Religion & Morality

[Rockwriter]

"We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid."

This pretty much sums it up perfectly.

On every side? Do you think that applies to me, Ginger, and others on this forum?

Not specifically, but to your denominations as a whole, yes. Dave, it's insane for anyone to run around preaching and/or subscribing to something that, throughout the history of mankind, has not a scintilla of evidence to back up. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. "Faith" is an invention, Dave. It manipulates man's fears and caters to those that just can't help but wonder "why?" And that's okay, but until someone of "faith" admits that ultimately they just don't know, it's hard to do anything but fucking laugh at them. It's no different than if I wake up every day and go pray to a school bus in a junkyard. Both are illogical, borderline insane and really a waste of time. Your religion du jour is simply that which you've been exposed to. I have no doubt, none at all, that had you been born in Afghanistan, you'd be a servant of Islam. Geography has simply landed your "faith" elsewhere.

If someone wants to believe in God, fine. But to start putting names, dates, events and "facts" to that God is just plain selfish, stupid and insecure. And for anyone to claim to know "the way" is the biggest pile of garbage ever. That's just lying.

As I challenge all my born-again Christian friends all the time: Since having a demonstrable birth certificate is the standard by which all my rabid conservative friends wanted to judge the president - and I agree, it's a good standard - please produce one for Jesus Christ, and then I will listen to whatever point you have to make about him. Otherwise, let's agree that he never existed.

Seems fair enough, right?

Sterling

[conversationpc]

OK...Listened to the whole interview thanks to Duncan. The verdict? He doesn't quite go the route that infanticide is completely right (although he does say that, strictly morally, he has no problem with it, which is still very troubling to me) but neither does he really go against it, so you're also incorrect in stating that it was completely out of context.

Here's his exact quote in context:

But I do worry a bit about slippery slopes possibly a little bit more than you do. Um, there is...There are barriers which we've set up in our minds and certainly the barrier between homo sapiens and any other species is an artificial barrier in the sense that it's a kind of accident that the evolutionary intermediates happen to be extinct. Nevertheless, it exists. And natural barriers that are there can be useful for preventing slippery slopes and therefore, um, I think I can see an objection to breaching such a barrier because it would, ah...You're then in a weaker position to stop people going further. Another example might be, suppose you take the argument in favor of abortion up until the baby was one year old, say or two years old and so if a baby was one year old and, uh, turned out to have some horrible, incurable disease that meant it was going to die in agony in late in later life, what about infanticide? Um, morally, I strictly morally I can see no objection to that at all. I would be in favor of infanticide. But I think I would worry about. Um, I think I would like to at least give consideration to the person who says, "Well, where does it end?"

Your point being what?

So you agree that, morally, there should be no objection to infanticide?

[conversationpc]

As I challenge all my born-again Christian friends all the time: Since having a demonstrable birth certificate is the standard by which all my rabid conservative friends wanted to judge the president - and I agree, it's a good standard - please produce one for Jesus Christ, and then I will listen to whatever point you have to make about him. Otherwise, let's agree that he never existed.

Seems fair enough, right?

Sterling

I'm not into the birther stuff, so that argument doesn't work here. Besides that, if you're going to judge ancient people whom most historians agree actually existed, then you're probably out of luck in almost every case to find any kind of birth certificate.

[S2M]

As I challenge all my born-again Christian friends all the time: Since having a demonstrable birth certificate is the standard by which all my rabid conservative friends wanted to judge the president - and I agree, it's a good standard - please produce one for Jesus Christ, and then I will listen to whatever point you have to make about him. Otherwise, let's agree that he never existed.

Seems fair enough, right?

Sterling

I'm not into the birther stuff, so that argument doesn't work here. Besides that, if you're going to judge ancient people whom most historians agree actually existed, then you're probably out of luck in almost every case to find any kind of birth certificate.

Really? So inclusion in literature proves existence? Because that's about all the proof historians are resting on. I can't wait for 500 years in the future when historians are going to believe that Obama is really the Devil, and Sean Hannity really sucks cock(conservative), and was really an NFL quarterback...

[parfait]

OK...Listened to the whole interview thanks to Duncan. The verdict? He doesn't quite go the route that infanticide is completely right (although he does say that, strictly morally, he has no problem with it, which is still very troubling to me) but neither does he really go against it, so you're also incorrect in stating that it was completely out of context.

Here's his exact quote in context:

But I do worry a bit about slippery slopes possibly a little bit more than you do. Um, there is...There are barriers which we've set up in our minds and certainly the barrier between homo sapiens and any other species is an artificial barrier in the sense that it's a kind of accident that the evolutionary intermediates happen to be extinct. Nevertheless, it exists. And natural barriers that are there can be useful for preventing slippery slopes and therefore, um, I think I can see an objection to breaching such a barrier because it would, ah...You're then in a weaker position to stop people going further. Another example might be, suppose you take the argument in favor of abortion up until the baby was one year old, say or two years old and so if a baby was one year old and, uh, turned out to have some horrible, incurable disease that meant it was going to die in agony in late in later life, what about infanticide? Um, morally, I strictly morally I can see no objection to that at all. I would be in favor of infanticide. But I think I would worry about. Um, I think I would like to at least give consideration to the person who says, "Well, where does it end?"

