I'd ask you that same question. Have you read the bible!? The whole thing, not just skipping over those parts that describe a vicious, intolerant, bigoted, separatist, murderer by proxy, being?! If one takes the entire bible as gods word, they must be strong enough to face all of what he said was to be done and served against humanity in his name. I would hope no one imagines it's a text, cover to cover, that espouses only love , peace and good will toward men.

So if people really are following the bible literally, why aren't they stoning unwed mothers and putting children to death for breaking the 5th/4th (depending on tradition) commandment, and (in the same vein as the last) treating children under a certain age as a non-person? If anything, they go out of their way to protect children of all ages, down to a cluster of cells.

You and Supra are saying that most Christians take the bible literally. Boorite is saying that while Christians might believe that the bible is the literal word of god, most of them don't know what's in it enough to actually follow the entire letter. If they did, they would most likely change their beliefs on it being the word of god. As it is, most Protestants are going against their own faith in recognizing that salvation can happen outside of Christianity, according to statistics I posted earlier.

So please, provide us with your own evidence of what you're saying. And feel free to continue to ignore the statistics. Except you, Darkwind. Thanks for acknowledging that someone has done more than ignore them.

And Bella_Angelique is right. If this thread was about Wicca, Judaism, or other religions, it wouldn't be receiving the same venom and hostility. It's a double standard that's practiced all too often, especially here.

Just for posterity:

> 18% believe that their religion is the "one-true faith"
> 75% believe that many religions can lead to eternal life
> Almost half (48%) of "highly committed white evangelical Protestants" say that many religions can lead to eternal life. This shows that many conservative Christians oppose the foundational teaching of their denominations that the unsaved will go to Hell.

A USA Today-CNN-Gallup poll sampled 1,037 American adults in late 1999. 2 They found that:
> 30% described themselves as "spiritual" but not interested in attending church.
> About 54% of respondents said they are religious, but 45% of those said they are more likely to follow their own instincts than denominational teachings.

It doesn't have to be "most people". And on a side note, gay marriage is still largely outlawed. It's not human nature to discriminate against gays.

Just because a book is not largely taken seriously doesn't mean it is harmless. Would hate messages be allowed on TV, even if almost nobody was going to act on them? It's about the contents of the book, and the fact that it DOES influence and make choices for millions of people. We've seen it happen in history, it is happening in the present. Not in large quantities, but it's happening mind you.

Actually, it's human nature to discriminate against anyone not in your tribal group. This includes anyone of different beliefs, physical appearance, rituals, lifestyles, and even just because it's a different tribe. Native American tribes didn't enslave rival tribes because the bible told them to. Rwandan Hutus didn't commit genocide against the Tutsis because the bible told them to.

ivy I'd say women are being stoned, i don't see borders or that the other relgion is the 'bad' one i see the abrahamic trio as one in the same and if a woman in iran is being stoned for showing her ankles i feel it , kids who are raised in fear or punished and told they are sinful are being killed in a sense robbed of there joy, what kind of life is that what greater crime is there than to rob a child of its self esteem?????, to exploit and manipulate and harm, a child because you can because you think its your right and live in a humanity in some circles shun you for loving your child, calling you a bad parent for cherishing the role of parent and honoring it and the child , being worthy of the role....

KBA i actually saw this interview not to long ago with the people who decide what violence gets on tv and what is considered too violent and the head decider said "who in their right mind would not let violence on TV, its entertaining, I was shocked , why i don't know becaseu that is the moral majority , violence is entertaining....We as a humainty have to reevaluate our values, its also no secret images teach and it has been alluded too that a kid that watches alot of violence becomes immune to it, loses emphathy......oy vey....For the most part one way or anothe kids are socialized with violence either as a way to raise them in soem form or the tv they watch.... and its touted as as an acceptable way even fun and entertaining way to behave as a human, It seems diety has modeled this very well....

normal maybe but not natural ..These two are often confused...

I know many Neo-nazis have stated that they see the Jews and Moslims as one and the same, and also the source of most of the wars and evil on earth.
Have you considered this fact before?

