Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And 'born again" Christians never sin! Their "fruits" are always good. Only others are sinners. The "born again" get to stand up on a podium above all the "sinners". Wow.
1) Morality can only come from god
2) Only god's people can tap into this morality
3) X isn't one of god's people but when he acts morally, we must discount it because X just has some sort of selfish motive since he has no morality to operate out of.
4) Y is one of god's people but acts immorally. Since Y is immoral, he's not really one of god's people, and never was one of them.
5) Because of (1) through (4) I observe that all True Christians (tm) are moral and all others are immoral, which proves that the only valid morality comes from god.
In point of fact this can be simplified:
1) Whatever I consider moral behavior is evidenced by certain people, who are True Christians, and not evidenced by other people, who are not True Christians.
Basically a True Christian is one who agrees with your morality and your theology (which you claim are god's morality and theology). If they depart from either one in any significant respect, then despite how they may conduct themselves they are immoral, bad people who do not and never have known god.
I have a counterproposal:
Thieves, liars, and murders are identified by virtue of the fact that they steal, lie and kill people. Honest, truthful, respectful people are identified by them not stealing, lying or killing people.
Where the Bible got it wrong is in saying "by their fruits you shall know them [to be Christians]". Conduct is not an indication of Christianity or apostasy, but of moral character or turpitude.
Depends on your definition of religion. If you study the Bible, you will see that Jesus was most disgusted by the religious elite Pharisees who were strict upholders of the law. That's not what Christianity is about.
Yes, but how many people actually follow Christ's teachings? From what I can tell, far too many people (in this country, at least) pay Jesus a lot of lip service but truly worship the angry god of the Old Testament. This is precisely why preventing gays from marrying (in line with the OT) was more important than helping the poor (a dictate issued by Jesus in the NT).
There are numerous examples of this - from the Vatican chastizing American nuns for spending too much time helping the poor (when they should be out gay-bashing instead) to how the Church threatened to close down ALL of its charities in Washington DC if the mayor there allowed gay marriages (thus holding the poor, sick, and disabled of DC hostage in a game of political brinkmanship).
IF people actually followed Jesus instead of that wargod of the Hebrews in the OT, we atheists (and liberal Christians) just wouldn't have much to be irked about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Your terminology is quite telling. "Primitive" as if my beliefs should be shelved in the dustbins of history.
I really don't know precisely what your beliefs are, to be honest, so I can't say one way or the other. You don't sound like a fundamentalist so it could be that much of what I say doesn't even apply to your beliefs. However, yes, there are many aspects of religious belief that SHOULD be tossed into the "dustbins of history."
In fact, a good 80% (or more) of the Bible already has been chucked into the waste can labeled "obsolete." When was the last time we had a witch trial? Adultery is pretty much par for the course when it comes to marriage these days, and charging interest on loans made to the poor not only happens but the poor end up with the highest interest rates of all. Plenty of religious decrees, rules, laws, and commandments have fallen by the wayside, and that's a good thing. Otherwise, we'd still be dragging religious dissenters from their own homes and lynching them (as was done to the Quakers during the Colonial era).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Newsflash, many ppl have tried to destroy the Bible and Christianity.
Here's another newsflash - 99.9% of atheists aren't trying to destroy the Bible or Christianity. That's not our "mission" so to speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It thrived instead.
It's not thriving now. Religious belief among the 30 and below crowd is at an all time low (which means they won't be indoctrinating their children into religion, and so forth) and Christianity in Europe is on life support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Does this liberal view of God mean hiding our beliefs in dark corners, never daring to show it in public?
Nope. We don't care if you want to stand on a street corner wearing a "sandwich" placard saying "The End is Nigh." But a more enlightened and liberal view of Christianity would include a) integrating science into dogma so that relgion isn't simply rejecting science to avoid conflict, b) understanding that, in order to maintain a free country, you cannot force your beliefs onto everyone else using the courts, the schools, or the ballot box, and c) "God" is not interested in worship and blathering praises - he is interested in how honestly we live our lives. That's it in a simplified nutshell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
yet atheists are aggressively working to scrub Christianity from society even going to disgusting lengths of forcing grieving families to tear down cross memorials in public.
