So, you have to believe in God to love a child? A non-believer can't value a baby's potential and see them as something to be cherished, nurtured and protected?

I wonder if atheist bashing is a recruiting technique. "Atheism bad" is a concept that all Christians, regardless of denomination, can agree with. It would be difficult to find another point that all Christians agree with.

Or perhaps atheists are the easy target, something that non-atheists need to convince themselves that there's someone out there who's not as good, holy and pure as them.

Who is more 'moral' a person who doesnt belive in god but does the right thing anyway.

Or a peron who does belive in god and does the rightr thing in order to avoid an eternity of punishment?

http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/So-simple.html

russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/welcome.html

These people are terrified. They'll say anything to preserve the notion an invisible avenger will protect them, because they are special - and in the most visible cases, learning is taboo.

So I started this thread on the local on-line forum. It's had a surprising effect on other threads. When you have a link close by that shows the real world, it's hard to assert "woo".

>>>These people are terrified. They'll say anything to preserve the notion an invisible avenger will protect them, because they are special - and in the most visible cases, learning is taboo.

Agreed. Insecurity is at play here. Their religious belief says there is a dead guy who lives in the sky. This guy sees everything and can do anything. How can any thoughtful person not question, at least some of the time, that premise? Yet that belief/their faith is a significant part of their lives/thoughts. So they then encounter an atheist, or an agnostic, in person or through some medium. This atheist comes along and says, "how can there be a dead guy in the sky who can do anything? Here are the logical reasons why that can't be". What is the religious person's response to the logic casting doubt on the dead guy in the sky? It can't be based on much logic. It will likely be some form of, "It just is". Talk about a thought process ripe for insecurity! So how to they dismiss their insecurity? Cast those who question the dead guy in the sky in a negative light. Come on, you know those godless glib atheists don't care about right or wrong, they only care about themselves!

I don't know a single christian-and here in the bible belt I know a lot-that feels anything but sad for atheists. We don't think they're the devil, or evil. I find those comments suspicious, and it's very self-serving for that website. Not to say it couldn't have happened, I just find it suspicious. And if it did happen, it's by no means indicative of the religious as a whole. But go ahead and think it is, if it feeds your superiority a little. I guess we all need that from time to time.

"Who is more 'moral' a person who doesnt belive in god but does the right thing anyway.

Or a peron who does belive in god and does the rightr thing in order to avoid an eternity of punishment?"

Ever consider the 2 aren't mutually exclusive? That plenty of religious do "the right thing" because they want to? Most christians don't actually believe in hellfire and brimstone anymore, anyway. We sure do'nt go around in fear of it. We want to help others because we are all god's children, and all related. We're all in this together, so to speak.

It's all about the monkeysphere

Momof4 writes:

I don't know a single christian-and here in the bible belt I know a lot-that feels anything but sad for atheists.

The Goddess replies:

As an atheist, I think that's misguided but very sweet.

You think? I think that's horribly patronizing. I'm a Christian, too. But I don't feel sad for them. But then again, the God I believe in doesn't consign people to suffer unspeakable agony for all eternity. Such an idea would make me more merciful than God, and depict God as something to be protected from.

I am aware of the monkey-sphere theory. Religious charities the world over outnumber secular ones by about 3 to 1. Hence, the religious do seem to feel a duty to their fellow man, whether or not they know them.

The religious also give more to secular charities than non-religious do. There's some argument that this is due to religious believers being older thus having more funds, but few retired people don't have to worry about funds. So that theory's been debunked pretty well.

And while I'm sure I'll buy your book, Amy, I already have a book that offers ways to override humans natural way of thinking :)

I don't worry about atheists. I don't believe in hell - except what we create ourselves in our own lives. The soul is eternal; sooner or later atheists (perhaps only after dying) will experience God, when they choose to be open to the experience.

In the meantime, atheism is an excellent character builder. I think a lot of souls choose to be atheists because it helps them answer the question "What would I do if I thought nobody was watching?" It takes considerable strength of character to live a kind, benevolent, moral life, with no thought of a reward other than self-satisfaction! And no thought of punishment other than self-recrimination.

