# Why I Am Not A Christian



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage.  All religion, all the time, 24/7.  I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday.  I had Religious Instruction every day at school.  So why didn't it stick?

The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy.  It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits.  Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set.  I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."

So in no special order of importance, here's a list of the reasons I am not a Christian.  I am hoping someone who is can address any of them and we can dialogue.

1.  If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world?  I have heard every single justification for this, from free will to the "evil is necessary so goodness an show up by contrast" one.  None of them wash with me.

2.  If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here?  There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering.  I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah".  That person is supposed to SAVE us.  I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.

3.  I don't get what the Holy Spirit is about.  A Supreme Being that seems not to have existed before God wanted to knock Mary up and now has no purpose at all.  

4.  The notion of a Trinity seems to contradict the first of the Ten Commandments:  monotheism.  If there is only one God, there cannot be three.  It just isn't rational.

5.  Speaking of rational, thanks for the condemnation of abortion, birth control, sex for Clergy (that paid off so well, didn't it?), people who are not Catholic (or whatever flavor you may be), etc.  A special thanks to the "Creationism" nutters who've brought a new age of enlightenment into the classroom.

6.  How is it "Christian" to deny food or medical care to a child if their parents won't first agree to convert to your religion?  If your religion is so great, won't the people whom you serve eventually get curious about it?  Why's it okay to coerce people into relinquishing their culture and their beliefs in favor of yours because you have the economic upper hand?

7.  If prayer actually works, and God actually listens, isn't it evil to pray for the defeat of a high school football team or the results of a test?  Doesn't God expect that you'll only pray for stuff that brings you closer to him?

8.  How is it possible to reconcile, in your own mind, all the hatred and aggression undertaken in the name of religion with any message of any major religion?  You know that it is wrong.  How is it okay to commit Major Evil as long as you invoke God's name?

9.  How can you seriously believe that a man in a red jump suit "tempts" you?  Why can't you just accept responsibility for the evil you do?  You're human -- no one has to tempt you.  You're full of evil, selfish impulses and can only control them through the wonders of social conditioning, like the rest of us.  

10.  Why do you need a "promise of Heaven" to do what you know is right?  Don't you have a conscience?  When you do the wrong thing, don't you feel that?  

By the way, I don't belong to any organized religion but I singled out Christians because I have been treated to their irrationality somewhat more often.  No Muslim or Jew or Buddist, etc. has ever prosletized to me.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

The question I always love to ponder is " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does that mean I can covet my neighbors husband?


----------



## rdean (May 29, 2010)

The reason I'm not is because I have no "mystical" beliefs.  Casper was NEVER "real".


----------



## JW Frogen (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> The question I always love to ponder is " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does that mean I can covet my neighbors husband?



 As a married man I for one say, covet away!!!!

I like to eat my sin and virtue too.


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

I can believe God exists, but I cannot believe in an After-Life.  Dead is dead.  Finito.  The notion that you can live an evil life and still get into Heaven because you know the magic words is so preposterous to me I can hardly believe that anyone buys it.  And the notion of "saving people after they have died" is ridiculous.  If there is no personal responsibility then we are all savages.


----------



## JW Frogen (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage. ]



I find that very interesting, if I am not intruding Ms. Madeline may I ask how did you go from one end of the human condition to the other? From the sincerely secular to the securely fanatic.

And I am sincerely sorry to hear about the demise of your parents when you were obviously so young.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

I am always confused and intrigued about the catholic idea of living in poverty.

If living in the Vatican is living in poverty, please may I have some?


----------



## JW Frogen (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> If living in the Vatican is living in poverty, please may I have some?  [/COLOR]



 I used to live in Italy, and visited the Vatican museums perhaps 30 times.

 Let me tell you, those Raphael Stanzas get old.

 It drove me to Jackson Pollack and the bottle.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

JW Frogen said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > If living in the Vatican is living in poverty, please may I have some?  [/COLOR]
> ...



That may be but the swiss guard hunks sure don't get old.


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

JW Frogen said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage. ]
> ...



I dunno what altered my life so much.  I think it was education.  My folks were teachers and they prized it, so I went to college with no more than a second's thought (o good, I don't have to waitress full time).  

IMO, one of the things condemning the young of this country is the elimination of GI Bill style benefits that included paying for the college education of children of the military, and the various other inroads onto the "level playing field" that once existed here to allow bright but poor people to change their lives.


----------



## JW Frogen (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> That may be but the swiss guard hunks sure don't get old.



You are hot for the Leonardo pantaloons!


----------



## JW Frogen (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> IMO, one of the things condemning the young of this country is the elimination of GI BIll style benefits that included paying for the college education of children of the military, and the various other inroads onto the "level playing field" that once existed here to allow bright but poor people to change their lives.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]



I agree, the GI bill of rights changed America, set it on a path away from oligarchy and toward real meritocracy. (The military granted me the Uni education I have had.)

But always remember, you really can't ascend Mount Everest on a level playing field.

The field will never be level, and those born at the top of the mountain rarely appreciate the view.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 29, 2010)

I will give it a try, but I am probably going to surprise you, and piss quite a few people off at the same time.

1. Who said God is omnipotent? 

2. Where did Jesus promise to make things better? The only thing he promised was strife and to turn our families against us if we listen to him. Which is why most people prefer to listen to their preachers and have their ears tickled.

3. The holy spirit is the breath of God, nothing more, nothing less. That makes it the source of all life, so it is actually keeping you alive.

4. I agree, and so did Jesus. Don't blame him because some people adapted a pagan teaching and shoehorned it into the Bible.

5. Again, don't blame Jesus for this. Peter was married, and Catholics claim he was the first pope.

6. It isn't, and anyone who claims otherwise should be put roasted over a very large fire very slowly.

7. Again, this is people misunderstanding the purpose of prayer. Prayer brings you closer to God, and strengthens you to face whatever is happening in your life.

8. I don't have to reconcile it, they were all wrong.

9. I am responsible, entirely, for my own decisions. Succumbing to temptation and blaming the devil for it is a bit like Obama blaming Bush for the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, childish and irresponsible. None of that means the Devil is not real, and that he does not get his kicks out of trying to make you fuck up. Think of it like putting a drink in front of an alcoholic, if they drink it is their fault, but that does not mean you are entirely free and clear.

10. The promise of heaven isn't there to help us know what is right, it is there so that when we do what is right, and suffer the consequences, we can take comfort.


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

The RCC has a great deal of irrationality, syrenn.  I don't understand how the Pope can sit in a room full of priceless masterpieces when he knows that people all over the world are ill or hungry or suffering.  Why not auction off the Sistine Chapel etc. and feed the poor?

Benedict has covered himself in glory, though we've had other terrible Popes.  I think Benedict's finest moment so far was his speech on the evils of using condoms.  Apparently he is unconcerned about the death rate from AIDS in Africa and elsewhere.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2010)

So what I'm hearing here is - correct me if I'm wrong - "I'm not a Christian because some people who happened to be church officials ACTUALLY EXPECTED ME TO RESPECT AUTHORITY FIGURES!!"  The horror of it all, being expected as a child to respect one's elders and those in authority over you.  And, of course, that NEVER happens to children outside of a church environment.  Certainly, secular schools don't ever expect kids to be respectful of authority.  

Then, further, what I'm hearing is "I got answers to my questions, but I didn't like them, so that means THEY WEREN'T ANSWERS!!"  Have I got that right?  It's not that there weren't any answers.  It's that she decided they didn't suit her.  One wonders if Mad would declare mathematics nonexistent if she decided that 4 pissed her off as the answer to 2+2.

Seems to me that the problem here is less that Christianity isn't measuring up than that Mad just has an attitude problem and expects the universe to adjust itself around her, and summarily rejects the existence and validity of anything that doesn't immediately fit the way SHE has decided the universe is going to be.

Oh, while we're demanding answers to snotty, insincere questions, perhaps someone can answer a snotty, completely sincere question for me:  WHY, precisely, are we supposed to try to justify our beliefs to someone who can't even be bothered to respect them enough to ask polite, sincere questions about them?    Mad thinks Christianity is bullshit.  I think her atheism is bullshit.  The only difference is, _I _don't feel the need to start a whole thread just to TELL her how full of shit I consider her to be.


----------



## GWV5903 (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage.  All religion, all the time, 24/7.  I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday.  I had Religious Instruction every day at school.  So why didn't it stick?
> 
> The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy.  It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits.  Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set.  I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."
> 
> ...



My strength comes thru the relationship with him, and it is free..... 

Do you not recognize the spiritual struggle between good and evil? I could not begin to tell you how many times in a day I have to choose between them, the Holy Spirit helps me daily.....

Dialog never put me there, learning to praise him made it so easy, it worked for me....

I have never received much from any denomination that took me to this understanding, it came from realizing there is a daily struggle between good vs evil in my life daily, this alone made the impact, from there comes the relationship that is second to none.....

Hope you find it inside of you......


----------



## GWV5903 (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The RCC has a great deal of irrationality, syrenn.  *I don't understand how the Pope can sit in a room full of priceless masterpieces* when he knows that people all over the world are ill or hungry or suffering.  Why not auction off the Sistine Chapel etc. and feed the poor?
> 
> Benedict has covered himself in glory, though we've had other terrible Popes.  I think Benedict's finest moment so far was his speech on the evils of using condoms.  Apparently he is unconcerned about the death rate from AIDS in Africa and elsewhere.



Did Sister Theresa sit in the Vatican? No, she was in the slums of Calcutta until she died, giving to the downtrodden.....pretty amazing nun.....


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

Well, I dunno if I have some epic struggle with good and evil every day, but yes, I can feel the tug to do the wrong thing.  I give in to it sometimes; I think everyone does.  But people have a Life Path.  They move towards something and away from something -- for most of us, that is a choice between good and evil.

No one speaks to me; I don't hear voices.  Of any sort.  But there have been moments in my life I thought I could not go on and before despair completely covered me, a second wind lifted me.  I don't think that's me...I think that's God's Grace.

I've been near people who just radiated good:  they make others happy, feel wanted and special, and they just warm everyone up.  I've also been near people who radiated evil.  My instinct every time was to flee.

I don't understand the Christian belief that evil is attractive or more fun or rewarding, but they should avoid it anyway to get into Heaven.  But then I don't think sex or drugs or gambling or alcohol or whatnot are inherently evil; it all depends on how you employ them in your life.


----------



## eagleseven (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> 1.  If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world?  I have heard every single justification for this, from free will to the "evil is necessary so goodness an show up by contrast" one.  None of them wash with me.


If God is omnipotent, and the sole creator, then evil comes from him (as does everything), and thus he is both good and evil.

Why would an omnipotent God need to fight anyone, let alone a _devil_, save for amusement?



Madeline said:


> 2.  If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here?  There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering.  I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah".  That person is supposed to SAVE us.  I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.


The Jewish Scholar Maimonides celebrated the execution of Jesus, declaring Jesus to be the great deceiver mentioned in _Daniel's apocalypse_. Given how Christians have tormented Jews over the past 2000 years, I cannot blame him.



Madeline said:


> 3.  I don't get what the Holy Spirit is about.  A Supreme Being that seems not to have existed before God wanted to knock Mary up and now has no purpose at all.


The Holy Spirit allows old men to claim _divine right_ without evidence.



Madeline said:


> 4.  The notion of a Trinity seems to contradict the first of the Ten Commandments:  monotheism.  If there is only one God, there cannot be three.  It just isn't rational.


It is also considered the reason why God gave us the Koran...to put down the heresy of pseudo-polytheism once and for all.



Madeline said:


> 5.  Speaking of rational, thanks for the condemnation of abortion, birth control, sex for Clergy (that paid off so well, didn't it?), people who are not Catholic (or whatever flavor you may be), etc.  A special thanks to the "Creationism" nutters who've brought a new age of enlightenment into the classroom.


It makes sense, if you understand that for 2000 years, the religion was developed by emperors, kings, and their supporters.



Madeline said:


> 6.  How is it "Christian" to deny food or medical care to a child if their parents won't first agree to convert to your religion?  If your religion is so great, won't the people whom you serve eventually get curious about it?  Why's it okay to coerce people into relinquishing their culture and their beliefs in favor of yours because you have the economic upper hand?


Why do you think 2 billion people are Christian? It is not because their ancestors spontaneously saw the light and abandoned their native beliefs...

For instance, Portugal would only sell firearms to Japanese Daimyo (lords) who converted to Christianity. Eight-six such Daimyos converted, just to purchase firearms. The hated Oda Nobunaga used these guns to unite feudal Japan, and protected the missionaries until his assassination.



Madeline said:


> 7.  If prayer actually works, and God actually listens, isn't it evil to pray for the defeat of a high school football team or the results of a test?  Doesn't God expect that you'll only pray for stuff that brings you closer to him?


Prayer is about as effective as "the power of positive thinking."



Madeline said:


> 8.  How is it possible to reconcile, in your own mind, all the hatred and aggression undertaken in the name of religion with any message of any major religion?  You know that it is wrong.  How is it okay to commit Major Evil as long as you invoke God's name?


For millions of people across history, violence in the name of God was clearly right...and a guaranteed ticket to heaven. In the context of religion, even suicide bombing is perfectly rational.



Madeline said:


> 9.  How can you seriously believe that a man in a red jump suit "tempts" you?  Why can't you just accept responsibility for the evil you do?  You're human -- no one has to tempt you.  You're full of evil, selfish impulses and can only control them through the wonders of social conditioning, like the rest of us.


From a practical perspective, the red jump suit _is_ social conditioning. Tis no different from believing in karma.



Madeline said:


> 10.  Why do you need a "promise of Heaven" to do what you know is right?  Don't you have a conscience?  When you do the wrong thing, don't you feel that?


A conscience is a product of social conditioning, hence the role for religion.

If we were both raised in 13th-century Mongolia, for instance, our conscience would be telling us to loot and pillage for the benefit of our tribe.