This is perhaps the biggest lie perpetrated on the American people in the last 20 years. As a result, atheists are polled as being the least trusted and most hated group in the United States. I don't think you're even aware of how damaging this untruth has been to people. Even worse, you've bought into these ridiculous accusations apparently without much thought. You just accepted what certain Christian propagandists and spin doctors have told you. So let me tell you how it really is:
Let's take two neighboring countries, Germany and France for instance. Due to high levels of nationalism and a fanatical belief in their cultural superiority, we'll say that France invades Germany and occupies a portion of German territory - because France knows best what's good for Germans.
Now, if at some point, the Germans push back in an attempt to drive the French out of German territory, can the French truthfully claim that they're being persecuted, that the German attack is an effort to destroy all of French civilization? And suppose that the Germans are successful in driving the French out of Germany but do not invade France, can the French truthfully say that the Germans are interfering with French sovereignty and their right to practice French culture?
Hopefully you can see the parallels here. The atheist fight-back that Christianity is experiencing right now is because religion has been occupying atheist territory for hundreds of years - and we want to take back that territory. We're not attacking Christianity - we're defending atheism and the right to BE atheists. Not once, no not even one single time, has atheism actually crossed the border to invade Christian territory. You are still free to practice your religion and be as fanatical as you want just as long as you do it on YOUR side of the border. No, you do NOT get to claim persecution when atheists refuse to submit and conform to archaic Bronze Age beliefs. You do NOT get to claim you're being prevented from practicing your religion when atheists refuse to let you flounce across our borders and occupy our territory.
But Christians with their big money and access to worldwide media are telling you a heaping helping of lies concerning what atheists are doing and why we're doing them. Who really cares about big crosses on war memorials? That was a Jewish veterans group that pushed for that, NOT atheists. The fact that you think atheists were responsible speaks volumes and proves my point more eloquently than I could have hoped for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
From my perspective, the reality is that you NEED God to appear immoral, angry, sadistic because for some reason, you think that gives validity to your atheism.
Now you're really reaching. First of all, God doesn't "appear" to be immoral, angry and sadistic ... because he actually WAS all of those things in the OT. I'm not making things up, taking things out of context, or misinterpreting vague passages that could mean a hundred other things. No. When God sent bears to tear apart 42 little children, that's what the Bible says. Plain and simple. There is no escaping the "fact" that God sent those bears to murder kids for doing nothing but calling Elijiah an "old baldy." You can't rationalize it, you can't sweep it under the carpet, you can't redefine it to make it seem less bad. No, that was an act of utter depravity. We've executed people right here in America for doing far less, but we're supposed to worship and adore a criminal?
Secondly, this is where your cognitive dissonance comes into play. When someone asks me why I can't "just believe" in God, I tell them I can't because I actually DO have morals, and I don't associate with murderers and genocidal egomaniacs much less worship and love them. I can't just pretend that God didn't commit acts of maniacal depravity or rationalize it away by assuming God knew something we didn't.
IF I were to ever worship a God or become involved in a religion, it would NOT be with a standard, very typical ancient god like Yahweh - the same kind of god people have been running in fear of, placating and prostrating themselves to, and justifying atrocity in the name of for countless thousands of years. No God of mine would butcher the first born of an entire civilization or strike someone dead for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Nope. Any God that would interest me would truly be a pillar of goodness and righteousness, a towering example of pure love, dignity, grace, and morality. This God would respect my right to exist and wouldn't demand love and worship - and he certainly wouldn't threaten me with eternal torture if I fail to please him. Uh uh, nope, no sirree. My god wouldn't come from a distant age of ignorance when life was cheap and tribal warfare was rampant. My god would be more in line with Jesus, you know, that savior that seems to get forgotten in most of these conversations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But in the grand scheme of things, does it even matter?
I'm not sure if anything matters in the grand scheme of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Whether or not you think God is evil doesn't change the question whether God exists or not.
I've pretty much moved past the "does God exist?" question. To me, it's not even an interesting contention in a debate since it would prompt only a "yes he does!" "No, he doesn't!" type of discourse. Instead, I explain WHY I don't believe and perhaps plant a seed or two of doubt in the minds of fundamentalists, evangelicals, and lurking "fence sitters" who might still be making up their minds.
The over-the-top immorality of a desert tribal wargod who even has a "chosen" people (which isn't us, by the way), is one of the biggest arrows in my quiver of disbelief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Even if God is the biggest jerk ever, if the alternative is to burn in hell forever then you bet I am going to do whatever is necessary to please Him.
