NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed many times on this forum, that people will blame religion as a concept for causing a massive ammount of tyranny, war, suffering and many other bad things throught history. A point here being that there are also many people that blame individual religions for things but that is not the issue I am discussing. It seems that many people think that religion is a concept that belongs in the dark ages and should be left behind. These arguements are useally flawed on the grounds that other factors are far more prevelent in the situation, useally greed or a lust for power of some nature or other. The reason, in my opinion that many people blame religion is that they seek to believe that they (the secular) believe that they do not hold within them the same capacity for evil that the religious people do. The fact is that I believe we are all capabile of great evil. To believe otherwise is a very dangerous form of pride. I would encorage those who blame religion for many past conflicts to look more deeply at the conflict in question and the religions involved. Very often you'll find its simple greed, power lust or anger driving most conflicts.

The first post is not finished yet. Do not reply till its been edited

Is it done yet?

Is it done yet?

If you ask that one more time, I swear I'll turn this post RIGHT around and go back home.

Yeah, well I blame religion for your defense against blaming religion! :p

Done

While organised religion doesn't always pour gasoline on the fires of human strife, it is known to frequently refuse to give people water to put it out if they don't subscribe to the newsletter.

While organised religion doesn't always pour gasoline on the fires of human strife, it is known to frequently refuse to give people water to put it out if they don't subscribe to the newsletter.

Fair comment.

But I think in that sense it is no better or worse than any number of secular concepts. People often single out religion for particular bashing above all others

Fair comment.

But I think in that sense it is no better or worse than any number of secular concepts. People often single out religion for particular bashing above all others

Religion just has a bad reputation of being exploited by extremists - ie Phelps and his anti-Gay agenda, fanatical anti-Western Muslims etc etc.

i believe also taht religion gets a bad rep but since i am one of those secular people, i do my fair amount of religion bashing but only because i dotn agree with the way that religion in my view thats been used as a get rich quick scheme a lot of times (though admittley not often in todays time) i hold on to the view that if you believe in god then worship or pray how ever you want to, but dont let someone else tell you how to.

and plus fanatics usually suck also.
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:

The reason, in my opinion that many people blame religion is that they seek to believe that they (the secular) believe that they do not hold within them the same capacity for evil that the religious people do. The fact is that I believe we are all capabile of great evil. To believe otherwise is a very dangerous form of pride.
What is "dangerous" about it?

-snip-
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/gtfo-29441.jpg

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/gtfo-29441.jpg

How sweet. Somebody's discovered the Urban Dictionary.

What is "dangerous" about it?

Because if you do not believe yourself capabile of something you are, you may do it without self control. If you know you are capabile of evil, you will do what you can to stop it. If you do not, you will act in a less cautious manner regarding your own abilities.

I have noticed many times on this forum, that people will blame religion as a concept for causing a massive ammount of tyranny, war, suffering and many other bad things throught history. [..]It seems that many people think that religion is a concept that belongs in the dark ages and should be left behind. These arguements are useally flawed on the grounds that other factors are far more prevelent in the situation, useally greed or a lust for power of some nature or other. The reason, imo, that many people blame religion is that they seek to believe [..]that they do not hold within them the same capacity for evil that the religious people do. The fact is that I believe we are all capabile of great evil. To believe otherwise is a very dangerous form of pride. I would encorage those who blame religion for many past conflicts to look more deeply at the conflict in question and the religions involved. Very often you'll find its simple greed, power lust or anger driving most conflicts.
So if (organized) religion can't defeat greed, lust for power or anger, what's it's scope?

So if (organized) religion can't defeat greed, lust for power or anger, what's it's scope?

It cannot defeat it all the time. But it does for the vast majority. Nor does it ever claim to be able to all the time, but it tries. All I am saying is that people should not blame the concept of religion itself for evil. There are far more fundimental concepts that are useally to blame.

It cannot defeat it all the time. But it does for the vast majority. Nor does it ever claim to be able to all the time, but it tries. All I am saying is that people should not blame the concept of religion itself for evil. There are far more fundimental concepts that are useally to blame.

Indeed. Religion has been used as a cover for evil and an excuse, and sometimes even religion itself has caused 'evil' acts at times. But at the root of all 'evil' are far more basic things like human emotions, desire for power, greed - even sheer hatred.

Religion is never the cause of violence. But it's almost always the rationalization.

And if it weren't for religion, they'd just find some other rationalization. Wars are about group power dynamics and getting a bigger piece of something for one's self and one's own group.

But really, no major religion's scriptures support using violence as a means for change. Nobody who goes to war because of their religion is genuinely following their religion's tenets.

Religion is never the cause of violence. But it's almost always the rationalization.

And if it weren't for religion, they'd just find some other rationalization. Wars are about group power dynamics and getting a bigger piece of something for one's self and one's own group.

But really, no major religion's scriptures support using violence as a means for change. Nobody who goes to war because of their religion is genuinely following their religion's tenets.

Quoted for saying it far better than I could.

I have noticed many times on this forum, that people will blame religion as a concept for causing a massive ammount of tyranny, war, suffering and many other bad things throught history. A point here being that there are also many people that blame individual religions for things but that is not the issue I am discussing. It seems that many people think that religion is a concept that belongs in the dark ages and should be left behind. These arguements are useally flawed on the grounds that other factors are far more prevelent in the situation, useally greed or a lust for power of some nature or other. The reason, in my opinion that many people blame religion is that they seek to believe that they (the secular) believe that they do not hold within them the same capacity for evil that the religious people do. The fact is that I believe we are all capabile of great evil. To believe otherwise is a very dangerous form of pride. I would encorage those who blame religion for many past conflicts to look more deeply at the conflict in question and the religions involved. Very often you'll find its simple greed, power lust or anger driving most conflicts.
I'm having a "Yes, no, and hmmm" response to this.

First off, I agree that it is incorrect to blame religion for evils like violence, poverty, human cruelty, and war. Religion is a symptom of the same problems that lead to these other evils, but religion is most often not the root cause. Religion is a crutch, an excuse, and it can be used to exascerbate many problems, but religion is not itself the source of these evils.

Religion makes many things worse, and it encourages the kind of irrational, unimaginative, and lazy thinking that handicap many of our best efforts to better this world. But if we want to solve religion we must realize that religion isn't the root problem. It's like drug abuse...you can't fix drug abuse by banning drugs. You can't fix the problem by taking on the "supply" side of the equation. You have to look at the "demand" side; why are people turning to drugs/religion?

However, I have to disagree with your statement that "we are all capable of great evil." I'm not. I'm capable of making mistakes, possibly even some with some horrible consequences, but that's not evil. All people are capable of doing harmful, cruel, or shocking things, but evil is a whole other ballgame. Most people aren't capable of true evil, because evil requires intent and most people simply have no interest in doing real evil.