---

I suggest you read [ame=http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807]Amazon.com: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (9780446579803):&#8230;[/ame] for an alternative perspective.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world?  I have heard every single justification for this, from free will to the "evil is necessary so goodness an show up by contrast" one.  None of them wash with me.
> ...



There is no fanatic so zealous in evangelizing as an atheist with an axe to grind.  God forbid they ever just shrug and say, "To each his own" about the belief choices of others.


----------



## eagleseven (May 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> There is no fanatic so zealous in evangelizing as an atheist with an axe to grind.


Have you met a Jehova's Witness?





Cecilie1200 said:


> God forbid they ever just shrug and say, "To each his own" about the belief choices of others.


Two billion Christians and one billion Muslims didn't appear overnight.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

Well, that helps me get to know you alittle better. Thank you Madeline.

I don't know all the details about your experience with God. But I follow God because He has revealed Himself to me through His Holy Spirit. I've been touched by the Inspiration that comes from the Spirit. I've been enlightened to things far beyond my understanding. I've tasted of the fruits and they taste good.

I'm sure I could go through each and every one of your points one by one. But it is rather late and Im only online because I can't sleep right now. Im not coherent enough to type it all out in any sort of rational response.

One thing I can tell you, I don't think mankind has tapped a fraction of the knowledge God has prepared for us. I include myself in that. We don't recieve all the blessings He has in store for us because we haven't prepared ourselves for it. People don't get answers all the time because they don't really want them or they have no desire to act or change according to them. Or they get answers they don't like and try to write it off. I know I do far too often, and I'm actually looking for it.


----------



## del (May 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So what I'm hearing here is - correct me if I'm wrong - "I'm not a Christian because some people who happened to be church officials ACTUALLY EXPECTED ME TO RESPECT AUTHORITY FIGURES!!"  The horror of it all, being expected as a child to respect one's elders and those in authority over you.  And, of course, that NEVER happens to children outside of a church environment.  Certainly, secular schools don't ever expect kids to be respectful of authority.
> 
> Then, further, what I'm hearing is "I got answers to my questions, but I didn't like them, so that means THEY WEREN'T ANSWERS!!"  Have I got that right?  It's not that there weren't any answers.  It's that she decided they didn't suit her.  One wonders if Mad would declare mathematics nonexistent if she decided that 4 pissed her off as the answer to 2+2.
> 
> ...



is someone holding a gun to your head?


----------



## Douger (May 29, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world?  I have heard every single justification for this, from free will to the "evil is necessary so goodness an show up by contrast" one.  None of them wash with me.
> ...


So the neocons descended from 13th century Mongolia ? I thought that was the Noo Joo ? Same difference.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

del said:


> is someone holding a gun to your head?



Nope. Though if I continue to speak out the way I have been, I may have a boot on my neck.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I can believe God exists, but I cannot believe in an After-Life.  Dead is dead.  Finito.  The notion that you can live an evil life and still get into Heaven because you know the magic words is so preposterous to me I can hardly believe that anyone buys it.  And the notion of "saving people after they have died" is ridiculous.  If there is no personal responsibility then we are all savages.



Sounds like you need to make peace with God instead of holding a grudge because you were subjected to emotional abuse by those who were charged to nurture.  Your OP questions really are not questions at all.  They come across as a scapegoat to justify your anger that will continue to consume until you find forgiveness.


----------



## Barb (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> The question I always love to ponder is " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does that mean I can covet my neighbors husband?



yes.


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

I was tired when I wrote the Op and could have done a better job, I suppose.  I didn't write it to "prosletise atheism" and I don't consider myself an atheist.  I have a firm belief in the Divine, but none whatsoever in an After-Life.  I'm not sure what the name of this belief system would be, but t'aint _atheism_.

I don't think forgiveness is always best.  Not if that means we forget. The Catholic Clergy of the 1950's and 1960's that I knew, observed, lived with and now judge were vicious child abusers, both physically and sexually (though thank God I escaped that horror show).  I am fairly convinced you cannot emotionally abuse a child who sees you as a perpetual stranger they wish would go away, but if you can the drumbeat of my childhood was "sex is bad and women are the source of all evil".  In order to feel a sense of dignity, I think it was necessary to reject that belief.  And it wasn't hard to do.  I think one reason my religious training never "took" is that it was far too much at odds with what I had learned from my folks, which seemed dead-on.  People have value, regardless of their station in life. Education and art matter but money does not, after you have paid the bills.  Forcing your neighbor to live in poverty is wrong.  Lying and bullying people is wrong.  Etc.

Some Christians I can kinda sorta understand.  Avatar makes a certain amount of sense to me -- someone on a spiritual quest.  Cecille seems angry that not everyone shares her beliefs, and while that is a familiar syndrome to me, it isn't especially easy to understand.  Remember the part about "faith is a gift"?  Why tag people who are not as "blessed" as you feel you have been?  Where does the anger come from, if every cell in your being "believes" -- hook, line and sinker?

I am most amazed by fundamentalists.  How is it possible to question evolution or believe the Bible is an accurate history of mankind?  If you truly think God created the Earth in seven days, how do you account for dinosaurs?  Neanderthal Man?  I can't get over the fact that some people value a sort of anti-rationality, anti-science, anti-education, anti-progress, etc.  Mysticism does not confuzzle me; altered states of consciousness appeal to a lot of people.  But this rejection of knowledge of the natural world in favor of a fairy tale you surely must know is a lie?  What is the pay off for that?

But like anyone else, my biggest question for Christians is how have you managed to miss the central message?  "Love thy neighbor as thyself", "Judge not, lest ye be judged", "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone"?  Do you just disregard these messages when they interfere with your impulse to be hateful or aggressive or acquire great wealth by evil means?

If we are supposed to be ethical beings, and I think we are, regardless of our faith, then doesn't there come a point when you look at your Pope, preacher or reverend and say "No, that's wrong.  I won't do it."  Ever?  How can the drive to behave ethically coexist with total allegiance to anyone else's precepts?


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was tired when I wrote the Op and could have done a better job, I suppose.  I didn't write it to "prosletise atheism" and I don't consider myself an atheist.  I have a firm belief in the Divine, but none whatsoever in an After-Life.  I'm not sure what the name of this belief system would be, but t'aint _atheism_.
> 
> I don't think forgiveness is always best.  Not if that means we forget. The Catholic Clergy of the 1950's and 1960's that I knew, observed, lived with and now judge were vicious child abusers, both physically and sexually (though thank God I escaped that horror show).  I am fairly convinced you cannot emotionally abuse a child who sees you as a perpetual stranger they wish would go away, but if you can the drumbeat of my childhood was "sex is bad and women are the source of all evil".  In order to feel a sense of dignity, I think it was necessary to reject that belief.  And it wasn't hard to do.  I think one reason my religious training never "took" is that it was far too much at odds with what I had learned from my folks, which seemed dead-on.  People have value, regardless of their station in life. Education and art matter but money does not, after you have paid the bills.  Forcing your neighbor to live in poverty is wrong.  Lying and bullying people is wrong.  Etc.
> 
> ...



You're all over the place so I will try to keep this somewhat focused.  Your OP questions have no real answer.  There are theories but no real knowledge.  As for "no life after death," I agree that is a myth but probably for different reasons.  Death, like time and nature, is a carefully constructed invention designed for the illusion of control.  We are fragile arrogant idiots so we label events we really do not understand to give us a false sense of order and control. Enter Religion. That is an institution built upon the idea of our self imposed supremacy.   
Saying you are not a Christian because of crimes committed by Christians is a bullshit excuse and until you admit your anger you will never get past that hurdle.  As for forgiveness, it is not about forgetting.  It is about remembering mistakes and honoring those harmed by avoiding them in the future.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 29, 2010)

What irriates me more than anything is the smug assumption that with education atheism must follow.

I'm educated, my sister is educated, my friends are educated and yet we're Christian. In fact, most of us were raised in atheist families...either admittedly or in practice. My mom claimed to be an atheist and was proud of it, as was her father.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> What irriates me more than anything is the smug assumption that with education atheism must follow.
> 
> I'm educated, my sister is educated, my friends are educated and yet we're Christian. In fact, most of us were raised in atheist families...either admittedly or in practice. My mom claimed to be an atheist and was proud of it, as was her father.



More often than not when people make self proclamations of being educated or intelligent the opposite often bears out as closer to being accurate.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

The bottom line is not so much what you like or don't like, how things are done or not done, what the "clergy" in any particular faction do or don't do, god or no god, is one very simple thing. 

FAITH.

You have it or you don't. You believe in something greater then yourself or you don't. In that simple word, faith, there is no right or wrong in terms of what religion or non religion you subscribe to. There is no having to reconcile yourself to conflicting doctrine or teachings.  There is no_ right or one_ religion to teach you how to worship, pray, understand or believe. 

There is no one right way. Their is however, faith

Everyone has it within themselves to be good or bad, hate or love. (Which if you would like to think, could make each and every of us "divine.") You don't need any religion to teach you that.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> The question I always love to ponder is " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does that mean I can covet my neighbors husband?



Only if you live next door to me.


----------



## The great dane (May 29, 2010)

Cant be asked to read all the bullshit here, but here are the answers to your questions. Im not religeous, im just a student so of course I know this.

1. If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world? I have heard every single justification for this, from free will to the "evil is necessary so goodness an show up by contrast" one. None of them wash with me.

Humans have free will, free will to make our own decisions, when we ate that freaking apple we learned about good and evil. There is evil in the world because some people choose to do evil.

2. If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here? There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering. I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah". That person is supposed to SAVE us. I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.

Jesus saved us by taking away the sin we were born with because of the whole "dont eat that apple!"

3. I don't get what the Holy Spirit is about. A Supreme Being that seems not to have existed before God wanted to knock Mary up and now has no purpose at all.

God, the holy spirit and jesus are the same thing, how wierd that may sound. They are three different aspects of the same thing 

4. The notion of a Trinity seems to contradict the first of the Ten Commandments: monotheism. If there is only one God, there cannot be three. It just isn't rational.

Check out the answer for question number 3. Oh and by the way, the ten commandments arent christian unless you are talking about the commandments Jesus gave, but I think you are thinking about Moses.

5. Speaking of rational, thanks for the condemnation of abortion, birth control, sex for Clergy (that paid off so well, didn't it?), people who are not Catholic (or whatever flavor you may be), etc. A special thanks to the "Creationism" nutters who've brought a new age of enlightenment into the classroom.

Dont really see any question here 

6. How is it "Christian" to deny food or medical care to a child if their parents won't first agree to convert to your religion? If your religion is so great, won't the people whom you serve eventually get curious about it? Why's it okay to coerce people into relinquishing their culture and their beliefs in favor of yours because you have the economic upper hand?

Its not okay, if any christians are doing that, they arent true christians.

7. If prayer actually works, and God actually listens, isn't it evil to pray for the defeat of a high school football team or the results of a test? Doesn't God expect that you'll only pray for stuff that brings you closer to him?

Dont have a real answer for that, but being selfish is a bad thing, so my guess would be that he puts you on ignore 

8. How is it possible to reconcile, in your own mind, all the hatred and aggression undertaken in the name of religion with any message of any major religion? You know that it is wrong. How is it okay to commit Major Evil as long as you invoke God's name?

It isnt okay. Anyone claiming to do evil in God's name, doesnt know a thing about God and will be punished by Jesus on judgement day  Killing isnt accepted, to bad for all the soldiers 

9. How can you seriously believe that a man in a red jump suit "tempts" you? Why can't you just accept responsibility for the evil you do? You're human -- no one has to tempt you. You're full of evil, selfish impulses and can only control them through the wonders of social conditioning, like the rest of us.

Are you thinking about santa claus?  Humans are evil or good by nature, we learned about good and evil when they ate that freaking apple. We can choose what to do, some people choose evil and some choose good sometimes. Our dicisions is what we will be judged on at judgement day. So no, nobody tempting us, we decide ourselves.

10. Why do you need a "promise of Heaven" to do what you know is right? Don't you have a conscience? When you do the wrong thing, don't you feel that? 

I guess they need a carrot


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> I am always confused and intrigued about the catholic idea of living in poverty.
> 
> If living in the Vatican is living in poverty, please may I have some?



I think that living in poverty comes from the example that nuns and priests set or that Jesus lived in poverty yet he never went without. 

I think that's a better life then slaving all your life just so Uncle Sam can take it from us....and give it to someone else. 

I like the way Jesus lived.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > I am always confused and intrigued about the catholic idea of living in poverty.
> ...



Jesus taught a socialist economy....which is why the earliest Christians were socialists.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So what I'm hearing here is - correct me if I'm wrong - "I'm not a Christian because some people who happened to be church officials ACTUALLY EXPECTED ME TO RESPECT AUTHORITY FIGURES!!"  The horror of it all, being expected as a child to respect one's elders and those in authority over you.  And, of course, that NEVER happens to children outside of a church environment.  Certainly, secular schools don't ever expect kids to be respectful of authority.
> 
> Then, further, what I'm hearing is "I got answers to my questions, but I didn't like them, so that means THEY WEREN'T ANSWERS!!"  Have I got that right?  It's not that there weren't any answers.  It's that she decided they didn't suit her.  One wonders if Mad would declare mathematics nonexistent if she decided that 4 pissed her off as the answer to 2+2.
> 
> ...



Mad is a guy....

And after seeing his description of the way he grew up you can understand why he's so angry. 

We don't have to justify our beliefs to someone that never took the time to learn them much less understand them enough to give a intelligent appraisal of them.

Most of those folks formed their opinions of Christianity through 3rd parties. Wives tails and rumors abound. 

Being raised in a Catholic orphanage isn't exactly the best place to learn about the gospel of Christ. I suggest reading the Bible....then reading it again....ask questions....don't just listen to those that hate Christians.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Once again you've got it totally wrong.

Jesus taught us to be giving....not to be subjugated by an abusive government.

Socialism takes away our choices. Jesus taught us that we have choices.


----------



## Toro (May 29, 2010)

I'm a lazy, non-dogmatic Christian.  So I'll try to answer these in a lazy, non-dogmatic Christian way.