Yes, I have read the Bible from cover to cover... more than once.

And you are completely right, it is not a book that espouses only love, peace, and goodwill toward men. It's a book about God's plan for creating man in His own image and the different tests and lessons that God has had to teach man and will have to teach man in order to achieve that goal. Anyone who says it's about peace, love and goodwill has not read it.

my dear friend is a muslim and some of the finest people i know are jewish, i meant i see the abrahamics emulating the same god Bella...
religon premeates all aspects of society at this point its a problem and i'd ask you do you iintend to contribute to being the solutiion ???????and how????thats what is imporatnt now, not more rhetoric to argue in circles...i'm seeking ways to understand to use my life as a way to effect change in a way that benefits the most.....WE have alot of hatred and yes healing is very much needed for so many, blame isn't the point as far as i'm concerned.....We can't change what we refuse to acknowledge or see to begin with....I may not be religious but i see the problems of humaity as my problem too regardless and intend to do something .......

when i have a issue with my husband the first thing is figure out what beleif is sponsoring the idea then discusiing and coming to a solution that is for the betterment of the whole and compromising as needed........so that its a win win for all and we do this by knowing what our core beleifs are what we hold dear and value what we call our morals.....and when they don't work we admit it and change them..Bella have you considered that many would and will die then let go of cherished beleifs, many would rather be riight, no matter what the price is even human life????

I have helped several leave fundamentalism behind and embrace modernism.
I do not feel impelled to try to convert anyone out of their religion.
People who are always trying to convert others to another faith, or to no faith, are a pain to me so I would not try to do that to another.

i agree you can't change anyone but yourself anyways i just raise awareness, keep mine under check keepp the weeds out if you will, if its the appropriate setting and realy focus on what i'm doing or not doing, i leave ones self awareness to them...i'm always interested in ideas of how i can be more effective and hear how others are ( its inspiring to me ) and how its working out basically..... one thinng a freind helped me understand is to be a differnece because I feels its my best not for any other reason ...and i feel its great advice...thanks for sharing bella.....

Okay, in that case I would like to offer something. I've seen several people say that religion is the cause of wars and suffering. When a secular example of war and suffering is proposed (Rwandan genocide), the same people say it's merely human nature. (Note: I'm using "genocide" as a specific example because it has occured from religious and non-religious campaigns. This could easily apply to other acts, even benevolent ones).

-----

The thing is that human nature exists with or without religion. If it can motivate genocide, then you can't blame genocide on religion, because that genocide could occur with or without it. Just because religion was present does not mean religion caused it. Just because the genocidists use religion to justify themselves doesnt mean religion caused it. If religion is the cause of genocide, it is the case that no genocide will occur in the absence of religion. But it is not the case. So it is not the case that religion causes genocide.

-----

If religion causes genocide, then all religious persons are genocidists. It is not the case that all religious persons are genocidists. Therefore religion does not cause genocide.

-----

1. Religion does not always cause genocide.
2. Renocide is sometimes caused by other things than religion.

Those are the two points that sever any proposed causal link.

-----

I offer this because the argument keeps following the same pattern of human nature versus religion. If an atrocious act occurs with religion is involved, people say it is because of religion. If an atrocious act occurs without religion involved, people say it is because of human nature. So, does that mean religion is exempt from human nature, or does it mean that human nature uses religion as a justification?

At most, religion is a rationalization for something that would have occured in its absence. If the Hutus are predisposed to commit genocide against the Tutsis, then the inclusion or exemption of religion would not have changed the outcome. The difference would be the justification. Instead of tribal boundaries they would have used religious boundaries and vice versa.

Simply providing a fundementalist the neutral materials to read on their own to learn the history of their own denomination and the varieties of early believers that existed in the early years helps many Christian fundementalists to come closer to modernism.

Is hasn't happened in a big way yet, but seeing some Wiccan, Pagan, and Gay charities out there working their own soup kitchens and helping in the dirty jobs like fixing up old folks homes as a group would help a lot. They live by the belief that people don't care how much you know until you show how much you care, and they respond to charity work in a big way. That is how I still come in contact with most of them on a personal level.

