, but became divine after his sacrifice, and just about everything in between.

Much later, Abelard was accused of Arianism, although the accusation was false and was really only made because he was arrogant, not because his idea of atonement was really heretical. It did, however, conflict with the Anselmian view eventually taken, which was based on the already well developed (but in no way Scriptural) penance system.

Originally posted by The Chekt
Excellently put! I applaud you heartily!
And if you happen to be female, :fluffle: ;) (Kidding, of course)

Thank you for the compliments. I haven't done anything exceptional to deserve it, nothing more than understand my place in life and that I am not doing God any favors by indoctrinating people. I am of the persuasion that if one wants to bear witness of their lives being different, then one should live differently and not merely profess differently.

James 2:17-18 "So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself. But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

Needless to say, no Christian follows this to a 'T' and I hope none would profess to. However, if called to defend what I believe, I like to be able to give examples of how I have lived. Religiocrats say that they love God. Good, so do I. God said that us showing a genuine, selfless love to fellow Christians is how others will identify us (which doesn't happen as there is bitterness between sects/denominations and there is more unity in other 'pagan' communities than there is in the church). Scripture also says that the second most important command is to love your neighbor as yourself. A neighbor does not have to be of the same religious affiliation as you, so the parable of the good Samaritan would say. Thus, I say that if you want to show someone that the life as a Christian is different, you live differently.

Oddly enough, loving others in ways that they would never expect has yet to leave me feeling empty or unfulfilled. I am a thinker, by nature, but having lived the life of one who attempts to please my God, I find nothing more fulfilling than giving myself to others in some capacity.

So, it is love, not doctrine that is different in a Christian. I don't care what you profess. Show me what you believe, like James said. You can try to argue your faith without works, but I will show you my faith by my works. And those works start with loving the God who said to love those around you (your neighbors) by doing what He says.

Oh, by the way, I am definitely male. ;)

1) The various Christian sects, combined under the term "Christianity" is the dominant religion in the Western world, where you're less likely to be shot for defying the majority. In the Non-Far Eastern world, people tend to dissapear when they think 'wrong'.

2) They're quicker to unify than the Muslim faiths, at the moment. Hence why they all call themselves Christians when they want to feel strong. Technically, any one faith of Christianity isn't THAT huge. But as a whole... This is why there's so many groups who want to unify the faiths. They'd control everything.

3) In the Western world, especially in the US, where there's a huge number of them relative to the population, they're the loudest group. They have their own TV channels (TBN), which are almost wholly about collecting money. They have shows on Sundays, commercials, etc. You can't fricking ignore them without shutting down your connection with the world entirely. Thanks to McCarthy and other efforts, they've also managed to tweak history courses nationwide, so that they avoid pointing out that "In god we trust" is a shiny new addition to things, as is "One Nation, Under God". I've even had a HEAVY Christian history major point out that there was a focused protestant effort to 'sanitize' US history. Hence why people go through their lives unaware that the country was founded largely by deists, atheists, and agnostics, and that Benjamin frankly was associated with the Hell Fire club and other non-Christian things. Christians not only don't shut the hell up, they won't stay the hell out of schools. I have yet to see a Druidic Prayer requirement be attempted in any school at any point.

4) Christians are ACTIVELY seeking to remove the rights of private citizens. There is no attempt on the part of Wiccans to force a county ordience against spitting at pigeons on Tuesdays. But there are counties where you can't have business on a Sunday.

Why are Christians, in WESTERN nations, seen as the biggest problem?

Because they won't back the hell off.


I assure you, if the Wiccans or the Buddhists started trying to change things solely based on religious, and not secular reasons, we'd all be here griping about THEM too.

But they're kind enough to leave others alone. They understand that 'love thy neighbor' doesn't mean 'take away thy neighbor's rights' or 'annoy the piss out of thy neighbor'.

Originally posted by Incenjucarania
They understand that 'love thy neighbor' doesn't mean 'take away thy neighbor's rights' or 'annoy the piss out of thy neighbor'.
A-MEN!

But they're kind enough to leave others alone. They understand that 'love thy neighbor' doesn't mean 'take away thy neighbor's rights' or 'annoy the piss out of thy neighbor'.

While I agree with your comments about some Christians (specifically fundamentalists), do be careful to realize (and note, when talking about it) that your words do not describe all, or even the majority of us.

While I agree with your comments about some Christians (specifically fundamentalists), do be careful to realize (and note, when talking about it) that your words do not describe all, or even the majority of us.
You are right ... but we just get tired of hearing we are wrong whenever we do anything that does not apply to their doctorine in many things organized religion has a lot more rules then some of the alternitives therefore some of us violate more of them
and because of that we hear about it often :)

It doesn't need to be stated that there are exceptions in both directions. There are many Satanists who make better Christians than many Christians do, and visa versa.

However, Christianity, as a -movement-, as a -group-, is the most aggressive, in your face, and in your home group, who won't leave others alone.

There are your psychotic jackass Buddhists, too, but they're too few in number to be an issue.

You are right ... but we just get tired of hearing we are wrong whenever we do anything that does not apply to their doctorine in many things organized religion has a lot more rules then some of the alternitives therefore some of us violate more of them
and because of that we hear about it often :)

Hehe, believe me, I know! Those of us who are Christian, but don't agree with them on doctrine get attacked as much, if not more, than those who don't believe at all. =)

It doesn't need to be stated that there are exceptions in both directions. There are many Satanists who make better Christians than many Christians do, and visa versa.

However, Christianity, as a -movement-, as a -group-, is the most aggressive, in your face, and in your home group, who won't leave others alone.

There are your psychotic jackass Buddhists, too, but they're too few in number to be an issue.

Christianity as a group is less aggressive than you think - because you only see the in-your-face minority.

Hehe, believe me, I know! Those of us who are Christian, but don't agree with them on doctrine get attacked as much, if not more, than those who don't believe at all. =)
Which is usualy a backlash from being upset with all the decisions that effect everything we do being based on a faith we do not hold :p

Which is usualy a backlash from being upset with all the decisions that effect everything we do being based on a faith we do not hold :p

...LOL! Actually, I meant we get attacked by the fundies, not you guys. =)

My roommate is a mega-Christian. One of those born-again who can't talk on the phone without say "Oh praise god!" (Usually because a computer is working properly...). He's a damned missionary.

He's a very nice guy.

He's also against many freedoms. It's not just screamers that are the problem. Its voters and contributers and supporters.

You combine that with sheer numbers, and there's a big damned problem.

Most other groups do NOT try and make OTHERS conform to their RELIGIOUS ideals. Their secular ones, yes, but not their religious ones. They're physically capable of keeping them seperate. A high number of Christians, however, can't.

My roommate is a mega-Christian. One of those born-again who can't talk on the phone without say "Oh praise god!" (Usually because a computer is working properly...). He's a damned missionary.

He's a very nice guy.

He's also against many freedoms. It's not just screamers that are the problem. Its voters and contributers and supporters.

You combine that with sheer numbers, and there's a big damned problem.

Most other groups do NOT try and make OTHERS conform to their RELIGIOUS ideals. Their secular ones, yes, but not their religious ones. They're physically capable of keeping them seperate. A high number of Christians, however, can't.


Nothing in that post in any way demonstrated that the *majority* of Christians are as you described.

...LOL! Actually, I meant we get attacked by the fundies, not you guys. =)
Everyone has their diehards we all know that
I think some of the problem or agravating factor is that with as big as christianity is even a statisticaly small percentage of it (fundies) is a LOT of people :D

Nothing in that post in any way demonstrated that the *majority* of Christians are as you described.

It only takes enough.

Do you suggest that there are more Buddhists preaching on the streets than there are Christians? Do you suggest there are more who can sway elections?

It only takes enough.

Do you suggest that there are more Buddhists preaching on the streets than there are Christians? Do you suggest there are more who can sway elections?

Do you suggest that there are more Buddhists in this country than Christians?

Do you suggest that there are more Buddhists in this country than Christians?

So you're getting the point then? Good.

Essentially, the problem with Christians is that there are enough of them to change how other people live, and there are enough of them WILLING to do that that it matters.

If Christians could not change how non-Christians lived, and did not preach at us from street corners, non-Christians would all but forget they exist.

So you're getting the point then? Good.

Essentially, the problem with Christians is that there are enough of them to change how other people live, and there are enough of them WILLING to do that that it matters.

If Christians could not change how non-Christians lived, and did not preach at us from street corners, non-Christians would all but forget they exist.

Did you miss my first post where I stated that I *AGREE* with you that some Christians are like that? I just didn't like you stereotyping all of us under the same banner (which is what you are doing when you say the entire movement does something).

I can only state it so many times.

You may notice that I try to avoid absolute terms like 'all' and 'every'.

My point, however, stands.

There are enough Christians that are both able and willing to screw with the lives of others without being put in a position to be bombed by the government.

There are NOT enough of most other groups, and certainly not as many, within Western Civilization, at this particular moment in time, who are both able and willing to screw with the lives of others without being put in a position to be bombed by the government.

If Christians both left non-Christians alone, and stopped voting based on their Christianity, then people would rail against whichever group is second-most-problematic, and so on and so forth.

If Christians, or any other group I disagree with on any issue, leave people alone, I cease to care that they even exist as anything but human beings.

The instant they attempt to alter my life in a way that I feel is undesirable (such as changing the laws around me to suit their wishes), they become a problem.

Is it ALL Christians who are a threat to the world around me? No. But there aren't enough Druids for me to give a damn that they exist at the moment even if they ALL became against what I feel is a good way for the world to work.

Another attempt to clarify.

It is the membership of these problematic elements as Christians that, so far as I can see, leads them to BE problematic.

If Nutjob Bob was a Buddhist, he would not be a problem, because he has much less influence than if he was a Christian, because he has fewer people who he can convince, Generally.

It is the existance of Nutjob Bob as a Christian (Whether you want to call him a 'false' one or whatever), he has the bloody membership card, and his having that is what makes him dangerous, because it gives him access to more people who might be swayed in his direction.

So, yes, the problem is Christianity.

If there were more Buddhists than any other group, and their ideas allowed for Bob, then THEY would be the bigger problem.

If Christian doctrine says "You leave the lesbians and atheists and everyone else the heck alone, you keep your religion out of their faces, and you do what the book says and pray in your damned closet", well, then, fine and dandy. Then I'd happily forget they existed and be surprised if I saw a man on a cross and just think someone has kinky art in their house.

hmmmm. true christians never force anything on anyone. if christians that call thjemselves this really did read the bible and understand gods message noon would have the views they do on them. i myself am christian and its about acceptance and love. i dismay at the uk and the usa that they THINk they are christian countries they are anything but. the wod of god has been warped to suit these so called christians for years. its not christianity or anyhting else thats a spiritual floowing thats the problem its the stupid people that twist it to suit their own means.

So that said i dont attend a church at the moment as i cant find one that is truly christian inthe biblical sens. they all have stupid rules and when they are challenged as some of them are even dangerous they never have an answer for them. if u cant find the reaosn for what a christian does in the bible thenthey are simply worng.

Funnily enough not mant christians ive met have ever agreed with me but GOD does and i can back that up with the bible which is more than most can do.


so folks try to see its the people that are threatening and ignorant not the true message xxxxxxx

hmmmm. true christians never force anything on anyone.

I already noted that, while this is a common argument (from what I've seen, NOBODY is a true Christian), it's also absolutely useless. The membership card is all that ultimately matters. I don't care if you're ALL 'false' Christians, still the Christian banner. Do you have a better term for "Group of people who say everyone else is going to hell, who try to change the world based on their doctrine, and who always talk about a dead guy on a stick"?

if christians that call thjemselves this really did read the bible and understand gods message noon would have the views they do on them. i myself am christian and its about acceptance and love. i dismay at the uk and the usa that they THINk they are christian countries they are anything but. the wod of god has been warped to suit these so called christians for years. its not christianity or anyhting else thats a spiritual floowing thats the problem its the stupid people that twist it to suit their own means.


I frankly have issues with even 'true' Christians, however, the point is really about people who CALL themselves Christians. I don't care who's a TRUE FAN, I just care about who's in the club house making noise.


So that said i dont attend a church at the moment as i cant find one that is truly christian inthe biblical sens. they all have stupid rules and when they are challenged as some of them are even dangerous they never have an answer for them. if u cant find the reaosn for what a christian does in the bible thenthey are simply worng.

Funnily enough not mant christians ive met have ever agreed with me but GOD does and i can back that up with the bible which is more than most can do.


so folks try to see its the people that are threatening and ignorant not the true message xxxxxxx

Just about nobody would care if Christians all just prayed in their closets and left everyone else alone.

But enough of the people who call themselves Christians won't leave the rest of the world the hell alone.

So there's an issue.

Like I said on page one,

"I don't mind 'Christians' so much as the weird 'Jesus-is-God' types, who've managed to do a total 180 spin on much of the best of what Mr. Christ had to offer."

And I still feel that way. Hey, if you really have the better mousetrap, I'll buy into it. But that doesn't mean I want or need a relentless salespitch. In fact, do that to me and maybe I'll learn to love those furry, cheese-eating little turd machines instead.

To Hell with the better mousetrap!

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.

You've heard it said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Although this idea was originally applied to Physics, I think the same thing can be said in regards to human behavior. I believe the strong anti-Christian sentiment you are witnessing today is simply a reaction to the aggressive proselytizing for which Christians are famous.

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.

I have a suggestion for you.

Go to a Muslim country.

Wait until Friday prayers, then go into a mosque and announce loudly that there's no such thing as Allah.

I'm sure you'll find someone willing to argue the point with you.

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.
i can't speak for anybody else, but i tend to focus on Christianity because Christianity tends to focus on me. no Jew has ever told me i am going to hell for being bisexual. no Muslim has ever informed me that his God hates my scientific perspective. no Wiccan has ever exhorted me to abandon my agnostic beliefs in favor of his spiritual concepts.

my legal rights are not being threatened by minority religions, they are being threatened by an aggressive Christian lobby. courts and city halls are not being picketted by people in favor of displaying non-Christian religious symbols.

Christians should simply accept that their efforts to make their religion visible and significant in America have succeeded; they are the loudest, most visible, and most problematic religious group, so they get the most attention. isn't attention what they want?

Originally posted by Dobbs Town
I don't mind 'Christians' so much as the weird 'Jesus-is-God' types, who've managed to do a total 180 spin on much of the best of what Mr. Christ had to offer.

And I still feel that way. Hey, if you really have the better mousetrap, I'll buy into it. But that doesn't mean I want or need a relentless salespitch. In fact, do that to me and maybe I'll learn to love those furry, cheese-eating little turd machines instead.
While I will hold my 'Jesus-is-God' stance, to which I am sure Pterodonia can attest. However, I agree with you on the 180 degree spin. Most 'Christians' do not seem to care about how Christ treated others as much as they care about the way that they can affect the social and political standings in government. Even we 'Jesus-is-God' types don't all try to shove it down people's throats dispite the unrepentant hypocrisy in their own lives.

Originally posted by Pterodonia
You've heard it said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? Although this idea was originally applied to Physics, I think the same thing can be said in regards to human behavior. I believe the strong anti-Christian sentiment you are witnessing today is simply a reaction to the aggressive proselytizing for which Christians are famous.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent synopsis.

Originally posted by Bottle
i can't speak for anybody else, but i tend to focus on Christianity because Christianity tends to focus on me. no Jew has ever told me i am going to hell for being bisexual.
No Christian should, either. If they knew their own professions better, they would realize that Christianity doesn't even teach that you are going to hell because you are bisexual. A wonderful example of a religiocrat.

no Muslim has ever informed me that his God hates my scientific perspective.
This is also a somewhat overgeneralization by my badgering brethren. Since even Christianity professes that God created scientific order, then it would be ludicrous to assert that God hates anything having to do with science. As far as the conclusion you come to . . . eh . . . I still wouldn't preach at you from a street corner, but if you asked me honestly, I would say what I can best say according to Scripture. No more, though. Since it is your human right to choose how you believe, I have no more right to try to force you or scare you into believing my way than you do to try to force me to denounce my beliefs for yours, even if I think that mine are right.

my legal rights are not being threatened by minority religions, they are being threatened by an aggressive Christian lobby.
Ah, the religiocrats. Please believe me when I say that all Christians are not religiocrats, though I know enough people have already mentioned it. The reason it keeps coming up is that I, and I am sure that many other Christians will agree, hate being associated with that cause, because I am no more thrilled at what they are doing than you. They make it hard for anyone with a thinking faith in what they profess to be taken seriously, thus, many wish that there was no real affiliation. If it weren't for the meaning of the word, I would even despair of the word 'Christian' because of its connotations in society.

courts and city halls are not being picketted by people in favor of displaying non-Christian religious symbols.
Eh, there have been some, actually. It is more prevalent now than it was, but the number of individuals doing it is still dwarfed in comparison to the religiocrats wanting some sort of theocracy, so I understand your point.

Christians should simply accept that their efforts to make their religion visible and significant in America have succeeded;
If what has succeeded is true Christianity, then call me a non-believer, because I do not believe in their cause. While I would like my beliefs and life to be significant, doing so through lobbying and making a general ruckus is the opposite way in which I want it to be recognized. 'Christianity' is significant, but the religiocrats have sacrificed their integrity for that significance. They are recognized, but as a laughing-stock, thus making their message useless.

they are the loudest, most visible, and most problematic religious group, so they get the most attention.
I agree, whole-heartedly.

isn't attention what they want?
Unfortunately, it would seem so. If you look at the early church in the New Testament, that kind of community and kindness and (frankly) goodness is absent in today's church. The church of that day was less recognized, but more effective, because they didn't indoctrinate or proslytize. Their priority was serving and they helping, both others and each other. That is a foreign concept in today's Protestant evangelical church. We would much rather 'evangelize' by picketing than by serving.

