Bringing sanity to Religious Discussions...

I figure I could enter into the morass that is the recent religious threads on DU. I figure I am wasting my time, but I would think that maybe an actual INSIGHTFUL discussion could result from this and not a damn flame-fest. I think a slight misunderstanding takes place due to the wrong choice of words that many Atheists and Christians on this board seem to banter about. Considering that I am neither, I figure I could form a somewhat objective perspective to this.

I'll give an example of an obvious misunderstanding: When an Atheist says, "God does not exist, or is a fantasy/delusion etc." many Christians on this board take offense to this, why? I mean all the Atheist is doing is stating their non-belief in a affirmative fashion. Is it any different from Muslims saying to Christians that Jesus was only a prophet and not an incarnation of God, that he was not divine but simply mortal? I can understand offense being taken if personal attacks or unfair group attacks are taken from either side. "Christians are Assholes!", "All Atheists are Amoral/Anti-Religion!", etc. etc.

One thing to keep in mind is that not all people who believe are cut from the same cloth and the same for those who don't believe. The Religious Right are not representative of all or even most Christians. Neither are they the "Leaders" of most Christians of this country. They are simply the loudest and most annoying of certain sects of Christianity in this country. I find them offensive and deplorable in the extreme, and ALL of us should criticize them at every opportunity, as well as oppose them politically.

Part of the reason for the hostility to Christianity in this country is the defensiveness that non-Christians feel from a REAL threat that Religious Right represent. Part of that is from the deplorable political actions of the RR and another part is that many non-Christians of this country WERE Christians at one time or another. This can leave painful scars that manifest themselves in hostility to those who are Christian. Another part of that is what I would call "Closet Syndrome", I think Homosexuals will know what I am talking about here. Trying to hide a vital aspect of yourself from friends and family can be psychologically draining and can leave people bitter from that experience. Hell, Wiccans (Like me) have a term for it, the "Broom Closet".

Another thing to bring up that also makes the problem worse, proselytizing. This is not symptomatic of Most Christians, only a few, and of certain sects and organizations. Believe me it does not make a good impression about a religion in general when the resident "Campus Crusader for Christ" decides to try to convert the "Resident Pagan" on college campus by following me around from class to class and shouting Bible verses at me about "Going to Hell". Can anyone blame me for yelling at him to leave me alone? I won't say that this type of harassment is exclusive to Christians, I had an Army recruiter do the same thing while I was in college. Believe me, I had few kind words for him as well. :evilgrin:

There is a difference in tone that makes the difference between being offensive and having a reasonable discussion. Personally I am anti-ORGANIZED religion not anti-religion. Its one thing to criticize the leadership, or proclaimed leadership, of a religion than painting all the believers of said religion with a broad brush. Being a non-Christian is not the same as being anti-Christian and generalizations to that effect are wrong, as they are wrong for non-Christians saying the same of Christians. Many on this board have been genuinely traumatized by some followers of Christianity, that is something to keep in mind, for BOTH sides of the debate.

it's impossible to bring sanity (I prefer the word reason) to a discussion on religious differences.

Religious belief is a faith and has nothing to do with reasoning. I don't say this as an insult, it is merely a fact. So people are going to interject their emotions into this subject. The founding fathers knew this, that is why they wisely chose to separate church and state.

most everything that we "Know" is base on faith.

but assuming we live in the real world, I would say that many things are based on knowledge, not necessarily faith. Deductive reasoning, Observation, and Methodology are all used to understand the natural world. The only faith that would involve is whether humans are capable of deductive reasoning, and I would venture to guess we are, of course that's only a guess. ;)

The only exception I can think of is Quantum level observations and physics, that I would say is based mostly on faith. ;)

How much of history have you experienced first hand? Do you know, for a fact, that you are not dreaming? Have you been to the moon?
I'm just saying that the "faith" is much maligned and underestimated, and is not limited to religious belief.
This country has also persecuted people for their Christian beliefs.

to a certain extant. However, there is a basic point in which most people know what is reality and what is not. This would be great in a philosophical discussion, asking questions like "Do I exist?", or "Am I self-aware?" Usually, in many instances, people have certain beliefs that can be viewed by observation or simply common sense. We know the Earth is round, you can actually observe it, especially at sea, when the top of ships are viewed first before the rest of it is visible. Whether that is reality or not is dependant on a persons view of reality.

which was started when you made a distinction between religous belief and scientific theory and made faith and reason the critical difference. I would argue that both religion and science makes use of both faith and reason.

