hmm...you do have a point...

good for pagans and wiccans.

And that faith, I truly do not understand.

was all that a copy and paste thing or are you really that bored?

not to mention illogical and quite stupid

Do you know you're completely wrong on just about every point or do you just not care?
The bible has changed over the years. Alot in fact. And w/ every new translation, of which there are dozens, if not hundreds. If one goes back to the dead sea scrolls, the farthest one CAN go back, one finds a whole heaping pile of completely different meanings and words from any modern bible you can find.
And speaking of modern bibles, all the different kinds one can find today all have different meanings and words.
To say otherwise is just blantant nonsense and a complete disreguard for the facts.
Facts that are not even hard to varify.

As far as thinking the bible has ever accurately predicted anything, that's just silly. I could make a few dozen predictions right now. I bet if we check back in a couple of millenia, I bet we could squeeze bits and pieces of reality to fit every damn one.
Your statistical probablity nonsense shows your lack of mathematical abilty. A given prediction being accurate is not 1 in 2. With out a set period of time being worked into the equation, it is in fact closer to 1 in 1, in an infinite amount of time.

actually, I've known kids who had parents who forced them to read the bible.
Sometimes this forced brainwashing works. Sometimes it backfires. And sometimes the kid goes psychotic.

Columbus discovered America? Well..he didn't, exactly, but he was real close. And I'm pretty sure we could dig up all kinds of proof of that. As far as the rest of history goes, yes the farther back we go, the murkier it gets. However, for the most part, what we know of ancient history is generally corraborated(sp?) by more than one source.
The bible, on the other hand, is generally not. In fact, large chunks of the stories are direct plagarisms of other older stories.
And therefore, no serious historian takes it as a factual history.

I do not say that brotherly love is impossible, I say to love your neighbors as you would love yourself is impossible. I will give one of the easiest examples to follow. Look at 9/11. How did Americans feel about the hijackers? Did Americans love them? Of course not, Americans demanded vengeance, Christians demanded vengeance. How is this wrong and hypocritical you may ask? Simple. The teachings of Jesus. To love thine enemy and when attacked to turn the other cheek. Did we have to go to war with 2 countries? Of course not. It showed us that security was lacking, that we needed better precautions, but it didn't justify bloodshed in large amounts.If you think mass killing overseas for 9/11 is justified, then you are hypocritical to your beliefs. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Second of all, atheist propaganda? I proposed an ethical question, hardly calling your doctrines make-believe. And, yes, with Original Sin, we are born into this world as sinners in the eyes of God, according to religion. Does this not make us guilty of crime upon our entry into life?

If a person has questions about the beliefs of Christianity, wouldnt the best way to get answers be to examine your doctrines? That doesnt mean anything. Athiests choose that religion is bogus because they want to also. See, it works both ways.

I would like to point out one of the biggest points that has been illustrated by Thomas3474. Christianity is also immoral because it leads its followers to this type of elitism. Read hos words, this is the mindset of the average Christian. Is elitism moral? According to Christianity it sure is.

It instills the mindset of wanting the end to come, the rapture, the death of everything. Because with the rapture, Christians are supposed to rise up and go to Jesus, and as many Christians would put it, "and the rest of us can go straight to hell."

Personally, yes, I am an atheist. I dont follow Bronze-Age superstition. How many other Bronze-Age teachings do we still follow besides the doctrines of Christianity? I don't look for forgiveness through prayer, I look to be absolved through my actions. If one person hurts another person, and I go to the transgressor and say "Don't worry about it, you are guilty and you have my forgiveness," is that moral? No, its not. It is arrogance. So for Jesus to do the exact same thing, how is that not? The other person is still hurt, feeling the actions in which the transgressor took. Where is personal responsibility in this?

Keep in mind, very similar stories to many in the Bible were parts of other religions from the SAME REGION. Take the story of Jesus. Look at the story of the Egyptian god Horus. The similarities are remarkably similar. Also, I challenge the validity of the Bible, and here is one piece of information I challenge any Christian to refute. It was not until 342 A.D. that the church decided to add that the mother of Jesus was a virgin. Immaculate conception was not added to doctrine until 300 years after the death of Jesus. You would think that would be a pretty remarkable thing that wouldnt take 300 years to add.

To be fearful of God because your life could be ended at any moment, but love God because God lets you live...how is this not a sadomasochistic view? "I love you because you havent killed me yet, but I am afraid of you because at your whim, you can end my life."

