View Full Version : Study: Churchgoers more likely to support torture
TheOtherAndrew
04/30/09, 10:19 PM
Some things really do just bring the chuckles.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
...
The religious group (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/religion) most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.
kdefrisc
04/30/09, 10:46 PM
lol all those right wing religious nuts had to come from somewhere. gives a bad rap to non-tortuous churchgoers though
thursday727
04/30/09, 11:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
A majority of them likey the death penalty too. Not a surprise.
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 01:16 AM
could we just rename this forum to 'religion bashing'?
could we just rename this forum to 'religion bashing'?
Does have a nice sound to it.
eraserhead
05/01/09, 06:38 AM
This is not surprising.
could we just rename this forum to 'religion bashing'?
He posted a fucking statistic. How is that bashing?
I'm a Christian and that's a pretty sad reflection on the Evangelical church.
could we just rename this forum to 'religion bashing'?
Woahh, no need to get so defensive. There's nothing posted in this thread so far that requires a reaction like that.
Mercy Medical
05/01/09, 07:14 AM
And these are the reasons why I continue to distance myself from religion as an organization and churches...
SpacePunk
05/01/09, 08:30 AM
could we just rename this forum to 'religion bashing'?
I know, it's like Stalin's years of torture never happened.
Who the fuck cares if 54% of 336 weekly churchgoers answered a survey question, saying it was justified?
They are not the ones doing the torture.
Interesting points:
25% of weekly churchgoers said it was NEVER justified.
26% of people who don't go to Church said it was NEVER justified... almost identical.
The sample of people who don't go to Church was a mere 168.
5% of that group also answered with "Don't know"... compared to just 2% of churchgoers.
saysmydoctor
05/01/09, 09:01 AM
could we just rename this forum to 'religion bashing'?
It's a statistic, stop crying.
I know, it's like Stalin's years of torture never happened.
No one denied Stalin torturing anybody. Try again.
asmolitor
05/01/09, 10:19 AM
i'd like to think there's a confounding variable of political affiliation that makes this sort of common sense.
could we just rename this forum to 'religion bashing'?
Many in this country use religion as a basis for a belief of moral superiority. Things like this only serve to show that someone's not any better of a person or kinder because they belong to a particular religion or none at all. Humans are humans.
I know, it's like Stalin's years of torture never happened.
This might be the worst use of a strawman I've ever seen employed. Why on Earth would you essentially (and unintentionally) liken churchgoers support of torture to support of the actions of Stalin?
If you're trying to defend beliefs or actions, you don't draw a parallel to something that your argument inherently concedes is evil.
It's akin to justifying a heist by arguing that no one talks about that bank-robbing pedophile anymore.
Some things really do just bring the chuckles.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html
Ergh, what a load of bollocks.
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 11:19 AM
oh ok. my bad. since we're 'just posting statistics', and there's no intent to bash religion, i figured i'd throw in an article myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
please, no crying.
im not inferring that all atheists advocate torture and genocide...i'm just posting an interesting article.
I know, it's like Stalin's years of torture never happened.
Who the fuck cares if 54% of 336 weekly churchgoers answered a survey question, saying it was justified?
They are not the ones doing the torture.
Interesting points:
25% of weekly churchgoers said it was NEVER justified.
26% of people who don't go to Church said it was NEVER justified... almost identical.
The sample of people who don't go to Church was a mere 168.
5% of that group also answered with "Don't know"... compared to just 2% of churchgoers.
Don't try to pin Stalin's escapades on religious/anti-religious fervour.
oh ok. my bad. since we're 'just posting statistics', and there's no intent to bash religion, i figured i'd throw in an article myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
please, no crying.
im not inferring that all atheists advocate torture and genocide...i'm just posting an interesting article.
sup Michele Bachmann
OdjRFJQuoiI
oh ok. my bad. since we're 'just posting statistics', and there's no intent to bash religion, i figured i'd throw in an article myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
please, no crying.
im not inferring that all atheists advocate torture and genocide...i'm just posting an interesting article.
People using Khmer Rouge and communism as a point against atheism are blatantly setting up straw men.
Please enlighten us as to why we shouldn't be quick to criticize the fantasies that Christians adhere to, which seem to guide their moral compasses? Don't just come in here and pinprick, throw up an argument for chrissakes!
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 11:33 AM
People using Khmer Rouge and communism as a point against atheism are blatantly setting up straw men.
Please enlighten us as to why we shouldn't be quick to criticize the fantasies that Christians adhere to, which seem to guide their moral compasses? Don't just come in here and pinprick, throw up an argument for chrissakes!
stop crying. i meant nothing by it, i was just posting an article.
TheOtherAndrew
05/01/09, 11:34 AM
oh ok. my bad. since we're 'just posting statistics', and there's no intent to bash religion, i figured i'd throw in an article myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
please, no crying.
im not inferring that all atheists advocate torture and genocide...i'm just posting an interesting article.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f260/TheOtherAndrew/Humorful%20captions/camron.gif
stop crying. i meant nothing by it, i was just posting an article.
Stop posting articles, start posting arguments.
Being a wiseass doesn't prove a point, it just makes you look ignorant.
Especially when your "articles" aren't disputed. You're clearly just deciding to take offense because someone has called BS on your archaic belief-system that tends to pat itself on the back for its morals, only to turn around and commit atrocity after atrocity. No one here is standing up for Khmer Rouge or Stalin or communistic genocide.
Can you craft a coherent response, or can we expect another Wikipedia entry containing info that no one disputes?
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 11:50 AM
you're crying 'straw-man argument' in this thread?
you're implying that in a small sample size of people, a small percentage more of churchgoers advocating torture somehow reflects the beliefs and views of all religious people?
and you're then crying straw-man argument?
"Being a wiseass doesn't prove a point"
well what point have you made?
you're crying 'straw-man argument' in this thread?
you're implying that in a small sample size of people, a small percentage more of churchgoers advocating torture somehow reflects the beliefs and views of all religious people?
and you're then crying straw-man argument?
You're creating yet another strawman.
What do you think is the actual truth? Do you believe churchgoers are less likely to support torture than non-churchgoers?
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 12:05 PM
"clearly just deciding to take offense because someone has called BS on your archaic belief-system that tends to pat itself on the back for its morals, only to turn around and commit atrocity after atrocity"
"be quick to criticize the fantasies that Christians adhere to, which seem to guide their moral compasses"
i'm not creating anything.
you're crying 'straw-man argument' in this thread?
you're implying that in a small sample size of people, a small percentage more of churchgoers advocating torture somehow reflects the beliefs and views of all religious people?
and you're then crying straw-man argument?
"Being a wiseass doesn't prove a point"
well what point have you made?
Jesus Christ...I didn't create the survey. I don't even necessarily agree that it's accurate.
I made a point of asking you to back up whatever beef you have with the survey with some actual evidence, not just sophomoric whining about how much slack the atheists apparently get as opposed to Christians.
"clearly just deciding to take offense because someone has called BS on your archaic belief-system that tends to pat itself on the back for its morals, only to turn around and commit atrocity after atrocity"
"be quick to criticize the fantasies that Christians adhere to, which seem to guide their moral compasses"
i'm not creating anything.
SO MAKE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST WHAT YOU JUST QUOTED!!!
Jesus...what the hell do you even WANT here?
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 12:22 PM
1. a small group of people advocate torture
2. you imply that this reflects the views of the entire religious community and their moral beliefs.
3. you're now asking me what i find wrong with this scenario.
4. i'm done wasting my time with you.
don't cry strawman when you're only argument against me is a strawman itself.
If the majority of a poll is a 'small group', what does that make the minority?
1. a small group of people advocate torture
2. you imply that this reflects the views of the entire religious community and their moral beliefs.
3. you're now asking me what i find wrong with this scenario.
4. i'm done wasting my time with you.
don't cry strawman when you're only argument against me is a strawman itself.