Though religion does rely on faith to a much greater extent than science does, reason and logic are not completely absent from religion. Even you note the useful role religion can play in answering philosophical questions, and those sorts of questions are known for requiring rigourous logic. Also, history has noted the logic used by religious philosophers when responding to those questions.

And just as religion does not depend solely on faith, science does not depend solely on logic and reason. There is a measure of faith in science. For one thing, scientific fact (as opposed to theory) depends on human perceptions, and the faith that those perceptions are based on what is actually happening in the physical world. In fact, the belief that our perceptions might not be based on reality is the bedrock of a secular philosophy known as post-modernism.

yes Faith does play a great role, and I am not saying that there is an impenetrable wall between Faith and Reason. Some would say that to study the world using scientific methods is to understand God(s) mind. I did say that faith is required for assuming we even have deductive reasoning in our heads, our perception of the world is also based on faith. I will still say that Quantum Physics is like 90% Faith, 10% Reason in trying to figure that out. :)

However, I would really like to avoid having this become a referendum on Solon's beliefs. The belief in the fallacious fallacy is not uncommon, and has shown it's face in this thread. From the first response in this thread:

Religious belief is a faith and has nothing to do with reasoning

I would add that it is because of erroneous beliefs such as this, that I find the use of the word "myth" as a description of religion to be offensive in spirit. In many cases, the use of this word is meant to convey the idea that religious belief is illogical, and not meant to convey the idea that religious beliefs refer to profouund truths concerning human nature and the nature of the universe.

which is why I am perfect by the way. :evilgrin: Anyways, I would hate for my beliefs to be put up to a vote, though I would hope I would win in that case. BTW: I find humor to be great in deflecting both critism and offensiveness that others bring my way, whether intentionally or not. Plus laughing at ourselves is also a great way not to get swallowed by despair, also in alleviating tension, even in message boards.

Also I would view the thing on whether religion is based totally on Faith or Reason as not either/or but as a combination of the two. I would say there is the "Core" beliefs of any religion based on reason and truth as you see it, and then the various stories to explain and embellish the "Core", and then on the top, the Icing so to speak, are the various rituals, prayers and personal experience that makes your chosen religion YOURS.

I would say not everything is black and white in these types of discussions. One thing to make clear is not to make this a theological debate, we aren't debating beliefs, only behaviors and actions of certain groups that wish to bring about theocracy into the United States. I believe 99% of people here would agree that, whether we believe or not, that we should oppose those people.

Religous discussions bring out the bigot in people.

if looking at the religious sense there are such samiliarities adn exactness of just the human in who we are. so not be able to bring sanity to me is not an option. in time in evolving and in talking. i have yet to see anything in life evolve unless there was connection, hence communication, never the seperating of. as the whole world does with the fence in isreal, the sepreration of kurd shiite sunni..........right/left, good /bad

not to say that conflict is good, but it is not bad either, when it does not involve physical conflict. Differences in beliefs happen, but at the same time, RESPECT should be emphasized, not so much who is right or wrong, but just an acknowledgement that we all walk different paths. What is right for one person, may not be right for another, and we can either use that to fight, or use it to enrich, it is our choice.

wink

i am not afraid of battle either. when i see the sword drawn now a days, i see it more the pain. fear. that is what creates the anger, fear. fear is a sad thing and i can reduce it more to the child. why often i see bush in fetal position and sucking thumb. now just laughing my ass off, lol llololol. how scary is bush in that fetal postion, not very.

That is not hard to figure out. If someone wants to state their belief that there is no God, saying "I don't believe in God" is a perfectly understandable and clear message.
I agree on proselytizing. I am perfectly happy with the church I attend. I don't need people coming to my door interupting my life. But the only people proselytizing here at DU are the anti-theists.