Your point being what?

So you agree that, morally, there should be no objection to infanticide?

No.

God is though. Tenth plague, remember.

[artist4perry]

As I challenge all my born-again Christian friends all the time: Since having a demonstrable birth certificate is the standard by which all my rabid conservative friends wanted to judge the president - and I agree, it's a good standard - please produce one for Jesus Christ, and then I will listen to whatever point you have to make about him. Otherwise, let's agree that he never existed.

Seems fair enough, right?

Sterling

I'm not into the birther stuff, so that argument doesn't work here. Besides that, if you're going to judge ancient people whom most historians agree actually existed, then you're probably out of luck in almost every case to find any kind of birth certificate.

Really? So inclusion in literature proves existence? Because that's about all the proof historians are resting on. I can't wait for 500 years in the future when historians are going to believe that Obama is really the Devil, and Sean Hannity really sucks cock(conservative), and was really an NFL quarterback...

So basically what your saying is anyone who does not have a birth certificate does not exist? Then everyone before the time birth certificates were made does not exist, also what about fake birth certificates? They are made all the time. I am sure Barrack had a birth certificate. It took them a surprisingly long enough time to come up with one, I think that was what had people wondering what the heck? If you were going to run for top office of the country wouldn't you be sure you had one handy in case it was an issue? That is a stupid argument. So I guess Leonardo Da Vinci never existed? How about Socrates? Most historians are not even foolish enough to deny Jesus existed.

Our very time line for years was based on AD and BC. Based on the time of Christ's birth. Now why would modern historians accept this for so long of someone who did not exist?
I am sure they had some record of him, because of the census that compelled his parents to take an arduous journey with his mother in full pregnancy towards Jerusalem. The Romans had to keep their tabs you know.

[artist4perry]

OK...Listened to the whole interview thanks to Duncan. The verdict? He doesn't quite go the route that infanticide is completely right (although he does say that, strictly morally, he has no problem with it, which is still very troubling to me) but neither does he really go against it, so you're also incorrect in stating that it was completely out of context.

Here's his exact quote in context:

But I do worry a bit about slippery slopes possibly a little bit more than you do. Um, there is...There are barriers which we've set up in our minds and certainly the barrier between homo sapiens and any other species is an artificial barrier in the sense that it's a kind of accident that the evolutionary intermediates happen to be extinct. Nevertheless, it exists. And natural barriers that are there can be useful for preventing slippery slopes and therefore, um, I think I can see an objection to breaching such a barrier because it would, ah...You're then in a weaker position to stop people going further. Another example might be, suppose you take the argument in favor of abortion up until the baby was one year old, say or two years old and so if a baby was one year old and, uh, turned out to have some horrible, incurable disease that meant it was going to die in agony in late in later life, what about infanticide? Um, morally, I strictly morally I can see no objection to that at all. I would be in favor of infanticide. But I think I would worry about. Um, I think I would like to at least give consideration to the person who says, "Well, where does it end?"

Your point being what?

So you agree that, morally, there should be no objection to infanticide?

No.

God is though. Tenth plague, remember.

According to you God does not exist, so it never happened............this is your theory right?

But if your a believer you would know that they were told exactly what to do to avoid it. Pharaoh could have let the Israeli go, and they could have put blood on the mantle. It was the parents choice to do what had to be done to save the children.

[AR]

I grew up going to Catholic school and attended mass every Sunday. I still have spiritual belief and hold on to much of what I was taught. I just find organized religion flawed just like any other human institution and choose not to practice. To each their own though, I'd never criticize anyone for how they chose to live their lives.

At my age, trying to be a decent person is my goal. I don't need to show up in a gothic building for an hour and a half every week to do that.

[parfait]

As I challenge all my born-again Christian friends all the time: Since having a demonstrable birth certificate is the standard by which all my rabid conservative friends wanted to judge the president - and I agree, it's a good standard - please produce one for Jesus Christ, and then I will listen to whatever point you have to make about him. Otherwise, let's agree that he never existed.

Seems fair enough, right?

Sterling

I'm not into the birther stuff, so that argument doesn't work here. Besides that, if you're going to judge ancient people whom most historians agree actually existed, then you're probably out of luck in almost every case to find any kind of birth certificate.

Really? So inclusion in literature proves existence? Because that's about all the proof historians are resting on. I can't wait for 500 years in the future when historians are going to believe that Obama is really the Devil, and Sean Hannity really sucks cock(conservative), and was really an NFL quarterback...