1. No argument
2. I implied no such thing. I stated that Christianity has a tendency to be very proud of its morals, then turn around and commit wrong. Case in point...torture (spanish inquisition, witch-hunts), homophobia, racism, etc.
3. I'm asking you to make an argument, not just pinprick with soundbytes.
4. Good. One less person sticking up for religion with baseless nonsense.
My argument is that you are lousy at making a point in a thread. No strawmen there.
open mind
05/01/09, 12:36 PM
a small group of christians state thier opinion and non-christians hop on it and act like it represents the whole of christianity....how predictable.
I haven't heard anyone state what they think the number is really at.
Not completely sure why people are fighting this either. I'm pretty sure I've seen polls that suggest a majority of Americans think torture is justified, at least in certain circumstances. A high majority of churchgoers also support the death penalty too. :shrug:
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 12:59 PM
I haven't heard anyone state what they think the number is really at.
Not completely sure why people are fighting this either. I'm pretty sure I've seen polls that suggest a majority of Americans think torture is justified, at least in certain circumstances. A high majority of churchgoers also support the death penalty too. :shrug:
as do the majority of americans as a whole. needlessly throwing the term 'churchgoers' into the equation is just simply baiting people into bashing religion, and making their beliefs seem guilty by association.
my point isnt that the survey is wrong, my point is that your taking a small group of people and attributing their opinions to the community as a whole.
as far as my posted article, i dont really believe atheists advocate pol pot's actions at all, i was just simply following your lead. (not you J.C. specifically). i'm taking the actions and attitudes of a particular group of people and attributing those traits to anyone that shares a common idea, whether that idea was the cause of their actions or not.
as do the majority of americans as a whole. needlessly throwing the term 'churchgoers' into the equation is just simply baiting people into bashing religion, and making their beliefs seem guilty by association.
my point isnt that the survey is wrong, my point is that your taking a small group of people and attributing their opinions to the community as a whole.
This thread is obviously directed at a specific group. I explained why I see significance in what you can take from it. There's no correlation between religious belief and decency. We aren't at a point in our country's history where that's generally accepted though.
as do the majority of americans as a whole. needlessly throwing the term 'churchgoers' into the equation is just simply baiting people into bashing religion, and making their beliefs seem guilty by association.
my point isnt that the survey is wrong, my point is that your taking a small group of people and attributing their opinions to the community as a whole.
as far as my posted article, i dont really believe atheists advocate pol pot's actions at all, i was just simply following your lead. (not you J.C. specifically). i'm taking the actions and attitudes of a particular group of people and attributing those traits to anyone that shares a common idea, whether that idea was the cause of their actions or not.
I see what you are saying (thank you), and concur that it's a lousy survey.
The only point that I was trying to make is that religion, by definition, is irrational belief (not being disrespectful, it is what it is), hence, if the survey WERE indicative of Christianity as a whole, that would not be surprising.
Voltaire sums up my thoughts on the matter..."If you can be made to believe absurdities, you can be made to commit atrocities".
This thread is obviously directed at a specific group. I explained why I see significance in what you can take from it. There's no correlation between religious belief and decency. We aren't at a point in our country's history where that's generally accepted though.
You sum it up quite well.
This survey speaks less to me about Christians, and more about the fact that people assume that "religion=good morals", which obviously, it doesn't.
as do the majority of americans as a whole. needlessly throwing the term 'churchgoers' into the equation is just simply baiting people into bashing religion, and making their beliefs seem guilty by association.
my point isnt that the survey is wrong, my point is that your taking a small group of people and attributing their opinions to the community as a whole.
as far as my posted article, i dont really believe atheists advocate pol pot's actions at all, i was just simply following your lead. (not you J.C. specifically). i'm taking the actions and attitudes of a particular group of people and attributing those traits to anyone that shares a common idea, whether that idea was the cause of their actions or not.
Except you compared apples to oranges. Atheists have never gone on crusades, inquisitions, and purgings explicitly for the sake of spreading atheistm. The same cannot be said for Christianity. While Pol Pot and Stalin may have been atheists, that was not their motivation for doing what they did. The same cannot be said of Christianity's foibles.
Atheists doing bad things =/= Christians doing bad things to further Christianity
You're creating yet another strawman.
What do you think is the actual truth? Do you believe churchgoers are less likely to support torture than non-churchgoers?
It has nothing to do with whether those people attend church or not. You could do the same survey with every group and say people who like the colour red are more prone to support torture, than people who like the colour purple. It's meaningless. Besides, the point everyone seems to be missing is that this survey was taken in America, a country that's more gun-happy than a lot of others. Do the same in say Britain or Canada, and the results would be completely differently. I personally think this means nothing anyway, as Christianity is based around a peaceful man, so I really don't think they ring true at all.
What's with all the Christianity bashing in this forum recently?
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 01:43 PM
Except you compared apples to oranges. Atheists have never gone on crusades, inquisitions, and purgings explicitly for the sake of spreading atheistm. The same cannot be said for Christianity. While Pol Pot and Stalin may have been atheists, that was not their motivation for doing what they did. The same cannot be said of Christianity's foibles.
Atheists doing bad things =/= Christians doing bad things to further Christianity
i understand what you're saying, but at the same time, if you were to ask christians if they approve of the crusades, inquisitions, purgings etc... you'd find nobody does.
you have to understand how i feel. yes, terrible things have been done in the name of religion. did i or the majority of religious people have anything to do with it? no. do we approve of it? no. but we're judged along with those ones as if we were right there beside them condoning it.
It has nothing to do with whether those people attend church or not. You could do the same survey with every group and say people who like the colour red are more prone to support torture, than people who like the colour purple. It's meaningless. Besides, the point everyone seems to be missing is that this survey was taken in America, a country that's more gun-happy than a lot of others. Do the same in say Britain or Canada, and the results would be completely differently. I personally think this means nothing anyway, as Christianity is based around a peaceful man, so I really don't think they ring true at all.
What's with all the Christianity bashing in this forum recently?
Critique of irrational beliefs that shape social/political policies =/= bashing
i understand what you're saying, but at the same time, if you were to ask christians if they approve of the crusades, inquisitions, purgings etc... you'd find nobody does.
you have to understand how i feel. yes, terrible things have been done in the name of religion. did i or the majority of religious people have anything to do with it? no. do we approve of it? no. but we're judged along with those ones as if we were right there beside them condoning it.
I understand your point.
However, I'm digging a little deeper. Religion provides a foundation for both good and bad things to be done. However, the good things CAN BE and ARE done without that foundation, so that leaves us with the bad. I say, remove the whole foundation of irrational, unsubstantiated belief, and you may help ameliorate some of the harm that comes from such beliefs.
Sorry if this comes off as religion bashing, but it's not. I'm promoting secular humanism.
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 02:04 PM
I understand your point.
However, I'm digging a little deeper. Religion provides a foundation for both good and bad things to be done. However, the good things CAN BE and ARE done without that foundation, so that leaves us with the bad. I say, remove the whole foundation of irrational, unsubstantiated belief, and you may help ameliorate some of the harm that comes from such beliefs.
Sorry if this comes off as religion bashing, but it's not. I'm promoting secular humanism.
but you see, this leaves out the fact that bad things too CAN BE and ARE done without the religious foundation. belief/non-belief to me has no bearing on whether a person is a decent moral person. the fact that harm has been done in the name of religion is irrelevant. bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of things. its more an indictment of human nature than the beliefs that a certain religion holds.
but you see, this leaves out the fact that bad things too CAN BE and ARE done without the religious foundation. belief/non-belief to me has no bearing on whether a person is a decent moral person. the fact that harm has been done in the name of religion is irrelevant. bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of things. its more an indictment of human nature than the beliefs that a certain religion holds.
No it doesn't.
Read Sam Harris. Irrational thinking is irrational thinking. If irrational thinking is contributing to the downfall of societies and to crimes against humanity, we need to root out irrational thinking. Religion is a prime suspect.
No, it's not.
Without religion, what harm can be done in the name of religion?
It's as a result of human nature being irrational that we have religions in the first place.