Except there is absolutely no reason to believe that the alternative is to burn in Hell forever. The concept only exists because you've had it drilled into your brain by our culture and too many Sunday sermons. It is, perhaps, the biggest "urban legend" to have ever existed in all of human history. I may as well be afraid of a monster in my closet or a ghost under my bed. Seriously, it equates to the same thing.
No truly loving God would send anyone to an eternal lake of fire - especially not because a person didn't worship, boot-lick, butt-kiss, and brown-nose enough while alive. IF this God of yours is as loving, caring, and FAIR as you claim he is, then I have absolutely nothing to fear - even if I do happen to be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Not that that is a reality I would ever accept. There are too many beautiful good things that God gave us to enjoy for me to think He is cruel and merciless. The beauty and intimacy of sex for one thing.
Hmm, well ... I've often thought about the possibility that, if there is Hell, this is it. We're in it. Of course someone like yourself might counter by saying, "What about the beautiful and good things in life?" The answer is simple: an eternity of physical torment is just too easy, too uninspired, and lacks any understanding of psychology.
A REAL hell would be just like our lives here, and those beautiful and good things that we have? They exist so that we have something to lose, something to long for when it's gone. That is the way a true hell would work, and it is how it works - those wonderful things are so fleeting, so rare, and then they are gone in an instant, often never to return. If our existence in Hell was crappy all the time, we would get used to it, acclimated to it so that we would expect every day to be misery. Another day, another dollar. *yawn*
But gaining something wonderful only to lose it, well ... that's often more hellish than flames licking your backside. Even your example of sex comes with loads of pitfalls and not just for those fornicators out there. The fact that it is such an overwhelming drive, the fact that humans always crave it (we don't have a "rutting" season), has made sex as much a curse as it is a blessing. People are enslaved by it, shackled by the need of it, and people have thrown away everything just for those 5 seconds of wow.
My apologies for being so gloomy and pessimistic (I'm kind of in a dark mood right now) but nothing I've said is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Great, here's a wonderfully melodic song that I'm sure you'll enjoy
Hmm, not bad, not bad. There is a bit of a "punk" undertone to the melody that I can't quite put my finger on. Kind of reminds me of pop in the 80's a little bit. The 80's had some awesome music. Speaking of which, I wish I could remember the name of that Christian singer back in the 80's, female, became somewhat popular even in mainstream circles ... gah, I can't remember her name. Maybe you can rattle off a few singers from those days. Anyhow, I liked her stuff.
Newsflash, many ppl have tried to destroy the Bible and Christianity. It thrived instead.
The EXACT same thing can be said about the common cold. That an object or idea can perpetuate or thrive even in the face of people trying to prevent it, says absolutely nothing positive about the thing in question whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Does this liberal view of God mean hiding our beliefs in dark corners, never daring to show it in public?
People have indeed compared having a religion to having a penis at times. It is fine to have one, and we should not care what you do with it, but keep it out of my face and keep it hidden when in public.
I am not SO constrained as that in my thinking on religion but it is humerous all the same. I am happy with whatever people do with their religion publicly or privately as long as they keep it ENTIRELY out of our halls of power, education and science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
even going to disgusting lengths of forcing grieving families to tear down cross memorials in public.
There are times when I would do this too. It depends where it was erected, by who, how and why. So I would take it on a case by case basis. But for example if I drive down the local National Road near my house and throw two pieces of wood out my window onto the road side.... I would be done for littering. And rightfully so. I should be prosecuted.
If I take the same two pieces of wood however, nail them together into a cross formation, and hammer them into the same spot on the road where I wanted to dump them and claim it was some kind of religious "memorial" I am not prosecuted for littering?
That I will not stand for. Littering is littering and I want the religious prosecuted in JUST THE SAME way as I would be if I stick dead wood where I have no rights to be dumping dead wood. And if you think this "disgusting" then build a bridge and proceed over it, because I wont be changing soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
you NEED God to appear immoral, angry, sadistic because for some reason, you think that gives validity to your atheism.
More waffle and misrepresentation of atheists and atheism from you. The only thing we require to validate atheism is to point out there is no substantiation for deism or theism. Certainly none coming from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Not that that is a reality I would ever accept.
At least you are open and honest and clear about your closemindedness here. That is at least one plus for you where you have otherwise been consistently dishonest on many subjects and topics.
You openly admit you will never accept such a reality. I am the exact opposite. I will "accept" the truth of any reality, no matter how appealing or unappealing that truth is to me, if given cause and substantiation to do so. I am entirely open minded on every subject, even the existence of god, and if given reason to think there is a god then no matter how distasteful that is to me, I will accept that that is the reality.