No Christian should, either. If they knew their own professions better, they would realize that Christianity doesn't even teach that you are going to hell because you are bisexual. A wonderful example of a religiocrat.

Exactly.

Ah, the religiocrats. Please believe me when I say that all Christians are not religiocrats, though I know enough people have already mentioned it. The reason it keeps coming up is that I, and I am sure that many other Christians will agree, hate being associated with that cause, because I am no more thrilled at what they are doing than you. They make it hard for anyone with a thinking faith in what they profess to be taken seriously, thus, many wish that there was no real affiliation. If it weren't for the meaning of the word, I would even despair of the word 'Christian' because of its connotations in society.

It's even worse in many foreign countries. Because of the strong-armed tactics of missionaries in the past, neither the word "Christian" nor "missionary" can generally be used in some countries. Many relief workers in Indonesia and Malaysia, for instance, refer to themselves as "followers of Christ" instead, which really means the same thing but doesn't have the connotations associated with simply using "Christian." By actually attempting to live up to the teachings of Christ and *not* force faith upon others, one of the relief workers I am in touch with was termed as having "surrendured to God through Christ" in their native tongue which, translated, basically means "Muslim through Christ." Maybe those of us who don't want to be associated with the fundamentalists should simply use "follower of Christ" instead.

Exactly.



It's even worse in many foreign countries. Because of the strong-armed tactics of missionaries in the past, neither the word "Christian" nor "missionary" can generally be used in some countries. Many relief workers in Indonesia and Malaysia, for instance, refer to themselves as "followers of Christ" instead, which really means the same thing but doesn't have the connotations associated with simply using "Christian." By actually attempting to live up to the teachings of Christ and *not* force faith upon others, one of the relief workers I am in touch with was termed as having "surrendured to God through Christ" in their native tongue which, translated, basically means "Muslim through Christ." Maybe those of us who don't want to be associated with the fundamentalists should simply use "follower of Christ" instead.


While it would be nice ... the seperation so we know what we are dealing with. I believe you guys shouldent have to change what you call your belief any more then homosexuals should have to change the name of their marige to civil union

The zellots do not controll the meaning of everything now :) we just have to figure out a way for you to take your name back :fluffle:

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]
If Christians both left non-Christians alone, and stopped voting based on their Christianity, then people would rail against whichever group is second-most-problematic
[\QUOTE]

So, basically, so long as people do not vote on what they believe in, and so long as they basically agree with you on every issue because you are always right, then it is okay with you. As long as nobody tries to justify or support their positions, or (God forbid) try to make you understand their position, you are quite fine with it. That, just so you know, is an awful way of thinking. If a Christian believes that abortion is a murder of a child, then I would think less of them for not defending their position. If they are against war, then they should speak out. If they are for war, they should speak out. Just as I would expect you to speak out if you felt the world was being made a worse place. If the government legalized rape, murder, theft, discrimination, I would expect all people who think those things are wrong to speak out.

It is despicable that you think so lowly of another person's beliefs simply because you do not agree with them and want everybody to conform to your will and your way of viewing the world. You think that Christianity is wrong. Fine. But you are no better than a fundamentalist if you should think they shouldn't adhere to their beliefs. That, in fact, they should not have the ability to speak out. I disagree with you vehemently.

If a Christian believes that abortion is a murder of a child, then I would think less of them for not defending their position. If they are against war, then they should speak out.

There is a rather large difference between "attempting to defend their position" and "attempting to force their position upon others."

There is a rather large difference between "attempting to defend their position" and "attempting to force their position upon others."

Agreed. However, if you truly believe that abortion is murder, then you are cowardly for not speaking out against it. It'd be as if you saw someone raping somebody and just saying, "Oh, well he can do as he likes. Who am I to force my ideology on him". The very idea of hiding in your closet and praying is against the entire democratic ideal, more so than trying to convince others. The entire principle is basically, "If you have an opinion, speak it, and see if you can't change the world". If you feel threatened by a democratic system, then go create a republic off the coast of Nova Scotia, which conforms only to your ideals. If not, then at least try to tolerate tyhe beliefs of others, whether they are Christians or Muslims or George Bush.

Agreed. However, if you truly believe that abortion is murder, then you are cowardly for not speaking out against it. It'd be as if you saw someone raping somebody and just saying, "Oh, well he can do as he likes. Who am I to force my ideology on him". The very idea of hiding in your closet and praying is against the entire democratic ideal, more so than trying to convince others. The entire principle is basically, "If you have an opinion, speak it, and see if you can't change the world". If you feel threatened by a democratic system, then go create a republic off the coast of Nova Scotia, which conforms only to your ideals. If not, then at least try to tolerate tyhe beliefs of others, whether they are Christians or Muslims or George Bush.

You say agreed, but apparently missed the point. I am not saying that someone should not speak out against something they think is wrong, but that they should not attempt to force their opinions upon others (for instance, through legislation). It is one thing to try and convince others of your religious belief that abortion is murder and quite another to try and *force* them to live by *your* ideals. I completley tolerate others' beliefs, but I expect them to tolerate mine in return.

You say agreed, but apparently missed the point. I am not saying that someone should not speak out against something they think is wrong, but that they should not attempt to force their opinions upon others (for instance, through legislation). It is one thing to try and convince others of your religious belief that abortion is murder and quite another to try and *force* them to live by *your* ideals. I completley tolerate others' beliefs, but I expect them to tolerate mine in return.

But how does that work with political ideology. Labour in power legislates over conservative people

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.

I agree with you completely; I think it's just because this forum is used mostly if not entirely by Westerners, and Westerners are in contact with Christianity in everyday life much more than the other religions.

But how does that work with political ideology. Labour in power legislates over conservative people

I don't know much about British parties, but if it is like social liberal vs. social conservative, they really don't. Stating that something cannot be made illegal is not the same as stating that you must do something.

i've read many messages saying christainanity isn't perfect and offering *the crusades* as an example and i've also read many statements about muslims not forcing their religion on people. it's sad that no-one knows any history :(. only the first crusade was really about religion and that was called for when, yes the muslims had invaded a lot of christain land. the muslims when they took this land, slaughtered anyone who resisted them and burnt cities to the ground. people who didn't resist were then forced to pay a humiliating tax that muslims didn't have to pay and were eventually forced out by muslim lynch mobs. people converted just to have an easy life.
how many greeks are there in turkey? not very many at all, which is strange considering 500 years ago pretty much everyone in that area was greek.
i think the most important thing to relise when it comes to religion is, most people who say they are religion aren't at all.

Dempublicents1, I love finding people like you that have a healthy understanding of our faith. It's not ignorant or aggressive. Your understanding seems humble and reverent when refering to the text. Kudos.

I don't know much about British parties, but if it is like social liberal vs. social conservative, they really don't. Stating that something cannot be made illegal is not the same as stating that you must do something.
Exactly! I would argue, Constitutionally, that Protestant Christianity cannot be made illegal. However, since I think that one of the worst things that ever happened to the church was what Constantine did making Christianity such a mandate, I would certainly not want it to be illegal to practice otherwise.

Originally posted by Thorograd
So, basically, so long as people do not vote on what they believe in, and so long as they basically agree with you on every issue because you are always right, then it is okay with you. As long as nobody tries to justify or support their positions, or (God forbid) try to make you understand their position, you are quite fine with it.
Actually, believe it or not, I do not always vote based on what I believe to be ethically or morally right. I vote based on what I believe to be Constitutionally right. That is not to say that I think that something is okay because it is constitutional. It just means I have no reason to vote against it when realizing that my objective is to vote for what I believe to be the most constitutional choice, and not the most ethical one.

The separation is recognizing the point of the government. The government is not in place to cater to the public's moral beliefs. It is in place to cater to the protection of the public, first through physical safety and then through constitutional rights. Those rights, while legal, may not be moral. Essentially, when I vote, I do not vote depending on what I think is morally right or wrong. I vote depending on what I think is constitutional and unconstitutional. Sometimes they are not one in the same.

Originally posted by Serdica
i've read many messages saying christainanity isn't perfect and offering *the crusades* as an example and i've also read many statements about muslims not forcing their religion on people.
I know how you feel. People unfortunately have to see the hypocrisy of Christians and think that it must be the standing of Christianity. It is sad, but Christians can be some of the worse demonstrators of Christianity.

i think the most important thing to relise when it comes to religion is, most people who say they are religion aren't at all.
True. The word "religion" gets its roots from another word meaning "bondage" or "to enslave." If those who profess to be religious knew the meaning of religion, I doubt as many of them would be so ready to admit religiousness. So I guess I would disagree with your actual statement, but agree with your idea, as odd as that sounds. I think that those who are so ready to say they are religious really are "in bondage" to some code or another.

Actually, believe it or not, I do not always vote based on what I believe to be ethically or morally right. I vote based on what I believe to be Constitutionally right. That is not to say that I think that something is okay because it is constitutional. It just means I have no reason to vote against it when realizing that my objective is to vote for what I believe to be the most constitutional choice, and not the most ethical one.

The separation is recognizing the point of the government. The government is not in place to cater to the public's moral beliefs. It is in place to cater to the protection of the public, first through physical safety and then through constitutional rights. Those rights, while legal, may not be moral. Essentially, when I vote, I do not vote depending on what I think is morally right or wrong. I vote depending on what I think is constitutional and unconstitutional. Sometimes they are not one in the same.


I applaud you for this policy as it shows that you realize your own personal beliefs are not neccesarily the correct ones, I think you may be showing a little too much faith in the constitution. I am assuming you essentially mean, 'people should be able to live their lives as they see fit, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of another person'. This is a fine policy, but the point I was trying to make by bringing up the issue of abortion is that, dependant upon your beliefs, things that might be okay to some people (like abortion) is to other people about genocide on the count of one million (in the US) per year. While you may say it is constitutional for a woman to be able to choose, others say it is unconstitutional not to allow 1 million children to live. Also, by not questioning morally actions that may or may not be constitutional, might be a mistake because you are putting faith in a fallible constitution which can be changed at will basically. The election of Hitler in 1933 was onstitutional. Look where that ended up. (Granted that that example is very extreme)

Originally posted by Thorograd
I applaud you for this policy as it shows that you realize your own personal beliefs are not neccesarily the correct ones
Actually, I do believe that my beliefs are correct, at least as much as I take a stance on. What I was asserting is that I do recognize the separation of church and state. I live in a country that is dictated by the U. S. Constitution, not the Bible. Basically, my life is controlled by the Bible, and I believe this to be absolutely right. The separation is, I am not going to force anyone else to live by the mandates therein.

I think you may be showing a little too much faith in the constitution.
I don't think it is perfect, but I know it is that upon which my nation's government is built. Therefore, that is what I will look to in governmental issues.

I am assuming you essentially mean, 'people should be able to live their lives as they see fit, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of another person'
As far as the government is concerned and my voting, yes, that is my policy. I am actually very 'fundamental' in my thinking (i. e. There is only one way to be saved, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc.), but I know that I am not at liberty to manipulate the law to force those who believe differently to follow suit.

things that might be okay to some people (like abortion) is to other people about genocide on the count of one million (in the US) per year
Actually, I am against abortion for the most part. I don't like the idea of taking life for the convenience of the parent. The place where I allow a little bit of leniency is instances where the mother may die if the child is born. What I am saying is that as it stands, abortion is legal. I am not fond of the idea, but as a citizen, I must respect the law. In addition, it goes back to my view of the Constitution and the Bible.

you are putting faith in a fallible constitution which can be changed at will basically. The election of Hitler in 1933 was onstitutional. Look where that ended up.
I agree that our Constitution is fallable. I do however think that it is the best out there, being the oldest active constitution. Still, I know that the Constitution is not perfect in nature.

My stance is the difference between the Constitution and Scripture. The Constitution does not forbid my extramarital sex, but the Bible does. I, therefore, would not try to pass a law banning such activities, though I concretely believe them wrong. I do not mix my politics and my relationship with Christ, or at least, I try not to. Christ is not the head of my government. The government is not the head of my beliefs.

Needless to say, in my own walk with Christ, if the two contradict, I will go against the government. Thankfully, I have yet to run into that problem.

This is a fine policy, but the point I was trying to make by bringing up the issue of abortion is that, dependant upon your beliefs, things that might be okay to some people (like abortion) is to other people about genocide on the count of one million (in the US) per year. While you may say it is constitutional for a woman to be able to choose, others say it is unconstitutional not to allow 1 million children to live.

The problem is that those others (who say that it is murder) do not have an *objective* reason to say so. Their reason for believing that an embryo is a full life is purely religious, with no objective backing. As such, while they may wish to convince others of their convictions, it is wrong to try and force religion upon people.

I personally believe that abortion is morally wrong in all but them ost extreme of cases. It is not something I would choose for myself. However, that is my own moral and religious choice, one which I will not attempt to remove from others.

I never thought it could happen( :p ) but you guys have actually helped me out. From what I figger, people hate on christians because the christians bug them and/or they're atheist and they hate religions, and christianity is the most readily available religion to hate on. Go ahead and keep postin' too, let's see how big we can make this.

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.

It's probably because you never see "Odin saves" or "Shiva doesn't want you to masturbate" threads in here.

Thank you for the compliments. I haven't done anything exceptional to deserve it, nothing more than understand my place in life and that I am not doing God any favors by indoctrinating people. I am of the persuasion that if one wants to bear witness of their lives being different, then one should live differently and not merely profess differently.

James 2:17-18 "So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself. But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

Needless to say, no Christian follows this to a 'T' and I hope none would profess to. However, if called to defend what I believe, I like to be able to give examples of how I have lived. Religiocrats say that they love God. Good, so do I. God said that us showing a genuine, selfless love to fellow Christians is how others will identify us (which doesn't happen as there is bitterness between sects/denominations and there is more unity in other 'pagan' communities than there is in the church). Scripture also says that the second most important command is to love your neighbor as yourself. A neighbor does not have to be of the same religious affiliation as you, so the parable of the good Samaritan would say. Thus, I say that if you want to show someone that the life as a Christian is different, you live differently.

Oddly enough, loving others in ways that they would never expect has yet to leave me feeling empty or unfulfilled. I am a thinker, by nature, but having lived the life of one who attempts to please my God, I find nothing more fulfilling than giving myself to others in some capacity.

So, it is love, not doctrine that is different in a Christian. I don't care what you profess. Show me what you believe, like James said. You can try to argue your faith without works, but I will show you my faith by my works. And those works start with loving the God who said to love those around you (your neighbors) by doing what He says.

Oh, by the way, I am definitely male. ;)
Ah, but you have done something exceptional! You made an intelligent, rational post explaining your beliefs without flaming, having a holier-than-thou attitude, or downing anyone else, and you did it all here, on NS. That does not happen often, you'll notice.

Ok, a lot of people, like Ican-whatever, are going on about how some Christians are bad people. There are people like this in any grouping of people. You can group people any way you like and you're going to find them, unless you specifically group people by "good" and "bad", and even then you're going to find "not as good" people.

My point is, have a problem with that person not with what they follow. Just because a few Christians are all holier-than-thou, damnation and hellfire, that does not make Christianity a bad thing. Instead of attacking Christianity and pointing out how agressive and stupid and pointless it is, attack the people who are like that. Attacking the religion itself is what creates people like that, because what you're basically doing is polarizing the religion. If everyone would calm the hell down, there wouldn't be half as many uber-radical Christians, or uber-radical anything else.
An atheist acts like an idiot, so the Christian is going to act like an idiot back, until everyone's acting like idiots and nothing is getting done. Change the people in the religion, because you will never be able to change the religion itself.

I could give a lot of examples of bad atheists...Hitler, Stalin, people like that. Does that reflect all atheists? Does that make atheism a horrible bad thing? No, it makes people stupid. People are stupid, get used to it. Treat it like you're talking to an NS mod who doesn't care...they just tell you to get a thicker skin and get over it. So if a Christian is being stupid, get a thicker skin and get over it. Yell at him, not me.

AND, as I've said before, if a Christian is annoying you, it's because he thinks it's in your best interest. If I think you're going to hell, don't you think it's a nice gesture that I'm trying to keep you out of hell? For instance, your friend is drinking heavily and getting ready to drive home and won't give you the keys. A good friend would knock him out and steal his keys, then order a cab. The guy's gonna hate it when you punch him, but you're still doing him a favor. That is how Christians see it. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that's what they're actually doing, but that's what they think they're doing. They're trying to help you, so try to remember that. Every time you get annoyed, inhale, exhale, and remember that they're trying to help you, however misguided you may think it is.


The greatest reason why people dislike Christianity is because we're not afraid to tell you that you are wrong and we're not afraid to make you be right, which most people resent, because they like what they do and don't like that they might be wrong.

Ok, a lot of people, like Ican-whatever, are going on about how some Christians are bad people. There are people like this in any grouping of people. You can group people any way you like and you're going to find them, unless you specifically group people by "good" and "bad", and even then you're going to find "not as good" people.

My point is, have a problem with that person not with what they follow. Just because a few Christians are all holier-than-thou, damnation and hellfire, that does not make Christianity a bad thing. Instead of attacking Christianity and pointing out how agressive and stupid and pointless it is, attack the people who are like that. Attacking the religion itself is what creates people like that, because what you're basically doing is polarizing the religion. If everyone would calm the hell down, there wouldn't be half as many uber-radical Christians, or uber-radical anything else.
An atheist acts like an idiot, so the Christian is going to act like an idiot back, until everyone's acting like idiots and nothing is getting done. Change the people in the religion, because you will never be able to change the religion itself.