It has nothing to do with whether those people attend church or not. You could do the same survey with every group and say people who like the colour red are more prone to support torture, than people who like the colour purple. It's meaningless. Besides, the point everyone seems to be missing is that this survey was taken in America, a country that's more gun-happy than a lot of others. Do the same in say Britain or Canada, and the results would be completely differently. I personally think this means nothing anyway, as Christianity is based around a peaceful man, so I really don't think they ring true at all.
What's with all the Christianity bashing in this forum recently?
You're reiterating the point I've been making throughout the whole thread.
Things like this only serve to show that someone's not any better of a person or kinder because they belong to a particular religion or none at all. Humans are humans.
I explained why I see significance in what you can take from it. There's no correlation between religious belief and decency.
I take it you're not from the states, which is why you wouldn't be as familiar with the climate over here as it pertains to religion and government discussion in our country. I'm sure it's a different kind of environment over there. Different issues get taken advantage of by both sides of the political spectrum and as a result a lot of these things get interwoven. Torture has somehow managed to become a partsian political issue when it should be a common sense matter.
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 02:35 PM
No it doesn't.
Read Sam Harris. Irrational thinking is irrational thinking. If irrational thinking is contributing to the downfall of societies and to crimes against humanity, we need to root out irrational thinking. Religion is a prime suspect.
No, it's not.
Without religion, what harm can be done in the name of religion?
It's as a result of human nature being irrational that we have religions in the first place.
well this is where we disagree. i personally dont think that religion and rational thinking can't be combined.
and if harm isn't done in the name of religion, it would be done in some other name.
religion to me isn't dangerous. its the abuse of religious ideas that cause problems.
its like money and greed.
id argue that more atrocities have been committed in the name of greed than anything else. but that doesnt mean i feel money should be abolished.
so yes, religious fanaticism has caused suffering in the world, but thats exactly it. it wasn't the religion, it was the fanaticism. to me, removing the religious fanatical 'irrational' thinking people doesn't necessarily remove the religion as a whole. and as an extension of that, i don't feel religion as a whole should be condemned for the actions of the irrational fanatics.
You're reiterating the point I've been making throughout the whole thread..
I thought I'd back you up.
Critique of irrational beliefs that shape social/political policies =/= bashing
No, just constant posts making it seem as though Christianity is the cause of all the world's problems. When it clearly isn't. It gets a little old; especially when there's hardly ever any differentiation between spirituality and organised religion, just "Christianity is bad".
SLOWPOKE LOPEZ
05/01/09, 02:43 PM
by the way, id like to say that when we arent being idiots (me included) and insulting each other, i do respect everyone's opinions.
well this is where we disagree. i personally dont think that religion and rational thinking can't be combined.
and if harm isn't done in the name of religion, it would be done in some other name.
religion to me isn't dangerous. its the abuse of religious ideas that cause problems.
its like money and greed.
id argue that more atrocities have been committed in the name of greed than anything else. but that doesnt mean i feel money should be abolished.
so yes, religious fanaticism has caused suffering in the world, but thats exactly it. it wasn't the religion, it was the fanaticism. to me, removing the religious fanatical 'irrational' thinking people doesn't necessarily remove the religion as a whole. and as an extension of that, i don't feel religion as a whole should be condemned for the actions of the irrational fanatics.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on how a worldview that involves religion can be combined with rationality.
Perhaps true, but you can't conclusively state that.
I'm asserting that religious ideas themselves are the abuse of sound reasoning.
Money is a tangible object, it is verifiable, empirical. It is based in reality. Religion is not.
This is like saying "it wasn't the tree, it was the fruit".
I don't condemn religion for the action of fanatics. I condemn religion for engendering a mindframe which tends to breed fanatics.
by the way, id like to say that when we arent being idiots (me included) and insulting each other, i do respect everyone's opinions.
I admire anyone who is willing to discuss their opinions, even the ones they deem sacred.
Everyone should be careful not to mistake critique of ideas for personal insults.
No, just constant posts making it seem as though Christianity is the cause of all the world's problems. When it clearly isn't. It gets a little old; especially when there's hardly ever any differentiation between spirituality and organised religion, just "Christianity is bad".
If you feel that way, your keyboard is always at your disposal to make a counter-argument and right the wrongs of any open forum. I don't think Christianity has attracted any undue scrutiny. Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.
bowl of oranges
05/01/09, 03:06 PM
This isn't surprising at all.
If you feel that way, your keyboard is always at your disposal to make a counter-argument and right the wrongs of any open forum. I don't think Christianity has attracted any undue scrutiny. Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.
Well, all these arguments are purely based on organised religion (of any faith; Christianity, Islam etc), which of course is oppressive and based around hierarchy. For many their faith has nothing to do with this at all; I for one don't subscribe to it. I call myself a Christian because I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ, who no one whether they believe in Him or not can say taught anything other than love and forgiveness. I do believe that He died for the sin of the world. I no not however believe in any form of organised religion, or follow what hierarchical systems teach. Jesus often says throughout the Bible that the gentiles and pharisees are not to be trusted or followed. But, for some reason because I call myself a Christian my faith is subjected to ridiculous attacks. How about Islam or Buddhism? If we're going to generalise all religions and believers; both treat women pretty terribly, how about that for a relevant discussion? This survey about torture is pointless and proves nothing; except that America continues to be immersed within a violent culture.
ostartero
05/01/09, 04:36 PM
Haven't Christians always been less Christian than Athiests? Apart from the whole faith thing?
Haven't Christians always been less Christian than Athiests? Apart from the whole faith thing?
No.
FemaleCuckold
05/01/09, 08:14 PM
no one whether they believe in Him or not can say taught anything other than love and forgiveness.
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned"
---John 15:6
:eyebrow:
Well, all these arguments are purely based on organised religion (of any faith; Christianity, Islam etc), which of course is oppressive and based around hierarchy. For many their faith has nothing to do with this at all; I for one don't subscribe to it. I call myself a Christian because I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ, who no one whether they believe in Him or not can say taught anything other than love and forgiveness. I do believe that He died for the sin of the world. I no not however believe in any form of organised religion, or follow what hierarchical systems teach. Jesus often says throughout the Bible that the gentiles and pharisees are not to be trusted or followed. But, for some reason because I call myself a Christian my faith is subjected to ridiculous attacks. How about Islam or Buddhism? If we're going to generalise all religions and believers; both treat women pretty terribly, how about that for a relevant discussion? This survey about torture is pointless and proves nothing; except that America continues to be immersed within a violent culture.
Is this the same Jesus who said he came "not to bring peace, but a sword", the one who came to "put brother at variance against brother", who told people to abandon their families and obligations and "follow [him]", the one who said that those who didn't believe would be "cast off and burned"?
Do you realize what you're saying here? Your "faith", which involves outrageous claims of resurrection, ascention to heaven, burning bushes, virgin conception, and TORTURE of a human being to somehow save mankind by proxy...and you're calling the critique of such beliefs "ridiculous"?
And I'm sorry if it seems like other irrational faiths have been excluded, but if it makes you feel better, I feel the same way about them. My whole point is, what's wrong with sticking to reality and treating people nice for the sake of developing better character and society?
No.
Care to elaborate as to why not? I know a few homosexuals, african-americans, accused witches, and Turks that would disagree with you (just to name a few).
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned"
---John 15:6
:eyebrow:
Within context of the passage it is simply saying that without putting your faith and trust in Jesus you are like a weak branch that can not remain strong on your own. By remaining close to God, and entrusting in His words you never need worry about anything, because in the end you are constantly being cared for. "This is my Father's glory that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you".
batmannj
05/02/09, 05:49 AM
Two things stuck out to me in that article:
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small. See results of the survey
and
The survey asked: "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
The sample size was barely enough to even make a generalization, and the way the question is framed is generated for a result like the one that they got. I don't think this is all that reliable.
batmannj
05/02/09, 05:51 AM
Is this the same Jesus who said he came "not to bring peace, but a sword", the one who came to "put brother at variance against brother", who told people to abandon their families and obligations and "follow [him]", the one who said that those who didn't believe would be "cast off and burned"?