So basically what your saying is anyone who does not have a birth certificate does not exist? Then everyone before the time birth certificates were made does not exist, also what about fake birth certificates? They are made all the time. I am sure Barrack had a birth certificate. It took them a surprisingly long enough time to come up with one, I think that was what had people wondering what the heck? If you were going to run for top office of the country wouldn't you be sure you had one handy in case it was an issue? That is a stupid argument. So I guess Leonardo Da Vinci never existed? How about Socrates? Most historians are not even foolish enough to deny Jesus existed.

Our very time line for years was based on AD and BC. Based on the time of Christ's birth. Now why would modern historians accept this for so long of someone who did not exist?
I am sure they had some record of him, because of the census that compelled his parents to take an arduous journey with his mother in full pregnancy towards Jerusalem. The Romans had to keep their tabs you know.

Our modern timeline is based on the big bang, meaning the age of the universe. The AD and BC are just calendars cooked up by the church. More specifically the gregorian and julian calendars, which are used in the west today. Jesus, if he even existed, was born around 5 BC.

And no, he never said anyone without a birth certificate didn't exist. He said that inclusion in literature does not prove existence. There's far more evidence for Muhammad's existence than Jesus' - so why don't we use a calendar based on his birth? Because of the political power struggle, were Christianity came out on top after killing, suppress and spread ignorance to a shitload of people.

[Rockwriter]

As I challenge all my born-again Christian friends all the time: Since having a demonstrable birth certificate is the standard by which all my rabid conservative friends wanted to judge the president - and I agree, it's a good standard - please produce one for Jesus Christ, and then I will listen to whatever point you have to make about him. Otherwise, let's agree that he never existed.

Seems fair enough, right?

Sterling

I'm not into the birther stuff, so that argument doesn't work here. Besides that, if you're going to judge ancient people whom most historians agree actually existed, then you're probably out of luck in almost every case to find any kind of birth certificate.

It's just a quip I use, really. But seriously, there is valid debate over whether Jesus ever existed, and certainly there's very little evidence that many of the events depicted in the Bible actually happened. Like Noah's Ark . . . an impossible fantasy story as far-fetched as Arabian Nights, perhaps more so.

That's not to say that people should not have faith in whatever they want to. They absolutely should. But it WOULD be nice to live among people a bit more tolerant of other people who don't believe as they do. You know, everyone should do whatever they want to in regard to religion - if someone wants to attend church five times a week, it's nothing to me either way. It's their life and time to spend in whatever manner they choose. But just don't tell ME I'm going to some made-up "lake of fire" if I opt out of doing so. That's ludicrous.

That said, a lot of irreligious people could afford to take a step back and treat their fellow man better, as well.


Sterling

[verslibre]

There's far more evidence for Muhammad's existence than Jesus'

Is there now? Well, don't stop there. Let's see you support that point. No, really. Go ahead. I want you to present incontrovertible proof that "there is more evidence for the existence of Mohammed than Jesus (Yeshua)."

Surely the writings of Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger and the reference to Jesus in The Talmud must be referring to "some other" Jesus. Maybe Jesus Liebowitz or somebody.

Christianity came out on top after killing, suppress and spread ignorance to a shitload of people.

Yeah, Islam has done nothing of the sort.

[verslibre]

As I challenge all my born-again Christian friends all the time: Since having a demonstrable birth certificate is the standard by which all my rabid conservative friends wanted to judge the president - and I agree, it's a good standard - please produce one for Jesus Christ, and then I will listen to whatever point you have to make about him. Otherwise, let's agree that he never existed.

Seems fair enough, right?

Nero never existed. That's all bullshit.

Same for Genghis Khan.

Napoleon Bonaparte? Wholly fictitious person.

A bunch of big upright rocks doesn't constitute evidence for Celts or druids or any of those types. Heavy on the bologna!

You're right. The only people we should believe actually existed are the ones who we have actual "birth certificates" for. Better yet, I think we should have photographic or filmic evidence of them. If none exists, jettison their records. Let's just teach history starting with the Wild West. Yeah!!!

[artist4perry]

As I challenge all my born-again Christian friends all the time: Since having a demonstrable birth certificate is the standard by which all my rabid conservative friends wanted to judge the president - and I agree, it's a good standard - please produce one for Jesus Christ, and then I will listen to whatever point you have to make about him. Otherwise, let's agree that he never existed.

Seems fair enough, right?

Sterling

I'm not into the birther stuff, so that argument doesn't work here. Besides that, if you're going to judge ancient people whom most historians agree actually existed, then you're probably out of luck in almost every case to find any kind of birth certificate.