As far as being anti organized religion. I don't understand that, I think it's a cliche`. What is it to you if I choose to spend an hour or so with other Presbyterians on sunday morning? Why would you mind if we ORGANIZE a trip to Haiti to build a medical clinic. We have also organized food banks, fundraising for Heifer International, bringing an Afghani family here and supporting them for the last 2 years.....it all took organization.

Hierarchal Religion. Mostly when they try to unduly influence governments through proclamations or fire and brimstones condemnations. Usually when people such as the Pope or Patriarch say that a nation or his followers must do something to stay "True to the Faith" is when I feel they crossed the line. What do I know, I used to be Catholic.

Why is it wrong for religious people to get together and decide that one or more of the people in their gathering are more qualified to lead? If people of faith band together and form a clinic for poor people, and then appoint the doctor to run the clinic, what is wrong with that?

My point here is that we should not obsess over the forms people use to express their faith and their beliefs. We should make our conclusions based on what people actually do, and the consequences of their actions.

Though I have no doubt that your intentions are honorable, I can't help but wonder if your attempt to find a justifiable basis for the hostility to organized religion is a reflection of bias. I say this, not to accuse you of some moral failing, but merely to point out the gulf in understanding that seems to seperate the believers from the non-believers here on DU.

I would add that there was another indication of bias in your original post, an indication that I am not alone in noting. It involves the statement about a belief in God being superstition or mythology. I have noted that many non-religious people have difficulty seeing that as a statement that denigrates someone else's beliefs, a point which I see as being rather obvious. I have sometimes wondered why some atheists beliefs seem dependent or coincident with the denigration of someone else's beliefs.

structure is fine, I have no problem with that, I am talking about AUTHORITARIAN structures, not Democratic ones. That is part of the problem with many churches in my view.

About the bias as to whether belief in the Christian God is Mythology or Superstition. I'm no Atheist, not by a long shot, I'm am a polytheist, and worship Brighit and Cernunnos. As far as Yaweh is concerned, I have no doubt he exists, but I don't worship him, and while I believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher and possibly divine, I don't worship him, either. Just like I do not worship Mithras or Osiris, etc. Those are not my Gods, and I don't mean this as being I don't believe they exist or have existed, but I simply did not dedicate my life to them. It's a matter of choice, not much more than that, and I don't consider the followers of other Gods as delusional or misguided, if it feels right for you then that is great, just as my religion feels right for me.

Also, I don't understand the whole thing about being offended by having your beliefs explained as Myths. Any allegorical story that explains the origins of a people, their God(s), etc. etc. Usually containing nuggets of truth about the human experience. I know that many people use it as the second definition, more like Fantasy and whatnot, but I don't. My religion is based on Myths, is yours? I don't mean to be offensive, but I don't view it as offensive, so if I used it and you did take offense, I'm sorry.

Though your preference may be for something different, as is mine, there is nothing inherently wrong with an authoritarian structure. Quite often, the authorities get their authority through democratic and/or representative methods.

As a reasonable adult, charged with responsibility for my own interests (both material and spiritual), I have a right to not only exercise my right, but also to delegate those rights to others. IMO, what you are calling authoritarian structures should really be any structure, authoritarian or democratic, that is put into place with the use of force, against people's will. I would note that both democratic structures and authoritarian ones can be put in place using force. It could be argued that Iraq is a place where the US is creating a democratic structure through the use of force.

wrt to the mythology comments:

1) Though I did mention words you wrote, I did not want to make this a discussion of your particular beliefs. I just wanted to point out how some people's inability to see the offensiveness of describing other people's views in a derogatory manner, while thinking it was merely an expression of their own beliefs. IMO, the idea that this belief is NOT about other people's beliefs, and is merely a part of their own beliefs seems very illogical to me, and therefore odd coming from a group of people who claim to be devoid of faith, and dependent on logic and reason.

2) Personally speaking, I believe that many of the stories told in religious literature are myths. However, I am pretty certain that what I mean by myth, when I say that, is flattering, while others use the word "myth" to derogate religious beliefs. IOW, it's not the word myth itself that is offensive, but the manner and spirit in which it is used.