Also, coveting someones possessions is a thought-crime by religious standards. That is the basis of an economy, and what keeps it going, but according to doctrine, its a thought-crime which can cause someone to be sentenced to an eternal prison.

It is not about negative, negative, negative. I have credited numerous times the ethical teachings, but there is also immorality within also, which I have shown. I am not asking if Christianity is true, or if God is real, I am asking if these basic foundations of Christianity moral or immoral. Questioning faith does not make someone an enemy of faith, or a blasphemer.

I think your posts contain plenty of unprovable assumptions. As I said though, people will find what they seek (using a certain part of the brain consciously, born criminal,,being moral elite,,,,etc ), whether it be God or reasons not to believe in God.

The birth of Jesus wasn't celebrated until over 100 years after his death. Christmas is such a huge religious holiday, but where in these doctrines does it commemorate that one single day as "a momentous day to be celebrated"? The only day Jesus spoke of to be commemorated in his life was his death. In the face of logic, there is no room for assumptions or blind faith. Test your hypothesis, then test it again, and maybe a third time to be safe. Answer me this, how many atheist gatherings do you see protesting funerals for girls raped and murdered, protesting because "they are amish and they deserved it for their religious upbringing"? Christians are some of the sickest, most depraved people on this planet. How many atheists do you see thanking God for wiping out New Orleans because it "was a haven of the devil"? How many atheists died in the name of God? How many wars did atheists start because some invisible mouth whispered in their ear that they are justified? More people have died in the name of god than any other cause. More people have killed in the name of god than for any other reason. Even God, in the Bible, killed over 2 million people, because "they didnt believe in him the right way". All I did was post a simple question, with a simple conclusion that was up for discussion, but "oh no, I dont consider myself a SERVANT to a LORD, whatever shall I do?" This was a simple question of morals and ethics, not questioning if your invisible master is real. Seriously, when many Christian scholars cant even agree on most of the foundations of the religion, how in the heck do you expect people to, not only take it seriously, but also become a slave to it? The God/follower relationship is one of slavery. You spend your entire life serving your Lord, then you die to go to heaven to serve your Lord. For every christian reading this, yes, you are an elitist. I guarantee at some point, you thought to yourself, "this person doesnt believe in my Lord, but its okay, he/she will burn in hell, not me." Heck, even Jesus was not perfect, and wasn't he the physical embodiment of God? Here is the perfect example: In the temple where Jesus threw the table in a fit of fury in regards to the money changers, then threatened violence against them. That is hypocritical to his teachings, plain and simple. As a whole, religion weighs us down. We arent supposed to look to finding logical answers, we are supposed to believe that its God's will. So, by discovering that volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. are not God's will, is that blasphemy? How are users of the scientific method elitists? For testing hypotheses? For attempting to solve how things work? The christian method is bogus. "I dont have to question anything, I dont have to figure out how anything works, God knows how, and thats good enough for me." Religion is ignorance. Blind faith is the enemy of any kind of reasoning. The unexamined life is a life wasted. If you never question something but blindly follow, how can you even say you truly believe in something? If you cant rationally look at something to determine if it is correct, then whats the point?

I am both rational and as a child I questioned, my questions are answered at this point and I need not question anymore. Just like the faith I learned to have in my parents at a young age, I have similar faith in my Heavenly Father. It is an unfortunate thing that you seem to take correlations between the faith people claim to have and assume that is the CAUSE of their actions... I do not feel that choosing one path over another is slavery,,it is my choice as it is yours to follow the path of your choice,

Many people are ignorant , and christians are not immune from ignorance, I dont see the proof though that christians are afflicted with ignorance anymore than any one else is.

