There are many more atheists and agnostics in the country than is generally recognized. For instance, we atheists and agnostics are as numerous as Southern Baptists, and we are also the fastest growing category–-faster even than the Mormons and the evangelicals.

Why, then, are we atheists in general so unnoticed, and why is this changing? Since atheists, in general, think there are much more important and interesting topics to discuss than whether or not God -- which God? -- exists, we seldom raise the issue.

But recent trends in America have suggested to many of us that this diplomatic reticence has been exploited by sectarian ideologues, evangelists, politicians, and others intent on maintaining the illusion that we are a negligible fringe community, so we are encouraging those who agree with us to come out of the closet .

I use the idiom advisedly. A few decades ago, homosexuality was looked upon as so shameful that few dared declare themselves, and as a result, most homosexuals had to lie their way through life, for fear of losing their jobs, their reputations, their friends and family.

How times have changed -- and for the better! It is now possible for homosexuals to be elected to Congress, to star in television shows, to be honored for their accomplishments and treasured by their friends. Could an atheist be elected to Congress? Probably not now, but if we can just raise the consciousness of Americans to the fact that some of their best friends are atheists, this will change.

In July, 2003, I wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times entitled "The Bright Stuff", where I drew attention to a budding movement among atheists intent on copying an idea from the homosexuals’ excellent campaign: the hijacking of a perfectly good word with an established meaning, gay, and putting it to use with a new meaning, as a consciousness-raiser.

The term "bright" was chosen by two brights in Sacramento -- Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell -- who thought we freethinkers (atheists, agnostics, et al -- needed a fresh name. In the aftermath of my op-ed piece, I’ve read quite a few articles and thousands of messages about the term “bright.”

Most people who bother writing don’t like the term -- including many brights (as I persist in calling them). It’s rude, disrespectful, antagonizing, they say. In other words, it’s just like “gay” (hey, you heteros, how do you like the implication that you’re glum and gloomy?).

I am still not convinced that it was a mistake to go with bright. These things take time. Had Geisert and Futrell chosen some bland, mealymouthed term most would have forgotten it by now. The “in your face” quality of the term is, in my opinion, a piquant, but mild, antidote to the prevailing practice of hyper-deference paid to religions but to no other institution in the country. And I have reminded those who find the term objectionable that just as the antonym of gay isn’t glum, but straight -- another happy word -- they are free to choose a peppy antonym for bright. I recommend super, since, unlike us brights, they believe in the supernatural.

Of course when gay was first promoted in its current use, many in the gay community loathed the term, and some still do. But eventually it won, and it created a way of talking that was vivid and healthy. Gay pride. Gay rights. Gays were encouraged to come out of the closet, and the nation was amazed to discover how many of its favorite sons and daughters were gay. That changed everything. It’s probably impossible to gauge how big a role the term played in the benign revolution in American attitudes towards homosexuality, but it certainly didn’t hurt.

Whether or not the term bright catches on over the years, I think the movement to encourage brights to identify themselves (in whatever terms they like) is on a roll. Young people and old people write to me about their joy and relief when they discover that they are not alone.

It is still too early, probably, to elect a bright to Congress. Candidates will continue to grit their teeth and tell their fibs about their “faith” in order to get elected, and many who see through this but recognize a good candidate when they see one will continue to button their lips and vote for these tellers of white lies -- including many who are themselves deeply religious but don’t believe you have to be religious to be good!

It would be better if we could simply wade through all this hypocrisy and acknowledge that there is simply no truth at all in the standard myth that without religion a person cannot be a good and honest citizen. We have discovered that Catholics and Jews (and gays and lesbians) can be excellent guardians of the public trust, and in due course we will recognize that not only are brights electable but that we have already elected, and honored, many thousands of closeted brights to high office -- including the Presidency -- in our past.

In my op-ed piece, I included some advice:



I do think this is very important. I have received many anguished messages from brights living in red states who believe (correctly, I surmise, but I don’t know) that if they were to come out of the closet, they would be driven out of business if not out of town. So we must be patient, and gentle, and let people keep their faith–-or lack of it–-to themselves.

In the meantime, can we public atheists have productive conversations with believers? Certainly. We can discuss every issue under the sun, and particularly the great questions of ethics and public policy, respecting each other as citizens with honest disagreements about fundamental matters that can be subjected to reasonable, open inquiry and mutual persuasion. As I said in my first posting to On Faith, we all need to agree to live by the principles of rational discourse. That, and common courtesy, is the only rule we need–-just as in science.

