How long until the plague of religion goes away?

[BetheButterfly]

It's also quite different because race is an objective attribute of a person; religion is an idea.

 

I was reading through this thread today and just saw this post.

 

Ideas are thought by person, and racism is actually an idea where a person is considered inferior to another person. Atheism, by the way, is also an idea - that God or gods (Supreme Beings) does/do not exist.

 

So a comment about race goes right to the individual, almost inescapably so. However, a comment about an idea can apply solely to the idea, and not to the person holding it.

However, the comment about race is thought (an idea) by an individual.

Out of interest, is it intolerant to label racism as a plague?

No, because racism includes everything negative. However, religion does not include everything negative. For example, helping the poor is an idea many religions include in their worldview. Is helping the poor a plague? Nope. Being faithful to one's husband or wife is also an idea many religions include in their worldview. Is being faithful to one's spouse a plague? Nope. Many ideas that are included in a religion (which as you yourself said, is an idea), are not bad/negative/destructive.

If the thread was "How long until the plague of racism goes away?", would anybody complain?

 

Probably not.

I would hope not. However, if the thread's title was "How long until the plaque of Atheism goes away?", would anybody complain? I personally would complain, because I do not see Atheism as being a plague. Many ideas in the idea of Atheism are good and understandable. Atheists can help the poor same as Theists. Atheists can be faithful to their spouse same as Theists, and so forth.

 

 

Would people jump in saying how unfair it is to negatively generalise a whole group of people?

 

Probably not.

People negatively generalize a whole group of people all the time. I think it's a part of human nature. However, many people do jump in to protest against that. For example, if I said that "All Atheists are mean." then I would hope people would jump in to say that's not fair and not true, because it isn't fair or true. I however know for a fact that not all Atheists are mean. I have Atheist friends who are wonderful and nice, as well as know of wonderful and nice Atheists. That is the same with Theists. If I said, "All Theists are mean." then I would hop people would jump in to say that's not fair and not true, since there are many wonderful and nice Theists.

 

 

I'm pretty sure I addressed this last time, even in your terms. It's just "hate the sin, not the sinner" in different clothes. Now, I didn't start this thread and as you can see I don't really see eye to eye with the thread starter on most things, so I really don't want to be cast as a defender of his views.

 

However, I just want to stress that your counterclaims are exactly the same thing as an atheist claiming that all Christians hate gays because the Bible condemns homosexuality as an abomination. It's just a flipside of the same coin.

 

You would counter that it's not the person, but the sin. And in this case, it's exactly the same only reversed. Can you at least accept this?

I don't hate gays or homosexuality. I understand both, so I am not sure of what you are trying to get me to accept. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I don't hate them or have anything against them.

I think as long as you're going to equate ideas with the people that hold them, you're going to see "bigotry" everywhere.

I do agree with that.

 

That's not really an answer to the question that was asked. Christians, like everybody else, do bad things sometimes.

Agreed

 

And of those, some are mostly or entirely motivated by their religious teachings. Other people tend to notice this, and it doesn't do your cause any good by handwaving away all criticism with the "True™ Christian" disclaimer. Especially when (not you specifically, but others) are then quite happy to turn around and, in a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, attack atheism by shouting "STALIN, MAO AND POL POT LOL!".

I am not "attacking" Atheism. I am showing that Atheists can indeed kill too, even though they do not believe in God. Interestingly, many Atheists attack Theists and then don't want us to show that Atheists can kill people too. Sadly, both Theists and Atheists can kill, and there are many reasons they do so that are rooted in hatred, anger, powerlust, and greed. These are found in both Theists and Atheists, both Theism and Atheism.

 

Going back to why non-theists have a "chip" on their shoulder, it's because when people who identify themselves as religious commit awful acts, or through collective bigotry towards others, they more often than not justify those actions with their religion and/or god(s). In other words, behaviour we as non-theists find odious is usually motivated by their religion by their own admission, and not just their character flaws.

That is why it is so important what Jesus said told his followers to do. True Christians do follow what Jesus said and did. Jesus said to love one's neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:39), each other (John 15:12), and enemies (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27-37). He said to do unto others what you would have them do to you, to pray for people, to bless, and to do good. He did not say to kill or hurt other people no matter their differences from us.

 

Then we agree, so why do you jump up and down so much when non-theists point this out? Regardless of whether they are, from one moment to the next, considered "True" Christians or otherwise, they are still Christians and their actions reflect on the group.