And BTW, Amy, I agree with you that there is no objective evidence of God. I don't think anyone should accept anyone else's evidence regarding God, anyway. Only direct, personal, consistent experience should be the proof.

I think we all know that there are people out there who will go to any lengths to make other people believe what they believe. That is what that Pastor tried to do.

However, he doesn't speak for the entire Christian population. I was raised Christian and I have contemplated all the questions the non-Christians have raised on this site. But after researching these questions and yes reading the "big book of stories" I have found my faith restored to a fuller capacity. Not because I am too afraid I will go to hell, but because I don't want to miss out on the love that is there for me.

Be it quaint, misguided or even silly to some I don't see anything wrong with thinking there is a little extra love out there.

And for the record, I neither pity nor hate atheists. You are free to believe what you will. You have your reasons; I have mine. So as long as you don't try to reason me into thinking there isn't a God I won't try to conjure one up for you.

I'm a Christian, too. . . But then again, the God I believe in doesn't consign people to suffer unspeakable agony for all eternity.
-Patrick

Well then Patrick, I hate to break it to you, but you're not a christian

And Angel if god does exist and is anything like the chriatians, or any of the other monotheistic religions proclaim him to be, then he will have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.

If there is a god and that is a HUGE if the probabltiy is it cares as much about you as you care about the single celled organisims that are devoured by undersea volcanic vent tube worms

Which is to say not at all

I believe in individuals, not labels.

Chris Fox is an idiot. He has plenty of company. I'll not condemn Christians, Whites, Blacks, Men or North Carolinians for his behavior. (No, I didn't click on the links. I'm not into guilt by classification or guilt by association, sorry.)

All I can say as a Christian is that I apologize for this pastor's behavior, and if he were my pastor I would find a different church immediately.

Betsy Hart recently wrote about the Jaycee Dugard kidnapping case and how Americans focus on it in part because it helps them to ignore the fact that danger to children often comes from within the children, not without. I.e., too many parents are afraid to teach kids moral values, so they grow up to destroy themselves by becoming criminals - at worst, anyway.

Excerpts:

"And we're to build up a child's self-esteem no matter what he does or doesn't do. To tell a child to feel ashamed because, for instance, he behaved selfishly or lied? There is little room for that in the lexicon of most parenting experts today.

"And transcendent values are where we get really nervous. Too many of us, it seems, would make our teens recycle -- but we wouldn't dare make them go to church or synagogue with us."

Here's part of what *I* said in response, at betsysblog.com:

"I don’t know how many criminals were raised to believe in God, but even non-criminals can’t help noticing that humans do much better at punishing murder and robbery than God does. Maybe that’s also one reason that, when teens do well in school and respect the law but don’t like their parents much, the parents pick their battles by backing off regarding religion. Better for kids to walk the walk than just talk the talk.

"Regarding those last two sentences, I wanted to spell that out by adding: The Reverend George MacDonald (1824-1905) once said: 'Better to be an atheist who does the will of God than a Christian who does not.'

"Considering he supported the right of the poor to sit with the rich in church, as well as the right of women to be educated, both of which were rejected by the higher authorities in the Congregationalist church, I’d say he knew something of what he was talking about."

(And, I would add here, in the context of MacDonald's quote, "will of God" clearly had to mean something like "the common good.")

"I don’t know how many criminals were raised to believe in God, but even non-criminals can’t help noticing that humans do much better at punishing murder and robbery than God does."

That's a grim assessment, given that homicide closure rates are less than 50% nationally, and below 30% in some locals. Presumably, none will get by God eventually.

Yes they wil, every single killer gets into paradise, god said as much.

no punishment on earth, no punishment hearafter.
The guy is kinda impotent or an omnipotent being

So what exactly is God's punishment for murderers if there's no fire and brimstone, momof4? I'm just curious of your take. In one breath you say most Christians don't believe in that anymore, and in the next you say God will eventually punish all the murders. Or by saying "none will get by God" are you just suggesting that he'll say, "Gotcha! Now carry on." It seems a bit inconsistent to me. Is there some sort of hell/punishment in the afterlife to watch out for and therefore behave for, or not?