I could give a lot of examples of bad atheists...Hitler, Stalin, people like that. Does that reflect all atheists? Does that make atheism a horrible bad thing? No, it makes people stupid. People are stupid, get used to it. Treat it like you're talking to an NS mod who doesn't care...they just tell you to get a thicker skin and get over it. So if a Christian is being stupid, get a thicker skin and get over it. Yell at him, not me.

AND, as I've said before, if a Christian is annoying you, it's because he thinks it's in your best interest. If I think you're going to hell, don't you think it's a nice gesture that I'm trying to keep you out of hell? For instance, your friend is drinking heavily and getting ready to drive home and won't give you the keys. A good friend would knock him out and steal his keys, then order a cab. The guy's gonna hate it when you punch him, but you're still doing him a favor. That is how Christians see it. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that's what they're actually doing, but that's what they think they're doing. They're trying to help you, so try to remember that. Every time you get annoyed, inhale, exhale, and remember that they're trying to help you, however misguided you may think it is.


The greatest reason why people dislike Christianity is because we're not afraid to tell you that you are wrong and we're not afraid to make you be right, which most people resent, because they like what they do and don't like that they might be wrong.

Actually...Let's say your 100% non drinking sober friend is sipping a coffee in a coffee shop. You scream at the top of your lungs that he's a filthy drunk. Finally you punch him out and drag him into a cab.

Oh...And Hitler was a protestant.

I think one of the major reasons people find Christians annoying is the hypocracy. But this stems from the fact that anyone can say they're a Christian. So pretty soon you end up with a bunch of wakos ruining the name of Christians. This is a pretty basic propaganda tactic that i believe comes from Satan. He's had thousands of years to study humans, and he knows how to manipulate them. Why do you think there are so many people claiming to be Christ? It's basiclly the same tactic. And if its not from the Devil, then why aren't there people claiming to be Allah, or Budah, or some other religious figure?
And remember, saying you believe that there was a Christ doesn't make you a Christian. Even Satan believes there is a Christ. And he knows what happened at the Cross. But he is obviously not a Christian!

Originally posted by Crapholistan
Actually...Let's say your 100% non drinking sober friend is sipping a coffee in a coffee shop. You scream at the top of your lungs that he's a filthy drunk. Finally you punch him out and drag him into a cab.
RhynoD was explaining the intent of the Christian. The Christian believes you to be in a situation that is dangerous. While you may view yourself as being in as harmless a situation as driving home from a "coffee shop," the Christian sees you in the danger of trying to drive home drunk. It is a matter of presupposition as to who is right. He was explaining their intent, which your analogy does not match.

Originally posted by Andalaysia
. . . this stems from the fact that anyone can say they're a Christian.
A few years ago, I did a little experiment and interviewed 300 people at a mall, just to see what would happen. Don't ask how this worked, but 84% of the people said they believed in some supreme being, but 90% claimed that they were Christians. Throwing the percentages out the window, it does mean that there are some out there claiming to be Christians that do not even believe in any supreme being, whatsoever.

Christianity and christianity are not the same thing, it would seem. I see the hypocrisy as well. It is absurd.

So, basically, so long as people do not vote on what they believe in, and so long as they basically agree with you on every issue because you are always right, then it is okay with you.


Duh. I want the world to improve. I see most of what Christians push (especially AS Christians, rather than just citizens) as negative. They seek to restrict individual freedom, and sodomize everyone with their personal morality. I, on the other hand, feel morality doesn't start until the issue of HARM comes in to play. Harm in the provable world. I also have a problem with people who want to take my guns away. My owning guns causes absolutely no harm to any human or pet, and my family's owning guns has protected us from burglers before.


As long as nobody tries to justify or support their positions, or (God forbid) try to make you understand their position, you are quite fine with it.


They can argue all they like, but until they can prove something, it's worthless babble. Show some non-magical evidence, and hey, we've got a discussion. Same goes with the buddhists and wiccans I know. I'm not going to start meditating or chanting unless I know for a fact it does something, and I'm certainly not going to MAKE other people do it.


That, just so you know, is an awful way of thinking.


That I want the world to improve and be as free as possible without harm ensuing?


If a Christian believes that abortion is a murder of a child, then I would think less of them for not defending their position.


If they can defend it without dragging magic in to it, fine. There are many atheists who feel the same way. I also disagree with them.


If they are against war, then they should speak out. If they are for war, they should speak out.


If they are for war because Jesus Said So, they're a menace.



Just as I would expect you to speak out if you felt the world was being made a worse place.


If they can keep magic out of their arguments, I'm fine with it.


If the government legalized rape, murder, theft, discrimination, I would expect all people who think those things are wrong to speak out.


Yes. And I'd STILL roll my eyes if someone yelled "Also, it will make the pink unicorn angry!"


It is despicable that you think so lowly of another person's beliefs simply because you do not agree with them and want everybody to conform to your will and your way of viewing the world.


I just want them to keep their fantasy out of my reality, and everyone else's.

Would you want a policy to be based around the belief that if you have more than two kids, a goblin will give you HIV?


You think that Christianity is wrong. Fine. But you are no better than a fundamentalist if you should think they shouldn't adhere to their beliefs.


I'm a bad person because I don't want you screwing up the lives of others?

So, if I was part of a rape cult, you'd let me legalize rape for the sake of my faith? How NICE of you.


That, in fact, they should not have the ability to speak out. I disagree with you vehemently.

Anyone who acts on unbackable information is a danger to society.

If you can't argue with facts, then keep it to yourself.

I feel that religion should cease to exist, for the good of the planet. Organized religion especially, I feel, and have vast evidence for, is the greatest evil in human history. THE greatest evil.

I will never, ever, ever vote that any religion be shut down, despite this. Because I refuse to take away the freedoms of others, just like, though I don't feel anyone who thinks that death is a HAPPY can honestly be trusted to vote, I'm not going to vote for that right being taken away from you.

Yet there are religious people trying to make it so that two people of the same sex, who are madly in love with each other, will never, ever, ever be able to live in the United States as a legally wedded couple with full rights.

But feel free to demonize me.

RhynoD was explaining the intent of the Christian. The Christian believes you to be in a situation that is dangerous. While you may view yourself as being in as harmless a situation as driving home from a "coffee shop," the Christian sees you in the danger of trying to drive home drunk. It is a matter of presupposition as to who is right. He was explaining their intent, which your analogy does not match.


The trick is, of course, that they're ignoring things like sky-diving, motorcycles, and any number of PROVEN hazardous activties.

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.
Well to answer one question, God and Allah are the same thing, so someone trying to disprove God would also be trying to disprove Allah.

Christians are targeted beings Christians probably have the dirtiest history. Islam lately has been building a pretty bad reputation, but Christianity has been corrupted for that last 2 thousand years. Jews have never been very powerful, but they ARE targeted all the time.

When you called Christianity the majority, and other religions the minority, I had to look it up. "Christians" make up 33% of the believers, followed very closely by the Islam religions. And...I know a lot of people who call themselves Christians, but who NEVER go to church, don't follow the teachings of the Bible, etc. etc. So, I'm sure a good chunk of that 33% are not practicing.

33% does not make a majority. Except in the United States where it seems to win elections.

RhynoD was explaining the intent of the Christian. The Christian believes you to be in a situation that is dangerous. While you may view yourself as being in as harmless a situation as driving home from a "coffee shop," the Christian sees you in the danger of trying to drive home drunk. It is a matter of presupposition as to who is right. He was explaining their intent, which your analogy does not match.

So it's "spiritual CPR" being forced on me against my will... :rolleyes:
Sorry, I don't have much tolerance for other peoples fantasies when they interfere with my reality.
Anyway, i think my analogy explained peoples reaction to their actions, no matter what their intent. The Christian ONLY wants me to drive home if I'm wearing a yellow suit, keep my left hand on my nose all the way home and sing a certain song in the car.
Anyway, we live in a reality where "drunk driving" is legal and hasn't been linked to any deaths.

And you personally decide what constitutes Christianity?

Funny, I would've thought that was a responsibility only left to Christ.

Actually, it's not. Who is, and who is not, a christian is left up to the Episcopacy. Apostolic succesion dontchaknow. Of course this means all protestants are not christians, but that's their problem. (And of course even amongst different catholic churches there are considerable polemics about who is and who is not right.)

Funnily enough though, becuase of apostolic succession, that gay bishop in NH, speaks with christ's authority and as a holder (or something) of the scripture. Take that protestant evangelicals - an apostle says you are wrong.

Personally, I don't believe in any of it. It's all silly, most especially Islam.

Edit: I would like someone to explain to me why studying a moldy old text of doubtful provenance and which is clear the work of crazy old con-men, is considered somehow virtuous?

Originally posted by Incenjucarania
The trick is, of course, that they're ignoring things like sky-diving, motorcycles, and any number of PROVEN hazardous activties.
I am assuming you are referring to the analogy. It would be reasonable to say that (A) those things can be done in a safe way, whereas driving piss drunk cannot be, and (B) Even if those things were outrightly irresponsibly dangerous, there would likely be other Christians going to those people.

Originally posted by Crapholistan
So it's "spiritual CPR" being forced on me against my will...
Technically, yes. They are assuming you don't want to 'die.'

Sorry, I don't have much tolerance for other peoples fantasies when they interfere with my reality.
And that is fine, provided "your" reality is actually reality and their "fantasy" is actually fantasy. You are assuming that you are right, and that is fine, but it is a bit presumptuous of you to expect everyone else to leave you alone because they should know that you are right and what you say is reality is more valid than what they say is reality.

Anyway, we live in a reality where "drunk driving" is legal and hasn't been linked to any deaths.
Ah, the shortcoming of the analogy. Where drunk driving is illegal, not being a Christian is absolutely legal. Unfortunately, no analogy is perfect. However, you argue that since "drunk driving is legal and hasn't been linked to any deaths" then it must be fine. The problem with that is that having a lack of information either way does not validate either argument. While this "drunk driving" may not have been linked to death, it has not been excluded either. Thus, arguing out of silence is just as futile for either side.

Mind you, I am not one to go out and try to force people in the way I am describing others as doing. Frankly, your "driving drunk" does not hurt anyone else like it could in real life, either. Also, the more I try to use force, the more you will likely dig your heels in, and since I cannot crack you across the jaw to get you to heaven, it would make my effort more futile than effective.

The point I make is that these people are not ill-intentioned. Most don't do it for another little badge or star to put up on their chart. Many, believe it or not, are genuinely concerned. I am.

For the record, I detest faith-based voting and religious governments as much as you do, though probably for different reasons. I was merely pointing out the intents of those who don't mean to do anything but help.

Not sure if I'm just repeating things already said; I'm to lazy to read all the posts.

Yes, Christians are more outspoken because they are the majority in the west.

As an Agnostic (that poses as a Catholic; I've been brought up Catholic, so I follow the traditions, listen to my priest, and go to a Catholic school), I neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. I believe that no human can ever find out if there is a God. Also, I view actual belief in God, as an internal search to find Him/Her/It.

The only religious people that really bother me, are groups that actively try to convert me, especially in sneaky, underhanded ways like "loving them to death." My neighbor is an evangelical, fundamentalist, anti-Catholic (Grrr!) Protestant. His children play with my little sister and he offers to take her to his "Church" (Bah!) because it's "more fun", "less pagan" then MY church. He also invites her to these "Owanas" (Like Protestant/Jesus oriented scouts). I'm not fond of people who come to my door and waste my time converting me, especially since my Jesuit (My priest is a Jesuit) and Xaverian (I'm friends with a prison chaplain, and a teacher who are both Xaverian brothers) friends can crack open the bible and rip their beliefs to shreds, those Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Probably some of the nuns I know can do this too. After skimming through a translation of the Koran, I don't too much like Islam. It's nothing personal. I just think the Koran is one long repetative, contradictory cynical rambling that says to make war on Christians "the one's who believe three gods in one."

Athiests piss me off though. I don't care that they believe in God; I care that they are trying to convince people not to believe in God. I mean why crush someone's faith? It's really sadistic. It's good to believe in some form of Supreme Power(s), even if it's wrong as long as it's a religion of peace. I really wish I could believe in God. I think you actually need an equal amount of faith in believing there's not a God to be an athiest, as to believe there is a God. (I'm Agnostic. I don't have faith in there being a God or there being not a God)

It's my personal belief that if the existance of God is disproven, everyone who believes in God will continue to believe in God. If God is proven ("Hey I'm God, here to convert you wackos!"), athiests will remain athiests ("Pssh! You're not God!").

Finally, the only valid point I have, It's the athiests who tend to start debates. Mainly to tease the christian majority. They just don't realize they're doing it... like this thread I think is an example of that.

Technically, yes. They are assuming you don't want to 'die.'


And that is fine, provided "your" reality is actually reality and their "fantasy" is actually fantasy. You are assuming that you are right, and that is fine, but it is a bit presumptuous of you to expect everyone else to leave you alone because they should know that you are right and what you say is reality is more valid than what they say is reality.


Ah, the shortcoming of the analogy. Where drunk driving is illegal, not being a Christian is absolutely legal. Unfortunately, no analogy is perfect. However, you argue that since "drunk driving is legal and hasn't been linked to any deaths" then it must be fine. The problem with that is that having a lack of information either way does not validate either argument. While this "drunk driving" may not have been linked to death, it has not been excluded either. Thus, arguing out of silence is just as futile for either side.

Mind you, I am not one to go out and try to force people in the way I am describing others as doing. Frankly, your "driving drunk" does not hurt anyone else like it could in real life, either. Also, the more I try to use force, the more you will likely dig your heels in, and since I cannot crack you across the jaw to get you to heaven, it would make my effort more futile than effective.

The point I make is that these people are not ill-intentioned. Most don't do it for another little badge or star to put up on their chart. Many, believe it or not, are genuinely concerned. I am.

For the record, I detest faith-based voting and religious governments as much as you do, though probably for different reasons. I was merely pointing out the intents of those who don't mean to do anything but help.


Yes, we lack the information. But it isn't smart to ask people to do something that "may or may not be good for you". British schoolchildren were at one time encouraged to smoke pipes, because it was believed at the time that it "may be good for the lungs".

But yes, I understand your point and we now come to the source of this problem: The belief that they are saving a life. So now the question is: How do we let people keep their religion, but at the same time make them understand that non-christian "lifes" are not for "saving"?
Everyone can in some way justify pretty much everything they do. The last battle fought here was fought by christians who thought they were doing the right thing (conversion by force).
But "intent", though grounds for leniency, does not hold up as an excuse before court (for example). Thinking that you are doing the right thing still means that you are responsible towards other people. I know I'm stretching it a bit by using courts as an analogy, but it's the best one I could think of at this moment.

I also understand that there is a big difference between where you and I come from and I have never experienced religion being a factor, or a force even, in politics. Religion doesn't have any bearing on the law. Nor do churches playing a big role in society or being used to apply pressure on other groups...etc. But when I see what it's like in the USA, I fear that some day (although, probably not), this may happen in my country. So basically, the only pressure I feel from christians is verbal, mostly from the kind of types that stop you in the streets and want to "convert" you, and of course the usual handfull of extremists that protest sin, gays, education,sex in general...etc.
And my *intent* is that it stays that way.

When you called Christianity the majority, and other religions the minority, I had to look it up. "Christians" make up 33% of the believers, followed very closely by the Islam religions. And...I know a lot of people who call themselves Christians, but who NEVER go to church, don't follow the teachings of the Bible, etc. etc. So, I'm sure a good chunk of that 33% are not practicing.

33% does not make a majority. Except in the United States where it seems to win elections.
Not to mention if they dident feel oppressed a lot of the denominations are so different that they would not want to be concidered as a group
Hell half the time I hear CATHOLICS are not christians from other denominations ... get rid of THAT group and the numbers drop FAST

1) No matter what, there will always be disagreement between people.

2) Christians have enough members that, together, disagree with many other groups (that is, there are many areas where a large number of Christians will usually agree with each other, say, no taxing churches or banning preachers on the street). Other groups tend to have more varied feelings on it. (I myself am undecided on the taxing of churches, for instance). They are thus a stronger influence over votes than other groups, generally, when there's some known way to make it a religious issue.

3) Sane people tend to oppose people voting in a way different than themselves. They do not oppose them having a CHOICE, but they want what they voted for to be that which passes. Thus, one is going to wish an opinion to run similar to theirs, so the world turns out the way one prefers.

4) There are enough Christians who are ready and willing, who, together, form a large enough group to themselves sway elections, who have historically supported freedom-snuffing ideas. Notice that in many states you officially cannot have gay marriage.

5) Freedom-snuffing ideas are EXTREMELY worrisome to those who cherish those freedoms. If something is legal, you can still NOT do it. But if something isn't legal, you don't have the choice. If a Christian does not desire to be done up the butt, they don't have to. If someone DOES wish to be done up the butt, and there are anti-sodomy laws because a Christian group objects to it, then they don't get to make their choice. If someone wants to look at non-provably-harming porn (Non-Christians tend to agree just as readily that kiddie porn is to remain illegal), one has a choice not to. Unless someone sets up censuring laws. Et cetera. There are very few "Buddhists Against Nipples on TV" groups. I'm sure some exist somewhere, but they're thankfully rare.

6) It is generally very difficult to legalize something once it has become illegal. Laws usually grow.

