Where is the line for disrespectful religious comparisons?

[muriel_volestrangler]

Poll question: Where is the line for disrespectful religious comparisons?

It's clear that many, perhaps most, religious people are annoyed when their religious beliefs are classed with 'fairy stories'. But at what point, for you, does a comparison become odious?

I've tried to give an order to the choices - but that may show my own biases. If anyone has suggestions for improving the form of the poll, make them and I'll see if we can get a more meaningful result from them.

[Deep13]

1. People have a right to believe what they want.

I have tried to minimize the effect of "believing" in my thinking. I would rather know the truth even if I'm proven wrong.

If a person is a Christian, by implication he is making a judgment that all other religions are either invalid or less valid. They may deny this, but it is part of their faith. By being an atheist, I am accepting the same implication except that they are all invalid. If everyone has a right to his beliefs, then I have a right to mine. further, I'm under no obligation to shut up about it. I get religion thrown in my face everywhere I go. While I am not trying to return the offense, I do want people to know that it is okay to be a nonbeliever.

[chefgirl]

4. You are so wrong

If a person is a Christian, by implication he is making a judgment that all other religions are either invalid or less valid. They may deny this, but it is part of their faith.

THAT is where I draw the line. When people assume they know exactly what I believe, simply because I'm a Christian, and then proceed to treat me according to THEIR assumptions, I get offended.

I AM a Christian, but I, in NO way, believe that all other religions are invalid or less valid.
I believe strongly that there are many paths to ones own 'truth', and the message of Jesus is the most 'true' way that " I've " found, but whatever someone else chooses to believe, or not believe, is to be respected and accepted as 'their' truth. No one belief is any more or less valid than another.
It's personal, and it's a matter of faith.

-chef-

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. That is official Christian dogma

"We are right, everyone else is wrong and is going to Hell."

That has been the party line from the very beginning, and is actually at the heart of the Christian religion: without Jesus, you will fry forever.

[trotsky]

8. I am glad that some Christians are more tolerant with their faith.

But you are right, the belief that other paths to salvation are just as valid is not a biblical belief. Christians who tolerate and even celebrate other faiths should realize that they are breaking with orthodoxy, breaking with their holy text. And the concept that is most to thank for such a thing is secularism.

[chefgirl]

21. You might have a point, if it applied to me

There is a big difference between identifying one's self as a Christian and identifying with a specific 'organized' group of Christians, which I have never done.

I am NOT breaking with 'MY' holy text. I am a Christian, because I believe in Christ's message, not biblical doctrine and dogma, despite the comments from people who assuem they know what it is that I believe in.

-chef-

[trotsky]

24. Bear with me here

I'm not bashing you or your faith. But you can only know "Christ's message" from reading the bible. He didn't write anything down himself, if he existed. You're making your own judgment on what that message is, and you can thank secularism for giving you the power to do so.

[chefgirl]

30. I appreciate that you brought that up

You are absolutely right, the message of Jesus IS to be found in the New Testament, but only if you read around all the man made language and vocabulary.

The message is there, loud and clear, regardless of how the Bible has been manipulated through the centuries by the certain 'pious few'.

As I said earlier, its a matter of faith.

Excuse me for using my reply to you to say this, but as Ive been reading through this thread, I've been smiling at the number of people trying furiously to TELL me what it is I MUST believe in as a Christian.

I never cease to be amused, but not amazed, by people who do that while decrying all those 'pushy' Christians who want to try and tell everyone else how to believe.

All I've attempted to do in this thread is to tell people how I believe.

-chef-

[trotsky]

41. And "read(ing) around all the man made language"

is something you do on your own. You pick and choose which parts of the bible you think are valid, just as the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world do. That's just the way it goes. Thankfully your Christianity is tolerant, but the point I was trying to make is that ultimately we can't say whether your spin or theirs is more "valid," only that you all have your unique beliefs.

[chefgirl]

48. Writing all that man made language is what someone else did on their own

The difference between what I'm trying to say here, and what the Falwells of the world do, is that I am NOT picking and choosing. I am, in fact, doing just the opposite.

I take the message of Christ in its entirety, without trying to 'spin' my personal version of it by picking and choosing certain irrelevant parts of Old Testament scripture to make the message of Jesus fit my (politically or financially expedient) interpretation of that message.

I am tolerant of whatever someone chooses to believe and I will give credit where credit is due and say that thats not MY version of Christianity, its Christ's version. Jesus taught love and tolerance for fellow man. (even the Jerry Falwells of the world)

He brought a very simple message and no matter how people with their own agendas try to pervert that message, it remains loud and clear.

-chef-

[trotsky]

50. I will have to disagree with you.

From my perspective, you are choosing which parts of the bible upon which you want to form your particular brand of Christianity. That, to me, is no different than what Pat Robertson does. Yes, you & he have vastly different opinions on Christianity, but ultimately you are taking the same book and deciding for yourselves what's "true" Christianity.

(By the way, you are aware that Robertson and Falwell would also say that their version is Christ's version, right?)

[chefgirl]

61. I do not use the 'same' book that they use

Christianity, by definition, is the teaching of Christ. The New Testament, which is where the message of Christ is to be found in the Bible, is VERY different from the Old Testament scripture spouting that Falwell and Roberston engage in daily.

Im WELL aware that they would say their version is Christ's version, and the mistake most people make, where those two are concerned, is that they are believing the teachings of Moses and calling it Christianity. It seems you've fallen for it too if you believe Christianity comes from both parts of the Bible.

The Old Testament is the basis of the Judaic (sp?) religious belief, and I find it punitive and intolerant. (the Old Testament was also written by the hand of man, in MY opinion)

Jesus taught that the intolerance to be found in the Old Testament was the wrong path to a personal relationship with God. Judaism had become an outward expression of piety, not a spiritual journey, in His opinion.

He taught love, tolerance, charity, humility, compassion, etc. THAT is my interpretation of His message, not my interpretation of the man made language written in either Testament of the Bible. Does that sound to you like what Falwell and Robertson advocate?

They tell people that God is punishing us for tolerating gays and lesbians, they tell people that to tithe to their church will bring them financial reward and eternal salvation. They tell people "God hates Fags'. Thats not even what the man made language tells us that Jesus taught.

We could argue forever about the actual existence of the man we know as "Jesus Christ", but the true meaning of the message to be found in the New Testament, ascribed to Jesus, regardless of the language, is intended to be the basis for Christianity, and is the reason I call myself a Christian.

-chef-

[greyl]

73. So, you support every word attributed to Jesus in the NT? nt

[trotsky]

78. Teachings of Christ

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. - Luke 14:26

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. - Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew: 5:17-18 (So much for abandoning the Old Testament.)

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27

Now you might argue that these words were attributed to Jesus but were actually the words of other men who perverted the message. That's fine. But that's just one interpretation. There's plenty of material even in the New Testament only (especially Paul's writings) for the Robertsons of the world to base their Christianity on.

I understand that your Christianity is nothing like that, but you have to realize there is no objective way to determine what is "true" Christianity. Every Christian picks & chooses from the bible.

[greyl]

Not to mention condoning the beating of slaves, self-castration

having thousands of sexual partners, and - not more palatable to every Christian I've ever known - selling everything you have and giving the money to the poor. In Matthew, Jesus mocks tithing, so I fully expect every 'really good' Christian to stop giving money to their church.

*contrary to other comments, this isn't about stating what chef believes, but penetrating the claimed source, reliability, and coherence of the beliefs.

[okasha]

133. Straw man, out of context line

This:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27"

is a line of dialogue in a parable. It is not an instruction to the apostles or anyone else to murder anyone who does not believe in Jesus. It's spoken by a king who's described as a "harsh" or "austere" man. Except for busting up the Temple, the Gospels are very consistent about Jesus' non-violence.

[trotsky]

136. Yes, of course it's a parable. But the king represents Jesus.

Couple that with the times Jesus refers to weeping & gnashing of teeth, cursing a poor fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, etc. and it's pretty clear he's not always a peaceful, loving guy.

[okasha]

142. If you look at the context of Luke 19, the king represents not Jesus

but the coming Kingdom of Heaven. The point of the parable is that those who would enter that kingdom must make the best possible use of every gift they have; those that make no effort will be shut out, and those that deny the kingdom will die. Now, you can take that death literally, but if you do it will sit uncomfortably with the rest of Luke, where Jesus heals severed ear of the guard who comes to arrest him and rebukes Peter for his violence. Or you can take it to mean death in the spiritual sense and that the person who refuses will be left outside looking in. That's where the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" comes in--grief and regret for having refused the call of the Messiah, not punishment imposed from without.

Now the fig tree, that's a problem.

[trotsky]

144. Are you serious?

Luke 19:11 - "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return."

Luke 19:14-15 - "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.' He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it."

It's the story of Jesus and HIS second coming. And this isn't about those who deny the kingdom "dying," it's that the king is ordering their slaughter.

Yes of course there's nice stuff in Luke too. The bible, just like Jesus, is full of nasty and good things. That's the point - you're picking and choosing only the nice bits.

I know it's very common among Christians to avoid the uncomfortable idea of people being punished for being mistaken by instead blaming the victim and saying it was our choice to "refuse" the messiah. I'm sorry, but I'm still disgusted by such a view.

[okasha]

145. Entirely

Look again at the context of the story. Jesus tells this parable because he's about to go to Jerusalem, and the crowd thinks the Kingdom of Heaven is about to arrive before supper. So the parable is clearly about the Kingdom of Heaven, represented here as the ruler who will demand much of those who expect to enjoy it. It has nothing whatever to do with the "second coming," since the "first coming" only happens at the end of the chapter, with Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and his acclamation as the Davidic Messiah.

"Yes of course there's nice stuff in Luke too. The bible, just like Jesus, is full of nasty and good things. That's the point - you're picking and choosing only the nice bits."

No, I'm choosing here the bits that are internally consistent with the text. Now, it's hardly news that the gospels present Jesus as having a temper. He goes immediately from his acclamation to the Temple and busts the place up. (Go back to that parable of the pounds again; it applies here. The money changers have increased the wealth they've been given, but they've put it to selfish use and oppressed the poor.) He uses rhetorical invective as an art form, something he apparently shared with--or learned from--his teacher, John the Baptizer.