Do you realize what you're saying here? Your "faith", which involves outrageous claims of resurrection, ascention to heaven, burning bushes, virgin conception, and TORTURE of a human being to somehow save mankind by proxy...and you're calling the critique of such beliefs "ridiculous"?
And I'm sorry if it seems like other irrational faiths have been excluded, but if it makes you feel better, I feel the same way about them. My whole point is, what's wrong with sticking to reality and treating people nice for the sake of developing better character and society?
Did you read a Bible and then post those in there, or did you pick and choose off of a Google search? Did you read those in context? Or did you pick and choose what sounded best to you?
Is this the same Jesus who said he came "not to bring peace, but a sword", the one who came to "put brother at variance against brother", who told people to abandon their families and obligations and "follow [him]", the one who said that those who didn't believe would be "cast off and burned"?
Yes most certainty. It wasn't that he was advocating violence and war, it's a rallying cry if anything for people to finally take stock and recognise the mistakes and sins of the world; to throw off the shackles of wrong doing ad commit themselves to a life of peace and joy. "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me."
I don't where He says that anyone who doesn't believe will be cast off and burned, exactly. Unless you meant apart if your arm causes you to sin then you should cast it off, as it would be better to enter paradise without a limb then to commit more sin. But again it's all within context of the passage, as it was directed at those that commit terrible sins and the ones accusing Him of being a false prophet.
Care to elaborate as to why not? I know a few homosexuals, african-americans, accused witches, and Turks that would disagree with you (just to name a few).
Well I'm gay, and Jamaican/Chinese and I've never found that to hold any relevance. Does my race or sexuality really have anything to do with it?
In atheist countries like Cuba they lock up homosexuals, and in China they have an appalling human rights record. Britain is still essentially a Christian based country, and as far as I know we do neither. Please don't think I'm some right-wing nut bag; I'm not I'm an anarchist, but I get so tired of people basing all their criticisms of Christianity on what's only seen within the mainstream, and controlled by the church.
I really need to finish off my uni work so for today I'm gonna call it a day; but these articles and 'surveys' really piss me off when they only concern organised religion, which is only a tiny percentage in relation to the whole world.
Roboman
05/02/09, 05:59 AM
HUUUUGE lol to this whole thread, all over a fucking retarded survey and an article that uses clever wording to try to make its point more convincing.
"More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent" - wow, a whole 4 PERCENT over 50%! What an overwhelming majority!
"Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services" - Oh, so you mean ONLY almost half?
Honestly, a 12% difference between the two groups is hardly something to make a big deal about, especially from a survey so small and limited. I think all religions are a waste of time, but this just looks like bashing for the sake of bashing.
Within context of the passage it is simply saying that without putting your faith and trust in Jesus you are like a weak branch that can not remain strong on your own. By remaining close to God, and entrusting in His words you never need worry about anything, because in the end you are constantly being cared for. "This is my Father's glory that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you".
You're proving my point...
Every joe-schmoe thinks he knows the context. Therein lies the problem. What says your idea of "context" is the right one?
Arguing about the context of a Harry Potter quote= a good debate on the internet
Arguing about the context of what Jesus/Muhammad said in scripture= people's lives
Did you read a Bible and then post those in there, or did you pick and choose off of a Google search? Did you read those in context? Or did you pick and choose what sounded best to you?
No, I leave that up to Christians, who should be busy stoning patrons at Red Lobster rather than bugging the gays based on "scripture".
And yes, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover several times.
Who says YOU know what the context is?
You're proving my point...
Every joe-schmoe thinks he knows the context. Therein lies the problem. What says your idea of "context" is the right one?
Arguing about the context of a Harry Potter quote= a good debate on the internet
Arguing about the context of what Jesus/Muhammad said in scripture= people's lives
Sorry I didn't explain myself properly there. What I meant was it was a short quote out of a bigger passage, and in order to understand that particular section properly it's best to quote the whole passage, not just pick and choose.
No, I leave that up to Christians, who should be busy stoning patrons at Red Lobster rather than bugging the gays based on "scripture".
And yes, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover several times.
Who says YOU know what the context is?
I've never stoned anyone, and being gay myself it kind of gets in the way of being homophobic.
batmannj
05/02/09, 10:47 AM
You're proving my point...
Every joe-schmoe thinks he knows the context. Therein lies the problem. What says your idea of "context" is the right one?
Arguing about the context of a Harry Potter quote= a good debate on the internet
Arguing about the context of what Jesus/Muhammad said in scripture= people's lives
No, I leave that up to Christians, who should be busy stoning patrons at Red Lobster rather than bugging the gays based on "scripture".
And yes, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover several times.
Who says YOU know what the context is?
I didn't say I know the context, I am just saying that you can't pull one sentence out of a paragraph and get a full meaning out of an entire book. It is foolish.
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 11:22 AM
Within context of the passage it is simply saying that without putting your faith and trust in Jesus you are like a weak branch that can not remain strong on your own. By remaining close to God, and entrusting in His words you never need worry about anything, because in the end you are constantly being cared for. "This is my Father's glory that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you".
Oh bullshit. It means nothing of the sort and you know it. It's a callous ultimatum in the vein of "believe in me or else." There is no possible way anyone that truly believes in love would ever utter such a statement, especially insinuating the worst possible outcome by using words like "burn" and "fire." The context of the passage does not save it from this evil.
Please, for the sake of rationality and all that is good in this world, step back and imagine what you would think and how you would feel if someone you loved said something even remotely similar to that.
Even if you delude yourself into believing that it means you are merely a "weak branch that cannot remain strong on your own," he explicitly states that this "weak branch" will be gathered by men and tossed in a fire to burn (whether you take that as figurative or literal is irrelevant). He is giving an ultimatum that is rooted in the teachings of an egotistical, narcissistic, jealous and brutal God.
Oh bullshit. It means nothing of the sort and you know it. It's a callous ultimatum in the vein of "believe in me or else." There is no possible way anyone that truly believes in love would ever utter such a statement, especially insinuating the worst possible outcome by using words like "burn" and "fire." The context of the passage does not save it from this evil.
Please, for the sake of rationality and all that is good in this world, step back and imagine what you would think and how you would feel if someone you loved said something even remotely similar to that.
Even if you delude yourself into believing that it means you are merely a "weak branch that cannot remain strong on your own," he explicitly states that this "weak branch" will be gathered by men and tossed in a fire to burn (whether you take that as figurative or literal is irrelevant). He is giving an ultimatum that is rooted in the teachings of an egotistical, narcissistic, jealous and brutal God.
Pretty much this.
Oh bullshit. It means nothing of the sort and you know it. It's a callous ultimatum in the vein of "believe in me or else." There is no possible way anyone that truly believes in love would ever utter such a statement, especially insinuating the worst possible outcome by using words like "burn" and "fire." The context of the passage does not save it from this evil.
Please, for the sake of rationality and all that is good in this world, step back and imagine what you would think and how you would feel if someone you loved said something even remotely similar to that.
Even if you delude yourself into believing that it means you are merely a "weak branch that cannot remain strong on your own," he explicitly states that this "weak branch" will be gathered by men and tossed in a fire to burn (whether you take that as figurative or literal is irrelevant). He is giving an ultimatum that is rooted in the teachings of an egotistical, narcissistic, jealous and brutal God.
No, not bullshit. If you truly loved someone and you could see them going down a dangerous path of course you'd do all you could in order to save them. It's nothing to with being narcissistic or egotistic; it's quite the reverse, humans are so self-obsessed, that anything outside of themselves is seen as not as important.
batmannj
05/02/09, 01:26 PM
HUUUUGE lol to this whole thread, all over a fucking retarded survey and an article that uses clever wording to try to make its point more convincing.
"More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent" - wow, a whole 4 PERCENT over 50%! What an overwhelming majority!
"Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services" - Oh, so you mean ONLY almost half?