I would also point out that there is a difference between saying that the stories are myths, or that one's beliefs are based on stories that are myths, and saying that religious beliefs are myths.

IOW, there is no need for you to apologize. I respect the fact that you are making an effort at explaining and understanding what others believe. And is, somewhere along the way, you make a mistake and funble, the only thing it proves is that you are human.

derogatory to others, and I do make the same distinction as you in regards to myths. There is a distinct difference in saying "I don't believe in your God." than saying "Your INSANE to believe that way!!!" I believe that we need to be at least respectfull of others, if not in the beliefs a person holds, then at least in the person themselves. The tone that is conveyed matters, sometimes more than the argument or statement itself.

and how one says something is, at least to some extent, dependent on what one believes. IOW, it's not simply a manner of picking the right words. One's ability to know which words are the right one's depends on one's knowledge of the issues at hand. I suspect that the reason why you have been doing such a fine job discussing a pretty touchy subject has something to do with how you view the issue.

And likewise, the poor job some people do is probably related to their poor understanding of religious philosophy.

So here's my honest question. I'm an atheist. I believe that belief in a supreme being IS mythology and superstition. I generally keep my mouth shut about my beliefs so as to avoid argument. BUT. If I wanted to express my belief, what words would you like me to use, given my belief? You are saying here that I can't say what my beliefs are on the subject of religion, because it makes you feel denigrated. So are you saying that I should just remain in the closet?

And why do you feel denigrated by MY belief? I don't feel denigrated when believers say that atheists are immoral, because I know they are wrong.

"I do not believe that God exists"?

When I state that "I do believe that God does exist", I do not see the need or benefit of commenting on the beliefs of those who think God does not exist, nor do I comment on the beliefs of others.

If I wanted to go further in explaining my beliefs, I could go into WHY I believe that God exists. I could explain how, in my experience, acting with the belief that God exists and in accordance with what I see as God's will, has led me to have a happier and more fulfilling life. I could how my belief in God's existence has made my pursuit of happiness more productive and since my belief that our purpose in life is to pursue happiness, I could then use this to further justify my belief that God's existence is true.

While you could disagree with any and all of this, I would like to point out how I did this without making any comments concerning those who believe differently than I. I have no doubt that, with some effort, you could do the same.

And why do you feel denigrated by MY belief?

I do not feel denigrated by your beliefs. I did not comment on my feelings. I noted that negative judgements about other people's beliefs are a form of denigration, regardless of how they make me feel. Like you, my self-pereceptions are based on my own beliefs and are internally generated. However, the statements are what they are, regardless of how they make me feel

Like with the political football about prayer in schools. Underneath that desire, IMHO, is the superstition that if we aren't praying that God won't "bless" us, and that making everybody do that will cause God to change things back to the 1950's in the schools. That's childlike, magical thinking. AND it's misleading when people say we've "taken God out" of the schools. I thought God was bigger than that; we don't "take" God here, there, and yonder - but there's lots of ignorance at play in the theology floating around in the Christian Right. That's why I spent several years of my life studying theology - because theology isn't going to go away. Because of that fact, it's important not to let theology be manifest in irresponsible ways.

The use of the word "myth" has always been inadequate way to express the idea of a real TRUTH being beyond something just being factually true. Just because Jonah wasn't necessarily swallowed by a whale (or a big fish, anyway) doesn't mean that the POINT of the story isn't TRUE.

(Sorry, someone should stop me when I get into that preaching mode).

its the moral of the story that contains the great truths. Also I feel that the Gods are greater than the needs of humans, a large amount of time. Always be humble and for crying out loud, don't think that they are the eternal "Big Brother" that many think they are.

I do think that there are religious people who are superstitious, and that some approach prayer (and other rituals) in a superstitious manner. However, saying that is not the same as saying that religion is superstition.

Superstition is the fallacious belief that two things are causally related simply because they are temporally or spatially coincident. That is, they happen in close proximity in time or space. WRT prayer, there are some who pray for something good, and then when it does happen, believe that it happened BECAUSE they prayed for it. I would agree that such beliefs are superstitious.