I wonder if you actually read the posts you critique. Certainly there is evidence you've failed to read mine, as I've never said most christians take the bible literally! However you are in grievous error if you imagine the bible is not taken literally by many denominations of christianity. Which would not denote most of the world christian population. And feel free to continue to ignore those clarifications.

One example would be a sect called Baptists. Of which there are two denominations that refer to themselves as either bible "Literalists" or bible "Fundamentalists". The literalist aspect speaks for itself. This would also be the faction wherein a former Presidential candidate now turned political pundit, Pat Buchanan gleaned his impetus to rally the far right xtian politicos to sponsor his bid because he said , were he to gain the seat , he would support any bill that made unrepentant homosexuality and abortion capital offenses. Currently our President, George W. Bush, prides himself in taking many aspects of the bible literally, hence his support of a measure to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman only.

Fundamentalist Christians have also opened christian schools so as to impart to the young minds of the future a curriculum that includes teaching a literal interpretation of biblical scripture. (article link) Such literal interpretation of which is what prompts that incentive behind many sects of religious bigots to sponsor and/or support Bills that prohibit equal rights for Gay citizens, based on the biblical declaration in the OT Leviticus 18:22.

However, there are other factions of the Baptist denomination that would deny they are literalists or fundamentalists and instead of referring to the bible as the literal or inerrant or fundamental word of god, prefer to consider scripture as inspired or "god breathed" .

Furthermore, it can be said that most christians do take many aspects of the biblical accounts literally in respect to the myth jesus walking on water, healing the blind, raising Lazarus from the dead, etc... So just because we do not see adulterous women being stoned in the streets today does not mean the literal influence of the biblical tales do not have their place in the hearts and minds of christians. The tale of jesus birth, death and resurrection being one of the main examples that is taken literally. Not to mention the forthcoming christmas (christ-mass) celebration, praised this time of year especially because christians do literally believe on that day christ the king was born. Also celebrated , via the literal interpretation afforded the date, is Easter. The day when jesus is said to have risen from the grave after his crucifixion. So while you may like to imply bible literalism is a misnomer or copy and paste Googled statistics declare this and that, never considering or perhaps imparting in fairness , that statistics can always be skewed for various reasons depending on those that contract the data, there is ample evidence in the contemporary arena wherein bible literalism is recognized and practiced. The full breadth of such material taking up far more time and space than this thread or members personal time, would permit to relate here. Although , one can easily research the materials to their hearts content to find out for themselves .


One proof I always love to see on the back of pickup trucks especially, is a sticker that reads : "The bible says it , I believe it and that's it!" The other is: "God, Guns and Gut's made America. Let's keep all three!"
I've met people that believe that. And they behave as if it's true as well. They consider their wives property and subject to their command, being the husband and as such , by gods word, the head of the household. They beat their kids when they misbehave because the bible admonishes them , spare the rod spoil the child, raise up a child in the way they should go and when they are grown they shall not depart from it, and so on. They would literally consider one of those children as dead if that child dared tell this parent(S) that they were gay, etc... So christian bible literalists and fundamentalists are out there, whether one likes to admit it or not. And by the way, just as an aside, there are some that , were it not for the law(s) would take the bible literally and apply it as such , against secular and religious community. One broadcast example is Doctor Laura, that uses biblical passages and literal interpretation , to guide her "patients" on her programs. One woman I heard her advise, as I was surfing the stations on a road trip, asked her for advice because her husband beat her regularly and had sent her to the hospital a number of times. Laura advised to take council with her pastor and seek gods guidance because divorce was a sin! Funny, I would think beating one's wife so badly she's admitted to an ER would be to. Hmmm, guess not. Property and all, in gods sight. Bastard needed to marry an atheist. Then he would have learned that a Louisville slugger is aptly named! But I digress.