Honestly, a 12% difference between the two groups is hardly something to make a big deal about, especially from a survey so small and limited. I think all religions are a waste of time, but this just looks like bashing for the sake of bashing.
Exactly. People aren't even reading the article, they just read the headline and get all upity about it.
No, not bullshit. If you truly loved someone and you could see them going down a dangerous path of course you'd do all you could in order to save them. It's nothing to with being narcissistic or egotistic; it's quite the reverse, humans are so self-obsessed, that anything outside of themselves is seen as not as important.
I agree with you totally.
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 01:43 PM
No, not bullshit. If you truly loved someone and you could see them going down a dangerous path of course you'd do all you could in order to save them. It's nothing to with being narcissistic or egotistic; it's quite the reverse, humans are so self-obsessed, that anything outside of themselves is seen as not as important.
Of course, by making the grand assumption that his path is the correct path to follow and anything else is not only second-rate, but ultimately makes personal happiness completely impossible is not in any way egotistical. Right. :rolleyes:
If you truly loved someone and you could see them going down a dangerous path
Haha! Yes, because anything other than following the teachings of Jesus is "dangerous." If I thought someone was not following what I said, and I also thought I had the absolute best way to live life, but they were perfectly content and happy, not harming anyone else, I sincerely doubt I would condemn them. I may, just may, think to myself, "Hey, maybe everyone has their own subjective path to happiness, and they're doing fine without my input. Or even, maybe I'm the one who's wrong."
Of course, by making the grand assumption that his path is the correct path to follow and anything else is not only second-rate, but ultimately makes personal happiness completely impossible is not in any way egotistical. Right. :rolleyes:
Yeah, 'cause loving your neighbour and forgiving yourself for past wrongs fucking sucks.
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 01:54 PM
HUUUUGE lol to this whole thread, all over a fucking retarded survey and an article that uses clever wording to try to make its point more convincing.
"More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent" - wow, a whole 4 PERCENT over 50%! What an overwhelming majority!
"Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services" - Oh, so you mean ONLY almost half?
Honestly, a 12% difference between the two groups is hardly something to make a big deal about, especially from a survey so small and limited. I think all religions are a waste of time, but this just looks like bashing for the sake of bashing.
True, but if that 12% was not statistically significant the study would not have been published.
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 01:58 PM
Yeah, 'cause loving your neighbour and forgiving yourself for past wrongs fucking sucks.
You're missing the point. I am not critiquing Jesus' teachings here. I am critiquing the idea that his, and only his teachings, will lead to happiness. There is overwhelming amounts of evidence to support the idea that there are many paths to happiness.
If Jesus himself admitted this, and someone was perfectly happy without accepting him and his teachings into their heart, they would have no reason to convert to Christianity.. which is pretty much the whole idea.
The 12% difference they found does not speak well of atheists, honestly.
Exactly. People aren't even reading the article, they just read the headline and get all upity about it.
I agree with you totally.
Cheers :)
You're missing the point. I am not critiquing Jesus' teachings here. I am critiquing the idea that his, and only his teachings, will lead to happiness. There is overwhelming amounts of evidence to support the idea that there are many paths to happiness.
If Jesus himself admitted this, and someone was perfectly happy without accepting him and his teachings into their heart, they would have no reason to convert to Christianity.. which is pretty much the whole idea.
I'm not missing the point. I'm just making sure this debate doesn't steer back into the realms of criticisms based solely on the church, and not forgetting that the basis of all Christianity is Jesus; who believer or not no one can say wasn't purely and completely, good. Of course I know people can be happy without being Christians. Do I believe they can as fulfilled and happy as someone who follows the teachings of Christ? No, of course not, I wouldn't call myself a Christian if that was the case.
Of course, by making the grand assumption that his path is the correct path to follow and anything else is not only second-rate, but ultimately makes personal happiness completely impossible is not in any way egotistical. Right. :rolleyes:
Haha! Yes, because anything other than following the teachings of Jesus is "dangerous." If I thought someone was not following what I said, and I also thought I had the absolute best way to live life, but they were perfectly content and happy, not harming anyone else, I sincerely doubt I would condemn them. I may, just may, think to myself, "Hey, maybe everyone has their own subjective path to happiness, and they're doing fine without my input. Or even, maybe I'm the one who's wrong."
Well obviously, if someone was happy and content why would you? The two aren't comparable since there was a basis behind Jesus wanting people to be saved and happy, and someone already being happy. Why are you so quick to judge anyway?
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 04:09 PM
Do I believe they can as fulfilled and happy as someone who follows the teachings of Christ? No, of course not, I wouldn't call myself a Christian if that was the case.
Hahaha, aaaand game, set, match.
no one can say wasn't purely and completely, good.
Besides Nietzsche, right?
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 04:14 PM
Well obviously, if someone was happy and content why would you?
I'm going with C.) to save your soul.
Hahaha, aaaand game, set, match.
Not at all, although I wasn't aware this was a competition. Would you expect me not to back my own views? That's the whole basis of believing in anything. I would expect you to believe the same; otherwise everything you have said within this thread is completely pointless and without conviction.
Hahaha, aaaand game, set, match.
Besides Nietzsche, right?
You agree with Nietzsche? How fun that would be.
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 04:20 PM
Not at all, although I wasn't aware this was a competition. Would you expect me not to back my own views? That's the whole basis of believing in anything. I would expect you to believe the same; otherwise everything you have said within this thread is completely pointless and without conviction.
I'm saying you just admitted that Jesus provided an ultimatum. Believe in me, or else you will never be as happy and/or as fulfilled as someone who does. And that is ridiculous.
You agree with Nietzsche? How fun.
On everything? Obviously not. I'm willing to bet you've never actually read him.
I'm saying you just admitted that Jesus provided an ultimatum. Believe in me, or else you will never be as happy and/or as fulfilled as someone who does. And that is ridiculous.
That following His way was the only to be completely happy? Yes, of course I believe that.
I'm saying you just admitted that Jesus provided an ultimatum. Believe in me, or else you will never be as happy and/or as fulfilled as someone who does. And that is ridiculous.
On everything? Obviously not. I'm willing to bet you've never actually read him.
I've read "Beyond Good and Evil" and a short book about his life. I didn't realise this was a dick measuring contest on who's more read than the other. Down boy.
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 04:35 PM
That following His way was the only to be completely happy? Yes, of course I believe that.
Listen to yourself! You're egotistical and presumptuous!
Someone says, "I'm perfectly happy." And in your head you're thinking, "No, you can't be if you're not a Christian." That reaches levels of ridiculousness of the highest caliber.
I've read "Beyond Good and Evil" and a short book about his life. I didn't realise this was a dick measuring contest on who's more read than the other. Down boy.
Uh, when did I say I've read more than you? How did I insinuate that I'm more well-read than you are? You're just becoming defensive now.
SpacePunk
05/02/09, 04:56 PM
Care to elaborate as to why not? I know a few homosexuals, african-americans, accused witches, and Turks that would disagree with you (just to name a few).
Just because Christianity swept through Europe and its power structures in the last 1500 years(and through to America more recently).. and was used for persecuting Muslims, Witches, and homosexuals - is not a poor reflection on people following Jesus.
Also, if you are gonna pin institutional racism in America on Christianity, you are a moron.
People always have, and always will persecute others - and the fact that 2000 years of the World's History happened to have Christianity as a major religion is just the way it is.
See:
Ancient Hebrews punishing homosexuality.
Pre-Christian Egyptians forcing Jews into slavery.
Pre-Christian Romans feeding Christians to the lions.
Non-Christian Stalin exterminating millions of Ukrainians.
Non-Christians Pol Pot, Mao... mass genocide.
And on, and on, and on..
Listen to yourself! You're egotistical and presumptuous!
Someone says, "I'm perfectly happy." And in your head you're thinking, "No, you can't be if you're not a Christian." That reaches levels of ridiculousness of the highest caliber.
How am I egotistical? Because I don't agree with you and generally believe in my convictions? With your logic, I could say exactly the same for you because you don't believe what I do.