But thats the thing, what I speak of is not assumptions. As for the amish girls, look up Westboro Baptist Church sometime. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan were heavily influened by George Bush's religious beliefs, which was a heavy part of his foreign policy (his words). Historically, religious belief was a major factor in most wars (soldiers and leaders believing that God was on their side). As for hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, all you have to do is listen to most fundamentalist christians. In regards to the deaths, look at the wars in which a big influence was fighting in the name of God. The crusades, revolutionary war, civil war, world war 1, world war 2, need I go on? Oh well, why not? The spanish inquisition, wars of roman conquest, the current fighting in the middle east, the persecution and slaughter of pagans in the early first few centuries A.D., and many more. These are not assumptions, these are factual correlations (check them out sometime). My assumption, based on piles upon piles of historical and biblical evidence (genocide, mass murder caused by a god, holy men allowing the rape of their daughters, slavery approved by god, an all-loving being that is easily jealous and vengeful, human sacrifice, the encouragement of war in gods name, and many more examples), it is safe to assume that religion has a huge effect in the negativity of mankind. We toss aside our survival instincts because "we arent afraid to die at all because we will go to heaven and be with god". Even many of the greatest preachers of peace and harmony were murdered because the ones who murdered them "claimed that god told them to". John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and more. So from heavily religious, to somewhat religious, to not religious, murdered in the name of god. I can easily say that religion is a plague upon humanity because of the despicible actions it has inspired people to do, and still do. Ah yes, lets not forget the suni-shiite power struggle, the genocidal acts in Africa, the terror attacks between palestinians and jewish, among others, but whats the point of bringing those up too? Any christian would simply state, "but those hundreds of millions, even billions of people dont know God like I know God." I prove you wrong, these varied from very moderate followers all the way to the extremists, the ones who took the gospels as metaphors, to those who took it literal down to the exact word. I can safely say that religion is a poison based on the numerous actions of countless upon countless amounts of followers.

you posted,,,

genocide, mass murder caused by a god, holy men allowing the rape of their daughters, slavery approved by god, an all-loving being that is easily jealous and vengeful, human sacrifice, the encouragement of war in gods name, and many more examples),

your argument is that religion influences these things, and therefore all religion is a poison. I believe that loyalty to family and loyalty to country and loyalty to political affiliation, and loyalty to wealth, and loyalty to power, all influence these things too, but I dont believe it follows that any of these things on their own must be poisons.

People choose to do what they choose to do and then they use whatever reasons they want to justify those actions,,but it doesnt make it true. Men hit their wives, and then they claim it was because the wife said something wrong,,,they have convinced themself this is true, but in reality it is because these men have some serious issues within themself.

I have a faith in Christ and it is not a poison. It doesnt make me do any of these things you posted, nor do I believe these are things Jesus would do. Jesus preached love and righteousness but not hatred or violence,, these concepts are FOREIGN to the example Jesus set.

Sodom and Gomorrah (genocide, mass murder caused by a god), the story of Lot offering his daughter to the mob (holy men allowing rape with no reprocussion from god), the unification of the 13 tribes of Israel (the allowance of slavery and gods approval of war). These are in your religious doctrines, and it is clear as day. These are not lies nor assumptions, these are simply your doctrines.

In what I have listed, religion was a huge factor in these historical events, there is no logical way of denying this. The Crusades were about love of family? The Spanish Inquisition was about love of country? What next? A man gets his head sliced off on a bus because the religious nutjob said he did it because god told him to, but in fact it was for money?

This is one basic proof that religion is a poison of the mind. The religious side would claim that none of these actions were heavily motivated by religious belief, but the thing is, they were. There is overwhelming proof of this with the historical events I have listed. Even those with a basic knowledge of these events would easily agree. Fine, I guess that I have to explain.

The spanish inquisition was trials held to charge and put through trial blashpemers to religion. The reconquista was a movement to convert pagans to christianity/catholocism, and those that would not change their religious views were killed. The wars with Iraq and Afganistan is also because George Bush was told by god that every person wants to be a peace-loving christian, so that is what mainly decided his foreign policy. The crusades was about taking jeruselum from the islamic believers that were occupying it. The revolutionary war was a war waged for independence from a king that claimed he was gods figurehead on earth. The civil war was heavily based on the north believing that all should be free, but the south believing that god was okay with slavery and favored them. Even the death of jesus can be tallied up to a strong sense of religious intolorence. Religion has historically been a tool of subjugation used by monarchs, dictators, and other political figures. World War 2 was because the germans believed they were the chosen people of god, not the jews, and the emperor of japan claimed to be the personification of god on earth. World War 1 was a war in which all sides fought for country and god. All nations claim to fight for God and Country. How can that be denied? Our country is one of the biggest swingers of this phrase. Tribal genocide in Africa based on one tribe believing that they were chosen by god and that god told them to eradicate the other tribe or tribes.

Yes, people use whatever reasons they want to do things of an unspeakable nature, but religion has, throughout history, has been one of the biggest motivating factors used for support and subjugation. Religion, for thousands of years, has been a tool of controlling the masses. How can one not draw the conclusion that it is a poinon in the hearts and minds of men? How is waging war and death based on "what god wants" not as wrong as a man hitting a woman? Both are wrong in nature, and both are unjustifiable. The man that hits a woman claims he has the right because "the woman was wrong in challenging him" and the ones who wage war in the name of god claim that the opposing side was wrong for challenging god.