Really? So inclusion in literature proves existence? Because that's about all the proof historians are resting on. I can't wait for 500 years in the future when historians are going to believe that Obama is really the Devil, and Sean Hannity really sucks cock(conservative), and was really an NFL quarterback...

So basically what your saying is anyone who does not have a birth certificate does not exist? Then everyone before the time birth certificates were made does not exist, also what about fake birth certificates? They are made all the time. I am sure Barrack had a birth certificate. It took them a surprisingly long enough time to come up with one, I think that was what had people wondering what the heck? If you were going to run for top office of the country wouldn't you be sure you had one handy in case it was an issue? That is a stupid argument. So I guess Leonardo Da Vinci never existed? How about Socrates? Most historians are not even foolish enough to deny Jesus existed.

Our very time line for years was based on AD and BC. Based on the time of Christ's birth. Now why would modern historians accept this for so long of someone who did not exist?
I am sure they had some record of him, because of the census that compelled his parents to take an arduous journey with his mother in full pregnancy towards Jerusalem. The Romans had to keep their tabs you know.

Our modern timeline is based on the big bang, meaning the age of the universe. The AD and BC are just calendars cooked up by the church. More specifically the gregorian and julian calendars, which are used in the west today. Jesus, if he even existed, was born around 5 BC.

And no, he never said anyone without a birth certificate didn't exist. He said that inclusion in literature does not prove existence. There's far more evidence for Muhammad's existence than Jesus' - so why don't we use a calendar based on his birth? Because of the political power struggle, were Christianity came out on top after killing, suppress and spread ignorance to a shitload of people.

I said AD and BC were used even into modern day by historians. Regardless of who came up with them.

Bottom line is you hate Christians and faith and would do anything to rid the world of it. You demonize a faith you could never begin to comprehend and you have little true understanding of.

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It is not Christianity at work, it is hypocrisy at work. You can say what you want but sitting in a church does not make you a christian any more than sitting in a train makes you an engineer. So all the killing you are describe were not done by Christians, they were hypocrites. Jesus said those that live by the sword die by the sword. So much for Christianity teaching to murder. You have no clear understanding of the teachings of Jesus or you would not find his followers a threat.

[S2M]

I said AD and BC were used even into modern day by historians. Regardless of who came up with them.

Bottom line is you hate Christians and faith and would do anything to rid the world of it. You demonize a faith you could never begin to comprehend and you have little true understanding of.

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It is not Christianity at work, it is hypocrisy at work. You can say what you want but sitting in a church does not make you a christian any more than sitting in a train makes you an engineer. So all the killing you are describe were not done by Christians, they were hypocrites. Jesus said those that live by the sword die by the sword. So much for Christianity teaching to murder. You have no clear understanding of the teachings of Jesus or you would not find his followers a threat.

First of all, historians like to use the term BCE(Before Common Era) now....Secondly, I'm sure all the killing during the Crusades was done by some fringe extremist group, and not really sanctioned by the Catholic Church...

And thirdly, of course Jesus didn't fight his accusers....all religions, worth their salt, need that martyr. the story of Jesus and the Cross is a good old fashioned martyr story....used to unite followers.

[artist4perry]

I said AD and BC were used even into modern day by historians. Regardless of who came up with them.

Bottom line is you hate Christians and faith and would do anything to rid the world of it. You demonize a faith you could never begin to comprehend and you have little true understanding of.

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It is not Christianity at work, it is hypocrisy at work. You can say what you want but sitting in a church does not make you a christian any more than sitting in a train makes you an engineer. So all the killing you are describe were not done by Christians, they were hypocrites. Jesus said those that live by the sword die by the sword. So much for Christianity teaching to murder. You have no clear understanding of the teachings of Jesus or you would not find his followers a threat.

First of all, historians like to use the term BCE(Before Common Era) now....Secondly, I'm sure all the killing during the Crusades was done by some fringe extremist group, and not really sanctioned by the Catholic Church...

And thirdly, of course Jesus didn't fight his accusers....all religions, worth their salt, need that martyr. the story of Jesus and the Cross is a good old fashioned martyr story....used to unite followers.

By the way, what is the "Common Era." Before common era." This abbreviation has come to replace the previously used B.C. ("before Christ"), and covers the period of history prior to the birth of Christ.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church. And just because members of the Catholic Church at that time decided to not follow Christ's teachings to not harm anyone does not make them Christs followers! I do not subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church, so I don't know how what they did is any reflection on my faith at all.

Again, you have no real understanding of what the bible teaches at all.

[S2M]

I said AD and BC were used even into modern day by historians. Regardless of who came up with them.

Bottom line is you hate Christians and faith and would do anything to rid the world of it. You demonize a faith you could never begin to comprehend and you have little true understanding of.

