there are many religions and beliefs in the world today. all the followers of each feel like they are doing the best for themselves in what they believe and many believe that others should follow also. now after saying all that, do you believe that your "religion" has made the world a better place for man? if so, how did/does it contribute to the betterment of man?

randomhit10

If religion never existed the world would probobly be the same...we would just find something different to start wars over.

Every major accompplishment humans have achieved without religion.

as a believer i believe the best contribution aside from Jesus is the 10 Commandments. this guide for living (believer or not) allows live and let live while instilling respect for the rights of all. it is a moral guide that allows for a clean heart and mind.

randomhit10

my religion has done nothing for anyone in this world except for those that follow it, i believe that is how most religions are, if you dont follow a certain religion it really cant do anything to help you

Perhaps in a very unexpected way, and myself being a believer in science, science is a belief in that what we observe continues to behave in the way we have observed it to behave time and time again. Having said that, I believe that science has made the world a much much better place than ANY other belief that we know or have known to-date. Science has immensely contributed to the betterment of man/woman/child/animal/organism/KNOWLEDGE than any other belief ever known to man. And it continues to do so immensely. In fact all other beliefs nowadays rely on science to get their message accross, to reach the populace in much more efficient and faster ways than any others could fathom. Thanks to the press/computers/internet, developed by science, other beliefs are able to spread their word.

Guardian

i am amazed....with all the bashing of believers in God that goes on and how the Bible is a bunch of baloney....where are all you people when you are asked to defend your beliefs?

then you have nothing to offer? why bash the Bible that does then?

randomhit10

If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not control his tongue, he deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.
This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself pure and unpolluted by the world.
James 1:26-27

Lovely passage that just shut down the entire institution of ministry and proselytizing generally!

However, realizing you posted that passage as an addition to the commentary proffered by Randomhit10, perhaps you would be better served in understanding of the passages import if you were aware of all of the book of James chapter 2 verses 1 thru 26. Most particularly verses 1-10. Wherein you will realize your intent to levy judgment , with the James 1 passage, is a sin according to the word/law of god.

James 2:8-10
8 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

I find it interesting, that when I say I am religious
I am presumed christian.

Being religious is not just belonging to a certain beliefsystem,
but a state of being also.

Thus I have no 'branch' so to speak.

And religion is an open word...

This religion does help, by my volunteering
by the way I live, through my acts.

Dont get me wrong, not glorifying here, I am just a little person living by my convictions and trying to do what I can according to this.

The reality is that I merely quoted scripture, and honestly, my intentions were independent from the start. You assumed that I agreed with randomhit10, and contributed to his point because I did not make a direct response, and my intentions were to remain indirect! Did you mean to make me appear as though I sided with his defensive argument or did you intend to read inbetween the lines of a blank page?

Famous Christian Leaders.

Political
George W. H. Bush - U.S. President
George Bush - U.S. President.
Ronald Reagan - U.S. President
Jimmy Carter - U.S. President.
Abigail Adams - first lady, wife of U.S. President John Adams
John Ashcroft - Missouri Gov. & Senator; U.S. Attorney General
Christopher Darden - Lawyer, prosecutor in O. J. Simpson case
Elizabeth Dole - director, American Red Cross.
Stonewall Jackson*
Alan Keyes - U.S. Presidential candidate.
Steve Largent - U.S. House of Representative from Oklahoma, former professional football player.
Robert E. Lee - Confederate General
Abraham Lincoln* - U.S. President
Don Nickles - U.S. Senator, Oklahoma
J.C. Watts - U.S. House of Representative, former college football player
Dan Quayle - U.S. Vice President.
Clarence Thomas - U.S. Supreme Court Judge.
George Washington - U.S. President
Science,Technology and Exploration
Robert Boyle*
George Washington Carver*
Christohper Columbus*
Kenneth H. Cooper - "Father of aerobics"
Michael Faraday*
Jim Irwin* - astronaut, Ark Hunter
James Clerk Maxwell - influential mathematician and physicist
Samuel Morse*
Isaac Newton* - inventor, scientist
Louis Pasteur*
Hugh Ross - physicist
Francis Schaeffer - theologian and thinker (1912-1984)
Carol Swain - political scientist, author of Black Faces, Black Interests and The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (a convert to Evangelical Christianity)
Wright Brothers*