No we do not agree. Let's say you started teaching, and chose 5 apostles. Centuries later, people called themselves "QuickJoers" but did not obey your teachings. Let's say you told them to wear blue socks, but they didn't. They rather wore red socks. Now, would you call them true QuickJoers? However, those who were faithful to your teachings and wore red socks instead of blue socks, you would then call true Quickjoers, yes?

That is what happened with Jesus' teachings and Christians.

 

I know you want to only think about the good things and want other people to do the same, the really sad thing is that it forces you to engage in the same sort of mental gymnastics as the PR department for Exxon every time there's another major oil spill, so to speak. If you think that "Captain Hazelwood isn't a True Exxon employee, so your anger at us is misdirected and unjustified" is unconvincing, then you get some idea of what we think.

Jesus' teachings on love are very clear. It's not mental gymnastics to see when a person is not loving. Killing does not equal loving.

 

If I was criticisng Jesus, then this might have some relevance.

Jesus' teachings has relevance as to how his followers should act and what they should do. A true follower follows.

Didn't you know, our god is Christopher Hitchens, who came to earth in human form to pay the price and suffer esophageal cancer for our logical fallacies.

 

In all seriousness, this does raise a huge issue about authority figures, the cult of personality, and from what/where moral obligation derives. It probably deserves a topic of its own.

This does not merit a reply.

 

 

What do you think awaits followers of different religions, in the afterlife? Tolerance, acceptance, we all go to heaven?

I don't know. I've not died yet.

 

 

I

think you mean secular countries.

 

 

Well, in between the parts of the Bible that talk about love, there is also quite a lot of airtime given to an "us vs them" view of the world. Without even mentioning the Old Testament, there is a lot of prejudicial language directed at non-Christians: we are depicted as wicked, unrighteous, darkness, fools, chaff, swine, and so on. People who read the Bible just as sincerely as you take that kind of thing to heart, and it colours their perception of others.

 

Our very own M30 is quite vocal in chastising your kind for focusing on love at the exclusion of the other teachings. So, while you can claim your own idea of "True" Christianity and bemoan all others that don't conform to your ideal, they can do the same right back at you. And from a neutral, outsider perspective, it all looks like six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other to us.

You can of course think what you like, but to me, Jesus' teachings are very important and I strive to be a true follower of his. I am not perfect and it's a learning process, but I do 100% believe that following Jesus = obeying His teachings, which include to love people. Again, love does not equal killing. Edited January 18, 2013 by BetheButterfly

[Crippling Pain]

You guys make very valid points on both sides but how did this turn to racism?

[BetheButterfly]

Yes, I know racism is an idea (although race isn't). The point I was making was that you were comparing apples to oranges when you tried to contrast religion with race.

 

I disagree with you, because sad to say, some people hate others because of differences from them, whether that difference is based on ethnicity, culture, beliefs (ideas, which includes religion), and other differences. As for race, I believe the human race is 1, not many. All of us humans are one race, no matter our ethnicity and skin color, in my opinion.

 

 

Everything is thought by an individual. Even something like a table exists both as a conceptual idea (a flat surface with 4 legs) and as a real physical thing.

 

The point is that a person can change their mind about their religious beliefs; they cannot, by act of will, change their race.

We (humans) are all the human race. Yes of course we can change our minds about our ideas, including the idea that there is more than one human race (which I believe to be erroneous).

 

In a lot of cases, religion does, sometimes by its very teachings, motivate its followers to treat people of other religions and cultures as though they were inferior in a way very similar to racism.

Agreed, and this I do believe to be wrong. It is one of the areas that shame me about US history, for example. I personally wish my ancestors had not oppressed the Native Americans and had not forced many to try to forsake their faith, as well as killing many and taking their land and not helping those who were sick by "white man's diseases".

 

Now, I am for if people want to freely change their religious beliefs; that is perfectly fine. However, sad to say that yes many people of different religious and cultural ideas, including the idea that God does not exist, do treat other peoples' religious and cultural ideas as inferior, which is sad.

Most ideas can cause good or bad consequences. However, this is crossing into the territory of arguing whether or not the OP is correct, not whether they are intolerant for asking the question in the first place.