The "hmm" part of my reaction comes off of that last bit. I think a large part of our problem is that people play fast and loose with the definition of "evil." To some people, homosexuality is "evil." To some people, women working outside the home is "evil." To some people, brown people marrying white people is "evil." Some people think that mistakes are evil. Some people think that certain feelings are evil. Religion is one of the may ways that these idiotic concepts of "evil" are perpetuated...you get yourself a group of people who think that wearing the wrong kind of hat is evil, or that eating a certain food is evil, or that letting girls talk is evil, or whatever silly crap their priests are telling them this century. Religion has trivialized evil.

I don't blame religion for all of them evils that you describe. However, I do blame (some branches of) religions for hindering social progress.

To be fair religion has caused a fair amount of war, death and suffering.

To be fair religion has caused a far amount of war, death and suffering.

Not really. If you look into it, religion is a superfical scapegoat. In reality it is things like greed, anger, power lust that are present in all of us that are responable.

Not really. If you look into it, religion is a superfical scapegoat. In reality it is things like greed, anger, power lust that are present in all of us that are responable.


In the case of modern wars I would agree however, all you need to do is look back in history to see that religion was a primary factor in many wars. I'm not saying all wars but many were due to religion or religious differences.

Not really. If you look into it, religion is a superfical scapegoat. In reality it is things like greed, anger, power lust that are present in all of us that are responable.
Well, let's be fair: there are, and have been, many sectarian fights over the course of human history. There have been cases of religion being the root disagreement that leads to violence. Most often, religion is just the surface layer, and there are other things beneath it, but there are some cases where it's really all about the Sky Fairies.

I don't personally believe Religion is the cause of evil. It is, however, an instance of something that is the major cause of great evil; exclusive association. People assigning themselves labels and identifiers to group themselves with some others at the exclusion of the rest is arguably the most resonant and damaging source of disharmony and conflict in the world. Religion is but one of many examples of this, and the reason it gets such a bad rap is because people notice it more clearly than the many, more subtle ones.

It's not Religion we should be worrying about. We know there's a problem there. It's the associations we take for granted that we should really be concerned about.

I don't personally believe Religion is the cause of evil. It is, however, an instance of something that is the major cause of great evil; exclusive association. People assigning themselves labels and identifiers to group themselves with some others at the exclusion of the rest is arguably the most resonant and damaging source of disharmony and conflict in the world. Religion is but one of many examples of this, and the reason it gets such a bad rap is because people notice it more clearly than the many, more subtle ones.

It's not Religion we should be worrying about. We know there's a problem there. It's the associations we take for granted that we should really be concerned about.

I think you need to take religion holistically, look at not only the few bad things that have happened because of it but also the many good things that religions have done, for example religious charity organisations, as well as instilling a morality in people that at least proscribes most things considered crimes.

If you look at history, especially over the last 1500 or so years, organized religion is responsible for most of the terrible atrocities that have happened. Religion is the perfect excuse, the perfect justification, the perfect social pressure. It gives a tyrant all the power they need.

Ah, but there is a rub: organized religion and faith are not the same thing. It is not the existance of faith or belief that has caused these terrible things to happen, but the organization and political power built up around it. The reason religion is blamed for so much is that most people are unable to distinguish organized religion from personal faith. If the Catholic church does something, few people (especially those who do not seem themselves as having spiritual belief) are going to differentiate between the Church and it's memebers.

The fact that you point out it is human beings who are responsible for evil belies your misunderstanding of the situation. To someone who does not share your faith, your entire church is just a network of human beings. Even if your religion is "right" it is composed entirely of human beings. Many of whom have historically used the machinery of organized religion to commit great evils. It doesn't matter if Torquemada believed he was doing god's work or if he was just a sadist, his justification was religion and his authority came from organized Christianity. The same can be said of every crime commited in the name of faith.

Blaming a religion that supports a crime has nothing to do with denying that the capacity for evil exists within you and everything to do with looking at organized religious as a dangerous tool in the hands of evil men. You can spin it however you want, but without the trappings and power of religion no European ruler would have had the desire or support to wage war after war over control of a militarily insignificant city in a desert half a world away. Without claiming the Will of God you would find far fewer young men ready to strap bombs to their chests and murder civilians. Without a church to lend ligitimacy little evils like Fred Phelps would be just be angry street preachers.

I think you need to take religion holistically, look at not only the few bad things that have happened because of it but also the many good things that religions have done, for example religious charity organisations, as well as instilling a morality in people that at least proscribes most things considered crimes.
I don't care specifically about the good things or the bad things. What I care about is the fact that a Religion, as a conceptual union that is in addition to the People that compose it, does things at all. It shouldn't. If people want to believe things and let it influence their behaviour, fine, but the fact that there are things that are asserted to specific Religions rather than people as a whole is a major problem.

It's the same with countries, socio-racial identities, political philosophies, casual interest groups, even the very notion of the self. The existence of these forms of separating identity is what causes dischord. Religion is merely the most obvious example of this; no better or worse than any of the others.

I think you need to take religion holistically, look at not only the few bad things that have happened because of it but also the many good things that religions have done, for example religious charity organisations,

If people need God-belief to get them do to charity, their society has already utterly failed.

as well as instilling a morality in people that at least proscribes most things considered crimes.
If people need God-belief to tell them not to kill, rape, or steal, then their society has already utterly failed.

Fair comment.

But I think in that sense it is no better or worse than any number of secular concepts. People often single out religion for particular bashing above all others


Because religion has something that secular concepts do not. If you disagree with my political beliefs I can dislike you, refuse to be your friend, refuse to give you money, whatever. If you disagree with religious beliefs, you're going to hell. If you happen to have a different sandwich preference than I I might question your taste, if I have a different religious preference than you I am a servant of the ultimate force of evil in the universe. Do you not see the difference?

It cannot defeat it all the time. But it does for the vast majority. Nor does it ever claim to be able to all the time, but it tries. All I am saying is that people should not blame the concept of religion itself for evil. There are far more fundimental concepts that are useally to blame.

You're missing the point. People are assholes. I don't think you're going to get much argument on that. Mankind has a great capacity for evil, blah blah blah. Organized religion just happens to give them a compelling, persuasive, and final argument for any asshole who wants to use it. Organized religion gives you the justification of the will of an omnipotent God, it gives you a perfect way to dehumanize your enemies, and it gives you the twin social pressures of demanding conformity to the group and making all thsoe who do not comform to the group targets.

Priest: "God says we should wage war against XYZ"
Heretic: "But what has XYZ ever done to us?"
Priest: "Are you going to disobey God? If you do, that means you're going to hell. It also means you're going to be considered XYZ, whom we are waging war against."


But really, no major religion's scriptures support using violence as a means for change. Nobody who goes to war because of their religion is genuinely following their religion's tenets.

Go read the old testament again. Pay specific attention to the genocide in Numbers. When you're done with that observe the ways in which God chooses to influence his world, specifically casting man from Eden, calling the flood, destroying Sodom and Gahmorra, and punishing Lott's Wife.

Violence is built into western monotheism, it has been the means of gaining power and converts for all of the Judaic religions. Every one of their scriptures contains violence as a positive tool for change.