There are many things that motivate those with negative acts, but religion has been one of the biggsst motivating forces in many of the most atrocious acts in mankind's history. Religion has a tendency to bring out the darkest in people, and that is why I can call religion a poison which we are self-convinced is somehow beneficial.

One last note, Jesus did not always preach peace and love. The gospels show this. The incident in the temple in which Jesus went into a fit of anger, throwing a table to the ground and threatening the livelihood of the money changers if they did not leave. That is not peaceful, that is vengeful. Wrath is one of the 7 mortal sins, and Jesus clearly demonstrated this in that temple.

He also taught obedience and respect for God , but as I said, he didnt teach hatred or violence. Hatefulness and Violence were not his way. He didnt lay hands on any man or woman in anger, only to heal. Turning over a table,,,or sending out animals is far from the violence that is so often blamed upon religion.

It matters not to me what religious title one affiliates themself with. I try to follow the example of CHRIST , in whom I can find no flaw and in whose example, I could never kill or harm or hate.

You have pointed out many good points but once again they are with out merit because you simply have not read or understood the bible.

You can not blame God for people killing in the name of God because you will not find anywhere in the bible where God commands us to kill or harm anyone.If God is going to kill anyone it will be him that does the killing.The bible teaches us to do the opposite.It tells us to stay away from violence,turn the other cheek,and pray for our enemies.Someone saying he killed in the name of God is not a Christian but a mentally disturbed person.

But we must also remember the bible has hundreds if not thousands of verses how we must deal with evil and evil people.It would be foolish if someone was trying to kill us and we sat back and just let everyone get slaughtered.Is it wrong to defend our country and family even if it means killing someone?No.It is a battle of good against evil.Evil must always be prevented when ever possible.Does this mean Christians should pick up a gun and kill everyone that isn't a Christian?No.It means if we can prevent evil from spreading we should do everything non violently we can.This present day war in Iraq and Afganistan is supported by the churches because the churches realize it is a war against good vs evil.We realize the Muslims hate Christians and want Christianity destroyed.The bible does not say that we should sit back and get trampled over.The bible says we need to stand up and conquer evil.


The war was not inspired by George bush's religious beliefs.It has nothing to do with anything.I don't remember George bush ever saying that we were fighting this war for Christanity and the bible.I don't remember him ever quoting bible verses and saying that is the reason we are going to war.

You need to crack open a history book because Wars have never been started by Christians(with the exception of the Crusades which the Christians were wrong in doing anyways).Where you are reading or hearing this nonsense if beyond me.Wars have been started mainly by Athiest.It has always been Christian countries that ended them.


http://www.hinkles.us/chuckbo/CurrentEvents/Christianity_wars.html



Current Iraqi war. Maybe it's a fight over oil, maybe Bush wanted to finish the job from the 1st Gulf War, but there's no case that Bush started it because of religion.

Afghan war against the Taliban.After Bin Laden's attack on New York City, this was a revenge war, not a war started because of Christianity.

Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Nigeria, and other wars in Africa. I don't know enough about them to say that they aren't religous wars started by Islam, but they don't look to be Christian-started wars. In
Serbia fighting in Bosnia, Kosovo, .... That looks like a racial war, not a religious one, as Serbia wanted land and influence for Serbs. Not started by Christianity.

Indian-Pakistani conflicts. Looks more like a territorial fight over Kashmir, but I don't know how much religion is behind it. But not started by Christianity.

1st Gulf War. Started by Saddam Hussein trying to create a greater Iraq, in the image of the Babylonian Empire, and this gave him land and more oil. Not started by Christianity.

6-Day War and ongoing conflicts in Palestine, Syria. Ah, we have wars that are clearly religious in nature, but none of them are started by Christianity.

Vietnam. Political ideological war fought over power and influence, not started by Christianity.

Korean War. Also a political ideological war fought over power and influence, not started by Christianity.

Greek-Turkish war. I don't remember it so well, but it seemed like an ethnic fight as each wanted to make sure their countrymen on Cyprus were protected. Not started by Christianity.

Chinese Civil War was communist ideology fighting ... Chiang Kai-shek's pro-Business ideology. Religion and Christianity weren't involved.