Would you consider it intolerant if someone asked how long till the plague of Atheist or the plague of Buddhism goes away? I personally would never ask that because to me, that is 100% intolerant and is considering my own belief to be superior to others, which I do not think is a healthy and tolerant mindset. Now, I am a Christian because of my personal experience with God. However, if I did not have personal experience with God, I would most likely be an Atheist, or an Agnostic.

 

I wouldn't complain per se; I'd simply try to argue that it wasn't. I wouldn't take it as a personal attack or anything. I can see that there is an important distinction between deploring an idea and deploring the people holding that idea.

In communities where people of different ideas live together, it is important to be polite and respectful of each other. However, when some people of different groups start using derogatory language towards other groups, it makes for an unpleasant and unproductive environment.

I personally have known quite a few people that are otherwise wonderful people, but now and again express the most breakthakingly offensive and bigoted ideas due to their religious beliefs, and I think they'd be even better off without that sort of baggage.

Isn't that thinking that your ideas are superior to theirs?

 

I agree that there are people who hold to similar beliefs as mine who I personally believe have offensive and bigoted ideas. However, telling them what they think is a plague most certainly doesn't help anyone. Rather, it just makes people defensive. If I told you the idea that you held to believe is true is a plague, or other offensive language, that would not solve the problem, right? What solves the problem, in my opinion, is love. Although love is easier said than done, it helps people realize when they are being offensive to others and how something is bigoted, and motivates them to stop and to be kind, tolerant, and helpful instead.

 

 

What I'm trying to explain is that the OP's labelling of religion as a plague is the atheist equivalent of "hate the sinner; not the sin". I just used homosexuality as an example of the concept.

Thanks for explaining. Understood and appreciated, and I hope you understand my point of view.

So, in a nutshell, you would not agree that you generalise against homosexuals even though you disapprove of their lifestyle. And the OP's retort to you would be exactly the same: he is not generalising against religious people as you claim, he just disapproves of their lifestyle.

Would you consider it bigoted and hateful and offensive if I asked, "How long till the 'plague' of homosexuality goes away?" I personally would be extremely offended if someone said/wrote that. Why? Because I think that is so offensive and intolerant and mean and cruel.

 

Even though I believe homosexuality is outside of God's guidelines, that in no way means that I think that people who live in the homosexual lifestyle are evil or horrible and to me, it would very much bother me if someone were so rude and mean as to consider what they consider to be part of themselves as a "plague." Do you understand what I mean? I angrily scold people I know who demean and mock people who are in the homosexual lifestyle, even though I don't agree with the lifestyle. I have a few friends who are homosexual/bisexual. When I was 15, I thought I might be bisexual, so I in no way judge those who are in this lifestyle. Rather, I love Sy Rogers who was in this lifestyle and whose "religious" ideas changed, which in turn motivated him to leave this lifestyle.

And I'm not saying you are. I'm just making a point about consistency.

 

 

 

This is just too simplistic. There's no point discussing it.

 

 

 

His teachings on tearing families apart over whether they will follow him or not are also clear. But you have to factor in Paul's teachings as well since he is the most prolific author of the New Testament. You can't ignore the Old Testament either, of which Jesus was at pains to point out that he wasn't doing away with.

A Christian is a person who follows Christ. Christ = Messiah (Anointed One-King). Christians consider Jesus to be the Christ, the Messiah. Because of this, Jesus Christ's teachings and example are the focal point for his true followers. Anyone who says they are his follower (Christian) yet do not obey his teachings and accept him are not telling the truth as to what they are.

And that's where the teachings of the Bible become less clear. Love becomes mingled with prejudice, specific dictates to certain churches are taken as timeless commandments that lead to misogyny, and the end result is exactly what you see around you today.

The end result is based on human nature, where we tend to disagree on everything as to which is better, tea or coffee. Even best friends with similar ideas to life can disagree on stuff. The prejudice comes in with what you wrote concerning thinking one's ideas (religious, ...) are superior to another's. This also includes other differences.

You are welcome to pretend that everything is very simple and obvious, but the fact remains that it is anything but.

This does not merit a response but is a cheap stab. I am not pretending anymore than you are.

 

It was humour. I'm sorry you weren't able to recognise it.

It wasn't amusing or funny to me, but rather seemed like mocking instead.

 

You are not limited to your own experiences in answering this question. What did Jesus say regarding those that did not follow him? I believe he was as clear on this point as he was on love.

Jesus did not tell his disciples (followers) to kill those who did not follow him. Rather, he focused on his disciples' faith:

 

 

John 6 (I boldened some.)

