I have to say I love to go back and forth on subjects. I don't have a religion and i could careless who does; however, what does bother me is that some people believe that they should step on another persons religion to try to prove how right they are as agnostic or atheist or whatever. When you sit here and tell a christian the text doesn't match in the bible... can i just say they honestly don't care because their faith isn't just within the bible yes some of it is but their faith is just that faith. Why sit here and try to destroy that faith in another? I say yes stand up for yourself christains and other religion has no right to try to tell you you're going to hell and at that moment stand up, but don't try to just blatantly push other faiths down because you believe you can because you got something off the internet or heard it from someone else. I just think that ultimately you know why you believe what you believe you do not need to push those beliefs on another person. You do not need to tell a religion why it should be this way or why it should not exist , it is not anyways place to do that religion is here and it always will be. just be kind to one another debate the subjects but don't punch the subjects in the face try to understand one another better through each others beliefs and ask each other " why do you believe this" have you ever thought about this scripture and why it is different than this in this book... question it that way or actually do research and share it with everyone...

just thought i'd post i hate to feel like religions are being attacked.. maybe because i don't believe they are harmful.

Lies....all lies. And brainwash. We are all brainwashed.


Ok...i'm only joking. I agree. Either way, the subject of religion should be discussed with an open mind and not on a who's right whos wrong, kind of additude.

Double post...sorry.

true.

I used to try to do this.

Many people say that the Bible contains useful stories, etc. Well, I agree with that. And I do have my own personal opinions about what the stories may have meant, and why they were written.

I even have very positive things to say about Jesus as I personally believe he actually lived, and died much like the stories claim. It's true that I personally don't believe in the virgin birth, I also don't believe that it was ever Jesus' intent to be crucified. And I don't believe he rose from the dead.

These are my honest beliefs and I still feel that the stories have value in spite of the fact that I don't accept the divine claims.

The only problem I've found is that whenever I tried to share this positive picture of Jesus as a wise sage I am instantly accused of bashing the religion for not believing it the divine claims. In fact, some (certainly not all), but in many cases the most vociferous posters take total conniptions over such a view. They start screaming that I have no right to speak about the Bible because I'm a "non-believer". They start posting verses and claim absolute interpretations for them.

In short, they simply will not permit anyone to speak about the Bible who doesn't agree that it is a divine infallible word of God.

From my point of view, it's human history. Whether it's entirely made up, or simply an exaggeration of real events, or even if it's completely true, all of that is totally irrelevant. The stories, in all cases, belong to everyone. No one truly has the right to tell anyone how they must view these stories. This is part of human history whether it's fiction, exaggeration, or absolutely divine truth. It doesn't matter. Everyone has just as much right to voice their opinion of these stories.

But many fanatical Christians take extreme personal offense to anyone who does not believe the stories to be divine. And they quickly step in to challenge and rebuke any view that suggest they might not be divine. That's simply uncalled for.

However, once they start voicing their objections, then it turns into an argument of trying to prove one way or the other. They start trying to claim that they can prove it's true, I start showing them why I think it's utterly absurd in places. I hold that if there is any truth to it at all, it most certainly isn't verbatim truth the whole way through.

And there you go. They refuse to even allow anyone to say that without chastising them. You're not even allowed to have that opinion. Or share that view. You're a non-believing heathen!

It then reduces to "we can prove it" versus "no you can't".

And round and round it goes. Where it stops nobody knows.

Finally I offer that if this is the way it always ends up then it's an unhealthy thing.

I think non-believers should be able to say what they believe, what the don't believe, and why. It's human history. Even if it's pure fiction it was still written by humans and humans have every right to ponder why it was written even if they believe it's fiction.

I'm sure you understand this Sororitygurl because you look at it academically. But many people feel a need to defend the divinity of the stories at all cost. And they get all worked up if anyone suggests that they feel that the stories might not be divine.

Consider the possibility that ALL of these threads and every single person participating in them (agenda or no agenda) are equally divine with one another... Just as equally divine as with all words of Biblical text.

If we no longer placed more value on one thing and valued ALL, we'd more readily see a whole picture.