I would never. Ever ever. Declare that I am close minded enough to simply refuse to accept a reality I do not like or choose.
The EXACT same thing can be said about the common cold. That an object or idea can perpetuate or thrive even in the face of people trying to prevent it, says absolutely nothing positive about the thing in question whatsoever.
And much like the common cold or flu, Christianity has evolved to work past the defenses its target has built up. The mass audience no longer believes that the earth is the center of the universe? That's obviously what the Bible has said all along. Women deserve to vote? The Bible has obviously always been in favor of gender equality. The culture now treats black people as humans? Obviously the stuff in the Bible about slavery is a metaphor and always has been.
Christianity evolves to keep up with the culture that hosts it, otherwise it would have gone extinct. That's why the claims that it somehow is a leader in morality is weird - if it is following the culture that's the exact opposite of leading.
Speaking of which, I wish I could remember the name of that Christian singer back in the 80's, female, became somewhat popular even in mainstream circles ... gah, I can't remember her name. Maybe you can rattle off a few singers from those days. Anyhow, I liked her stuff.
Perhaps you're thinking of either Sandi Patty or Amy Grant? Both, particularly the latter, had crossover careers into the secular world, I think, or at least crossover hits. Amy was sort of the girl next door, safe female to have a crush on ... a couple of her songs that did well that I recall were "My Father's Eyes" and "El Shaddai".
IIRC, both of them ended up divorced which sort of wrecked them with their more staid fans. That wasn't supposed to happen with any of "god's anointed". Lots of disillusionment. Besides it ruined the fantasies everyone was projecting on them ;-)
This is indicative of how ignorant you are. Individual variability exists in every species that exists. In fact, domestic canines exist because individuals that behaved in ways amenable to humans were selectively bred, thus resulting in domestic breeds who exhibit behavior that is vastly different from their wild cousins (wolves and coyotes). Individual variability has also been documented in wild chimps and bears: some individuals are aggressive, while others are more pacific and social.
Where did you get so a completely ignorant notion that individual variability doesn't exist in other animal species? It exists in every species!
Obviously, you missed the point in my post where I say that the concept of evil doesn't exist in other animal species. They behave occurred to their breed. The only thing you demonstrate here is that dogs are different according to their breed. That doesn't prove individuality. If I go to the pet store and pick up a Labrador Retriever then I can come home confident knowing the dog will be very friendly and playful. Chimps may show a bit more individual personality, but they will still behave according to their instincts. Every human being will behave and make decisions completely different from each other. We have all distinct identity and personality.
Yes, but how many people actually follow Christ's teachings? From what I can tell, far too many people (in this country, at least) pay Jesus a lot of lip service but truly worship the angry god of the Old Testament. This is precisely why preventing gays from marrying (in line with the OT) was more important than helping the poor (a dictate issued by Jesus in the NT).
The same Jesus declared that marriage was designed to be between a man and a woman. Jesus wasn't a softy when it came to sin. He condemned the Pharisees because their heart was sinful. That matters more than religious actions. This is the same Jesus who chased out the money changers from the temple with whips. I seriously doubt He would be attending any gay marriages if He was here in the flesh today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
In fact, a good 80% (or more) of the Bible already has been chucked into the waste can labeled "obsolete." When was the last time we had a witch trial? Adultery is pretty much par for the course when it comes to marriage these days, and charging interest on loans made to the poor not only happens but the poor end up with the highest interest rates of all. Plenty of religious decrees, rules, laws, and commandments have fallen by the wayside, and that's a good thing. Otherwise, we'd still be dragging religious dissenters from their own homes and lynching them (as was done to the Quakers during the Colonial era).
Well OT Mosaic law certainly is obsolete. So verses like Leviticus 20:27 no longer applied after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the witch trials had nothing to do with Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
It's not thriving now. Religious belief among the 30 and below crowd is at an all time low (which means they won't be indoctrinating their children into religion, and so forth) and Christianity in Europe is on life support.
Yet Christianity has exploded in countries that were hostile to the gospel like South Korea and The Philippines. How do you explain that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Nope. We don't care if you want to stand on a street corner wearing a "sandwich" placard saying "The End is Nigh." But a more enlightened and liberal view of Christianity would include a) integrating science into dogma so that relgion isn't simply rejecting science to avoid conflict, b) understanding that, in order to maintain a free country, you cannot force your beliefs onto everyone else using the courts, the schools, or the ballot box, and c) "God" is not interested in worship and blathering praises - he is interested in how honestly we live our lives. That's it in a simplified nutshell.
