Very interesting...

And it's rather rude to respond to me in the way you and Asp previously did. You don't want to be a part of this debate, by all means, don't. We can all do without your (Asp specifically) colorful patronizing. Thanks.

 

I know Om. I was presented with a nonsensical response, so I returned the favor.

I'm not trying to advocate a certain lifestyle as other organizations tend to do. I'm simply trying to explain why religion has a net negative effect on humanity. And yes, even when you keep it to yourself, it still affects my rights as a U.S citizen in more ways than you may think.

 

Hi guys. I'm LDS(Mormon), I stick to my values as much as the next "Mormon"(Some people think that no alcohol, drugs or sex before marriage is proposterous), so I have to say that yes, I am very hippocritical, and I enjoy telling people about my church, and questioning their faiths. But Don't think that I go, "I'm right, your wrong, ha ha ha." I agree with Om. I don't know why, but there are a lot of people who go and say I'm stupid for holding on to my ideals. People should learn to honor other's religions, and not to put them down. Sorry if I'm getting too religious, but oh well.

 

<3 and huggles for you guys.

 

If it was that simple, you're right, there wouldn't be any problems. But it goes much deeper than that. In seven states atheists, based on their disbelief of the Christian god, are not allowed to hold a position in office related to the state. Nor are they allowed to testify in court. An atheist child is not allowed to join the boy scouts, even though it recieves public funding. Officials as high as the president of the United States (George Bush Sr.) have made statements such as "No. I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
The words "under god" were added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, replacing the word "indivisible" (how ironic) after a campaign by the knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization. The words "in god we trust" were also later added to our currency.

The government of the United States was not founded as a Christian nation. The treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified unanimously by congress states "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Yet blue laws, such as it being illegal in some states to sell cars, alcohol, even washing machines on sundays, are entirely influenced by Christian roots. The Christian idea of creation has long been a topic Christians have been pushing to be taught in public schools as a science...(???) Beneficial fields of study such as stem cell research are barred based on Christian ideals. A woman's rights in regards to abortion are barred based on Christian ideals. Need I go on?

So tell me, is it wrong that I am trying to defend what America originally stood for?

Lord Alexander, things like not drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and refraining from sex before marriage are hardly issues you should be criticized for. Odds are those who criticize those practices are doing it out of angst when they compare it to themselves. Those are benign subjects of faith in which I respect completely whether you believe in gods or not. It's the Mormons (or any faith) that take it a step further and demand others follow these ideals, or suggest these ideals are a universal truth that people don't have to follow, but should in order to reap the rewards of happy afterlifes and whatnot. Do any of the people on this particular forum do this? Not that I'm aware of. But you can't deny that it is a widescale practice.

 

Debate is not the place for jokes. Try it sometime, get involved in a serious debate and in the middle of it, randomly throw out a joke directed at somebody, see how they take it. But I'm sure you knew exactly the implications of throwing jokes at serious topics, and how they are more often than not, meant to be an insult, or in the very least distasteful and inappropriate. Case in point: there's a time and a place for joking, debate does not apply. I hope you can respect that.

No refutes, no counter-points, just taking shots. Oh, I mean joking, right? This post confirms your original intent in posting your "jokes". You see, you used that same smiley after what seemed to be a personal attack, but I could be wrong, maybe you were just joking then too? Unfortunately, my goal is not to derail this into some petty pissfest. So look elsewhere...

If you don't agree with my statements, refute me. If you don't want to refute me, I see no reason for your participation here.

 

Well, maybe we should respect atheists too.

 

why is it so bad for people to believe, or have faith in something?

not everyone who is dedicated to their faith are bad people...why must they be grouped as such?...kai believes that pastors represent child molesters...(only what i gathered from the comment...not trying to put words in anyones mouth) some believe that gay folks have an agenda and are out to corrupt our society with their wicked ways...

no one should be grouped because of a few bad apples...so to speak...or a few extremists that happen to have a similar faith...thats not fair...trust me...

again..ill say if your faith or lack thereof gets you thru the day...thats all that really matters isn't it? and for some thats all they have...to try to take that away...its cruel...