Consider it.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.."
..Napoleon

I did, because I thought, how nice that would be. But as I thinking about it, I realized that this is an ideal that it's impossible. Why? Because to those with a fundamentalist or orthedox view, there can never be any words more divine than their spriptures.

Not wanting to be bigoted here, but when that happens, others may suffer, therefore, those who are at fault for creating the differences, must expect that those offended by the differences will try to squash their religious beliefs.

nothing is sacred

nothing is divine

Its party time.

I think you will notice that those who post religious discussion points as if they are hard fact are the ones that get "attacked".

If you want to prove your holy book right, you better be pretty well prepared to defend it.

If you want to discuss in a philosophical manner, the positive and perhaps negative aspects of your own, or another's belief then there won't be nearly as much toe stomping.

I never suggested MORE divine...

EQUAL

What will it take?

to tdp...



ah, so appeasement is dictated by whom?

the "attacks" as you call them, are the historical complaint of those that take issue with anything not of their stripe and the Christians are their favorite excuse.

The most vociferous being they which have not found it within theselves to be apprehended by the call of the gospel, and preach and teach that it doesn't work, and when taught their lapse of understanding and indiscriminate misapprehensions are false, they cry foul.

What is further cause for the belly aching in these threads is the insistence of some to prop up their own subsequent beliefs with discrediting Christianity according to their false assumptions to do it, and again , after being reminded that their beliefs otherwise so disposed stand on their owm merits, not on the necissity of collapsing Christinaity, the get offended and cry foul.

It is not as it seems to those that come into this forum which has a history as though it had none and that things are as they are by virtue of that which one imports into that which is this forum on the basis of first impressions.

Those first impressions are coming into this forum with those that come into this forum.

Newbies are the gullible and naive prey of those that create the strife and contention, not of those that stand to correct mirepresentations.


It is widely known in this forum that fact is not the issue concerning Christianity, since it has been tacitly agreed to be a matter of faith in general and that is equitable to all.

The contrivances of faith parading as fact are what evolution asks of the observer.

It is when conjecture is called on the carpet, disguising itself as fact, that the "attack" is seen as an unreasonnable affront to the sensibilities of the devotees of evolution hypothetical postulations.

And again, they, the evolutionists, are the ones crying foul, and being "attacked".


So the toe stomping you see, is from those with the "holy book" then, by your estimation.

But in fact, that is your spin, not the reality of it.


Now then, philosophically, there is no argument and battle and "attacks" when faith based doctrines are established on an even playing field of philosohical debate.

i.e. faith to faith. respect reigns.

when faith is paraded as fact, as is evolution, and it is merely unfinished conjecture with flaws and gaps and imaginary filling in of the gaps, then the issue is one of a faith based doctrine deceitfully cloaking itself in another realm, and that realm being fact requires inconvertible and substantilly irrefutable facts to close the door on it being speculation and an unfinished work in progress with no known conclusion forthcoming.

fact or fiction?

the battle is over the reluctance to admit that the facts are not in, so it is a faith based belief equal to a religious belief.

But science refuses to admit that it is not faith based in this subject matter of evolution.

Regardless of its inability to substantiate its wild and imaginative claims.

Which brings us to the underlyiing theme in these threads always being wrestled with....

delusions, and whose they are.



get the picture?

that is what is going on here.

Learn who the delusionals are.

and then stay around to make your point and prove your position and be ready to take the heat and keep your head and heart in the right place.

Ready for that?

Who came in here and started throwing down? We were having a nice easy-going meet and greet.

I wish I knew what it would take. It's not my desire to be a war with people. On the contrary I love for everyone to get along and love each other.

But then your question arises. What will it take? Does it require pretense? Does it require walking around on eggshells so as not to accidentally step on toes? Does it require sitting back and doing nothing whilst religious people make outrageous claims against man’s knowledge of the world just so they can proselytize their beliefs?

Let’s face it, Christianity is not a meek religion. Especially those who are the most vociferous about proselytizing it. They want to denounce science in favor of their beliefs. Their beliefs are in conflict with human progress. Many of them preach the coming of the return of their lord, and seriously suggest that we should teach our children that this is reality. Yet that return including supporting a prophecy a humongous religious war between men. A prophecy that people are even willing to contribute to making come true!