> All I can say as a Christian is
> that I apologize for this
> pastor's behavior

Wanna know what i like best about being atheist? No team play... No pretense that were all the same underneath. I no more feel responsible when atheists misbehave than when believers do. Atheism isn't bothered with all this unseen/imaginary connectedness.

"Yes they wil, every single killer gets into paradise, god said as much."

Quote please. Chapter and verse.

Moreta, I said most christians don't believe in the traditional hell. Doens't mean there's no consequences to one's actions. It may just be being given the full realization of how your actions affected others. Who knows? But my point then, and now, is that christians don't go around being nice because we fear we'll fry otherwise.

...Interesting discussion, to be sure. For the record, I am a Christian, but don't feel a need to beat my fellow humans about the head with a Bible if they choose to not believe as I do. I respect their beliefs and I feel that the primary way Christians need to reach out to help their fellow man is by the way that (Christians) live their lives. It has no net effect to try to argue the logic of it either way. The strongest testimony is direct observation; when Christians act in a way that is against what the Bible teaches, people are turned off by their hypocrisy.

Re: an earlier post...One point that I find particularly fascinating when having discussions concerning morality--who defines right and wrong when you don't have a standard? Is it what you decide for yourself? Is it a "reasonable man" standard? Is it what the majority believe? Just throwing it out there as discussion fodder....

Momof4 standby . .

Beth, you asked "who defines right and wrong when you don't have a standard?"

Men defind the 'christian' stanndard not god.

Dont belive me? Look at how women are treated today vs how Paul said they should be treated or how various chritain faiths treated women in every centry before this one(by this one I dont mean 200 onward, i mean a rolling 100yrs back from this date)

You probably veiw infant sacrifice on a fiery alter as bad, but would you had you been raised in a time it was practiced and tught all your life to belive it was good?

First off momof4 thank you I so rarley get to use the bible as the weapon it was originally meant to be - that I get to use it against the follwers of its creators is just, if you'll pardon the pun, divine

Isaiah 55:7 Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

Jer. 31:34 . . . For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more

Mark 3:28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.

Ephesians 4:32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you

Hebrews 8:12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more

Is that enough?

Well yes, one can be truly sorry and repentent and be forgiven. I see nothing about someone laughing their way into paradise unrepentent. Sorry, not a great weapon in that post of yours.

lujlp writes:

Well then Patrick, I hate to break it to you, but you're not a christian

Well, lujlp, I don't feel the slightest bit of remorse for breaking this to you, but you don't decide the issue, thanks.

And given the incredibly ignorant things you've said on the subject, such as what you think the central tenets of Christianity are, and that you think Christianity calls for fathers to kill their children for one instance of mouthing off, I think it's safe to assume that you'd be among the very last people on this blog to determine whether or not anyone is a Christian.

Fascinating. I just now noticed this post of lujlp's which she uses to support her position that "Yes they wil [sic], every single killer gets into paradise, god said as much," has been yanked right out of context.

Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Jeremiah 31 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:...

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Mark 3 28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Ephesians is a letter to the believers at Epheseus. Never once is it intended for every person that has ever lived.

Ephesians 1:1 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you [directed to the believers among the Ephesians].

Hebrews 8:

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Lujip, what can you possibly have against forgiveness? How do you interpret that as "every single killer" getting into paradise?

Crid said:

Wanna know what i like best about being atheist? No team play... No pretense that were all the same underneath. I no more feel responsible when atheists misbehave than when believers do. Atheism isn't bothered with all this unseen/imaginary connectedness.

Posted by: Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 22, 2009 11:12 AM

Somehow I always knew you were a heathen unbeliever! Don't you know that Jesus weeps for your poor, besotted soul?

I started to have doubts about religion at age 4 when my mother had my stepfather drag my older sis (3 yrs) & I to church on Easter Sunday while she stayed home. She was getting things ready to go to great-grandma's house. Then from eight to ten, the very devout father of a friend's family was hit by "suspeccted" arson, was recording all calls in his hose, and in general was showing total hypocrisy.

After that I knew it was a sham.

I can mouth the words with the best of them, but don't believe. I just don't have the faith "spot" in the brain. I don't go out to denigrate normally religious people. But I will call out the crap in public policy.