Not really. If you look into it, religion is a superfical scapegoat. In reality it is things like greed, anger, power lust that are present in all of us that are responable.

Explain the Children's Crusade of 1212.

I have noticed many times on this forum, that people will blame religion as a concept for causing a massive ammount of tyranny, war, suffering and many other bad things throught history. A point here being that there are also many people that blame individual religions for things but that is not the issue I am discussing. It seems that many people think that religion is a concept that belongs in the dark ages and should be left behind. These arguements are useally flawed on the grounds that other factors are far more prevelent in the situation, useally greed or a lust for power of some nature or other. The reason, in my opinion that many people blame religion is that they seek to believe that they (the secular) believe that they do not hold within them the same capacity for evil that the religious people do. The fact is that I believe we are all capabile of great evil. To believe otherwise is a very dangerous form of pride. I would encorage those who blame religion for many past conflicts to look more deeply at the conflict in question and the religions involved. Very often you'll find its simple greed, power lust or anger driving most conflicts.

The difference is.... if I do something wrong, I don't claim that God made me do it, or that his buddy Satan made me do it.

Religion REMOVES accountability.

Because if you do not believe yourself capabile of something you are, you may do it without self control. If you know you are capabile of evil, you will do what you can to stop it. If you do not, you will act in a less cautious manner regarding your own abilities.
"Evil" isn't what I do, it's what other people do.

The difference is.... if I do something wrong, I don't claim that God made me do it, or that his buddy Satan made me do it.

Religion REMOVES accountability.
More importantly, if I do wrong I cannot seek forgiveness from some magical being. If I hurt somebody, I must seek forgiveness from the only person who has the power to grant it: the person I have wronged. I must be accountable to them, and to myself, and I cannot have the blame or the responsibility lifted from my shoulders by a God or a priest or a ritual of some kind.

If I want to "live on" after I die, I cannot simply follow some dietary rules and go chant with my congregation once a week. I must make my life and my efforts meaningful to the world, meaningful enough to others that I will be remembered after I die. I cannot content myself with the idea that I will escape to an eternal paradise in the sky; instead, I must do what I can to create Heaven on Earth, because it is the only world that I will ever know.

I cannot be forgiven, or saved, by any magical force. My choices alone will determine whether I receive, or deserve, forgiveness. My salvation can come only from how I choose to live, and cannot be granted to me by the wave of some magic wand.

Because religion has something that secular concepts do not. If you disagree with my political beliefs I can dislike you, refuse to be your friend, refuse to give you money, whatever. If you disagree with religious beliefs, you're going to hell. If you happen to have a different sandwich preference than I I might question your taste, if I have a different religious preference than you I am a servant of the ultimate force of evil in the universe. Do you not see the difference?

I see the diffrence quite clearly. However you fail to understand religions. If what you were saying were truely the case it would be impossible for religions to coexist. It isn't, quite clearly.


You're missing the point. People are assholes. I don't think you're going to get much argument on that. Mankind has a great capacity for evil, blah blah blah. Organized religion just happens to give them a compelling, persuasive, and final argument for any asshole who wants to use it. Organized religion gives you the justification of the will of an omnipotent God, it gives you a perfect way to dehumanize your enemies, and it gives you the twin social pressures of demanding conformity to the group and making all thsoe who do not comform to the group targets.

Priest: "God says we should wage war against XYZ"
Heretic: "But what has XYZ ever done to us?"
Priest: "Are you going to disobey God? If you do, that means you're going to hell. It also means you're going to be considered XYZ, whom we are waging war against."

Firstly, I would argue that if that were the case, that actual religions caused this in people then it wouldnt be possible to co-exist. The sort of people who say the things you say are found all over the place in the secular world. The American and the Russian mentalities during the cold war were not dissimilar to what you descrie here. Religion can be used to give grounds for intollerance. But does that mean you should blame the concept of religion, or the intollerance itself.


Go read the old testament again. Pay specific attention to the genocide in Numbers. When you're done with that observe the ways in which God chooses to influence his world, specifically casting man from Eden, calling the flood, destroying Sodom and Gahmorra, and punishing Lott's Wife.

Violence is built into western monotheism, it has been the means of gaining power and converts for all of the Judaic religions. Every one of their scriptures contains violence as a positive tool for change.

If you want to discuss the specific instances of viloence in the Bible, I would be more than happy to in another thread. But for now I doubt you would disagree with me when I say that vilonece is on many ocations a nessecary evil


Explain the Children's Crusade of 1212.

An example of territorial greed fueled by anger and intollerance.

An example of territorial greed fueled by anger and intollerance.

Err, what?!

Care to explain that?

Explain the Children's Crusade of 1212.

What do you find so objectionable about the Children's Crusade?

More importantly, if I do wrong I cannot seek forgiveness from some magical being. If I hurt somebody, I must seek forgiveness from the only person who has the power to grant it: the person I have wronged. I must be accountable to them, and to myself, and I cannot have the blame or the responsibility lifted from my shoulders by a God or a priest or a ritual of some kind.

If I want to "live on" after I die, I cannot simply follow some dietary rules and go chant with my congregation once a week. I must make my life and my efforts meaningful to the world, meaningful enough to others that I will be remembered after I die. I cannot content myself with the idea that I will escape to an eternal paradise in the sky; instead, I must do what I can to create Heaven on Earth, because it is the only world that I will ever know.

I cannot be forgiven, or saved, by any magical force. My choices alone will determine whether I receive, or deserve, forgiveness. My salvation can come only from how I choose to live, and cannot be granted to me by the wave of some magic wand.

The notion that Earth is the only heaven you will know is an athiestic and unprovable one. Equally unprovable as Christianity you must remember so do not think that for one moment what you say here is worth any more than what I will say now.

You forget that all things you do wrong to other people are also wrong to God. Being saved does not mean you are innocent to man. The Christian concept of salvation is not some ultimate "get out clause" that can ablosve you from all responsablity to your actions. All it does do is mean that spiritually your actions no longer count before God.

This may sound as if God lets things slink by. However if you look at the three things that being a Christian means, you will see that is not the case
1. Accept that you are not perfect (a sinner)
2. Apologise to God for your sin and ask him to forgive you by Jesus's death on the cross
3. Do your best to live your life the way Jesus commanded, and do it always with sincerity

Making your life meaningful and doing it well are the things James talks about when he tells us that faith without deeds is dead. Obviously just following dietary rules and visiting Chruch will do nothing for you unless you put what is taught in the Church into practise. Jesus and the Bible as a whole never encourages us to be apathetic because of our security in heaven. It encorages us to be active.

You are wrong however to believe that your salvation cannot be given to you. As far as Christian principals go, you cannot "work" for salvation, it has to be given. For the simple reason that in order to work your way into heaven you would need to be perfect. You would need to have never sinned. Humans do sin and so as a result someone else needs to step in and deal with it. You say we cannot be saved by a magic wand, I say we cannot be saved by our actions alone. No matter how good a life we lead, our actions do not travel back in time and undo the bad actions we have done. People can forgive us for what we do to them. But they cannot fogive us for sin, because we dont do that to them. People mistake sin for bad things. Sin and bad things are simmilar but they have one important differnce. Sin rebellion against what God wants us to do. Bad things are just when we hurt/upset people.