Sure it’s true that a lot of “innocent believes” get caught up in the storm. They just want to cling to the old rugged cross and float away to heaven. They want any part of any climatic battle between men. They don’t want to judge others to be heathens and enemies of God. They have a whole different view of the religion altogether. For them it’s a personal walk with God and has nothing to do with being judgmental of others or contributing to the conversion of others to their faith.

Those people just want everyone to get along. They actually get caught up and trample by the fundamentalists of their very own religion.

And here’s the interesting part. There are meek Christian. And there are bold brash fundamentalists.

Well who makes the most waves? Certainly not the meek loving Christians. They don’t want to make waves. They want everyone to get along. It’s the bold brash fundamentalists who “lead their pack of wolves” and try to keep on the meek sheep herded behind them for support. They abuse the religion for political and personal agendas. Often times it’s truly ego-based. They are on a personal power ride. What higher power trip could their be than to judge others in the name of God? It’s a total delusion of being the spokesperson for the ultimate authority of the universe. What could be more righteous that to claim to be speaking in defense of the man from Galilee and to be demanding that the laws of his father be obeyed?

Then the brashly root through the bible like wild boars to shove their prejudiced bias opinions down the throats of others using the name of Jesus as a ramrod.

Clearly not all Christians are like this. I’ve just said that there are many meek Christians who just want to live and let live. In fact, the vast majority of Christian of the meek type. We can thank God for that!

The problem is that the brash vociferous wolves are using and abusing the religion to egotistically drive their agendas and the meek passive one’s are being used for support. Even the meek people want to stand up for Jesus and support their religion “Christianity”. That’s understandable.

This is precisely what Dianna (Redykeulous) is talking about when she talk about the wolves leading the sheep. When Di says that she wants to protect the sheep from the wolves, she doesn’t mean that she wants to convert them into becoming non-believers. She just wants them to realize that all the wolves who claim to represent Christianity do not represent or speak for Jesus.

This is a humongous problem. Not just for non-Christians, but for many of the meek Christians as well.

In fact, I used to be a meek Christian. Without a doubt. I was never a brash fundamentalist. I took to heart Jesus’ words when he said not to judge others. I took to heart Jesus’ words when he said to love everyone as your brother. I took to heart Jesus’ words when he said to kick the dust from your shoes and move on if those you speak to are not interested in hearing his word. As a meek Christian I took to heart Jesus’ words when he said to turn the other cheek.

I fully identify with Miguel (TheLonelyWalker) and at one time in my life I had just as much faith in Jesus’ divinity as he does. Believe it or not. I could have become a minister very easily. In fact, I was actually considering that pathway through life.

However, as a meek Christian I was troubled by fundamentalists. Like TheLonelyWalker I would clash with them. My beliefs (which I believed were the principles and moral values that Jesus taught) clashed with the hardcore fundamentalists approach to the religion.

This was bothersome to me. In fact, it bothered me so much I sought to correct the problem. I sought to understand the Holy Bible so well that I could show the fundamentalist the folly of their ways through the help of Jesus.

Unfortunately what I found is that it’s impossible. The fundies (if you’ll excuse the abbr.) were relentless. They would continually find verses and passages all throughout the Bible including amongst the words attributed to Jesus. They were impossible to deny. Yet, I knew in my heart that this was not the message that Jesus intended to convey. The fundies were indeed spreading bigotry against non-believers, and passing judgments on non-believer for simply not believing. They also were not about to turn the other cheek or kick the dust from their shoes when someone suggested that they aren’t interested. On the contrary they were relentless shoving the Bible down the throats of non-believers using their highly selective twisted words of Jesus as a ramrod.

From my point of view this was quite ugly and not at all what Christianity mean to me. It most certainly didn’t represent the Jesus I had come to know. I struggled with for decades. It wasn’t an overnight decision. I tried everything I could think of to defend Christianity from the bigoted fundies. But it was to no avail. On the contrary all it truly served to do was to illustrate to me that the Bible is indeed self-inconsistent and contradictory. Even Jesus’ own words can be used to contradict his very own messages.