John 6 NIV - Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand - Some - Bible Gateway

 

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

 

 

Nobody said love does equal killing. I have no idea why you are focusing this to the exclusion of almost every other topic. *shrugs*

We were discussing people killing others, correct? This is why I brought up Atheists killing people too, since Theists killing people was brought up in the discussion.

 

I love you as a fellow human being. I don't have any desire to kill you or hurt you in any way, regardless of your differences with me, including differences in ideas.

Edited January 21, 2013 by BetheButterfly

[desiresmore]

You know, the title of thread is just as disingenuous as if I were to say "When will Atheists just realize that their daddy issues are the cause of their atheism"? I find nothing in the OP that is persuasive or substantive. I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible and other religious texts and I'm convinced both through the Scripture and through science that the universe is 14.7b years old, the earth about 4.6b years old. There is no contradiction between age data and creationism (unless you are a fundie, in which case I am on the sides of the atheists who mock them).

 

I also don't find it persuasive arguing from culture. Of course one's geography and culture will influence one's religious beliefs, but that says absolutely nothing as to whether or not there is any truth to the beliefs at all.

 

When forming my views on "religion" its not like I went to a store and picked out bits and pieces of things that I liked, that were on sale, easy to access and were of a nice color that made me feel happy. No, quite the contrary, sometimes the truth is not what we would prefer. When evaluating our "worldview" we should be asking ourselves the question "is it true"? One needs to examine the data with an open mind and find the best explanation for that data. Personally, I find Christianity to be the most unique and non-contradictory "religion" despite what some advocacy sites would have you believe.

 

It makes no sense to me to argue over high level issues when you haven't dealt with the basics, the foundational aspects of the debate. Things like, does God exist, what about meaning and purpose and all of that and a lot more.

[BetheButterfly]

I really don't understand what you disagree with regarding the race/religion distinction, because it's so plainly evident to me that race is an inherent and immutable attribute of a person, while religious belief is a state of mind that can be altered as a result of new information and experiences, or even on a whim in rare cases. Furthermore, race doesn't dictate or even suggest anything about a person's likely behaviour and attitudes towards others, whereas religious beliefs most definitely do. The two do not belong in any comparison.

 

At the moment you seem to be talking as though I'm supporting racism, or think that race is some important distinction. I have no idea why.

 

Either way, as I have said before, I would not consider the question "how long until the plague of atheism/religion/Buddhism/Christianity/Scientology/homeopathy/communism/nationalist socialism/etc goes away?" because it is a question directed at ideas, not people. You might be tempted to argue that ideas are held by people, and sometimes with great conviction and emotional investment, but a line of separation nonetheless exists even if they do take criticism of their beliefs personally. If an idea (or set of ideas) can be argued convincingly to be detrimental and harmful, then it is justifiable to label it a "plague", or something similar. It's not intolerant unless you want to embrace the futility of the "intolerant of intolerance" non-argument.

 

If an idea can be reasonably considered to be harmful, then it is also commendable to attempt to eradicate this idea. This can be done via education, debate, consensus, and other non-violent and ethical means. This isn't intolerance; it's progress. Ideas are not equal, and they have real consequences, so let's not pretend otherwise.

 

Everybody, yourself included, makes value judgements about ideas. As much as you like to chide me for thinking my ideas are superior to others, you do the same thing with regards to people who condemn homosexuals or those who claim to follow Jesus' teachings though not to your satisfaction, to the point that you label them dishonest. Liars. Who are you to make that call, according to your assertion that we should be respectful and loving? You seem to shift back and forth between blanket acceptance and harsh judgement when it suits you. Makes it rather hard to work out exactly where you're coming from, or whether you're perhaps subconsciously trying to project your own superiority on others?

 

I agree that the OP's phrasing lacks tact, and doesn't do much on its own to facilitate a meaningful discussion. I also don't agree with it either. But accusations of intolerance and bigotry are misplaced.

 

On a final note, I couldn't find anything in the latter half of your post that I felt the need to respond to. I honestly do not know where or how you got it into your head that we were talking about killing others, or that I ever claimed Jesus said anything of the sort. Only you keep bringing this up, and I keep having to repudiate it.