Madeline said:


> 1.  If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world?  I have heard every single justification for this, from free will to the "evil is necessary so goodness an show up by contrast" one.  None of them wash with me.



Put it another way.  If there is no God, why is there love in the world?  Why is the presence of evil a contradiction of the existence of God?  Why is love not a proof of the existence of God?  Perhaps man's natural state is a nasty one.



> 2.  If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here?  There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering.  I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah".  That person is supposed to SAVE us.  I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.



Well, we do enjoy a better life than 2000 years ago.

Jesus promised heaven in the after-life, not heaven on earth.  Plus, I find that deeply religious people generally are happier in life.  They may believe in some wacky things, but I think those people's lives are better for having God in their lives.



> 3.  I don't get what the Holy Spirit is about.  A Supreme Being that seems not to have existed before God wanted to knock Mary up and now has no purpose at all.



I don't get it either.



> 4.  The notion of a Trinity seems to contradict the first of the Ten Commandments:  monotheism.  If there is only one God, there cannot be three.  It just isn't rational.



You know what else is a contradiction?  God seems to be a sinner, if you read the bible.  He seems to dishing out a lot of wrath and is quite envious.

I don't take the bible literally word for word.  Instead, I take the central messages of the bible.   



> 5.  Speaking of rational, thanks for the condemnation of abortion, birth control, sex for Clergy (that paid off so well, didn't it?), people who are not Catholic (or whatever flavor you may be), etc.  A special thanks to the "Creationism" nutters who've brought a new age of enlightenment into the classroom.



Creationism is utterly bizarre and scientifically contradicted.  



> 6.  How is it "Christian" to deny food or medical care to a child if their parents won't first agree to convert to your religion?  If your religion is so great, won't the people whom you serve eventually get curious about it?  Why's it okay to coerce people into relinquishing their culture and their beliefs in favor of yours because you have the economic upper hand?



People have different interpretations of the bible.  One shouldn't condemn nor question the existence of God because of what his nutter followers say and do.  Many crimes against humanity were done so in the name of God.  I can't imagine He is very pleased with that.



> 7.  If prayer actually works, and God actually listens, isn't it evil to pray for the defeat of a high school football team or the results of a test?  Doesn't God expect that you'll only pray for stuff that brings you closer to him?



Yup, its pretty dumb.  A friend of ours moved to a Deep South town that had its school budget cut and they were dropping the band.  After school, members of the band had a prayer.  You can pray, or RAISE TAXES!  



> 8.  How is it possible to reconcile, in your own mind, all the hatred and aggression undertaken in the name of religion with any message of any major religion?  You know that it is wrong.  How is it okay to commit Major Evil as long as you invoke God's name?



Those are the actions of man.  If man is doing evil and stupid things in God's name, that's man's fault, not God's.



> 9.  How can you seriously believe that a man in a red jump suit "tempts" you?  Why can't you just accept responsibility for the evil you do?  You're human -- no one has to tempt you.  You're full of evil, selfish impulses and can only control them through the wonders of social conditioning, like the rest of us.



I live heavy metal music so you're probably asking the wrong guy.



> 10.  Why do you need a "promise of Heaven" to do what you know is right?  Don't you have a conscience?  When you do the wrong thing, don't you feel that?



I don't need God to do what's right.


----------



## Toro (May 29, 2010)

Abridged version of Cliff's Notes version of the Bible.
_
"God creates man.  And everything man does makes God angry."_


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

when the polish pontiff, john paul ii died, he was informed by st. peter that god was so pleased with his life on earth that he would be granting him an audience at 5 that afternoon. 

he also told him that he was going to be allowed to wait in the library where the unedited versions of the canonical works were kept. st peter left john paul ii there and told him he would return shortly before 5 to accompany him to his audience with god.

when peter entered the corridor to pick up john paul he heard him wailing and banging his head on the wall moaning, "all those years and it said celebrate!"


----------



## eagleseven (May 29, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> What irriates me more than anything is the smug assumption that with education atheism must follow.
> 
> I'm educated, my sister is educated, my friends are educated and yet we're Christian. In fact, most of us were raised in atheist families...either admittedly or in practice. My mom claimed to be an atheist and was proud of it, as was her father.


There are always exceptions to the rule, especially if you attend Liberty University,  but demographically speaking, as a population's education level increases, so does its rejection of organized religion.

Tis why the Catholic Church is strongest in uneducated Africa and Latin America, and weakest in highly-educated Europe and Japan.


----------



## California Girl (May 29, 2010)

Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit. 

It's also very entertaining that the socialists are so desperate to sell their product that they resort to using the rather pathetic reason of 'Christ was a socialist'.... Clearly, they have no concept of Christianity or any other faith. It is laughably stupid.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Seriously.  It's painfully obvious you have never studied the Bible so please stop embarrassing yourself.  And don't put words in my mouth.  I never said Jesus taught a socialist government.  He was very anti-government.  He did teach a socialist economy and I'm guessing you're too fucking stoopid and ignorant to understand how.


----------



## eagleseven (May 29, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.


95% of the time, I don't care, either. The 5% is when God is telling you to blow me up.



California Girl said:


> It's also very entertaining that the socialists are so desperate to sell their product that they resort to using the rather pathetic reason of 'Christ was a socialist'.... Clearly, they have no concept of Christianity or any other faith. It is laughably stupid.


Christian Marxism is _ridiculous_, and I'm not even Christian!


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> 
> It's also very entertaining that the socialists are so desperate to sell their product that they resort to using the rather pathetic reason of 'Christ was a socialist'.... Clearly, they have no concept of Christianity or any other faith. It is laughably stupid.



apparently you care enough to post that you don't care.

so tell us, what is important enough to you to say something more than talking about it is laughably stupid? 

is that really your picture in your profile? 

when i read your posts i see someone who is fat, ugly and has warts on her chin, not somebody i'd like to caress with my tongue.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> 
> It's also very entertaining that the socialists are so desperate to sell their product that they resort to using the rather pathetic reason of 'Christ was a socialist'.... Clearly, they have no concept of Christianity or any other faith. It is laughably stupid.



You contradict yourself again you infantile insult deleted.  The thread title isn't exactly ambiguous yet you clicked on the thread to respond to the op.

Then you try to pretend to know anything about the economies of the earliest Christians or Jesus' basic teachings.  It's always laiughable when trust fund deletedlike you whine about economics.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> ...



She's the kind of deceptive dumbass that buys picture frames with pics already in them then puts them on shelves and claim they are relatives/friends.  It's best to let them live in their fantasies.


----------



## California Girl (May 29, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> ...



Grow the fuck up, little man.


----------



## Anguille (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> The question I always love to ponder is " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does that mean I can covet my neighbors husband?


It's just an oversight. The Old Testament was written in a time and culture when women were barely considered human. Religion was serious business and considered a man's domain. Things haven't progressed much, however, in many of the Christian cults.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Jesus taught a socialist economy....which is why the earliest Christians were socialists.



Actually I think the early christians were republicans.  

&#8220;Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar&#8217;s, and unto God the things that are God&#8217;s&#8221;

They didn't want to pay unfair taxes either.


----------



## Anguille (May 29, 2010)

GWV5903 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The RCC has a great deal of irrationality, syrenn.  *I don't understand how the Pope can sit in a room full of priceless masterpieces* when he knows that people all over the world are ill or hungry or suffering.  Why not auction off the Sistine Chapel etc. and feed the poor?
> ...


And an outspoken opponent of a women's right to chose to end her pregnancies. How much did she really care about the poor if she worked so hard to deny them the opportunity to limit the number of children they give birth to and to cease to be breed cows pumping out more impoverished laborers for the rich and powerful.


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

California Girl said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



get a life, nasty bitch


----------



## California Girl (May 29, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> ...



God doesn't tell anyone to blow up other people. That's a man thing.


----------



## Anguille (May 29, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> 
> It's also very entertaining that the socialists are so desperate to sell their product that they resort to using the rather pathetic reason of 'Christ was a socialist'.... Clearly, they have no concept of Christianity or any other faith. It is laughably stupid.


This is a message board. People speak what is on their mind. Personally, I think it's very interesting to read other people's thoughts on religion. It helps me understand my own.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> What irriates me more than anything is the smug assumption that with education atheism must follow.
> 
> I'm educated, my sister is educated, my friends are educated and yet we're Christian. In fact, most of us were raised in atheist families...either admittedly or in practice. My mom claimed to be an atheist and was proud of it, as was her father.



It is a typical trend. I think it happens because many people think that they are educated and there for better than others and then pride blinds people.

Interestingly though, the more educated a Mormon is, the more faithful he/she is. I dont know how that correlates in other faiths, but I always found that interesting.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > What irriates me more than anything is the smug assumption that with education atheism must follow.
> ...



I agree. After all true wisdom comes from knowing that you know nothing.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> 
> It's also very entertaining that the socialists are so desperate to sell their product that they resort to using the rather pathetic reason of 'Christ was a socialist'.... Clearly, they have no concept of Christianity or any other faith. It is laughably stupid.



It's because we want to have discussions and share who we are with people.

I understand some dont care and that's fine. But i think it's interesting


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> ...



Do you honestly think anyone cares who or what you'd like to caress with your tongue?


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


do you think i care if anybody cares?

 i was trying not to be vulgar, but since you chimed in, i really think you ladies need your clits nibbled on more often. 

if you got head more often you wouldn't act like you had chronic PMS.

maybe if your significant others knew that foreplay was more than a slap in the ass and yelling at you to wake up so he could slam his salami into you, y'all might be more pleasant and have more worthwhile input here.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> 
> It's also very entertaining that the socialists are so desperate to sell their product that they resort to using the rather pathetic reason of 'Christ was a socialist'.... Clearly, they have no concept of Christianity or any other faith. It is laughably stupid.



Because like I said, there is no fanatic so zealous about evangelizing as an atheist with an axe to grind.  And for some odd reason, they always assume the rest of us are deeply concerned with and fascinated by their beliefs.  It never seems to cross their minds that they could possibly be complete non-entities to others.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2010)

Anguille said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> ...



Bitter, hate-filled bigotry masquerading as jaded sophistication helps you understand something about yourself?  That's certainly . . . interesting.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus taught a socialist economy....which is why the earliest Christians were socialists.
> ...



That's the common misinterpretation but anyone who has studied the issue knows it is way off base.  Not to mention the fact Jesus never paid taxes once his ministry began.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> ...



I'm not sure I classify mean-spirited attacks on the beliefs of others as "sharing with people", but perhaps that's just me.  And I think that's what CG's talking about:   not the people who post honest questions, curiosity, and confusion about beliefs, but people who feel the need to say, "I don't believe this because everyone who does is an idiot, and let me explain in detail why I think they're too dumb for words."

I think those people post for two reasons:  they're dying to be applauded by other mean-spirited bigots so they can feel good about themselves, and they're looking for a fight.


----------



## Intense (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage.  All religion, all the time, 24/7.  I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday.  I had Religious Instruction every day at school.  So why didn't it stick?
> 
> The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy.  It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits.  Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set.  I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."
> 
> ...




*1.  If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world?  I have heard every single justification for this, from free will to the "evil is necessary so goodness an show up by contrast" one.  None of them wash with me.*

 Why is there free will? Why do we constantly blame God for what we repeatedly do to each other? Do we learn by cause and effect or make excuses? Here is a hint... You reap what you sow. Do you seek to establish justice and speak up for it, or is that for others to do for you?  


*2.  If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here?  There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering.  I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah".  That person is supposed to SAVE us.  I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.*

Personally I believe that there is a battle between principalities and powers, both in the Heavenly realm and the physical realm. There is peace in Jesus's message and purpose. The only requirement is commitment, try expressing that through the observance of the two great commandments.  We each need to choose, or circumstance will choose for us. I don't think the Jew's understood that Messiah thing either.  Psalms Chapter 22. Isaiah Chapter 53


*3.  I don't get what the Holy Spirit is about.  A Supreme Being that seems not to have existed before God wanted to knock Mary up and now has no purpose at all.  
*

John Chapter 14:16,17. I would tell you to think conscience, though i sense you have issues there too.  Good joke though. 


*4.  The notion of a Trinity seems to contradict the first of the Ten Commandments:  monotheism.  If there is only one God, there cannot be three.  It just isn't rational.*

Most Christian Churches consider themselves Trinitarian. There are a few exceptions. My favorite Bible Site is Trinitarian.   Welcome to Holy Bible the site dedicated to God's word. check out the Online KJV (King James Version) bible and a search.   Personal I believe in One God, Whom Jesus and The Holy Spirit are directed by, John Chapter 17. You might seek to investigate "The Apostles Creed" the one that you touched on growing up. 


*5.  Speaking of rational, thanks for the condemnation of abortion, birth control, sex for Clergy (that paid off so well, didn't it?), people who are not Catholic (or whatever flavor you may be), etc.  A special thanks to the "Creationism" nutters who've brought a new age of enlightenment into the classroom.*

Abortion is hurtful, though in some cases, one may credibly argue necessary, for the most part big big money for a punch drunk industry, that is more predatory and self enriching, than humanitarian.  There are options.  

Creationism? I find two versions in Genesis, how about you? One for grown ups, and one for bed time stories.  I think that True Science has a place, just as the Search for Truth in Religion has a place? How about you? When we distinguish what we know from what we presume we know, we find that we have made some very silly mistakes along the way with our false conclusions. Ah.... What do I know/ ...  The class room has taught much worse than the creation theory. Impartiality far from the structure that guides the structure, huh... 


*6.  How is it "Christian" to deny food or medical care to a child if their parents won't first agree to convert to your religion?  If your religion is so great, won't the people whom you serve eventually get curious about it?  Why's it okay to coerce people into relinquishing their culture and their beliefs in favor of yours because you have the economic upper hand?*

I don't know where you get that. It seems an individual choice to behave that way. Main Stream Christianity does not. My wife runs the Pantry at our Catholic Parish, Nobody is turned away. Distribution is uniform. Specific sects may have requirements, but it is after all their relief and resources they may be placing restrictions on, and maybe with good reason. Have you ever inquired into Deseret? Some groups may work either directly or indirectly, or both. 