Which page do you go by? Which verses do you give merit when they contradict? Well, if you ask a fundie they will boldly tell you in no uncertain terms that the more judgmental hardcore interpretation is clearly the right one!

Well, I got sick of that, and decided that I can no longer support the religion, because I cannot support the hardcore judgmental fundies’ interpretations of the words of Jesus. Moreover, it became increasingly difficult to even trust the Bible at all because of the blatant contradictions in how it can be interpreted differently by people who simply have different views and motivations.

During the decades that I fought with these moral issues I also became increasingly aware of other inconsistencies associated with the Bible. Many of them I have mentioned time and time again in my posts. Today I am personally convinced that the creator of this universe never had anything to do with the Bible, particularly in regard to the Old Testament. I’m also personally convinced that it is unrealistic to believe that a Fatherly Figure God would even request blood sacrifices as atonements for disobedience of his rules. In fact, looking at the bible from the point of view of God being a Fatherly Figure in the Old Testament makes no sense to me whatsoever. I just don’t see any wisdom or good parenting skills being exhibited there. When I ask myself if this God is a good Father Figure, just as a mortal man I have no choice but to conclude that I personally would give this paper a failing grade if it had been submitted to me as an examples of good parenting skills. It just isn’t even close to what I would consider a good example of a Fatherly Figure.

Am I judging God? I think not. I’m looking at a story that claims to be a description of God and saying to myself, “Is this even close to being reasonable?”. My own honest heartfelt answer must be, “No, it’s not even close”.

So where does that leave me? I go back to the New Testament with the complete and total eye-opener that a God who needs to have blood sacrifices as atonements for disobedience is unbelievable to me. Yet the pinnacle of the story of Jesus is that he was sent by this very God as a blood sacrifice unto himself for the sake of man. That already makes no sense even if I thought that blood sacrifices made sense, which I don’t.

I finally came to my own personal conclusion that at the very best the story of Jesus is riddled with demagoguery. The idea that he was sent by the God of Abraham via a virgin birth to be the final sacrificial lamb to atone man’s disobedience just no only holds any value for me. It’s outrageous beyond belief IMHO. Yet, in light of the fact that it was taken historically in the context of the stores of the Old Testament it is easy to see how and why such demagoguery came to be.

Because of my own personal experience with this religion, I have always imagined that Jesus actually did live and preach. I personally view much of the gospels to be ideologies that Jesus stood for. I highly admire the man and even identify with him on many levels. I have extreme empathy for his unwarranted horrific demise. Assuming that it even actually happened. As I say, I tend to imagine that Jesus actually lived and taught because I have always thought of him in that way.

Today, I’m even begging to realize that the entire story may have very well been entirely fabricated with no truth to it whatsoever. I’m not suggesting that this is the case. I’m merely suggesting the fact that I cannot know. No one can. We’re talking about a story that happened over two millennia ago long before words were every even printed. Everything back then was either hand-written by very few scribes who could actually write, or convey by word of mouth. In short, it’s anyone’s guess as to how these stories came about and whether or not they have any basis in reality at all.

Personally, I feel that to give this stories verbatim word-for-word accuracy is extremely native. If there is any truth to them at all, that truth would be so muddled by now that it would be utterly senseless to quote verses and demand that they stand verbatim.

If people want to believe in this religion they truly need to believe it on a very personal level and quite using it as a moral and political club to beat other people over the head with.

If you are a meek Christian, my own plea to you is to stand up for what you truly believe and don’t let the bullying fundamentalists push you around or speak for you or Jesus. At least demand their credentials of ordainment and if they have none, reject them as nothing more than the personal opinions they are.

Don’t be so quick to rush off to support “Christianity” just because some loud-mouth fundie is preaching their own personal egotistical view of what they would like the religion to be.

Thank you for your patience, and may God Bless you.

note: Whether the stories in the Bible are the truth of God or not does not diminish the ideal of God. If there is a creator of this universe he/she/it existed long before the Bible was ever written and will continue to exist long after it’s been totally forgotten. If you believe that God is real, then your belief in God should not depend upon the validity of a story. For if it does then you never truly believed in God at all, you merely believed in was a story.

well said, abra.

strikingly sad to me is that you had not continued on and stood your ground from within, but I cannot attest to your experiences with whosoever has convinced you to bail out and give up the fight, even if in your own strength and so what if its falling short of a clear anointing and an extreme unction to equip you for the challenge ahead of you.