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It is not Christianity at work, it is hypocrisy at work. You can say what you want but sitting in a church does not make you a christian any more than sitting in a train makes you an engineer. So all the killing you are describe were not done by Christians, they were hypocrites. Jesus said those that live by the sword die by the sword. So much for Christianity teaching to murder. You have no clear understanding of the teachings of Jesus or you would not find his followers a threat.

First of all, historians like to use the term BCE(Before Common Era) now....Secondly, I'm sure all the killing during the Crusades was done by some fringe extremist group, and not really sanctioned by the Catholic Church...

And thirdly, of course Jesus didn't fight his accusers....all religions, worth their salt, need that martyr. the story of Jesus and the Cross is a good old fashioned martyr story....used to unite followers.

By the way, what is the "Common Era." Before common era." This abbreviation has come to replace the previously used B.C. ("before Christ"), and covers the period of history prior to the birth of Christ.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church. And just because members of the Catholic Church at that time decided to not follow Christ's teachings to not harm anyone does not make them Christs followers! I do not subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church, so I don't know how what they did is any reflection on my faith at all.

Again, you have no real understanding of what the bible teaches at all.

Nice comeback....clinging to the 'I'm not a catholic' defense is like a OWS squatter using the 'I'm not a liberal' defense when getting arrested at Zucotti Park....

[artist4perry]

I said AD and BC were used even into modern day by historians. Regardless of who came up with them.

Bottom line is you hate Christians and faith and would do anything to rid the world of it. You demonize a faith you could never begin to comprehend and you have little true understanding of.

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It is not Christianity at work, it is hypocrisy at work. You can say what you want but sitting in a church does not make you a christian any more than sitting in a train makes you an engineer. So all the killing you are describe were not done by Christians, they were hypocrites. Jesus said those that live by the sword die by the sword. So much for Christianity teaching to murder. You have no clear understanding of the teachings of Jesus or you would not find his followers a threat.

First of all, historians like to use the term BCE(Before Common Era) now....Secondly, I'm sure all the killing during the Crusades was done by some fringe extremist group, and not really sanctioned by the Catholic Church...

And thirdly, of course Jesus didn't fight his accusers....all religions, worth their salt, need that martyr. the story of Jesus and the Cross is a good old fashioned martyr story....used to unite followers.

By the way, what is the "Common Era." Before common era." This abbreviation has come to replace the previously used B.C. ("before Christ"), and covers the period of history prior to the birth of Christ.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church. And just because members of the Catholic Church at that time decided to not follow Christ's teachings to not harm anyone does not make them Christs followers! I do not subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church, so I don't know how what they did is any reflection on my faith at all.

Again, you have no real understanding of what the bible teaches at all.

Nice comeback....clinging to the 'I'm not a catholic' defense is like a OWS squatter using the 'I'm not a liberal' defense when getting arrested at Zucotti Park....

Not all faiths are the same. And to say all Christian faiths believe and live the way the Catholics do is stupid. Your using that argument is even dumber. And in defense of the Catholic people out there, the pope at the time of the Crusades was a mafia like person. He also did not live by Catholic tenets. Maybe you should read up on Martin Luther and the 99 thesis. Did a whole study on it during my Advanced Mid-evil art History course. You might also want to look up the Medici family, they were as corrupt a family as they came. One of them came in and forced his way into becoming the Pope. But these were far from Christian people.

I was not part of the Crusades and find them against God's teachings. And you annalogy of the OWS truly bombs as a defense, Catholicism is not the only religion.

[S2M]

I said AD and BC were used even into modern day by historians. Regardless of who came up with them.

Bottom line is you hate Christians and faith and would do anything to rid the world of it. You demonize a faith you could never begin to comprehend and you have little true understanding of.

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It is not Christianity at work, it is hypocrisy at work. You can say what you want but sitting in a church does not make you a christian any more than sitting in a train makes you an engineer. So all the killing you are describe were not done by Christians, they were hypocrites. Jesus said those that live by the sword die by the sword. So much for Christianity teaching to murder. You have no clear understanding of the teachings of Jesus or you would not find his followers a threat.

First of all, historians like to use the term BCE(Before Common Era) now....Secondly, I'm sure all the killing during the Crusades was done by some fringe extremist group, and not really sanctioned by the Catholic Church...

And thirdly, of course Jesus didn't fight his accusers....all religions, worth their salt, need that martyr. the story of Jesus and the Cross is a good old fashioned martyr story....used to unite followers.

By the way, what is the "Common Era." Before common era." This abbreviation has come to replace the previously used B.C. ("before Christ"), and covers the period of history prior to the birth of Christ.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church. And just because members of the Catholic Church at that time decided to not follow Christ's teachings to not harm anyone does not make them Christs followers! I do not subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church, so I don't know how what they did is any reflection on my faith at all.

Again, you have no real understanding of what the bible teaches at all.

Nice comeback....clinging to the 'I'm not a catholic' defense is like a OWS squatter using the 'I'm not a liberal' defense when getting arrested at Zucotti Park....