Case in point , regarding bible literalist christians, is the Westboro Baptist church psycho cross posse. This group travel the country to impart the message at dead soldiers funerals, that the reason America is now hated by god is because she and her people have fallen from following his word . His biblical word! They're not the only sick psycho cross posse' out there, they're just the one that is most well traveled and , unfortunately, glean the most Press attention for their trouble.

I met Pat in Atlanta. He really is a Catholic.

Hmm good query, ivy i offer this Depending on what one deems to be human nature, I know it to be inherently good it is clear to me people are really are doing the best they can with what they understnad, now if you think its inherently sinful and unworthy then you would have the persepctive you offered..... it seems in humaitys ignorance literally, someone decided the early humans that if it didn't rain when it was needed to harvest the crops, or some natural occurance of nature such as a flood, or a bolt of lightening struck and caused a fire etc it must be must be some diety and this diety was displeased, so all kinds of rituals that continue today are an attempt to please this diety....basically a construct was born out of this a diety that was angry and punshing, i wish it was more clever than that but i'm afraid thats how relgion was given birth too.....of course the lore twists and turns but somewhere humans got the IDEA that god was diety in the sky who could be pissed off.....idea=ritual + religon.....of course there are many tall tales lol....


I offer this persepctive....
their are some humans who still belive these tales of a primitive lore there are some humans that have looked into this early idea and tested it out and have found that human nature isn't flawed its mans understanding of himself that is flawed we have all kinds of behavioral sciences to help us understand how and why now etc.....

i observe that the ideas of primitive understandings are alive and well in religion coming from humans that had incomplete understandings that persist today and the systems they created are still thriving i do see it as changing and humanity as growiing very rapidly, really it hasn't been until the last 5 or so years that the numbers of those who are awaking up to this new conciousness is growing alot of these ideas are new and the hard thing is letting go of the old ideas , we have been in a construct that has prevented growth for a few thousand years I say a religous regime across the globe some have it worse tah others........in referring to religon i mean a system of beleifs than inspire behaviors collectively, based in incomplete understandings, such as division , discrimination, racism, violence, repressive sexuality fear of love as it may spoinl one etc.... seeing some humans as superior and some as less than, it goes on and on....i hold a beleif system accountable for holding onto beleifs that are not working , i see ignorance as the problem which can easily be rectified, all races all peoples have been hurt by these beleifs and humity is broken no one hasn't been touched in some way.....ther is a wonderful book called the healing of America ... alot of peoples are hurt and it would start to help the healing process if we started listenting to each other and offering ways to make things right then move forward as a team a whole.....

i see religon as in need of relanguaging renewing allowing it to grow allowing new ideas in jsut as any other system in humankind, its a growth issue more than blame thing hatred isnt gonna do anything its a team thing now, some may never change they may die to be right, I'm inspired by the innovative and new tommorows and what could be...... We are just begining to see we have much to learn as far as being human goes, i think the possiblity of what could be is exciting and fun, the old ways doesn't work and some of hte new ideas are really wonderful when applyed i offer that as do many that offer an alternative, i can see relgion could be a great thing it just isn't yet..... and it depends on what you are trying to do , i'm looking to create a peaceful world for myself and kids not everyone is interested that is fine the majority is a very small number in real terms, many great things have happened starting with one idea.... i'm looking to express and understand unconditonal love and grow and learning there is much i don't know......



i hope this clarifys my position.....

thats a great idea Bella, i will voice it i work in a public job and have oppourtunity to talk to many folks , we often discuss major ssues and pass on the good ones, i myself have raised awareness alot inthe schol system i have my hands fulll there and it makes a differnce most parents don't know the inner dynmaics and how to best utilize the system, as tax payers we have the responsibility to ensure our kids get a good education.... i say within your community discuss the things that are important wherever you frequent raise awareness , people appreciate it and many care more care tathan don't...you don't need to spend money or join movements to be a benefit, everyone can find a way in their own lives, befreinding the old person who has noone, or smiliing at someone , many times its the only time they have ben smiled at, etc etc.....we give all our plastic and cans to a korean man who has so little and he not only recycles he makes a few bucks and he appreciates it alot, stuff like that ..we need a thread on ideas to be a differnce.....