"I know it's very common among Christians to avoid the uncomfortable idea of people being punished for being mistaken by instead blaming the victim and saying it was our choice to "refuse" the messiah. I'm sorry, but I'm still disgusted by such a view."

A couple points. One, I'm not a Christian. I'm a pagan. But I do have an interest in comparative religion/theology and in the history of the ancient Middle East, including first century CE Judea. I try to give the text as thorough and informed a reading as I can, looking to the surrounding and referenced texts to shed light on it.

And two, the second part of this paragraph leaves me flatly puzzled. Are you saying that we humans are not responsible for our choices? To transpose your statement into another key, are we "blaming the victim" for "mistakes" when we criticize those who made the choice to vote for Bush and "refuse" the better vision offered to them by progressives--which in our view is very much the wrong choice?

[trotsky]

147. I still think that's a huge stretch

and a convenient one, so you don't have to deal with the negative imagery. Besides, there's still the commanded slaughtering which is bad no matter who the king represents.

No, I'm choosing here the bits that are internally consistent with the text.

Exactly my point. You're choosing. You are personally interpreting which parts you think are "internally consistent" (i.e., valid) and going with just those. No different than what the Falwells of the world do. I know that you don't share their view of Christianity, but it's very important you realize that fundamentally (no pun intended), there's very little difference in the method you both use to get meaning out of the bible.

One, I'm not a Christian. I'm a pagan.

My mistake. When someone so readily jumps into a conversation and tells me how they choose to interpret the bible (especially the New Testament) so as to support claims of Christ's divinity, I have a tendency to assume they're a Christian.

Are you saying that we humans are not responsible for our choices? To transpose your statement into another key, are we "blaming the victim" for "mistakes" when we criticize those who made the choice to vote for Bush and "refuse" the better vision offered to them by progressives--which in our view is very much the wrong choice?

Nice red herring. Of course we're responsible, but being responsible is completely different than being punished for eternity simply because you weren't convinced into believing in the right god. Do you disagree? Or are you A-OK with infinite punishment for finite sins?

[okasha]

148. I'm choosing the parts that are consistent with the context.

I approach the Bible as I do other literature, through two forms of exegesis. One is the "new criticism" that I was academically and professionally "brought up" in, which centers strictly on the text itself and its interrelationships. The other is an archetypal approach founded in but not limited to Northrop Frye's work, which, for instance, sees in Jesus the archetype of the sacrificial king, something that recurs throughout the Bible. Those are choices, of course, and ones that seem most useful to me. As far as I can tell, they bear no relationship to Falwell's interpretations.

Further, I look at the Bible from an historical perspective. How do the events it relates fit into what we know we know about wht was going on in the world at a given time? The answer to that is sometimes very well indeed, and at others not at all.

"When someone so readily jumps into a conversation and tells me how they choose to interpret the bible (especially the New Testament) so as to support claims of Christ's divinity, I have a tendency to assume they're a Christian."

I'm afraid I've said not one word about "Christ's divinity." In fact, I've carefully and deliberately avoided the word "Christ" to make clear I'm talking about a human and historical Jesus. What makes you think I've "supported claims of Christ's divinity?"

"Nice red herring. Of course we're responsible, but being responsible is completely different than being punished for eternity simply because you weren't convinced into believing in the right god. Do you disagree? Or are you A-OK with infinite punishment for finite sins?"

Tp amswer the last portion first, no, of course not. I don't believe in hell or any of its permutations. That doesn't mean that the Jews of Jesus' day didn't, though. The story of Lazarus and Dives seems to indicate that at least some of them did, though whether that hell is an earthly or otherworldly place as opposed to the Kindom of Heaven is another question entirely. It rather depends on what you take the Kingdom of Heaven to mean--an ideal earthly realm ruled by the Davidic Messiah (see Isaiah's Peaceable Kingdom) or somewhere "not of this world." My view is that it meant the former, and that its transfer to a purely spiritual level occured after Jesus' death and for the express purpose of getting the Roman occupation authorities off the early Church's back.

[trotsky]

149. But even your choices determine what the context is.

I fully understand that you have your own way of approaching the study of the text. But so does everyone else. (Falwell, Robertson, et al) And ultimately, your way can't be said to be more "valid" than the others, which has been my point all along. There have been more than a few fundamentalist Christians right here on DU who appear to have studied the bible at least as well as you have, yet their view is entirely different.

What makes you think I've "supported claims of Christ's divinity?"

Perhaps it was when you referred to him as the Messiah? (Post #142) Or when you avoided dealing with the difficulty of Jesus condoning, if not ordering, the execution of people by veering off to claim that it was actually the coming of the inanimate Kingdom of Heaven that would accomplish this somehow. Just those kinds of little hints, I guess. Standard Christian apologist stuff.

I don't believe in hell or any of its permutations. That doesn't mean that the Jews of Jesus' day didn't, though.

As do most Christians today. Muslims too. And all they do is read their holy texts just a little differently than you do... going right back to my main point.

[okasha]

150. All interpretations are not valid.

Sorry, but that's what I used to hear when I handed back papers with F's on them. "But Ma'am, that's my interpretation!" Sorry, but no amount of "interpretation" will turn Iago into a good guy or Cordelia into a bitch. Neither will any amount of "interpretation" turn, say, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah into an anti-gay text, given what's actually on the paper. You have to look at the work on and in its own terms and in its historical context. Falwell, Robertson and their ilk notwithstanding.

"What makes you think I've "supported claims of Christ's divinity?"

Perhaps it was when you referred to him as the Messiah?"

Okay. But "Messiah" doesn't mean "god" or "divine." It means "Anointed One." I've referred specifically to Jesus as he is presented as the Davidic Messiah--i. e., the lineal heir of David, the rightful king of Israel. All the kings, starting with Saul, were "Messiahs." The Davidic Messiah was to be one of three: a king like David, a prophet like Moses, a priest like Melchizedek. Jesus is traditionally seen as combining all three, which is why the gospels undercut early on John the Baptizer's claim on the prophet title.

"Or when you avoided dealing with the difficulty of Jesus condoning, if not ordering, the execution of people by veering off to claim that it was actually the coming of the inanimate Kingdom of Heaven that would accomplish this somehow."

You're very attached to the idea that Jesus ordered the execution of people who didn't accept him. Okay--whatever floats your boat. But you'll find nothing whatsoever in the text that supports that interpretation of the passage. Quite the opposite, in fact.

"As do most Christians today. Muslims too. And all they do is read their holy texts just a little differently than you do... going right back to my main point."

But there is at least something in that text to support their view. I don't deny that the idea of hell is presented in the Bible; it is. But not being a Christian, Jew or Muslim, I don't believe in its existence.

[trotsky]

151. But there's nobody grading bible interpretations.

And there's certainly no "teacher's key" to tell us who's done it more accurately.

It's religion. Everybody thinks they have the definitive answer, but no one can prove it.

You're very attached to the idea that Jesus ordered the execution of people who didn't accept him.

Not attached at all. First off, I don't even think he really existed. I think he's an amalgamation of common myths of the time. But the people who wrote the bible clearly did believe Jesus was someone who would judge sinners and punish many of them. You are discarding that and instead trying to determine for yourself what the Jesus character's "true message" was. I say that there is no true message to start with - and that you're just picking and choosing. No different than anyone else does.

[okasha]

153. Graded, no; evaluated, yes

"It's religion. Everybody thinks they have the definitive answer, but no one can prove it."


What is "it?" If "it" is the Bible, it's not a religion; it's a text. Texts have provenances and histories and relationships to other texts. Those things can indeed be proven, by archaeologists, linguists, hisorians and others. Because we have a political climate in the US that is currently tending toward theocracy, it's important for Christians, and others, to have access to an accurate interpretation of their sacred text that does not support the hateful agendas of the Phelpses and the Robertsons. It would be a lot harder for Robertson & Falwell to whip up homophobia, for instance, if more Christians understood that the sin of Soddom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with sex, hetero- or homo-, or if they were aware that David and Jonathan are in fact presented as lovers, or that the Greek text says that the Centurion's "servant" healed by Jesus was his "beloved youth."

"But the people who wrote the bible clearly did believe Jesus was someone who would judge sinners and punish many of them. "You are discarding that . . .."

No, again. There are clear references to a final judgement in the NT, and it is included in both the Nicene and Apostles' creeds. But Jesus as judge does not appear in the parable that began this discussion. You are extrapolating general conclusions from very specific points I've made about very specific passages.

". . . . and instead trying to determine for yourself what the Jesus character's "true message" was."

LOL. Well, shame on me for thinking for myself!

[Inland]

79. You're wasting your time.

You'll never find a more literal reading of the bible, a more dogmatic interpretation of christianity, a more fevered insistence about what a christian must by definition believe, and a less recognizable set of beliefs, then when arguing with an atheist that's trying to make religion look bad.

It's even less profitable than arguing with a fundie, because the atheists that seek out these discussions here don't have any particular interest in being correct about what is actually believed. So you get all the same biblical passages out of context, all the extremist statements, all the dogma, all the intolerance you would get arguing with the most rabid rightwinger extreme God Hates Fags fundies, without any goal of doing anything besides setting up a straw man, identifying you with it, and then knocking it down.

[greyl]

82. You're missing the point of this exchange. nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

88. Excuse me, but...

It is not atheists who assert that the Bible is the literally true Word of God, and who then use that assertion as an excuse to own slaves, murder homosexuals, subjugate women and commit genocide. Just because you don't hold that view doesn't mean most Christians don't either; remember, the Protestant Reformation was based on this assertion, and most Protestant churches still endorse this doctrine (officially, at least.)

[Inland]

89. Thanks for the example.

When there's a need for some christian bashing, there's an implication (at least) that every christian believes the bible to be literally true. Then the christian says, I don't believe that, and the atheist either argues with her or asserts that most christians believe that. You and I both know better.