As long as those who are believers will acknowledge that their allegiance gives them no privilege, no direct line to the absolute truth, no advantage in moral insight, we should be able to get along just fine.

Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More atheists should find their voice. It brings me great joy that religion's foundation is shaking and disbelief is raging on. Seemly the more access and discussion you have about the world and religion the more people move away from them. The internet is going to be a big part in the growth of atheist/agnostic thought.

I would rather vote for an Atheist over a Christian if he has the ideas I like. I think we are a lot closer to electing an Atheist than we are electing a Pagan. We Pagans also have to keep our beliefs quiet when it comes to jobs, friends and family. Many people see it a worse than being gay. I was even nervous about telling my therapist I am a Pagan. I have a Pagan friend who I would like to see run for city council, not because he is a Pagan, but because he is a good environmentalist. We really need a good one on the council. I try to vote for the ideas rather than the religion of a candidate, but it does turn me off when a candidate touts Christian ethics as a reason he should be elected.

When you figure in that calling yourself a "Christian" means you are justifying 1700 years of persecution, torture and outright genocide of non-Christians, you have to automatically take a few points off the value of a political candidate. Don't forget to take off a few more points because they believe that you-know-who is coming back tomorrow, and rapturing away all the "real" xians. I would definitely vote for an atheist. I don't come even close to agreeing with the belief. I think "bright" doesn't sound good. Perhaps reviving "freethinkers" would be a better euphemism? In the u.s., most of our founding fathers were not Christians. Franklin, Jefferson, et al.

Well our current president told the American people his god told him to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. I wonder if he told him to lie about the WMD's , so we'd have a reason besides revenge for daddy, as the cause!? We have another elected official that takes the oath of office this month on the Koran, (Rep.Keith Ellison) which is still flipping out conservative christians, given we're suppose to believe all of islam is like what we see happening on the news in Iraq and per our recall of 911.
If I could believe again in the election process, I'd vote for an Atheist if they could be trusted to lead, rather than sell out to special interests. But I'm wondering, isn't there a clause that denotes a candidate for President must have a religious affiliation?! I can't find that for the life of me, but it's something I thought of while reading this.


And fear not Kratos, Atheism may not be the largest population on Earth, but it was the first! And today books about Atheism are selling faster than ever before, so maybe people are starting to look inside rather than up, for what they think they need to believe will save them from themselves.

There is nothing in the requirements for those who wish to be put into the offices of Prez,Vice-Prez,Senate or Representative which states that one must have a religious affiliation.

Anyone can run for office regardless of whether they belong to a religion or not.The problem lies with those voters who insist on voting in someone who happens to belong to their religion...which is why many politicians pander to certain sects.

...

I don't care for the term "brights" either.I'm with Gideon Mage on this...let's just use the term "Freethinkers".It's more appropriate,since our minds are free to think of what we wish to think....without being limited by religious dogma.

A thank you for that information about faith and office.

You're welcome.

Whatever an individuals personal prefrences may be, have no bearing on levels of knowledge and skill. I prefer the term "Free human".
That is the only lable one and all should allow others use to express those difference's. Including themselves.

My point meaning that there are only difference's because they are encouraged by the minority in power. The system.

I believe the word your looking for is "Catholics", not "Christians". You don't have to be part of an organized religion in order to be Christian, definition of a Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ and exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ. I don't think it would matter if I voted for an athiest or a christian because when it comes to being in the office you become a changed person anyways.

And yet this bit of monotheistic ideology, is the same thing only different, from all those that do just the same thing in imparting one label as contrary to that free human of whom you speak. Mandating only one way, for all, is unrealistic and terrorism in it's truest essence.

It is the division labeling causes that promotes terrorism. I knew you, if no one else, would catch it. An arguement would be, that in a society of labels, would you not choose one that prevents the terrorism of the various other labels? Terrorism has many levels of physcological and physical levels. Society as a whole is based on it. And until the world can be brought to a position where labels no longer have meaning, meaning that our perspective of meaning will have changed. You can only try what you percieve as the best.

It was a lot more then just the 'catholics' that did harm. If you believe, you are supporting those crimes.

If you really think about it, christians have no morals... They can do whatever the hell they want and still at the end of the day repent for heaven. There is no reason for them to be good people.



Yeah, it was. It's making a comeback... Not with the sword but with ideas and knowledge. Unlike many other religions.

What other religion besides catholic killed people if they didnt convert? So because I believe everything in the Bible to be true and God's word, I'm supporting the people who killed others who didn't convert to christianity? I don't agree with everything that people say, but I agree with everything the Bible says.