Crusee, your satiric intent is clear, but I'm reminded of the concluding anecdote from this Dawkins book review:

Years ago I taught an evolution course at the University of Botswana, a devoutly Presbyterian place with a strong creationist tradition. At the end I asked one of the students how he reconciled what I had said about the immense antiquity of mankind with his belief in a universe 6,000 years old. He gave me the perfect answer: "It is very simple, sir; you evolved – but we were created!"

The need to look down on others is a fundamental part of human nature. No religion can really hit the big time until it authorizes the flock to belittle the "poor and besotted"...

Genuine humility requires Darwin.

See? Say anything. Call it, "context".

But the saddest thing to me is that some people apparently must quote the Bible™ to come up with a reason to do or be "good".

But don't read it too carefully.

At the thread I linked above - it's one of dozens, and most of them devolve into personal attacks and strawman arguments. Why do we not hear about anything new about God™? I suggest it is because it would expose the dream for what it is: a cherry-picked fantasy, where even the hero's death nailed to wooden beams must not be portrayed graphically lest it interfere with feelings of warm goodness.

Props to Raddy and to whoever it was who made the point here earlier over the weekend. My new fondest point against religious people is the idea that none of us would ever behave well unless we were promised ETERNAL PARADISE.

To think such a thing is to think very little of your fellow men. Tragically little. So little that people should wonder about your own character.

"Re: an earlier post...One point that I find particularly fascinating when having discussions concerning morality--who defines right and wrong when you don't have a standard? Is it what you decide for yourself? Is it a "reasonable man" standard? Is it what the majority believe? Just throwing it out there as discussion fodder...."

I had the same question you had and it was answered by the commenter here named "Norman" from U.K. on June 28th, 2008. The below is his answer to our question and I felt he nailed it.

"There's some confusion about morality here, but I'm back from holiday (on the Isle of Mull, west coast of Scotland, in a camper van, since you ask) so I'll now clear up the issue.
There is not some super Good and Evil somewhere in the universe. It's a mistake to even capitalize these words. That leads to personification of the concepts and you end with nonsense like "God is Good" and "Satan is Evil" personified. We don't personify other concepts like Bigness or Happiness; we don't think there is an entity that is the Supreme Brownness. I don't yet understand why we single out Good and Evil for this treatment.
I'll just refer to "good" and "bad". What are they? What makes something good? Priests and now PhDs in philosophy have made a comfortable living by complicating this for thousands of years, but it's really very simple. When your mother told you to eat your greens because "they're good for you" you understood perfectly what she meant. And when she saved you from the "bad dog" there was no doubt in your mind about a "bad dog" versus a "good dog." Expressing these in more objective terms is not so easy but it goes along these lines: something is good if it leads to a long, healthy and fecund life; and bad if it doesn't. That's what your mother wanted for you. It's that simple, but as any scientist knows, simple principles can have complex effects, and the same is true here. Here are some of the effects:
#1 is this: "morality is relative." That's because the same act can be good for one person and bad for another. You good and my good may not always coincide.
#2 is this: "morality is uncertain." That's because whether an act is good or bad depends on its long term consequences, and we can't always tell what they will be. There are corollaries of this: #2A: due to natural variation, some people are better able to predict the consequences of acts than others; #2B: people will disagree what the consequences of an act will be; #2C: people who don't have a properly functioning moral system are dangerous and need special care, perhaps in prison.
#3 is this: "morality is objective." That's because the outcome of any act is objective, not subjective. Don't confuse our ignorance, and opinions about the morality of an act, which arise from #2, with the question of objectivity or subjectivity.
This analysis is not a "social construct." All its components are naturalistic and materialist. It is compatible with evolution by natural selection. Genes for morality work by harnessing the animal's intelligence to try to foresee the consequences of its actions, and to choose the "good" ones over the "bad" ones. The better you are at this, the more likely you and your offspring are - by definition - to survive.
The next exercise is to apply this scheme to actual examples.
--Norman (aged 58)
Posted by: Norman at June 28, 2008 3:15 AM"

Good Lord (no pun intended) Amy, as one who also claims Christianity, I'm perplexed as to how many of your readers are Bible thumping "believers." You've got enough of them here to start your own church.