Yet a single atheist can lobby and take down a long held tradition by a community like removing a prayer plaque from school. If I am a new member of a community, I certainly wouldn't try to force most ppl to conform to my beliefs. I would respect their traditions and customs, or leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
This is perhaps the biggest lie perpetrated on the American people in the last 20 years. As a result, atheists are polled as being the least trusted and most hated group in the United States. I don't think you're even aware of how damaging this untruth has been to people. Even worse, you've bought into these ridiculous accusations apparently without much thought. You just accepted what certain Christian propagandists and spin doctors have told you. So let me tell you how it really is:
Then why do I see every freaking atheist boldly rallying to the cause of gays? You would think at least one atheist would find homosexuality to be unnatural. It appears to me that atheists are full support of anything that goes against Christianity. Atheists have used lawsuits to such a level where freedom of religion is more like freedom from religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Let's take two neighboring countries, Germany and France for instance. Due to high levels of nationalism and a fanatical belief in their cultural superiority, we'll say that France invades Germany and occupies a portion of German territory - because France knows best what's good for Germans.
Now, if at some point, the Germans push back in an attempt to drive the French out of German territory, can the French truthfully claim that they're being persecuted, that the German attack is an effort to destroy all of French civilization? And suppose that the Germans are successful in driving the French out of Germany but do not invade France, can the French truthfully say that the Germans are interfering with French sovereignty and their right to practice French culture?
Your analogy only works if you can demonstrate that Christians have invaded atheist territory and encroached on your freedoms. But no one is forcing atheists to go to church or even read the Bible. Christianity has been here since the birth of this country and influenced policy and laws because the majority of the population are faith based. A more accurate analogy from my perspective would be that you join a Native American tribe. Their public demonstrations of faith offends you so you go to the chief and demand that their religious freedom be restricted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Hopefully you can see the parallels here. The atheist fight-back that Christianity is experiencing right now is because religion has been occupying atheist territory for hundreds of years - and we want to take back that territory. We're not attacking Christianity - we're defending atheism and the right to BE atheists. Not once, no not even one single time, has atheism actually crossed the border to invade Christian territory. You are still free to practice your religion and be as fanatical as you want just as long as you do it on YOUR side of the border. No, you do NOT get to claim persecution when atheists refuse to submit and conform to archaic Bronze Age beliefs. You do NOT get to claim you're being prevented from practicing your religion when atheists refuse to let you flounce across our borders and occupy our territory.
How can you defend lack of belief? There's nothing tangible to atheism. An atheist child reciting a pledge that has UNDER GOD doesn't have any effect of their life or change their beliefs. It is just words. But we must not have any acknowledge of God in schools! So take away from the majority to satisfy the lone atheist kid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
But Christians with their big money and access to worldwide media are telling you a heaping helping of lies concerning what atheists are doing and why we're doing them. Who really cares about big crosses on war memorials? That was a Jewish veterans group that pushed for that, NOT atheists. The fact that you think atheists were responsible speaks volumes and proves my point more eloquently than I could have hoped for.
A cross memorial is a symbol of hope for many people. Certainly in this case, atheists specifically wasted a lot of time and taxpayer money to get rid of the World Trade Center Cross, something which has ZERO affect on atheist's personal lives.
The same Jesus declared that marriage was designed to be between a man and a woman. Jesus wasn't a softy when it came to sin. He condemned the Pharisees because their heart was sinful. That matters more than religious actions. This is the same Jesus who chased out the money changers from the temple with whips. I seriously doubt He would be attending any gay marriages if He was here in the flesh today.
I dunno, if you look at only what Jesus is recorded as having said, and not later ( particularly Pauline) interpretations, the same guy who said "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath", who asked "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?", maybe this guy would be ok with two human beings who wanted to join their lives in a loving committed relationship... We quite frankly, can only guess because it was evidently not important enough for Jesus to teach about...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Then why do I see every freaking atheist boldly rallying to the cause of gays? You would think at least one atheist would find homosexuality to be unnatural. It appears to me that atheists are full support of anything that goes against Christianity.
It isn't about championing equality because it opposes Christianity, it is because if you start from an assumption of equality, it is an irrational position. I have yet to hear any consistant non-religious argument against homosexual marriage. It boils down to, "I think its icky!" or "God thinks its icky!", neither of which are a good reason to discriminate...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Atheists have used lawsuits to such a level where freedom of religion is more like freedom from religion.