To repent is to make a change for the better as a result of remorse for sinning. Someone who feels like they can sin all they want and repent at the end of the day and expect to have everlasting life is just kidding themselves because they are doing what pleases themselves, not what pleases God.

Other christians have killed and more for their faith. Just not catholics. It doesn't matter, if you subscribe to the christian faith you have the past with you as well. Just like if I joined the KKK but I'm not racist... I'm just there for the poker nights... I'd still be part of the KKK.

Yet at the end if you truely believe you're going to hell, you will feel sorry... I mean what person wants to go to hell? You're going to feel bad out of fear of hell, so you will repent. If you repent, that means you get the pass into heaven. So yet, christians can still do whatever they want and still get into heaven.

And lets take a look at the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not use the Lord's name in vain, so I guess even if those people killed others for not becoming christian they still killed for the wrong reasons and disobeyed both of those commandments. So those people were not obeying the word of God now were they, so would that make them faithful?

If someone was reaching their death and didn't know anything about God (Which is a small probability because everyone has at least heard of God), and they read the Bible and realized they had done so much wrong in their life and asked for forgivness from God, they would still be saved. But the problem is, if you knew about God during your lifetime but refused to acknowledge him until your death, slim chance that God is going to save you if you knew about him but wanted to live life the way you see fit until you were about to die.

I live in the South and that means if your running for office and your not a of one of the Abrahamic faiths the reality is your not going to get elected. If you don't believe in God and want to win you say you do. Sometimes you have to walk the walk to get what you want. I wonder just how many politicians are out there doing just that.

Yet, they can still repent even after breaking the ten commandments. They're still believers and that faith is still accepting them, as is their god.

There isn't a slim chance at all... If you repent cause you know it's wrong because if you don't you'll go to hell, you still get into heaven. It wouldn't matter if you were a mass murderer or anything. God still accepts them all, so the faith accepts them.



Probably more then a few of them out there.

President Bush is a closet Pagan. You all should realize this. And it should thrill the pagans who post here as well. The skull and crossbones are a pagan brood and elitist. You are a fool if you think otherwise. The new world order will be ushered in by them and the UN. It is only a matter of time. Blame Christians if you want, but your country is going down the tubes because of another bunch altogether. I would rather stand with an atheist than a pretend christian any day of the week. This is the same crap that a Roman Emporer pulled back in 325 AD. History repeats itself for the ignorant.

So why do ya gotta insult pagans like that lol?

Care to tell us more about these Skull and Bones "pagans"? Maybe which gods are in their pantheon, some of their "pagan" rituals and maybe some of their beliefs... oh and sources please? Cause I'm betting you have absolutely no idea lol.

And why would it thrill pagans that you believe Bush is a "pagan"? You say we should all realize this, I'm all ears?

See I'm thinking that whenever a Christian leader starts acting un-Christian "real" Christians just call them pagans or occultists and breathe a sigh of relief, but what gets missed is that most Christian leaders act un-Christian, most Christians act un-Christian, the founders of Christianity acted un-Christian, hell I dont think "real" Christians even exist lol.

Only a hate filled fanatic could possibly believe that anymore than believing that someone who states they are an atheist means that they support communism and want religions wiped out by force.

QUOTE(GIDEON MAGE @ Jan 2 2007, 08:41 AM)
When you figure in that calling yourself a "Christian" means you are justifying 1700 years of persecution, torture and outright genocide of non-Christians


I'm hoping they're speaking metaphorically. Otherwise, to make a statement like that about christians means it's valid for every faith and the justification of those histories as well. Jews, etc... everyone. That's why I prefer to think they're not really serious like that.

bella, it was not kind what christanity has done, across the board, It has been the Jewish and the Blacks that have erected monuments to remind us how low as humans we can sink and to not go their again, I find this to be a legitimate question, why woudl you support a dogma that harms others in its entirety, truthfully i have seen christians on here say too bad , god can do what he wants blah blah i'm sorry that anyone has ever been harmed becaseu of dogmas.... based on that someone thought there is some difference being jewish or german or anything for that matter.... that is insane we are all the same, millions died because of this yes i think gid has the right to ask..... and he deserves an answer......... i have read enough of your posts to know you are a more liberal christain but Gid has every right to ask....why are you offended by his question calling him hate filled...he choses not to bury his anger , anger can be used to heal actually tthat is the intention of it it seems gid has commited his life to keeping this as a measure in hopes thatwe never do this agian......... by now we know Gid doesn't beat around the bush.....Good thig Rosa Parks got damn mad once upon a time otherwise who knows........