What one believes is a personal choice. "Memorial and Remonstrance"-James Madison. Conscience can neither be bought, sold, or rented. Maybe the test is to reaffirm, one's own conviction, or spine. 
What I love about John Locke, is he was totally about example and totally against mandate, regarding religion.  


*7.  If prayer actually works, and God actually listens, isn't it evil to pray for the defeat of a high school football team or the results of a test?  Doesn't God expect that you'll only pray for stuff that brings you closer to him?*

Maybe It's better to pray that the best team wins.  On that subject do you think it's better to pray that God is on your side, or that You are on God's side? Are you part of the problem, or are you part of the solution?  SNL used to do a funny skit where this lady is always praying to Jesus, interrupting his schedule and all. It's a refreshing look at over kill. Have you ever considered the value of being aware of God's presence in the present, here and now, and just to learn to appreciate His presence, company, and comfort? It's not rocket science. 


*8.  How is it possible to reconcile, in your own mind, all the hatred and aggression undertaken in the name of religion with any message of any major religion?  You know that it is wrong.  How is it okay to commit Major Evil as long as you invoke God's name?*

Is it okay? That's news to me. We all like to speak for God, some anyway, but, that does not make the claim true in itself. God gave us free will. We choose what we love and hate as a result. Should we perpetually blame God and each other for what we do with free will? Maybe we could instead learn through cause and effect, making the best out of it and take responsibility for our true motive and intent.  Wouldn't that be a nice change??? Jeremiah Chapter 23 related to what people falsely say and do in God's name. Hint. In constructing things, it is good for form to have a close relationship with purpose and intent. The farther you stray the more we all pay.  


*9.  How can you seriously believe that a man in a red jump suit "tempts" you?  Why can't you just accept responsibility for the evil you do?  You're human -- no one has to tempt you.  You're full of evil, selfish impulses and can only control them through the wonders of social conditioning, like the rest of us. * 

Corruption of Spirit is a constant temptation. The manifestation unique to circumstance. Each one of us, faces the conflict between Spirit and Flesh, every day. This is fundamental teaching. You said you were raised in some part by the church. Did you miss the part about original sin while suffering some great affliction in a body cast for like 5 years???  You understand temptation. You understand conscience. Choose. 

Social Conditioning sometimes is over rated. How do you know when it is corrupted? Simple answer... Conscience, Principle, order and priority. "The Emperor's New Clothes". .When is enough enough??? We are all individual's first. It is the Tyrant that has interest in silencing opposition and critique. Conscience first in all things for Spiritual health.   


*10.  Why do you need a "promise of Heaven" to do what you know is right?  Don't you have a conscience?  When you do the wrong thing, don't you feel that?  
*

Where do you get that Idea? When was the last time you realized "The Act of Contrition"??? What does it specifically tell you on the matter??? 

The True Church is Us, It's not about Social Welfare, or gain, it is about Salvation. The rest will fall into place. True Religion is not about playing God, it is about thinking, speaking, doing, according to the best of our ability. It is a process that refines us.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The point is he didn't want to pay taxes for what ever reason. And as you say, never did.


----------



## Toro (May 29, 2010)

Jesus believed in a low capital gains tax rate.


----------



## rikules (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage.  All religion, all the time, 24/7.  I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday.  I had Religious Instruction every day at school.  So why didn't it stick?
> 
> The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy.  It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits.  Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set.  I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."
> 
> ...





I'm not christian because I would NOT join any club that would have glenn beck
or rush limbaugh
or pat robertson
or ann coulter

as a member


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

Toro said:


> Jesus believed in a low capital gains tax rate.



so if jesus saves and moses invests, why are there so many poor christians and jews while heathens like murdoch, sauros and trump end up with so much?


----------



## Toro (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I'm sure there's some sort of sin, there.

FWIW the Vatican is the most spectacular building I have ever seen.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

rikules said:


> I'm not christian because I would NOT join any club that would have glenn beck
> or rush limbaugh
> or pat robertson
> or ann coulter
> ...



jesus wasn't even a member, he was a jew


----------



## del (May 29, 2010)

Toro said:


> Jesus believed in a low capital gains tax rate.



jesus was an early proponent of mortgage backed derivatives.


----------



## Toro (May 29, 2010)

del said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus believed in a low capital gains tax rate.
> ...



He made $2 billion shorting them by having Goldman Sachs construct a CDO then selling the other side to some stupid German insurer.

I'm doing 'God's work'. Meet Mr Goldman Sachs - Times Online


----------



## Intense (May 29, 2010)

rikules said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage.  All religion, all the time, 24/7.  I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday.  I had Religious Instruction every day at school.  So why didn't it stick?
> ...



So You are not Human either then?.... If you say so.


----------



## Intense (May 29, 2010)

Toro said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



That's just rumor.


----------



## xsited1 (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Why I Am Not A Christian



I just did a google image search for "Good Luck With That" and this popped up.  It must mean something:


----------



## Intense (May 29, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Why I Am Not A Christian
> ...



I think it means a mouth full.


----------



## WillowTree (May 29, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > tommywho70x said:
> ...



You are the reason ladies become lesbians.. you aren't the only one with a tongue..


----------



## WillowTree (May 29, 2010)

Intense said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



that's a darn big mouff honey.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Now, now.  You should have more sympathy for someone who obviously hasn't been allowed to get his tongue near anything he didn't buy at Dairy Queen in years.


----------



## Anguille (May 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> ...


So non-believers are non-entities. Why does it not surprise me that an intolerant and insecure religious bigot such as yourself would think that way.


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



none of my ex-old ladies became lesbians. i would think that the guys who don't give head drive more women away from heterosex than the guys that do.


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > tommywho70x said:
> ...



another fool assumption from an uptight man-hating dyke.

i don't do dairy queen and  i stopped allowing women to pick me up in the 90's because it got too dangerous from insane boyfriends, welfare babies sleeping in the next room, herpes and aids.

something about my saxophone tonguing technique makes women want to feel it in their crotches.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> something about my saxophone tonguing technique makes women want to feel it in their crotches.



 I cant help myself 

pics please.


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > something about my saxophone tonguing technique makes women want to feel it in their crotches.
> ...



sorry, none exist that i know about. 

pictures of me performing in public are very rare and in the bedroom, i hope they are non-existant.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > something about my saxophone tonguing technique makes women want to feel it in their crotches.
> ...




I had a box of homemade movies....until I got serious and moved in with a woman who got too curious one night while I was at work.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I had a box of homemade movies....until I got serious and moved in with a woman who got too curious one night while I was at work.



 how did that go over?


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > tommywho70x said:
> ...



When I was 17 and still in high school I moved in with a 21 year old who taught me the importance of a platinum tongue.....giving a woman multiple orgasms is possibly the world's best drug free confidence booster....


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I had a box of homemade movies....until I got serious and moved in with a woman who got too curious one night while I was at work.
> ...



She gave me a choice....the tapes or her.....so I asked if I could review them before answering....not exactly what she was looking for.....then she confessed she already cut them.

A couple weeks later we made our own. But....we split up a couple of months later.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> That's the common misinterpretation but anyone who has studied the issue knows it is way off base.  Not to mention the fact Jesus never paid taxes once his ministry began.



Im curious how you reached that conclusion. I mean it may be completely accurate, but the scriptures are silent on the matter. Arguments from silence aren't very strong ones. After all, Jesus never went to the bathroom in the Bible either. Does that mean he never did during his ministry? I find it unlikely.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

rikules said:


> I'm not christian because I would NOT join any club that would have glenn beck
> or rush limbaugh
> or pat robertson
> or ann coulter
> ...



It's your loss.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> You are the reason ladies become lesbians.. you aren't the only one with a tongue..



Please don't go lesbian on his account. There are still decent guys like me around.


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



my first live in didn't have to teach me about the tongue and when i asked her if she had come she'd usually say she lost count. 

and women who get head are usually a whole lot more enthusiastic and creative when they give it.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > That's the common misinterpretation but anyone who has studied the issue knows it is way off base.  Not to mention the fact Jesus never paid taxes once his ministry began.
> ...



It's not an argument from silence at all. It's about understanding a culture. 
Imagine some sequence of fucked up events that left our current english language in bits and pieces and 2,000 years from now someone finds a box that has "Air Conditioner" printed on it.  We automatically know it's sole function is to cool the air. However, taking bits of info from our same era people could argue "Air Conditioner" meant "Air Purifier" or that it raised or lowered temps while also cleaning the air.  So how would it be determined?  The same approach must be used when studying ancient texts.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > tommywho70x said:
> ...



Hey, I was 17 and living in bumfuckegypt....I was five years ahead of schedule.  I do agree women will be more apt to give head if they get it but I never really cared for it......unless I was driving.....other than that......I'd rather just fuck like a lubed rocket all night.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

I have the answer!!!  I know why I am not a christian. They got this little rule:

*Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. *

I am so out of here


----------



## tommywho70x (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> I have the answer!!!  I know why I am not a christian. They got this little rule:
> 
> *Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. *
> 
> I am so out of here



wanna sin a little with me, momma?

i've never been married so we'd have to be fooling around on your hubby for it to be adultery.


----------



## CurveLight (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> I have the answer!!!  I know why I am not a christian. They got this little rule:
> 
> *Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. *
> 
> I am so out of here



Actually.....that isn't a Christian rule at all.  That would be Jewish.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Nope.  Very sorry that you have such a hyperbolic, overblown, way-too-fucking-sensitive view of everything you read.  What I actually said is that non-believers who feel the need to preach their non-belief and hatred of believers are non-entities TO ME.  How you are viewed by others and by yourself is equally unimportant to me.

Which begs the question, what did I say that made me think your insults would cut me to the quick?  Oh, lawks!  Someone who doesn't matter to me thinks I'm intolerant!  However shall I survive?!  Quick!  Someone explain to me how I can win the approval of . . . uh . . . who the fuck were you again?


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > I have the answer!!!  I know why I am not a christian. They got this little rule:
> ...



And the 10 commandments are not a christian tenet?


----------



## rikules (May 29, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> What irriates me more than anything is the smug assumption that with education atheism must follow.
> 
> I'm educated, my sister is educated, my friends are educated and yet we're Christian. In fact, most of us were raised in atheist families...either admittedly or in practice. My mom claimed to be an atheist and was proud of it, as was her father.



"What irriates me more than anything is the smug assumption that with education atheism must follow"

that is, of course, ridiculous.

LOTS of well educated people have brains that are defective to the point that they still can't grasp that god is b.s. and doesn't exist.

you, for example.

I'm forever reading (on message boards) posts by seemingly intelligent and well educated people (NOT you, for example) who believe in all that god crap

my mother raised me as a christian

or, at least, she tried...

at a very tender age I began to move away from all that religious mumbo jumbo

eventually even my mother stopped believing

we never really discussed religion, even as I reached adulthood.

but recent conversations have given me the impression that she, too, thinks it is all nonsense


----------



## PixieStix (May 29, 2010)

Hey Maddie, what if you are wrong? By the way, I am convinced.

 What will you say when you stand before Him? Oops? 

But I will pray for you


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> Hey Maddie, what if you are wrong? By the way, I am convinced.
> What will you say when you stand before Him? Oops?
> But I will pray for you



Is just believing the price of entrance? Or is how you led your life, as in good or bad.


----------



## rikules (May 29, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So what I'm hearing here is - correct me if I'm wrong - "I'm not a Christian because some people who happened to be church officials ACTUALLY EXPECTED ME TO RESPECT AUTHORITY FIGURES!!"  The horror of it all, being expected as a child to respect one's elders and those in authority over you.  And, of course, that NEVER happens to children outside of a church environment.  Certainly, secular schools don't ever expect kids to be respectful of authority.
> 
> Then, further, what I'm hearing is "I got answers to my questions, but I didn't like them, so that means THEY WEREN'T ANSWERS!!"  Have I got that right?  It's not that there weren't any answers.  It's that she decided they didn't suit her.  One wonders if Mad would declare mathematics nonexistent if she decided that 4 pissed her off as the answer to 2+2.
> 
> ...




"WHY, precisely, are we supposed to try to justify our beliefs to someone who can't even be bothered to respect them enough to ask polite, sincere questions about them?    Mad thinks Christianity is bullshit.  I think her atheism is bullshit.  The only difference is, _I _don't feel the need to start a whole thread just to TELL her how full of shit I consider her to be"

in a recent poll asking who parents would have the MOST difficulty accepting their childs dating or marrying ATHEISTS ranked number 1....

over...muslims
rapists
murderers
drug addicts
and conservative talk show hosts


in other words

ATHEISTS and ATHEISTS are SO REVILED and LOATHED by the average American that they wold rather their child marry a muslim than an atheist

I've seen talk shows on fox and msnbc and cnn during which the hosts and the christian guests could not help but reveal their contempt and disgust with atheists and atheism

so
since so many christians have SO LITTLE respect for atheists and atheism I feel it is perfectly fair for atheists to feel the same way.

Once I learned that god (at the the god of the christian bible) was really a deranged lunatic with irrational and illogical beliefs and an extreme tendency to violence any hope of my reconciling with him was gone.

then
when I learned that god was a big fan of slavery...
well I just had to join the opposition

(this is the point where you reveal that you do NOT know the bible very well and DNEY that god promotes and condones and endorses slavery)

anyone who thinks that condemning people to eternel hell simply for being gay
or for having sex outside of marriage
or for getting divorced
or simply for NOT believing in god

is a jerk


----------



## PixieStix (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Maddie, what if you are wrong? By the way, I am convinced.
> ...




I studied the Bible, and the history for years, because my own personality just will not allow me to believe something wiithout much thought, logic and evidence, and have found nothing matters more than believing, Nothing. 

For if you believe, you will understand that He paid the price for all sin, past present and future, not that it gives us a license to be bad, but it gives us a reason to be good and grateful


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > PixieStix said:
> ...



Alright, specific in terms of a non believer you say may be wrong and have to answer for it later by standing in front of god. What then? 