It is not over, and to that I do, though differently equipped, apparently, stay in the faith and continue to study and continually walk with God with the Holy Spirit, inescapably fused to my attentions and presence awake or asleep no matter the duty, task or distractions before me.


I am enduring the errors and do press against the failings of the church, but it is jesus' church, not ours, and even the churchianity are his.

You find me without merit, and I find you caving in to outside pressure and walking away pematurely.

But we both share that inexplicable passion for Jesus, and regardless of what men may do, abra, no one can take that away from a man's heart.

So again, abra, well said.

this is the you that I know.

I agree. Religion is a matter of pure faith. And because it is, then shouldn't everyone be free to express their degree of faith, or non-faith. Shouldn't the non-believer be free to express why it is that they don't believe?

Why should they be treated as adversaries? To expressed why a person dose not believe is not the same as attacking those who do believe. It is unfortunately that it always comes down to that.

It comes down to the believers defending why they believe, and the non-believers defending whey the disbelieve.

However, this a wrench that gets tossed into the mix. It is the wrench of judgmental fundamentalism. It is the accusation that non-believers are somehow ungodly and even potentially evil in their attempts to 'overthrow' God's word.

These are the kinds of accusations that then lead to heated argument name-calling. People claiming to be taking sides in a religious war, even if it is only being fought via the pen.

I sincerely hope that we can somehow move beyond the Holy Wars, and discuss religious issues from a sane and mature point of view without the need to toss around unwarranted religious judgments of who's siding with "god" and who's rebelling against "god". That mentality already assumes that there is no discussion and that the Bible is indeed the undisputed word of our creator.



To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. It most certainly isn't a religion.

Intellectual investigations of the world we live have lead our scientists to be convinced that life on earth evolved over millions of year. This conclusion was not a conspiracy against any religious view. In fact, many of the scientists who were active in these discoveries were indeed Christians themselves.

It was the Christian cultures of this planet whose scientists came to these very conclusions. These conclusion have been supported by all fields of science including astrophysics, chemistry, geology, biology, and many other scientific disciplines. The conclusions are in no way aimed at challenging any religious doctrines. It just so happens that some religious doctrines appear to conflict with the discoveries of science if taken as verbatim accounts themselves.

Any conceived 'war' between creationists and evolutionists, is just a figment of fanatical imaginations. It is also a tool used by aggressive fundamental proselytizers who are hungry to push their religious agendas onto anyone they can convince.

IMHO if I were a religious person, rather than attacking the discoveries of science I would focus on presenting my religious doctrine in a more abstract light to make it more palatable via the notion of allegories, parables, and metaphors. In fact, this is precisely the pathway that well-established religions are steering toward.

Please consider this truth Wouldee. The people who post these accusation on the forums are almost always uneducated layman who make wildly inaccurate accusations about how science even does things. They are often self-proclaimed Paper Popes who are neither religiously ordained nor well-educated in science.

They really have no business making the outrageous claims that they make and trying to stand by them as though they are indisputable facts. In a very real sense they are using a form of fraud to try to proselytize their religion. The fraud being that they are taking arbitrary unconfirmed information and trying to pass it off as though it is established fact.

This precisely what you attempt to accuse science of doing. But I assure you Wouldee, the scientific community has proven their credentials and knowledge of science via, the technologies that they have provided us with from Nuclear Power Plants, to all matter of Medical Technologies as well as space-age communications and GPS devices. Clearly they have a clue Wouldee. It's not just wild speculation.

I don't mean to be argumentative with you Wouldee. But I must present my arguments for what I perceive to be reasonable. If only for the sake of those who are interested in considering these things. I am a firm believer in the intellectual study of nature. From my point of view, the universe itself is the only 'book' that we can be absolutely certain was not written by man. If there is a 'word of God' it is written in the stars and in the atoms.