So how does Jesus fit in. Well Jesus broke the cycle. The cycle of sin. The wages of sin being death has always been true. But it is more true than most people know. Sin leads to physical and spiritual death. The spiritual death in hell. Jesus did not sin, yet he physically died. His physical death must not then have been caused by his own sin. In the physical world we see that nature abhores a vacum, and its equally true in the meta-physical world. Jesus's death was not for his own sin, since he had none. His purity was like a huge sponge in a puddle. Soaking up every last drop. As a result of his death for our sin we can now accept our place beside him. We cannot be perfect, but he was perfect for us.

I see the diffrence quite clearly. However you fail to understand religions. If what you were saying were truely the case it would be impossible for religions to coexist. It isn't, quite clearly.


It is impossible for most religions to happily coexist.

The ONLY way in which the average Christian can tolerate Islam, for example, is because he tells himself that Muslims are deluded fools following a made-up god. Or, she tells herself that those people THINK they follow 'allah', but actually they follow 'our god'... they just pronounce his name different.

Wherever cultures have taken other cultures gods SERIOUSLY, people have died for it.

I have noticed many times on this forum, that people will blame religion as a concept for causing a massive ammount of tyranny, war, suffering and many other bad things throught history. A point here being that there are also many people that blame individual religions for things but that is not the issue I am discussing. It seems that many people think that religion is a concept that belongs in the dark ages and should be left behind. These arguements are useally flawed on the grounds that other factors are far more prevelent in the situation, useally greed or a lust for power of some nature or other. The reason, in my opinion that many people blame religion is that they seek to believe that they (the secular) believe that they do not hold within them the same capacity for evil that the religious people do. The fact is that I believe we are all capabile of great evil. To believe otherwise is a very dangerous form of pride. I would encorage those who blame religion for many past conflicts to look more deeply at the conflict in question and the religions involved. Very often you'll find its simple greed, power lust or anger driving most conflicts.
It's not that people are blaming religion. It's that people are using religion as an excuse for human atrocities. Therefor it looks like it is the religions' fault.
Any educated peorson will really not blame a relgion based on the fact that a few zealots kill people in the name religion.
I agree. Everyone is capable of evil. Even the pope. I mean... come on... he was a nazi for crying out loud! (Honestly I don't know the full story behind him supposedly being a nazi so please don't flame me. Just ment as a joke.)

The notion that Earth is the only heaven you will know is an athiestic

Not at all. It is not outside the remit of religions to advocate life ONLY on this earth.

and unprovable one.

It appears you misunderstand something... when two possibilities are presented, and one requires a greater 'leap of faith' than the other, it is usually a fairly safe assumption that the 'least complex' (in terms of mulitiplied uncertainties) avenue is the better bet. One doesn't need to 'prove' that there is 'no afterlife in heaven'. We can SEE that there IS life here and now, so it is logical to assume THIS part is 'true'. So... then, where is the extraordinary evidence to make us believe there is something else?


Equally unprovable as Christianity you must remember so do not think that for one moment what you say here is worth any more than what I will say now.

You forget that all things you do wrong to other people are also wrong to God. First.... you make a fundamental mistake here... why do you assume that the 'alternative' to ephemeral life, is Christianity? It is only one of the many options, my friend... and, to be honest, compared to SOME of the players on this 'field'... Christianity is little more than a succesful cult. Second: You rely on Christian 'rules'... you were discussing 'religion', but now you are discussing JUST Christianity.

Being saved does not mean you are innocent to man. The Christian concept of salvation is not some ultimate "get out clause" that can ablosve you from all responsablity to your actions. All it does do is mean that spiritually your actions no longer count before God.

This may sound as if God lets things slink by. However if you look at the three things that being a Christian means, you will see that is not the case
1. Accept that you are not perfect (a sinner)
2. Apologise to God for your sin and ask him to forgive you by Jesus's death on the cross
3. Do your best to live your life the way Jesus commanded, and do it always with sincerity

One of many possible 'christian' concepts. Not only is your 'religion' topic now about Christianity, it is SPECIFICALLY about (what appears to be) fundamentalist Southern Baptist 'christianity'.


Making your life meaningful and doing it well are the things James talks about when he tells us that faith without deeds is dead.

According to you, or your church. Others read it differently.

Obviously just following dietary rules and visiting Chruch will do nothing for you unless you put what is taught in the Church into practise.

Again, according to the cult you belong to.


You are wrong however to believe that your salvation cannot be given to you.

Not really... were you not arguing an 'accepting Jesus' clause? Most Atheists, and most people in other religions, refuse your so-called Messiah.

As far as Christian principals go, you cannot "work" for salvation, it has to be given.

Again, according to one particular flavour of Christians.


For the simple reason that in order to work your way into heaven you would need to be perfect. You would need to have never sinned. Humans do sin and so as a result someone else needs to step in and deal with it.

Not at all. You have no faith in your 'god' if you feel you can honestly state this... after all, does scripture not say "With God, ALL things are possible"?

You say we cannot be saved by a magic wand, I say we cannot be saved by our actions alone. No matter how good a life we lead, our actions do not travel back in time and undo the bad actions we have done.

Which means, of course, that you are implicitly accepting that those who died BEFORE Jesus remained condemned?

People can forgive us for what we do to them. But they cannot fogive us for sin, because we dont do that to them.

According to your (narrow) definition of 'sin'. To someone who belongs to a different faith to your own, the forgiveness of the victim might be the ONLY forgiveness that matters.

People mistake sin for bad things. Sin and bad things are simmilar but they have one important differnce. Sin rebellion against what God wants us to do.

According to your cult.


So how does Jesus fit in. Well Jesus broke the cycle. The cycle of sin. The wages of sin being death has always been true. But it is more true than most people know. Sin leads to physical and spiritual death.

According to your little religion. From where I'm standing, death is caused entirely by not being alive anymore.

The spiritual death in hell. Jesus did not sin, yet he physically died. His physical death must not then have been caused by his own sin.

On the contrary, Jesus MUST have sinned, otherwise he could not have physically died.

In the physical world we see that nature abhores a vacum, and its equally true in the meta-physical world. Jesus's death was not for his own sin, since he had none. His purity was like a huge sponge in a puddle. Soaking up every last drop. As a result of his death for our sin we can now accept our place beside him. We cannot be perfect, but he was perfect for us.

Jesus' death (if the man even truly existed, and lived and died according to that book), was a result of bloodloss and suffocation. His death had no spiritual significance. He just died.