There are too many Christians willing to say I can't do something that they can't prove does anyone any harm whatsoever. There are fewer members of other groups who try to prevent me from being legally able to do what I want. Thus, Christians are first on my "UGH" list. Hell, their influence is much of why I'm no longer a Republican.

Simply put, in this country, I accept that the Christians have every right to screw everything up for everyone.

But I don't have to like it, and I have every right to get on their case about it. At least until they make it illegal. At which point I leave the country for somewhere with a higher number of people who deserve to exist.

Hell half the time I hear CATHOLICS are not christians from other denominations ... get rid of THAT group and the numbers drop FAST

As a Catholic, I'd like to say Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox) invented Christianity. We also perfected it by incorporting the pagan traditions of the people we converted. We also decided on which of the gospels went into the bible. (I bet someone is now like, "There were only four!" Gospel of James. Gosepl of Mary. Gnostic Gospels. And many, many more... they just got rejected for being weird and contradicting the other ones. THere's like one where Jesus would push people off buildings as a child. Another that's just a collection of Jesus quotes [nowhere does it say he's the messiah!]Another where they prove everything that happened. I liked that one, but it's writing style dated it too late. Constantine said to compile the accurate gospels together so the church leaders narrowed it down to those four, thinking them the most accurate.)

Protestantism never wouldn't caught on back then. "Pssh! I'm not allowed to light candles and create religious inspired pieces of art, with extravagant temples and many holidays and a whole pantheon of people to worship!? Screw that." It took some guys with insecurities up the ass and through the ears to be like "Maybe we should 'purify' everything and take all the mysticism out."

If Catholics are taken out, then you'd also need to take out Eastern Orthodoxy (For the ignorant, they're a hell a lot like Catholics, except with Eastern European traditions instead of Central and Western Europeans. THey also don't recognize the Pope [patriarch of Rome] as more important than the other patriarchs... they got pissed when crusaders sacked Constantinople... also... the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church stopped liking each other. JP2 and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs were working on ecumension [excuse my spelling]), and I'd probably also consider taking out Anglicans;They're similiar enough to Catholics I think.

My point? Catholics were the first Christians, they should be called Christians... however Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses... they're a different matter entirely!


Protestants are just jealous our theology is clearly defined and our clerics are educated... especially those fundamentalists.. they're not fun, but they sure are mental!

Sorry... I'm not trying to offend anyone with my religious views. I also don't hate Protestantism. It's just that I'm sick of Protestants trying to convert me and my Catholic friends and telling me that my denomination really isn't a Christian denomination. I also read recently on a website that Jesuits, the "alleged" Society of Jesus, (My priest is a Jesuit. Only the most brilliant priests can join that order. They're skilled educators and rhetoricans) are really Luciferians that are plotting to take over the world...

I'm actually an Agnostic who was raised Catholic and loves Catholicism. We have no way of ever truly knowing if there is any Higher Power(s). Humans can't comphrened God.

Actually, I agree.

While I don't care for religion, period, I'll take a Catholic over a Protestant nine times out of ten. The HISTORY of the Church, and some of the practices (as with any government) is pretty nasty, but they seem to have a much smaller nutcase ratio (though some of them, like Mother Theresa, can do some serious damage). You can at least talk to them and expect them to react like human beings instead of raving lunatics.

Also, the fetishes they've inspired... not in to them myself, but when you have a girl showing off her catholic school girl outfit, hey, I'm not upset either.

Oh...And Hitler was a protestant.

Not really. Not only did he declare Nazism as being the state religion, he also made this statement which makes it hard for me to imagine him as a Christian, "By means of the struggle [of the fittest] the elites are continually renewed. The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature."


I want the world to improve. I see most of what Christians push (especially AS Christians, rather than just citizens) as negative. They seek to restrict individual freedom, and sodomize everyone with their personal morality. I, on the other hand, feel morality doesn't start until the issue of HARM comes in to play. Harm in the provable world. I also have a problem with people who want to take my guns away. My owning guns causes absolutely no harm to any human or pet, and my family's owning guns has protected us from burglers before.

And what makes you fit to judge what will make the world improve? How can you determine what is harmful to another, when all you know is what would harm you. Do you speak only of physical harm? If so, what about those who commit adultery? That may hurt their spouse, or it might not. What about alcoholism? That might not hurt everyone, but what if he has a wife and children that he neglects. Who are you to criticize those who think that what they are doing is for the good of the world. They DO have reasons too. Real, provable reasons (if there is such a thing). For example, let's take your guns. You owning guns may cause no harm to anybody in the universe, but the fact that these guns are easily accessible to those who DO want to cause harm is a reason why someone might oppose you. Just because you have never taken the time to bother with looking in to the reasons people might want to do something does not mean that they are nonexistent.
You think that organized religion is the greatest evil in the world? As opposed to what? The Rape of Nanking possibly? The Holocaust? (or was it their fault for belonging to a religion?) Maybe the fact that the Huns conquered most of Asia and slaughtered those before them? Maybe Alexander the Great killing every man, woman and child in towns that would not submit to his rule? I don't care if you disagree with me on any issue you want. But I think it is wrong to hate a group of people based on anything, whether religion, race, or anything else. Am I demonizing you? I disagree with you, and I think that your beliefs of hatred based on religion are completely wrong. It is my opinion. I don't hate you or demonize you for yours. You seem, however, to be demonizing those people who actually adhere to what they believe though, and I have no evidence from you whatsoever that you respect their opinions or even care enough to try and understand them. I sincerely hope that this disrespect does not turn into hatred.

P.S. And I cannot find the post on Mother Theresa, but why, exactly, is what she did a bad thing?

As a Catholic, I'd like to say Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox) invented Christianity. We also perfected it by incorporting the pagan traditions of the people we converted. We also decided on which of the gospels went into the bible. (I bet someone is now like, "There were only four!" Gospel of James. Gosepl of Mary. Gnostic Gospels. And many, many more... they just got rejected for being weird and contradicting the other ones. THere's like one where Jesus would push people off buildings as a child. Another that's just a collection of Jesus quotes [nowhere does it say he's the messiah!]Another where they prove everything that happened. I liked that one, but it's writing style dated it too late. Constantine said to compile the accurate gospels together so the church leaders narrowed it down to those four, thinking them the most accurate.)

I love it when I see a Catholic who has bought into the bullshit the church feeds them hook, line, and sinker. Although you at least know a few things the church generally won't tell you.

If Catholics are taken out, then you'd also need to take out Eastern Orthodoxy (For the ignorant, they're a hell a lot like Catholics, except with Eastern European traditions instead of Central and Western Europeans. THey also don't recognize the Pope [patriarch of Rome] as more important than the other patriarchs... they got pissed when crusaders sacked Constantinople... also... the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church stopped liking each other. JP2 and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs were working on ecumension [excuse my spelling]), and I'd probably also consider taking out Anglicans;They're similiar enough to Catholics I think.

Holy crap. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[QUOTE=BashanMy point? Catholics were the first Christians, they should be called Christians...[/quote]

Such an uninformed person.

Hmm, not quite the topic I want to partake in a debate for, so I'll leave it alone, and use this post for feed to my ever-increasing, yet currently small, post number.

Oh yes, and, why only Christians? Because God predicted it so. Because we are RIGHT, and thus, targets for Satan. The only reason others are not too oppressed is becasue they are already wrong, so Satan doesn't have to attack them, seeing as they are already bound to his fiery palace.

Christians are opposed in the western world because the memory of their reich still exists, and there is truth in the maxim "all that is required for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."

I love it when I see a Catholic who has bought into the bullshit the church feeds them hook, line, and sinker. Although you at least know a few things the church generally won't tell you.



Holy crap. You have no idea what you are talking about.



Such an uninformed person.
I believe you are the uninformed one. The Catholic church WAS the original church. And just an FYI Eastern Orthadox ARE almost exactly like Catholics with the exception of following the pope of Rome.

Thank you :)


Though I see why he thinks I'm an uninformed person. I for some reason didn't articulate myself well around the end...

how do you think religions survive? All major faiths do it in some way or another
Not Buddhism (or Daoism, or similar faiths) - they won't actively convert you. If you do switch over, great, if not, they won't try to persuade you, just teach you what they think.

Also, the fetishes they've inspired... not in to them myself, but when you have a girl showing off her catholic school girl outfit, hey, I'm not upset either.

I go to a Catholic, all guy high-school. The local all girl Catholic high schools can join our drama club, which I am happily in. I have to agree. Catholic school girls in their Catholic school uniforms are nice, except for the fat ones. But sometimes those skirts, on the attractive ones, are shorter then they are supposed to be... :D

Well to answer one question, God and Allah are the same thing, so someone trying to disprove God would also be trying to disprove Allah.

Christians are targeted beings Christians probably have the dirtiest history. Islam lately has been building a pretty bad reputation, but Christianity has been corrupted for that last 2 thousand years. Jews have never been very powerful, but they ARE targeted all the time.
Does your knowledge ever begin? Allah and God are not the same thing, as Christianity and Judaism, and Islam, are mutally exclusive. If Jesus is the Son of God and everything written about Him is true, then Judaism and Islam are wrong. Christians have the dirtiest history? Moors ring a bell? How about the genocide in Darfur? Or in Southeast Asia? The Muslim enslavement of Africans?

I like Buddhism. It's like the only religion that preaches peace that hasn't started a war. Infact, I think when it came to India, the Emperor (Gupta Empire? I really don't remember) after a particularly brutal battle converted and stopped trying to conquer places... though I think he would still crush rebellions and that kind of stuff...

And then there was that crazy Catholic guy who like outlawed buddhism... Buddhist monks set themselves on fire to protest it. (As a Catholic, I'd like to note that that Catholic guy doesn't represent the majority of us and that the pope even denounced his policies... I think/hope. It'd be like me saying all protestants are like Bush or Hitler... whcih may or may not be true)

When Christianity was young they at first truly were a religion of peace. Then (I think this developed when Christianity was made the official religion of Rome. Sometime around that) it was decided only Christians were moral enough to fight wars.

When Christianity was young they at first truly were a religion of peace. Then (I think this developed when Christianity was made the official religion of Rome. Sometime around that) it was decided only Christians were moral enough to fight wars.
The Crusades were designed to take back the Christian Holy land. It'd be the same thing if the Indians rose up to take back America.

Athiests are pretty bad when it comes to forcing their beliefs on others.. Their beliefs of nothingness... Anyone who can't respect another belief be it Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.. should examine themselves and shut up.

The Crusades were designed to take back the Christian Holy land. It'd be the same thing if the Indians rose up to take back America.

You misunderstand me, my friend. I'm still in Roman times, when Christians first began fighting in wars. I think it may have been Constantine who came up with the brilliant idea, but I'm not sure.

One of the main points of the Crusades were to prevent fighting between Catholic kingdoms. "You know, Christians against Christians... that can't be cool... now Christians against Muslims? That's the ticket!"

As long as we're talking about christianity in war, Things got really funny after the protestant revolution with all the fighting between the various denominations. Particularly when the Catholics and Lutherans teamed up against the Melchiorites (Or was it Anabaptists... or are they the same denomination?). Yeah...

You misunderstand me, my friend. I'm still in Roman times, when Christians first began fighting in wars. I think it may have been Constantine who came up with the brilliant idea, but I'm not sure.

One of the main points of the Crusades were to prevent fighting between Catholic kingdoms. "You know, Christians against Christians... that can't be cool... now Christians against Muslims? That's the ticket!"

As long as we're talking about christianity in war, Things got really funny after the protestant revolution with all the fighting between the various denominations. Particularly when the Catholics and Lutherans teamed up against the Melchiorites (Or was it Anabaptists... or are they the same denomination?). Yeah...
It wasn't Christians, it was Romans. Constantine had a vision or something, and thought that if he put crosses on his shields he'd be unbeatable. It seemed to work, so he made Christianity the state religion. However, the fighting was done by Romans who happened to be Christians. Christianity's only united war effort has been the Crusades, just as the Muslim's united war efforts were the jihads.

Athiests are pretty bad when it comes to forcing their beliefs on others.. Their beliefs of nothingness... Anyone who can't respect another belief be it Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.. should examine themselves and shut up.

So long as they vote in ways which we feel are detrimental to the country, we have every right to try and sway them away from their course.

We'd all be happy to leave them to their fantasies, if they didn't have members who wanted to shove the cross up everyone's butt.

There are too many united Christian efforts to remove freedoms and change government policy in ways that violates the Constitution.

There aren't many atheist attempts to do so. Some, I'm sure, but not many.

Not really. Not only did he declare Nazism as being the state religion, he also made this statement which makes it hard for me to imagine him as a Christian, "By means of the struggle [of the fittest] the elites are continually renewed. The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature."


Social Darwinism is, frankly, a result of people having no idea how evolution works. Altruism exists in nature. It's part of being fit.


And what makes you fit to judge what will make the world improve? How can you determine what is harmful to another, when all you know is what would harm you. Do you speak only of physical harm?


Provable harm. If you can't prove it, I can't realistically make doctrine out of it. It can be shown that, for the most part, beating the hell out of someone because they have a different color of skin actively violates their ability to pursue happiness, et cetera. It's the same reason that, while this country was founded largely by gnostics and so forth, they felt it was best to let people worship whatever they want, no matter how close to or far from reality it was.


If so, what about those who commit adultery? That may hurt their spouse, or it might not.


Adultury is a stupid thing to make innately illegal.

If I get married, and my wife says, "Honey, I want to have a threesome", it's adultury, but nobody who's opinion matters is upset.

Adultury should only be a crime if the marriage contract states it as violating the agreement. It is, of course, perfectly fine grounds for divorce, but so is "He calls me fat every single day!"


What about alcoholism?


You're free to kill yourself so far as I care.

I don't own your life.

However, if your being under the influence puts others in harm, THEN it's to be penalized.


That might not hurt everyone, but what if he has a wife and children that he neglects.


Then she should divorce his ass and make him pay child support. Duh.


Who are you to criticize those who think that what they are doing is for the good of the world.


Provable harm vs. unprovable benefit = Provable harm wins.

If I say eating pregnant women against their will while they give birth will assure they go to heaven, are you going to LET me?

Would you let me say that women weren't allowed to wear red shoes, because it would send them to hell?


They DO have reasons too. Real, provable reasons (if there is such a thing).


Magic is not shown to exist.


For example, let's take your guns. You owning guns may cause no harm to anybody in the universe, but the fact that these guns are easily accessible to those who DO want to cause harm is a reason why someone might oppose you.


The same can be said of sticks. Will you make sticks illegal?

My owning a gun harms nobody.

Theft is already a crime.

I can kill people with grocery store items. I can kill people with my hands. I can kill them with my MOUTH.

But you know what, unless someone tries to steel my femur to club someone with... yeah... not harmful.


Just because you have never taken the time to bother with looking in to the reasons people might want to do something does not mean that they are nonexistent.


I'm so glad that my hideous number of hours on here and alt.atheism and talking with religious people since I could talk means I've never heard their arguments. I feel like my mind is nice and free and clear of all their BS now. Thank you.


You think that organized religion is the greatest evil in the world? As opposed to what? The Rape of Nanking possibly? The Holocaust? (or was it their fault for belonging to a religion?) Maybe the fact that the Huns conquered most of Asia and slaughtered those before them? Maybe Alexander the Great killing every man, woman and child in towns that would not submit to his rule? I don't care if you disagree with me on any issue you want. But I think it is wrong to hate a group of people based on anything, whether religion, race, or anything else.


Single incidents are rather often justified with religion. Hitler was protestant. Alexander's dad tried to dub himself a deity.

Religion makes suicide missions a non-problematic option. It makes people more concerned about an afterlife, and have no issue with destroying the world. Religion gives people the power to tell other people that they are right, and questioning them sends you to eternal damnation. Religion has led to little kids dying because their parents thought a prayer was better than a doctor. Religion has led to charity money being spent on churches and bibles instead of food and water. Religion has led people to try to stamp out sex education in favor of lying to kids about sex. Religion has led to vast monies going to try to stamp out BIRTH CONTROL in INDIA. Religion has led to untold numbers of hate groups, human sacrifices, torture, et cetera et cetera. Religion has led to divine-rightism, the trail of tears, the slave-built Spanish missions, the conquestidors, mass suicides, et cetera. It has tried to slow science solely to keep itself from being proven wrong, it has violated the US constitution numerous times, it has rewritten US history texts to 'sanitize' them, it has censured art, thinking, and choice.

Religion leads people to say "I am absolutely right", when the proof that they aren't is biting them in the ass and chewing through to the pelvis, and "I am absolutely good" when the people are suffering from it all around them.


Am I demonizing you? I disagree with you, and I think that your beliefs of hatred based on religion are completely wrong. It is my opinion. I don't hate you or demonize you for yours.


You tried to suggest that I was against people having differing opinions, or having a right to express them.

I just wish that those who disagreed with me on matters of freedom would keep it to themselves.

You misrepresented my statements. Thus, demonizing.


You seem, however, to be demonizing those people who actually adhere to what they believe though, and I have no evidence from you whatsoever that you respect their opinions or even care enough to try and understand them.


I've been learning about this for my entire life. I'm still not impressed with it. The more I learn, the more my religion=evil, spirituality=depends notion gains strength.


I sincerely hope that this disrespect does not turn into hatred.


Considering my best friend is a Wiccan, and my cuddle buddy is a Catholic, I think I'm safe from that.

Ultimately, I only hate that good people suffer for all of this BS. Like the people of differening sexuality who have so much of the country saying they're sick, evil, perverted monsters who're going to hell, and that their thoughts are sins. Most of my friends are bisexual. I do NOT want them to ever have the government step in the way of their love for another.