This is because for freedom of religion to have any meaning, it must allow the choice and free practice of no religion as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Your analogy only works if you can demonstrate that Christians have invaded atheist territory and encroached on your freedoms. But no one is forcing atheists to go to church or even read the Bible. Christianity has been here since the birth of this country and influenced policy and laws because the majority of the population are faith based. A more accurate analogy from my perspective would be that you join a Native American tribe. Their public demonstrations of faith offends you so you go to the chief and demand that their religious freedom be restricted.
How can you defend lack of belief? There's nothing tangible to atheism. An atheist child reciting a pledge that has UNDER GOD doesn't have any effect of their life or change their beliefs. It is just words. But we must not have any acknowledge of God in schools! So take away from the majority to satisfy the lone atheist kid.
But there are Christians wanting to establish their religious views in law, there are Christians pushing for special treatment for religious institutions, government funding for religious organizations, and government endorsement and indoctrination of their religion in public schools.
Requiring an Atheist child to recite the pledge is as discriminatory as asking your child to pledge allegiance to one nation under Allah or Brahman. You believe that neither of those gods are real, so it shouldn't be a big deal for you, right? You would be ok with the football coach leading the team in a prayer to their ancestors for safety, or an invocation to Lucifer, Star of the morning, at a graduation because since you don't believe in them, it isn't a problem...
The problem is not that Christians are Christian in public, it is that they are trying to use the sanction of government to enshrine their religion above all others. In our pluralistic society, this is offensive not to mention unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
A cross memorial is a symbol of hope for many people. Certainly in this case, atheists specifically wasted a lot of time and taxpayer money to get rid of the World Trade Center Cross, something which has ZERO affect on atheist's personal lives.
Sure and it can symbolize genocide, and oppression to others. If the memorial is only supposed to be for Christians, you should say so plainly, otherwise maybe you find some symbolism that is not so polarizing. You would be offended at an Islamic crescent where that cross was supposed to be, so maybe it points to the idea that neither symbol would be appropriate...
The same Jesus declared that marriage was designed to be between a man and a woman. Jesus wasn't a softy when it came to sin. He condemned the Pharisees because their heart was sinful. That matters more than religious actions. This is the same Jesus who chased out the money changers from the temple with whips. I seriously doubt He would be attending any gay marriages if He was here in the flesh today.
I bet he would attend a gay marriage today. You have to remember that many of those laws that were turned into "sins" dealt with a very specific culture living in a very specific climate. The dictate against homosexuality existed only because it detracted from "be fruitful and multiply" or, in other words, fill out the tribe of Israel with lots 'o children so it can be the dominant force in the region of Palestine. It has nothing to do with it being intrinsically evil or somehow doing harm to anyone.
In fact, if Jesus came today, he would make a lot of changes, I think, and rewrite most (if not all) of his rules based on the needs of a modern society living in a temperate climate - instead of trying to shoehorn ancient Bedouin desert culture into modern life in America/Europe/Australia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Well OT Mosaic law certainly is obsolete. So verses like Leviticus 20:27 no longer applied after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the witch trials had nothing to do with Christianity.
Well, actually, the witch trials DID, in fact, have everything to do with Christianity. That includes the tens of thousands of "witches" who were scapegoated during the infamous Black Death. After all, why were these people put to death if not to please God and avoid his (predictable) anger?
Plus, there are plenty of people out there who take a different view on Mosaic law. Other folks in other denominations believe that only the sacrificial laws were made obsolete by the resurrection of Jesus. The moral laws still apply - which means the only reason why some of these people aren't lynching gays is because they don't want to go to jail. Most of those types, though, are south of the Mason-Dixon line. Way, way down south.
Now, I know you think your version is the only correct way to be a Christian but hey, if I had a nickel for everytime I've heard that, well ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Yet Christianity has exploded in countries that were hostile to the gospel like South Korea and The Philippines. How do you explain that?
Religion, especially Christianity and Islam, are apex predetors. It feasts on despair, fear, and hopelessness - which is why you don't see missonaries handing out pamphlets to the suits who stroll out of the Goldman & Sachs corporate office. Instead, you see them in homeless shelters, prisons, bus stations, military bases - anywhere where there is a wellspring of vulnerable people. I don't know enough about South Korea to peg a reason why Christianity is growing there, but the Philippines is still a somewhat impoverished nation and parts of it are held by militant Islamic sects and anti-American terrorists.