....sorry thought i could stay away...i apologize if i have offended anyone...

 

I'm sorry but legislation of morals is not something that Christianity has a patent on. Have you seen what they are trying to do in California? I in no way affiliate you with this group, but if your gonna object to something, at least object ALL of the people that do it and not just Christians. This is a systemic problem in the US where lobbyists attempt to get their ideals put into law, not some tradition started by Christians. I personally don't agree with legislation of morals and haven't seen any Biblical evidence to the contrary, but I'm open to discussion on it.

PS I'm still working up a reply to our other discussion, just started a new job (I'm out of the Army now) and its been a bit hectic.

 

I don't think we're in full agreement here, I think we're along similar lines. My belief differs in that I think a lot of humans fail miserably and use religion as an excuse. Just for further discussion, I'd like to separate the two words religion and Christianity into my own meanings, in that religion to me is man's organization laid upon a relationship with Jesus, while Christianity is that relationship. So what I'm trying to get you to see is that in my opinion, you have a lot of angst towards Christianity and religion, but your reasoning is based upon individuals. I find this similar to people speaking out against Soldiers because they don't like the war in Iraq.

For comparison, the fact that humans are sinful is as much fact to me as releasing an apple from a tree will cause it to fall. I see it this way because my beliefs are based upon the Bible, which I believe to be true. It isn't belittling because that is just the way it is. Belittling is a relative term, my view is that we're that way because we are, which isn't belittling to me. You have a different viewpoint, therefore it is belittling to you.

Christians are in fact out to convert the entire world, I just don't agree with some people's tactics of beating over the head or crusades and whatnot.

Actually I grew up an Atheist or Agnostic, not really sure at this point. I spent a bit of time at a church in middle school, and I saw a lot of hypocrisy there. What led me to Christ (thats our term for 'becoming a Christian') was reading a set of books. Granted, the books were based on the author's interpretation of events in the Bible, but it was an example of what could be the end days, as laid forth in the Bible. There was no new information given to me, just the way it was presented allowed me to understand some things that I had not understood previously. The series is called "Left Behind" and it follows a group of people through the Tribulation. What I learned was that it really is about faith. Believing in Christ and the Bible is exactly the same as you not believing, only opposite. It's a choice.

No matter how much discussion goes on, there is no way for me to prove to you that God exists, that puzzle will solve itself for each individual in time. Lee Stroble was a lawyer that set out on a mission, as an atheist, to take a lawyer's stance and fight the case as if it was in a court of law. During the course of his books he also became a Christian, realizing the same thing I did.

My answer above about Lee Stroble pretty much addresses this I feel. Let me know if it does not.

When I chose to believe in it, it wasn't like buying a car. There weren't really options to weigh if I did or did not chose to believe.

I agree with your assertion that the Bible trivializes life. Its another matter of point of view. Our view is that life is a gift from God, and there is a purpose in it. Also our view is that after this life is over there is life eternal. How much does 70 years pail in the face of eternity?

We are in fact deciding everything. Just because the Bible says it is so does not mean we can think that way with ease. We're still humans and are faced with the exact same decisions you are on a daily basis, we just have a different set of factors that weight our decisions. I haven't run into any cases where Biblical morality and my own differed to a degree where I had to choose between them, so I can't really answer that question.

Don't worry about having to distinguish with me, I very well understand the difference between belief and faith.

A difficult question to answer simply, at least with my knowledge (and just a general disclaimer that I am by no means a Bible scholar).

Since the death of Jesus, all sin already has been forgiven, regardless if a person believes in Christ or not (not to be invasive, but thats my faith). It then becomes a matter of accepting the forgiveness. In order to accept forgiveness, you would have to believe that Jesus was God, or that forgiveness doesn't do anyone much good. Old Testament sin was reconciled through atonement.

It may have not been the case in the examples you've seen, but I guarantee it is out there somewhere. Again I reference my differentiation of Christianity and religion. If it does not follow a logical path that God was perfect and imperfect things that are done on Earth in the name of God are a result of man, then I can't really explain this any further.

But in order to interpret our stance towards homosexuals and the like ALL parts of the Bible must be considered. At first glance, it may seem we can simply kill homosexuals and it would be their fault, cause their gay.