Again is believing the price of entrance?


----------



## PixieStix (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




Yes, it is.


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > PixieStix said:
> ...



 Now I am not beating up on you PS so please dont think I am putting you on the spot.

So what you are saying it makes no difference if Maddie lives her life as a model of kindness and consideration,truth and love. She makes all the right decisions and always does the right thing. More or less a saint. This all forgiving god will not let her in because she is a mistaken non believer?

What happens to the believer who is a fring evil person? Not bad enough to go to hell but dam bad in many aspects of life. Because they are a believer will they get in?


----------



## rikules (May 29, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> Hey Maddie, what if you are wrong? By the way, I am convinced.
> 
> What will you say when you stand before Him? Oops?
> 
> But I will pray for you




I know what I would say...


"god...you are a jerk!

punishing people for such petty offenses is sick

NOBODY deserves to burn in hell forever simply for having sex outside of marriage
or getting divorced
or being gay
or for just not believing in you

plenty of DECENT and GOOD and HONORABLE people indulge in these acts andthey do NOT deserve to be punished for all eternity...

god
you are a sick bastard
and you should seek help

and
one last thing
you are completely wrong about slavery

slavery is NOT acceptable!

slavery is BAD!

now...go to your room and think about what you've done

and I don't want you to come out until you are ready to apoligize to ALL of mankind"


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

rikules said:


> I know what I would say...
> 
> 
> "god...you are a jerk!
> ...



I find it mildly amusing that you presume to tell an all powerful being what is right and what is wrong rather than to learn directly from Him. You have an incorrect understanding of God and yet somehow it's His fault.


----------



## Againsheila (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I can believe God exists, but I cannot believe in an After-Life.  Dead is dead.  Finito.  The notion that you can live an evil life and still get into Heaven because you know the magic words is so preposterous to me I can hardly believe that anyone buys it.  And the notion of "saving people after they have died" is ridiculous.  If there is no personal responsibility then we are all savages.



I believe in Karma and therefore I believe in life after death.  I also believe in purgatory.  I do not believe a murderer is going straight to heaven just because he believes in Jesus or that a non-christian  is going to hell just because they have never met Jesus.


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

It's been very interesting, reading the posts since I was last on here to reply.  I am delighted we have a dialogue going, folks.  I'm surprised only Cecille showed up to condemn "the non-believer", but if this survives long perhaps others will join her.

I dunno if it's fair to say I'm "angry at the Clergy who were running the orphanage".  I'm certainly outraged at the RCC's sex scandals and how they've been handled, but outrage is not anger.  

Anger is personal.  I would guess that every clergy who ran that orphanage is dead now.  It has, after all, been forty years and none of them were young.  If I had received Religious Instruction from people I loved, admired and wanted to emulate I suppose there's a greater chance that I'd have been a believer.   But really, that's no more than saying that _if things had been different, they wouldn't be the same.  _

It was what it was.  I'm damned fortunate that I survived, was not molested, and went on to have a great life.  I KNOW how fortunate I am; I even have some survivor guilt, as only one other girl I grew up with survived into adulthood that I know of.   Most lives ended in suicide, drugs or other outward signs of the despair they had been forced down into.

Believe it or not, there were benefits that flowed from being orphaned and raised by wolves.  For one, I have the sense of accomplishment that comes with doing something very difficult all by yourself.  For another, there is almost nothing anyone can tell me that shocks me -- I can remain present with and empathic towards almost anyone, no matter how grotesque their injury.  I have never felt the need to look away.  I have had to make VERY hard choices and have the confidence of knowing that when I next need to make another difficult decision, I won't blither or bullshit myself.  And lastly, I was not injured by people I loved and trusted; my parents were great people whom I admired and I knew I could count on their love 110% -- how many of YOU can say such a thing without qualifiers?

I am NOT an atheist.  Not.  Not.  Not.  I just don't believe in an After-Life.  I know it's odd, but that's the truth.  Heaven, Hell, Limbo, Purgatory -- the whole nine yards seems like silly self-comforting bullshit to me.  I find God, on the other hand, to be self-evident.   Among other things, it is not mere chance that I survived and thrived; I had help.  I had God's Grace.  I still do.  Right this minute, as I write this.  I haven't passed a minute of my life since the age of two or three doubting whether God exists.

Pride seems to me to be the worst possible sin...the sin from which _all_  evil flows.  I think every adult human must make a fundamental choice between Pride and Dignity, just as they must between Good and Evil.  No one can construct their life to run in both directions at once.

Pride needs an audience.  It needs to inspire envy in others -- one of only a few of the more devastating effects it has on any single human is the corrupting influence it has on the humans around him.   We ALL know someone prideful:  the man who brags on his wealth or power; the woman who flirts with other ladies' husbands just to prove she's more attractive than their wives, etc.  Pride wounds and at the same time, whispers the lie to the injured that the balm for the wound is Pride, which can only be had by inflicting a wound on yet a _third_  person.   Pride, like all evil (and all good) is contagious.

Dignity _needs_  nothing. It is inherent in that person, and cannot be lost regardless of how degraded their lives may become.  Nelson Mandela has Dignity.  He had it at birth, he kept it through childhood and he had it during all the decades he was incarcerated by a nation that believed he was subhuman.  I think he still has it today, though now of course, he must feel the breath of Pride on his neck.  I do not take my Dignity at the expense of anyone else's.  To the contrary -- in order for me to cling to my Dignity, I have to restore it to others in need when the opportunity presents itself.  I cannot maintain my Dignity if I am surrounded by people who are debased but yet I take no action to restore Justice to their lives.

I think if I had a "catechism", it would be "The Plague" by Albert Camus.  The world has gone to shit, the stench of death is everywhere, the situation is hopeless.  Do you steal from the dying?  Try and profit from grave digging?  Stay indoors and hope not to catch the plague?  Or minister to the dying, try and comfort them, in the vain hope that some will survive?  If you can easily see the value of service in _this_  setting, then we share a POV.  If you'd need an After-Life to inspire your service, we do not.

What will I say if one day, I stand before the Pearly Gates?  I'm totally fucked if that happens; I am one lousy Catholic.  Maybe my living family will pay for a pleniary indulgence for me and I'll get into Heaven anyway.  If not, I take comfort in knowing that there'll be other interesting people in Hell.  Maybe, at the last moment my sense of myself, my Dignity and Trust in God will fail and I'll demand the Last Rites and be saved before I die.  I like to think I won't go out as a coward, but who knows?

I think it's disingenuous to say evil exists because man has Free Will.  If we were made in God's image and put here (why again?  to amuse God?) then we should have no serious design flaws...and I'd say evil was a _very_  serious one indeed.  I don't see that evil is a necessary facet of Free Will; we would have still been interesting if we had merely struggled for Enlightenment.  Evil seems to me to be a debasement of what humanity is; a perversion, a loss.  It is certainly a force in the world worthy of resistance by any means possible.

I cannot buy the notion that every baby is stained by original sin.  Vicarious liability?  For the single, morally neutral act of two adults who lived eons ago?  To those of you who do believe it....how do you reconcile the "Story of the Tree of Knowledge" with evolution?  If Adam and Eve are just metaphors, then what about Cain and Able?  Abraham and Issac?  Joseph and the coat of many colors?  Moses?  If Adam and Eve never existed, then what am I supposed to be vicariously liable FOR?

I don't think Jesus was a Republican nor would he be if he lived now.  He'd most likely be a Communist, agitating to perfect social justice and eliminate the need for any government at all.  Republicans care very much about such things as fiscal conservation -- and it is absolutely clear Jesus placed no value on wealth.  "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."  I actually agree with this; poverty allows a person to do good and wealth closes off those opportunities for most who experience it.  The wealthy have to have a self-defense technique that dehumanizes or devalues the non-wealthy -- elsewise, they could not enjoy that bit of caviar while yet another kidlet in their town died from lead poisoning, abuse or disease.  The poor have little opportunity to experience Pride and thus, are more likely than the wealthy to find Dignity.

In my own way, I resemble Avatar.  I have been questing too.  Mebbe I still am, though it feels as if I have plateaued.  I do not have any need to persuade anyone else to believe as I do -- a courtesy some Christians just cannot muster.  I am very Jewish in this:  if you live an ethical life, you have my respect.  I would be willing to agree you will go to Heaven, if I could believe there was one.

If you act from Pride, and seek to overtake others and bend their lives to your needs and desires without regard for theirs, then you will lose my respect.  I don't think you're going to Hell, as I don't think there is one. I think the punishment for acting that way is that you have see such an evil-doer in the mirror.  I also think every evil person is essentially alone; unable to experience meaningful intimacy with other humans and alienated from God.  Must be like doing Life Without Parole in a SuperMax, and it appeals to me not at all.  Nor would it, even if the prison was a palace.


----------



## PixieStix (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




I do not know the answer to that question, I am not God, it is He that people need to seek out for that answer

I cannot explain everything I have learned, it is many times unexplainable with words. My faith changed my .life and has helped me to become stronger and stronger with each and every adversity


----------



## rikules (May 29, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > I know what I would say...
> ...




 and I find it mildly amusing that  you are such a weak and pitiful coward that you would bow down to this nazi regardless of how terrible and cruel he is...

you might as well bow down to hitler

there doesn't seem to be much difference

the thing is
I think for myself
while you don't  think at all
you just do what you THINK your god tells you

I'm willing to stand up to this deranged god, REGARDLESS of possible PUNISHMENT(gosh..how brave I am)
and tell him just how wrong and wicked he truely is

while you just grovel and beg and plead like the lilly livered coward you are

and that is the difference between us
I am a FREE MAN
while you are a slave to a deranged god


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > PixieStix said:
> ...



PixieStix, I have no doubt that your faith changed your life.  So did mine.  What I am perplexed by is this notion that everyone who does not share _your_  faith is slated to be denied the Big Prize.  Assuming there is a Big Prize, what about people who are never even exposed to your faith?  What about someone who is retarded or mentally ill, and through no fault of their cannot learn it?  Or folks like me, who simply cannot accept it?  If you are right, am I not simply a lost, confused, limited person to be pitied?

To me, one (of many) great fallacy of all forms of christianity is this Pride of believing that only christians have The Answer and only christians will be "saved".  

Are you aware there are many organized religions that do not teach this sort of exclusivity?  I'd say the majority of the people on Planet Earth do not have a shared belief in "my way or the highway".   Why is it necessary to ponder the Ultimate Fate of anyone other than yourself, anyway?  Are you doing such a fantabulous job of running _your_  life that you have the time and energy to devote any meaningful attention to how I run _mine_?   I am in no such position, I can assure you.  I'll judge some folks' actions _very_  harshly, I admit -- but I don't judge anyone else's _beliefs_  about The Big Question.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

rikules said:


> and I find it mildly amusing that  you are such a weak and pitiful coward that you would bow down to this nazi regardless of how terrible and cruel he is...
> 
> you might as well bow down to hitler
> 
> ...



He is neither terrible, nor cruel. You say you think for yourself, yet you just repeat the same crap that's been spewed for thousands of years.

Your pride will be your destruction unless you repent like all men must.


----------



## PixieStix (May 29, 2010)

I am not much into arguing for the Lord, He will take care of those who are sincere all by Himself


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

There is no point condemning the non-believer. I don't have that power. I want to save the non-believer. I want to empower people through the Atonement of Jesus Christ to change their lives and live more according to the order of righteousness and happiness. I want people to feel the love of God as strongly as I do. I want them to recognize their weaknesses, because until they honestly do, they can't improve on themselves.

Why should I condemn when everything the Gospel teaches is to lift up?


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

rikules said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Here's another thing I do not understand:  why would God wait 100,000's of year before giving mankind the playbook?  And if the New Testament is the playbook, then why not turn us all into lobotomized subhumans, able to memorize every word but unable to _analyze_  any of it?

If God _wants _ us to think (and I believe that he does) doesn't he also want us to learn?  To consider?  To form our own POVs?  I don't see the high value in this alleged lock-step shared belief system called christianity.


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > and I find it mildly amusing that  you are such a weak and pitiful coward that you would bow down to this nazi regardless of how terrible and cruel he is...
> ...



Avatar, aren't you also guilty of Pride?


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> There is no point condemning the non-believer. I don't have that power. I want to save the non-believer. I want to empower people through the Atonement of Jesus Christ to change their lives and live more according to the order of righteousness and happiness. I want people to feel the love of God as strongly as I do. I want them to recognize their weaknesses, because until they honestly do, they can't improve on themselves.
> 
> Why should I condemn when everything the Gospel teaches is to lift up?



No non-christian can improve himself?  Am I understanding you correctly?

It seems to me this could ONLY be a belief of yours if you define "improving oneself" as "being christian" and discount _every other manner_  in which a man can pull himself out of the quagmire.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Avatar, aren't you also guilty of Pride?



Of course, I am guilty of it very often. 

However, I'm not in denial of that. Nor am I willing to remain in that state forever. Needles to say i need alot of refining, but thankfully the Lord is patient with those who try and gives them power to someday succeed.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no point condemning the non-believer. I don't have that power. I want to save the non-believer. I want to empower people through the Atonement of Jesus Christ to change their lives and live more according to the order of righteousness and happiness. I want people to feel the love of God as strongly as I do. I want them to recognize their weaknesses, because until they honestly do, they can't improve on themselves.
> ...



Not sure how you got that out of what I said. I didn't say non-believers lack the power to improve themselves. I'm saying that is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about. It's becoming more than the sinful man we are and repenting of our sins so we can become better men and women.

All people can improve themselves, and that is because of the Atonement, whether they acknowledge it or not. However, if you want to reach the full potential of human existence, it will only be through following God.


----------



## Barb (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no point condemning the non-believer. I don't have that power. I want to save the non-believer. I want to empower people through the Atonement of Jesus Christ to change their lives and live more according to the order of righteousness and happiness. I want people to feel the love of God as strongly as I do. I want them to recognize their weaknesses, because until they honestly do, they can't improve on themselves.
> ...



Its the "dad likes us best" exclusive use rule of the big three. That's what turned me of as s kid.