P.S. And I cannot find the post on Mother Theresa, but why, exactly, is what she did a bad thing?

It's on the net. Try "Mother Thersa" and "Evil" or something on google.

She wasted most of the money people sent her. She felt that suffering was a holy act to be appluaded, not prevented. She built churches rather than trying to jump start economies, and lobbied to have contraceptives made illegal in the areas of the world that are extremely overpopulated.

I'm sure she meant well. But she's done more, directly, than any terrorist has.

Screw good intentions, I want good RESULTS.

I want more people in this world to smile.

Note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or "daring" you to prove something, I actually don't know:

When I see an argument relating to God, I usually see something about the hypocrisy of Christianity, or how Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others(just generalizing there, no actual threads I can reference). But what about Jews? Or Muslims? I never see anyone trying to disprove the existence of Allah, or that Islam is an oxymoron because Mohommed was a warrior. I don't ever see a reference to "Torah thumping." Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities? They also believe in God, just not that Jesus was his son.
dunno if it has been brought up, but maybe its because allah, what jews call god (El i think) and what christians call god are the same thing. they all worship the same being, just in different ways and different belief sets.

Originally posted by Crapholistan
Yes, we lack the information. But it isn't smart to ask people to do something that "may or may not be good for you". British schoolchildren were at one time encouraged to smoke pipes, because it was believed at the time that it "may be good for the lungs".
As the last analogy had a glaring flaw, so does this one. Not everyone who might become a Christian would be negatively affected. If one believes there is no God/gods/etc., then he has nothing to lose by doing so. This is the one little issue I have with the analogy, though I still understand what you are conveying, and it has merit to a point. This is why I am not in agreement with those that preach fire and brimstone (though I am also opposed to the sermons that are so afraid to step on anyone's toes that they lose their original meaning). It does no good to preach at people using manipulations and the such. If I am asked to give the gospel, I do it in plain words. I don't incorporate any little "technique" like tracts or anything. It is not up to me to appeal to one's emotions, because that takes away from its legitimacy.

Put simply, you and I agree that, most of the time, the way that people are "witnessed to" does more harm than good.

But yes, I understand your point and we now come to the source of this problem: The belief that they are saving a life. So now the question is: How do we let people keep their religion, but at the same time make them understand that non-christian "lifes" are not for "saving"?
You don't. A core of their belief is that every life is worth saving, thus convincing them of this does not actually let them keep their beliefs(I hate te word "religion."). What needs to happen is these people need to practice what they preach. If asked, most Christians will claim that it is God who saves, and not them. I would then ask, "Why, then, do they spend so much energy trying to do it themselves?" THAT is the point that needs made. I am actually in agreement that all lives need saved. However, I recognize that God doesn't NEED me to do that. If He allows me to do so, by having someone I know begin asking questions, then great. I refuse, however, to try to beat it into someone, and I think that if most Christians were to be engaged this way, they would have to admit that they believe this as well, and that they don't practice it.

Everyone can in some way justify pretty much everything they do. The last battle fought here was fought by christians who thought they were doing the right thing (conversion by force).
I will agree that it was fought under the name of Christianity. I will not go so far as to say that it was a mass of Christians. The worst thing that can happen for the Christian church is to be made the state religion. It causes, as it did in the times of Constantine, mediocrity. I honestly see it here in America, not because it is a state religion, but because culturally, it is the most popular belief system, thus making the enforcement of it just as effective.

For the record, I would've been burned at the stake as a heretic if I had been around during the fighting of the Turks, as Michael Sattler (one of the forerunners to the anabaptist movement, who was killed at that time in that way) was.

But "intent", though grounds for leniency, does not hold up as an excuse before court (for example).
Court, however, implies that something actually happened. If someone who is "witnessing" to you annoys you, what have you lost besides your patience? And even with that, I am not convinced that is solely his/her fault. Thus, the actions based on this intent have not been detrimental in any way. If they are not detrimental (aside from killing their own cause a bit, which is probably not a bad thing in your eyes), why would there be any reason not to excuse the action based on intent?

Thinking that you are doing the right thing still means that you are responsible towards other people. I know I'm stretching it a bit by using courts as an analogy, but it's the best one I could think of at this moment.
Understood. No analogy is perfect. :) But as far as the responsibility aspect, Christians are responsible to "go out into the world and preach the good news to all people." To fail this responsibility is that of which they are afraid.

I also understand that there is a big difference between where you and I come from and I have never experienced religion being a factor, or a force even, in politics.
This may sound funny, but I used to be an agnostic and liked the idea of Christianity influencing government because Christians, from what I saw, were a little brash, but moral people. Now, I am one, and I do not want it to influence the government at all. Seems odd, I know.

Religion doesn't have any bearing on the law. Nor do churches playing a big role in society or being used to apply pressure on other groups...etc. But when I see what it's like in the USA, I fear that some day (although, probably not), this may happen in my country.
Count yourself lucky. I almost envy the Christians in your country. Being a minority in view like that seems to cause a greater zeal to know what one believes and be able to defend it. Christianity is so popular in the United States that most Christians have no reason to be Christians, really. Most of them get "saved" because they get worked up into a big emotional experience and then all their reasons for believing are post-modern, leaving them with no reason to profess it, because personal experience is just that: personal. Thus, they cannot show these experiences to others. This, I think, is why so many Christians seem to be ignorant of their own beliefs: because they really are.

So basically, the only pressure I feel from christians is verbal, mostly from the kind of types that stop you in the streets and want to "convert" you,
And they wonder why it never works, too . . .

and of course the usual handfull of extremists that protest sin, gays, education,sex in general...etc.
Ugh, yes, the religiocrats are everywhere. They make it so hard for any Christian who has decided to love God with all his/ her mind (which the Bible does command) to be taken seriously, because we get grouped into a bunch with them.

And my *intent* is that it stays that way.
Your intent is that you continue to feel verbal pressure from Christians and that extremists still protest sin, gays, education, and sex? I sure don't.

If any Christian would look into history, they would realize that the strongest Christians were around during a time when the government was very anti-Christianity. The opposite is also true. The most mediocre Christians lived in times when Christianity was pushed by the government.

how do you think religions survive? All major faiths do it in some way or another
u think we're about surviving? the only reason we like to talk about our faith is because we want to save people. if everyone was saved, then we'd shut up, cuz we don't care.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania] Magic is not shown to exist.
[\QUOTE]
For that matter, what is? Not even the universe can be PROVEN to exist. However, I don't believe in magic either.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]The same can be said of sticks. Will you make sticks illegal? My owning a gun harms nobody. Theft is already a crime.
I can kill people with grocery store items. I can kill people with my hands. I can kill them with my MOUTH.
[\QUOTE]

I think you missed my point entirely. First of all, I wasn't trying to say you shouldn't have a gun. I honestly don't care if you have a gun. The point I was trying to make wasthat somebody might think that since guns can be easily obtained, someone who is not so trustworthy as you might get a hold of one and start shooting people, like kids in a playground. I think that if those people are determined to shoot somebody, they will regardless. But, it is an honest concern, and I felt that by having this indomitable sense that you are right in everything you do, you neglect the opinions of others, even though they are honest.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]Provable harm vs. unprovable benefit = Provable harm wins.
[\QUOTE]

Provable to YOU, in reference to YOUR belief system. There is absolutely no difference between a Christian trying to change the world for the better and you trying to change the world for the better. You are both imposing your opinion on others. You oppose murder (I would assume). They oppose murder. They take it one step further and see abortion as murder [due to their own reasons, whether it be they think it has a soul, or they see its heart beating, or they know that after five months a baby can live outside of the uterus (with complications, of course)]. You do not see it as murder and so call them stupid idiots who believe in fairies and witchcraft. Peter Singer takes your opinion one step farther and believes that parents should be given a day or two once the baby is born to decide whether or not to kill it. In the Netherlands, a law such as that is already in place for babies born with disabilities. Basically, the point is that everybody has opinions, and everybody has reasons which they consider sufficient to support their beliefs. By you saying that you are right, and they are certainly wrong and, in fact, that they belong to the most evil institution in the world, you are being insanely ludicrous and hypocritical. You are assuming that since their beliefs don't correspond with yours, they are not worth respect.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]beating the hell out of someone because they have a different color of skin actively violates their ability to pursue happiness
[\QUOTE]

And if you beat the hell out of them because they tried to take your guns? Before you misinterpret me, I am not trying to go about gun-bashing or saying that you think it justified to beat up people. If the harm is not provable, then is it non-existent? Harm exists, regardless.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]I just wish that those who disagreed with me on matters of freedom would keep it to themselves.
[\QUOTE]

Like you do so well?

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]Religion leads people to say "I am absolutely right", when the proof that they aren't is biting them in the ass and chewing through to the pelvis, and "I am absolutely good" when the people are suffering from it all around them.
[\QUOTE]

YOU believe that they have no proof! YOU are insanely wrong! If they wish to say that the are absolutely right, then they can do so. It is not as if atheism has kept you from saying it. They have proof, whether it is philosophical, metaphysical, or physical, it makes no difference. The large majority of religious I know do nopt just blindly accept what they are told, as you seem to think! It is not as if they are just drones and mouthpieces! I have not once said that I am religious, yet I have respect for those who are. You use your little analogy of red shoes, but you have no idea how inappropriate that analogy is. They have solid reasons behind every position they take. You may not agree with them, but clearly they do.

The drastic irony of the atheist position is that you believe yourselves to be absolutely right. You criticize Christians because you believe them to be presumptuous in their assertions, yet you do the exact same thing! If they were to ask you why you even believed harm matters in any way, considering that everyone dies and all their smiles make not one tiny difference in the world once they're gone, would you have an answer? Why not let them suffer? Why is it that you feel humane towards them when not one iota of difference can be made, because once they are dead, so are there memories and every thing they've ever done! Who gives a shit? Aren't we all just animals? I know people who hold that opinion too. It seems more insane than Christianity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense.

As for Mother Teresa, she has done countless good for thousands of the poor! And a lot of money went to the poor. She helped a lot of people. More than I can say about you, but then, I don't know you very well.

Basically, as I want this to be one of my last posts on this thread, I will state my stance on the actual question on the thread: Christians are the ones who are criticized because they are the most readily available religion to pick on in the Western World. Catholicism is especially picked on because a lot of fundamentalist protestants throw in their lot against Catholics. Mainly, it is the ignorance and hypocrisy of some atheists which incite Christians to believe that their religion is under attack. They are worried that the world is descending into a state of immorality, and so try to correct it. Some take this too far and pick on atheists, so breeding the ignorance and hypocrisy of those special atheists. It is a cycle which cannot end so long as there are insane atheists and insane CHristians.

The reason everyone complains about the Christians is that Evangelism in the western world basically MEANS preaching Christianity. The Jewish religion is pretty specific about only telling people about it when they ask, and theres a whole lot of stuff you have to do before converting, unlike in christianity where all that matters is that you DO convert, whether or not you mean it. Muslims are pretty damn evangelistic, but they just don't do it to YOU lot because of the distrust that tends to get associated with Islam. Also theres the whole Infidel thing, that doesn't help. Anyway, they ahve their own religious problems without bringing in new ones by converting people.

Originally posted by Incenjucarania
So long as they vote in ways which we feel are detrimental to the country, we have every right to try and sway them away from their course.
This sounds oddly like a religiocrat speaking about an atheist. They feel the same way about you as you do them.

We'd all be happy to leave them to their fantasies, if they didn't have members who wanted to shove the cross up everyone's butt.
And Christians (not even just religiocrats) would all be happy to leave atheists to their fantasies if they didn't have members who wanted to shove evolution up everyone's "butt." It still cuts both ways. It has gotten to the point that I am particular about when I speak apologetically, because many times atheists will rehash things I have already explained (red herring or sometimes begging the question) or they will use such ignorant and emotionally charged language that I refuse to respond until they settle down and are able to discuss things like the adults they claim to be.

There are too many united Christian efforts to remove freedoms and change government policy in ways that violates the Constitution.
You believe in the authority of the Constitution? If you will notice, throughout United States history there have been amendments made to the Constitution. Thus, what is Constitutional is whatever is put into or not taken out of the Constitution.

And there have been things removed from the Constitution. What is Constitutional is a very nebulous concept. It has everything to do with when it is being argued. I live in accordance to the Constitution, but if it changes with both additions and subtractions, then why complain about what people are trying to do to change the Constitution?


There aren't many atheist attempts to do so. Some, I'm sure, but not many.
I seem to run into quite a few. Maybe it's just the area. Either way, you cannot know this unless you have a reasonable way to judge this. This cannot be run through the scientific method and, thus, cannot be held true by anyone who acts as if science is the end all of knowledge (which is, in itself, a contradiction).

I believe you are the uninformed one. The Catholic church WAS the original church. And just an FYI Eastern Orthadox ARE almost exactly like Catholics with the exception of following the pope of Rome.

There was never, in all of history, a single unified church or a single, unified dogma. Anyone who has told you otherwise is either uninformed or lying.

In truth, there was no "original church". Each of the disciples went out and started churches which were largely separate and had quite a few different views. Eventually, they decided to come together and codify these views, mostly because there were some people they could all agree were teaching things they didn't want to, but there many churches, each of which could trace themselves back to a disciple. Apostolic succession, in its earliest form, applied to *all* priests and simply meant that you must be able to trace your preistly lineage back to one of the apostles. Anyone else was not a priest. Several hundred years later, when the Western church decided that the bishop of Rome should have absolute primacy, even over the other 4 major sees, the definition began to change. Meanwhile, this was also the beginning of the end for the combination of eastern and western catholicism, which already had huge differences before the bishop of Rome started trying to act like he was the absolute head of the church.

Meanwhile, there are huge theological differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. Most of them are based on what an outside observer might call minor details, but the Christian community as a whole spent hundreds of years arguing over them.

u think we're about surviving? the only reason we like to talk about our faith is because we want to save people. if everyone was saved, then we'd shut up, cuz we don't care.
So essentialy the church will only be happy when it controlls everyone ... yay and you guys still wonder why we get worked up sometimes?

This sounds oddly like a religiocrat speaking about an atheist. They feel the same way about you as you do them.


Religiocrat nothing. It's called "Two parties who have a great deal vested in whether society goes one way or another." I know full well they have their motives, however, I prefer for MY motives to be carried out.

I don't care how much they like the idea of their world vision, I think mine is better, especially since it lets them do what they want ANYWAYS, while theirs denies me that right.

If I want to go bisexual or gay, fall in love with Bob, and marry Bob and poke him in the ass every single night, I'd like that right.

Just like I would like to retain the right to worship Jesus, Bobo Fett, or Fetta Cheese, as is my wont.


And Christians (not even just religiocrats) would all be happy to leave atheists to their fantasies if they didn't have members who wanted to shove evolution up everyone's "butt."


We'd have to stop preaching about gravity too then?

You do know that evolution is as proven as chemical reactions, yes?


It still cuts both ways.


They have private schools, yes?

We're now letting them fund private schools with vouchers, yes?

You do know that evolution and atheism are unrelated, yes?


It has gotten to the point that I am particular about when I speak apologetically, because many times atheists will rehash things I have already explained (red herring or sometimes begging the question) or they will use such ignorant and emotionally charged language that I refuse to respond until they settle down and are able to discuss things like the adults they claim to be.


Yes. There are idiots in all camps.

Just some camps are more powerful and more likely to have idiots who want to STOP other people from things.


You believe in the authority of the Constitution? If you will notice, throughout United States history there have been amendments made to the Constitution. Thus, what is Constitutional is whatever is put into or not taken out of the Constitution.


I'm sorry, are you suggesting that "Woman can now vote" and "No more slaves" is the same as "No Gay Marriage"?


And there have been things removed from the Constitution. What is Constitutional is a very nebulous concept. It has everything to do with when it is being argued. I live in accordance to the Constitution, but if it changes with both additions and subtractions, then why complain about what people are trying to do to change the Constitution?


Would you fail to complain if they added "All Americans must suck off the president once in their lifetime as a pilgrimage"?

I mean, change DOES happen.


I seem to run into quite a few. Maybe it's just the area. Either way, you cannot know this unless you have a reasonable way to judge this. This cannot be run through the scientific method and, thus, cannot be held true by anyone who acts as if science is the end all of knowledge (which is, in itself, a contradiction).

If you know of any large-scale movements by atheist groups who identify themselves as atheist, who are trying to ban churches, and actually have enough power to DO so, please point me at them so I know to oppose them for being hypocritical asses.

I don't care how much they like the idea of their world vision, I think mine is better, especially since it lets them do what they want ANYWAYS, while theirs denies me that right.




Exactly the point. They think their world vision is better, so they will oppose you. To them, what you think of as a human right to do what they want, they might say that this is a faulty concept because it delivers into human hands the ability to do what they see as right, as if human vision is perfect. They believe in God, therefore they believe things are wrong that violate Him. They have many reasons to believe in it. Just like you. And, just like you, they want the world to be better.


We'd have to stop preaching about gravity too then?
You do know that evolution is as proven as chemical reactions, yes?


That is not actually true. Chemical reactions can be seen happening, while in evolution the only thing that can be observed is the final product, not the billions of years behind it. And they have yet to find the evolutionary step between human and whatever was before them. Gravity is actually proven, all we really know about evolution is that species reroduce and that there are different species now than there were one hundred million years ago. But that has nothing to do with this debate.


If you know of any large-scale movements by atheist groups who identify themselves as atheist, who are trying to ban churches, and actually have enough power to DO so, please point me at them so I know to oppose them for being hypocritical asses.