I would add your post, which argued that so and so is Official Dogma--which is a nice touch because then it ddoesn't matter WHO believes it, or if NO christian believes it, because it's Official.

I stand by my post in its entirety.

[TechBear_Seattle]

90. Hold your horses and look at what I have been posting

I never said that every Christian believes the Bible to be literally true. I said that the Protestant Reformation was based on that dogma, and that most Protestant churches still officially promulgate that dogma.

When speaking of believers, I recognize that "all" is a logical fallacy. However, that does not change the fact that recent polls indicate some 60% to 65% (different polls, different results) of Americans hold that the Bible is literally true. Whether or not they actually understand the implications of that belief is not the matter under discussion.

[Inland]

91. The more it's qualified, the less bashing.

The more one qualifies these statements to bring them in line with the truth, the less one is able to use them for bashing. For that reason, you don't see much qualification.

That the tactic is used is quite indisputable. I stand by my post in it's entirety.

[okasha]

134. The Protestant Reformation was based on two principles:

1. The priesthood of all believers--no necessity for a clerical hierarchy; and

2. The sufficiency of the Scriptures for salvation, not necessarily their inerrancy. Luther didn't think much of Revelations and tried mightily to find a way to pitch it out.

In any case, all but the fundamentalists have long since abandoned the notion that everything in the Bible is literally, historically true.

[Dorian Gray]

143. It is not Catholic Doctrine....

And they are still the largest Christine denomination worldwide.

[trotsky]

104. Um, Inland...

the point is not to use a literal, dogmatic interpretation of Christianity but to show that such an interpretation is unfortunately no more or less valid than any other, including the most liberal and tolerant of them.

But please don't let that stop you from your daily atheist bash based on what you THINK our motivations are.

[More Than A Feeling]

52. The Eastern Orthodox, Henry VIII, Martin Luther, and John Calvin

. Secularists all;-) You're right, though, in saying that today you don't have to be as brave as those people to criticize the Bible, because of secularism. My point is merely that people have always had the ability to criticize, it was just a question of the consequences they would face for doing so.

[TechBear_Seattle]

63. Aside from replying to the wrong post...

You have it backwards regarding the Eastern Orthodox. The Orthodox Church predates the Roman Catholic by several centuries. In fact, when you look at the Nicene Creed as passed by the Ecumentical Councils, the RCC is, in fact, in apostacy and has been for more than a thousand years because of their adding "filioque" ("and from the Son") into the Creed. :hi:

[okasha]

135. Add George Fox, Roger Williams,

John Wesley, John Wycliffe, Miles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer, Elizabeth I, and a long, long line of others.

[papau]

69. Well said :-)

:-)

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. Please, do not confuse me with being a Christian

I have worked as a Christian minister. I started a course of study that would have led to ordination as an Episcopal priest. And still, after more than 20 years, I am a student of Christian history, theology, Scripture. All of which is why I am, more or less, an atheist today. :hi:

[trotsky]

39. Oh, yeah I wouldn't make that mistake.

I was more referring to the person you had addressed. I've seen enough of your posts, TB_S, to know you're certainly not a Christian. :)

[papau]

67. I appreciate your background and wondered what led you more or less

to being an atheist today?

How many years were you in seminary? The Episcopal training in the US does not force a lot of dogma, if any, on a theist's beliefs, assuming your chosen path is to be a Christian, IMHO.

[TechBear_Seattle]

86. Since you ask...

My religious background is pretty varied. As a kid, I went to Sunday School at an unaffiliated community church. In my mid teens, I started following Wicca and in my late teens, I followed my boyfriend in to the Metropolitan Community Church. I was baptized in 1985, at the age of 17, and was made a deacon a year latter (in MCC, deacons are lay people authorized by the congregation to exercize a ministry.) For almost two years, I held a pastoral ministry that consisted of celebrating communion, home and hospital visitations, etc. and supervised the church's collecting and distribution of food, clothing, money and other resources for those in the community who were in need. I ended up leaving the church when I was 20, partially from burn-out and partially because of theological questions.

I returned to Wicca for a time, then started attending services at a politically liberal, theologically conservative Episcopal Church (smells, bells and velvet gowns, "mass" instead of "service", worship using lots of Gregorian plainsong, and a large sign out front proclaiming it to be a sin to build nuclear weapons.)

After several months, I moved to California's Central Valley and continued in a less high church Episcopal congregation. I was confirmed and had spoken to the rector about ordination; we agreed that, as a gay man, the Diocese of the San Juaquin would not be a good fit. I then moved to Arcata, California, to attend Humboldt State University. There I was active in the local Episcopal Church where I helped start an affirming outreach to the gay community; I also returned to Wicca, became a third degree initiate, and served as an elder. I reconciled this by holding a pantheist view of God as "the highest Good" who didn't care how S/He was worshipped.

In the mid 90s, I moved to Seattle and started attending St. Mark's Cathedral. The cathedral parish includes Seattle's main gay neighborhood and is very open. I began diocesan school (classes offered by the diocese) to become a lay reader and eucharist minister, which is the first step towards ordination, and was pulling the money together to attend the University of Washington to finish my bachelor's degree (Episcopal seminaries are post-graduate, and I had not yet gotten my degree.)

Academically, I became interested in Church history and theology at the time I began with MCC. As a newly baptized convert, I took to reading the Bible in depth, even to the point of cross-referencing several English translations and a interlinear of the Textus Receptus Greek and a literal translation of it in an effort to find deeper meaning. At HSU, I took several classes in Religious Studies (taught through the philosophy department) and even did an independent study class on the Great Schism between the Orthodox and Catholic branches of Christianity. I read extensively about theology, with a focus on how it developed over the centuries from primitive Christianity to the many different forms of modern faith. Studies done within the context of church learning -- Bible studies, confirmation classes, diocesan school -- were compared to what I had learned from other sources and my own talents as a thinker and scholar.

By the late 1990s, I a series of personal crises forced me to confront my beliefs directly in the face. I realized that, while I enjoyed being part of the community and while the work of a minister was fulfilling, I simply did not reconcile the many contradictions and inconsistencies in Christian dogma, either with each other or with reason. I returned briefly to Wicca again, and found that my revelations about Christianity applied there as well. I have been pretty much an atheist since.

[papau]

92. Thank You very much for your reply-I am sorry that you were unable to go

through seminary before your series of personal crises occurred, as I believe that background might have helped you at that time - but I know from my own series of personal crises that in terms of grief there may be comfort from mamy sources, but "time" is the only thing that "heals" - and it only heals in the sense of the pain becoming less intense.

You have an impressive background - and truly are an asset to this forum in addition to walking the walk as you formed your own set of beliefs.

It is an honor to be able to post to you.

As a religious note I am a Christian having passed through the Episcopal, Roman, and Orthodox worlds/organizations and studies at various points in my life, albeit never ordained, with a love of the early Bishops of 100AD to 350 AD and a nod to all the other religious teachers and teachings I have studied. Of late, Unitarian/Universalist meetings have been of interest as I wanted to understand the atheist thoughts "up close and personal" (so to say :-) ), as well as the other many forms of spiritual feeling - plus as I said, I am into Clement, Bishop of Rome, c. 100, and Origen (ca. 185-254).

I am also convinced that we liberal progressives need to check our differences at the door, including belief/non-belief/and religious schism du jure, as we enter the game that we would like to win so as to advance the liberal progressive agenda.

[hunter]

140. St. Mark's Cathedral is a fascinating place.

I've attended some beautiful services there. (Shhhhhh.... don't tell the Pope!)

I'm also very familiar with California's Central Valley. It's hard to explain what sort of place it is to outsiders: Its sort of like Kansas, but with Mexicans, many who have lived there a very long time. Then there are little pockets here and there of very distinct ethnic groups (Portuguese, Italian, Hmong, you name it...) and a healthy sprinkling of economic refugees from the big cities. You also have drug addicts living in junky trailers surrounded by tall weeds full of bloodsucking ticks, and some of them are cooking meth. If you are doing any sort of scientific field work it's best to be cautious, but that probably applies to most of the United States now.

In the south you've got cranky old oil people gleaning what little is left of the great oil fields. The Elk Hills oil field, center of the "Teapot Dome" scandal is there. The "Teapot Dome" oil field in Wyoming is what lit this national scandal off, but Elk Hills was the grand prize.

If you have a fast internet connection, these are the Elk Hills:

http://virtualguidebooks.com/CentralCalif/SanJoaquinValley/WestSideOilFields/ElkHillsOilField_FS.html

In the northern valley you've got 1800's California conservative white people. (Chico State University is a little island in that.)

So far as religion goes, I sort of live in the Great Schism, although I've been mostly Catholic for the past twenty years or so. The nice thing about Catholic Churches is you can find one anywhere. But my apostasy is such that I'll probably see you in hell, TechBear_Seattle. I used to pay some attention to what the Orthodox think it takes to cleanse someone of Roman Catholicism, but not so much anymore. I trust God will sort it out.

Wicca never appealed so much to me so much as eastern religions did. Sometimes I can see Shinto's Kami, and other times Buddhism is very appealing to me. Atheism lacks a certain sort of spirituality I'm looking for. For some reason the Unitarian Universalists make me crazy.

[okasha]

132. Or maybe they've just read/heard the parable of the Good Samaritan.

The Samaritans were the Jewish heretics of Jesus' day. They had their own priesthood and their own Temple on Mount Tabor. Samaria had been the political enemy of the kingdom of Judah. Yet it's the orthodox "priest and Levite" who pass by the wounded man left on the road to die, and the Samaritan who is held up as the example of right action and faith. That's a pretty clear statement that you don't have to hold to official dogma as long as you act out of charity--love of God and love of neighbor. And as you know if you've been to seminary, traditional theology builds on that to make provision for the redemption of righteous persons outside of Christianity.

[Inland]

9. Yes, I read it in the Official Christian Dogma handbook.

Ratified 60-40 at the Christian World Convention, 1964. See all the Official Dogma at: www.everychristianbelievesexactlythisbecauseitsOFFICIAL.com

[Deep13]

13. Me too, in the Epistles.

[Inland]

16. Sure you did.

After all, it's tough to find something that HASN'T been read in the Bible. It's that sort of book.