Rosa Parks was a Methodist. Does that diminish what she did? Dr. King was a Baptist minister. Ghandi was a fan of Jesus ("I like their Christ, but not his Christians")...I have German blood, but that doesn't mean I support the Holocaust. Fact is, my German blood is mixed with Jewish ancestry. I'm part Irish, but I don't support the fighting between Catholics and Protestants. Everyone makes reference to the fact that in the 300s Christianity became the "thing" in Rome. But until then, it spread despite the sword, not because of it. The fastest growing Christian demographics are in Africa, S. America, and Asia, where there is persecution. The horrors done in the name of Jesus have been perversions, as there have been atrocities by those of all faiths, and those of no faith at all. The problem is that it's chic to denigrate those done in the name of Christianity, because those done, say, in the name of Islam are un-PC to talk about. Have Christians done rotten, terrible things? Yes. Do I consider those who criticize my faith "hate filled?" No. Anyone is capable of horrible things, as well as great good, regardless of what they believe. People who are filled with hate need no umbrella of a faith, political belief, or general circumstance.

If King, Gandhi, Parks, etc. have taught us anything, unbridled anger solves nothing. The reason those three succeeded was because of non-violent resistance. If they led armies, riots, or gangs, they would have been mere footnotes in history. But instead, they fought by turning the other cheek. And that is why we honor them.

Very well said ...bravo.... the first step to healing is to acknowledge our part in it , I see myself as responsible for all of it , thus i can change all of it....Blame is all we do pass the buck, i'd like to see alot more compassion, i have told my black friends how sorry I am for all those that took part in slavery, my great grandmother did, .. I am a advocate for healing it begins with caring , saying I understand, i'm sorry what can we change collectively to avoid this happening people are good deep down naturally.... in that we can begin to create bridges...as you said we have all done things great and horrible and are all capable.... this isn't a finger pointing gig IMO.....turn the other cheek. be the new way the way of peace.....

Atheists need to be careful. You are running the risk of becoming yet another mentality that claims superiority over every other way of thought. It might only be prosaic ramblings and the occasional insult now, but it only takes one charismatic person to turn it into something far worse.

ISn 't that a little like saying "If you're American, then you are supporting slavery", just because America's past has a history of slavery?

Still haven't studied up on that term "repentence" yet, I see

No, it isn't. America is not a belief, it's a country. If you notice, I used the KKK which is a sect of christianity.



Repentance is the feeling and act in which one recognizes and tries to right a wrong, or gain forgiveness from someone that they wronged. Source

You repent because you don't want to go to hell. Hell is considered bad, so you do see the error of your ways because that's why you're repenting in the first place and not still running in the street killing fleeing children.

There's no need for christian morals, just repent and you're home free for the lovely golden gates with Jesus shaking your hand on the way into heaven.

America has set out a constitution by which all Americans live by. This constitution is largely the same today as it was at its inception. It can be argued that the constitution provides a framework of belief which unites Americans today and Americans all those years ago, thus my analogy is still relevant.

The key phrase in that definition is "tries to right a wrong". How can you continue to try to right a wrong if you don't do anything about it, just continue to do as you always did and then "repent again". It's a contradiction in terms. But it seems you've already made your mind up on this matter and no matter how many Christians tell you that repentence is more than just saying sorry, you're just going to keep believing what you will anyway.

Well let me know when America gets an offical God and forces it's people into that belief for the American God then.



It's funny because I was raised roman catholic and did all that bull, so I do know. At the end if you don't want to go to hell you repent. You repent because you see hell as bad and that would mean your deeds are bad. After you repent and die, Jesus welcomes you with a hand shake because he already took on all your sins.

I'll make sure I do that

So the basis for your belief on repentence comes from the RCC. You really should consider expanding your knowledge of Christianity beyond the confines of that one denomination

Pa the constitution has been amended about 27 or so times...America has been called the great experiment ...Kratos and i differ greatly but america does condone slavery esepcially of its own peoples in many ways..........IMO
" Patterning yourself around other's opinons is nothing more than slavery "..Louanna Blackwell

I have. They're all pretty much the same. You always do that when I make a point. "Oh, but that's one sect your following or this is another" when it's a common belief across the board.

You repent because you're afraid of hell. That's a powerful fire under the butts of people.