 

What I did say, however, in response to your claim that Jesus was very clear about loving others, is that he was equally clear about the eternal fate of anyone who didn't worship him. He was clear about causing division, even between family, over who prostrated themselves before him and who didn't. Unwavering and unconditional allegience to him is ultimately all that matters, above charity or courage or virtue. He made that very clear. He spoke more of Hell and everlasting punishment than of Heaven. His message is by no means anything even remotely as simple as just "love". To claim this (as you do) is to selectively ignore most of what was attributed to him, and to oversimplify things as I have claimed.

 

Do you love Jesus and strive to follow his teachings, including about God Almighty who he claims to be his Father in Heaven? If not, then I doubt you are an expert as to Jesus' message. (I boldened the part above that motivated me to ask this question to you.

[pie2]

His message is by no means anything even remotely as simple as just "love". To claim this...is to selectively ignore most of what was attributed to him...

 

I would have to agree that Jesus' message could be more complex than just "love". But I think for our (humanly) purposes in this life, it seems like "love's" pretty much all we need to know.

 

"To Love" can require tough action that isn't always pleasant. It takes love to really do what's best for others, even if that means going through something painful. Sometimes the most loving thing to do for another is to let them go their separate way, or let them know a difficult truth. Most parents seem to realize that discipline, though unpleasant for the receiver (and giver!), is one of the most important acts of love in the parent/child relationship.

 

So, yes, Jesus warns that his message can separate families, at times. But for those who come from destructive, abusive families, that separation is the most cleansing, loving relief that anyone can offer.

[BetheButterfly]

I don't have to believe in something in order to know something about it. And if that's your only objection, and indeed that's the only thing you have to say at this point then the conversation is over.

 

 

Since I am not a Buddhist, it would be extremely rude and illogical of me to tell a Buddhist that he or she "selectively ignores most of what was attributed to him" (Buddha) and "oversimplifies things."

 

Since I am not a Muslim, it would be extremely rude and illogical of me to tell a Muslim that she or he "selectively ignores most of what was attributed to him" (Muhammad) and "oversimplifies things."

 

This however is what I feel you are doing to me.

 

What I did say, however, in response to your claim that Jesus was very clear about loving others, is that he was equally clear about the eternal fate of anyone who didn't worship him. He was clear about causing division, even between family, over who prostrated themselves before him and who didn't. Unwavering and unconditional allegience to him is ultimately all that matters, above charity or courage or virtue. He made that very clear. He spoke more of Hell and everlasting punishment than of Heaven. His message is by no means anything even remotely as simple as just "love". To claim this (as you do) is to selectively ignore most of what was attributed to him, and to oversimplify things as I have claimed.

God's love is the very reason why Jesus talked about "hell" - because he does not want people to go there!

 

For example, my parents love me, which is why they told me when I was a child about the dangers of running in the street. Why did they tell me about the dangers of running into the street? Because they love me and didn't want me to get hurt. So, the motivating factor for their warnings is love.

 

The following are some very important quotes by Jesus concerning love:

 

Matthew 5

Matthew 5 NIV - Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount - Bible Gateway

 

" 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

 

Matthew 22 (I boldened and underlined some)

Matthew 22 NIV - The Parable of the Wedding Banquet - Bible Gateway

 

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

Luke 10 (I boldened and underlined some.)

Luke 10 NIV - Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two - After - Bible Gateway

 

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

 

 

Luke 6 (I boldened and underlined some.)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206&version=NIV

 

"27 “But to you who are listening I say:Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

 

 

John 15 (I boldened and underlined some.)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015&version=NIV

 

9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."

 

 

Love is the message of Jesus' teachings. All his warnings are motivated out of love. All his instructions are motivated out of love. Love is what he commands his followers to do.

[pie2]

But he isn't talking about destructive, abusive families, although framing it in that context makes it more palatable. He's talking about non-Christian families.

 

Oh, yes, that's very true. In Matthew 10:35, Jesus talks about separating Christians from non-Christian family members. But he doesn't say that a requirement for becoming a Christian is to become an enemy of your family. Once a Christian though, there are countless reasons why the believers' family unit may become divided (leaving an abusive situation is just one of them).

 

I understand Matthew 10:35 to mean that Jesus comes bearing a message, and the result of people choosing/not choosing to accept his message will lead to separation. I don't think he means that his love separates. I think the passage means that his message reveals the underlying factor that creates division, which is sin.

 

But I can see where you are coming from, and how it can be interpreted differently (albiet, incorrectly ).