[Lerkfish]

10. "those who act as if under the law are a law unto themselves"

where did this line come from, and why does it counter your assumption?
If you cannot answer this basic tenet of christianity, you shouldnt make blanket assumptions the religion.

[Deep13]

18. You tell me.

It's not an assumption. It is direct observation.

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. I searched through several translations of the Bible

And could not find the quote you provided. How, actually, does it counter my assertion (not assumption)?

[chefgirl]

22. HA!

Now that's got to be one of the funniest posts I've read.

If you had bothered to read more than the title of my reply, you would realize that I was calling the person I replied to wrong because he/she was the one spouting off about who was right and who was wrong.

But, you keep working on it and you'll catch up pretty soon. No, really...

-chef-

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. I was responding to the first assertion of your post, in the title

Since you wish me to continue...

If you accept that "{n}o one belief is any more or less valid than another" then you reject historic Christianity in its entirety. You reject the Nicene Creed, established in 325 (and slightly modified in two subsequent Councils) as the end-all and be-all of Christian dogma. You reject almost 17 centuries of doctrine and scriptural interpretation.

Mind you, I don't care one way or another. I just want to establish that you are aware your beliefs are not, in any way, representative of the vast majority of Christians alive today, and would have gotten you condemned as a heretic by almost every Christian clergyman and theologian to have lived in the last 2000 years.

[chefgirl]

34. Well, I cant help where my reply showed up

I'm fully aware what you were responding to. I cant control where my reply to you shows up in the thread, however.

If you accept that "{n}o one belief is any more or less valid than another" then you reject historic Christianity in its entirety.

Again, you're assuming that I believe in 'historic Christianity' as its understood in its present sense.

I am a Christian because I believe in the message of Christ. The spirit of the message cannot be diluted, except by people who want to accept the Bible as the literal 'word of God'. It is no such thing, and for you to presume that I cannot be a Christian without accepting the decisions of the Nicene council or any other man made dogma, is completely simplistic on your part.

As to your comment about me being branded a heretic, I'll share a very wise quote I read recently:

" the greatest heretic of all is Jesus of Nazareth, who drove the money changers from the temple in Jerusalem" Bill Moyers

Thats company I don't mind being associated with.

-chef-

[sybylla]

11. How lucky for you

that you belong to a sect of Christianity that allows respect for other beliefs (or perhaps I'm making an improper assumption that your beliefs are in line with your church).

I have relatives in a variety of sects who spend a fair amount of time scoffing at, debasing and outright stomping on the beliefs of other Christians - fortunately not in front of each other or holidays would be a nightmare. Having attended weddings, baptisms and other events at these churches, it is apparent that it is part of the church dogma and not just a sick need of my relatives to prop themselves and their beliefs up by taking others down.

It is unfortunate that the first poster made a sweeping generalization. Sometimes its hard not to when there is seemingly so much evidence for it.

[Deep13]

12. "...to be respected and accepted as 'their' truth."

Something is either true or it is not. There is only one set of facts, regardless of what people believe. If belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation then those who do not are not saved. You are rationalizing to avoid this harsh result. I used to be in the same boat.

[chefgirl]

26. Another assumption about my beliefs

If my reason for believing in Jesus was simply to assure my eternal salvation, you would be correct. You are ascribing OTHERS beliefs to me, but you say I'm the one rationalizing?

A person's truth is NOT always dependent on facts alone. Is there anyone in your life that you love? Can you prove it to me factually? Nevertheless, it is YOUR truth.

-chef-

[Deep13]

32. "Is there anyone in your life that you love? "

My wife. We have been together for 14 years and have done much for each other and are relationship is stronger than ever as we are inseperable. We use the term "duocracy" to describe our relationship. I think that demonstrates that we love each other. What does that have to do with whether or not it is necessary to believe in J.C. for salvation?

You are changing the definition of "truth" to be a synonym for "perception" or "belief". That's not what that word means.

[chefgirl]

38. It has nothing to do with believing in Christ for the purpose of salvation

For the first time in this thread I'm confused. You say you've been with your wife for 14 years, done much for eachother, etc.. Are you saying you love your wife then? I'm not being facetious, I'm wondering if you're trying to say something about the word 'love' being unnecessary??

I'm going to assume you do mean you love your wife, and continue by saying that, being together, doing much for eachother, etc, doesnt prove anything but that youve been together, done much for eachother etc...

You still cannot factually 'prove' love.

I am not using the word truth as a synonym at all. You've left out a very important word there...YOUR truth. By definition, if a person 'believes' in a thing, it is THEIR truth, even though it may not be able to be factually proven as 'truth', per se.

-chef-

[Deep13]

44. I can't prove the subjective feeling of infatuation.

Love is more than that. It is a verb and actions demonstrate its existance. We would not have been together and put up with so much if we did not love each other. When she lived in Cleveland and I lived in Toledo working for a slave driver, she drove two hours to see me every weekend. When here screwed-up family undermines her self esteem, I am her biggest cheerleader.

By making truth subjective, you are changing the meaning of that word. You are simply altering the definition so you can clothe your subjective beliefs in objective language. There is the truth and individual perceptions. There is no "your truth" anymore than there is "your gravity."

[chefgirl]

51. This is becoming circular now

I'm not making 'truth' subjective. YOUR truth is whats subjective here.


It may seem true to you that you 'love' your wife, and that she 'loves' you, (and I was very moved by the things you shared about what the two of you have endured together) but those are still 'demonstrations' of love, not proof.

That is where the word Faith becomes relevant. You have faith that your wife loves you and she obviously has the same faith in you.

Now, apply that concept to MY faith in the message of Christ, and I think you will understand what I mean by YOUR truth.

-chef-

[Deep13]

56. Proof is demonstrative by nature.

Anyway, any faith I have in Sweetie is based on past experience. I cannot know for a fact that she will not screw me over tomorrow, but based on our experience I can safely have 'faith' that she will not.

Also, I have no need of proving that I love my wife. It is a matter for us. Also, there can be know doubt that both ends of the relationship, My wife's and mine, actually exist. You may believe what you like about Christ's message. I don't dispute its wisdom. Nevertheless, if it is the message you believe in, you are at odds with modern Christian teaching which makes the crucificion the defining event in that religion.

[Goblinmonger]

37. Have you read the first commandment

It's right at the top of the list. It says that your god is better than all the others. And have you read any of the multitude of versions of the Nicene/Apostle's creed? That is pretty clear about it too. And that creed, in some variation, is the basis for most of Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed)

[chefgirl]

40. The Ten Commandments are from the Old Testament

The Ten Commandments are NOT Christian teaching. They are from the Old Testament. The New Testament begins the teachings of Christ.

I suggest, if you want to really know what Jesus taught, not Moses, you read the Beatitudes, to be found in the New Testament.

-chef-

[Goblinmonger]

45. Since posting

I have read the entirity of your posts on here. I have no problem with you defining yourself however you want.

I do have some questions. Isn't the old testament really the context for the new testament? Without an understanding of the OT, isn't a VAST portion of the NT just jibberjabber?

Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus? Not being an asshole, just trying to understand your views (which I find interesting at this point). I have some follow up clarification which is different based on your answer to this.

[Deep13]

46. Jesus said that he was not there is invalidate the Law,...

...but to enforce it. Sorry, don't have the cite handy. (Of course, this assumes that 1. there was a Jesus and 2. the NT is an accurate reflection of his statements.)

[saltpoint]

49. With respect, chefgirl, Jesus of Galilee did not author the Beatitudes.

So far as we know today, the man never wrote one syllable of his beliefs down for the consideration of a later age.

Not a syllable.

Christianity is not the history of the faith or belief system of Jesus. It is the amalgam of observations and assimilations and interpolations of other writers, significantly Paulist writers, who lived after Jesus. There is no incontrovertible evidence that one word of the NT was written by a contemporary of Jesus.

[saltpoint]

54. Here is a website with a brief summary of the Beatitudes,

which are believed to have pre-dated the ministry of Jesus by some years.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/8februar.htm


Jesus, whoever he might actually have been, was like anyone else in large part a man of his own times, even if he was spiritually progressive in comparison to established Scripture, which is my bias for him rather than an actual fact.

There is much scholarly speculation that he eschewed the synagogue and the temple and preferred the unabashed and unmitigated experience of the desert. The Dead Sea Scrolls might have been known to him. In any case, the Scrolls contain early identifiable remnants of the Beatitudes.

[saltpoint]

59. And here is another:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/moretext/claims.htm

containing this excerpt:

"Much of Matthew's 'Sermon on the
Mount' (not found in Mark, nor John and broken into pieces and
scattered through his Gospel by Luke's author) contains a good
deal borrowed from pre-Christian religion, eg. Matt 5 is found
in the pre-Christian Book of the Secrets of Enoch (52:ll) and
Matthew 5:34-37 is also found there (49:l). In chap. 42 of this
pre-Christian book, there are beatitudes which resemble the
Gospel ones both in number and form."\
\

___
edit: glitsch after Matt 5 ...

[chefgirl]

74. As its almost time for me to leave,

Im going to use this reply to try and answer to the last few replies to me, rather than try to post to each seperately.

To Deep13, you're absolutely right, you have NO need of proving you love your wife, its YOUR truth, and thats all that matters. Beyond that, a semantic argument about imperical truth as opposed to YOUR truth can only end with us, at best, agreeing to disagree.

To Goblinmonger, peoples understanding of the God of the Old Testament WAS the root of the teachings of Jesus, but his problem was with the peoples reliance on written doctrine and outward displays of piety, while not making an effort to actually 'be' more Godlike in their hearts. This is not my 'interpretation' but part of the message attributed to Jesus in the New Testament.
With regard to the divinity of Christ, I will answer this way..yes, I believe he was the 'son of God', just as I believe all of us are children of God. We are all endowed with a divinity, in my opinion, which a wiser man than me once described as 'the better Angels of our nature'. I am well aware that this is not put forth in the New Testament as written, but using my better judgement when reading deeply into the 'spirit' of the message attributed to Jesus, I will readily admit, it IS a personal interpretation. I base that interpretation on other words attributed to Jesus in which he asserted the Kingdom of God is to be found in us all.
This is truly the root of my belief in Christianity. If you told me a head of lettuce had said this same thing, however, and called it Romainianity, :silly: the inherent wisdom of the message would remain the same in my mind.