However, not everyone who engages in prayer do it in order to force some event here on Earth. The idea that "because some people have a superstitious understanding of prayer, ALL people who pray are superstitious" is just as superstitious as the idea that "because I prayed, it came true". If one believes that prayer is superstitious, then they are seeing a causal relationship that does not exist, which is the definition of superstition.

Personally, I don't have a belief in god, but i don't try to impose my views on others or take it upon myself to "deconvert" any religious people. Hey, if it helps them get through life a bit happier, who am I to bum them out?

Generalizing by lumping "religious" people together into one group seems to be a big part of the trouble. Anytime you generalize, it's going to cause you to mistakenly lump people into your argument that don't really belong there.

I would like to think that all of us here are grownups and can debate subjects such as religion in a logical manner and with an open mind. The bigger issue is that we can be open minded as well as tolerant of others beliefs, whether that's in Jesus, Allah, or in the goodness of humanity itself.

JMO

ErnieB

and I respect others' rights to believe what they want to believe. Within reason. I mean, if they think stomping on puppies and kittens or molesting small children or something similarly abusive are sacred acts meant to praise God, I'm going to have a lot to say on that matter. But otherwise, to each his own.

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

there are limits to religious freedom, usually when the Health or Safety of others (Non-Followers, Children, Certain Animals) are in question.

BTW: The reason I put the "Certain" before animals is that religions such as Santeria, sacrifice chickens, pigs and such, ritually. That I don't have a huge problem with, as long as they abide by health codes. Is it any worse than slaughterhouses? Agree about the Kitties and Dogs though.

and on the one hand I would love to be able to say "respect all life".

But I eat chickens and other animals, so that would make me a bit of a hypocrit. The best I can do is say Grace and be genuinely thankful for that food that I am eating.

for myself, I believe in balance, humans are naturally omnivores, as in we can digest both. I don't begrudge vegetarians their beliefs or practices, for to each their own. The only thing I wish is that said animals do not suffer to make it to my dinner plate. I would also object to overhunting and disrupting the natural balance on this Earth. We should step lightly, and not leave a mess, that's a pipe dream isn't it?

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm

From Pipe Dreams comes good things.

For hundreds of years, up through the 1950s, this really was a "Christian nation" and non-Christians were persecuted in a variety of informal and quasi-official ways, some subtle, many not. Imagine all of society taking the same attitude as your "Campus Crusade for Christ" individual. It wasn't just a matter of family, it was the entire society turned against you. And in a lot of rural areas and small towns, that's still the way it is. If you've ever heard the words "This is a Christian community, son," you know what I mean.

Real freedom of religion is relatively new in this country. The scariest thing about the Religious Right is that they're trying to undo it, take it back.

That is something many people seem to forget, there used to be riots in cities like Philadelphia about which prayer is supposed to be in public schools. Yes in many areas that holds true to this day, even in subtler form, and I know what you are talking about.

I think you've actually presented a reasonable and well-articulated non-Christian point of view. I've seen too many people hurt by "religion." Far too many people have been turned off by intolerant and phony "Christians" who spew hate, intolerance and generally ignorant behaviors against anyone who does not agree with a narrow point of view.

I am a Christian, but that's a hard thing to say - everything that encompasses for me is pretty burdensome. Trying to do the things that are truly (in my view) indicative of following Christ's philosophy are just extremely hard for the average human...loving your neighbor as yourself, turning the other cheek, etc. It's easy to talk the talk...hard to walk the walk. When I think of people who are Christians in the truest sense, I think of Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King and even Jimmy Carter. I think of so many unknown people around the world who sacrifice and suffer to make the lives of other people better and try to bring joy, hope and light to the world.
Unfortunately, the face of "Christianity" in America is Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Roy Moore.

I grew up in a fundamentalist environment. I know them well. I live among them. I am not offended if someone criticizes the often intolerant and ignorant attitude of these folks...I am not one of them and think their beliefs are destructive and decidedly un-Christian as a whole. What is important, I think, as you have stated is that we be careful about painting with broad brushes. Hatred is not a Christian value - not in my view - and I don't think you'd find that from Jesus himself.