Literature
Oswald Chambers* - author, My Utmost for His Highest;
G. K. Chesterton - science fiction, mystery, non-fiction, Orthodoxy
Tim Lehaye - author, "Left Behind".
C. S. Lewis* - author of fantasy, science fiction, and non-fiction religious books such as Mere Christianity;
Catherine Marshall* - author, "Christy".
Norman Vincent Peale* - author, Power of Positive Thinking;
Frank Peretti - author, This Present Darkness;
Charles Sheldon* - author, In His Steps
Charles Spurgeon* - author
Danielle Steele - author
J.R.R. Tolkien - author, The Hobbit
Joni Eareckson Tada - author, Artist & Speaker. Quadriplegic.

Not a damn thing, since I subscribe to no organized religion. And I really don't care much for helping others, I have watched our welfare system create an entire class of society that are nothing but, giant hungry, mewling, all-consuming mouths for too long to bother anymore. It does no good to teach a man to fish when the government is giving them away for free.
And organized religion doesn't really do much for humanity, individuals do. Their faith may be a part of them, but they perform the acts. For example, what does it matter that Mother Teresa was Catholic, or what ever she was? She is the one who was an angel in India, not her church. Her heart led her to her actions, not her version of God.
And if you are trying to claim that missionaries are helping out the poor and downtrodden of the world for entirely altruistic motives, guess again.
Despite what the scriptures say (I find it hilarious that scripture gets quoted in these discussions, since most Christians crack a Bible a lot less often than the agnostic or flat out atheist scholars), the missionary's main drive is the satisfaction of converting souls, or earning a ticket to heaven by obeying God's command. The blankets and food and medical attention are just all ways of saying "See what Jesus can do for you?! Be like me and never get sick again!" or just tools to ensure the provider's "salvation". If their motives were truly altruistic, they would join the Peace Corps, or some group like that, out of a need to help their fellow man, not by going in to help, Bibles blazing.

Firstly, while I appreciate your words, the font color and large bold text is visually offensive to my sense of sight. If you have something to say, certainly you can tone down the hues and be better served in the communication to people that do not then have to squint to tolerate the read.

Secondly, I did not assume a thing! If you were not in support of R10, in posting right beneath their reply, given the context of the passage you cited, then your post is OT! Otherwise it did allude to being in accord to the context of randomhit10's statement regarding "bashing" the bible.

And finally, read between the lines of a blank page!? For that to be an indictment of my reply it would mean you had nothing to say in the first place. If you wish to respond to me with sarcasm, get it right baby! In the mortal words of PA; Context! It's all about Context!

No, you did, my friend. You assumed that I was adding to R10's point.



I said my quote from the scriptures were completely independent from the start and I specifically wanted to avoid a direct response, and share a verse from the Bible for those who like this skip through all of this non-sense, and have a quick look at the status of the overall argument of the topic.



Incorrect. I quoted a scripture, and you accused me of taking sides with R10. (no offense, R10) Do you think that by me quoting scripture, I would back up R10's view-point? So, I said "you try to read inbetween the lines of a blank page" because I did not state that I sided with R10, and there was no legitimate reason for an intelligent person such as yourself to think that I would agree with someone by quoting someone else from long ago.
Especially since the scripture had nothing to do with what he wrote. This is ridicilous!

If the scriptures quoted had anything to do with the "context" of his statment, then you might say that I am refering to the post above, but naturally, it would have to be in the same context as what he wrote. Let us examine the context of what he wrote:



What does R10 emphasize the most, Imaginary Friend? Ask yourself.


I'll answer it for you if you need help.


He is expressing his amazment at all the "bashing of believers" and the attack against the validity of the Bible. Then he asks "where are those who are asked to defend their faith?"


Consider this, Imaginary Friend: The Topic of this Post is called "contribute to mankind" and it should be about what benefits, advantages and disadvantages religions have etc...
Honestly, is R10 sticking to the topic? (no offense R10) but he was not directly writing about his religion its benefits etc... He was umm.... "amazed at all the bible basers" Sigh.



You are preaching about taking things in context, while you yourself took my original post out of context, and assumed that it had something to do- not even that. You assumed that I was siding with R10.





If it is a false realization, my Imaginary Friend, then it would become an assumption... an idea... not fact. Was it false? Lets look at it again!



Sigh. Like I said before... "I shared a verse from the Bible for those who like this skip through all of this non-sense, and have a quick look at the status of the overall argument of the topic."