But in the most successful nations, religious affiliation is dwindling - not necessarily to the point of all-out atheism, but they have definitely embraced secularism. There are no debates about teaching Intelligent Design in the science classroom or bills about whether business owners can openly discriminate against gays. They've moved past that and are advancing rapidly - as opposed to more religious nations (like ours) that still wrestle with these Bronze Age superstitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Yet a single atheist can lobby and take down a long held tradition by a community like removing a prayer plaque from school. If I am a new member of a community, I certainly wouldn't try to force most ppl to conform to my beliefs. I would respect their traditions and customs, or leave.
So ... if a bank robber has been robbing banks for 40 years and only now got caught, should we let him go free because he's been successfully robbing banks for so long?
Like it or not, those "traditions" were both illegal and unconstitutional. Just because religion has gotten away with it for hundreds of years doesn't mean we now have to let it continue. No, it was wrong from the very beginning, but religion has had a way of circumventing the law, demanding exceptions and special dispensations simply because it's religion. Those days, I'm glad to say, are finally over.
Public schools have no business promoting religious belief. Now, if it was a prayer plaque made by one of the students for, say, an art project, and all of those projects were on display, then removing that one plaque would be wrong. But if it was hanging there by itself because it was a religious plaque, nope, illegal and unconstitutional.
I don't have to respect illegal or unconstitutional customs, I don't care if they've been doing it since the first human settled the area.
I will say this, however: I DO think that some atheists do not pick their battles intelligently. Some atheists do seem to want religion to vanish out of sight from anyone whose eyes might wander. While I do feel some amount of empathy for what they're trying to do, I understand that atheistic tyranny is still tyranny. I wouldn't want that, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Then why do I see every freaking atheist boldly rallying to the cause of gays? You would think at least one atheist would find homosexuality to be unnatural. It appears to me that atheists are full support of anything that goes against Christianity. Atheists have used lawsuits to such a level where freedom of religion is more like freedom from religion.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we DO have freedom from religion in this country. That's why their lawsuits are so often successful. The US Constitution protects me from having to adhere to your religion via a governmental mandate.
Now, as to the gay question - for me, personally, it was the Christian stance on gays that propelled me into being a rather militant atheist. I never gave religion much thought until that happened. Remember my analogy about France and Germany? Well ... seeing Christians trying to ban gay marriage based on Bible passages and religious traditions was a full-on, no-holds-barred invasion of atheist territory. It was, in essence, a declaration of war - and now you're reaping the whirlwind. Atheists didn't cause this, Christians did.
And Christians have no right - literally no right - to tell anyone else that they have to live by the rules of Leviticus whether they're Christian or not.
At that point, it really didn't matter if we liked gays or not, didn't matter if we found it gross, unnatural, or yucky. What mattered was seeing religion misusing the government and the democratic process to turn religious belief into a government-sanctioned mandate. It was wrong and completely unconstitutional - which is why the bans are falling apart all across the country.
I also knew, as many atheists did, that winning victories on the gay marriage issue would only prompt fundamentalists and evangelicals to push for even MORE religious decrees - like being able to discriminate against gays, allowing anti-gay bullying in schools, etc. That branch of Christianity is fascist to the core, and there is ample proof of that all over the place.
When I saw that full-on invasion of non-belief by believers, of course I went to war. Of course most atheists rallied around the gays because I think we atheists ALL understood - if it can happen to gays, how long would it be before it happened to us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Your analogy only works if you can demonstrate that Christians have invaded atheist territory and encroached on your freedoms.
But they HAVE encroached on my freedoms - maybe not directly since I'm not gay - but it was an encroachment nonetheless. As the saying goes, "Give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk." So if we allowed religion to have that cookie (banning gay marriage), what form would that glass of milk take? Would everyone have to convert to Christianity before they can be legally married? Will atheists lose constitutional rights? Will the prejudice against gays result in hate crimes? Who knew? Except one thing was certain - if religion was successful at banning gay marriage, it wouldn't end there. It would keep going until someone stopped it.
You also have to understand that Christian groups have been tirelessly trying to theocratize this country since the 80's thanks to Ronnie Reagon's conservative Christian views and Falwell's quasi-hate group the Moral Majority. Ever wonder why so many movies and TV shows from the 80's are so cheesy and campy? Well, there you go. I've personally had to fight against these nutjobs in high school who are still lobbying and campaigning to ban books, music, shows, video games, the list is endless. Most of the time these little campaigns never make the news, but sniff around and you'll see. Start with another hate group called One Million Moms and go from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But no one is forcing atheists to go to church or even read the Bible.