I have noticed many times on this forum, that people will blame religion as a concept for causing a massive ammount of tyranny, war, suffering and many other bad things throught history. A point here being that there are also many people that blame individual religions for things but that is not the issue I am discussing. It seems that many people think that religion is a concept that belongs in the dark ages and should be left behind. These arguements are useally flawed on the grounds that other factors are far more prevelent in the situation, useally greed or a lust for power of some nature or other. The reason, in my opinion that many people blame religion is that they seek to believe that they (the secular) believe that they do not hold within them the same capacity for evil that the religious people do. The fact is that I believe we are all capabile of great evil. To believe otherwise is a very dangerous form of pride. I would encorage those who blame religion for many past conflicts to look more deeply at the conflict in question and the religions involved. Very often you'll find its simple greed, power lust or anger driving most conflicts.

Witch Hunts where based on the mistaken belief in witches.

Inquazitions where based on the mistaken belief in forbidden knowledge.

Crusades are based on the mistaken belief in a God encouraged war.

Religions are beliefs and those beliefs are superstious in nature and cuase people to percieve threats where none exists.

I see the diffrence quite clearly. However you fail to understand religions. If what you were saying were truely the case it would be impossible for religions to coexist. It isn't, quite clearly.

Religions only coexist in societies that have either taken all the teeth out of religious authority or ones in which a single faith is an overwhelming majority and tollerates the existance of others for a specific scriptual reason (look at the concept of the dhimmi in Islamic law). The times in European and American history in which religious authority was respected and held politcal power were the exact times in which non-christians were persecuted. The RCC had no intention of coexistiance with the protestant churches, but the time eventually came when the pope no longer had the power to dispatch a personal army to murder heretics. Coexistance happened not because of some benevolent leader or because of some shift in morality, but because the ruling faith no longer had the power to kill those who offered dissent.

To quote Nietzsche "It is not their love for men but the impotence of their love for men which hinders the Christians of today from - burning us." ("Beyond Good and Evil" pg. 96/break 104)

Firstly, I would argue that if that were the case, that actual religions caused this in people then it wouldnt be possible to co-exist. The sort of people who say the things you say are found all over the place in the secular world. The American and the Russian mentalities during the cold war were not dissimilar to what you descrie here. Religion can be used to give grounds for intollerance. But does that mean you should blame the concept of religion, or the intollerance itself.

Of course the same things exist in the secualr world, but organized religion serves to not only mask motives for evil but to create them. You don't need to burn witches if you don't think that Satan is trying to destroy your villiage. It is much harder to convince society to tollerate the murder of dissenters if you don't have the skirts of religion to hide under. If it wasn't for organized religion you wouldn't have millions of people in the streets burning embassies over blasphamy.

Can you honestly tell me that anyone in Europe would have given a damn about a militarily insignificant resource-poor city in a desert thousands of miles away if it wasn't their holy land?


If you want to discuss the specific instances of viloence in the Bible, I would be more than happy to in another thread. But for now I doubt you would disagree with me when I say that vilonece is on many ocations a nessecary evil

You know me, on my most placid day I'm pretty far from a pacifist. I was responding to another poster who was under the impression that violence is not advocated by any faith's scriptures.



An example of territorial greed fueled by anger and intollerance.

Greed for what? A walled city in a blasted desert thousands of miles from your borders? An insignificant speck of sand and stone with no wealth or strategic worth?

Oh, and the Children's Crusade wasn't some violent attack on the holy land. It was a group of children and young adults (somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000) lead by a young man from France who believed that he was destined to save the holy land after being presented with a vision of Jesus Christ. It wasn't greed, anger, or lust for power that brought these unarmed children together, it was a belief that Jesus wanted them to do a good thing. Many died on the journey, some died after their ships sank off the coast of Sardinia, and the majority of the rest were sold into slavery when they reached Algiers.

They left because of religion.

What do you find so objectionable about the Children's Crusade?

I dunno, something about misplaced faith leading to the death or slavery of thousands of children kinda strikes me as repugnant.

First off, I agree that it is incorrect to blame religion for evils like violence, poverty, human cruelty, and war. Religion is a symptom of the same problems that lead to these other evils, but religion is most often not the root cause. Religion is a crutch, an excuse, and it can be used to exascerbate many problems, but religion is not itself the source of these evils.Symptom isn't really the right word. As you said, it's sometimes an excuse. Symptom makes it sound like it's just plain bad, with no exceptions.
Religion makes many things worse, and it encourages the kind of irrational, unimaginative, and lazy thinking that handicap many of our best efforts to better this world. But if we want to solve religion we must realize that religion isn't the root problem. It's like drug abuse...you can't fix drug abuse by banning drugs. You can't fix the problem by taking on the "supply" side of the equation. You have to look at the "demand" side; why are people turning to drugs/religion?In some ways I agree with your comparison of religion and drugs, but how does any religion promote that kind of thinking? If anything it's the opposite. (Most) religions promote helping others and doing good to the best of our ability. Not really irrational.
However, I have to disagree with your statement that "we are all capable of great evil." I'm not. I'm capable of making mistakes, possibly even some with some horrible consequences, but that's not evil. All people are capable of doing harmful, cruel, or shocking things, but evil is a whole other ballgame. Most people aren't capable of true evil, because evil requires intent and most people simply have no interest in doing real evil. With horrible consequences. Isn't that evil? Not in a Disney movie evil villain type thing, but morally wrong.
Have you ever stolen something, even if it was something as small as a pencil? Or lied, even if it was about eating a cookie? The answer is yes for most people and I'm just gonna take a quick guess that for some point in your life, the answers are yes. So what does that make you (and everyone else)? A lying thief! Are lying thiefs evil (morally wrong)? What you believe is your decision so I'll let you decide.
Another thing is that if I was to take every thought you've had in the last 24 hours and print them on the front page of the New York Times, would you be embarassed? Yeah, I think so. I know I would. That article would tell in astonishing detail what kind of person you really are (and it's the same for everyone else). The things you'd be ashamed of are probably the things that really are evil, without any religious bias. Makes sense, right?
The "hmm" part of my reaction comes off of that last bit. I think a large part of our problem is that people play fast and loose with the definition of "evil." To some people, homosexuality is "evil." To some people, women working outside the home is "evil." To some people, brown people marrying white people is "evil." Some people think that mistakes are evil. Some people think that certain feelings are evil. Religion is one of the may ways that these idiotic concepts of "evil" are perpetuated...you get yourself a group of people who think that wearing the wrong kind of hat is evil, or that eating a certain food is evil, or that letting girls talk is evil, or whatever silly crap their priests are telling them this century. Religion has trivialized evil.You were talking about the definition of evil and then swerved to examples of evil, so let's go back to the definition of evil for a bit.
www.dictionary.com defines evil as "morally bad or wrong." Now obviously people's morals are different, no questions about that, but that's the definition. And again I bring up the New York Times example. Wouldn't you say for a person honestly trying to find out what's good that that's a decent way to find out? Regardless of how difficult it is to judge sometimes, every thing you do is either respectable or evil. Which means that if you have done something evil (which we all have), you are not perfect. And therefore capable of evil.
Forgive me for my curiosity but I would like to know what you think of this.

I dunno, something about misplaced faith leading to the death or slavery of thousands of children kinda strikes me as repugnant.