 

On a more macro level though, I do think the Christian walk is not for the faint-of-heart...there are some very tough things to understand and come to terms with regarding eternal salvation. You are very right: it's hard to rationalize eternal punishment. I personally have a sneaking suspicion that we don't have a full understanding of the matter, and won't until we're on the other side.

[pie2]

For example, my parents love me, which is why they told me when I was a child about the dangers of running in the street. Why did they tell me about the dangers of running into the street? Because they love me and didn't want me to get hurt. So, the motivating factor for their warnings is love.

 

Exactly! I love that example

[man_in_the_box]

Cool, I'm only on page 3 or 4 so far as the discussions are so extensive but they always interest me. I've grown up in a Christian family, although very laid-back on the religiuos thing. When I became 18 I moved out and became more convinced of my religious convinctions. Nowadays I'm a bit on the fence.

 

I still believe in the existance of God(s) but I'm not really convinced anymore that he/she/they/it has any sort of awareness that there's actually life on this planet. Even more trouble with the idea that God is somehow involved with out moral agenda and has some sort of plan for what the world is supposed to be.

 

I've always thought of God as a sort of extra-dimensional creature. Not neccessarily infinite, all-knowing, loving. even aware of us or anything like that but most certainly beyond the laws of our little universe. I've always though that the idea that science can be the answer for everything ridiculous. I'm currently in the last phase of becoming a chemical engineer so I'm not completely oblivious how science works. By it's definition it's limited to describing our physical universe and I think it's quite a leap of faith to say that there's nothing more then our universe. What comes beyond or outside of that nobody can still accurately know. It's fun to speculate and I think there's more beyond our own little universe.

 

As for religion... yes it's undeniable that countless attrocities have been committed in the name of religion. In many cases religion has been used as an excuse to justify all sort of political agenda's that did not care for a few thousand lives more or less. Let's not forget that.

 

All in all I don't think religion is something that needs to be exterminated. It is as of today still an incredibly important aspect of millions of people who have no desire to use violence, threats or otherwise try to impose their beliefs on everyone. Striving for everyone to drop their religion is inherently wrong I think. You have no right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot believe. It goes the other way around as well. Religion is no excuse to infringe otherwise in the freedom of thought. speech, sexuality, morality and that is still and everyday occurance. All in all in the end everyone will have figure out for themselves what they want to believe, if they want to be religious and let everyone else that's different believe whatever they believe in.

[pie2]

I still believe in the existance of God(s) but I'm not really convinced anymore that he/she/they/it has any sort of awareness that there's actually life on this planet.

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Crippling Pain]

Religion was created to control the masses why do u think Catholics have a mass day? stop trying to prove that religion is right and true. Everyone that speaks of the bible says is true... And why do they say it's true?? "because the bible tells me so!" weird no proof just a damn bible... Odd

[Necris]

By some estimates, mankind (Homosapien) is about 100,000 years old (give or take).

 

The Bible goes back approximately 5,000 years. New Testament about 2,000, the Koran about 1,500.

 

How long do you think it will take for mankind to undo the horrible harm that has been done to mankind by the Abrahamic religions over the past few milennia?

 

I don't mean rectifying the rapes, tortures, murders, genocide, incest, and slavery. Nor the wholesale genital mutilations or witch hunts (which still go on in Africa today) nor the numerous scientists who have sacrificed their lives to speak the truth to make the world a better place - to prove that the world is NOT flat, that it is bacteria that make us ill - NOT demons, etc.

 

I mean the effects of breaking our human reason and rationality. The centuries of indoctrination of children and the fear that still makes it virtually impossible to mount a defense against this insanity?

 

I have no idea, but I have given this honest though. If it took us arguable 2 thousand years to get here (on a widescale, Christianity has to be the benchmark) will it take as long to undo these crimes?

 

OP how about you go live in North Korea, none of that evil Christianity there.

 

Or just take a look at any state atheist nation that has ever existed and see how wonderful life was there. With good leaders like Pol Pot who attempted to exterminate the Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. How about the Cult of Reason in France? Such nice, reasonable people.

 

Also come now the Earth being flat, the sun revolving around the world, and disease being caused by demons is not something in the Bible, people believed these things due to the poor science of the time. Many scientists throughout history were religious, some deeply so, religion isn't in any war against science. It behooves me to no end how atheists love trying to paint this picture of religion fighting reason and science, despite the fact there are and were quite a few scientists who are religious.