Pastor Amy? I can see explaining that one to my "brothers and sisters."

"You've got a check out my new church! Regarding my pastor, you just need to hear me out, and without freaking out okay?"

"I don't know how to tell you this, but praise God brother, Pastor Amy is an Atheist..."

Sunday Services:
9:00 AM "God is Always Nigh"
11:00 AM "God is Always Not"

Saw a bumper sticker years ago about Jesus and the second coming, and I'll never forget what it said:

"Jesus is coming...and he's pissed."

I've been an atheist since about the age of 16 but I really don't care to hang around most atheists. Maybe there is a particular type of non believer that's drawn to atheist groups but it seems every time they get together all they do is bash believers. Sure it's fun for a short while but it gets old really quick. I guess I figure here are more important things than worrying about how stupid and irrational Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc are.

I've been an atheist since about the age of 16 but I really don't care to hang around most atheists. Maybe there is a particular type of non believer that's drawn to atheist groups but it seems every time they get together all they do is bash believers. Sure it's fun for a short while but it gets old really quick. I guess I figure here are more important things than worrying about how stupid and irrational Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc are.

A few points
1- if Letters Paul wrote to worshipers of certain cites ony applied to memebrs of those churches at that time then why the fuck are they still in the bible as you seem to think they are not of any further relevence patrick?

2- to everyone aking about forgivness, momof4 especially.

Jesus claims that noone get into heaven except thru him. THerefore either god is an incredable ass and will condem billions of people who never heard of christ in their lifetimes to an eternity of torment, or there will be a final judgement at which time everbody conftonted with actual proof that jesus and god are real will gladly ask for forgiveness, swear allegience to one particualr brand of christianity and promise not to sin any more. At which point god is bound to forgive them as he promised to.

THerefore logically, if such a term can even be applied to mythology, everyone gets into heaven.

Quite frankly if there is an after life hell sound more entertaining then sitting around for eternity telling a narssasistic sadist how great he his for corn holcing the human race

lujlp writes:

1- if Letters Paul wrote to worshipers of certain cites ony applied to memebrs of those churches at that time then why the fuck are they still in the bible as you seem to think they are not of any further relevence patrick?

Didn't say that entire books were of no further relevance. But when you take a single portion of a verse out of context and suggest that it applies to each and every person who ever lived (rather than just believers, as it says in the first chapter of Ephesians), I think context is in order.

JUst so I'm clear then you belive in a god wo will not forgive non belivers, that kinda sucks for everyone who died befofe chritianity was invented dont you think?

Tell me why do worship such a creul master who punishes people for not following a religion that they never even knew existed?

Beth, you asked "who defines right and wrong when you don't have a standard?"

@ lujlp:

You write: "Men defind the 'christian' stanndard not god."

Actually, no. The principles that Christians adhere to, or claim to adhere to, are God's principles. Yes, I realize that in that statement there is an assumption that the principles laid forth in the Bible are indeed divinely inspired. Christians strive to live their lives in accordance with the Bible. That's our standard. The 10 commandments for example. Pretty clear guidance on 10 basic rules for living...although in the New Testament Jesus goes a step further and commands a simpler, all encompassing one: Love God, and love your neighbor (I'm paraphrasing, of course). That's our standard. The point of my question was answered in a later post, by the one who quoted "Norman's" answer, essentially that for those who don't believe in a Higher Being/God, the standard then becomes moral relativism...i.e. what is right for me may not be right for you, etc. The logical problem with that argument is that what happens when "my" morals conflict with "your" morals? How can there be a definition for right and wrong if there is no "yardstick" by which to measure it? Christians have their yardstick/standard, the Bible, and whether it's divinely inspired or just a collection of writings, that is still the Christian standard.

You write: "Dont belive me? Look at how women are treated today vs how Paul said they should be treated or how various chritain faiths treated women in every centry before this one(by this one I dont mean 200 onward, i mean a rolling 100yrs back from this date)"

How are women treated today? In Western society, not too bad at all. And as is a frequent topic of discussion here, the results of the feminist movement has even gone overboard to the point that men and maleness are commonly demonized....but I digress. How should women be treated, according to Paul? He talks of their respecting their husbands, and their place within the church. In the same breath, he also tells men to love their wives and be willing to sacrifice their own lives for their wives. As a modern woman, I don't find that oppressive or offensive.