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



I don't think human perfection is attainable for anyone...even Jesus is said to have had his faults.   But yes, I agree, neither is statis.  Life is Change.  We are constantly moving towards or away from our basic Life Choice.  If we chose Good as our goal/guiding principle, then any episode of Pride is a mistake.  But it is one we all make -- and I think _anyone_  who lords it over someone else that their belief system is superior and they alone will be rewarded acts Pridefully.

It seems to me that the _only_  attitude a christian could take towards a non-christian consistent with what Jesus taught would be along the lines of  "I have a found a way to feel Joy.  I'd like you to feel this as well.  Please let me know if ever you are interested in learning more."  Not banging on some stranger's door as part of a "mission" to proletise and convert everyone on Planet Earth.  I am bumfuddled as to why so many christians seem to believe that Jesus actually _wants_  them to harangue and annoy and insult non-believers.  He certainly never did -- everyone he ever preached to (according to the Bible) was a _willing_  listener, and he treated them all with respect.

Unless, of course, the other is a cult member with a glass of kool aid in his hand.  I'd make an exception and call it a kindness if you were trying to prevent a suicide.


----------



## PixieStix (May 29, 2010)

syrenn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



The Ten Commandments also known as "THE LAW". was what Jesus came to fulfill for us, to deliver all of us from. It is impossible to keep the whole of the law. If ones knows the whole of the law and what it actually entails, they may understand more. It is not just 10 sentences


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yes I know that PS, curvelight claims that my quote is not christian but jewish.

and you are saying they are christian yes?


----------



## Doc Von Braune (May 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage.  All religion, all the time, 24/7.  I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday.  I had Religious Instruction every day at school.  So why didn't it stick?
> 
> The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy.  It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits.  Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set.  I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."
> 
> ...



Hello Madeline:

You have some excellent points and it sounds like you have had some rather bad experiences with the fundlementalist realm of our society.  In many ways it sounds like you are much closer to being what a real christian should be in today's society than you could possibly imagine.  I was raised in a strict Baptist fundlementalist home in the 60s & 70s, and am still trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together myself.  I will be 100% honest with you in that I am not trying to convince you that you must tow a very tight line to avoid an eternity of sadness and total darkness. I have no idea what it might take to convince you that you should be a Christian. I am in no way saying that you should not be a christian either. There are so many things that have taken place in the world since the "Big Bang" took place bringing the world as we know it into existence. It is enough to shake the beliefs of the saintly of saints to the very core rendering them to the point of atheism.  There is so much chaos in the world today of which we have no way of dealing with as hard as we might try.  I guess what I am trying to say is that "I feel your pain". The only thing that I really have to offer you is that no matter what evil we encounter, there is a sliver of hope out there that we have to seek with all of our heart, mind, soul, and body if we are to have any chance of making it through every second that awaites each of us for the rest of time that we have on the planet. It sounds like you have taken the time and effort to put yourself in a position of finding this sliver of hope. Do not let yourself be consumed by all of what is wrong with christianity. For if you do not do this for yourself, you will keep spiraling out of control and will eventually crash and burn. Somehow, I know deep down that you will find what it is you are seeking.  In all likelihood it will be the truest form of christianity that exists only for those true of heart.  

Doc


----------



## syrenn (May 29, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people feel the need to share their thoughts on why they are or are not followers of any faith. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.
> ...




Ive got a question for you curvelight.

Why did you feel the need to take out your insults and slurs?


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

I am truly moved by the honesty and forthrightness of the christians who have replied on this thread.  Even by Cecille, who was very frank about her anger.  I am delighted we are discussing this; I can hardly imagine a more interesting topic to convo about.

I cannot imagine what it must have been like to be raised as a fundamentalist.  Hollaring hellfire and brimstone at people over "sins" as imaginary as dancing?  Sounds truly awful, and it makes me sad that any little kidlet would be emotionally abused that way.

I have the very same confidence that I am doing okay (not great, but okay) in God's eyes as you do, Doc Von Braune.  I think I have a duty to think for myself and not try and abdicate responsibility for struggling with these questions by wholesale importing a belief system ready-made.  That does not mean I think Jesus' teachings have no value.  I most certainly do.

But I also have found value in the teachings of Buddism, as little as I understand them.  And certainly in Judaism.  Since none of us can prove, to ourselves or anyone else, the validity of any organized religion, it behooves us all to do what we think is right.

"Think" being the operative word.  I am not going to tell you that following an organized religion is a wrong choice that may put you cross-wise with God....and I don't think you should tell me I am doomed unless I do.  This is one of the moments in life where we each get to demonstrate respect and stand, on our own, on our individual Dignity.


----------



## Madeline (May 29, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > tommywho70x said:
> ...



I dunno if I'd be more pleasant, but the thought of rising incidents of muff diving cheers me considerably.  The day we get to a ratio of 1:1 as to BJs, women can stop complaining that there is such a thing as gender bias.

_*Big Grin*_

All kidding aside, I think one of the most obvious proofs of God's existence is the sexual love that sometimes happens between adults.  Lionel Richie wasn't joking when he sang that such love has a true power to heal.  And if you've never seen God during sex, you just aren't doing it right.


----------



## California Girl (May 30, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Personally, I find it very comforting that morons like Tommy wouldn't want to caress me with their tongues. I'm sure it's supposed to be an insult but since I wouldn't touch some asshole like that with a 10ft pole, I am not insulted.... just relieved.


----------



## Madeline (May 30, 2010)

Was that intended as a display of your christianity?  Or are you just willy-nilly showing your ass on any available thread?


----------



## LuckyDan (May 30, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Was that intended as a display of your christianity? Or are you just willy-nilly showing your ass on any available thread?


 
As if you would welcome a display of christianity. Don't you consider christrians evil? 

And if anyone's ass is welcome willy-nilly, hers has your stinky thang beat anyday. Get some soap on that lard, shoog.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Pure projection on your part. I was not insulting you, I was merely making an observation. I wouldn't bother wasting second of my time attempting to "cut you to the quick". Just being you must be misery enough.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > is someone holding a gun to your head?
> ...



Persecution complex?


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Toro said:


> Jesus promised heaven in the after-life, not heaven on earth.  Plus, I find that deeply religious people generally are happier in life.  They may believe in some wacky things, but I think those people's lives are better for having God in their lives.





I've heard that claim before as a reason why people should be religious. That it will make them happy. 

You might find that people's lives are better for having God in their lives to be true but in my own experience I find that not to be true. It seems most of the religious people I know are profoundly lonely people. I think that their faith does help them to deal with that somewhat. It makes them feel less alone to believe someone is watching over them. I also have seen people made very unhappy trying to reconcile the religious dogma they subscribe to with the realities of who they are. Having homosexual tendencies is one of them. 

I also think that the idea that because it supposedly will make you a happier person if you believe in God is just another version of the argument that you should believe in god and follow the rules of some religion so you can get to heaven. Are you really being a good person worthy of god;s blessing if you are doing it for personal gain?


----------



## Madeline (May 30, 2010)

I Do believe in God.  I'm not certain why anyone would feel attacked; apart from Cecille, everyone who has posted on this thread seems to me to have been rather restrained and held off on judgments.

I'm not "pushing atheism" on anyone.  And if I wanted to, this certainly seems like a piss-poor way to do it.  My beliefs leave me with all the duties to be good and none of the rewards claimed by christians.  Seems to me, this is a pretty raw deal, metaphysically.

Apart from the fact that, IMO, it is true and I am overly-fond of reality.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > What irriates me more than anything is the smug assumption that with education atheism must follow.
> ...


If by faithful you mean more certain in their faith, then I counter that certainty in faith does not correlate, IMO, with intelligence and education. It seems to me that those who are openminded enough to accept that some doubt exists about the legitimacy of their faith and yet adhere to it anyway - on faith - are the ones who are stronger in their faith. Education strengthens critical thinking, which necessarily leads to doubt. If you are strong in your faith, you can live with doubt. Those who cannot tolerate doubt and ambiguity may think they are being strong when they are only being rigid.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Bitter, hate-filled and snide bigotry masquerading as jaded sophistication, such as your own, teaches me what kind of person I hope I never become.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Toro said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > JW Frogen said:
> ...


We really have dofferent taste! St Peter's Square is a beautiful space but the interior of St Peter's impresses me as being even more ugly and gaudy and garish than Versailles.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I do agree women will be more apt to give head if they get it but I never really cared for it......unless I was driving.....


Unless you wre driving??   Isn't that even more distracting than talking on you cell phone?


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > I know what I would say...
> ...


I love when religious people claim to have an inside tract to God's mind.


----------



## eagleseven (May 30, 2010)

Anguille said:


> We really have dofferent taste! St Peter's Square is a beautiful space but the interior of St Peter's impresses me as being even more ugly and gaudy and garish than Versailles.


The overwhelming beauty of the Vatican reminds me of Jesus' poverty.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> There is no point condemning the non-believer. I don't have that power. I want to save the non-believer*. I want to empower people through the Atonement of Jesus Christ to change their lives* and live more according to the order of righteousness and happiness. I want people to feel the love of God as strongly as I do. I want them to recognize their weaknesses, because until they honestly do, they can't improve on themselves.
> 
> Why should I condemn when everything the Gospel teaches is to lift up?


You ring my doorbell to annoy me with that crap and expect to get an earful from me. Members of proselytizing religions who try to suck people into their Ponzi schemes are no better than telemarketers.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > We really have dofferent taste! St Peter's Square is a beautiful space but the interior of St Peter's impresses me as being even more ugly and gaudy and garish than Versailles.
> ...


Good point. Since I think the Vatican is ooogly I am reminded by it that simplicity is a good thing.


----------



## CurveLight (May 30, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree women will be more apt to give head if they get it but I never really cared for it......unless I was driving.....
> ...



Lol......nope.  It helped me to concentrate on driving even more......the last thing I wanted was an interruption in foreplay.


----------



## CurveLight (May 30, 2010)

syrenn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




No.  That would be Jewish as well.


----------



## Toro (May 30, 2010)

Anguille said:


> I've heard that claim before as a reason why people should be religious. That it will make them happy.



I never said that people should be religious because it will make them happy.  I was making the observation that the religious people whom I have met tend to be happier.


----------



## Toro (May 30, 2010)

Anguille said:


> We really have dofferent taste! St Peter's Square is a beautiful space but the interior of St Peter's impresses me as being even more ugly and gaudy and garish than Versailles.



I get the ostentatious display of wealth, but everywhere I looked, there was art.  Art on the walls, art on the ceiling, even art on the floor I was walking on.  I felt I was doing the place injustice by only spending a day there.

I wasn't impressed with Versailles.  Every room seemed to have a picture of Louis XIV in it.  "I am the Sun King!"  BFD.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Toro said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > We really have dofferent taste! St Peter's Square is a beautiful space but the interior of St Peter's impresses me as being even more ugly and gaudy and garish than Versailles.
> ...


I agree, there are some beautiful works of art in St Peter's, I just think the space is ruined by all the gilt and mishmash. I love marble but neither place uses marble in an pleasing way.


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Toro said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard that claim before as a reason why people should be religious. That it will make them happy.
> ...


I understood what you were saying, I just did not word my response very well. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Intense (May 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Hint. One would inspect the filter.


----------



## Intense (May 30, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I Do believe in God.  I'm not certain why anyone would feel attacked; apart from Cecille, everyone who has posted on this thread seems to me to have been rather restrained and held off on judgments.
> 
> I'm not "pushing atheism" on anyone.  And if I wanted to, this certainly seems like a piss-poor way to do it.  My beliefs leave me with all the duties to be good and none of the rewards claimed by christians.  Seems to me, this is a pretty raw deal, metaphysically.
> 
> Apart from the fact that, IMO, it is true and I am overly-fond of reality.



Sometimes the Joy is in the doing.


----------



## CurveLight (May 30, 2010)

Intense said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Holy shit man.


----------



## AquaAthena (May 30, 2010)

Since you, Madeline, and others, are relatively new to USMB, as I,  I will state my beliefs again. 

_I am an agnostic. _That is why I am not a Christian. And while I live a Buddha _like_ lifestyle, I am not a Buddhist, for I do _not_ believe in an afterlife. I also do not wish to be bound by the constraints of marriage[ again ] or religion. I live instead, a Christian-like or Buddha-like existence and am very happy with a kind and compassionate nature. I live a moral life.  Heaven and hell are right here on earth, and you will experience them as often as your choices take you there.

I believe in the universal law of cause and effect--_the empowering conviction that we all ultimately direct our own lives._


----------



## Intense (May 30, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Any Time!


----------



## CurveLight (May 30, 2010)

Intense said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



There is no filter.


----------



## Madeline (May 30, 2010)

AquaAthena said:


> Since you, Madeline, and others, are relatively new to USMB, as I,  I will state my beliefs again.
> 
> _I am an agnostic. _That is why I am not a Christian. And while I live a Buddha _like_ lifestyle, I am not a Buddhist, for I do _not_ believe in an afterlife. I also do not wish to be bound by the constraints of marriage[ again ] or religion. I live instead, a Christian-like or Buddha-like existence and am very happy with a kind and compassionate nature. I live a moral life.  Heaven and hell are right here on earth, and you will experience them as often as your choices take you there.
> 
> I believe in the universal law of cause and effect--_the empowering conviction that we all ultimately direct our own lives._



Well now, this is fascinating.  I agree with you -- to a point.  But what could European Jews have done to warrant the Death Camps?   Or Russians, to "attract" Stalin?


----------



## Madeline (May 30, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Mebbe the Vatican will not look quite so lovely next you gaze at it, if you bear in mind the Germans did not loot it in exchange for Pope Pius XII"s silence on the Final Solution.  Those lovely masterpieces, including the Pieta, represent nothing to me now apart from Jewish blood and Catholic evil.  I suspect when it was created, the Pieta was paid for in blood-soaked coins as well

Very little -- mebbe none -- great wealth exists without great evil.  Mostly, the existence of one is compelling evidence of the other.