(I am also well aware that the rabid atheists in this thread will more than likely see my last statement as some kind of AHA! moment, but it will still be the atheists in this thread attempting to judge my beliefs against what they THINK all Christians automatically must believe in.)

Finally, to Old Crusoe I never once said Jesus 'authored' the Beatitudes. What I said was that they were the Teachings of Jesus. Jesus, was after all, a human being, just as we all are, who was influenced surely, by the best of the teachings he absorbed in the course of his life. What is not in doubt, however, is that he utilized those teachings, in the form of the Beatitudes, in His sermon on the Mount, and again, the message cannot be diluted, regardless of the actual 'author'.

No one is going to change another's deeply held beliefs on a discussion board, folks, just remember, it wasn't ME in this thread trying to tell atheists what they're supposed to believe in as atheists.

-chef-
(who believes she has said enough in this thread for any intellectually honest person to understand her beliefs sufficiently)

[saltpoint]

75. Exclusivity of faith was the point, chefgirl. Jesus borrowed from

the past, as we all do.

[JerseygirlCT]

141. Absolutely positvely agree. nt

[papau]

68. I agree - it is ok to be a non-believer, everyone does have a right to

their own thoughts and beliefs - and no one should throw any belief system in your face.

[SidDithers]

98. On that, we are in total agreement...

:cheers:

Sid

[papau]

107. Great! now can we get we all lose the attitude and elect some progressive

:-)

[C_U_L8R]

2. Comparing with Dinner ???

FSM - the spiritual entity that nourishes

[LiberalVoice]

3. Anytime anybody tries to push a story on me...

with no evidence, for which no evidence is even conceivable, then I have every right to tell that person they believe in a faery tale.

[Inland]

5. When it's invited by a poll question.

It's impossible to dismiss the complexity and depth of a religious ideology by comparing it to teeth placed under pillows, and I can't think of why anyone would do so except out of ignorance or a desire to insult, or a good dollop of both.

[chefgirl]

6. I have to agree

:thumbsup:

-chef-

[Strong Atheist]

14. Of course, this is nothing like when weak atheists don't like to

be told that they have a belief system, right?:eyes:

[Lerkfish]

15. amen

:)

[Inland]

19. Ya got me.

No, really, I don't know what you're talking about or the point you're trying to make.

[LiberalVoice]

17. Ummmm no?

They're probably more similar then you think. They are both old stories that have changed over time(depending on who tells it) to suit whoevers telling its situation. And as for the "complexity and depth of religious ideology" well, the ONLY REASON people believe in god is because they were trained to, and everyone else around them was trained to, and they stick with it becuase of a quirky little catch22. The idea that if you dont believe in god you are inferior and destined to spend eternity in a hole in the ground filled with fire.

[Inland]

20. Not convincing.

Frankly, I don't accept any of the factual assertions besides the "old" part, only because nobody bothers to see if, for example, the tooth under the pillow bit is old or not, and religions tend to pretend to be old at the least.

Why not put your finger on the sole similarity, which is, the existence of both deities and tooth faires are unproven? Then you can move on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Which is why 'tooth fairy' is at one extreme of 'unacceptable'

But I really do want to know if there are people who think that saying theism is in the same class as believing in trolls is significantly different from saying it's like believing in angels. Possibly it is - because the Norse religion is dead and gone, effectively (I have my doubts as to whether the few who do claim to still have it as a religion have really continued it, or made it up again from the tales they think sound nice), and so there's no-one left to defend it, while Christianity and other angel-believing religions are still powerful. The position of Santa Claus is also worth real discussion - a Christian person used by many Christians to represent am important part of Christianity - generosity - in a way we all agree is just a story. But does that mean we can't say classing that bit of Christianity with another - say Jesus' miracles - is wrong?

But if the wish is that all 'dubious' bits of religions are not discussed here, because some think they don't belong in a serious religion - eg demons, the afterlife - then maybe we should all agree to do that, and restrict ourselves to ethical questions.

[Deep13]

35. No difference.

Well, the tooth faery is a story for children, not a religion. It does, however, condition children at an early age to be in the believing mind-set. One observation, there is at least circumstantial evidence that a tooth faery exists. A child puts a tooth under the pillow and the next moring, somehow the tooth has been replaced with a quarter. While far from conclusive, it is something. Same with Santa Claus, with the presence of presents under the tree and the parents disavowing knowledge, the natural conclusion is to accept the existence of Santa, even though there are more plausible theories available if one is willing to disbelieve authority.

Christians call lesser dieties angels or saints in order to maintain the pretext of monotheism. Otherwise, there is no difference between angels, saints and the pantheon of gods of so-called pagan religions. There is a saint for everything just as there is a Greek god for everthing. I think these things are part of the theology to ease the transition from pagan to Christian thinking.

[Inland]

84. All you have to do is ignore 99% of what a religion is, and does.

Narrowing religion down to "believing in angels" sure makes it look like believing in trolls. So does equating religion with lighting candles with putting teeth under pillows. All you have to do is make religion really, really small and it looks really, really small.

Same with the poster that notes that religion is learned in childhood, thereby implying it it childISH.

So tell me, what's the resemblance between a story about a troll under the bridge and, say, Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society? Well, one you can dismiss as a simple story for simple minds. One you can't. YOu can dismiss theology as premised on an unproven god, but you can't dismiss is as childish, simplistic, or similar to something some evil or dumb person said once.

For better or worse, religion is bigger than a fairy tale. Nobody every killed anyone for dissing the three billy goats gruff, nobody ever held a conference to write a creed re: the tooth fairy. They are significantly different.

So fact is, whenever I see the "fairy tale", I know it's a dis, and not for any real reason. What they mean is, not just unproven, but silly, childish, laughable, primitive. But strange, no other people with "unproven" presumptions get that sort of treatment. That's reserved for those people with the bad taste to both be religious believers and liberals on DU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Trolls play an important part in Norse creation mythology

http://www.bergen-guide.com/345.htm

just as angels play a significant part in tales about the founding of the Judaic, Christian and Muslim religions. Roman Catholicism still has rituals of exorcism, and Pat Robertson believes he has cast out demons too. While trolls also appear as comic monsters in children's tales, so do demons; significant numbers of Americans believe in angels taking a part in present-day life.

So far, just two people think there's a difference between drawing attention to believing in trolls, and believing in angels. Yes, the Abrahamic religions are a lot bigger than than just believing in angels, but believing in them is generally accepted as a valid form of those religions, even by the members who personally don't believe in them. So why do trolls get such a bad reputation as 'dissing' religion when they're mentioned?

Fairy stories are folk beliefs that once meant a lot to adults, going back to pre-Christian European beliefs.

As I said, we could just restrict our conversation to ethical questions, and stop the talk about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or an afterlife. I presume you were the one who thinks that no religions should be compared, and so concentrate on morality in the forum?

[greyl]

99. ...and there are people on DU who actually believe in fairies.

According to them.

[Inland]

123. Missing the point, again.

It doesn't matter if they play "an important part", in some sense. Teeth play an important part of the tooth fairy stuff as well, but it doesn't make the exercise relevant to dentistry.

Religion is bigger than angels and fairies. Religion is bigger than superstition. For better or for worse. Nobody ever organized a way of life around the concept of tapping spikes three times to get a hit, or whether to have sex on game day. That someone really believes that doesn't make it religion and sure doesn't make religion the same as it. That somebody really believes in something that isn't provable doesn't make it religion and doesn't make religion the same as it. It's really quite ignorant simply pick something that is truly believed and unproven and say, "there's no difference between that and religion". Moreover, it's not coincidence that it's usually something childish or insane.

Restricting conversations to ethical considerations isn't really part of a religion and theology section. Most threads with ethical considerations borne of explicitly religious themes are treated as an invitation to flame, even in R&T. Good luck.

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. So you don't see any point in the R/T forum, then?

You seem to say superstitions aren't suitable topics for discussion; neither are ethical considerations. So is there anything you'd like to see discussed here? Or should it be a write-only forum, where religious topics are moved from GD to die unseen?

[Inland]

146. It's not the topic.

It's what's simply incorrect, ignorant or made for the point of being insulting for the pure fun of it. I suppose nobody's going to get kicked out of the section for discussing superstitions, or anything else, but there's no other section that pure unadulterated horseshit is encouraged. In practice, it's the Storm Drain of DU.

As to whether ethical considerations can be considered, sure...but not if there's religion or theology in the discussion, lest it draw the usual suspects. Seems to me the only topic that's sure to be shit on in the R&T forum is one about religion.

[trotsky]

137. Do you have any purpose in threads in this forum...

other than to piss on them? The folks who speak up and say homosexuality is a sin, or that anyone who doesn't think like them is going to hell, yada yada, not worthy of your time. But God(!) forbid an atheist share a slightly less than complimentary opinion about religion - Inland swoops in to insult and bash.

[Deep13]

23. Bush and the Pope take a rowboat trip to get away from their staff.

Bush realizes he forgot something. The Pope says, "I'll get it!" and walks across the water to shore to retreive the item. Impressed, Bush decides to try that for himself and immediately drowns. In his report to the police, the Pope sadly remarks that he should have told Bush where the rocks are.

[papau]

28. If the atheist belief system requires continuing "fairy tales" posts on DU

well we liberal progressives that are also theists and may even be Christian understand the need to true to the dogma of your religion, and we promise to be tolerant and not annoyed by such posts and posters.