I apologize to everyone about this post, especially R10. I did not mean to make an issue of this, but Imaginary Friend probably likes to associate people by labeling them (I realize that this too was also completely off topic), but it was necessary for me to enlighten Imaginary Friend about his misconception. I am also sorry that my big red letters hurt your eyes.

Besides... Ever heard of responding to the topic starter post?

I am glad this is all behind us now. Now, I still have't stated my personal opinion here, so I will do so now.

I grew up in the christian religion. I understood that it had many denominations and that most of these denominations had many different doctrines and paradigms. So, I decided to unlearn everything I have been taught, and relearn everything as far as theology goes. This lead me to a place where I cannot accept any religion, except keep one simple command which Jesus the Christ gave us: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. If this is in action, we would naturally care for others, thus we would feed the widows and care for the orphans, and also not let ourselves be polluted by the world. So, in essance, I believe that religion by modern day standards is not beneficial for me. So, I chose to stay away from all other religions becuase many of them are deceptive as far as their theological teachings.

Now I see who you are.

I'll tell you a short rule of law, relative to harassment cases generally; "It's not how you meant it, it's how it was received."

You may pick and rehash all you like. "Lets take a look shall we...." reminds me of a teacher at the board,pointing out the faults in a diagrammed sentence structure they initiated and a student finished.
Simply said someone posting this: "I am amazed....with all the bashing of believers in God that goes on and how the Bible is a bunch of baloney....where are all you people when you are asked to defend your beliefs? then you have nothing to offer? why bash the Bible that does then?

And this, right after with no reference to anyone else on board, nor in the context of anything at all, save a passage of scripture posted: James 1:26-27, which includes the words; "anyone that does not control his tongue", is taken in relative context to the post above it because it doesn't claim to address anyone else, nor does it contain any other commentary to which it would be relevant.

"I simply quoted scripture...." is simply OFF TOPIC, otherwise! If you choose to imagine the corollary between one member talking about bible bashing and asking why no one defends their beliefs, and that scripture is not relevant, is your choice to defend and mine to find patently absurd, as such.

Please, do pick apart my reply yet again. Defend your posting of just that James scripture and claim it means anything else other than what it says, and it means nothing. It is how it was received because posted as it is, it pertains to religious speech and that is relevant to R10's post in my observation. If you had something else to say, you should have said it.

Of course, I have to be careful with you. You just might recieve mere scripture in the same way you recieved my explaination.



Actually, I was responding to R10's first post on this topic...



Intended to show what the Bible says about religion.



or by mere happenstance the one below it... And you can recieve that anyway you like.



I believe that perhaps R10's comment about bible-bashers has offended you in some way. Perhaps it hit a nerve becuase you recieved it the wrong way, or maybe you just thought that his post was absurd, becuase you claim that my quote is in relation with his post, and thus, you believe my quote to be absurd as well.



What you see is the relfection of your error when you assumed, realized or "received" something that was untrue.



I do not have to defend it, becuase it already has relevance and meaning concerning this topic. For you said it yourself, Imaginary Friend:



and...



Which in essance, if we love one another as much as we love ourselves, (love being the fulfillment of the law. Romans 13:10) we would not "have" to keep the one and only pure religion described in the book of James, but rather we would desire to, and want to keep the commandment. If you love others, you will do good to them. This makes sense. Therefore, James 2:8 which has the words "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well..." and "if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors " which in essance brings up the point that favortism is sin according to the law. And as James 1:26-27 puts it, we should practice the pure religion of feeding the orphans and caring for widows. We must not put our own bellies as our highest priority, but we must also think about the less fortunate, I.E widows and orphans. Therefore, my post was legitimate and most definetally relevant to the topic.


I thought you believed in the scriptures.



Of course, according to your observation, I could have either been defending R10, or I could have condemned him, becuase you yourself said...



I did not say that he did not control his tongue. I was not implying that, becuase the scripture said "anyone" Sigh. And please do not "recieve" or rather assume that I am aiming at you. I have no intentions to do so. Also spare me from the possible response, "Oh! Then you must be refering to me! You offend me!"



In that, you are right, Imaginary Friend. Becuase you "received" it wrong, I apologize The next time I will add a commentary next to my quotes so there will be no missunderstanding. However, I will not write "THIS IS NOT REFERING TO THE POST ABOVE" in big letters, becuase some people would think it is a sarcastic remark and you might again have a complaint with me about the font size.