Uh, when did I say I've read more than you? How did I insinuate that I'm more well-read than you are? You're just becoming defensive now.
When you said you bet I'd never read any of his work; who's being presumptuous now?
Just because Christianity swept through Europe and its power structures in the last 1500 years(and through to America more recently).. and was used for persecuting Muslims, Witches, and homosexuals - is not a poor reflection on people following Jesus.
Also, if you are gonna pin institutional racism in America on Christianity, you are a moron.
People always have, and always will persecute others - and the fact that 2000 years of the World's History happened to have Christianity as a major religion is just the way it is.
See:
Ancient Hebrews punishing homosexuality.
Pre-Christian Egyptians forcing Jews into slavery.
Pre-Christian Romans feeding Christians to the lions.
Non-Christian Stalin exterminating millions of Ukrainians.
Non-Christians Pol Pot, Mao... mass genocide.
And on, and on, and on..
Exactly! Christian or not, people enjoy hurting one another.
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 05:33 PM
How am I egotistical? Because I don't agree with you and generally believe in my convictions? With your logic, I could say exactly the same for you because you don't believe what I do.
No, because you believe someone who isn't a Christian cannot ever be truly happy. That's absurd and until you recognize that you'll never be taken seriously.
When you said you bet I'd never read any of his work; who's being presumptuous now?
More of an inference than a presumption.
doppelganger
05/02/09, 05:52 PM
this thread makes me sad.
i am a christian and i have found that arguing (especially over the internet) about religion is almost pointless if people are so set on their beliefs. if a christian is so set on his beliefs and an atheist is so set on his beliefs, what's the point of arguing? one is not going to magically sway the other person. all that is going to happen is:
1. the christian hates atheists more
2. the atheist hates christians more
i am completely content with being christian because i find myself happier than when i didn't believe in God.
i find that believing in God is mostly experiential; facts and logic will most likely not change an atheist's thoughts. and honestly, an atheist's thoughts will pretty much only change after he sees really compassionate christians that show love (instead of christians fighting and acting stupid on internet forums) and no, i am not implying that atheists can't be compassionate and show love.
and all the atheists that talk about all the bad things that happened "in God's name" - obviously i realize that this is totally hypocritical. and that's exactly what it is because it's far from what Jesus taught in the bible and all i can do in response to people saying "religion kills" is "i'm sorry." i realize that religion kills, religion can be corrupt (shock). it doesn't mean that religion is necessarily bad - imo (the gov't can be corrupt but it's not necessarily bad).
i did not intend to offend any one with this post. have a good day :) [/rant]
No, because you believe someone who isn't a Christian cannot ever be truly happy. That's absurd and until you recognize that you'll never be taken seriously.
Truly happy? Sure. AS happy as someone with Jesus in their lives, then no.
More of an inference than a presumption.[/QUOTE]
No I'd say you were being pretty presumptuous.
Look, I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. For the first 16 years of my life I was a staunch atheist, so I see both sides of the argument. Maybe you should try doing the same before making generalisations about the Christian faith and Jesus' teachings. Let's call it a day, this thread is only helping me not finish my uni work. I'm out.
billyboatkid
05/02/09, 06:16 PM
Glad I don't go to church. ;-)
FemaleCuckold
05/02/09, 06:19 PM
For the first 16 years of my life I was a staunch atheist, so I see both sides of the argument. Maybe you should try doing the same before making generalisations about the Christian faith and Jesus' teachings.
I like using my time for more productive things. Nice talking.
Just because Christianity swept through Europe and its power structures in the last 1500 years(and through to America more recently).. and was used for persecuting Muslims, Witches, and homosexuals - is not a poor reflection on people following Jesus.
Also, if you are gonna pin institutional racism in America on Christianity, you are a moron.
People always have, and always will persecute others - and the fact that 2000 years of the World's History happened to have Christianity as a major religion is just the way it is.
See:
Ancient Hebrews punishing homosexuality.
Pre-Christian Egyptians forcing Jews into slavery.
Pre-Christian Romans feeding Christians to the lions.
Non-Christian Stalin exterminating millions of Ukrainians.
Non-Christians Pol Pot, Mao... mass genocide.
And on, and on, and on..
There is no archaeological evidence of Jews being in slavery to Egyptians...ever.
Stalin exterminated millions of Ukrainians to quell nationalism.
Pol Pot and Mao committed genocide to further the communist agenda.
Ancient Hebrews punishing homosexuality? Try modern-day Christians.
Nice try.
How am I egotistical? Because I don't agree with you and generally believe in my convictions? With your logic, I could say exactly the same for you because you don't believe what I do.
When you said you bet I'd never read any of his work; who's being presumptuous now?
Exactly! Christian or not, people enjoy hurting one another.
Walking around thinking no one could possibly be "completely" happy unless they think like you do...that pretty much defines egotistical.
this thread makes me sad.
i am a christian and i have found that arguing (especially over the internet) about religion is almost pointless if people are so set on their beliefs. if a christian is so set on his beliefs and an atheist is so set on his beliefs, what's the point of arguing? one is not going to magically sway the other person. all that is going to happen is:
1. the christian hates atheists more
2. the atheist hates christians more
i am completely content with being christian because i find myself happier than when i didn't believe in God.
i find that believing in God is mostly experiential; facts and logic will most likely not change an atheist's thoughts. and honestly, an atheist's thoughts will pretty much only change after he sees really compassionate christians that show love (instead of christians fighting and acting stupid on internet forums) and no, i am not implying that atheists can't be compassionate and show love.
and all the atheists that talk about all the bad things that happened "in God's name" - obviously i realize that this is totally hypocritical. and that's exactly what it is because it's far from what Jesus taught in the bible and all i can do in response to people saying "religion kills" is "i'm sorry." i realize that religion kills, religion can be corrupt (shock). it doesn't mean that religion is necessarily bad - imo (the gov't can be corrupt but it's not necessarily bad).
i did not intend to offend any one with this post. have a good day :) [/rant]
Until resurrection, virgin birth, ascention to heaven, walking on water, burning bushes, and all the other fairy-tale nonsense in the Bible is considered "facts and logic", I'm pretty sure you've got that backwards, dummy.
Religion itself is an outright refusal to accept "facts and logic".
doppelganger
05/02/09, 06:48 PM
Until resurrection, virgin birth, ascention to heaven, walking on water, burning bushes, and all the other fairy-tale nonsense in the Bible is considered "facts and logic", I'm pretty sure you've got that backwards, dummy.
Religion itself is an outright refusal to accept "facts and logic".
i was more so talking about the logic christians use to convert atheists (i.e. TAG argument, which is wrong by the way) and by facts i meant the scientific things christians say that can make the bible miracles seem possible to atheists (i.e. possibility of all animals fitting into noah's ark). i'm sorry if you misunderstood me, it was my fault for not expanding.
edit: oh and i don't understand the idea of God, all events in the bible(such as the ones you listed) being 100% proven because that would go against the main principle of religion: faith. all the things you listed, christians take it by faith.
another edit: you have good taste in music :)
i was more so talking about the logic christians use to convert atheists (i.e. TAG argument, which is wrong by the way) and by facts i meant the scientific things christians say that can make the bible miracles seem possible to atheists (i.e. possibility of all animals fitting into noah's ark). i'm sorry if you misunderstood me, it was my fault for not expanding.
edit: oh and i don't understand the idea of God, all events in the bible(such as the ones you listed) being 100% proven because that would go against the main principle of religion: faith. all the things you listed, christians take it by faith.
another edit: you have good taste in music :)
I know that is the main tenet of religion, that's why I don't like it. You don't buy a used car or an insurance policy on "faith", you buy it on facts, evidence, and rationale. But for some reason, when choosing what to base an entire LIFE upon, people are content to go on "faith".
Anyway, thanks for the compliment about my taste in music! That's just my short list!