Indeed, we promise to not consider those atheists doing the daily/hourly posting on DU of the correctness of their atheist religion and the wrongness of other religions, using such terms as "fairy stories"', as uninformed deniers of their own and others life experiences and rational thinking, indeed not ever thinking of any atheist poster or post as "odious", or to feel that any member (on DU who spends most of their "political effort" as an atheist conversion member) is ever out of line when they are scoffing at, debasing and outright stomping on the beliefs of others.

Heck, I seem to recall an atheist telling me the above was in the rules for the use of DU.

[Deep13]

33. Thanks.

Anyway it's a non-belief system. But, still thanks.

[papau]

36. Glad it was Ok - and your joke was excellent.

Atheism is indeed a belief in non-belief, no matter how illogical, with dogma that demands the atheist believer to consider all others as believers in fairy tales.

Until I saw these DU atheist posts in R/T, I never realized that their dogma also calls on them to forgo any attempt at tolerance, comity, or even just good manners, in their need to be in your face 24/7/365 and be evangelical atheists.

But while some may hate the bad manners, we still love the passionate belief - the I am right and all others are wrong - that pervades their posts.

[Deep13]

42. I'm not intolerant, nor do I have bad manners.

I simply tell the truth as I see it when asked about it. I think anytime an issue is roped-off as untouchable, we are deciding to lie to ourselves. I work for an Evangelical Christian and we get along just fine. We don't talk about religion. I can't speak for others. I will point out that atheists are an extreme minority in this country. Consequently, when people complain about how atheists are somehow forcing their views on others, it rings a bit hollow.

I would like to know how atheists are illogical as you claim. "A belief in non-belief" takes some liberty with the language. It is not a belief which requires acceptance without proof, but an acceptance because of proof. While I cannot prove G/god does not exist, there is substantial evidence that we as humans made H/him up. It is not that I am convinced there is no God so much as there is no reason to conclude he is real. If someone proves it tomorrow, I will be the first to admit error.

P.S. on edit.

I also cannot prove that there is no Bigfoot, Zeus, fountain of youth or galaxies whose stars spell the words to the Oscar Meyer balogne jingle, but the evidence for these things is essentially non-existant nonetheless. That's why we need proof.

[papau]

65. And I simply tell the truth about atheism being a religion and that

atheists are illogical when they deny their own or others life experiences.

"atheists are an extreme minority in this country. Consequently, when people complain about how atheists are somehow forcing their views on others, it rings a bit hollow." both rings and is a bit hollow.

Most folks do indeed get along fine as long as no one is in their face telling them their beliefs are wrong, and that they are only telling them this because it is important to get the truth out.

[Strong Atheist]

100. Atheism is a religion the B* is a

democrat:eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

47. If I were to write a post about Christianity and Christians

which contained what Christians on DU "actually" think and the rest of the spiteful bullshit that you post about atheists, my post would be deleted. If I continued to do that (like you and a number of others continue to do with what atheists on DU "really" think), I would be tombstoned.

Yet here you are and there is your post.

[papau]

55. Sorry - your post is not true on a couple of points

First - day in day out hour by hour there are posts on DIU by atheists as to what Christians on DU "actually" think, or are based on the assumtions by the poster as to what Christians think.


But I do agree with you that my rewording of those posts so as to show how "equally true" they are when the atheist/Christian role are in reverse in the post does not remove the spiteful bullshit that was in those posts orginally.

And if I were to use the phrase "spiteful bullshit" toward another DUer, I am sure I would be tomestone.

[Goblinmonger]

57. Please do

point out those posts to me. There may be posts as to what the dogma of Christianity is and that may differ from the "interpretation" of people on DU who declare themselves Christain, but that is wholly different.

But please, give me some examples that are the equivalent of "you have a belief system in god" after being told that is wrong, having it explained, and having it requested that it not continue. I'm eagerly awaiting support for your claim.

And any first year law student can tell you that the truth is an absolute defense against slander/libel. It is spiteful bullshit. It is bigotry. Atheists such as myself have explained why we do not have a belief system in god. We have explained why atheism is not a religion (though that particular discussion always seems bizarre to me). And yet you continue to call us liars and inform us as to what we "really" think. You wouldn't consider that spiteful? Bigoted? Well, it is.

But again, show me those posts.

[papau]

60. "equivalent" is a judgement call in any comparison, but atheist religion

is an observable truth.

Saying the sun does not shine may be part of the faith of some, but the sun does shine and atheism is a religion - indeed it is an evangilical fundi religion as practiced on DU.

[Goblinmonger]

66. How do you get to stay on DU?

If I said this:

atheism is a religion - indeed it is an evangilical fundi religion as practiced on DU

about Christians on DU, I'd be out.

And nice job with the support for your claim that atheists on DU tell Christians what they believe. Most people's arguments fall apart at the warrant level. You can't even get past the data. Toulmin would declare your argument a failed one.

[papau]

76. LOL - evangelical fundi religion is an observation of the posts on

R/T on DU - and indeed you are correct that these posts do not necessarily convey the true meaning of organized atheism.

"Beliefs fall apart at the warrent level" is curious concept - but if that floats your boat, great.

And Toulmin's layout of Argumentation presumes one is using the argument to get to some agreement - I am not trying to convert anyone - you are.

[Goblinmonger]

96. I'm an English teacher

so if you want some help with reading comprehension, I'd be glad to help out.

I DID NOT SAY that beliefs fall apart at the warrant level. I said that most people have problems with their arguments at the warrant level. You, on the other hand, don't even have data to support your arugment that atheists tell christians on DU what they believe. Don't think I have forgotten that you have offered JACK SHIT in the way of data to support that claim. I'm still waiting for your unsubstantiated claim to turn into something other than a giant turd.

And Toulmin's layout of Argumentation presumes one is using the argument to get to some agreement - I am not trying to convert anyone - you are.

I never ceased to be amazed at the way you can completely ignore the issue at hand and turn it into something it isn't even close to being. Let me spell it out for you, O Obtuse One:

YOU made an argument that atheists on DU told DU Christians that they actually believed something they did not. That is an argument. Toulmin's construct evaluates arguments. I said you have no data to support that argument. Is that clear enough for you, or are you going to continue to ignore the issue? What the fuck does that have to do with trying to convert someone? STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

[papau]

101. Seems English teachers may lack logic and memory at times -no data?

There are many non-atheists that have noted what I noted.

One need not be "obtuse" to note the obvious.

You can deny as much as you like but it will not change the fact that atheists tell individual DU posters who are Christians what they believe. I am sure it is the fact that they well trained in the topic that gives carte Blanc to tell others not only what they believe but also why it wrong. A side benefit no doubt is the fact that doing so makes cut and past from the many atheists sites on the net so much more "on point". :sarcasm:

You do seem to have a scatological bent - but perhaps that is just par for the course in your world as you make friends and plan political action with those that hold only some of your beliefs.

In any case, ir does make R/T a lovely place to post in.

[Goblinmonger]

103. So my point is the same

please provide links to some of those posts. You know how to use the search engine, don't you? Cause guess what? Just because others say what you say doesn't make it true. Google "Big Lie" if you want a description of that fallacy.

My choice of curse words varies according to the day and topic. Something about your posts made me turn to scat references. Go figure.

[papau]

105. No - you look at the threads and come back and explain how they

are not best described as I and other non-atheists have described them.

There is rarely a good reason to placate a bully that lies - and certainly to show you all the posts will not change your posting otherwise - we went through this exercise a few months ago - and I note you are back with today's evangelical denial.

It is pointless to point out truth to those that will not see.

Use the above statement free of charge. Oh wait, the atheists here have been using that attitude for years. Guess you know how to work the phrase so it is dripping with sarcasm.

[Goblinmonger]

109. How about NO

YOU are the one that made the argument. YOU are the one that needs to provide that data to support it. Don't you realize how silly it is to make an argument and then charge someone else with proving your argument false?

My entry into this discussion was a response to stuff you were posting--who's the bully here? Who is telling someone else what they think? I have proof in this thread that you are telling atheists that they have a belief system in god. You CLAIM atheists do the same thing, but you have provided no data. I think it is you who are the bully.

"It is pointless to point out truth to those that will not see." Well, why not point out the truth so that others reading this thread will know who is right and who is wrong? Why not show the world that you are not just a bag of hot air and that you are right?

[papau]

113. Use the search function to produce data - or say you have no data.

:-)

[Goblinmonger]

115. I don't know how else to say this

I DIDN'T MAKE THE FUCKING ARGUMENT YOU DID. (notice I have moved from scat references to sexual ones). Why the hell would I need to provide data to refute an argument that you made without data. Your argument is considered false without data. Don't you watch any lawyer shows on TV or anything. YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF BECAUSE YOU MADE THE ARGUMENT.

Sheesh, you would think this is brain surgery.

[papau]

119. Assertion works for the atheist because they never need to prove

a "negative" - even a "there is no God" - or a fact or a history or that early Christians were liars or that early Christian writing was made to conform to pagan myths or that allegory is somehow evil and must be taken as factual and then laughed at.

It is good to be an atheist.

[Goblinmonger]

120. Yeah, its a damn laugh riot

We get to put up with the likes of you telling us what we really think.

Again, you aren't addressing the point that YOU made an argument and have yet to provide any DATA TO SUPPORT IT. Way to skirt the issue, though. Nice misdirection. I bet you ran the Statue of Liberty play all the time when you played football as a kid. Unfortunatley, I am the linebacker that leveled you every time.