Not all faiths are the same. And to say all Christian faiths believe and live the way the Catholics do is stupid. Your using that argument is even dumber. And in defense of the Catholic people out there, the pope at the time of the Crusades was a mafia like person. He also did not live by Catholic tenets. Maybe you should read up on Martin Luther and the 99 thesis. Did a whole study on it during my Advanced Mid-evil art History course. You might also want to look up the Medici family, they were as corrupt a family as they came. One of them came in and forced his way into becoming the Pope. But these were far from Christian people.

I was not part of the Crusades and find them against God's teachings. And you annalogy of the OWS truly bombs as a defense, Catholicism is not the only religion.

Ok, your responses are jumbles of incoherent blather....You either made a declarative statement(and you annalogy of the OWS truly bombs as a defense) - then added a non-related (catholicism is not the only religion) OR you are saying my OWS defense bombs DUE to the fact that catholicism isn't the only religion. Either way, it is nonsensical.

[verslibre]

Secondly, I'm sure all the killing during the Crusades was done by some fringe extremist group, and not really sanctioned by the Catholic Church...

The Crusades were initially a response to Muslim barbarism effected on the (non-Muslim) people in the Holy Land.

Is that good enough for you?

[verslibre]

Nice comeback....clinging to the 'I'm not a catholic' defense is like a OWS squatter using the 'I'm not a liberal' defense when getting arrested at Zucotti Park....

Something you need to understand is that many (not all) non-Catholics regard Catholicism in a less than positive light. If she states she's not Catholic, it's likely that Catholicism is not present in family background. Her relatives may have belonged to the Anglican Church. I have no idea. It's no reason to tear her a new bunghole for saying that. (And I say this as somebody who was raised a Catholic.)

The above applies primarily to Pentecostals/Baptists and nondenominational Christians (the dispensationalists who preach the Rapture, a concept not promoted in Catholicism).

And for God's sake, will you spell analogy correctly?

[Duncan]

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It's not particularly passive or peace loving to teach that anyone who does not believe in God will be condemned to eternity in hell. The concept of hell only came into existence through the teaching of Jesus. The fact that there are millions of people out there that believe this is extremely threatening and I don't necessarliy mean threatening in a violent way. It is quite simply an appalling thing to teach children and in my opinon is nothing short of child abuse.

[artist4perry]

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It's not particularly passive or peace loving to teach that anyone who does not believe in God will be condemned to eternity in hell. The concept of hell only came into existence through the teaching of Jesus. The fact that there are millions of people out there that believe this is extremely threatening and I don't necessarliy mean threatening in a violent way. It is quite simply an appalling thing to teach children and in my opinon is nothing short of child abuse.

And your an alarmist atheist with a see through agenda to destroy something you truly know so little about. Personally your opinion is of no concern of mine, until you try to take my rights to my freedom of expression of religion away. It is protected by the first amendment here.

Seriously some of you guys are nothing but pot stirrers and are bigoted against people of faith. I never told you your going to hell, or threatened you with it at all. If you read the bible and feel you are at risk then you have decisions to make. Either you become a Christian or take your own chances and believe it is all a bunch of hooey. Either way you have a choice and no one holds a proverbial gun to your head.

Duncan you take all this as though my being a Christian is a threat against you, I don't feel threatened by any of you here. I may disagree with you on these points but at the end of the day I have no real beef with any of you. You are free to think and feel the way you want in my opinion.

If you truly are fearful of a person like me I just have to laugh myself senseless. Ohhhhhhhhh big bad Christian might teach me about Hell! My head might explode! I am so fearful and scared! Please..........

[artist4perry]

I said AD and BC were used even into modern day by historians. Regardless of who came up with them.

Bottom line is you hate Christians and faith and would do anything to rid the world of it. You demonize a faith you could never begin to comprehend and you have little true understanding of.

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It is not Christianity at work, it is hypocrisy at work. You can say what you want but sitting in a church does not make you a christian any more than sitting in a train makes you an engineer. So all the killing you are describe were not done by Christians, they were hypocrites. Jesus said those that live by the sword die by the sword. So much for Christianity teaching to murder. You have no clear understanding of the teachings of Jesus or you would not find his followers a threat.

First of all, historians like to use the term BCE(Before Common Era) now....Secondly, I'm sure all the killing during the Crusades was done by some fringe extremist group, and not really sanctioned by the Catholic Church...

And thirdly, of course Jesus didn't fight his accusers....all religions, worth their salt, need that martyr. the story of Jesus and the Cross is a good old fashioned martyr story....used to unite followers.

By the way, what is the "Common Era." Before common era." This abbreviation has come to replace the previously used B.C. ("before Christ"), and covers the period of history prior to the birth of Christ.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church. And just because members of the Catholic Church at that time decided to not follow Christ's teachings to not harm anyone does not make them Christs followers! I do not subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church, so I don't know how what they did is any reflection on my faith at all.