Ultimately, my philosophy on religion in America comes from Franklin Roosevelt who said, when speaking of the fundamental freedoms:

"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his
own way- - everywhere in the world."
(my emphasis added)

I believe this is a core Democratic value and I believe that the right in this country seek to change that, fundamentally. I refuse to divide among religious lines.

Almost all systems of belief and ethics in the world have a variation of the "Golden Rule", stated in a different way, but towards the same goal.

Bahá'í World Faith:
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

Brahmanism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517

Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Matthew 7:12
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6

Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23 "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4

Hinduism: "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself" Mencius Vii.A.4 "This is the sum of the Dharma : do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517

Humanism: "(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity." "
(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 5

Islam: "None of you believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 6

Jainism: "Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a
Native American Spirituality: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk

Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."

Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"

Sikhism: "Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299

Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.

Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

Unitarian: "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles.

Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what every you want to, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). The Wiccan Rede

Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."

Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

While none of these systems of belief will ever agree about theology, or how the universe is run, I feel that one thing they CAN agree on is their own golden rules. I figure if all of us actually lived by the system we ourselves ascribe to, then the world will be a MUCH better place.

the hypocrites and I have seen those who,in a small way because of how they live their life, remind me that I must not fall into the trap of lumping all professed christians together. I think of the wonderful man who is the pastor at a local methodist church. My in-laws were faithful members there. When my mother in law passed away, her memorial service was held there. Pastor Tommy, both then and since then, has proven through his day to day life that he really is what being a christian is all about. Does that make me want to convert? Hardly. But it does remind me that not all christians are the hate mongers and the radicals that we seem to be confronted with on a daily basis. I guess it kind of keeps in check that tendency to be resentful of a generalized group, because it makes me realize that individuals can surpass our low expectations at the most unexpected times.

Now where have I heard that before? ;)

There is a problem in this idea. From any way you look at it there are problems. If Jesus was real and was divine then really the only person who can truly identify who is a real Christian or not is Jesus himself. Trying to identify the real Christians kind of amounts to throwing the first stone.

If there was no Jesus or he was not divine then is there really a true Christian? The issue becomes truly moot.

Try it from an atheists point of view (or most nonChristian points of view). Since they do not believe the religion they do not necissarily distinguish between true Christians and those false Christians. In their eyes they are both Christians squabbling over who got it right. And of course the nonChristian doesn't think either one is right.

Insisting that others are not True Christians carries with it a little touch of egotism. It presumes not only that there is a True Christianity but also that you just happen to be following it. And any that are not on board with you are wrong. This is of course what anyone that believes something truly believes. But our society is a bit more complex than just that and sometimes the wording can matter.

self-professed Christians ARE Christians, it is not my job to judge who is Christian and who is not. I may call them hypocritical due to actions or words that they say that are antithetical to Jesus' teachings as I know them.

If you think that I have labeled anyone "true Christian" vs. not "true Christian" I think you have not closely read what I posted. I have heavily qualified the statements I made regarding faith and belief as my opinion - which I do not bind on others. My point is that the people who are often the loudest in this country about their "Christianity" are often in contradictory states of life and/or have actions and values which are at plain odds with very fundamental (no pun intended) and clear values which are outlined in Jesus's teachings (whether you believe them or not - and these people profess that these teachings are undisputed truth.)

I said what I believe. I will stick to that, because I will defend these people's right to believe what they want to believe - even if I disagree deeply with it. I have real problems with trying to profess to be pious or holy, because I am all too human. I also have real problems with people who demagogue religious issues in order to enlarge there own bank accounts or agenda - and I will speak out against that, as unpopular as that may be in this day and age. I am offended when the soul of Christianity is hijacked by hucksters and haters. I am offended when "Christians" talk about Islam as the religion of the devil. I am offended when Farrakhan calls Judaism a "gutter religion." I am offended when the "God hates fags" guy spouts his nonsense, and I am offended when an atheist brands all Christians as bigots. I will insist that people who hate others are wrong -irregardless of religion or creed - and I don't think that's egotistic in any way. But, that's my OPINION.

the drawing of the sword. simply where i have gone in the bible is not just the reading of, but, the being of. and that means the michael and the jesus and the ooooosh lucifer. and i see the grace and lite and being in all.