 

Rape, murder, torture, incest, etc. is actually a sin in the Bible, Torah, and Koran. Rape, murder, torture, incest, etc. will always exist with humanity, humans can choose to do evil, so they will do evil. Take Jeffrey Dahmer for example he was an atheist, he also raped and ate men, he told the press he doesn't believe what he did was evil because as an atheist he bows down to no one but himself, and humans are just sacks of meat for his own enjoyment.

 

As for "indoctrination" its only natural for parents to teach their kids their values or for that matter most people want those around them to have similar values.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Necris

[pie2]

This is such an unfair argument, lol! How can atheists really even do anything "in the name of atheism"! It's like saying, "I do this in the name of nothing!" (if atheism is in fact the absence of a belief in God).

 

Let's just remember:

 

- Non-religious people do not-good things, and maybe some good things.

- Religious people do not-good things, and maybe some good things.

- Christ died to save us all (as evidenced from the fact that, across the

board, people do not-good things) from our own human nature, which

causes us ALL to do not-good things...aka sin).

Edited February 11, 2013 by pie2

[pie2]

I know

 

But I think some people might read this stuff, and start to wonder if atheists really are morally superior or something

[pie2]

Maybe they are.

 

~shakes head, and sighs~

 

...it was even 'liked'...

 

[Taramere]

I am not super religious but atheist societies have caused just as much misery. Look at China and the Soviet Union. People just need to accept the fact that others might have different beliefs than they do.

 

Exactly. Although technically I'm an Episcopalian, it's not something that has an impact on my life and thinking. I quite enjoy the pomp and ceremony that organised religion can bring to certain occasions, and more seriously I think that places of worship provide peaceful, quiet havens for people to visit when they're in a reflective mood. I'm not really sure what people who would want to remove those places of worship think they'd be achieving in doing so.

 

Religion is a tool that can and has been used as part of propaganda, and also to shield wrongdoers from the dictates of secular law ("they'll be dealt with in accordance with religious law"). Whenever that happens, it should - and generally is - questioned rigorously. However it seems remarkably intolerant to me that people would want to eliminate religion altogether.

 

It's like people saying they want to eliminate all socialism, all conservatism, all republicanism, liberalism, feminism, animal rights advocacy, environmentalism etc. You can't, because in a free thinking society some people will opt to adopt these various ideologies or even just small portions of them. That people want to scrub their societies "clean" of any ideologies they don't personally agree with or believe in is the real root of atrocities.

 

They may choose to dress it up with peaceful speech if they wish. Idealistic sounding "if only the world were free of religion" but at the root lies that same old warmongering belief. "If you disagree with me, you're my enemy. Let's rid the world of my enemies."

[strongnrelaxed]

I can see that after several months away, this plague has not yet gone away. So much for my prayers being answered.

[strongnrelaxed]

And what is this thing that makes us human?

 

It seems religion is a purely human invention as animals do not have religion.

 

Therefore one unique characteristic of human beings is the formation of belief systems, secular or dependent upon divinities and the forming of institutions.

 

Humans are also the species that invented and used nuclear weapons. That does not make them logical, natural or good.

 

I have modified my stance on religion from being on this site actually. I really DO see a need for it now. It is meant for certain types of people, and those for whom it is not a fit will break free or avoid it altogether.

 

We are living in great times in this way. It has been a long time since Westerners could be atheists without being murdered, raped and tortured by religious types. And it is getting better.

 

Perhaps one day we will eliminate marriage contracts, genital mutilation, child rape, and war too. Tall order to be sure - Atheists just need a bit more time to do this, but it is coming.

[BOREDouttaMymind]

your statement would imply that everything non-religious is perfect, safe, not warring, and at peace with the world and that by ridding the world from religion, we would all wear flowers in our hair and sing Do-Re-Me, hand in hand.

[jimloveslips]

...atheist societies have caused just as much misery. Look at China and the Soviet Union

 

Wow, I am really bored, trawling from early this year…

 

China and the Soviet Union are NOT atheist societies, they are totalitarian, in the same way that religions are - "do what I say, believe what I teach you"

 

Atheist think for themselves and although they agree with one another on many points, there is no universal dogma and they are not part of a cult lead by any one person or collective.