ugh.... where to start. Apparently there aren't a lot of Christians or theists on this website because there never seems to be a response to the continuous attack on Christians, the Bible and people of faith. I've read through, although not responded to many posts about how the vast majority of people are crazy and delusional and dreamed up the concept of God. Atheist want proof of God, irrefutable scientific proof, and then maybe they would accept God and follow his will. What gets me is they can't scientifically prove there is no God. No matter how hard they try they can't do it. So how do they feel better about themselves and reaffirm their belief that there is nothing to believe in? They attack and try to tear down the beliefs of others.

Now this really might offend the Atheist so I apologize in advance. But has it ever occurred to you that God is smarter than you or anyone on the planet combined? I know, I know it stings... but go with me here… I believe this is all part of His plan. Is it possible that by His design, God has made it so there is no way of scientifically proving his existence? I think it’s very possible. I would never be so arrogant as to limit God and say what he can and cannot do. So why would he make it near impossible to prove his existence scientifically? I believe it is because he wants us to have faith and believe in Him without being forced to, without having to open the heavens and descend with hundreds of angels and tell you, yup I’m here. There have been countless great men and women who have believed in God and done many great things and gave their lives sometimes literally, and have never needed or demanded they have proof before they believe. It is a truly prideful and arrogant person who thinks that they deserve that more than others and somehow are entitled to divine visitations. There is a great example of this in the Bible. In the book of John. Chapter 20. If you remember the Lord was crucified and on the third day Mary came to his tomb and found it empty. Jesus appears to her and leaves again. Christ then appears to some of his apostles and leaves again (sorry paraphrasing). The book of John continues:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

The Jesus soon came to them and said this to Thomas:

9 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


All through out the scriptures the Lord tests the faith of His people to see who they really serve. Answer me this question. If God’s existence could be proved, if there was a sign given that would leave no question that God lives… what purpose would faith have? I’ll go ahead and answer that one…none. Do I know how exactly Noah built the ark? No. Is it possible he had help from above? Yes. Are the details of how Noah built the ark pertinent to my salvation? No. But I have faith that the Lord gives no commandments to his children unless, he prepares a way for them that so they can accomplish the thing which he commanded them.
If you go in to studying the bible so you can prove or disprove it scientifically so you can write a post on this website to try and destroy thousands of years of believe, make yourself sound intelligent, I promise you, you will fail on all sides. If you go into studying the Bible with sincerity, meekness and humble prayer and most of all faith, then will you find the answers to your questions and the “spiritual prove” that is there.

Oh no, I certainly read the posts. I'm sorry if my posting statistics was offensive in any way. I just happened to see people citing blanket terms and tossing out statistics without backing them up or putting them into context, so I was merely trying to help by clarifying it. For example, people kept throwing out blanket statistics on the population of Christians, but it was never made clear if they were talking of world statistics or American statistics. I apologize if my attempts at helping people to clarify the statistics were seen as anything other than what they were.

And I am full aware what people have said. While you specifically may not have said "most Christians" take the bible literally, there are people here who have. I apologize if I mixed up who said what in my previous post and attributed to you something you didn't say. It is difficult to keep track with the many blanket statements being thrown around. If I were to go through this thread and respond to every instance of that with my post, I would certainly be wasting time. I just assumed that making one point in response to a certain thread and then bring up other points that other people have said would be a more effective use of my time; I could dedicate my time to writing my thoughts rather than charting who said what when. I'm sorry if that offended you. I will read the thread again and verify that I was incorrect in saying that you used the terms "most christians."



Yes, I am aware of the Baptists. I was raised in a Southern Baptist town with the occasional Baptist minister (when a Methodist couldn't be found) so I think that it safe for me to say that I am aware of their existence. I am also aware that in the Protestant Christian world, Baptists were the rebels when the denomination was first founded. Why? Because they believed that a person should be able to choose whether or not they are to be baptized in a certain religion. The other denominations thought that absolutely heretical. It's sad to see the Baptists as a group that is associated with backward-thinking, when they were once ahead of their time.