World War II. There were lots of factors, but the Nazis gained power by blaming the German Depression on the Treaty of Versailles and the Jews. But wasn't it fueled more by personal ambition of the dictators, who really didn't have any religious ties? Not started by Christianity.

Spanish Civil War. This was a Fascist vs. Loyalist fight after the monarchy collapsed -- if I remember it right. The church and the army and Russia supported the Loyalist government, but the rebels who started the war weren't fighting for religious reasons. Not started by Christianity.

Italian/Ethiopian war. This was Mussolini trying to act like the new Caesar. Not started by Christianity.

Cuban Civil War, Nicaraguan War, Honduran War, Columbian War. These were all conflicts to help Business. Not started by Christianity.

Oh, I forgot about the Falkland Islands. No religious overtones there, just posturing. Not started by Christianity.

Russo-Japanese war. This was a war between Russia and Japan over rival ambitions to control Manchuria and Koria. Not started by Christianity.

The War of the Pacific.Here's my favorite one: a war between Chile and the Bolivian and Pervian alliance over Fertilizer (specifically guano). Not started by Christianity -- not even remotely!

World War I. I kind of remember that it blew up because of treaties and was started because of ethnic divisions in the Balkans. Not started by Christianity.

Russian Revolution was a response to the Romanov dynasty and then another civil war when the new government wouldn't abandon World War I.

Spanish-American war. I don't remember any religion involved in this one. I do remember a story about Hearst using the conflict to sell newspapers and pushing McKinley into acting against Spain. Not started by Christianity.

American Civil War. The South seceded because they saw the central government increasingly controlled by the anti-slave forces, and they were convinced that they would be forced to give up slaves. To them, the slaves were valuable property that their economy was based on, just as other states' were based on factory machines. The north invaded to prevent the split. But one might be able to make a case that Christianity was involved. Christians in the north believed that slavery was an abomination, and Jesus would never return while slavery was being practiced, and Christians had pressed for the abolishment of slavery. So this one's a toss-up whether it was started by Christianity. And even if you want to lay this war at Christianity's feet, I'd have to argue that Christianity gets positive credit on this one.

War of 1812. This was a side effect of the British-French battle and came when the US declared war against the British in reaction to British actions against American ships. Not started by Christianity.
American-Indian Wars. These were wars as Americans looked to expand and take more of the best land for themselves, as well as the British saw America as a long-term threat and supported/persuaded the Indian tribes to fight to keep America's size in check. So not started by Christianity.

Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon wanted to own Europe -- he sure wasn't fighting to promote religion. Not started by Christianity.

French Revolution and American Revolution. Democratic ideals vs. a monarchy. Not started by Christianity.

1600s and 1700s in Central Europe, there were continuing wars to gain land and power. Treaties and alliances seemed pretty temporal and based more on who was weak and strong than religion. Even countries/regions that were both Catholic would be fighting if it gave one an advantage. And, early on, even though Popes were involved, the Pope was more like a European military ruler and not like we think of them today. Not started by Christianity.

Spanish and British war (and other Spanish involvements). Okay, Phillip II was violently anti-Protestant and got involved in disastrous wars to fight Protestanism. Started by Christianity.
Lots of wars going on in Europe in the first half of the 2nd millenium, but it's hard to say that any were started by Christianity since most of Europe was Catholic. The Moors fighting what became Spain is likely religion-based, but I don't remember how those wars started.

The Crusades. There were several Crusades, but really only the first one had any fighting in the Middle East, if I recall. According to the history I remember, the Muslims permitted pilgrimages to Palestine, but they'd started harassing pilgrims. The Pope was weak but figured that he could gain prestige and influence if he would lead some type of popular movement like a war against the Muslims. Another reason was that churches and monasteries were getting destroyed during fights in Europe, so this would move that aggression somewhere else. The Kings supported it because they didn't go -- but they sent Barons and other nobles who were causing trouble back home for them. So even the Crusades, though popularly regarded as a Christian Holy War, were started by impious motives. Not started by Christianity (but fueled by Christianity).

Persian-Greek wars.
Mongol invasion.
Before that, during the time of the Roman Empire, it sure didn't expand for any religious reasons, and the Barbarians (Huns, Vikings, Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Franks) who invaded it weren't driven by religion. Not started by Christianity.
And before that ... well, there wasn't any Christianity, was there?

Epicurus

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

We have deleted several posts here. Please address the topic. Attacking/insulting is not allowed.

Please continue the discussion, without personal insults.

Thanks,
Mark

Christianity is not immoral, but people are whether they call themself christian or not.