----------



## AquaAthena (May 30, 2010)

Madeline said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > Since you, Madeline, and others, are relatively new to USMB, as I,  I will state my beliefs again.
> ...



I do not speak to the power of despots or the desperation of innocent people.


----------



## Madeline (May 30, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree women will be more apt to give head if they get it but I never really cared for it......unless I was driving.....
> ...



You ask this question as if you cannot reference personal experience, Anguille.   Are cars built _so _differently now?

_*Grins*_


----------



## Madeline (May 30, 2010)

AquaAthena said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > AquaAthena said:
> ...



How do we measure despair?  Or innocence?

Lemme tell you a story about an evil act I committed.

I am intolerant in the extreme of abuse -- of the elderly, of women, of kidlets, etc.  One day I went to the grocery and saw a young woman lift her kidlet, about two, off the floor with his arm, using a twirling motion that swept his feet out from under him.  You might not know -- and likely she didn't -- that this move, which usually causes no pain or injury, is a great way to tear a kidlet's rotator cuff.  Such injuries can leave a kidlet permanently disabled.

So I yelled at the woman -- even though she was obviously poor, stressed out and overwhelmed.  And she dropped the kidlet, so there was that.  But whose needs did I serve?  If I had spoken calmly and compassionately to her, she most likely would have listened.  She might have learned to never do that again (as opposed to never doing it again in public).  She might have felt validated, human and supported....but MY Pride came first.  I was wealthy and obviously powerful, and I knew I could frighten her, so I did.

Scaring a young mom on the edge...now _there's_  an accomplishment to be proud of, huh?

Evil is not always a direct descendant of one of the Ten Commandments, but it is never hard to see.  I could feel my impulses were wrong as I spoke, but I gave in anyway...and became just one more person to exploit that lady's poverty and despair for my own use. And now I get to live with that memory my whole life long -- as likely, so does she.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 30, 2010)

syrenn said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Why should God forgive someone for something they're not ashamed of and haven't asked for forgiveness for?  Why should He reward them for thumbing their noses at Him their entire lives and deliberately doing the exact opposite of what He told them was required?  And lastly, don't you find it laughable on the face of it that anyone COULD "earn their way into Heaven" by being good enough to impress God Almighty?

One doesn't go to Heaven because one is a good person and has "earned" it by their good works.  The Bible is quite clear on that.  Nor does one go to Hell for being a bad person.  The Bible is also very clear that NONE of us is good enough, and all of us have fallen short.  One goes to Heaven because one has asked forgiveness and accepted God's grace, and one goes to Hell because one has NOT asked forgiveness and rejected that grace.

And I would like to take this moment to point out that I have chosen to answer these questions because I feel that you have asked politely and sincerely, as Mad did not.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 30, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > I know what I would say...
> ...



I've always found it mildly amusing myself when people have the hubris to try to hold God to a HUMAN understanding of morality.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 30, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Yes, no insult THERE.  And CERTAINLY no belief that your bad opinions would upset me.  That's why you felt compelled to include yet ANOTHER insult:  because you OBVIOUSLY don't believe for a second that your good graces are desperately desired.

So you're not only conceited, you're a liar.  Big shock.  FLUSH!


----------



## Anguille (May 30, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


----------



## Hawkins (May 31, 2010)

Madeline said:


> By the way, I don't belong to any organized religion but I singled out Christians because I have been treated to their irrationality somewhat more often.  No Muslim or Jew or Buddist, etc. has ever prosletized to me.



Somehow it works like this. If you break the Law, you'll be sentenced, whether you understand Law or not, whether you read it or not, whether you ever study law itself or not. That's the case.

Similarly God's Law is embedded in your heart and soul. If you offended His Law, you'll be judged and put to jail. If you sinned you'll be driven out of His kingdom, the same as how Adam sinned and being driven out of Eden, and same as how Lucifer the archangel sinned and being driven out of heaven.

God is to save souls instead of bodies here on earth. Here on earth humans are basically not in His Kingdom. That's why the myseries. And everyone requires to pass the final judgment in order to return to God and His kingdom in heaven. And God foresaw that you won't stand a chance in the judgment. Jesus Christ is thus sent and a new covenant is in place which allows you to escape from the Judgment by Law.

If you refuse to take the new covenant, and when you are judged to be sinful, a permanent separation from God will be called. It is said that His sheep will take the new covenant. It is also said that those who aren't His sheep will continue to sin against His Law without repentance.

Moreover, it is said in the Book of Revelation that Satan (who is said to be an ex-archangel) is an accuser accussing people of sinning in order to keep them in jail with him. So good luck, either to find yourself a good lawyer or prepare yourself for the defense.

Revelation 12:10
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down."

Alternatively, take the Second Covenant as a gift such that the final Judgment by Law can be avoided.


----------



## Father Time (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Which is just another version of the old "the lord works in mysterious ways" cop-out.


----------



## Father Time (May 31, 2010)

rikules said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage.  All religion, all the time, 24/7.  I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday.  I had Religious Instruction every day at school.  So why didn't it stick?
> ...



No one can stop them from being Christian though.


----------



## Father Time (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I take it you haven't met Founder yet.


----------



## Father Time (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Oh the irony.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 31, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Nope. It's more of an acknowledgement that many people are just too arrogant to honestly search for the truth.


----------



## Father Time (May 31, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I say the notion that God can't be held up to any sort of basic standards of morality is being really dishonest.

"You can't question anything he does, because he's God."

It's a cop-out.


----------



## Madeline (May 31, 2010)

Cecille apparently has too much anger to read this thread closely.  I am NOT an atheist; I have no doubt at all that God exists.  I also do not shove my beliefs at anyone else.  I began the thread because I was raised in a hyper-christian environment and the training never took.  I've obviously given a great deal of thought as to why, and wanted to dialogue about this.

I appreciate Cecille's POV and willingness to be honest about her anger, but it would be helpful to know why.  What is it about non-christians that causes this rage?  She is certainly not alone in feeling it.

We are so unaccepting of non-christians in this country that I doubt any Presidential candidate would be viable if he were agnostic or atheist.  IMO, Lieberman will never take the office because he is not christian, regardless of how devote he is as a Jew.

Why do so many christians share this inability to tolerate the beliefs of others?  Are they unable to sustain their faith if even one of us does not share it?  There seems to me to be nothing analogous in the adherents of any other mainstream American organized religion, and I have never seen this religious intolerance in America anywhere among agnostics and atheists, unless you count Madeline Murray O'Hare.  But in real life?  No.

It seems inconsistent to me to claim to be a follower of the teachings of Christ and yet rage at and discriminate against those who are not.


----------



## Madeline (May 31, 2010)

Hawkins said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I don't belong to any organized religion but I singled out Christians because I have been treated to their irrationality somewhat more often.  No Muslim or Jew or Buddist, etc. has ever prosletized to me.
> ...



This is such a series of irrational and inconsistent statements I don't know how anyone could write them with a straight face.  You have managed to make God sound like some sort of sadistic lunatic, Hawkins.  If you open your eyes and look around, I think you may get that God is clearly not the irrational, hysterical, envious and devious anti-human you assert.

But meanwhile, good luck unraveling this Rube Goldberg version of reality.  If I were afflicted with it, I don't think I'd be able to ascertain the ethics of tying my shoes.


----------



## Father Time (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So what I'm hearing here is - correct me if I'm wrong - "I'm not a Christian because some people who happened to be church officials ACTUALLY EXPECTED ME TO RESPECT AUTHORITY FIGURES!!"  The horror of it all, being expected as a child to respect one's elders and those in authority over you.  And, of course, that NEVER happens to children outside of a church environment.  Certainly, secular schools don't ever expect kids to be respectful of authority.



So do you think people should be expected to respect others who are sadistic, uncaring, and evil, or are you purposely ignoring parts of her posts you don't like?

"Then, further, what I'm hearing is "I got answers to my questions, but I didn't like them, so that means THEY WEREN'T ANSWERS!!" Have I got that right?"
Where did she claim they weren't answers? All she said was that she didn't buy the answers. How is that hard to comprehend?

"Seems to me that the problem here is less that Christianity isn't measuring up than that Mad just has an attitude problem and expects the universe to adjust itself around her,"
Yes how dare she expect the universe and/or Christianity to make any sense. The nerve of some people.


----------



## Father Time (May 31, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Cecille apparently has too much anger to read this thread closely.  I am NOT an atheist; I have no doubt at all that God exists.  I also do not shove my beliefs at anyone else.  I began the thread because I was raised in a hyper-christian environment and the training never took.  I've obviously given a great deal of thought as to why, and wanted to dialogue about this.
> 
> I appreciate Cecille's POV and willingness to be honest about her anger, but it would be helpful to know why.



Cec is the most hyper-sensitive elitist poster I've ever seen here. I don't think there's any rationale behind it.

Oh and one thing that ticks her off is non-Christians telling Christians how to be Christ-like.

Because apparently she can't wrap her head around the idea of a non-Christian understanding the Bible.


----------



## Madeline (May 31, 2010)

Cecille seems to be demonstrating some of the qualities that drive many folks away from organized religion:  dishonesty, intolerance, aggression and cruelty.  I wonder which of Christ's teachings leads her to treat others in this manner?

Cecille's posts are an advertisement for christianity the way a BP gas station is an ad for the internal combustion engine.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 31, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



God doesn't do anything...anymore.

His last act was allowing his son to be beating nearly to death and murdered to save us.

His son and the Holy Spirit are up to bat.

By the way....for centuries nothing that happens here on Earth is the work of God.

Guess who has domain over the planet we live on now?


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > PixieStix said:
> ...




You really enjoy re-writing the bible for your personal desires.  Your claim that works has no factor is incorrect.  James 2:20 makes it clear faith without works is dead.  Then you arrogantly try to justify not responding to Mad because there was not enough politeness.  What did Jesus say about that?

Mathew 5:46 points out loving only those who love you is being no different than corrupt tax collectors.

Also, God does not have a penis so referencing God as a "Him" is pretty silly.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



So now we should refer to him as* "IT"*???

We've got to call *"him"* something???

Maybe we need to get all PC when we describe God and *"his" "son"* Jesus. I guess the act of dying also removed the holy penis. 

This is something I have to look forward to now. I have to sit down to pee in heaven. Why can't we do miracles and pee standing up without a penis? That would be really cool. Nope...looks like they need alot of TP in heaven. Maybe one of the punishments in hell is that the Devil always leaves the lid up.



Also, you didn't pay much attention to Cecilie1200's post. Cecilie1200 didn't say what you claim. You put words in *"her"* mouth.


----------



## Anguille (May 31, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


 She's good at that. A god given gift, I suppose.


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Didn't say we should refer to God as "it."  Why do people like you try to displace accuracy behind PC rhetoric?  
How did I put words in Cecille's mouth?


----------



## mudwhistle (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



She didn't say that works weren't necessary.

And I suppose we're supposed to call God "her" now to make you happy. 

That assumes that "he" has a pussy....so we're pretty much running out of options here.


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



You're an idiot. I didn't say we should refer to God as "her" either. Since God doesn't have tits or a vagina it would be equally stoopid to refer to God as "her."  

Show where I claimed Cecille said works aren't necessary. If works are necessary that means forgiveness must be earned on some level.....which negates her claim.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





> Curvelight wrote: _"You really enjoy re-writing the bible for your personal desires. *Your claim that works has no factor is incorrect"*_.



Checkmate bitch.


----------



## syrenn (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Why should God forgive someone for something they're not ashamed of and haven't asked for forgiveness for?  Why should He reward them for thumbing their noses at Him their entire lives and deliberately doing the exact opposite of what He told them was required?  And lastly, don't you find it laughable on the face of it that anyone COULD "earn their way into Heaven" by being good enough to impress God Almighty?
> 
> One doesn't go to Heaven because one is a good person and has "earned" it by their good works.  The Bible is quite clear on that.  Nor does one go to Hell for being a bad person.  The Bible is also very clear that NONE of us is good enough, and all of us have fallen short.  One goes to Heaven because one has asked forgiveness and accepted God's grace, and one goes to Hell because one has NOT asked forgiveness and rejected that grace.
> 
> And I would like to take this moment to point out that I have chosen to answer these questions because I feel that you have asked politely and sincerely, as Mad did not.



Thank you for answering my questions Cecilie. So if your up to a dialog ive got some more.

Take the Amazon natives for example, they know nothing of a christian god. They believe in different gods. Not because they are being obstinate but just because no one has been there converting them. What happens to them?  Do the laws of, ignorance of the law is no excuse apply?

I also have a very hard problem with be as bad as you want, repent your sins and believe in god and all is forgiven.

how bad is bad?

rapists
child molesters
wife beaters


how about Bernie Madoff? He didn't hurt anyone, he just stole money.


----------



## PixieStix (May 31, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




The thing is we do not actually get away unscathed by our sin, we will reap the consequences and repercussions of them many times over, here on earth. Even if we repent


----------



## syrenn (May 31, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> The thing is we do not actually get away unscathed by our sin, we will reap the consequences and repercussions of them many times over, here on earth. Even if we repent




I dont see to anyone reaping any consequences or repercussions ,pixiestix, do you?


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2010)

I'm not a Christian because Buddhist meditation and teachings work for me.


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Checkmate? Rotfl!  What a stoopid bitch.  It's clear Cecille was saying works has no factor by pointing to the failed "faith alone" type bullshit and that nobody can earn anything by works.  Have you figured out yet that God doesn't have a penis or vagina?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I haven't re-written anything.  You just misunderstood it.

Faith without works IS dead.  What that means is that saying you are a Christian without making any effort to behave as a Christian should is a pretty good indication that you're not really a Christian.  If one truly believes in the teachings of Christ, then that belief is reflected in one's actions.

However, that does not mean that it is the works that get you into Heaven.  Romans 3:28 tells us, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."  John 3:16 tells us, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, *that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life*."  And verses 17-19 go on to continue that theme.

The Bible is very clear that it is the FAITH that saves us, and that the works are what is expected of us AFTER we are saved as a demonstration of our faith.