By the way, in case you were not aware of this, George W. Bush's church disowned him. (Or whatever the proper term is).

Fundamentalist Christians have also opened christian schools so as to impart to the young minds of the future a curriculum that includes teaching a literal interpretation of biblical scripture. (article link) Such literal interpretation of which is what prompts that incentive behind many sects of religious bigots to sponsor and/or support Bills that prohibit equal rights for Gay citizens, based on the biblical declaration in the OT Leviticus 18:22.

Not disagreeing with you here. I'm aware of them. But thank you for helping to inform others that not "all" Christians are literalists.

There is a big difference between taking literally acts of violence as described in the bible, and biblical takes that directly relates to the birth and death of a Christian's savior. Thank you for pointing those out.

Oh yes, those Googled statistics. I tell you, if it was that easy to find those statistics, I certainly wish someone had told me earlier. Then I would have spent so much time on it and I could have spent more time searching through the thread to chart who said what when and where. You may dismiss the statistics all you want, after all, ignoring information is the choice many humans make every day, such as when Creationists ignore the evidence for evolution. If you were indeed interested enough in the matter to read further, you would notice that I did not merely post data that could be skewed. I also posted the problems noted with the way the data was collected, along with multiple results, and the link to the exact place I copied them from, which includes a much larger wealth of information. I thought it was better to post excerpts from various pages and sections outlining the summary than have a gigantic post few would read. That is also why I included the links to exactly where the information was gathered; so people could look at the information themselves in case they thought I was just making statistics up. I probably should have conducted my own polls on the topics and been in touch with many different agencies, like PEW, USA Today, Gallup, etc separately to get the information rather than using the ease of a single site that has gathered the information in one place as a convenience for people who are interested in the information. Honestly, I had no idea that statistics that come from a site like that would be considered invalid because it was in a single source. I have certainly learned my lesson. Thank you.

I do apologize again for attempting to clarify the beliefs of the world and American people with statistics gleaned from years of polling and research.

Oh don't get me wrong. I never said they didn't exist. You must not have read my post that you critiqued. See, I am more than aware that they do exist. I grew up in the rural southern United States, so I can infer that these people do indeed exist. And as you yourself were so kind to point out, the data from those statistics can certainly be skewed for many reasons. A poll conducted on belief in say, the town I grew up in would show 95% Baptist, a small handful of Catholics and Methodists, and not a single Muslim, Jew, pagan, or Rastafarian. A poll conducted in the town I currently live in would show 10-15% Baptists, a rainbow of Protestants, many Catholics, Episcopalians, and Mormons, lots of Buddhists, Muslims, and Wiccan/pagans, a few Jews, a large gay Christian population, Unitarian Universalists, and Satanists. If the poll for the nation was conducted in the southern United States, they would infer that most of the country is Baptist. If it was conducted in my current location, they would infer that the country is evenly split between the Protestant and Catholic denominations and everyone else. And if it was conducted in my father's hometown, they would infer that most of the country is Quaker.

You are absolutely right. Statistics are too easily skewed. We should ignore them completely and not keep using statistics, referenced or made-up, in this discussion. It's better to make blanket statements.



Dr. Laura is an idiot. Her own religion has a tendency to dislike her. I would put her in the category of people who shouldn't be allowed their own radio show. Or any sort of public exposure. But, what do I know? I'm just an apologist according to people.



And how do I disagree with you on this? In case you've forgotten since you read the top of my post, I never said that there weren't people who take the bible literally. I was merely posting the statistics of that to help clarify the world and American representations of belief to people who were using the "all" and "most" blanket statements. As I said, I am truly, deeply sorry if my actions were offensive in any way and went against forum rules.