Thousands? Hardly. The figure pales into insignificance when compared to the amount pressed into slavery anyway.

Anyway, those involved were likely not children, but young adults.

Witch Hunts where based on the mistaken belief in witches.

Inquazitions where based on the mistaken belief in forbidden knowledge.

Crusades are based on the mistaken belief in a God encouraged war.

Religions are beliefs and those beliefs are superstious in nature and cuase people to percieve threats where none exists.


witch hunts were based on fear and intolerance of different cultures this occured in modern forms in the most secular and godless countries for example nazis germany,ussr and has nothing to do with religion theres no mention of witches in the bible

the crusades was western colonism at its earliest the west wanted to control spice trade.religon was just an excuse

witch hunts were based on fear and intolerance of different cultures this occured in modern forms in the most secular and godless countries for example nazis germany,ussr

So all those ones in Early Modern Europe were myths?

and has nothing to do with religion theres no mention of witches in the bible

"do not suffer a witch to live"

(Ex22:18)

I have noticed many times on this forum, that people will blame religion as a concept for causing a massive ammount of tyranny, war, suffering and many other bad things throught history. A point here being that there are also many people that blame individual religions for things but that is not the issue I am discussing. It seems that many people think that religion is a concept that belongs in the dark ages and should be left behind. These arguements are useally flawed on the grounds that other factors are far more prevelent in the situation, useally greed or a lust for power of some nature or other. The reason, in my opinion that many people blame religion is that they seek to believe that they (the secular) believe that they do not hold within them the same capacity for evil that the religious people do. The fact is that I believe we are all capabile of great evil. To believe otherwise is a very dangerous form of pride. I would encorage those who blame religion for many past conflicts to look more deeply at the conflict in question and the religions involved. Very often you'll find its simple greed, power lust or anger driving most conflicts.

If it wasn't for religion, most wars would not have happened. The Iraq War would not have happened, Islamic terrorism would not have happened, the Arab-Israeli conflict would not have happened, the Crusades would not have happened...well you get the idea.

As a secularist, I think religion tries to teach people to live moral, decent lives, but there will always be intolerant freaks who will use it for their own ends, thus corrupting it.

If it wasn't for religion, most wars would not have happened. The Iraq War would not have happened,

Stretching it...

Islamic terrorism would not have happened,

Stretching it a bit more...

the Arab-Israeli conflict would not have happened,

Ooo, its about to break...

the Crusades would not have happened

Hop! It's broken.

...well you get the idea.

No I don't, and neither do you. If a person believes religion is soley to blame for those wars then that person is a bloody fool.

Thousands? Hardly. The figure pales into insignificance when compared to the amount pressed into slavery anyway.

Anyway, those involved were likely not children, but young adults.

Two out of the seven ships never landed, that would make a few thousand dead likely. Those sold into slavery were likely even worse off. Any way you look at it it was a pretty bad situation. The point I was making was that religion can lead to some pretty bad things, in the case of the Children's Crusade the ruin of lives. I was answering a claim that religion isn't the cause of the evil it gets blamed for, I think the Children's Crusade is a good example of a tragedy that was caused almost entirely by religious faith.

Two out of the seven ships never landed, that would make a few thousand dead likely. Those sold into slavery were likely even worse off. Any way you look at it it was a pretty bad situation. The point I was making was that religion can lead to some pretty bad things, in the case of the Children's Crusade the ruin of lives. I was answering a claim that religion isn't the cause of the evil it gets blamed for, I think the Children's Crusade is a good example of a tragedy that was caused almost entirely by religious faith.

True, I actually agree with you.

For some reason it just seemed right to challange and Adriatica II over the same point :confused:

No I don't, and neither do you. If a person believes religion is soley to blame for those wars then that person is a bloody fool.


Soley? Definately not. Still, religion must shoulder some of the blame for nearly all of the conflicts Dubya mentioned. It is an easy excuse which serves to prolong conflicts.

Take the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The root cause is that Western diplomats promised the same piece of land to two groups. Religion, however, has served to make the conflict uglier because of it's cynical application by leaders on both sides. The escalation of the conflict, the hatred the two parties feel for eachother, is made worse by adding religion into the equation. For the Palestinians the Israelis aren't simply an occupation force, but infidels who are acting beyond the station mandated for them by god. The rest of the Arab world cares about the plight of the Palestinians only because of the hatred felt for what is seen as an outside force of nonbelievers in their holy land.

How about the Crusades? Were they partly about imperialism and trade? Yes, of course they were, but Jerusalem wasn't vital to that aim and there were far less costly diplomatic solutions that could have been (and eventually were) pursued.

Then there is Islamic terrorism. Thats about religion. You can paint it as a clash of the civilizations, you can talk about imperialism, but at the core Islamic fundamentalism is about a group of people used to enforcing their will through religion finding modern society unimpressed. It is about religion and modernity coming into conflict and the powers of religion being so impotent that they cannot even manage to wage a direct war against the forces that threaten. Islamic fundamentalism is about a tiny minority of muslims who want to go back to the days of the caliphate because they fear what will happen when progress makes their brand of fearmongering and tyranny obsolete. *shrug*

Soley? Definately not. Still, religion must shoulder some of the blame for nearly all of the conflicts Dubya mentioned. It is an easy excuse which serves to prolong conflicts.

Not denying that. Just denying the claim that "If it wasn't for religion, most wars would not have happened."

Religion can exacerbate problems and provide the spark to light the bonfire. But one their own they can't.

However, I still think that if religion didn't exist, the Israel-Palestine conflict would just be as bad. Terrorism located in the Middle East would still happen, though not quite so bad. Crusades, maybe not to the extent that they did though.

Religion is not solely to blame, but it is not blameless. There are problems that would have existed without religion, but that were made worse by religion.

Not at all. It is not outside the remit of religions to advocate life ONLY on this earth.

It appears you misunderstand something... when two possibilities are presented, and one requires a greater 'leap of faith' than the other, it is usually a fairly safe assumption that the 'least complex' (in terms of mulitiplied uncertainties) avenue is the better bet. One doesn't need to 'prove' that there is 'no afterlife in heaven'. We can SEE that there IS life here and now, so it is logical to assume THIS part is 'true'. So... then, where is the extraordinary evidence to make us believe there is something else?

True. However it is equally complex to prove there is no life after death given all the proof that we do have. There are far to many paranormal and supernatural events which remain unexplained to be univerally dismissed by scientists.


First.... you make a fundamental mistake here... why do you assume that the 'alternative' to ephemeral life, is Christianity? It is only one of the many options, my friend... and, to be honest, compared to SOME of the players on this 'field'... Christianity is little more than a succesful cult. Second: You rely on Christian 'rules'... you were discussing 'religion', but now you are discussing JUST Christianity.

Because he was attacking the principal of forgiveness in Christianity


One of many possible 'christian' concepts. Not only is your 'religion' topic now about Christianity, it is SPECIFICALLY about (what appears to be) fundamentalist Southern Baptist 'christianity'.

According to you, or your church. Others read it differently.