You clearly are not too well versed in history. Nazism was essentially an atheist movement. While Hitler declared himself to be Christian, by his words and actions you can see that he was not. There are hundreds of quotes and examples I could give of this, and towards this purpose I will only repeat the line, "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature."
For other examples you could look at Mexico's constitution when it was written in the early 1900's. Or even Portugal at the same time. Catholicism was illegal, and many thousands died. Catholic priests were only allowed to vote again in 1992. Father Marcial Maciel grew up in that period, and there is a famous story of the atrocities committed against Christians by the atheist government. You are foolish if you believe that it couldn't happen in America. Also, many branches of the freemasons are opposed to Christianity, but they are sort of a cult anyway.

Most religions are content in simply having born adherents, while Christianity has always been a proselytizing religion because it is a religion born from converts.
At least they don't kill you for leaving the faith.

At least they don't kill you for leaving the faith.
Now :p

Does your knowledge ever begin? Allah and God are not the same thing, as Christianity and Judaism, and Islam, are mutally exclusive. If Jesus is the Son of God and everything written about Him is true, then Judaism and Islam are wrong. Christians have the dirtiest history? Moors ring a bell? How about the genocide in Darfur? Or in Southeast Asia? The Muslim enslavement of Africans?
Yes, God and Allah are the exact same thing! Those three relgions believe different things pertaining to afterlife, morals, etc, but they all belive in the EXACT same god. Religion wise Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are similar. Jews and Christians concentrate more on scripture, hence the name "people of the book".

Yes, God and Allah are the exact same thing! Those three relgions believe different things pertaining to afterlife, morals, etc, but they all belive in the EXACT same god. Religion wise Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are similar. Jews and Christians concentrate more on scripture, hence the name "people of the book".
Allah is a short form for al-Ilah ("the god"), the exact same word as Hebrew Eloa, which is normally used in the plural Elohim ("the gods"). Thus Allah/Elohim represent the title of deity, while the strange symbol "yhwh" (sometimes with "at" aleph-tav preceding it) is used to represent the actual name of the deity (Yah/Ea known all over the Middle East in ancient times, though not as the later monotheistic version the israelites and their offspring have sold to the world...).

All three are decended from the Babylonian religion. The angels themselves used to be Babylonian Gods, as was Jehovah, and also possibly several Greek Gods (Jupiter makes a cameo appearance in the Apocrypha; Set and Isis are both found in ancient Jewish writings). Lucifer has the shape of a serpent in Genesis because all the Seraphim were serpents. Cherubs never used to be babies; if I remember rightly they were cockrels. Zoroastra appears in a couple of the earliest books of the Old Testament. Lillith, Adam's first wife and mother of the Demonkin, was removed by the Jews as incompatible with the one true God.

You might want to check out www.Earlyjewishwritings.com and www.Earlychristianwritings.com for more info. Neither site is complete, but there's tonnes of useful resources on there for any student of religion.

That is not actually true. Chemical reactions can be seen happening, while in evolution the only thing that can be observed is the final product, not the billions of years behind it. And they have yet to find the evolutionary step between human and whatever was before them. Gravity is actually proven, all we really know about evolution is that species reroduce and that there are different species now than there were one hundred million years ago. But that has nothing to do with this debate.

Actually, we have witnessed bacterial evolution, which takes as little as weeks or months to happen. So Evolution is proven really. We're just not sure why it happens, or precisely how.

You clearly are not too well versed in history. Nazism was essentially an atheist movement. While Hitler declared himself to be Christian, by his words and actions you can see that he was not. There are hundreds of quotes and examples I could give of this, and towards this purpose I will only repeat the line, "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature."
For other examples you could look at Mexico's constitution when it was written in the early 1900's. Or even Portugal at the same time. Catholicism was illegal, and many thousands died. Catholic priests were only allowed to vote again in 1992. Father Marcial Maciel grew up in that period, and there is a famous story of the atrocities committed against Christians by the atheist government. You are foolish if you believe that it couldn't happen in America. Also, many branches of the freemasons are opposed to Christianity, but they are sort of a cult anyway.

Most of these groups acted out of revenge against what the Catholics had done to them, particularly the Freemasons, who've been persecuted by the church for over 1000 years. And Hitler was a Christian. Words and actions have nothing to do with it. He acted a damned sight closer to 'typical' Christian behaviour than most today do; he murdered millions of Jews (almost as many as the Catholics have, in fact), brainwashed the young, and invaded the middle east. How much more Christian can you get?

Exactly the point. They think their world vision is better, so they will oppose you. To them, what you think of as a human right to do what they want, they might say that this is a faulty concept because it delivers into human hands the ability to do what they see as right, as if human vision is perfect. They believe in God, therefore they believe things are wrong that violate Him. They have many reasons to believe in it. Just like you. And, just like you, they want the world to be better.


Exactly. I feel that freedom is good, they believe that being controlled by an unproven and unlikely magical creature is good. As I've said before, they're as entitled as I am to try to ruin the world. I just wish they wouldn't, and, so, debate to do what I can to lessen their numbers, or at least get them to stop trying to force people to follow their world view. I'm trying to force them on to my world view of freedom=good, after all, though in that, they're free to keep THEMSELVES controlled all they want. Wear collars for all I care.


That is not actually true. Chemical reactions can be seen happening, while in evolution the only thing that can be observed is the final product, not the billions of years behind it. And they have yet to find the evolutionary step between human and whatever was before them. Gravity is actually proven, all we really know about evolution is that species reroduce and that there are different species now than there were one hundred million years ago. But that has nothing to do with this debate.


1) Evolution is a scientific fact which can be proven in a relatively short period of time with bacterial cultures, and, in a bit longer period of time, with fruit flies.

2) In all cases, the issue is not if, but WHY. We know that allele frequency changes in a group over time, we know that chemicals in some combinations have a certain effect, and we know that there's something that causes mass to attract mass under the right conditions. We're still working on a unified theory for all of this. However, we know that they all HAPPEN.


You clearly are not too well versed in history. Nazism was essentially an atheist movement.


Which is why they killed atheists, yes?


While Hitler declared himself to be Christian, by his words and actions you can see that he was not.


I'm sorry, but do you realize how many self-declared Christians fall under that?


There are hundreds of quotes and examples I could give of this, and towards this purpose I will only repeat the line, "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature."


http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm


For other examples you could look at Mexico's constitution when it was written in the early 1900's. Or even Portugal at the same time. Catholicism was illegal, and many thousands died. Catholic priests were only allowed to vote again in 1992. Father Marcial Maciel grew up in that period, and there is a famous story of the atrocities committed against Christians by the atheist government. You are foolish if you believe that it couldn't happen in America.


Catholics, or All Faiths?

Anything can happen in any country, bucko. There can be evil people from any group. Even evil buddhists. I bet I could find evil PASCIFISTS given enough time.

Which is why it's important to have a FREE society, not one where any one group is enforced.

Any time freedom is taken away from groups, things go to hell.

Christians, at present, in large ENOUGH numbers (there are plenty of them on the pro-freedom side, after all), are trying to negate freedom, and prevent it.

They're not trying to keep gay people from voting, at least, but part of that's the matter of trying to prove they're gay to begin with.

Oh, and read the first few bits of dialogue, at the least (It's short):

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm


Also, many branches of the freemasons are opposed to Christianity, but they are sort of a cult anyway.

Which has what to do with anything?

I don't recall the Freemasons being a group for universal freedom wherever possible.

--

Again, I'm not saying no freedom, nor am I saying no churches.

I DO want religion to cease to exist. But through intellectual growth, not through violence or law.

My best friend on the planet is religious, as are many of my other friends, as is much of my family. I have no hatred of spiritual people.

But that doesn't mean I'm just going to pretend they don't believe in the supernatural, and that I think this is healthy behavior, or a good reason to vote.

Sorry, my eyes started hurting, so i stopped reading, but I felt I might as well add my two cents ya knpw?

Anyways, it seems to me that, yes, Christians ARE rather pushy with their beliefs, and that, yes, if other religions were stronger here in the US, then it wouldn't just be Christianity (or its many branches, predecessors (sp?), etc. who were religously pushy.

In study hall, the two people who sit closest to me are Catholics, and my gf is christian, and I while they know me enough to not try and talk me into their respective religions, they do sit there say that they feel sorry for me for having nothing to believe in. It's annoying. Anyways, I am gonna crash, but whatever. You people have a good debate.


Oh, one final note:

Hitler DID do some very useful research on the relationship between cancer and smoking, something that the US didn't start thinking about until many years after the war. He WAS a very terribly disturbed person however.

Originally posted by Incenjucarania
Religiocrat nothing. It's called "Two parties who have a great deal vested in whether society goes one way or another." I know full well they have their motives, however, I prefer for MY motives to be carried out.
Okay, thus far, you still sound like a religiocrat.

I don't care how much they like the idea of their world vision, I think mine is better, especially since it lets them do what they want ANYWAYS, while theirs denies me that right.
See, you have misunderstood what they (religiocrats, and NOT Christians . . . just for the record, I cannot stand religiocrats either, and I am related to many of them) want to do. They want to have a country that lives according to Scripture, thus your way would NOT allow them that. It would allow them to live as they are, but that is not all they want. If it was, then there would be no tension.

If I want to go bisexual or gay, fall in love with Bob, and marry Bob and poke him in the ass every single night, I'd like that right.
For the record, I am not convinced that homosexuality is a governmental issue, so do not consider me adamantly against you on that point, but your argument is an appeal to outrage and has a giant flaw (which I am sure you will correct after reading this): Anyone who wants to do something illegal would "like that right" to do so. If it is made legal, I won't stop you from doing it. I may speak against it, but I won't expect you to follow my own convictions, because you don't hold them.

Just like I would like to retain the right to worship Jesus, Bobo Fett, or Fetta Cheese, as is my wont.
As it stands, you have that right. If the USA one day makes worship of anyone but the Christian God illegal, I will leave this country, and that is coming from a preacher.

You do know that evolution is as proven as chemical reactions, yes?
Its 'proof' is as full of loopholes and unanswered questions as creationism. There have been flaws discovered in the ways things have been dated (Carbon dating, just as an example, though I am sure you will likely agree with me on that, since even the same evolutionists who would have sworn by it before now agree that it is flawed). It is hilarious how those who deny creationism will have these proofs only to disprove them years later and come up with a different way for the beginning of the world.

I would love to hear this proof, though I would rather hear why creationism is NOT possible, since both are, in reality, theories. If you are able to give me irrefutable evidence, then I will send it to my one-time Astronomy professor and tell him he was wrong and to spread it to his collegues (He is one of the most renouned speakers on creationism in the world.).

We're now letting them fund private schools with vouchers, yes?
Unfortunately. Mind you, I went to public school and I think that private schools shelter "good Christian kids," which used to make me sick, because my agnostic views at the time were just that much more reasonable (which they were, because those kids never ran across any disagreement about such). Well, as it turns out, my views were not as iron-clad as I thought.

You do know that evolution and atheism are unrelated, yes?
I do. The majority of Atheists I run across, however, seem to believe in evolutionistic beginnings of earth, universe, time, etc.

Yes. There are idiots in all camps.
These are to whom I refer when I say "religiocrats," by the way. I am not one, and they often bug me, because they make my job so much harder by giving a genuine Christian an ugly stigma to overcome at the get-go.

Just some camps are more powerful and more likely to have idiots who want to STOP other people from things.
Like organized prayer in school, having the Ten Commandments in the courts (Neither of which I actually care about, but I certainly think they were benign when allowed. The separation of church and state was taken from a personnal letter sent by Thomas Jefferson. Once this concept was brought to law, it was taken to the extreme and the rights that had been previously held by Christians were revoked, when those rights were not interfering with anyone else's faith or beliefs. Like you said, there are idiots on both sides, but there are just as many who would take away the rights of Christians as there are who would take away the rights of anyone else.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that "Woman can now vote" and "No more slaves" is the same as "No Gay Marriage"?
I am not arguing it morally. I am arguing it Constitutionally. No, it is not the same, because two have been repealed and one has not.

I don't even understand your argument here. You are obviously supportive of women's sufferage (as am I) and the ending of slavery (which I also support). You are also supportive of homosexuals to marry, which would follow the exact same pattern. It is you who is equating them more than anyone. My point was merely that "constitutionality" is nebulous. You are the one that seems to equate all three.

Would you fail to complain if they added "All Americans must suck off the president once in their lifetime as a pilgrimage"?
I would honestly not complain. I would just break the law, as it goes against my convictions on homosexuality, though I would do so also on the grounds that the Constitution protects my right to practice religion. As it stands, I do not see anything in the Constitution that makes the illegality of homosexual unions a contradiction.

I mean, change DOES happen.
Does that mean you are ready to assume it is good? Change can be very good and progress is one thing that I also deem important. However, just because things change does not mean that they change for the better.

If you know of any large-scale movements by atheist groups who identify themselves as atheist, who are trying to ban churches, and actually have enough power to DO so, please point me at them so I know to oppose them for being hypocritical asses.
How do you think evolutionism became the mandatory teaching in schools (I know, I know, evolutionism and atheism are not the same)? How do you think organized prayer was made to be illegal in school?

1) Evolution is a scientific fact which can be proven in a relatively short period of time with bacterial cultures, and, in a bit longer period of time, with fruit flies.
I take it that someone has fed this to you. You haven't actually witnessed this have you?

The fruitflies were not seen to prove macroevolution. In fact, they did nothing to even support it.

This is what amuses me: What did the fruitflies become? What did the bacteria become? Let me guess . . . fruitflies and bacteria. I know you are going to argue that little changes like that would change the organisms over long periods of time, but there is, as there has always been, no proof for this.

I am wondering if these bacteria and fruitflies evolved at the same pace. Were there variances in times?

I am, for the record, a believer in microevolution.

2) In all cases, the issue is not if, but WHY. We know that allele frequency changes in a group over time, we know that chemicals in some combinations have a certain effect, and we know that there's something that causes mass to attract mass under the right conditions. We're still working on a unified theory for all of this. However, we know that they all HAPPEN.
I would love to see where you got this. Funny thing is, you, personally, have no better claim for evolution than any Christian does for his/her claim for creation. You have never seen evolution happen. You trust someone else to tell you. Funny . . . I hear that as a reason that Christianity is futile.

Which is why they killed atheists, yes?
I agree with you, that the Nazi movement was not atheistic, but this argument is ludicrous. They also killed anyone who did not have the right color hair or eyes, yet they missed this one guy that failed to meet those qualifications. His name was Adolf Hitler, a dark-haired, dark-eyed man who claimed that he was a "mutation" of the arians. Wierd that nobody else was viewed as merely a mutation.

I'm sorry, but do you realize how many self-declared Christians fall under that?
Okay, here's one that will find no agrument from me. You are absolutely right.

http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm
I admit it. I laughed. I am sorry, but I cannot take seriously a site that starts out "The Church of Theists Suck." That would be the current title. Very scholarly. I hope you didn't get all of your "facts" from sources so "iron-clad." :rolleyes:

I bet I could find evil PASCIFISTS given enough time.
No Christian will argue that, as most believe that "all have sinned." (Rom. 3:23)

Any time freedom is taken away from groups, things go to hell.
And yet, you would like to dictate which freedoms fall under this. Do I have the right to kill your dog, or even you?

If you were asserting what I think you were, though, I agree. Whenever things that were once rights are taken away, there is rabble.

They're not trying to keep gay people from voting, at least, but part of that's the matter of trying to prove they're gay to begin with.
Please don't think that all of us even give a rat's a** if a homosexual couple is allowed to marry. I, honestly, think that there is no claim that Christians have based on morality, though, there are social detriments of homosexuality, but there are social detriments to smoking as well, so I still don't oppose it.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
First, you again pick a less than scholarly source, as I can see numerous, simple grammatical errors on the first page of that site. Robert I. Sherman, though accredited by the state of Illinois, is still a reporter for the "American Atheist news journal [sic]" (The words "news" and "journal" should be capitalized, as it is the title of a journal.). Are you futily attempting to convince me he did not have a vendetta? Do you honestly think that such an exchange would not have been all over the news if it was exactly as it is claimed on a less than professional website (albeit one that seems to be "organized," but then anyone can become organized anymore, can't they?)?

Either way, both of your sources are so heavily biased that most educated atheists I know would not even use them in a discussion such as this.

But that doesn't mean I'm just going to pretend they don't believe in the supernatural, and that I think this is healthy behavior, or a good reason to vote.
I will agree on the reason to vote part. I don't vote according to my moral beliefs. I vote based on what I see the Constitution support. Odd, I know. If it is already in the Constitution, why vote on it? Well, if you want to change it to "What should be in the Constitution?" then I will say, "What is there now," as I have no problem with the way it is now.

*Stuff*


DAMMIT.

May jolt BURN.

Had your post fully responded to, and the effing thing interrupts to make me sign in again.

*aghs*

Look.

The atheists you know have no idea what they're talking aabout.

I've DONE the evolve the bacteria thing in the lab, in high school advanced bio. So yes, I have seen it.

Evolution has no effect on creationism whatsoever. Bast can have menstruated all of existance out. Evolution would just take over as soon as biological things existed.

My sources were half ass. I just grabbed the first thing on google that wasn't a sex ad. I have work to do. You can search for yourself. You're a big boy.

Bottom line: Take an evolution class with an up to date book. Take a bio class with a bacterial culture lab. If you don't believe evolution is real, CAUSE some.

Finally: Static Creationism: The hunt for the wild poodle.