You would certainly present a better argument if you weren't so snide, condescending and arrogant in your presentation. It makes reading you quite the chore, as you levy contempt in an attempt to impart your opinions to those you imagine you have a right to treat with such disrespect. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken , and in the event I am it is obviously my error, I believe I remember your saying you were agnostic. If that is indeed the case it is quite amazing that you rise to the occasion to apply such an attitude in these discussions as you attempt to address christianity. As if you have something personal to defend. Or maybe it's just that you get a perverse thrill in being snide, condescending, arrogant, and sarcastic. Furthermore, and for the record please don't throw out insincere apologies for violating the rules of posting. I wouldn't think that matters that much since you clearly don't mind violating rules of common respect in engaging in civil conversation.

I was being perfectly civil before, when I was called a zealot and other negative terms and certain people incorrectly characterized me as a believer and made blatant assumptions of my personal beliefs without any indication on my part one way or another. I have tried over and over again to present my argument in a civil manner and I get constantly summarily dismissed as a "religious apologist," blatantly ignored, and attacked. So now you lecture me on being civil when I haven't even been shown the same damn courtesy. So excuse me if I finally crack and give over to being "snide, condescending and arrogant" in my presentation, but after posting information which I thought would actually be helpful to this whole freaking discussion, I get again summarily dismissed and you treat my contribution as complete and utter crap just because I don't agree with you. And you think I'm not being civil? I'm at least making an attempt to understand why so many people are demonizing religion and presenting views that are calling out Christianity specifically. Where are the arguments against Judaism? Where are the arguments against Buddhism? Where are the arguments against the Maori tribal religions? I keep asking questions of why and I keep getting ignored or shat on as some "believer." Yes, I am an agnostic, let me state it again in case you missed what I said the first several times I said it. "Specifically, I am an apathetic agnostic. I don't know if god exists, and I don't really care. I do not lie awake at night wondering whether or not god exists. The existence of god has no bearing on how I live my life. If tomorrow it was proven that god exists, it would have no bearing on how I live my life. If tomorrow it was proven that god doesn't exist, it would also have no bearing on my life. I'm hardly the "believer" that you enjoy demonizing. It's ironic; I'm not an atheist, but I live more as one than the self-proclaimed atheists who can't stop thinking about god and how to get rid of it."

As I've said over and over and over and over, I am offended at and object to demonizing and condemning people because of their beliefs. According to you, that makes me a believer. And you know what? I would rather be mischaracterized as a believer than be associated with the atheists and agnostics who can't see past their own prejudices to participate rationally in a discussion.

And I was sincere in my apologies. Because if I can't even present something like statistics without being accused of religious propaganda, then not a single person who presents an argument, scientific or otherwise, that happens to disagree with you and your ilk, has any hope of rational discussion here. You people claim to be rationalists yet you're acting in an irrational manner and I will treat you as such. I will treat this thread as such and I will treat this place as such. I double standards, hypocritical rantings, and outright prejudice and bigotry are encouraged here by people like you, then there is no rationality.

JongFu Posted Today, 12:28 AM
"continuous attack" ?........The board is called "Spirituality vs Skepticism"......the keyword being "vs". This is the ground in which these conversations take place. Why would one feel that it is an attack (which coincidently affirms the idea of Christian's concupiscence for persecution). You must understand that as a Nontheist myself I refuse to acquiesce the fact that a religion is continually blanket condeming people for non-deification, this board is an arena to address such an issue.



Personally I do not require any proof for the Christian God, as I postulate that there isn't one. I do not want any Christians to go to the trouble of trying to prove that their God exists, I'll spare them the sterile attempt. It isn't a matter of "attacking" or "tearing down" a personal belief. But that belief ceases to be innocuous and becomes auditable when that belief entails the damnation or salvation of the entire human race, especially when maledictions towards non-believers are used to "reaffirm their belief".




It seems here that because we choose to examine the nature of the Christian God, indeed we choose to investigate, that we are arrogant. Because the Christian God is put on the table for disection we are attacking. It is these types of aspersions that cajole Nontheists to address the nature of Christianity in the first place.

If you have assurance in your Christian God then contest not our perlustration into the divine nature of this idol.

chauc well articulated , I had to look up a few words lol....


this is the appropriate arena to debate the deitys of lore, its not meant to be personal, i am always perplexed as to why one is offended , and i think you addressed that ,the martyr/ victum complex of christianity....