[papau]

125. :-)

:toast:

[Evoman]

81. Lol...and every thursday

us atheists go to our Church of Atheist Heathens. Upon arrival, the Atheist Holy Man jingles his Staff of Non-Belief in a circle around him, to ward of the theist beliefs. Then we all join hands and say the Atheist Creed. "There is no god, and Mohammad and Jesus are not his prophets. We will eat no-gods only non-begotten son. Our salvation rests on denying our savation"

You, my friend, are fucking ridiculous. In what bizarro world is not having a religion actually a religion. If I say I don't have whipped cream on my nipples, would you tell me that my absence of whipped cream on my nipples is actually a type of whipped cream. LOL! If a group of kids got together and managed to work out that there was no tooth fairy and that their parents were full of shit, would their lack of fairy belief be a religion? Well let me be honest with you. To me tooth fairy = god. I have no belief in the tooth fairy. I have no belief in god. There is nothing special I do that would make my non-belief a religion. No belief in the supernatural = no religion. And just to assure you of this, let me paste my web search for a religion definition

Definitions of religion on the Web:
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Religion?sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system?is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

A framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world.
www.modernhumanorigins.com/r.html

a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief.
www.carm.net/atheism/terms.htm

Has many definitions - most of them involve the idea of supernatural agency.
www.csa.com/hottopics/religion/gloss.php

Religious affiliation, practices, and views.
www.albany.edu/sourcebook/app6.html

Oxford dictionary definition (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic definition: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. ...
www.ecotao.com/holism/glosoz.htm

System of beliefs and practices concerned with sacred things and or symbols uniting individuals into a single moral community.....
www.elissetche.org/dico/R.htm

any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.
www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/

A cloak used by some persons in this world who will be warm enough without one in the next.
www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/humor/TheFoolishDictionary/chap19.html

In theosophy individual religion of conduct means faith in his own essential divinity as a source of wisdom and an unerring and infallible guide in conduct; an ever-growing realization of that truth, an ever-growing consciousness of one's spiritual identity with the divine in nature; and constant devotion to the ideals thus inspired. ...
www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/red-roos.htm

an organized system of faith and worship
www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/priestly/vocab.asp

The religious denomination of the groom, bride or spouse reported on the marriage certificate.
www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/84F0212XIE/2002/definitions.htm

A system of ideas and rules for behavior based on supernatural explanations.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html

(Latin: religio, ligo, "to bind together") A way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: ie Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?, What is the meaning of suffering?, What is the meaning of death?, How shall we live? (Ezekiel 33:10)
www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/world_religions_working_definiti.htm

beliefs and actions related to supernatural beings and forces.
www.geocities.com/brianmyhre/12Def.htm

the collective customs and traditions of a body of people that have form an organization or an institution to pursue the study of a specific spiritual teaching or belief.
www.exit109.com/~apg/glossary.htm

A system of thinking that recognizes a supersoul and performs some sort of adoration of that supersoul.
www.angelfire.com/pa/ebrownle2/gloss.html

The state religion was run by paid priests and priestesses and was based around rituals performed at elaborate ceremonies in front of temples. State worship focussed on Roma, the goddess of Rome, other gods and, during the Empire, deified dead emperors.
myweb.tiscali.co.uk/temetfutue/glossary/glossaryR.htm

the service and worship of God or the supernatural
www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/dictionary/MiddleEast.htm

is the service and worship of God or the supernatural or the commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. Religion might also be defined as scrupulous conformity to a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Finally, religion may be a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
home.comcast.net/~ewhiteside/truth/definitions.html

Theory about aliens created all of our major religions. They also claim that they through hybridization created Homo Sapiens, Jesus and that the whole crucifixion is filmed on tape.
www.alien-technology.com/alien_glossary/alien_r.shtml

A man's expression of his acknowledgement of god.
www.godonthe.net/dictionary/r.html

is many following the inspiration of one enlightened person; is following other's spiritual experience as adopted by us Spirituality is each one seeking his own illumination. Spiritual life is one's own inner experience.
www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/AurobindoMother/AurobindIdeas/Terminology.htm

a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on teachings of a leader; a belief in God
homepage.mac.com/vpetrik/CnP/Glossary.htm

Supernatural beliefs involved in worship. Tends to apply to a group or culture, religions often provide ceremonial rituals for dealing with major life events.(birth, death, marriage)
www.geocities.com/cheshirekatz/gazebo/mythoterms.html




Nope. It turns out that if you have no supernatural beliefs, you are not religious.

[papau]

94. "Religion-sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system"

:-) Indeed most folks do not see a big stretch when a group pretends to know to the point they preach to others something that can not be known scientifically - such the other folks life experiences, or the non-existence of God.

Thanks for looking it up so I could have the exact quote for thos post

[Goblinmonger]

97. More reading problems, papau

You said:

"Religion-sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system"

Unfortunately, you are taking that definition out of context because you don't even use the whole sentence. Here it is as posted:

Religion?sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system?is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief.

Kinda different isn't it. Kinda intellectually dishonest for you to twist it so.

[papau]

102. The later part of the quote was not on point - except as restatement

of the premise you are using to declare atheism not a religion (it lacks the supernatural)

Indeed my use of your quote has a different tone than you intended - but no - it is not intellectually dishonest IMHO to take one stand alone truth out of a sentence so as to point it out.

[Goblinmonger]

106. Interesting

It might not have been on point for the point YOU ARE MAKING, but one should take the whole definition (at least the whole sentence) when using it to prove a point especially when the part left out contradicts your point. That definition clearly means that religion is belief and faith in the supernatural. That clearly excludes atheism. Yet you take out a part of the definition and claim the definition supports you. THAT is intellectually dishonest.

[papau]

110. Is the statement untrue? "Religion-sometimes used interchangeably w/ faith

"Religion-sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system"

:toast:

:-)

Taken as a whole your point is supported by your sentence - but do you not find it interesting that a stand alone truth in that sentence is support for my point of view?

[Goblinmonger]

111. OK, here's an example for you.

Suppose this was on the wesite papauisgreat.com:

"papau is a bigot like George W. Bush is a democrat."

Then suppose I posted this in some random thread:

Don't forget what was said at papauisgreat.com, "papau is a bigot." Hard to refute what his own fan club says about him.

Then you came back and said I took it out of context. I then applied all the arguments you have made as to why you are not intellectually dishonest. Think you would buy those arguments in that situation? Think anyone else would?

:toast:

[papau]

114. Oh I agree changing the meaning would be bad - but is the statement

not true - even without the additional words?

[Goblinmonger]

117. You think it's true

I don't. The point is, the people who WROTE IT don't agree with you or they would have ended the sentence right there. Back to the intellectually dishonest position.

[papau]

118. So now you know what "they" thought as they wrote? Best to say we

disagree if indeed you really feel the statement fragment is not true on its own.

[Evoman]

122. Of course we know what they thought

Of course thats what they thought. Quit being obtuse. I know thats what they thought. You know thats what they thought. Why do you keep playing this game.

You took it out of context.

You are being intellectually dishonest

[Goblinmonger]

126. We were like posting twins on that one

except I am Goofus to your Gallant because I used a naughty word.

[Goblinmonger]

124. I think I know what they thought

about religion being related to belief in supernatural. How do I know that? THEY FUCKING WROTE IT!!

[papau]

127. The question was the truth or untruth of the fragment - or did we forget

that point.

[Goblinmonger]

131. Who gives a shit about the fragment?

And I said I don't believe the fragment--or did you forget that post.

My point is that you used the fragment to show that atheism is a religion. I pointed out that the rest of the sentence says that it is faith and belief in the supernatural which CLEARLY refutes the point you are making. You took something out of context to prove your point when in context it did not prove your point--that is intellectually dishonest. THAT is the point at hand.

[Evoman]

108. SLLLAAMMM

Haha....allow me some back slapping.

Yes religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but only if by faith or belief systems you mean faith or belief systems IN THE SUPERNATURAL!!!!!

Papau, thats why you are being intellectually dishonest. You very well know that we are talking about the supernatural here. I don't have faith in the supernatural. I don't have a belief system in the supernatural. I am not religious. Atheism is not a religion.

Every time we atheist come on this forum we are talking about THE SUPERNATURAL. Its fine to say we atheist have beliefs if your using beliefs as a different way of saying postulate. But what you guys do is equivocate a belief as a postulate (for example: I believe my girlfriend is not a cheater) with religious faith (I believe in god) which is COMPLETLY WRONG and an outright fallacy. I HAVE NO BELIEF IN GOD. I HAVE NO BELIEFS ABOUT GOD.

Don't you people get it? If we are talking about the supernatural (so belief becomes synonymous with religious faith and that is the definition were using) and I say I have no beliefs, YOU ARE NOT MAKING ANY FUCKING POINTS BY SAYING THAT ATHEIST HAVE BELIEFS. NONE. God, I can't even understand why I need to explain these fucking concepts to thinking adults!!!

Evoman

[papau]

112. Interesting points - most of which I agree with - but when proving

the other fellow's belief system is wrong or ridiculous or stupid or "not founded on as honest a truth teller as I am" is the most important point to make - we go beyond support for other atheists on the board and into fundi religion talk.

"I HAVE NO BELIEFS ABOUT GOD" makes one wonder why every thread in R/T must have an atheist point of view attached within 5 minutes of posting.

Indeed a few years ago I asked how the atheists explain the non-existence of the universe 15 billion years ago.

I am still waiting.

Making Science into a religion was the approach I expected and what a few did - Science will discover everything given time - a nice belief system.

I also asked when does holding unprovable beliefs about the supernatural or the lack of a supernatural in our lives become a religion.

Never did get an answer - except some atheists became agnostic for the day.

R/T is an interesting place to talk past each other.

[Evoman]

121. Well, here you go!

Well, ya didn't ask the right person.

"Indeed a few years ago I asked how the atheists explain the non-existence of the universe 15 billion years ago."

Well bud, your gonna have to keep waiting. WE DON'T KNOW. How could we? I wasn't around then. Neither were you. The difference is, I can admit my ignorance. You make up stories in lieu of knowledge. And really...whats wrong with not knowing? Not knowing doesn't fill me with dread. It just means I don't know. Some day we may know, or maybe we won't.


"Making Science into a religion was the approach I expected and what a few did - Science will discover everything given time - a nice belief system."

Science can never be religion. If someone makes it into a religion, they don't understand what science is. You should really go out of your way to read more about scientific philosophy. I just don't understand why people both undermine Science or overblow it.

"I also asked when does holding unprovable beliefs about the supernatural or the lack of a supernatural in our lives become a religion"

Every supernatural belief is unprovable. Atheist dont have unprovable beliefs about the supernatural. Its impossible to have unprovable beliefs in the supernatural if you have no beliefs in the supernatural. If you lack the supernatural, you can never be a religion.