Again, according to the cult you belong to.

According to your cult.

According to your little religion. From where I'm standing, death is caused entirely by not being alive anymore.

Again, according to one particular flavour of Christians.

Not really... were you not arguing an 'accepting Jesus' clause? Most Atheists, and most people in other religions, refuse your so-called Messiah.

According to your (narrow) definition of 'sin'. To someone who belongs to a different faith to your own, the forgiveness of the victim might be the ONLY forgiveness that matters.

I'm not sure why you said all this. I didnt deny that it was my own beliefs. However I would like to discuss your alternative reading of "Faith, without deeds is dead"


Not at all. You have no faith in your 'god' if you feel you can honestly state this... after all, does scripture not say "With God, ALL things are possible"?

Indeed. All things are possible. But not all things are fair.


Which means, of course, that you are implicitly accepting that those who died BEFORE Jesus remained condemned?

Yes. If you take what I said as to be everything on the subject. Which it isnt and you know it to. Stop it Grave, it doesnt make you look clever


On the contrary, Jesus MUST have sinned, otherwise he could not have physically died.

No. He took on everyone elses sin.


Jesus' death (if the man even truly existed, and lived and died according to that book), was a result of bloodloss and suffocation. His death had no spiritual significance. He just died.

Acording to your cult.

Religion itself is not the problem. Idiots are the problem. Idiots give religion a bad name. They carry out things in the name of their belief system, when their actions often go against the very tenets of the belief system. Why do something "in the name of <whatever>"? Why not just say "Look, this is what I personally think is right, so I'm gonna do it" ? I know that may be uncomfortable, but it actually makes sense.

We have brains for a reason,people. Use them!!

I have noticed many times on this forum, that people will blame religion as a concept for causing a massive ammount of tyranny, war, suffering and many other bad things throught history. A point here being that there are also many people that blame individual religions for things but that is not the issue I am discussing. It seems that many people think that religion is a concept that belongs in the dark ages and should be left behind. These arguements are useally flawed on the grounds that other factors are far more prevelent in the situation, useally greed or a lust for power of some nature or other. The reason, in my opinion that many people blame religion is that they seek to believe that they (the secular) believe that they do not hold within them the same capacity for evil that the religious people do. The fact is that I believe we are all capabile of great evil. To believe otherwise is a very dangerous form of pride. I would encorage those who blame religion for many past conflicts to look more deeply at the conflict in question and the religions involved. Very often you'll find its simple greed, power lust or anger driving most conflicts.
I've noticed this just about everywhere, including here. What I think is often the case is a sort of search for an easy answer- "It must be A or B", when more often the cause of various problems is not A Cause, but multiple causes. Religion is often, and always has been, used as a lever to move people to action- but is seldom ever the sole reason for any action.

Does religion belong in the Middle Ages? Well, the acceptance without proof of fantastic ideas could use a bit of review.

-snip-

According to your (narrow) definition of 'sin'. To someone who belongs to a different faith to your own, the forgiveness of the victim might be the ONLY forgiveness that matters.



According to your cult.



According to your little religion. From where I'm standing, death is caused entirely by not being alive anymore.



On the contrary, Jesus MUST have sinned, otherwise he could not have physically died.



Jesus' death (if the man even truly existed, and lived and died according to that book), was a result of bloodloss and suffocation. His death had no spiritual significance. He just died.

Contradictory.

Why must anyone sin to physically die?

I thought that "death is caused entirely by not being alive anymore."

What about that state is necessarily dependent upon the sinfulness of the deceased?

Jesus died because he was killed. He was the perfect sacrifice for all of us, propitiation for all of our sins. At least for those of us who accept the sacrificial gift...

True. However it is equally complex to prove there is no life after death given all the proof that we do have. There are far to many paranormal and supernatural events which remain unexplained to be univerally dismissed by scientists.
If they remain unexplained, how are they "proof" of anything?

the crusades was western colonism at its earliest the west wanted to control spice trade.religon was just an excuse


Utter rubbish! I suggest you go out and buy a few history books on the subject of The Crusades. Are you familiar with the notion milites christi?

I'm wondering, did anyone read my post at the very bottom of page 3? As I said there, I wanna see what people have to say about that... thanking you in advance if you decide to resond to it

I'm wondering, did anyone read my post at the very bottom of page 3? As I said there, I wanna see what people have to say about that... thanking you in advance if you decide to resond to it

Evil often has a secondaary meaning. "Evil as in the very thought I want to hurt the ones that wish me no harm dispite the fact that I know it's wrong etc," There is an evil found in story books, super hero comics, movies etc. An evil that is best represented by charactors such as Skeletor, The Legion of Doom, The Power Rangers Vilions, The wicked step stisters, The evil countess in Snow White, This form of evil is pretty much non existant. A form of evil that is more real ithe kind of evil represented by The Fairy God Mother in the movie Shrek 2

[QUOTE=Willamena]If they remain unexplained, how are they "proof" of anything?

Excellent point, Willamena.
There are far too many paranormal and (seemingly) supernatural events which remain too much a matter of heresay (not to be confused with 'heresy') to be studied. Just because someone says something happened, does not mean that it did- it also does not mean that the seemingly supernatural experience claimed by a person cannot be explained by natural causes. Not having an explanation is not proof.

There have also been a lot of disproved events- such as seances, etc, or events proven *not* to be supernatural (ectoplasm).

In my opinion, there's too much focus on what happens after we die, and not nearly enough on what happens while we're alive.

Evil often has a secondaary meaning. "Evil as in the very thought I want to hurt the ones that wish me no harm dispite the fact that I know it's wrong etc," There is an evil found in story books, super hero comics, movies etc. An evil that is best represented by charactors such as Skeletor, The Legion of Doom, The Power Rangers Vilions, The wicked step stisters, The evil countess in Snow White, This form of evil is pretty much non existant. A form of evil that is more real ithe kind of evil represented by The Fairy God Mother in the movie Shrek 2
That evil is entirely fictional. That's why storybooks is the only place it is found.

It is idealised. In the real world, there are always extenuating circumstances.

The notion that Earth is the only heaven you will know is an athiestic and unprovable one. Equally unprovable as Christianity you must remember so do not think that for one moment what you say here is worth any more than what I will say now.

Golly gee, somebody is a tad defensive. I don't think what I say is "worth any more" than what you say. Chill.


You forget that all things you do wrong to other people are also wrong to God. Being saved does not mean you are innocent to man. The Christian concept of salvation is not some ultimate "get out clause" that can ablosve you from all responsablity to your actions. All it does do is mean that spiritually your actions no longer count before God.

If I'm okay with God, and he's the one who sends me to Heaven or Hell, then what the hell do I care if my fellow imperfect humans don't like me?


This may sound as if God lets things slink by. However if you look at the three things that being a Christian means, you will see that is not the case
1. Accept that you are not perfect (a sinner)

The very fact that Christianity equates imperfection with sin is one of the reasons why Christian morality is (to me) utterly devoid of merit. The fact that I am imperfect most certainly does not mean I am sinful, dirty, wicked, or even inclined toward wickedness in any particular way.