With that matter behind us, I would like to explain that, from my view-point, I studied many things about religions and their differences, and noted that throughout history religions have "evolved" in their doctrines and they never stay completely the same. For example, Constantine the Great changed the day of rest on March 7, 321 AD by declaring, "All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the Venerable Day of the Sun." From the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana 364 A.D, Canon XXIX.: "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

Until that point in time, the jews/christians kept the 7th day which is the Sabbath(Saturday) special. It was commanded to them by God. However, as soon as persecution came, their faith was on the line, and when Constantine - "their saviour" stopped the persecution, he also implemented a change in doctrines by law. Therefore, Sunday has been the commonly accepted day of rest in our society today. (just an example)

jesus and mary his wife by god as one through there blood by showing the truth of god our father.

that is really impressive ....you have a great understanding of the word except we differ on the meaning and intent. by the way, which tongue is in question? surely not mine.....

randomhit10

thanks for your honesty in your response...i understand what you are saying in the above statement. i have been there myself and it has taken a long time to reconcile my relationship with Jesus. i have searched many other beliefs but i have found them deceptive as well. write if i can ever be of help.

randomhit10

No, randomhit10. Your tongue is not in question, but neither is mine. Of course, there was a missunderstanding with Imaginary Friend, but that is in the past now. I apologize if we may have offended you. I did not mean to.



Thank you very much. I appreciate your understanding.

i didn't take any offence....thanks for saying so.

randomhit10

I appreciate your words. And no I was not addressing that passage to you R10, but rather to OracleTracker. *Which is why I posted it right beneath his post. Had I intended to address it to you, (or anyone else) I would have prefaced the statement with a SN.

There are a lot of good Christians out there.

I'm Catholic,so of course i know of many of the saints who did good.
St.John Eudes,a French priest who founded the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of refuge in the 17th century to work with women and girls in prision to teach and educate them so that when they did get out,they would have a trade and not have to go back to stealing or prostitution to support themselves, to help young girls who were in trouble and steer them onto the right path.

Mother Marie de le Navitite who founded the Sisters of Misercorde(means mercy) in Canada
to provide care to unwed mothers and their children.Her cause for sainthood has been put before Rome.
St.Katherine Drexel,of the Drexel banking family of Philidelphia.She used her millions to found Xavier University,a black school and various schools and churches for blacks and native americans at a time when they were often neglected. The community she founded,The Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament still do this as their work.
St.Camillus ,founder of the Ministers of the Sick, a nursing order of priests and brothers
who nurse the sick,especially the poor.

St.Vincent De Paul and St.Louise de Marillac,who established the Daughters of Charity,who were famous for their large white headresses like wings. Later on they modified the habit
so the american sisters anyways don't wear the headress anymore.
St.Vincenta Maria Lopez yVicuna,foundress of the Religious of Mary Immaculate,to provide
homes for working women and girls.Sometimes girls and women who came into the city looking for work had no place to stay,and many wound up in bad circumatances.
Rose Hawthorne Lathrope,the daughter of novelist nathaniel Hawthorne.
She at some point in her life became a Catholic convert and founded the Dominican Servants for the Relief of Incurable cancer.The nuns she founded work with people with HIV
and Aids as well. Her cause for sainthood has also been put before Rome.

There are many other such men and women in the church alot were nuns and priests.
Some of these people had been married and had children,like Mother Marie de le Nativite,St.Louise de Marillac,St.Marguerite De Youville of Canada,who became nuns when widowed.
Alot of them were wealthy ,like Katherine Drexel and St.Louis Strattman,a hungarian nobleman known in hungary as the Doctor of the Poor,for he mainly offered his services to them.

So see,there are lots of good catholics and protestants who do care about others.
By the way,my mother'sobstratition,Dr.Resmann,who was jewish, ran a clinic for the working class people down in the area where my mother worked in Buffalo back in the 50s and later.He funded this out of his own pocket and was concerned about people and wanting to help them.There are many jews who use their money to help others too.
There are good people who try to serve God in all faiths.

thank you for this post....there are many faithful believers in God who try to serve other's needs. we forget many and overlook what they have done and what they do now. Jesus told us to love others as He loved us. if your belief can not help others in a practical way then what value is it?

randomhit10