You're right, no one is forcing us to do anything. Just like no one is forcing Christians to marry someone of the same gender or use contraception. Each individual should have the CHOICE whether or not they want to engage in these actions. The choice shouldn't be made for us by some snotty religious group which thinks it knows what's best for me. Hey, if they're going to act like my parents, then they can help pay for my doctoral degree. How's that for fair? If they're going to claim authority over me, then they can be responsible for me, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Christianity has been here since the birth of this country and influenced policy and laws because the majority of the population are faith based. A more accurate analogy from my perspective would be that you join a Native American tribe. Their public demonstrations of faith offends you so you go to the chief and demand that their religious freedom be restricted.
*sigh* I'm usually a very good communicator. Really, I am - I've been told that by so many people. Yet I just can't seem to communicate this next thought effectively. Either I'm just not wording it properly or the readers willfully refuse to get it. I have no idea which it is - but I will give this idea one last go-around.
Okay ... you have your house and I have my house, and we are free to make our own rules within our own households. Now, one day I come busting into your house and start throwing away things I don't approve of: books, movies, music, whatever. I get onto your computer and delete files I don't like. I reprogram your television so that only channels I like are available to you. Then I kick out your wife and dissolve your marriage because I don't approve of her.
Naturally you would be angry and indignant if I did that. If you asked me why, I would say, "Well, because my house rules are superior to your house rules; I know what's best for you. In fact, I lobbied the government to make my house rules the rules for the entire neighborhood. You now have to respect MY wants and desires. Yours are now secondary."
Would you just lie down and take it? Wouldn't you do everything in your power to get me out of your house so you can live the way YOU want to live? You're not even interested in imposing your house rules onto me. You just want things to go back to the way they were - when we each had the individual choice to make our own rules for our own homes.
But, when you start shoving me toward the door, I cry out, "Hey! This is persecution! You're interfering with my right to live according to my own rules! How dare you!"
Now is that fair? Do you think I'm justified in busting into your house and dictating to you how to live according to my supposedly superior rules?
Because that's what Christians have been doing - breaking down the door of secularism and demanding that everyone, Christian or not, obey Christian rules. Atheism has no desire to push back so hard that we end up in YOUR house doing the same thing to you as you did to us. Nope. We're not out to rule the world. We just want to be left in peace. Whether you actually understand this or not really doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
How can you defend lack of belief? There's nothing tangible to atheism.
In truth, we don't really have to defend a "lack" of belief. It is the default position for 99.99999999 (infinite 9's)% of all ideas and concepts in the universe. Religious beliefs are not any more evidential as any of those other 99.999.... % of ideas and concepts. Thus we default to non-belief, and we don't have to defend it any more than we have to defend a disbelief in E.T. nom-nom-noming up on Reese's Pieces.
There's also nothing tangible about faith, either (which is why it's called faith).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
An atheist child reciting a pledge that has UNDER GOD doesn't have any effect of their life or change their beliefs. It is just words. But we must not have any acknowledge of God in schools! So take away from the majority to satisfy the lone atheist kid.
Well, let's take a story out of your own Bible. Did it matter to God if 99.9% of the world was believing a certain way while only 8 people believed God's way? Do you think God should have satisfied the majority and said "to hell" with a lone family? Sorry, but that door swings both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
A cross memorial is a symbol of hope for many people. Certainly in this case, atheists specifically wasted a lot of time and taxpayer money to get rid of the World Trade Center Cross, something which has ZERO affect on atheist's personal lives.
Well, if Christians could have simply let gay marriage alone and decided for themselves individually whether or not to engage in homosexual acts, most of these battles wouldn't even be happening. But nooo, nope. They had to tell everyone what to do, and now you're paying the proverbial piper. Christianity in America has been floating on legal credit for centuries, but now atheists are calling in the loans and demanding that the law be obeyed. As for the WTC cross, not everyone in that building was a Christian, so why should there be a big hulking cross as the centerpiece of the museum? Do you think it's a symbol of hope for Muslims? Hindus? Atheists? All of whom were represented on the casuality list. A museum such as that should be inclusive.
Ah, I thought you were talking about when the court ruled that a big 50' tall cross had to be taken down in California somewhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