Edit: Also, excuse my curtness. I tend to get preachy about my atheism, so I apologize if I don't come off very nice.
doppelganger
05/03/09, 07:11 AM
I know that is the main tenet of religion, that's why I don't like it. You don't buy a used car or an insurance policy on "faith", you buy it on facts, evidence, and rationale. But for some reason, when choosing what to base an entire LIFE upon, people are content to go on "faith".
Anyway, thanks for the compliment about my taste in music! That's just my short list!
Edit: Also, excuse my curtness. I tend to get preachy about my atheism, so I apologize if I don't come off very nice.
again, i can only say that basing my life on faith is almost completely because of experiential reasons. the question it basically boils down to is whether you think i'm wasting my life or not. i, personally, don't think i am because of how much i have changed since i became christian. i could go into more detail but it's too early in the morning. ha
everyone gets preachy about topics such as religion, it's fine. i do it all the time.
SpacePunk
05/03/09, 08:51 AM
There is no archaeological evidence of Jews being in slavery to Egyptians...ever.
Stalin exterminated millions of Ukrainians to quell nationalism.
Pol Pot and Mao committed genocide to further the communist agenda.
Ancient Hebrews punishing homosexuality? Try modern-day Christians.
Nice try.
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot... you just proved my point that even non-Christians always have and always will persecute others for selfish motives.
Just like those Romans and who jumped on the increasingly-popular Christianity to further their own agendas.
Ancient Hebrews DID punish homosexuals.. Homophobia did NOT start with Christianity.
Maybe you should read Vayikra/Leviticus.. written around 1440 BC.
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot... you just proved my point that even non-Christians always have and always will persecute others for selfish motives.
Just like those Romans and who jumped on the increasingly-popular Christianity to further their own agendas.
Ancient Hebrews DID punish homosexuals.. Homophobia did NOT start with Christianity.
Maybe you should read Vayikra/Leviticus.. written around 1440 BC.
I don't even know what the argument is at this point. You seem to be arguing non-christians are just as bad as christians. That would be the point I began making at the beginning of this thread. Humans are humans. Pretending you're any better or more decent because you subscribe to a faith or system of beliefs only adds to the schism.
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot... you just proved my point that even non-Christians always have and always will persecute others for selfish motives.
Just like those Romans and who jumped on the increasingly-popular Christianity to further their own agendas.
Ancient Hebrews DID punish homosexuals.. Homophobia did NOT start with Christianity.
Maybe you should read Vayikra/Leviticus.. written around 1440 BC.
I never argued that non-christians didn't persecute for selfish motives. I argued that Christians persecute in the name of their religion.
I never argued that Ancient Hebrews didn't punish homosexuals. I stated that modern-day Christians are carrying on the effort.
Maybe you should stop reading the bible, since you apparently accept it as history.
SpacePunk
05/03/09, 10:18 AM
I never argued that non-christians didn't persecute for selfish motives. I argued that Christians persecute in the name of their religion.
I never argued that Ancient Hebrews didn't punish homosexuals. I stated that modern-day Christians are carrying on the effort.
Yes, but my point was the people in power - Kings, Governments, Church leaders - were the ones using the religion to further their own agendas for power... from The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, to England invading Ireland..
Millions of Christians throughout history, have and do go about their daily lives.. without any thought for slaughtering Muslims, punishing Homosexuals, or invading other countries.
There will always be bigots, but Christians don't have the monopoly on bigotry.
There are millions of homophobic people out there today, and religion/Christianity has nothing to do with the homophobia of a lot of those people.
QuikTrig
05/03/09, 10:20 AM
I don't even know what the argument is at this point. You seem to be arguing non-christians are just as bad as christians. That would be the point I began making at the beginning of this thread. Humans are humans. Pretending you're any better or more decent because you subscribe to a faith or system of beliefs only adds to the schism.
i'm christian, and i don't think i'm better than anyone else. you can be an atheist, scientologist, deist, witch, muslim...i personally don't give a shit. i just don't get why each side is so adamant in proving that the other side is the bad guy. if the stance that the person takes is making them content, why are we arguing over anything at all, period?
SpacePunk
05/03/09, 10:23 AM
i'm christian, and i don't think i'm better than anyone else. you can be an atheist, scientologist, deist, witch, muslim...i personally don't give a shit. i just don't get why each side is so adamant in proving that the other side is the bad guy. if the stance that the person takes is making them content, why are we arguing over anything at all, period?
Exactly, and some of the atheists/agnostics in here come off more condescending and superior than the "arrogant" Christians they are attacking.
i'm christian, and i don't think i'm better than anyone else. you can be an atheist, scientologist, deist, witch, muslim...i personally don't give a shit. i just don't get why each side is so adamant in proving that the other side is the bad guy. if the stance that the person takes is making them content, why are we arguing over anything at all, period?
Do you think I'm going to burn in Hell for not accepting your God?
QuikTrig
05/03/09, 10:27 AM
Do you think I'm going to burn in Hell for not accepting your God?
no, i do not. are you going to say i'm not a "true" christian now?
no, i do not. are you going to say i'm not a "true" christian now?
Nope. I just got done saying humans are humans, regardless of your beliefs. Your stance differs from that of many Christians(and followers of other faiths as well) though and those kinds of teachings only serve to drive us apart.
I think it would be hypocritical to suggest that non-believers or homosexuals aren't any less decent as people, but then hold the belief that they'll burn in Hell for their actions.
batmannj
05/03/09, 11:07 AM
I don't even know what the argument is at this point. You seem to be arguing non-christians are just as bad as christians. That would be the point I began making at the beginning of this thread. Humans are humans. Pretending you're any better or more decent because you subscribe to a faith or system of beliefs only adds to the schism.
I agree with you here. I am Christian, but I also have some Christian friends that sometimes come off very judgmental, simply because I enjoy drinking a beer every so often. It is upsetting for sure, and I totally understand where you are coming from.
Do you think I'm going to burn in Hell for not accepting your God?
This sort of goes with the above post: Any Christian who tells you that you is totally wrong. The only one (who I believe) can judge anyone in this life is Jesus Christ. I believe in him, and I respect and understand that you do not. I hate it when Christians are judgmental.
QuikTrig
05/03/09, 11:08 AM
Nope. I just got done saying humans are humans, regardless of your beliefs. Your stance differs from that of many Christians(and followers of other faiths as well) though and those kinds of teachings only serve to drive us apart.
I think it would be hypocritical to suggest that non-believers or homosexuals aren't any less decent as people, but then hold the belief that they'll burn in Hell for their actions.
i would agree. as selfish as it seems, i think people should just be concerned about finding the right belief system for themselves, and quit worrying about everyone else. if whatever you believe makes you content, then that should be the end of it. i get sick of the high-horse christian stuff too, but from personal experience, pretty much all christians i know would never claim that non-believers are going straight to hell.
i've trolled the religious debates on this forum for a while, and never wanted to get involved simply for the fact that the amount of personal attacks and irrelevent posts, on both sides, is ridiculous. noone listens or has respect for the other side. everyone is pretentious.
personally, i do believe that christians get a really bad rep in general. i've attended religious-affiliated schools since i was 5, and have never encountered a teacher or student that is as closed-minded the way they are described on this site. there were tons of atheists at my high school, and they would attend religious retreats with us. they were treated "normally", never had any beliefs imposed on them, and for the most part they enjoyed the experience as much as us christians. obviously there are closed-minded religious folk out there, but i personally don't think it's anywhere near what most people think, ESPECIALLY in our generation.
I agree with you here. I am Christian, but I also have some Christian friends that sometimes come off very judgmental, simply because I enjoy drinking a beer every so often. It is upsetting for sure, and I totally understand where you are coming from.
This sort of goes with the above post: Any Christian who tells you that you is totally wrong. The only one (who I believe) can judge anyone in this life is Jesus Christ. I believe in him, and I respect and understand that you do not. I hate it when Christians are judgmental.
You're allowed to make your own judgments. I'm sure you've personally seen the good in people before. You're making judgments whenever you surround yourself with certain people.