You write: "You probably veiw infant sacrifice on a fiery alter as bad, but would you had you been raised in a time it was practiced and tught all your life to belive it was good?"

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make with that, but I *think* you're saying that whatever you're raised with is what you believe is right/wrong? I don't know that I disagree with you there--people are going to believe what they know and have known all their lives unless something happens to change their viewpoint.

Beth my point with sacrifing firey infants was simple for those who bothered to think about it.

You say our christian standats were divinly inspired? When was the last time you killed a hooker or a homosexual as the stanndards inspired by god and clearly laid out in the bible COMMAND you to?

My guess is never, because your personal sense of right and wrong superceeded the 'divine word of jebus'

And yes I intentionally miss spelled that.

My point Beth is morals are defind by the way cultures and individals evolve and see the world.

We are kinder to others more often now then ever because our technology allows us to see others suffering as clearly as we see those in our daily lives

Had you been born to a christian familly a few hundered yers ago I doubt you'd have had a problem with the inquisition torturing heritics to recant.

If the stanndards set forth in the bible truly were divine then we as individuals wouldnt find the thought of paricipating in a mob massacer of an idolater, blasphemer, or a homosexual so distasteful.

If the stanndards set forth in the bible truly were divine then we wouldnt work so hard to ingore many of them or attemot to explain them away as a "product of the times"

Becasue if something is truly 'devine' then it would never need half assed apologies, it would never need quailfying statments or explinations or excuses. If something were truly, truly divine it could never be wrong, never feel wrong, to do it.

But given how much of gods laws must be ignored to make christianity a good religion there is no posibility of it ever being devinly inspired.

First of all, thanks for the warning.

> And yes I intentionally miss
> spelled that.

Secondly, after all these years of you harping, Luj, I get the sense that there's a particular sort of person you really need to deal with. I don't know who it is, but maybe if you just went to that person –back in your hometown or wherever– and picked a fistfight with them, a lot of other people would be allowed to move forward.

On the other hand, Hitchens likes to do that, too, pointing out how people tend to be blind to the strictures of their own professed faiths.

Probably like handball, a sport more fun to play than to watch.

You want to know what my problem is with religion crid? Its existance.

Its kind of had to be civil twords religions and the religious when they destroy your life and condem you to a childhood of abuse becuase obviously a married church member is a more stable enviornment for kids then the divorced working mother who left the church that refused to help her when she was abused, and left the state that refused to help her becuse its social service members were also members of that church and refused to help her.

The kind of person I need to deal with are those who surrended their free will and self determination to a set a 'values' that constantly shift.

Is it petty on my part, yes, belive me I have no self delusions. Religion is a disease. I habe no qualms about saying so.

If someone were to claim aliens told him how to live his life and everybody else better do as they say otherwise they wont use their technolgy to transport your dead reamins to a planet rotating around on the opposite side of the sun people whould ignore him. They wouldnt create laws to force others to live by his stanndards and we as a society wouldnt punish those who refuse to live by such delusional stanndards.

So why is religion any different?

Re: lujlp: Beth my point with sacrifing firey infants was simple for those who bothered to think about it.

--Actually I did bother to think about it, and I don't see how my interpretation of what I guessed that you meant by the statement differs, in its essence, from the point you make here: "My point Beth is morals are defind by the way cultures and individals evolve and see the world."

lujlp: "You say our christian standats were divinly inspired? When was the last time you killed a hooker or a homosexual as the stanndards inspired by god and clearly laid out in the bible COMMAND you to?"

