On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:33:04 GMT, Will <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in
>news:1193598248.860153.296430@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> This is perhaps the most difficult concept to get religious people to
>> understand...to people who do not believe what you believe, IT IS NO
>> DIFFERENT. Your mythology is not any different than any other
>> concieved by the mind of man. It is not special, and deserves no
>> special treatment simply because it is im****tant to you. This is what
>> Mr. Lee was attempting to get people to understand earlier within this
>> thread.
>While I don't agree with it, I respect your belief.
It's not belief, your religion ISN'T any different than any other
religion to those outside both of them, and it DOESN'T deserve to be
treated specially by those who don't hold it, so you're disagreeing
with reality.
>> No explanation as to what your actions were trying to achieve? Why you
>> began the discussion?
>That's because I didn't. All I did was answer a question that I believe
>one of you atheists posted.
Yes, the "question" was a request to post objective evidence that God
objectively exists. You haven't done so. You haven't even attempted
to do so.
>So, the real question is why did one of you
>atheists post this question into the Christ NGs?
They're posted in response to Christian claims posted to alt.atheism.
Christian claims that the Christian god objectively exists.
>>> Do you consider the non-existence of God (or gods) *im****tant*?
>> No, I consider the erratic behavior of *people* who believe in gods
>> im****tant.
>Actually, I'd rather deal with people who believe in God than people who
>don't, as most who don't would see death as an escape from
accountibility.
Christians see "God's" forgiveness as an escape from accountability.
Atheists see the need to be accountable - to PEOPLE - while we're
alive.
Do you really think it makes any difference to the non-Christian
you've wronged that you believe that your god forgave you for the
transgression?
>That's why I often hear among atheists that if they knew the world would
>end tomorrow, they'd do a certain act to anything that moves.
That's usually what we hear from Christians in response to what they'd
do if they had no belief in God, since nothing would prevent them from
robbing, raping and killing.
Atheists, on the other hand, know that such things are immoral -
whether Christians believe in any god or not, makes no difference to
what's morally correct and what's morally wrong. Christianity is for
those who have to get your "morals" (like raping children) from a
book, because you have none of your own.
>That's why atheists (even those who just don't know and don't care if God
exists)
>would be quicker to lie, cheat, murder, steal, swear, etc., as opposed to
>those who are in Christ would, or even those who believe in some kind of
>higher power that will hold them accountable would.
Which is why atheists are MORE involved in charity, atheist doctors
are MORE likely to serve the poor and atheists are LESS represented in
prison than their theist counterparts?
(You can claim to disagree with the facts, but they ARE facts. You
can even 'interpret' the facts to make them look like what they
aren't, but that's just Christian dishonesty.)
>I think the danger in religion, however, comes when it begins to be led
by
>man, rather than God.
Assuming your conclusion again. The Bible and the Koran were both
written by man (and God was invented by man), so "religion led by God,
not by man" is impossible.
>If you examine the book of Revelation
Written by either a lunatic or someone who had licked a LOT of toads.
>the harlot that sits on top of the 7-headed 10-horned beast
Which doesn't objectively exist. (Think I'm wrong? Post objective
evidence.)
> has a close resemblence to the Papacy of the Catholic
>Church
Since Protestantism (the only other choice if you're Christian) is
modified Catholicism (in the late 4th century, that was the ONLY
branch of Christianity, so ALL later sects came from it), you're
condemning Christianity here.
Learn the ACTUAL history of Christianity. The Nicene Council took the
name of a JEWISH movement ("Christianity" meant "anointed ones" - the
"chosen people" - JEWS) and used it to describe HELEN'S beliefs.
That's your "canon", which means "what we believe", not "what god
said". Christianity (as the Catholic Church) got so corrupt that
Luther couldn't stand it, so he broke away and formed what became
Protestantism - which has homo***ual preachers condemning
homo***uality, making it just as corrupt as it's been - constantly
without cease - since it was invented in 325 AD.
THAT'S your "religion led by God". It's the god invented by man so
that the priests and preachers could live high off the hog without
ever having to work, and you and a few billion other suckers bought it
hook, line and arsenic.
How can you believe that your preacher actually believes the nonsense
he's spouting, when you have PROOF that preachers all over the place
are violating what they tell you can't be violated? Because you sat
on Santa's lap in the store, and the milk and cookies are gone in the
morning? "Miracle on 34th Street" is FICTION. So is "Jesus of
Nazareth" (a town that didn't exist until the 3rd century at the
earliest). Jews NEVER lived even NEAR cemeteries (which is what was
on the site in the first century), let alone IN them.