I've just never understood how someone who has witnessed the good in non-believers and homosexuals could worship a God who condemns people on those grounds(not saying that's typical of all Christianity, but it's a common/popular interpretation of the Bible). If you can see the good in somebody, surely God could too.
personally, i do believe that christians get a really bad rep in general. i've attended religious-affiliated schools since i was 5, and have never encountered a teacher or student that is as closed-minded the way they are described on this site. there were tons of atheists at my high school, and they would attend religious retreats with us. they were treated "normally", never had any beliefs imposed on them, and for the most part they enjoyed the experience as much as us christians. obviously there are closed-minded religious folk out there, but i personally don't think it's anywhere near what most people think, ESPECIALLY in our generation.
Yeah, Christians around the world have really had it rough. :rolleyes:
If you look at the polling for the last election, people are generally more accepting of Muslims, homosexuals, women, and african-americans than they are of atheists. I call that a bad rap.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx
You're allowed to make your own judgments. I'm sure you've personally seen the good in people before. You're making judgments whenever you surround yourself with certain people.
I've just never understood how someone who has witnessed the good in non-believers and homosexuals could worship a God who condemns people on those grounds(not saying that's typical of all Christianity, but it's a common/popular interpretation of the Bible). If you can see the good in somebody, surely God could too.
I agree. There are always going to be moderates or liberals in religions. My question is, at a certain point, why even identify as such?
QuikTrig
05/03/09, 11:26 AM
You're allowed to make your own judgments. I'm sure you've personally seen the good in people before. You're making judgments whenever you surround yourself with certain people.
I've just never understood how someone who has witnessed the good in non-believers and homosexuals could worship a God who condemns people on those grounds(not saying that's typical of all Christianity, but it's a common/popular interpretation of the Bible). If you can see the good in somebody, surely God could too.
little side-note: back in high school, we were taught that homosexuality was absolutely not a sin, and that they, like all people, should still be treated like "children of god". this was 6-7 years ago, before all the same-sex marriage stuff.
probably not the "official" view of the church (i haven't read the catechism in years), but just showing that there are christians out there that are more progressive than most believe.
little side-note: back in high school, we were taught that homosexuality was absolutely not a sin, and that they, like all people, should still be treated like "children of god". this was 6-7 years ago, before all the same-sex marriage stuff.
probably not the "official" view of the church (i haven't read the catechism in years), but just showing that there are christians out there that are more progressive than most believe.
You're from San Francisco?
QuikTrig
05/03/09, 11:31 AM
You're from San Francisco?
ya i forgot to mention that haha. but the point still stands as in college (down in san diego), i've had several christianity classes (all taught by priests) and they have said the same things.
QuikTrig
05/03/09, 11:40 AM
Yeah, Christians around the world have really had it rough. :rolleyes:
If you look at the polling for the last election, people are generally more accepting of Muslims, homosexuals, women, and african-americans than they are of atheists. I call that a bad rap.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx
i don't believe those polls much, only because i think when such issues are brought up, response bias plays a hugeee role, imo. there's no way in hell that 88% of americans would vote in a woman president.
but i don't see your point. most of the respondents probably find their belief system to be important in a president. if atheism counters that, then why would they vote for that. not saying that its right (personally, i think its dumb) but the numbers don't surprise me. once again, this illustrates the divide, which i find to be absolutely retarded.
ya i forgot to mention that haha. but the point still stands as in college (down in san diego), i've had several christianity classes (all taught by priests) and they have said the same things.
Criticism leveled at the religious right isn't meant to apply to everyone under the religious tent. The kind of progressive christianity you're talking about would get rejected by the evangelical community, who are the focus of the critiques.
QuikTrig
05/03/09, 11:53 AM
Criticism leveled at the religious right isn't meant to apply to everyone under the religious tent. The kind of progressive christianity you're talking about would get rejected by the evangelical community, who are the focus of the critiques.
which i agree with. and you and a couple others on the site realize the difference within the christian community. a lot of people can't differentiate the two, which is sad.
batmannj
05/03/09, 01:47 PM
Yeah, Christians around the world have really had it rough. :rolleyes:
If you look at the polling for the last election, people are generally more accepting of Muslims, homosexuals, women, and african-americans than they are of atheists. I call that a bad rap.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx
I really wish that both sides would stop playing the victim card. It gets awfully petty
batmannj
05/03/09, 01:54 PM
You're allowed to make your own judgments. I'm sure you've personally seen the good in people before. You're making judgments whenever you surround yourself with certain people.
I've just never understood how someone who has witnessed the good in non-believers and homosexuals could worship a God who condemns people on those grounds(not saying that's typical of all Christianity, but it's a common/popular interpretation of the Bible). If you can see the good in somebody, surely God could too.
I see what you mean. I meant the judgment thing about how people say non-Christian's are going to hell. No body knows who is going where.
doppelganger
05/03/09, 07:27 PM
Yeah, Christians around the world have really had it rough. :rolleyes:
If you look at the polling for the last election, people are generally more accepting of Muslims, homosexuals, women, and african-americans than they are of atheists. I call that a bad rap.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx
agreed. atheists get a pretty bad rep. in the future, however, my prediction is that atheists will be a much larger group and come out of their shells while christians become the minority and have it rough.
edit: if you're a christian that gets persecuted, you are most likely not being a lovely person. i don't think mother teresa got reprimanded much. if you are being sincere and understanding and still getting persecuted, then you should read some 2 corinthians 12:10
Mercy Medical
05/05/09, 05:24 AM
I saw this story posted in a Christian forum and the OP was actually praising this saying how it was a good thing. I honestly could not believe what I was reading.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7363179/
Mercy Medical
05/05/09, 05:26 AM
agreed. atheists get a pretty bad rep. in the future, however, my prediction is that atheists will be a much larger group and come out of their shells while christians become the minority and have it rough.
edit: if you're a christian that gets persecuted, you are most likely not being a lovely person. i don't think mother teresa got reprimanded much. if you are being sincere and understanding and still getting persecuted, then you should read some 2 corinthians 12:10
I feel like Christians are beginning to polarize themselves. There are the evangelicals who throw their belief systems down everyone's throat and feel the need to press their believes on the rest of the country and then you have the more casual Christians who go to church, but keep their beliefs to themselves. I think the evangelicals are going to make such a bad name for Christianity on a national level that the casual Christians aren't going to want to be associated with their negative image anymore.
I feel like Christians are beginning to polarize themselves. There are the evangelicals who throw their belief systems down everyone's throat and feel the need to press their believes on the rest of the country and then you have the more casual Christians who go to church, but keep their beliefs to themselves. I think the evangelicals are going to make such a bad name for Christianity on a national level that the casual Christians aren't going to want to be associated with their negative image anymore.
You could probably say the same about Republicans, as well.
Mercy Medical
05/05/09, 11:21 AM
You could probably say the same about Republicans, as well.
Well, they obviously go hand in hand these days.
ShShShark
05/06/09, 02:39 PM
Thank GOD they reported this. I have been waiting for 10 years to read about......whether people that go to church support torture more than non-churchgoers........
This is so much more important than the government takeover of chrysler, or the taliban/pakistan issue, or the economy, or the housing market?
Thank god for stations like Fox and CNN.
ShShShark
05/06/09, 02:42 PM
Also, I love how people are actually seriously debating this "study" right now.
Thank GOD they reported this. I have been waiting for 10 years to read about......whether people that go to church support torture more than non-churchgoers........
This is so much more important than the government takeover of chrysler, or the taliban/pakistan issue, or the economy, or the housing market?
Thank god for stations like Fox and CNN.
On the contrary...I think religious extremism is one of the underlying themes contributing to terrorism. Replacing one form with another is not a great idea.
ShShShark
05/06/09, 02:59 PM
On the contrary...I think religious extremism is one of the underlying themes contributing to terrorism. Replacing one form with another is not a great idea.
That's actually a really good point. There is separation between church and state in the US, as opposed to Islamic states, but you still do bring up a valid point.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.