This is what the New testament says about commandments. These two essentially replace the previously given 10. So how can one murder a homosexual and love them as one's self? It cannot be, therefore you can't run around killing those who don't hold your ideals. This passage is one of the most defining passages of Christianity if you ask me.

There hasn't been any changing adding or subtracting. The Bible as we have it is the same as it was when it was written. They are easily modified through human interpretation, if those adopting that interpretation are not steadfast in their own verification and study.

 

So I've been lurking the past week and reading this thread in my spare time at work, but reading this just made me go 'wtf'.

Are you serious?



Oh, Hi.

 

I don't think that's what kai believes -about pastors representing child molestors. He was just turning the table on christians.

I think kai believes athiests include good, moral human beings in this world who are often lumped into people's minds with death row inmates, child molestors, murderers....and that's not the case.

I think what kai is doing is trying to open people's mind to the fact taht being atheist is not equivalent to being a criminal and that being a christian is not equivalent to *not* being a criminal. (christain = not equivalent to being good, honest, and true.)

...not not not not not.

so maybe he's been a little aggressive in the table turning, but I understand his point and agree. Law abiding citizens with good ideas and a great track record should be allowed to hold public office regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

Kai, please become politically active and fight for this. What are you studying in school?

 

Om, for an atheist to become active in these issues is a dangerous thing. Look at Christopher Hitchens, or Dawkins, both in which have recieved death threats for "spreading the devil's work".

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in my debate methods. It may seem as though I'm labeling everybody that calls themself a Christian, or religious, as "part of the problem". This simply is not the case. I speak in majorities. There are plenty of religious people, Christian and otherwise, who go about their lives understanding that their belief, though real to them, is not necessarily the law to be imposed on this society of vastly different beliefs. But I can assure you, the way religion is set up, it guides the majority of the religious to believe they have this right. Testflight, I ask that you read the whole thing rather than that single sentence. You will see what I was getting at. No, I don't believe all pastors are child molesters. As I previously stated, I was responding to a nonsensical statement (in context to the debate topic) with a similar one.

Blazt, I have to thank you for being among the few willing to actually debate this subject. It's a breath of fresh air

Let me start by stating that the only reason I mention Christianity more than Jewish, or Muslim for example, is because here in America, Christianity is the overwhelming majority. And what goes on here in America affects me more than what goes on on the other side of the world. Then again, with Iran's nuclear program chugging along, and their hatred for Israel still strong (via religious differences) who knows anymore.

I don't base anything on individuals. I will however use individuals as examples of the greater problem. If it affects one person in this way, I don't see how it can't affect others as well. I tend to take a more psychological approach when assessing the conclusions people will come to, such as the example with my friend and his car accident. I'm not saying religion negatively affected him. I'm saying he chose a negative thought process to cope with the situation and ultimately become religious because of it. Religion nurtures the willingness of the human mind to create or believe in fantasy worlds. Just as we did as children. It isn't unhealthy to metaphorically assess these worlds, but to base your actual reality on claims both impossible to prove, and that go against natural evidence is just silly.

But *why* do you believe the bible to be true? Even when mountains of evidence show the contrary? Just how much faith is necessary to turn away from logic and reason?

And herein lies the grave problem. Push will eventually come to shove as it has so colorfully done so in history as it repeats itself. Even if the message says "love love love" people will always take it as "love our god or don't be loved at all". It will never lead to peace. Religious factions classify you as with them or enemies of them.

You say you were atheist/agnostic until you read the "Left Behind" series? My friend, you fell victim to Spiritual Terrorism (I'm starting to like that phrase). I personally have not read the series, but I've heard those that get left behind have a pretty shitty time, and of course end up in hell. What made you take these claims as truth though? Especially if you were atheist/agnostic at the time? Would it be fair to assume if you read about Qiyamah, the Muslim doomsday, before any Christian reference, you would be Muslim? I will agree with you that "faith" is the key word to any religious practice. "Faith" replaces, and now even circumvents logic and evidence. Why has faith become the universal "My belief is (probably) right" card when nothing but archaic, and credibly questionable books remain the only support?