I never said it isn't that bad. I said I'm glad people only choose to pay attention to certain parts. Because certain other parts are really bad. Like braining your kids with a rock if they sass you. Almost nobody believes in doing that, even if they say they take the whole Bible literally. That's just something they say. You don't believe everything people say, do you?

And for the last time, they cannot take the Bible literally-- it is impossible, and the whole anti-gay thing is a perfect example of one reason why. Those passages do not mean what homophobes think they mean. They take what they want out of the Bible. They see what they want to see in it. You could get rid of the Bible, and they'd just find it somewhere else. The problem is not a bad, evil book. The problem is some people are homophobic.

I haven't missed those crummy threads. I've even posted in some of them. Most of them don't even rise to the level of absurdity.

Yeah, 'cuz the thread is supposed to be about levying contempt at religious people and treating Christians with disrespect! Jeez, ivy, get on the bandwagon why dontcha!

I guess we don't make very good demons.

If you have some arguments against Buddhism, feel free.

boorite is punshing a child , teaching a child it is of sin and using fear, not love to rear them how is this not literal to you.... do you know how many kids have been beaten becasuse of the literal "spare the rod spoil the child," with belts too or switches , it goes on to this day..how is that somehow diffenert and not literal?????the manner isn't important, woman in muslim are stoned to this day..... how is shunning or killing a gay person such as matthwe shepard( who was tyed up by christians) not a literal translation from the bible, how is not having the same rights because your gay not literal to you...Noone comes to the father except through me "jesus pruportedly said this now keep in mind there is little eveidence historically he lived let alone said this, now ask any christian if they take this to literally mean you have to except jesus as your lord and savior..if that is taken litarel....I mean we can do this all nite so for simplicity sake how are you defining literal..

I really don't know what you're on about. I'll just leave my post "as is," and, well, you can post whatever you want. Because I have no idea what I'm arguing with, if anything. I think maybe I'm supposed to get worked up about all the crazy stuff in the Bible? Whatever it is, I'll let you handle it.

What about good dumplings?

good thanks because i was wondering myself what your talking about.....

I'm open here to a discusiion but the bible is taken literal ask any religious person, this is where i get my info ...anyhoo happy posting...

just for kicks and giggles how were you defining literal?????

I have no problem with people putting the Christian god (or other religion's god) on the table for dissection. It's the attacks on believers for simply being believers that I have a problem with. Especially with the gross generalizations and blanket statements. That's what I was trying to counteract with posting statistics, but it was met with indifference, outright ignoring, more blanket statements, and finally, hostility. That is not dissection.

If I correctly remember the story I read as a child, cats are now accepted in Buddhist traditions, right? In that case, the only complaint I have is that there aren't more of you.

adhering to the primary meaning of a sentence, as opposed to "figurative."

So that a literal interpretation of this passage, Revelation 13:1...

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

...would indicate a real, live animal with seven heads, ten horns, ten crowns on the horns, and if that's not enough, "blasphemy" written in Magic Marker on each head.

Which would be stupid.

boo i think revelations is allegoric, poetic prophetic something like that ..., its not taken literal , but i see what your saying, i wasn't sure now i see what you meant..

Now why are you calling this fine creature stupid?

never heard that one, but I don't see why they wouldn't be.

we probably need to get past the "human fortune cookie" stereotype first.

You know, I can't find the story now. I think it was actually an old folk tale more than anything, but since I read it as a child (and not since then) I always associated it as being a true story of the religion.

Aha, I found it. It was based on a Buddhist folk tale, but the version I read had a supposedly different (and happier) ending. Probably because it was written into a children's book. An artist adopts a cat, then is commissioned to paint a mural of the Buddha's death surrounded by animals and wishes he could put his beloved cat in the painting so he does, much to the annoyance of the priests. I don't know how the original tale ended (if it was different), but the children's story ended with cats being accepted with all the other creatures.

There seems to be a lot of stories about cats in Buddhist folklore. Some really hilarious stories too.