--I say that Christians BELIEVE that the Bible was divinely inspired; obviously if you don't believe that, and think it's a heap of rubbish, that's your right. Also, the Bible doesn't command us to kill hookers or homosexuals. And before you throw verses at me from the Old Testament where it is laid out that stoning is the appropriate sentence for a variety of things, homosexuality and adultery included, let me just say that the whole reason that Jesus came (again, this is what I and Christians believe--you're entitled to discount it, and obviously do) was to fullfill the law of the Old Testament that, admittedly, to our culture and society seems very barbaric in places. There are numerous places in the New Testament where Jesus says essentially: "This is what you've been taught by the law, but now that I'm here, there is a new and better way." Christians believe that the Bible needs to be taken and read and comprehended in its entirety.

lujlp: My guess is never, because your personal sense of right and wrong superceeded the 'divine word of jebus'

--You are correct that I've never killed a homosexual or a hooker. But Jesus never said to kill hookers or homosexuals. In fact, he showed enormous compassion and mercy to those outcasts of society--most notably the woman about to be stoned for adultery by the established religious leaders of the day, where he pointed out their hypocrisy.

lujlp: "We are kinder to others more often now then ever because our technology allows us to see others suffering as clearly as we see those in our daily lives"

--We are kinder? Really? We are? I don't even know where to begin with that one. There are genocides still happening, enormous human suffering across the globe, people committing unspeakable acts of atrocity even as modern technology allows these images to be available to us at every turn...and this has made human beings kinder?

--In closing I'll say this. I'm not attempting to change your mind or convert you or anything of that nature. I disagree, but I respect that you have your own set of beliefs. All that I've stated here is based in my perspective that is grounded in my beliefs. I don't have incontrovertable *proof* of the Bible's validity or its inspiration. Nor, I would contend, do you possess *proof* that the Bible is invalid, irrelevant or historically inaccurate. It comes down to a matter of faith, hence the "belief" factor...you have a certain set of beliefs as do I. Everyone believes something--can we agree on that much? I am happy and at peace and my beliefs don't have me breaking any laws, committing violence, and no murdering of hookers or homosexuals either...

Beth, jesus was quoted as saying nothing of the old law of moses was to be disregarded

Matt 5:17 -

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

According to Jesus you dont get into heaven for ignoring the dictates of the old testement.

Which brings me back to my point about the divinity of the bible - If you have to ignore the law it can not be devine

"Christians strive to live their lives in accordance with the Bible. That's our standard."

Not quite.

Oh, those pesky other people are supposed to do that...

Here you go Radwaste

http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/welcome.html

Luglp,

Although your knowledge of the Bible is laudable, you're very mistaken in some of what you said.

You may have enough knowledge to twist what you once knew into "winning" arguments with others (or they may have chosen not to argue), but not with me.

I could disprove every "contradiction" you claim above, and by using that very same book you used, "the Bible."

But I won't, and for many reasons. The least of which, is that you're not interested in being proved wrong, you're only interested in arguing because of how you were wronged.

If you knew half as much as that which the illusion created by your quotes suggests, you'd never had stated this, because we're commanded to do no such thing:

"You say our christian standats were divinly inspired? When was the last time you killed a hooker or a homosexual as the stanndards inspired by god and clearly laid out in the bible COMMAND you to?"Posted by: lujlp at September 23, 2009 12:25 PM

Also, that's quite a magic show that you performed with the Matt 5:17-19. However, if you understood "it is finished" and "the law has been fulfilled", you wouldn't be suggesting that Christians are commanded to go around killing others. Last time I checked, I'm not even allowed to judge.

That said, and from one whose anger consumed "them" so much that I was hospitalized twice with life-threatening conditions, I submit to you the following.

Consider taking Crid's advice and go back and kick the crap out of those who did what you say.

If you're not wiling to do that, then at least (and for your own sake) let go of the anger, bitterness, and resentment consuming you because of what they did.

Why? It hurts "you" not them. While they go on living their lives with possibly no shame, guilt, or remorse for what they did to you, you're left feeling as you are today.

Even worse, is that it's quite possible that they have long forgotten what was done to you. This, while you're left holding the bag by choosing to. In doing so, you're giving them the power they continue to have today.

Who wins? Those God forsaken hypocrites. Who loses? You, and everyone around you, including your children, friends and family. This of course assumes people want be around you, because they didn't with me.

I walked alone in my anger for years, and because I pushed nearly everyone out of my life while I bathed in it.

"...Luj, I get the sense that there's a particular sort of person you really need to deal with. I don't know who it is, but maybe if you just went to that person...Posted by: Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 23, 2009 12:49 PM

T while I appriciate the sentiment it is wasted on me, not becuase it is a bad argument mind you, but because I am over it.