how i see the second coming of christ. now we sit in old testament and that is the jews muslims and christians. and there silliness. we have done this before. jesus. dont you know; and, is time to do it again. this time it is the us the are doing. i need to feel and know mohommad more. i dont know this dude, but in reading old test sodome and gamoraha, this alone is sexual and what is happening in their country and their absolute hiding of sexuality. had sex with an iranian once, had to go cleanse himself. could have been offensive to me if i chose, but i embraced, wink......and giggled

if i can give a thumbs up and arm around the shoulder to lucifer, i am sure i can do the same with mohommad. anyone read the stories on lucifer, really an interesting story

all of these are simply stories ours to continuely create

as far as the game of religion. this summer i am putting on my swimsuit and in joy and warmth and kids laughing in the water, i am going to jump into religion. not that i could ever do religion. never was good with group and being told what to do or think.

my religion. lite and sound....energy. i see christ in the sun, and when i turn to the sun, i fill in the warmth of christ conscious.

do tell. what slot would i be put in. i cannot guess.

give me music and sound and i will ride a wave of pure harmony with the universe.

give me the giggle of children and laughter and play, and love it will be

not so hard for me

I *know* there isn't. They take a more fundamentalist dogmatic absolutist stance than I do and then angrily denounce and harass people who disagree.

The atheists that are like that, I have little respect for. Atheism is a belief in non-belief. That's all. An atheist has no more evidence for the non-existence of God than I do for the existence of God. As of this moment in history, it can't be proven or disproven.

In light of this inability to prove, I think individuals should be left alone, to examine their own experiences and *interpretations* of those experiences and come to the conclusions that make sense to them. If understanding their experiences through the lens of religious language and symbolism works for them, then those are the tools they should use, and that should be respected. If another person finds a different set of language to describe and understand experiences, then that is what they should do.

Immediately someone is going to point out that this sounds find, but that religious people shouldn't try to force their own explanations, language and tools for interpretation on to someone else's living experience. I agree. But neither should atheists, and that happens just as much. The ridicule of the religious is just as much a reality as the hounding of the irreligious.

In this rift between believers and non-believers, both sides have their hands dirt, both sides are vulnerable to bias and dogmatic thinking, and both sides are frequently guilty of abusing people from the other side.

So let's play nice. :)
Sel

and I do concede that such people exist. However, I believe there are those who simply lack a belief in any supernatural power, not all atheists BELIEVE there are no gods, they simply see no evidence of them. Contrasted with agnostics who claim they have no clue one way or the other, Atheists lack the belief, while Agnostics claim it is unknowable.

If Angostics claim its unknowable then they also lack the belief. In order to believe, you must claim knowledge.

I think its more accurate to say that atheists see no evidence for God therefore believe he does not exist. Agnostics see no evidence for God, but believe no solid conclusions can be drawn from a lack of evidence.

can't disagree with that.

it actually takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God's existence.

belief in non-belief. God, to this atheist, is like Santa Claus or little green men. I don't NOT believe in these things. Non-belief presupposes a choice, and I don't in any way entertain the notion that there is a god, may be a god, or was once a god. It's a figment, to my way of thinking. I don't need evidence that there is no god. Non-existence does not require prove.

I WILL agree that people should be left alone in their beliefs. As an atheist, I don't have a problem with people who believe (as long as they aren't bludgeoning others with their beliefs).

No doubt there are atheists out there who try to convert people, and this is wrong. At this moment in history in this country, it is the religious who are overwhelming the public discourse. This will certainly change, but for now, it leaves the non-religious a little pissed.

"Non-existence does not require prove."

If you are claiming that the non-existence is fact, then without proof, that is a belief.

then maybe the name "Christ" wouldn't be so besmirched (by us, I mean).

As some have stated, some people reject Christianity because they don't see Jesus being followed (I'm paraphrasing). If that's not the standard to follow, then the name of the religion needs to be changed.