I actually view science as the ultimate religion.

But please do not confuse science with technology. Science makes technology possible. However, competitive commercialism abuses technology for the purpose of worshiping mammon. Let's not confuse science with the greedy ills of commercial competition.

Science is the attainment of knowledge. Technology is what we do with that knowledge once it's been attained.

On a personal level I guess I just never felt the need to fight for it Wouldee.

What would I be fighting for? The belief that we've failed our creator to the point where he had to send his Son to be butchered on a cross to pay for our rebellious nature?

In all honesty Wouldee that just doesn't even make sense to me on a personal level. I've never felt rebellious toward God. Why should I 'fight' to believe in such a thing? In all honestly Wouldee, I'm thrilled that it turned out not to be true (and that is my own personal conclusion Wouldee)

Why would you even want to 'fight' for a belief that says that you are a dismal failure to your creator to the point where he had to have his Son nailed to a pole to pay for your nasty arrogance?

Why would you even want to that be true Wouldee? That's terrible.



I'm 59 years old Wouldee. I was introduced to Christianity from childhood. I struggled with the religion for at least 3 maybe 4 decades. You say that I walked away prematurely.

With all due repsect Wouldee in hindsight I'm sure I have given the religion far more respect that it was ever due.



This is true Wouldee. I will always have a place in my heart for the man from Galilee no matter whether he was a mortal man, a divine being, or a completely fabricated fantasy.

It doesn't matter what the origin of the story was, it was a major part of my life and "Jesus" will always live in my heart. Because for me, he became real, even if he was a total fabrication in the beginning. My life has definitely been profoundly affected by this religion. Whether or not Jesus was real, or whether or not he was divine, is no longer important to me. He has become so much a part of me that no one can ever take that from me even if the story is proven to be total fiction.

In fact, when religious people say, "Non-believers have no right to comment on the Bible" it truly irks me, because whether I believe the story or not is irrelevant, it was a major part of my life and therefore to say that I have no right to speak about it is to deny my very experience as a human being.

i aree abra that sometimes christians will jump at you if you say something that differs from their faith;however, that's why as an atheist, agnostic, non believer, etc. we must be the calm ones. I've been face to face with a woman who laughed at me because i told her i believed in evolution.... they get defensive because thats what some of them have been taught to do... many of the religions today donot accept the stranger, but merely want to convert him/her without realizing where they come from, upbrining, where their morals are from etc.

I just think the differences are beautiful and lets face it if we were all the same it'd be pretty dang boring esp. in this chat. Ultimately to me personally all religions are illogical. everyday people strive to be logical to put things in line to find answers however when it comes to faiths that we were all or most of us were all raised in logic does not apply and that's why as a believer seeing differences in text don't mean anything... but to me or you or a non believer its only another example of how it could be wrong.. anyways though i just think that from whatever side you are coming from its fine to get a little heated or passionate about a particular subject just i hate seeing people bash each other just because they don't agree on something so... philosophical and illogical as religion... share the love pass the peace pipe!

It seems to me that because a person's religion (or lack thereof in the case of athiests), is tied to their being, any arguementitive point made about religion is going to be taken personal. But only by those that question their faith.

Those that are comfortable in their walk with (God, Allah, Aliens) don't really take offense, but try to defend their beliefs. Because the open forum of debate is attacking and defensive in it's bare purpose, well, things are going to happen.

When one person says "I believe this" there will always be someone who believes a little different. If I said "Dust bunnies are woven by fairies while we sleep." Someone would think I was a moron, someone might think I figured out a great mystery of life. Either way, a heated discussion is coming.

What bothers me is that a lot of personal attacks are only percieved. For example a Moderater came into a religous thread and chastised a group of "regulars" for mentioning names in responses (considering them personal attacks). I was actually offended by the Moderator for sticking her nose in where it didn't belong. Someone that doesn't come to these threads daily might see some personal attack that our "regulars" wouldn't see as personal.

The truth is, all debate is personal. You can't avoid it, because when you debate, your opinions are yours, no one elses. So when someone answers, it got personal. You don't want your debate personal? Post once and don't come back, that's the only way to avoid it.