And since this topic isn't about evolution anyways:

People vote.

Voting is based on numbers.

You want what you vote on to pass.

People vote based on what they think, feel, and are told to do.

If you want people to vote like you, you need to get them to understand your position, to accept your orders, or to avoid voting.

I, personally, do not give orders, nor do I try to tell people not to vote.

That leaves me with debate.

Well, its late, but I just spent an ungodly time reading this thread, for nearly 200 posts. I better say something.

I am an Antitheist. I try to convert people to my beliefs, and I am prejudicial towards those who don't agree with me. I know I shall get lots of flak for this.

Simply, my stance is that religion is just another set of opinions, like politics, etc. I try to convert others to my political beliefs, my choice in women, and my religious choices. I don't think any of these should be forced on people, but I would like it if they believed the same as me. I don't constantly yell at friends about it, but I might tell them why I'm antitheistic(if it comes up), or maybe tell them about it if they are having religious belief issues. No, I dont like others doing it to me, but only because I think I am right. Its hypocritical, I know, but it happens.

I am antitheistic, but I only hate the religions, not the religious. The only girl I have ever loved is a jew.

Well, its late, but I just spent an ungodly time reading this thread, for nearly 200 posts. I better say something.

I am an Antitheist. I try to convert people to my beliefs, and I am prejudicial towards those who don't agree with me. I know I shall get lots of flak for this.

Simply, my stance is that religion is just another set of opinions, like politics, etc. I try to convert others to my political beliefs, my choice in women ...
Why on earth would you want to convert people to your choice in women? It seems to me that it's better for you if most people don't like the same sort of women - less competition that way!

Simply, my stance is that religion is just another set of opinions, like politics, etc.

Religion is not just a set of opinions. An opinion is something that is debatable and discussable and are reletive to individuals. Religion is about spiritual truth, its not debatable. For a Christian, its not debatable whether or not Jesus died on the cross, its fact. It cant be an opinion even if the person isnt a Chrisitan. Either Jesus died or he didnt, either he rose again or he didnt. A fact cannot be regarded as an opinion.

Religion is not just a set of opinions. An opinion is something that is debatable and discussable and are reletive to individuals. Religion is about spiritual truth, its not debatable. For a Christian, its not debatable whether or not Jesus died on the cross, its fact. It cant be an opinion even if the person isnt a Chrisitan. Either Jesus died or he didnt, either he rose again or he didnt. A fact cannot be regarded as an opinion.

Its not fact. Its percieved fact. You are basically arguing that its not an opinion because some christians have so much faith in it they cant change their minds. Its still only an opinion on what is truthful. I hold faith in my choice of political and economic ideologies. The only difference with religion is, there is much less proof, and much more faith involved. Its not a fact, again, only a percieved fact.

Nah, Christians aren't threatening, they just like to tell you you're going to hell a lot, more than a lot...
The Muslims are the ones with a Holy Book encouraging the waging of Jihads against the infidels, which is a bit more than "believe or after you die of life, you will burn in Hell!"


Speaking of the hypocracy of Christians... what of the Crusades? (not the mention Bush using that term to describe his efforts in the Middle East) It's the Christian equivalent of Jihad, though if you'd really studied either the Bible or the Koran, neither condone "holy wars".

wow... I wonder on which drug were they, when they thought of that idea.

But I guess it's because you mostly hear about christians and stuff. But I also think muslims must have some propaganda, I mean now and then you hear about a movie guy who wanted to be a muslim... well not lately, no movie star wants to be a terrorist... :)


Might want to be careful what you say there mate... seems to me you might be implying that all Muslims are terrorists... personally I find such an attitude discraceful, particularly among Americans.

Anyone remember we Cat Stevens was barred enterance to the U.S. because he's a member of Islam?

Because I have access to a bible and not a Koran, because I lived with a Jewish family and never was asked to convert or looked down on for not being Jewish, because a lot of Christians post threads whining about how they're not getting enough attention, because whenever I look there's a thread about Christianity and every time I start a thread it dies, because I used to be Christian so know more about it via forced sunday school, because Christians burned witches and I'm a witch.


More power to you.

We're all just fingers pointing at the moon anyways, so it's the hieght of hyprocracy to think you have the "one, true, holy and apostalic finger".

Muhammad was known as a 'leader of jihad' for a reason...


Who calls Muhammad (pbuh) the leader of jihad? Same people who ignore the fact that Jesus lived and preached non-violence perhaps?

Its not fact. Its percieved fact. You are basically arguing that its not an opinion because some christians have so much faith in it they cant change their minds. Its still only an opinion on what is truthful. I hold faith in my choice of political and economic ideologies. The only difference with religion is, there is much less proof, and much more faith involved. Its not a fact, again, only a percieved fact.

No, you see wetherer or not Jesus raised from the dead is a fact. Now I am not saying that you can prove it one way or the other but the point is that it is a fact. Either Jesus did raise from the dead or he didnt. Opinion does not change fact. Your opinion may be that he wasn't and my opinion is that he was but that doesnt change whether or not he was.

Could it be that Christians catch more flak because in some regions (mine included) they are the religeon most likely to try to get laws passed that reflect their religious beliefs, laws that would affect everyone including those not of their faith, laws that do not necasarily reflect the values of those not of their faith?

Alot of what you guys are saying is wrong your just saying stuff.
Most of you dont have muslims trying to convert you because they dont know you or live near you. How many muslims actually know you, this may be racist but generally muslims are arabic or simmilar. Now they would try and convert other people of there culture. How many of you try and tell other cultures about your religon/belive versus people of oyur own culture. Now i live in a place with alot of multicultirism so to be safe most people dont try and spread there faith to much as to not offend people.

I have to say christains are not the most threatning people. What happens when you try and tell people about christainity or any other religion except Islam... Thye chop your head off or throw you in jail. What about the Hindus they masacerd the Sikhs(sp). Now chiristains arent perfect either there was the crusades.. but every religion has bad people in it, there is the Islamic extremists that blow stuff up... they do not represent the majority either do many of these christains. Also dont confuse Mourmins and Jahova Witnesses with christains they claim to belive the same thing but its not and those are very often the "bible thumping" people.

There is alos the fact that in the bible it says go out into the world and spread the gospel, well thats what there trying to do. Maybe its not he most effective but they are trying.

Back to the original question, I think its mainly because the majority of peoplw voiceing things about there religion on this forum are christain. If this was a community that spoke arabic mostlikely there would be more muslims, if it was hebrew more jewish people...



Actually mate, most Muslims don't live in the Middle East. As the fastest growing religion Islam is found all over the globe.

Second, I don't see how you can see Christians as none-threatening as it was their actions that lead to the Genocide of the Native Americans on both the Northern and Southern continents.

Just because you're not proud of the actions of Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons (other Christian groups evagelize as well) doesn't mean you can exclude them from being lumped in with the rest.

As for going out and spreading the gospel, St. Francis of Assi said to "Preach the Gospel at all times, and if absolutely necessary use words."

Christianity is a religion that by definition does not compromise, is very evangelical, and isn't afraid to tell you that you are wrong.

Others see that as closeminded, agressive, and arrogant.

Oh, and Willamena summed it up quite nicely. We're a threat to their conscience because we tell them that they can't do things that they want to do.


Careful, mate, remember that the Original sin in the Bible is eating of the tree of the "knowledge of Good and Evil", or basically believing you can judge the actions of others where only, Yahweh/Allah/Jehova/God or whatever you might call him, can do that.

WEll you can look at it that way or you can see it from another perspective. We are telling you what we think is wrong and then you fell threatend because deep down you know to some degree we/they are right.

You have to agree you have or atleast had a conscience. How do little children know that abuse is bad that murder is bad that lying is bad. Either there parents tell them or the conscience does, many people grow in a disfunctioanl home were they are not taught propper things but they still know that it is wrong.


Actually conscience would be the result of your environment, morallity is based chiefly off of social norms that allow communities to function. There are several stages to moral development (three levels with two stages each) according to Kohlberg.

First, and the lowest level which is generally found at the elementary level, is where people don't do things because they do not want to be punished. This can be caracterized by people not doing bad things because they don't want to go to Hell. The Second stage in the level is people doing things because it suits their self interest, or say Christians doing good because they want to go to heaven. While a necessary starting point, this is not wear you want to stay though it sadly seems many people do.

The second Level, revolves around social acceptance. At the first stage people behave well because they want to look good in front of their peers and wish to gain their approval. In a religious context you want to gain stading in your faith Community. The second stage focusses more on doing good because the law says so. While there is a certain amount of respect that can be garnered from obeying rules (like Commandments or the Five Pillars) for their own sake, it still is a relatively shallow aspect. Most people don't get past Level Two.

The Third and final level focusses on the recognizing of the interconnectedness of everything and having a genuine interest in the welfare of others. While few people ever get to stage one of this the concept of an individual conscience in stage two is all but unknown, and would only have a few canidates (Jesus, Mohammad, Budha, Gandhi, Martin Luter King Jr. would be my guesses).

Actually conscience would be the result of your environment, morallity is based chiefly off of social norms that allow communities to function. There are several stages to moral development (three levels with two stages each) according to Kohlberg....




You are right about those stages of the development of human conscience. However, this is just a general approach, a development of this kind will take place in any culture from the small tribe in Papua-New Guinea to an urban family in Northern Europe. What differs though are the values that are being recognised as important. An individual in Papua New Guinea will inevitably learn that it is good to protect your own tribe by being aggressive towards other tribes, whereas an individual in Europe will learn that any form of aggression towards others is to be regarded as negative.
Our western society is BASED on Christian values, since Christianity has been the biggest influence on our moral system for centuries. Of course these principles can be regarded detached from religion and from an ethical point and are just as valid, but they were introduced and held up by the Christian faith.
I think the original question can be answered : We live in a society in which the Christian faith has been the only accepted faith for centuries, and even though this is changing rapidly, Christians are still the majority. That's why we get to hear more from them and about them than, say, from Krishna or Mohamed

First off, I belong to three minority groups. I am bi-sexual, have a mental illness (Bipolar Disorder), and am a Druid. These should not invalidate my views but explain a little where I'm coming from.

I live in an area that is 85% Roman Catholic, 10% Protestant (mostly Episcopalians), and 5% other. Of course, being "other" has never bothered me. My Friday morning coffee group includes a priest, an Episcopalian minister, and a Buddhist. We all started meeting to decide whether we could co-sponsor a dialogue between faiths. Now, within that group, we discuss our respective tennents without rancour or much argument. I won't say we never argue because we do.

Now comes the rub with Christians in general. My two friends of Christian beliefs come under fire with their superiors because they do not try to convert me or tell me that I'm going to hell. They have a handle on that and I won't interfere in internal church matters.

It's other groups that truly bother me. I was unable to pray in my own way that is non-disruptive while I was in the hospital for being suicidal. That is a function of my bipolar. In fact, I was told flat out that I would go to hell because I'm not Christian and they did not have to do anything for me. I was asking for a time to go outside (like when others went to smoke) to meditate. I only found out afterwards that my religion actually fits under the Patient's Rights Act and they were required to make "reasonable accomodation". Five minutes outside when smokers were outside for twenty seems pretty reasonable.

I have been offered "to have the demons cast out of me" because of one of the a-forementioned minority groups. A Catholic smashed the window on my truck because of a bumper sticker that said, "Wiccans are crafty people". I have been threatened by rape several times by Christian males who think to turn me straight by showing me the "error of my ways". These are just a few examples of a faith that frankly scares me at this point.

I'm not saying all Christians are bad and should be demonized. I just want them to respect the fact that I hold different beliefs and would prefer not to have theirs shoved up my nose.

Yes, I made mistakes. I'm very outspoken on my rights as a person. I've never hidden anything I've pointed out. I shouldn't have to. However, I do recognize that could and does make me a target for those who believe that I'm in the wrong.

That's why I tend to "pick" on Christians. The good examples keep me silent most of the time but the bad examples had me writing this post.

Not to say memebers of other faiths don't do this to some degree as well, but Christians seem particularly inclined to "pick and choose" what teachings of their faith they will follow. They pick out a few Bible quotes to determine their actions, and then ignore calls to "love your enemies and do good to those who hurt you", or to "act with justice, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly with your God". That's some pretty deep stuff, but how many Christians or people even live their lives like that?

There are 2 billion Muslims in the world. They are hardly a minority.

Yeah but 2 billion muslims in far off countries doesn't make him any more in contact with them.

No, you see wetherer or not Jesus raised from the dead is a fact. Now I am not saying that you can prove it one way or the other but the point is that it is a fact. Either Jesus did raise from the dead or he didnt. Opinion does not change fact. Your opinion may be that he wasn't and my opinion is that he was but that doesnt change whether or not he was.

In that case, everything is fact. Whether a communist nation, or a capitalist nation will be more stable socially, is a fact. Whether giving all americans medical benefits will outweigh the costs in the long run, is a fact. Whether switching to alternative fuel sources will leave us in a better position, internationally, in the future, is a fact. Everything is a fact. But these are things that cannot be proven, or not easily or quickly, and most only by previous observance. So the original saying that "a christian believes for a fact that christ was real, etc etc" is not really viable, because its only his opinion on what that fact is, and it is possible to change people's opinions on what the facts actually are.

Originally posted by Old Coraigh
Not to say memebers of other faiths don't do this to some degree as well, but Christians seem particularly inclined to "pick and choose" what teachings of their faith they will follow. They pick out a few Bible quotes to determine their actions, and then ignore calls to "love your enemies and do good to those who hurt you", or to "act with justice, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly with your God". That's some pretty deep stuff, but how many Christians or people even live their lives like that?
You have no argument from me.

Not to say memebers of other faiths don't do this to some degree as well, but Christians seem particularly inclined to "pick and choose" what teachings of their faith they will follow. They pick out a few Bible quotes to determine their actions, and then ignore calls to "love your enemies and do good to those who hurt you", or to "act with justice, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly with your God". That's some pretty deep stuff, but how many Christians or people even live their lives like that?

*All* human beings pick and choose what they believe. Any who don't do this actually have no beliefs to speak of, other than "what he said." The only difference is that fundamentalists (of any stripe) like to act like they follow every aspect of their chosen organized religion, even though, as a group, they don't even know what those aspects are.

Meanwhile, I attempt to live my life by the principles you called out. It is incredibly difficult sometimes, but I do try.

christianity contains the most serious and numerous contradictions and they typically end up forcing their beleifs on others more often than the others.
simple truth is theres no reason to talk about jews or muslims because they dont have the same problems

It's been said before.

When there are millions of Wiccans trying to dictate to say we can't marry another human being, or have sex in our chosen fashion, or determine which deity is pledged to in our secular government, then THEY will get the flak.

Speaking of the hypocracy of Christians... what of the Crusades? (not the mention Bush using that term to describe his efforts in the Middle East) It's the Christian equivalent of Jihad, though if you'd really studied either the Bible or the Koran, neither condone "holy wars".

Just as a clarification, the Crusades actually took place after the Muslims had begun taking over Christian countries, were in response to a call for help from the Byzantines, and were directed only at the Muslims, not against all religions. And Bush can use the word, because it has the general meaning of a righteous war, though Iraq hardly fits the description.

In response to studying evolution, I think it was covered by saying that he believed in microevolution (as I do). Nobody has ever observed transformation of a species, and, as I am under the impression you do not know what a species is, and a species is, in very simple terms, distinguishable by the fact that they cannot mate with other species. Dogs have been bred for 5000 years and are still interbreedable.

This debate, however, is not about either. The primary reason that Christians are the group which is mostly mentioned is because they are the religion which is around the most in the Western World. Were it not Christians, it would be whatever other group that was. The reason, however, that religious groups are antagonized is because atheists believe that they are right, and they believe that other groups are wrong, just as religious groups believe that atheists are wrong. The idea that they are the only group large enough to change a country is fallacious because there is another group, and that is those who are not Christians. Abortion, for example, is legal in most countries of the Western World. This is something untenable with most religions. Therefore, because it is illegal, it is quite apparent that there is a group who imposes their will upon a society. Of course, you might say that it involves a choice and that Christians don't have to have an abortion, but in a Christian mindset, the baby has a soul and so is being killed. Therefore, to them, it is a violation of rights.
Another argument used in this forum is that it is essentially organized religion which is the cause of most evils. If everybody had the freedom to choose, then no harm would be done. This, however, allows for the belief that the government is enlightened enough to make illegal that which causes harm. It gives total power to a governmental system, and so is flawed. You can say that something is wrong if it causes harm, but the same action that causes harm in one case may not cause harm in another instance. In all recent cases, the religious right has bowed down before whatever other right exists. For a most recent example, the case of Terri Shiavo, who had been a dedicated member of a religion which opposed starving brain dead patients, was starved to death.
You say you want the freedom to choose, and yet what is seen as matters of choice change. At one time, the idea of killing a baby was horrific. Now, in the Netherlands, a couple has the option to "dispose" of a newborn if it has a disorder of some kind. You assume that people have the ability and the will to determine what is right and what is wrong, but people screw up, and when they do, it sometimes harms hundreds of people. There is nothing more wrong about organized religion then there is about a government. Governments screw up all the time, people screw up all the time. For people to put faith in an ultimate being who knows right from wrong is not a stupid thing to do, because otherwise they are putting their faith in people they know can't tell right from wrong. Do you honestly think that anybody who commits an atrocity believes what he has done to be wrong? Do you think a murderer sets himself down and degrades himself for harming another person? People make choices, and they never believe that they have done something wrong. It seems logical for people to believe that there is something which knows what is wrong, and to follow that being.