That's not true. I've went to nearly every major American denomination, and I can tell you they are not the same. In major areas, or what a pastor friend of mine would call "salvation issues." If you're referring to non-Christians repenting, it can be used as a fear tool. For Christians, repenting is just correcting a line of action and making a change. With the Catholic church, one seems to not be able to ever know if one is "saved" or not, or at least sufficiently. Hence the doctrine of purgatory. True repentance would be for this life, not the next. At least according to what it should be. If I am going around bullying people, repenting and starting a program for bullied children would be an example. It doesn't excuse my original wrong, but it shows a willingness to step in the right direction.

I disagree. Maybe the Christian groups out where you live are like that but I have NEVER (emphasis added) been to a church where they taught that. Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, non-denominationals, and more. Perhaps your experiences with various denominations have shown you that they are "all pretty much the same", and if so, I truly feel sorry for you. Really, I do.

I wonder if you've actually sat in and discussed the "hell" subject with all those people that would be members of the congregations of all those religions you listed. I wonder if you realize that just because it's not how you see hell, nor believe it to be translated to christian scripture and believer understanding, that it does not mean that it isn't understood as that fiery pit it is said to be in the bible!? I wonder if you realize just because that's how you see it, that's not how it is for many other people that read it on the page, whether you do or not. Preachers preach hell fire and damnation, whether you believe it or not. So I say don't feel sorry for anyone in this forum that relate their experiences of encountering people that believe that way. Instead feel sorry for the ministers and clergy, those alleged higher learned emissaries of the word, that impart the information that hell is very real as a pit of fire and damnation.


Mark 9:44-46


Hell is real

This is the reason the next distruction of the people of earth will be by fire. Burn Baby Burn LOL

So any of those christian branches... If they don't repent, what will happen to them?

"More atheists should find their voice. It brings me great joy that religion's foundation is shaking and disbelief is raging on. Seemly the more access and discussion you have about the world and religion the more people move away from them. The internet is going to be a big part in the growth of atheist/agnostic thought."Kratos

I don't think so.

It's already working in America. Christian religion has been failing in large numbers in the last decade while atheism/no belief has something like doubled.

The internet is a powerful tool and when more and more people start to read and look into the world around them, it's going to open them up to a lot of questions they're going to have to ask.

We're not discussing the nature of hell. We're discussing the nature of repentence. I know my view of hell is not entirely standard, (though I'd also say that a fiery pit of torment is probably not the standard either - I'd say most believe that hell is simply separation from God for all eternity - that's what most of the people I've spoken to have believed). Anywho, Kratos is arguing that according to Christian theology, a Christian need not have morals. They can do whatever they like, be as evil as they like, because at the end of the day, all they need to do is confess and everything's peachy in God's eyes. I'm saying that this is entirely incorrect, both in practice and in theology. It contravenes the nature of repentence to continue to do what you always did - how has one repented? I'm sure there are some Christians out there that live exactly like that and keep sinning because they think they'll just be forgiven again. I'm not denying that these people exist. But that is not what repentence is, and it's not what most churches teach about repentence.

It might also be interesting to point out that to believe just such is also unbiblical. Paul addresses a similar issue in Romans 6. The first part of Romans gives this grand image of Grace and forgiveness. But it opens an interesting question - the more I sin, the more opportunity God has to forgive me, right? So why can't I live however I want. Paul reacts to this idea in Romans 6 by saying: What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? (Romans 6:1-2). The rest of the passage goes into more detail about that, and to any who think that being forgiven is a licence to act however you wish, it's definitely worth a read.

Regards, PA

It may be true in America, but not in the world. A good non-American view of that is The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath, a professor at Oxford. A common criticism on this website is "so, what about the Crusade, etc." to which he responds "Atheism's concerns about the Christian exertion of power, status, and influence resonate many within the church, who find no such imperative to domination within the New Testament. The assumption of the foundational documents of the Christian church is that Christianity is excluded from the establishment, and thus insulated from the temptations and corruption that power brings in its wake - tempations and corruptions, it may be added, to which institutionalized state atheism has shown itself to be equally vulnerable. For many reflective Christians, the church began to lose its compelling moral and spiritual vision with the conversion of Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor. A movement that was at its most authentic while powerless and weak now became exposed to forces that compromised its integrity."

Thank god I live in Estonia. In here the religious people are the small minority and if anyone is persecuted then it's the believers. Unlike in America, where being an atheist is seen wierd it's the opposite in here. But since the atheists are more tolerant, the believers dont get this crap atheists get in America. Keeping my fingers crossed for you guys in the U.S Internet is a great invention indeed. With it comes knowledge and common sense. It gets people talking about religion and the more you talk about it the more people will realise what nonsense it is...