So why waste time buying into the claim? Threats of eternal suffering in hell?

I'll have to read more about the guy to get a better understanding why he became religious. Even some atheists are particularly vulnerable to the tidbits of fear mongering the bible throws around. I'll tell you right now, even though I don't believe in hell, it doesn't sound like a fun place to be for the rest of eternity. However, I am confident enough that none of it is real that I don't have to worry myself with the "what if I'm wrong" paradox that many people struggle with until ultimately becoming religious. It's a form of psychological warfare that I and many others just don't buy into.

That is not the impression I got when you said you converted after reading a book series that vividly describes one religion's supposed apocalypse days. I'd imagine at some points you felt a degree of fear when reading? Fear that you would be one of those people if you didn't accept Jesus right now. Like I said, spiritual terrorism.

It is insignificant in the face of eternity. So are humans, and so is the human idea of a God being present. The idea of a God has only been around since man created it. The universe has been here for billions and billions of years and we're living evidence. Humans seem to have an issue with perspective. Religion claims nothing existed at all until god decided to make man. This is clearly not the case, but it satisfies the human's desire to feel important in the universe. The eternal life idea is quaint, even comforting, but I think it belittles this life, the only life you will probably live. So tell me, what if religion is wrong, and you went through life as if it was some precursor to your eternal life in heaven? That would suck just as bad as the doomsday scenario being right if you ask me.

Biblical morality is a good basis. There's nothing wrong with the morals the bible teaches. It is the supernatural stuff and what it makes people believe is reality that is the problem.

Just making sure, the confusion has happened in the past around these parts.

So, we are forgiven of sin, but we must decide to accept this forgiveness to be forgiven? I.E. believe in and accept this particular god. Sounds like a conversion tactic to me.

But who are you to say who is a true "Christian" and who is just religious? You'll find that many "true Christians" will call you, as a Mormon, just religious (going by your definitions). There is absolutely no logic in your statement however. It is logical to you, because you believe it, even with the absence of evidence. This is another mechanism of the brain religious belief tweaks negatively if you ask me.

All it takes is one scripture passage for an abomination to be justified in the name of God.

I think you'll be hard pressed to back that up in the face of what the majority believes.

I think Cyrus addressed this point well enough. I'll just use a quick example because I have to get going. The Gospel of Judas had just as much validity as any of the other Gospels. It was part of the same book. However, it told a different story about Judas and Jesus. A story that didn't fit with what the religious leaders wanted portrayed. So it was removed. Since when did religious leaders have the authority to pick and choose which of "god's word" would make it to the revised bible, and which would not? That revised bible is 100% likely to be the one you follow.

 

In regards to an earlier post.

I never said Christianity held the monopoly of crazy and unusual legislation requests. They are one of many. However, religion is the only faction that pushes for legislation based on the belief that their ideals are of absolute certainty, backed by the authority of the maker of the universe. That is a rather odd bit of news though. Mother/Father references being removed from schools would be preposterous. No disrespect to those of alternate lifestyles.

The bible and all holy books are full of legislation of morals, the only difference is you are being told it is a god doing the legislating.

 

I've read your response and I'm working on getting time to respond. My new job has me actually working all day, as opposed to my old job (military) where I made sure my chair and desk didn't float away for most of the day.

 

Not to be an ass but was there an actual question you had?

Even if its "How did this crazy @#$% comes to this boneheaded conclusion?"
That would be fine.

 

Right, then...

"How did this crazy @#$% comes to this boneheaded conclusion?"

 

There's no doubt about the fact that the bible modern Christians follow is in no way the "original". Religious leaders hacked and slashed away at the bible, editing, re-interpreting, translating, even removing entire gospels until we ended up with the one you follow today. Did God say it was OK to remove the Gospel of Judas in its entirety? Or did somebody decide it didn't fit, or didn't like it because Judas supposedly betrayed Jesus, so it was removed? It's "God's word as interpreted by man over thousands of years." at best. This isn't to say many of the original ideas may still be there, but there's no way to be sure what you're reading is indeed what your god meant versus what people wanted your god to mean.