Another argument used in this forum is that it is essentially organized religion which is the cause of most evils. If everybody had the freedom to choose, then no harm would be done. This, however, allows for the belief that the government is enlightened enough to make illegal that which causes harm. It gives total power to a governmental system, and so is flawed. You can say that something is wrong if it causes harm, but the same action that causes harm in one case may not cause harm in another instance. In all recent cases, the religious right has bowed down before whatever other right exists. For a most recent example, the case of Terri Shiavo, who had been a dedicated member of a religion which opposed starving brain dead patients, was starved to death.

How exactly does "everyone should have the freedom to choose" lead to "let the government decide for you"?

And your Schiavo comment is bullshit. She had not been a practicing Catholic for years before her collapse.

In response to studying evolution, I think it was covered by saying that he believed in microevolution (as I do). Nobody has ever observed transformation of a species, and, as I am under the impression you do not know what a species is, and a species is, in very simple terms, distinguishable by the fact that they cannot mate with other species. Dogs have been bred for 5000 years and are still interbreedable.


Physical breedability is no longer considered the sole determiner of species, thanks to such pesky creatures as ligers. The old definition failed.


This debate, however, is not about either. The primary reason that Christians are the group which is mostly mentioned is because they are the religion which is around the most in the Western World. Were it not Christians, it would be whatever other group that was. The reason, however, that religious groups are antagonized is because atheists believe that they are right, and they believe that other groups are wrong, just as religious groups believe that atheists are wrong. The idea that they are the only group large enough to change a country is fallacious because there is another group, and that is those who are not Christians.


You make it sound like atheists are the only people who don't want Christians dictating their lives. Many Christians also want the other Christians to leave people the hell alone, and many other groups (agnostics, gnostics, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, et cetera) do as well.


Abortion, for example, is legal in most countries of the Western World. This is something untenable with most religions. Therefore, because it is illegal, it is quite apparent that there is a group who imposes their will upon a society.


Yes. The large body of people who are not Christian Control Freaks (Distinct from normal, non-obnoxious Christians who respect personal freedom).


Of course, you might say that it involves a choice and that Christians don't have to have an abortion, but in a Christian mindset, the baby has a soul and so is being killed. Therefore, to them, it is a violation of rights.


The Christian reason for being anti-abortion is based on religious law, not rights. Rights are a secular concern, that Christians sometimes have. Not every action a Christian does is out of religious belief. Jesus does not make you enjoy comic books and chocolate.


Another argument used in this forum is that it is essentially organized religion which is the cause of most evils.


Life is the cause of most evils. Religion is just the most effective way to get someone to go on suicide missions and fail to care about the future of those living on Earth. It's the justifier of any action the priest can convince you of as being 'right' according to spiritual notions. Hence, suicide bombers and the Children's Crusade.


If everybody had the freedom to choose, then no harm would be done. This, however, allows for the belief that the government is enlightened enough to make illegal that which causes harm.


These two sentences are utterly unrelated.


It gives total power to a governmental system, and so is flawed.


This continues to be absolutely unrelated to your statement.


You can say that something is wrong if it causes harm, but the same action that causes harm in one case may not cause harm in another instance.


Which is why killing does not always equal murder. As much as cows may protest this fact.

Murder is simply illegal killing.


In all recent cases, the religious right has bowed down before whatever other right exists.


Which explains abortion clinic bombings.


For a most recent example, the case of Terri Shiavo, who had been a dedicated member of a religion which opposed starving brain dead patients, was starved to death.


Last I heard, it was her intention to be allowed to die, or for it to be her husband's choice. Personally, I feel they should have killed her quicker, for mercy's sake, presuming there's any nerves in her body that can, in any way, respond to the pain of starvation.

Remember, there's many people who happily let their kids die of easily-treated disease because they think that prayer is the only medicine, who have later gone to the doctors when their own life is in danger. This is just the opposite situation.


You say you want the freedom to choose, and yet what is seen as matters of choice change.


This sentence doesn't actually say anything.


At one time, the idea of killing a baby was horrific.


At one time, ripping a heart out of a living person's chest was a happy event.

Further, "fetus" and "baby" have yet to be absolutely defined as having the same meaning.


Now, in the Netherlands, a couple has the option to "dispose" of a newborn if it has a disorder of some kind. You assume that people have the ability and the will to determine what is right and what is wrong, but people screw up, and when they do, it sometimes harms hundreds of people.


Right and wrong are subjective. There is only what works, and what does not work.

When an issue is subjective, you let choice reign.


There is nothing more wrong about organized religion then there is about a government.


People are less likely to go suicide bombing for California than they are for Allah.


Governments screw up all the time, people screw up all the time.


Yes. And since EVERYONE is stupid, there's no point in enforcing any one kind of stupidity. Only where it's objectively clear that something is good or bad (Say, no random throat-slitting in the streets) should a line be drawn.


For people to put faith in an ultimate being who knows right from wrong is not a stupid thing to do, because otherwise they are putting their faith in people they know can't tell right from wrong.


1) Assuming that something is more right because it's more powerful is just another stupid idea.

2) Assuming that such a being exists is even more illogical.


Do you honestly think that anybody who commits an atrocity believes what he has done to be wrong?


Ask the people who bomb abortion clinics.


Do you think a murderer sets himself down and degrades himself for harming another person?


Good thing a fetus isn't provably defined as a person.


People make choices, and they never believe that they have done something wrong.


Which explains confessions and people turning themselves in to the police.


It seems logical for people to believe that there is something which knows what is wrong, and to follow that being.

This statement only makes sense based on the fact that people are mostly stupid as hell. Stupid as hell people do, in fact, make such illogical leaps. Much like how some people think a camera will steal your soul.

Later, those stupid people do whatever they can to make people who might otherwise be less stupid share in their stupid idea by one means or another, and thus you have the world as we know it.

Physical breedability is no longer considered the sole determiner of species, thanks to such pesky creatures as ligers. The old definition failed.

Right and wrong are subjective. There is only what works, and what does not work.

Which explains confessions and people turning themselves in to the police.


No, physical breedability is not the only determinate of species, but you can be sure that you never created a new species of bacteria, because a new species has never been created by any scientist in the world. It just has not happened. Maybe it will in the future, but it has not happened yet and so therefor it cannot be proven that evolution has occured. It may have, and I am not arguing whether or not it has, but it just can't be proven.

Okay, you believe that right and wrong are subjective, and yet you think you are right. If right and wrong are subjective, then, quite simply, right and wrong do not exist outside of the mind of the individual. Therefore, everything an individual does is justified because he has done it and believed it to be right. Society, which enforces its idea of right and wrong, is therefore working against nature and is an imposition against freedom.

Some people turn themselves into the police, yes. Other people do not. Furthermore, many believe that what they have done was the right thing to do. They didn't particularly like the wig the guy had on, and so they knifed him. It was a crime against fashion, in their own minds, and so they are justified. Society never catches them, and so they walk away, having done nothing wrong because they have not been punished for it, they have believed themselves to be right, and nobody has ever told them any differently. What have they done that was wrong then?

And, just for the record, I didn't put the part about the government in the right paragraph, I was merely illustrating that an organized religion is no more evil than an organized government.

Do they just get off the hook because they're minorities?
Yes they do. I'm not saying that they should. Personally I think that a greater percentage of Muslims are bigots than Christians. As the majority religion in the west, Christianity is the easiest target.

Similarly, I doubt Jesus existed, he is a copy of the Persian Sun God Mithra.
Actually historical records confirm he existed, that is usually not debated. What's up for debate is whether or not he's actually holy.

That doesn't mean Islam's aims should be disregarded, for example, most Muslim Imams in Europe would probably be in favour of forming a Shariah based Government. That's FAR more of a danger to individual freedom than one crazy priest screaming from his pulpit ever could be, considering the rise of Muslims as percentile of Europe's populace.
Oops, I messed up a bit when I tried to explain it. Let me try again:
People PERCIEVE Christians as a greter threat to themselves, because they are the people they have to deal with more often than any other religion. I didn't mean to specifically sstate that Christians are threatening, I meant to state that people percieve them as such, and therefore tend to forget about other religions more often.
And how exactly are Christian Posters a 'threat' surely as Atheists you are above the inane squabbles of the petty peasantry of theists?
Who said I was an atheist? And who said anything about Christian posters here, and does that sentence relate to the rest of the post?
:confused:

I think Willamena meant that Christianity is the one that poses a greater threat to most of the posters on here. Most of them have to deal with the Christian conservatives trying to legislate Christian values, and not so much with any of the others.

I would still think that Islam is the big threat, since that's the religion with the holy book encouraging the waging of Jihads against the infidels (just to clarify: anyone that isn't muslim) and it is also the religion that has waged war not only against different Muslim sects, but against pretty much everyone since its founding as a religion. Where as the Christians have what, 4 short crusades compared the 1500 years of jihad after jihad...While I understand that the bible thumping nutjob living down the street tellin you your going to burn in hell (trust me, I get told that a lot by my own catholic family) can get annoying, I'd think the guy with a religion encouraging a war against you is the one to watch out for...

I would still think that Islam is the big threat, since that's the religion with the holy book encouraging the waging of Jihads against the infidels (just to clarify: anyone that isn't muslim) and it is also the religion that has waged war not only against different Muslim sects, but against pretty much everyone since its founding as a religion. Where as the Christians have what, 4 short crusades compared the 1500 years of jihad after jihad...While I understand that the bible thumping nutjob living down the street tellin you your going to burn in hell (trust me, I get told that a lot by my own catholic family) can get annoying, I'd think the guy with a religion encouraging a war against you is the one to watch out for...
I messed up in my post.
Read the post right above what you just posted, it has an explanation of what I meant to say.

But your comments on perception, aren't they just another way of saying - "We all assume, in general terms that Christians are X", in simple terms, isn't perception of individuals based on interpretations on what an entire group is like just generalizations? I mean, Atheists hit the roof if you generalize them as a group - Yet this is exactly the same, but worded differently.
:headbang:
I AM NOT SAYING THAT CHRISTIANS ARE THREATENING.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT GENERALIZATION OF CHRISTIANS IS RIGHT.

I am saying that people perceive that Christians pose the greatest threat to them or their liberties.
Reread what I have said, and I have made no comment on whether it is right or wrong. I am simply stating what it is that I think other people do!
Is it really that hard to understand?

I think you guys misunderstand the Christian's intent.

1). The bible says that they must 'spread the gospel'. In other words, they have an obligation, by the rules of their holy book, to tell others about their religion. Doesn't mean they should be pushy about it, but it does mean that they must take an active role in spreading Christianity.

Try this though, dear Christians. Tell people that you are a Christian. Then tell them if they want to know more about your religion, just ask. There. Your obligation fulfilled. (But watch as people STILL complain that you are being too forceful.)

2). Some are actually concerned that those who do not embrace God will go to hell. Says so in their book. Now put it in these terms... say you have a friend that is about to be killed by some sadistic madman. And I mean badly killed, torture and whatnot before death, and only you and your like minded friends can save that person. Would you stand aside and do nothing?

That is one way to see a Christian's point of view. Some just can't stand to sit on the fences and watch other's seal their fate, so to speak. So even if you do not believe them, you can understand, right?

You have to agree you have or atleast had a conscience. How do little children know that abuse is bad that murder is bad that lying is bad. Either there parents tell them or the conscience does, many people grow in a disfunctioanl home were they are not taught propper things but they still know that it is wrong.

Why doesnt G-d kill cain for killing able? because cain had not learned that murder was wrong. People who grow up in disfunctional homes still learn some things, but if their parents or someone doesnt teach it to them, they will never learn it. It is not their concience, but their enviroment. Why do you think there is so much crime coming from families and children rasied without morals?

No, physical breedability is not the only determinate of species, but you can be sure that you never created a new species of bacteria, because a new species has never been created by any scientist in the world. It just has not happened. Maybe it will in the future, but it has not happened yet and so therefor it cannot be proven that evolution has occured. It may have, and I am not arguing whether or not it has, but it just can't be proven.


I haven't created a new species, no. I did evolve one in a lab before, however.

Evolution does not INSTANTLY mean 'new species'.

As for speciation in general:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


Okay, you believe that right and wrong are subjective, and yet you think you are right.


Actually I refer to myself as evil on a regualr basis. You're full of it.


If right and wrong are subjective, then, quite simply, right and wrong do not exist outside of the mind of the individual. Therefore, everything an individual does is justified because he has done it and believed it to be right. Society, which enforces its idea of right and wrong, is therefore working against nature and is an imposition against freedom.


Justification is worthless at an individual level. It's a group function.

Essentially, you need to justify things to society so that they acknowledge you're not a danger to their existance that must be removed.

Society is formed to maximize productivity of a species. Sometimes this fails.


Some people turn themselves into the police, yes. Other people do not.


Which renders your broad statement to simply being: Yes, stupid people exist.



Furthermore, many believe that what they have done was the right thing to do.


Yes. Jihad jihad and such.


They didn't particularly like the wig the guy had on, and so they knifed him. It was a crime against fashion, in their own minds, and so they are justified. Society never catches them, and so they walk away, having done nothing wrong because they have not been punished for it, they have believed themselves to be right, and nobody has ever told them any differently. What have they done that was wrong then?


There is no wrong. However, the individual who was knifed is no doubt fairly annoyed, as are that individual's relations, friends, and coworkers, and anyone else who has bad wigs.

As such, the knifer will likely be hunted down and shoved in jail.


And, just for the record, I didn't put the part about the government in the right paragraph, I was merely illustrating that an organized religion is no more evil than an organized government.

Only if the government starts saying that when you blow yourself up you'll get to screw a bunch of virgins in the afterlife.

I think you guys misunderstand the Christian's intent.

1). The bible says that they must 'spread the gospel'. In other words, they have an obligation, by the rules of their holy book, to tell others about their religion. Doesn't mean they should be pushy about it, but it does mean that they must take an active role in spreading Christianity.


If only more of them understood that...


Try this though, dear Christians. Tell people that you are a Christian. Then tell them if they want to know more about your religion, just ask. There. Your obligation fulfilled. (But watch as people STILL complain that you are being too forceful.)


If every atheist you met said "Hello, I'm an atheist, would you like to know why it's illogical to believe in a deity? Feel free to ask.", and there were 5 times as many of them as there were of Christians, how would you feel after a few years?


2). Some are actually concerned that those who do not embrace God will go to hell. Says so in their book. Now put it in these terms... say you have a friend that is about to be killed by some sadistic madman. And I mean badly killed, torture and whatnot before death, and only you and your like minded friends can save that person. Would you stand aside and do nothing?


Atheists feel that Christians are wasting their one and only life and chance at real happiness. We don't knock on your door to remind you that you're wasting your life waiting for another one.


That is one way to see a Christian's point of view. Some just can't stand to sit on the fences and watch other's seal their fate, so to speak. So even if you do not believe them, you can understand, right?

Oh, I understand.

I also understand the guy who tried to convince me that 'scat' was a great kink.

Actually I refer to myself as evil on a regualr basis. You're full of it.

Justification is worthless at an individual level. It's a group function.

There is no wrong. However, the individual who was knifed is no doubt fairly annoyed, as are that individual's relations, friends, and coworkers, and anyone else who has bad wigs.

Only if the government starts saying that when you blow yourself up you'll get to screw a bunch of virgins in the afterlife.

You can refer to yourself as evil all you want, however, in previous posts you have repeatedly imply that you believe religion to be one of the worst things that exists and have also said that people exercising freedom of speech in regards to your guns annoyed you. You therefore believe yourself to be more right than other people.

The statemment "justification is worthless at an individual level" practically denies the existence of entire branches of psychology and philosophy. I am not so certain you want to take up that battle, but justification at an individual level is very important, at least to the individual and many times to the society as well. If Alexander the Great had been unable to justify, to himself, massacring entire towns for not bowing down to him, he would not have done it, or at the very least would become depressed. Without justification at an individual level, then nobody would do anything at all.

You say that there is no wrong, but in previous posts you have justified your rather abrasive attitude towards religion by saying you wanted to see more people smile. This implies that you believe it is wrong for them not to be smiling, even though it makes no difference to you or anyone you know if old men in India smile up to the day that they die. If there is no wrong, it makes no sense to oppose horrible actions in countries like Rwanda and Burma. So long as it does not affect your society, you honestly shouldn't care how many people smile, unless you think it is their human right to smile. To believe that they have a right to smile implies a sense of morality.

As for the wig incidence, I think you ignored the part about the man not being caught by society. If it is annoying that someone should be knifed for wearing a wig, and if there is a belief that the man should be punished for randomly knifing somebody implies morality as well. The man did not know it was not a proper thing to do to stab somebody, and so why should he be punished since it was a result of conditioning. Neither is it neccesarily an action that opposes society. So long as nobody believes he is to blame for the action, it would only affect the wigged individuals, and society would not really be disrupted. If one million ordinary men were knifed down, it really wouldn't make much of a difference to society unless people made a fuss about it.

Governments are only dangerous if they say a man will be rewarded for dying? Not, of course, when they perform genocide on the Karen people because of their race? Or possibly massacring small towns. Or rampaging all through Europe to destroy the 'barbarians' to expand Rome. Governments promote order through conformity. If citizens do not conform to what they want them to think, then there is disorder. I hardly think you need to be informed of these dangers. All you really need to look at is the incident of Tiananmen Square for ample proof of that. Even in democracies, the system is one of conformity. Governments, at the best of times, try to control your lives. At the very worst, they do. You may have the freedom to think what you want, but the governments of democratic countries influence what you are likely to think. Through education and the media, you are led to conformity.