It IS possible to study and understand other religions with the use of reason and keep the emotions to a minimum. I loved this ad that was in an issue of the Presbyterian Church of Canada (a college ad, as I recall):

"Jesus died to take away our sins, not our minds"

another reason is that many people, such as myself, changed religions because it didn't feel right, if you take my meaning. I searched for the one that fit me, and I found it and I am happy with it. But I wouldn't say that my religion is right for anyone else, there is no "One size fits all" religion or ethical system, we would be wise to remember that.

"If we who say we're Christians would be following Jesus more
then maybe the name "Christ" wouldn't be so besmirched (Edit: by Christians, I mean).

Let me digress: Once I heard a great sermon about how THAT is the true meaning of the commandment about not taking the Lord's name in vain. In other words, it's the people who claim to be followers of Christ, yet behave as though they never heard of him, who take the name in vain. Those who don't make that claim in the first place are not guilty.

This is probably the most civil discussion that I have seen re. these subjects.
Some things are better discussed than debated.

Damn I'm good!!!! ;)

Of rational debaters like you. Damn egomaniac. :evilgrin:

also helps being a Selftheist, worship me dammit!!!!! :evilgrin:

I think when the topic of religion surfaces on DU, there is usually lots more agreement than even the people in the conversation realize. Good to know that we CAN chill out when on this subject!

I asked my parents about high school in their day. They had prayer in school. Also, there were the gangs, cliques, teenagers in trouble, etc. just like the present.

Sounds to me that high school was just as bad then as in my time to the present. So what changed?

The fundamentalists are not being persecuted. They can't make everyone pray THEIR way anymore. That has them hopping mad. The unfair advantage they had in the recent past isn't there. Society lost its morals when prayer was taken out of school, they lament.

From I've read, and considering the timeframe, society was very short on morals. Jim crow segregation, being forced to pay for services that weren't provided (e.g. school, see Brown vs Board of Education), limited economic mobility to name a few. At lot of people would argue the validity of "the good ol' days."

Here in GA, they tried to get around that with the "moment of silence" law. A metro Atlanta teacher was fired for not enforcing it in his class. What he should have done was wear a skullcap and read a copy of the Koran and seen the reaction to that.

Thanks for the space. I rarely have a post this long.

Still, there are no atheists on final exam day. :evilgrin:

edit for clarity

LOL

Y'know, my older sister sincerely believes that seperation of church and state is a form of persecution against those who believe in God.

I try to tell her that her opinion would probably be different if the religion she practices isn't the main religion of this country. How would she like to be the one ostracized for praying to God when everyone else prays to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

She doesn't understand. She refuses to acknowledge any perspective that might lead her to change her conclusion that seperation of church and state is persecution. She contradicts herself repeatedly but still refuses to let go of her emotion-based conclusion about seperation of church and state.

I've given up. "Live and let live", right? It would be nice if she would extend that same courtesy to others, though.

while Christianity is the majority religion in this country, first it is rapidly losing its dominate place, and second, no Denomination is the Majority in this country. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern and Greek Orthodox Churches fight over matters of theology and practice, and the Protestant demoninations fight over the same amongst themselves. Your sister would sing a different tune if (assuming she is not Catholic), if her kids had to say the Lord's Prayer at public school.

Catholic. And she probably won't be sending her kids to a public school. (Assuming her community's parochial school stays open.) So, why should she care if kids in a public school are not led in daily prayer?

But she thinks school shootings and violence at school are caused by seperation of church and state. An e-mail told her this. And the e-mail is pro-religion, so it must be right.

I know she would deny it if I asked her, but she is of the opinion that those who are not like her deserve to suffer.

just tell her that she isn't Christian, according to most of the folks on the religious right. Of course it would be like water off a duck's back, it'll never penetrate. If she does truly believe that others deserve to suffer because they do not believe as she does, then I would think that she is the one suffering.

Pretty simple, actually. And to think I learnt it from a fortune cookie.

I recently discovered an addendum to the Golden Rule:

Do unto yourself as you would have others do unto you.

it's a keeper.

those quotes, go to:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

I'm not affiliated with them in any way, but they try to cover all information on as many religions as possible. An Invaluable resource.

for what you found at the religious tolerance website. Maybe our threads/posts from now on could be done with the understanding of "Religious Tolerance"! (A novel idea for this world, eh?)

one we should ALL live up to.