I've come close enoug to dying a couple of times to realize how short life is and how much of the crap people think are problems
are pointless.

Religion robs people of how important life is with false promises of somthing better. And that is the nicest thing to be said about religion.

And as heaven and earth have not yet passed away the laws of the old testement still stand. Which means if you have to break them to get thru the day they were not handed down by god.

Luljp,

You're welcome, and "understood" as to everything else you said.

I think a fact you folks are missing is that the christian churches in this country are a great social tool that bring communities together in a way which allows for great community activeness. Now granted, the fundamentalists in the midwest and the south who want to kill abortion doctors are morons, but the church does serve a very useful purpose in society. And oh btw, I do not belong to one.

A final few thoughts and then I'll shut up on this thread (sound of cheering erupting) :-)

@ Radwaste: Yes, the Bible is the Christian standard. Whether or not people who claim to be Christians actually follow it, and put their "money where their mouth is" is another issue entirely. Because a standard is not met does not simply invalidate the standard....

@lujlp: Look, last note on the whole "law/Jesus" thing; as "T" and you even pointed out in your quotes, Jesus came to fullfill the law. He set a higher standard than the law; i.e. "The law says Love your friends and hate your enemies, I say Love your enemies too."

"The law says don't kill. I'll take it a step further and say don't hate either and don't judge" Again I'm broadly paraphrasing, but Jesus takes the law a step beyond, in every case. The law isn't nullified by Jesus' arrival, rather it is fullfilled. The reason Christians don't sacrifice animals anymore, for example, as was demanded in the Old Testament law, is that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and his life, crucifixion and resurrection fullfilled that part of the law. The law in the O.T. was demanding, unwavering; the arrival of Jesus introduced "grace" to the picture. (In no way am I a Bible scholar/expert, but that is my layman's explanation.)

The problem that you seem to, and so many others have with "religion" is the hypocrisy that you witness, both firsthand and in a historical context, of the church and those that claim the Christian religion and then turn around and behave as anything but. It's an extremely valid point...there are numerous examples throughout history and in the present day of people using religion as a means to seize and/or maintain power over others and basically use it as an excuse and justification for everything they want to do. I would simply present to you that mankind has been abusing religion for centuries, even in the era of the New Testament (Pharisees and Saducees, pls see all the kind words Jesus had for what he thought of them and their "religion")--for selfish purposes. I'd contend that true followers of God are a very small group, relatively speaking, throughout history and up to the present. True Christianity is not a popular or glamorous path. Certainly it's not mainstream.

In closing, let me say that from your posts you seem to have suffered some bitter experiences in your life. I'm sure, as with everyone, that has shaped your views and beliefs...I can empathize with that. I hope you find peace in your everyday life and I truly mean that even though of course I don't know you personally. But I do wish you the best...

No T I dont think you "understood" religion is a crutch, and if you used it to make your life better more power to you, but crutches should be temporary lest you grow dependant upon them to the point that you can not function without their support and find yourself limited by the stumbling blocks that such a dependacy creates

"Yes, the Bible is the Christian standard. Whether or not people who claim to be Christians actually follow it, and put their "money where their mouth is" is another issue entirely. Because a standard is not met does not simply invalidate the standard...."

Hmm. Can you point at anyone who does what it clearly says in the examples?

Just why would you want to follow it, again? It's packed with nonsense - and that's a standard? You have to cherry-pick the parts you want, not take it all to heart.

That would only interfere with what you do to feel good: imagine rewards, imagine seeing Grandpa again (but on your terms, not his), and so forth.

The "standard" you use isn't even that old. Martin Luther brought about Protestantism fully 1570 years A.D., and you can see the interference of King James and others everywhere - if you look.

Again, there is no reward for that. You wouldn't feel good at all if you actually had to remember what each page says when you get to the next one.

> You want to know what my problem
> is with religion crid?

Not especially... That's the point. It's nothin' personal. I don't really want to no other people's detailed problems with atheism, either.

Unless the break new ground in the argument.

And over the course of my lifetime, nobody's ever done that.