[happydate]

Wow, I am really bored, trawling from early this year…

 

China and the Soviet Union are NOT atheist societies, they are totalitarian, in the same way that religions are - "do what I say, believe what I teach you"

 

Atheist think for themselves and although they agree with one another on many points, there is no universal dogma and they are not part of a cult lead by any one person or collective.

 

Atheist think for themselves?!? Huh

 

Obviously you don't really know the Grand Atheist movement started by one Margaret Sanger.

 

Margaret Sanger is not shy about her stance. She started the slogan "No Gods, No Masters". Today it's being used by many activists in the Atheist movement.

 

Margaret Sanger was instrumental in bringing forth Birth Control into the acceptance of the world. In fact, she was the mother of Birth Control.

Ah yes, your Trojan rubber, Depo shots, BC etc were the results of her revolution. So you think she thinks of herself?

 

She founded the ABCL (American Birth Control League) and with the founding principles.

We hold that children should be (1) Conceived in love; (2) Born of the mother's conscious desire; (3) And only begotten under conditions which render possible the heritage of health. Therefore we hold that every woman must possess the power and freedom to prevent conception except when these conditions can be satisfied.

Read the founding dogma carefully. These sound really God worthy like? Didn't she just made herself into a God by espousing this dogma like those found in a bible scripture?

 

She only did the movement because women were dying through abortions done improperly in her era.

 

There are a few other Atheists who contribute a huge part of our social reform. They did not think about themselves. They truly think about the whole world and the people they benefit. It is the social dogma of some orthodox religious group that don't like them.

 

In fact when Jesus Christ roamed the land 2000 years ago, the stuff he taught were against traditional orthodox teachings. Who knew then the religious people then were calling him an Atheist?!?

 

Blessings.

Edited December 18, 2013 by happydate

[jimloveslips]

Obviously you don't really know the Grand Atheist movement started by one Margaret Sanger.

 

No really about it, I've never heard of her, or her group.

 

I'm not a member of ANY atheist group.

 

I don't need to be told what to think, by anyone, atheist or theist.

 

Read the founding dogma carefully

 

Why? I am completely not interested in her or her "mission".

 

Just because she says she's an atheists and I say I'm an atheist, doesn't mean we have to be bosom buddies and automatically assume each others doctrines. How is that even remotely logical?

 

Are we plucking names off the internet to lampoon each other? Because there's no shortage of ultra wacko religious nut jobs if you want to play that game…

 

Let's not tar each other with labels, that's called bigotry, racism, idolatry (oops).

 

Who knew then the religious people then were calling him an Atheist?!?

 

You got me, a little before my time, I don't know anyone from then.

[happydate]

Are you an Atheist or are you just one of those wannabe Atheist who is angry against any established religious establishments? I'm surprised you don't know Margaret Sanger at all. Any true Atheist would quote her work as a foundation of their mission. This is not at all different like us Christians who quote the bible scriptures and Jesus Christ.

 

We humans create principles which in turn became "dogma" to whichever people who like to twist and turn reality to fit their own?

[jimloveslips]

Are you just one of those wannabe Atheist

 

Too funny - I'm an atheist socially, but back in my cave I'm preying for redemption?

 

You do know what atheism means right, as a word, as an accepted definition?

It's someone who denies the existence of gods.

I my case I deny the supernatural - ghosts, angels, devils, vampires… whatever has no basis in the natural world, things that can only exist in the minds of mankind...

 

 

Any true Atheist would quote her work as a foundation of their mission

 

You really don't get it.

No one has to be a member of any group to be validated. Even people of faith.

 

That's like saying any person of faith also has to be a marxist just because Marx writes about religion. It's nonsensical!

 

This is not at all different like us Christians who quote the bible scriptures

 

Sorry, you can't see me but I really am LMAO right now. This is exactly why debate with a person of faith is impossible, you have no concept of free thought outside of a doctrine, dogma, or whatever you want to call your "group" life code.

 

It is exactly the opposite. Their is only one atheist dogma: there are no gods. Everything else is just personal philosophy.

 

I just looked up Sanger on Wiki and atheism (or indeed religion) isn't mentioned in relation to her once. Looks like she was accused of eugenics at one point, certainly not something ANYONE would support today. And a racist… Sounds like a really nice person <- that's ironic just in case you take everything literally!

 

We humans create principles which in turn became "dogma" to whichever people who like to twist and turn reality to fit their own?

 

I think I know what you are saying, and yes, it's called religion.