>and the prophecy itself has been fulfilled by the abominations that
>the Catholic Church has done with the Kings of Europe (unfortunatly,
>there's also a beast mentioned in this book that has a close resemblence
to
>the US).
And Nostradamus' "predictions" come even closer to reality
(Christianity god Jesus' name totally wrong - Nostradamus got Hitler's
name almost perfectly correct), so why aren't you wor****pping him?
(There's not ONE SINGLE UNAMBIGUOUS [and meaningful] prophesy in the
Bible that has come true.)
>Great. Than let's be on our way with our own beliefs than.
Good - keep yours out of everyone else's business. Stop trying to
teach your religion (Creationism) to kids in public schools. Stop
trying to keep public schools from teaching reality (evolution, and
that there's nothing wrong with homo***uality). Keep your religion
out of medicine (evolution again, abortion, embryonic stem cell
research, assisted suicide). Stop allowing the government to use
non-believers' taxes to sup****t your beliefs ("faith based
initiatives"). Etc., ad nauseam.
And we'll stop forcing our lack of belief on others - we'll stop
trying to force people to not believe. (Which is logical and actual
nonsense, and it's never been tried, so we have nothing to stop.)
>> "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
>> they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
>> streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They
>> have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,
>> and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in
>> secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee
>> openly."
>>
>> -Matthew 6:5-6
>
>Great. You've just quoted about prayer and praise
No, just about the admonition to keep your religion to yourself.
You're just 'interpreting' it to mean what you want it to mean. Read,
instead, what it SAYS.
> neither of which I have done in usenet
But you don't oppose Christians forcing your dislike of abortion,
embryonic stem cell research, homo***uality, birth control for teens,
*** education, etc., in the PUBLIC domain, which is what Matt 6:5-6 is
telling you to keep private. Matt 22:21 says pretty much the same
thing - keep your religion out of Caesar's government.
> (though I have publicly blessed, but that's different).
No different than if someone publicly tells you to go to hell. Hey,
WE don't consider it a bad thing to say, so you just have to RESPECT
OUR belief. Isn't that what you tell us to do with YOUR beliefs?
>See below, as this text is more relevant:
Sorry - Salad Bar Christianity (picking and choosing the parts you'll
obey) is both dishonesty and hypocrisy. Why won't you obey Matt
6:5-6? Because it's one of the passages you don't like?
>What you seem to be advocating is that Christ followers put their flame
>under a bushel where it cannot be seen.
Which is what Christ told you to do - however much you don't want to
accept it. He said that your belief is a private thing between you
and God. He said to keep your beliefs out of Caesar's government.
Your choice - Christian or hypocrite? (His words, not mine.)
Why is it that atheists understand Christ better than "Christians" do?
Because "Christianity" has very little, if anything, to do with
Christ, and everything to do with an invented Paul?
>> I don't mind you in the streets, I mind your brethren's dithering
>> about in my government and destroying property & lives.
>Well, if there are bretheren destroying property and lives, then they
>aren't mine.
They're Christians, acting according to their Christian God's rules.
You're disavowing Christianity?
>If there are bretheren of mine, however, meddling in
>government, than have they not every right that you would have to meddle
in
>government?
The first amendment says that religion has NO right in government, and
government has NO right in religion. Your Bible says the same thing -
to not meddle in Caesar's government. (Never mind the reason early
Christians put that in there - modern Christians don't accept
reality.)
>Don't they pay taxes the same as you?
Paying taxes doesn't bestow the right to violate the law - which
Christianizing government is - or the "right" to violate the Bible,
which meddling in government is.
>> Reel them in,
>> rather than dismiss them as "not true christian/muslim/hindu/****nto,
>> etc." and I will cease telling the truth about your mythology to all
>> who will listen.
>Good luck finding listeners amongst my bretheren.
They have so much experience "listening" to Jesus, right? (That was
sarcasm.)
>>> Who said anything about religion? We're talking about God here, not
>>> religion.
>> Now that's much more ironic than anything you've accused me of saying!
>But it's the truth.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
re·li·gion
–noun
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency
or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and
often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
In short, belief in a god or gods.
>When Jesus came, He destroyed the temple.
Again, mistaking your fairy tale and reality. "Jesus" was invented in
the late second century. Before that, the name referred to an aspect
of God, like "the Holy Ghost". It had nothing to do with anyone in
the form of a man. (Feel free to produce non-Biblical sources that
contradict this.)
But, according to the story, he didn't destroy the Temple, he threw
out those who would make the Temple a place of merchandise. (You
REALLY need to study your Bible.)