2. Apologise to God for your sin and ask him to forgive you by Jesus's death on the cross

My entire point, my friend, is that I don't owe "God" an apology. I especially don't owe him an apology if He created me, nor do I owe him an apology if some other humans He created did some things He didn't like. My mistakes are my own, just as another person's mistakes are their own. Being born, and being the person that I am is not a mistake, nor do I owe anybody an apology for being who I am.

3. Do your best to live your life the way Jesus commanded, and do it always with sincerity

I do my best to live as I believe I should live. Living as someone else "commands" me to live would be a cop-out, and a pathetic one. I am responsible for thinking, for evaluating, and for living up to the standards that I set for myself. To foist these responsibilities off on someone, or something, else would be cowardly.


Making your life meaningful and doing it well are the things James talks about when he tells us that faith without deeds is dead. Obviously just following dietary rules and visiting Chruch will do nothing for you unless you put what is taught in the Church into practise. Jesus and the Bible as a whole never encourages us to be apathetic because of our security in heaven. It encorages us to be active.

The Bible encourages a lot of things, including charity, rape, honor, murder, love, and genocide. So what?

If you are only good because a book tells you that you should be, then you have no morals that I consider worthwhile. If you are good only because someone commands you to be good, then your goodness is empty. If you are good only because you seek to obtain a reward or escape a punishment, then you aren't somebody I would trust with my garbage.

However, I think that you (like most Christians, and most humans in general) don't really do any of those things. You make moral decisions the same way everybody else does: by using the cultural and social context in which you have lived to generate moral formulas for your behavior. You choose to attribute your conclusions to God, and that's kind of sad, but the fact remains that you are actually exercising a lot more moral judgment than you credit yourself with.


You are wrong however to believe that your salvation cannot be given to you.

Let me be more clear: any "salvation" that is "given" to me is worthless to me.

As far as Christian principals go, you cannot "work" for salvation, it has to be given.

...which is why I find Christian morality so irrelevant.


For the simple reason that in order to work your way into heaven you would need to be perfect. You would need to have never sinned. Humans do sin and so as a result someone else needs to step in and deal with it.

If Heaven requires perfection then I have no interest in it. I'm not the least bit interested in becoming perfect, and I certainly wouldn't want to spend eternity trapped with a God who thinks you've got to be perfect to merit Heaven, or that humans need to be forgiven for not being perfect. Frankly, I doubt any all-powerful diety would hold such dull and childish standards, but if it did then it's just as well I'm not wasting my time trying to please it.


You say we cannot be saved by a magic wand, I say we cannot be saved by our actions alone. No matter how good a life we lead, our actions do not travel back in time and undo the bad actions we have done.

You're right, we cannot undo what has been done. The problem is that you think that is the point.

The point is not to try to undo what you have done. The point is to atone, and to make things right as much as possible, while accepting that you will never be able to wipe away or undo what you have done. And neither will anybody else.


People can forgive us for what we do to them. But they cannot fogive us for sin, because we dont do that to them. People mistake sin for bad things. Sin and bad things are simmilar but they have one important differnce. Sin rebellion against what God wants us to do. Bad things are just when we hurt/upset people.

And this is what I was talking about. Religion makes everything about God, and God can be whatever the believer wants. It's just a way of escaping your real responsibilities, and instead engaging in an ego-centric form of self flaggelation. The martyr complex is soooooo 1500s.


So how does Jesus fit in. Well Jesus broke the cycle. The cycle of sin. The wages of sin being death has always been true.

Death is the wages of life. The life cycle has nothing to do with morality, and fear of death is a topic for another thread.

But it is more true than most people know. Sin leads to physical and spiritual death. The spiritual death in hell. Jesus did not sin, yet he physically died. His physical death must not then have been caused by his own sin. In the physical world we see that nature abhores a vacum, and its equally true in the meta-physical world. Jesus's death was not for his own sin, since he had none. His purity was like a huge sponge in a puddle. Soaking up every last drop. As a result of his death for our sin we can now accept our place beside him. We cannot be perfect, but he was perfect for us.
Forgive me, but I find the Jesus myth to be one of the most cowardly superstitions around.

Nobody can be perfect for you. Nobody should try. It would be dishonorable of them to even offer, and even more dishonorable for you to accept.

Wow...this got way more involved than I expected...

and I thought my "Blame the idiots" explanation was just fine,lol

In the case of modern wars I would agree however, all you need to do is look back in history to see that religion was a primary factor in many wars. I'm not saying all wars but many were due to religion or religious differences.

yes but it is out of differemce of religion, out of power trying to get those other people under your religions control, the religion itself didnt say go out an kill, well one particuler religion did, but i wont go into that

"do not suffer a witch to live"


Is a mistranslation...

True. However it is equally complex to prove there is no life after death given all the proof that we do have. There are far to many paranormal and supernatural events which remain unexplained to be univerally dismissed by scientists.


The problem here is, you are accepting any of a slew of undocumented, unverified, unrepeated phenomena, over a whole world of events... as a form of evidence that 'life after death' might be true.

I'm a scientist, and I've seen very little that couldn't be explained without supernatural excuses. I've seen MUCH more that COULD be explained with entirely explanations constructed from what we CAN see and verify.

Thus, and because of the lack of ANY evidence of an afterlife, it requires LESS 'leaps of faith' to assume the mundane.



I'm not sure why you said all this. I didnt deny that it was my own beliefs. However I would like to discuss your alternative reading of "Faith, without deeds is dead"


It's not me, my friend... these are not MY beliefs.


Indeed. All things are possible. But not all things are fair.


No one said anything about fair. Scripture never said it would be 'fair'.


Yes. If you take what I said as to be everything on the subject. Which it isnt and you know it to. Stop it Grave, it doesnt make you look clever


I'm not making the rules, friend. If it is IMPOSSIBLE for forgiveness to extend backwards, then, by your own argument...


No. He took on everyone elses sin.


According to you. I see no evidence.


Acording to your cult.

I have no cult. All I'm talking here is logic. In the absence of 'extraordinary evidence', one can ONLY logically assume that 'extraordinary events' do not happen. (Look up the word 'extraordinary', if you don't follow that logic).

Thus, in the absence of 'extraordinary evidence' to the contrary, the logical assumption is that, if Jesus lived, he died. Nothing supernatural or mystical about it.

Contradictory.

Why must anyone sin to physically die?

I thought that "death is caused entirely by not being alive anymore."

What about that state is necessarily dependent upon the sinfulness of the deceased?

Jesus died because he was killed. He was the perfect sacrifice for all of us, propitiation for all of our sins. At least for those of us who accept the sacrificial gift...

I didn't make up the rules, friend. I'm just going on what it says in the book.

Before sin, there was no death. Death follows because of sin. I didn't write it.

My PERSONAL opinion is that death is a mundane event. When you are no longer alive, you are dead. However, in CONTEXT, Jesus can only have died if he was a creature of sin.