Again, you have no real understanding of what the bible teaches at all.

Nice comeback....clinging to the 'I'm not a catholic' defense is like a OWS squatter using the 'I'm not a liberal' defense when getting arrested at Zucotti Park....

Not all faiths are the same. And to say all Christian faiths believe and live the way the Catholics do is stupid. Your using that argument is even dumber. And in defense of the Catholic people out there, the pope at the time of the Crusades was a mafia like person. He also did not live by Catholic tenets. Maybe you should read up on Martin Luther and the 99 thesis. Did a whole study on it during my Advanced Mid-evil art History course. You might also want to look up the Medici family, they were as corrupt a family as they came. One of them came in and forced his way into becoming the Pope. But these were far from Christian people.

I was not part of the Crusades and find them against God's teachings. And you annalogy of the OWS truly bombs as a defense, Catholicism is not the only religion.

Ok, your responses are jumbles of incoherent blather....You either made a declarative statement(and you annalogy of the OWS truly bombs as a defense) - then added a non-related (catholicism is not the only religion) OR you are saying my OWS defense bombs DUE to the fact that catholicism isn't the only religion. Either way, it is nonsensical.

Sorry I was not clear. I will fix that for you. My points are thus : Your analogy of the OWS makes no sense. It is unrelated to the topic. Is this clearer sunshine?

[donnaplease]

Wow! This is truly a disturbing thread. Those anti-christians claim that christians shouldn't judge other people ("you're going to hell if you don't believe as I do") yet they choose to berate, ridicule and all-out insult those who choose to believe in Christ and the teachings of their faith. Christians shouldn't judge other people, we are taught that by none other than Christ himself. It's up to the Father to judge all at the time of the second coming of Christ (if you believe in the book of Revelation). Christians can spread the love of God and Christ without being so critical and rude. However, you need to realize that christians are taught that loving their brother/sister in Christ means telling people about Him and "the way, the truth and the life". In other words, I love you as a fellow human being, so I want you to reap the benefits of paradise at the end of time. It can be threatening to those who are either scared of it or those that don't choose to believe in it. I don't like when Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door preaching their 'stuff', so I know how some of you feel about being "preached at".

Jesus said "I make all things new" (paraphrasing) and I take that to mean that the more destructive tenets of the Old Testament have been blotted out by his life, testimony and death (and resurrection). The people who use the horrors of the Old Testament to detract from modern-day christianity really need to take that into consideration, IMO. I find comfort in believing that there is a world beyond this life where I will be reunited with loved ones that have gone before me. If that makes me crazy to some people, then I'm fine with that.

There have absolutely been many atrocities committed by people in the name of christianity, but there have been SO many more loving, caring, wonderful things done as well. Missionaries are a great example of that - going to desolate places in christian love not only to spread the word of Christ but to build churches, schools, hospitals... and to man them. How many athiests/non-believers have gone into war- and poverty-ravaged lands to spread their message? Can't imagine too many.

The bottom line is this: I could be wrong, but what if I'm right??? (thanks again Madplash)

[artist4perry]

Donna, you made some great points.

I just wanted to add I have not shoved my religious beliefs down anyone's throats here. I have never declared anyone is going to hell. I have shared my thoughts with you guys and have joked around but in all seriousness I have no trouble with your not thinking like me.


I have been told by my believing I am a child abuser, delusional, crazy, and lacking in intelligence. Who has been more threatening here guys? Seriously can you not be O.K. just allowing peaceful people to believe in God or do you have to convert them to your way of thinking?

I am a New Testament Christian and I don't believe in violence to anyone. I don't believe in telling folks they are going to hell as a threat so they will convert. God is the only judge and I will let him decide on these matters not me.

I am quite happy being who I am, and I feel no need to force you to think anyway you do not want to think.

[parfait]

Donna, you made some great points.

I just wanted to add I have not shoved my religious beliefs down anyone's throats here. I have never declared anyone is going to hell. I have shared my thoughts with you guys and have joked around but in all seriousness I have no trouble with your not thinking like me.


I have been told by my believing I am a child abuser, delusional, crazy, and lacking in intelligence. Who has been more threatening here guys? Seriously can you not be O.K. just allowing peaceful people to believe in God or do you have to convert them to your way of thinking?

I am a New Testament Christian and I don't believe in violence to anyone. I don't believe in telling folks they are going to hell as a threat so they will convert. God is the only judge and I will let him decide on these matters not me.

I am quite happy being who I am, and I feel no need to force you to think anyway you do not want to think.

I've never called you crazy.