Does any of it matter?

Does it matter what beleif system wins? Do excuse my generalizations but it seems like atheists think that if religion became exstinct wars will stop being fought and things will be better while the religious think that if the atheists win the world will descend into chaos and anarchy.

The truth is there will always be wars and we will always be on the brink of chaos. If the atheists become the majority how much will actually change for the better?...or the worse?

The popular argument is that religion causes wars...which is true, but more wars begin because of land, power, and money then religion. If there was no more religions we'll just change our reasoning for fighting.

If atheism grows to a majority who's to say it won't suffer from the same problems religions do?

Since the birth of man we haven't changed at all...our technologies and sciences our better but we're still all the same, we still fight the same wars for all the same reasons.

In some cases yes. Though religion is quite strong in reasons for war and also every day conflicts past, present and I highly suspect in the future.

There is also the fact that religion discriminates, laced with sexism, hatred, slavery, and more. I don't consider any of those ideas to be good.

Discrimination won't end with the fall of religion. Atheism won't solve them. These things were always around and will always be.

No, it won't end but it certainly wouldn't hurt to not have religion and it's ancient scribblings in the picture to support and breed that discrimination against others.

There you go again bashing. The true Christian is a follower of Christ and his teachings. ANYTHING ELSE stated by preists, pastors, and even the pope is irrelevant. Most religous wars were caused by squabbling leaders in the churches fighting over who was right. Christ's number one commandment before his death was, "LOVE EACHOTHER AS I'VE LOVED YOU." He didn't mean love only your Christian brother, but every person on the face of the earth. From diffrent cultures to diffrent ethnicity to diffrent religions, none of this mattered to him. He sees all as his father's children and loves all of them. When you hear of his miracles, did he only cure the Jew? No even when other people of diffrent religions and ethnicity would cast him out of their villages and countries, he never held a grudge or bode them ill. That is the true way of the Christian, LOVE. And I wont deny there are many self rightous and judgemental people in the church today. But when it comes to them I go back to scripture which states" He who judges shall be judged tenfold by the lord." My point is this, If you have a bag of apples and you see one is bad, do you throw out the one bad apple or the whole bag?

For christians... Women's rights, homosexual and lesbian rights, progress in science, and the influence but refusing to use it to turn the other way resulting in a mountain of corpses.

Yeah, I feel so warm and fuzzy now...

There again is you ignorance to not read all that I have writen. It seems to me that all you care to do is blindly and incompitently contradict what I am putting out. Never once did I state any of the above in my reply. So here, maybe this will help you to see what I'm trying to tell you. JESUS SAYS DO NOT JUDGE YOUR FELLOW MAN OR WOMAN BUT LOVE THEM FOR WHO THEY ARE. JESUS IS JUDGE, NOT MEN. IF THE BIBLE STATES DO NOT DO SOMETHING, THEN AS A CHRISTIAN DO NOT DO IT. THAT IS FOR PERSONAL REFRENCE ONLY. IT IS NOT MENT TO USE TO JUDGE YOUR FELLOW MAN. CHRIST WORKS NOT THROUGH GROUPS OR CHURCH BUT THROUGH ALL MEN PERSONALLY. CHRIST STATES THAT FORGIVENESS IS ALWAYS PRESENT FOR THE SINNER THROUGH HIM. HE IS THE ONLY JUDGE OF MANKIND AND THEIR DOINGS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT JESUS ONLY KNOWS HOW HE WILL JUDGE. JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE A GOOD CHRISTIAN DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE A EASY RIDE TO HEAVEN. SCRIPTURE STATES THAT THERE WILL BE MANY FALSE PROPHETS WHOLE WILL SPEAK THEIR OWN WILL IN THE LORD'S NAME AND THEY WILL BE SMITTED, BUT IF YOU SPEAK TO THEM THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG AND THEY ARE RIGHT. WHO ARE THEY TO JUDGE? IT IS NOT THEIR PLACE TO JUDGE MANKIND FOR WHAT THEY DO. IT IS THE LORDS JOB. LOOK AT IT THIS WAY. IF SOMEONE DID SOMETHING IN YOU NAME BUT IT WAS WRONG, LIKE RAPING AND MURDERING, WOULD YOU CONDONE IT JUST BECAUSE IT WAS DONE IN YOUR NAME?

"Put not your trust in princes, nor in any son of man."