There. Questions answered.

[papau]

128. Not a bad try - but it fails unless "don't know" gets a passing grade

scientific philosophy - interesting combination of words.

Science has inherrent limits on what it can do - yet many are OK with ithe "it will eventually explain" line of thought - granted you are not saying that.

You are just happy in your lack of knowledge - and that is OK

Please permit others to ponder that which you fear - or chose - to not ponder, and as they do so, in this area that does not concern you, perhaps showing respect and speaking only when you have a thought to add to the conversation would be a good idea.

[Evoman]

129. Density is a property of matter and Papau

"You are just happy in your lack of knowledge - and that is OK"

I wish I knew the secrets of the universe. I'm not happy in my ignorance. But I don't want to fill that empty space with a bunch of bullshit. Like I said, just because I don't know where the universe came from or even what it is, does not mean I have to accept any a crappy story about how we are made of clay and women are made from ribs.

Is it better to believe a lie, than to admit that you don't know something? Thats what theists do. They don't know any more than I do. We are all blind. I just admit it instead of putting on those glasses with painted eyes on them. Someday, we may know more. Until then, I'll just have accept that I don't know.

I have no fear of pondering existence. I have pondered your version of things. I have found theist explanations lacking.

"Not a bad try - but it fails unless "don't know" gets a passing grade"

The wrong answer isn't going to get you a passing grade either.

[trotsky]

138. Even with DU's amazing Ignore feature,

it's easy to tell whom you're arguing with, and I can tell you it's definitely not about scoring points, it's just that he likes to make atheists mad by repeating the same insults over and over. That's all.

[arwalden]

139. It's All They Have.

Did you happen see the one (in another current thread) where one of the "usuals" poses silly question that appears below?

Do they think we are threatening them in some way, that we want to take their rights from them?

Actually, when you think about it, it's more of the same... they just try to switch it around a bit and come up with clever wording and new denials.

BTW: You'll probably not be surprised to learn that when challenged on such an assertion, the person in question did not respond in any substantive way. Instead he chose to critique my grammar.

Funny, eh?

[saltpoint]

43. Judeo-Christianity is rich in virtues but rich also in contradictions and

violence. The last two major world religions, Christianity and Islam, have inspired extraordinary violence. Buddhism, an earlier faith, has not. There is the Christian Jesus who engages the world with compassion (for some believers...I hail and salute them) and there is also the Jesus with the vengeful sword of God's judgment, doubtless a long shadow of the fiery, short-tempered Jehovah from Old Testament days.

If a great number of Muslims live in pastoral harmony with the land and each other in Indonesia, there are at the same time a significant number who feel that a "sacred explosion" --a suicide bombing-- is the will of Mohammed manifest. A 19-year old dancing in a disco in Tel Aviv blown to pieces by a Palestinian suicide bomber is not less a creation of any God; and in any case he or she has a right to be 19 years old and dancing in a chosen venue.

Religions from all time are ridiculed for fairy-tale aspects because too often their followers claim individual, heightened prestige. The Jews are the "Chosen" people of God. God singled them out as extra special? Possibly, but I doubt it. Many Christians claim a "special relationship" with Christ, claiming him as their "personal" saviour. It's the same psychology, the same psychic hinge.

And it's not persuasive to many millions of people, no matter their religious or spiritual bent.

I voted for No. 1 in your poll.


____
edit: mechanics, spellin'

[greyl]

62. Minor point: There have been Buddhist wars

and extraordinary violence commited in the name of Buddhism.

[saltpoint]

64. As Buddhists are human, yes, but not anywhere at all on the scale

of the Crusades, for example.

[greyl]

70. No, because Buddhism is a salvationist "revealed" religion.

Religious wars surpass what I would classify as 'ordinary' human violence.
I don't mean to say that all non-religious violence is ordinary, only that violence committed in the name of God/Faith can't be shouldn't be blamed on being human. It's a cultural thing, not a human thing.

That said, I think if all the fundies in the world instantly converted to the Western new-age style of Buddhism the world would be a significantly friendlier place to humans and other life. I'd still argue with them that their faith is misplaced, however. ;)

[saltpoint]

71. I'm not convinced that you can separate 'culture' from the humans who

comprise it.

How would that be done? Anthropologists would be befuddled by that proposal, I think.

So would historians.

Violence in the name of religions, as you say, does seem to be more vehement, and there's no question that they are usually, or significantly, culturally driven. I like your observation about modern-day Western Buddhism; spent a brief time in the company of such folks in the UK a short while back and must say that many of the practitioners I lived with there were astoundly wired (rewired?) toward compassion and peace.

Someone like Ken Mehlman or Don Rumsfeld has a ways to go down that road before evolving into a more integrated, peaceable existence.

[greyl]

80. It's not required to seperate them, exactly.

Your specification of "seperating 'culture' from the humans who comprise it", approaches part of my point which is that there have been 10s of thousands of human cultures on this planet which did not make it a policy to destroy or convert other cultures. Was it because they were less human? No, it was because their culture didn't validate and encourage that behavior.

We can't quite neatly seperate "the human" from "the belief", neither can we say that all specific beliefs and behaviors are due to being human. It is the local pervasiveness of culture that perhaps illustrates my point best. People are members of particular cultures because they were born into it, not because they are just being human.

There's nothing in our genetic makeup that predetermines that humans will form cultures of imperialistic destruction. Historians and anthropologists would agree that humanity has experimented with culture for 3 million years, but I doubt they'd agree that all of the failed experiments were equally viable for humans. Now, the fact that some cultures just don't work for humans should be clear indication that every particular culture is not simply an extension of being human. Sometimes it's more accurate to blame the culture rather than humanity at large. That's why plenty of people abandon one culture for another one.

[saltpoint]

83. I understand the distinction you're making, but culture cannot be

said to exist until some community of humans begins to generate it, or represent it, whether consciously or not.

I am thinking of the beauty of the Lascaux cave horses, drawn reverently and not owed to some military expedition or economic totem system, but because the human who sketched them on those rock walls wanted to illustrate what was meaningful and urgent to him/her. Those cave drawings are beautiful because that is not a military horse or an economic horse, but a secret horse.

So I see your point. Aside from the discussions that often rage on DU regarding Christianity, I like Christianity a lot better when Bill Moyers represents it than when Pat Robertson perverts it. I can be the most left of Christians regarding the ministry of Jesus but I bail swiftly when they bring in trans-human, or magical powers attributed to the man. I love Simon in LORD OF THE FLIES. He's a much-improved Christ from the New Testament casting.

[greyl]

85. Ok, I'm satisfied with that. But now about this secret horse... :)

It's my understanding that the paintings are most likely an educational tool, not that they were mystical in any way. Am I misunderstaning what you mean by "drawn reverently"?

[saltpoint]

87. The secret horse. It might have been an educational tool for all we

know now. But it was not a gesture of ceremonial import, as it was obscured, or hard to get to in any case, and subterranean at that.

If I don't clinical "know" the artist's intent I can impose my own best guess, and I come up with reverential before I see evidence of political or socio-political.

I admit readily that it's a guess, but the attraction of the Lascaux cave animals is their remoteness from warfare and the ceremony of warfare. These are unbridled, unsaddled, unridden horses. No parades, pageantry, or politics.

[Deep13]

53. People may believe what they want.

As long as it does not make them irrational in action, I really don't care. I want atheists and agnostics to know they are not alone or bad in anyway; but I am not out to convert anyone. I made my posts here as part of a scholarly debate among thinking people.

My own perspective can be summed by this parable.

A salesman knocked on my door and told me I had a dreadful disease. Because of how poluted America is, simply being born gave me this disease which will inevitably cause a protracted, painful death. There is a cure, however, and only the salesman's firm has it which he will happily sell to me if I pledge eternal loyalty to that company. In support of his assertions, he produces documentation repeating his claims that were written by his employer, even though no one else has ever heard of it. He tells me that considering all the sacrifices this company has made on my behalf, I should simply accept his word on faith, even though I do not feel sick and have no way of knowing if the cure will work even if I did.

The salesman manages to leave before the door hits him in the ass.

[papau]

58. People may believe what they want.

"As long as it does not make them irrational in action, I really don't care. I want atheists and agnostics to know they are not alone or bad in anyway; but I am not out to convert anyone. I made my posts here as part of a scholarly debate among thinking people."

Your statement is also my point of view - except I have given up on DU ever having in R/T a scholarly debate among thinking people.

Have you ever seen on DU R/T a "scholarly debate among thinking people"?

At best it is an interesting post/topic/set of debating points from one of the many, many atheist sites on the internet.

Sometimes it is a correction of misinformation.

But usually it is a post by an atheist responded to by other atheists who note how correct the poster is - and then join in the pissing on theists.

Worse than bad manners - it gets boring to read to the reader not looking for or needing the self-esteem boost. Being few in number does not give carte Blanc to any and all actions.

[greyl]

95. "As long as it does not make them irrational in action" - Yes, but

if one accepts that believing something is an action, albeit an internal action, than being rational should be held in equal regard whether describing active and unexamined personal beliefs or public behavior, shouldn't it? I don't see how "rational" can be a value for external behavior but not for one's world view or system of belief.

One key atheist point of view is that it's uneccesary to believe irrational things in order to foster "good" human behavior. It makes sense to be good, and there's no need to mystify objective truths in order for humans to be good.
There is evidence in this thread of Christians who will happily give up huge parts of their traditional dogma in order to be more rational. I don't see the big deal about abandoning all of it. :)

[papau]

116. rational can mean "reasoned in the way an educated person would

reason"

It does not mean "passed a scientific test", or "had no premise that could not be verified"

[Deep13]

72. In general...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=59329&mesg_id=59329

Here is kind of a general thoughts post I made.

[papau]

77. A very nice post.

:-)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

152. The line is the same line as good manners

and respect.

My father was delusional for seven years. He saw bears, baseball games out the window and angels. I never corrected him because I loved and respected him. And who knows? Maybe he was on a different reality plain than I. When you spend any time at all with folks with dementia, you become very flexible in your thinking and I think that is a good thing.