>He doesn't want man lording God over them for his/her own personal gain.
Romans 11:34 "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath
been his counselor?" IOW, anyone saying "God wants" is making it up.
Or do you know more than your Bible does?
>>> In fact, if you look at all the things Jesus said and did,
>>> they stood as a harsh criticism to the existing religious structures
>>> of the time.
>> Is *alleged* to have said and did. As I have previously demonstrated,
>> evidence he existed at all is extremely tenuous.
>Well, I believe
You believe that Mary and Joseph were required to return to the place
of their birth for a census, despite the FACT that Roman law required
people to return to the place of RESIDENCE.
You believe that Jesus was born on December 25th, while the flocks
were in the pastures at night while, in reality, the flocks were NOT
in the pastures at night during the winter.
You believe that people can *physically* "follow a star" despite the
fact that we KNOW it's nonsense.
You believe that Jesus came from Nazareth, despite the FACT that, in
the first century "Nazareth" was a cemetery - there's ABSOLUTELY NO
1st century archaeological evidence of ANY habitation on the spot.
You believe that Jesus was a "Nazarene" (came from Nazareth) despite
the FACT that the earliest writings (late second century and later)
claimed that he was a NAZARITE (one who honors God) and it has nothing
to do with the name of a place.
You believe things that are KNOWN to be FALSE. And you expect people
to "respect" that belief? Why should we respect known lies?
> He said and did those things.
He couldn't have, because "he" never existed.
>You can believe as you wish.
We believe that reality is real - and have TONS of proof that it is.
you believe that your god objectively exists, yet you constantly look
for ways around requests for the objective evidence that's the ONLY
way anything can objectively exist. (EVERYTHING that objectively
exists leaves objective evidence. It has nothing to do with God's
capabilities, but with the nature of objective reality.)
>>> OK. So I guess, according to you, that comming out of the closet
>>> should be reserved only to gays, and Christians are to stay in the
>>> closet, or behind closed doors. If you really want to know why
>>> religious opinions are seemingly immune, it's for the same reason
>>> that alternative lifestyles are seemingly immune.
>> False comparison. Homo***uals actually can be proven to exist, and are
>> a subset of humanity.
>Great. I can prove to you that Christians exist.
But you can't prove your claims - that Jesus existed or that God
exists.
>I can prove to you that Muslims exist.
But you can't prove their claim - that Allah exists. But we KNOW that
Mohammed existed, so why aren't you Moslem?
>I can prove to you that Jews exist.
But you can't prove their claims - that Moses existed or that YHWH
exists.
>If requested, I can prove to you that these are even a subset of
humanity.
>So, I don't see how the comparison is false.
Homo***uals coming out of the closet affect no one but the homo***ual
coming out of the closet. Christians "coming out of the closet"
affects all of humanity. Or don't you consider over a million dead
Iraqis - killed by CHRISTIAN BUSH'S war against MOSLEM "terrorists" -
to be "human"?
>IC. Well, in this case it would be different, however. As a Scottsman
is
>a Scottsman no matter his actions.
And one who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, no matter his
actions.
>But it is the belief, and the actions
>that are a consequence of a belief, that define a Christian. In short, a
>Christian isn't a Christian just because he/she wants to be, or claims to
>be
Or because YOU define him to be. THAT'S the No True Scotsman fallacy
- that YOU get to define what "Christian" means. You don't. Because
if individuals did, YOU would be defined as non-Christian by MANY more
people than those who would define you as Christian. (Like 100% of
Catholics, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.)
>In essence, no true gay man would shack up with a woman.
Nonsense. Preference and action aren't always the same. MANY gay men
have not only "shacked up with" women, but have married them and had
children with them.
>Otherwise, he's not gay, he's bi.
YOU don't get to define "gay". Especially since your definition has
absolutely nothing to do with the state of being gay - you're defining
an action - having only gay ***.
>No true Christian would commit murder (as defined by
>Jesus, which is to be angry at one's brother without cause)
Nonsense, that's YOUR interpretation of a commandment you claim
doesn't apply to you. (You DON'T obey the OT, do you? "New covenant"
and all, right?)
>otherwise, how could they claim to be with Christ and yet strike against
Him.
The same way YOU claim to "be with Christ" and violate Matt 6:5-6.
Matt 10:14 and Matt 22:21. A "REAL" Christian would obey the bible -
he wouldn't 'interpret' it to mean what he wants it to mean. (Of
course obeying everything in the New Testament is impossible, but
Biblical self-contradiction is a topic for another day.)
>The book of James says:
Salad Bar Christianity, again. Obey Matthew.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln
|