[Duncan]

Most Christian faiths are peace loving today and even Christ taught to be a passive person. He would not even allow his followers to fight when they came to kill him. Not once did Jesus teach us to kill, or hurt, or attack anyone for any reason. No person living by New Testament teachings is a threat to anyone else. So you can bring up all the people who have chosen to use God as a reason to do evil things and say that is Christianity at work.

It's not particularly passive or peace loving to teach that anyone who does not believe in God will be condemned to eternity in hell. The concept of hell only came into existence through the teaching of Jesus. The fact that there are millions of people out there that believe this is extremely threatening and I don't necessarliy mean threatening in a violent way. It is quite simply an appalling thing to teach children and in my opinon is nothing short of child abuse.

And your an alarmist atheist with a see through agenda to destroy something you truly know so little about. Personally your opinion is of no concern of mine, until you try to take my rights to my freedom of expression of religion away. It is protected by the first amendment here.

Seriously some of you guys are nothing but pot stirrers and are bigoted against people of faith. I never told you your going to hell, or threatened you with it at all. If you read the bible and feel you are at risk then you have decisions to make. Either you become a Christian or take your own chances and believe it is all a bunch of hooey. Either way you have a choice and no one holds a proverbial gun to your head.

Duncan you take all this as though my being a Christian is a threat against you, I don't feel threatened by any of you here. I may disagree with you on these points but at the end of the day I have no real beef with any of you. You are free to think and feel the way you want in my opinion.

If you truly are fearful of a person like me I just have to laugh myself senseless. Ohhhhhhhhh big bad Christian might teach me about Hell! My head might explode! I am so fearful and scared! Please..........

I'm a bit disappointed that you think my agenda was in anyway hidden. I hate all religions equally, I see no evidence for any god and in my opinion people who believe something with no evidence are at best gullible, brainswashed or otherwise downright stupid.

Time and time again when someone challenges you on a point you try and spin it as if it was a personal attack against you and respond to assertions that were never made in the first place. If you know so much more about god/religion/faith than me then why not respond to the point?

Nevertheless, as I have said before I agree that it is absolutely your right to believe what you want, but when those beliefs harm or influence other people or when the religous believe they are entitled to special privilages then I think it is the duty of every secularist to speak out.

It's religous people who try to block scientific research that would benefit mankind (stem cell research), it is religous people who object to the provision of sex education and condoms, thereby, condemning many people to death, it's religous people who are trying to have nonsense taught in schools, it is religous people who try to stem free speech and expression, it is religous people who seek to restrict the human rights of people based on their sexuality.

Now, we can have a debate about all of those issues, but if your opinion is formed in anyway by faith in the teachings of bible then your opinion should count for nothing. When I see the influence of religion in all these things you're damn right I see it as threat and all right minded people should too.

Going back to your point about no person living by New Testamant teachings is a threat to anyone else. Where in the bible, or where does Jesus, say that all the horrible stuff in the old testament should be disregarded?

[Gideon]

Duncan, as a religious person I'm still able to genuinely understand where you're coming from. Religious people have done some truly horrific things throughout history; but I would caution you against painting religion as the root of all evil. Soviet Russia sanctioned state-sponsored atheism. Destructive practices can be traced back to non-believers as well.

[Duncan]

Duncan, as a religious person I'm still able to genuinely understand where you're coming from. Religious people have done some truly horrific things throughout history; but I would caution you against painting religion as the root of all evil. Soviet Russia sanctioned state-sponsored atheism. Destructive practices can be traced back to non-believers as well.

I don't think I have.

Religous people do many good things, but I suspect that most would do good things anyway without religion. Conversely, many of the bad things sanctioned or facillated by religion would not happen it were not for that religion. As Stephen Weinberg so succinctly put it, that regardless of religion you will have "good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things." However, "for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

[S2M]

Sorry I was not clear. I will fix that for you. My points are thus : Your analogy of the OWS makes no sense. It is unrelated to the topic. Is this clearer sunshine?

I just can't stand illogical thought. And your posts are full of them, sorry. The 'Christians do some wonderful things TOO' is a poor excuse for discounting the bad that religion does....would it make ANY difference to you if I told you John Wayne Gacy taught Sunday school, or donated $1000,000 to Boys Town? Does that, in any way, make up for the bad things he did?

Your staple comeback for every horrible thing that we post is, 'We'll they weren't really christians, they were just doing those things in god's name. jesus doesn't teach that' As if, by your admission, that exonerates religion from being criticized.

and just as an aside....my OWS analogy DOES make sense - you just fail to recognize the fact. Why not have faith in me and my statement. That would be the the christian thing to do....

I'll explain it to you. Again, you bring up the fact that when a bad event happens, that is attributed to religion, you fall on a disclaimer stating that YOU aren't catholic...so I merely made another analogy revealing that when an OWS squatter is being removed from one of the parks - he would be justified in defending himself with, '.....but I'm not liberal'.