As for refusing to treat Mad's initial post as though it was a sincere attempt to understand Christianity, nowhere in the Bible does it say that loving my neighbor requires me to act as though I'm an idiot who doesn't understand English.  Mad started this thread to denigrate Christians and Christianity, and thus got answered in kind.  At the point where she wants to ask REAL questions, she will then get REAL answers.

Finally, the only thing "silly" concerning referencing God as male is the fact that YOU know so little about English grammar that you actually need me to explain to you that in English, any living, sentient creature is correctly referred to as "he" when the sex is otherwise unknown.  If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to reveal to the world that I didn't know ELEMENTARY SCHOOL grammar, but I guess you're immune to that sort of thing by now, hmm?


----------



## Madeline (May 31, 2010)

> Cecille wrote, in part:
> 
> Mad started this thread to denigrate Christians and Christianity, and thus got answered in kind. At the point where she wants to ask REAL questions, she will then get REAL answers.



No, Cecille.  I don't have any need or desire to dictate to anyone else what they should believe.  You and I are not alike in this; I am not infused with any Golden Light Of Knowing I And Only I Am Correct.  I still have questions.

I am not The Answer Lady.  If someone I loved told me they had decided to become a Buddist monk, I would reply "Now, that's interesting.  What made you choose this?" and then I'd listen.  _Really_  listen.  It'd be nice to be able to listen to you as well, Cecille, but your anger makes that very hard.

As for your refusal to respond directly to me, that's okay. I think you know your anger is disproportionate and at odds with your avowed beliefs, and therefore, cannot be defended.  You serve a purpose in this thread and on this Earth, even if not all of us can see it at all times.


----------



## Madeline (May 31, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> I'm not a Christian because Buddhist meditation and teachings work for me.



Sky Dancer, may I ask, were you raised as a Buddist?  If not, how did you happen to be fortunate enough to find a teacher?


----------



## Madeline (May 31, 2010)

syrenn said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is we do not actually get away unscathed by our sin, we will reap the consequences and repercussions of them many times over, here on earth. Even if we repent
> ...



Yes you do, syrenn, but it isn't the sort of Justice you expect.  Ever see a couple in a restaurant and the man is ugly to the waiter when he orders?  What we crave, for Justice, is that someone he fears will be ugly to him.  Repay him in kind...but that is not how it works.

The ugly man has dirtied up his self a little....his soul, if that word makes more sense to you.  The woman he's with has seen him acting ugly, and likes him just a little less and trusts him a _whole_  lot less.  He has moved away from Humanity, from God and from his real self.  He is alienated, and if he keeps this up, he will be begin dying, badly and alone, _decades _before his actual death.

The "punishment" for the evil we do is that we have to live the rest of our lives as ourselves.  It is a Perfect Justice; in our evil struggle to acquire, we can lose Everything.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Now that I think about it, I AM a little curious as to how Curve "knows" for a certainty that God doesn't have a penis.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Tell you what.  Why don't you clarify for us exactly what set of pronouns you think should be correctly used to refer to God, and then we'll go from there.  You think it's "silly" to use male pronouns, and now you disclaim "it".  That only leaves female pronouns.  So do us all a favor and definitively PICK ONE.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, it doesn't.  If you come to me and say, "Cecilie, I'm really sorry for being such a dumbass all this time.  Please forgive me," I'll forgive you right then.  I don't require you to first demonstrate to me through works that you're no longer a dumbass.  All I require is that you repent of your dumbass-ness in the past.  HOWEVER, after I have forgiven you for being a dumbass, I would THEN reasonably expect you to demonstrate your sincerity through works by attempting not to be such a dumbass in the future.  Otherwise, I might begin to suspect that your apology and request for forgiveness was less than sincere.

On the other hand, if you died of a heart attack right after asking me for forgiveness, and never had a chance to demonstrate that you were no longer a dumbass, you would still have been forgiven by me for having been a dumbass in the past.

Hope that clears things up for you a bit.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



How the fuck would you know???



By the way....now you're contradicting yourself on the whole works thing. You said that Cecille was saying that works weren't a factor...then you asked me to point out when you accused her of that....then you turn back around and make the same stupidly dishonest claim once again. You spend more time chasing your tail then a Cocker Spaniel. 

I always felt you were a little schizoid.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should God forgive someone for something they're not ashamed of and haven't asked for forgiveness for?  Why should He reward them for thumbing their noses at Him their entire lives and deliberately doing the exact opposite of what He told them was required?  And lastly, don't you find it laughable on the face of it that anyone COULD "earn their way into Heaven" by being good enough to impress God Almighty?
> ...




That's humanity's concept, not God's.  

In all honesty, I don't think anyone knows for sure what God does about those who've never been told about Him.  It's been a doctrinal question among Christians for a long time.  All we know for sure is that we were told, on more than one occasion, that we had a responsibility to go and tell everyone about Him.  And so we do.  That's why so many churches have missionaries in places like the Amazon.  Perhaps He didn't tell us the answer precisely because He didn't want us to lay back and say, "Oh, okay, those people are covered, so I don't have to go out of my way for them."



syrenn said:


> I also have a very hard problem with be as bad as you want, repent your sins and believe in god and all is forgiven.
> 
> how bad is bad?
> 
> ...



It's not quite like that.  I mean, I don't believe God lets you get away with thinking, "Okay, I'll do whatever I please and live it up, and then when I'm done, I'll repent and it'll all be okay."  He's God, and He can see the true intent of your heart, and sincerity of repentance is key.  That is, you don't get forgiven if you're not genuinely sorry for what you did.  It's not as though you can lie to God.

As for "how bad is bad", in the eyes of God, there aren't "degrees of bad".  That's also a human perception.  To God, ALL sin is equally bad.  And all sin is equally forgivable by Him if you sincerely ask it.




syrenn said:


> how about Bernie Madoff? He didn't hurt anyone, he just stole money.



How about him?  He committed a sin.  Sin is sin, to God.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Also true.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a Christian because Buddhist meditation and teachings work for me.
> ...



I was raised a Catholic.  I left the church after my father's suicide in 1981.  I was looking for something that would help me to help him.  Catholics taught that suicide was a mortal sin and that whoever committed that sin was eternally damned.  That didn't satisfy me or feel true to me so I moved on.

I spent a lot of time in a theosophical library studying all kinds of religions but when I went to my first Buddhist teaching it sounded like truth to me.  I went to my first ten day silent retreat in 1982 and only took Buddhist vows for the ten days of the retreat.  My mind and heart were profoundly affected by this emersion into meditation so I started to study/read Buddhism and attend other retreats of five, ten day and finally two months duration.

I didn't start to study with a Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhist master until 1987.  I didn't consider that I had a real teacher until 1989.  

It's kind of a long story about how I now study under my current teacher.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

syrenn said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is we do not actually get away unscathed by our sin, we will reap the consequences and repercussions of them many times over, here on earth. Even if we repent
> ...



Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.  Christianity isn't alone in teaching that committing bad acts - or even just harboring bad feelings toward others - damages your soul (or whatever equivalent thereof the philosophy allows for).


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



How do you know what equipment God does or doesn't have?  Have you seen God?  Given an all-over inspection?


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2010)

It doesn't matter to me if someone says he or she is a Christian.  If he or she has a good heart then that impresses me.  Good heart is accompanied by kind words and acts of compassion.  If the person is a Christian, I look to see if it has made them Christ-like, loving, gentle and kind.  Does the person follow the teachings of Jesus in their thoughts, words and deeds.  Is his or her heart/mind open or closed?


----------



## Madeline (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight knows God does not have a penis because he knows that God is not alive.  God is not Human.  God was not born and he will not die.  We attribute human qualities like gender to God because we need to, not because they are accurate.  God is just as feminine as he is masculine, and really, he is neither.

Man is limited in his imagination.  We lack the capacity to envision God as he is.  We anthropmorphize the concept of God, giving him human traits he does not have so we can commence to feeling closer to him...but these are all illusions.

An excerpt from the poem "Wintering", by Laurel K. Dodge:



> what of the thaw?. I wouldn&#8217;t anthropmorphize
> night--why not?--stars aren&#8217;t lidless eyes--
> but they are! can&#8217;t you feel them watching?--
> the moon&#8217;s just light, not a wound
> ...




Barring a state of chronic emergency, every Adult will realize that someday he will die and that even while he is alive, he is alone.  No one else can crawl inside our skin and "be with us".  Some people cannot bear the pain this causes them, and run away from the Fear -- into religions that promise them "everything", or into work, or drugs, or to enslave themselves in a thousand other ways.

All sentient adults are _capable_  of tolerating the Fear.  Anyone who is an adult can allow themselves to experience aloneness and ponder the Big Questions.  I don't think that _every_  christian uses religion as an escape, but far too many do.  A few seem to me to have seriously quested and pondered and to be genuinely at home in their faith, as I am in mine.  But for many, what Marx said is true:  "Religion is the opiate of the masses."  And that's when religion is not merely being used by hucksters to try to sell us toothpaste or a politician.  Or whip up hatred.

Like any other Life Choice all of us must make, this willingness to face the imponderable and tolerate the Fear of not knowing, until whatever we may find that fills the void can be developed, is unavoidable.  The _only_  alternative to pondering is Constant Anxiety.  Anyone who reacts to the Big Questions by accepting Constant Anxiety will never know any Real Peace, because an answer borrowed from someone else and simply shoved in place without thought is just a surrender to (and subscription to) Constant Anxiety.  

I think this Life Choice remains open to each of us throughout our lives, but I don't think many folks over 29 or so ever re-visit their decision.  Those who ponder may do so all their lives; but those who choose Constant Anxiety are likely to remain cowards until they die.

To know Peace whilst alive, every adult human must face and tolerate Fear.  We each have to look inside ourselves and see a truly horrifying sight -- we are Alone.  From this struggle can come Faith, but IMO, _no one_  can get Faith by any other means.  And for some people, the Faith they have is that God does not exist.  Frankly, I think it takes greater courage to live with that reply than any other.  I am not an atheist, but I can admire the guts and honesty of those who are.

BTW, I don't generally use "he or she" when I write, and since English has no personal pronoun that is gender neutral, please read the above as applying equally to men and women.


----------



## Madeline (May 31, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I don't see how anyone can fail to honor the pilgrimage that Sky Dancer has been on, or have the nerve to tell this poster that his or her conclusions so far are wrong. 

I also agree, the RCC is 100% wrong about suicide; no one in that much pain will face condemnation from God if an After-Life exists.  God is unknowable, but we do know he is not Unjust.


----------



## Madeline (May 31, 2010)

> > Originally Posted by syrenn:
> >
> > how about Bernie Madoff? He didn't hurt anyone, he just stole money.
> 
> ...



syrenn, it is understandable that you'd see Bernie Madoff as "not having hurt anyone".  He didn't beat anyone.  But when he stole the entire finances of a charity (which he did; virtually all American Jewish charities have been stripped of their endowments) he certainly harmed those who were the objects of those charities and now cannot be helped. 

He stole the retirement funds of thousands of people.  These are folks who planned and saved and hoped that eventually they could be artists or singers or grandparents, without the time constraints of work.  He stole their dreams.  

So much more is evil than actually assaulting or killing someone with your bare hands.   If we are going to rank evil acts on a hierarchy, I'd say a man like Bernie Madoff, who has hastened the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, is a heavy offender.  It is evil to prey on the trust or ignorance of those who look up to you to deprive them of their's heart desire.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (May 31, 2010)

GWV5903 said:


> Do you not recognize the spiritual struggle between good and evil? I could not begin to tell you how many times in a day I have to choose between them, the Holy Spirit helps me daily.....


See I just use this thing called "conscience", which is based off this gnarly idea of ethics.  But hey if talking towards the ceiling and believing an invisible "it" helps you figure out the difference between good and evil because you can't do it yourself then good for you!



Cecilie1200 said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Oh I see that you refuted his well organized and supported points with stereotyping and "it's just a difference of opinion".  Good job!  Perhaps others in this thread can follow your lead and similarly hand waive away valid arguments with statements like "O U JUST THINK UR SO SMART DONT U?!"



CurveLight said:


> More often than not when people make self proclamations of being educated or intelligent the opposite often bears out as closer to being accurate.


Oh good, looks like the teachings are taking root.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it mildly amusing that you presume to tell an all powerful being what is right and what is wrong rather than to learn directly from Him. You have an incorrect understanding of God and yet somehow it's His fault.
> ...


I've always found it mildly amusing myself when people claim we can't have any understanding of deified morality and yet at the same time believe it's all just listed out in a book.  I also found it largely amusing when religions claim morality, law, and ethics can somehow change over time, despite an omnipotent being demanding them.  Cuz ya know slavery isn't so bad cuz the bible says it's ok.  

As for the whole gender issue, I think it's clear that It had to have a penis to rape Mary. Unless It is a hermaphrodite.  Which explains the whole "homosexuality is bad" thing as just a big self-hating insecurity. Or maybe I have it wrong altogether. Maybe It just had a turkey baster...


----------



## mudwhistle (May 31, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you not recognize the spiritual struggle between good and evil? I could not begin to tell you how many times in a day I have to choose between them, the Holy Spirit helps me daily.....
> ...



Looks like your understanding of Christianity is totally screwed.

You keep mixing up the Old Testament with the new. 

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ....not on the writings of Moses, Abraham, and the other patriarchs listed in the Old Testament.


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...




So your forgiveness is conditional upon your evaluation of my behavior.  No.  You didn't clear anything up cause I already knew you were arrogant enough to believe I would ask your forgiveness.  You can fuck off you self-righteous life leech.


----------



## tommywho70x (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



this sort of statement and others like it in this thread are disheartening to say the least in contrast with the beautiful heartsong madeline has been singing here. 

i will not lower myself to share what my inner self is trying to get me to type about all of you who behave this way while people are being gunned down all over the world, the earth is crying and spewing tears that are killing her creatures, and our societies are putrifying in their own decadence.


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



How would I know God doesn't have a penis or vagina?  Common fucking sense you reetawrd.

As for the works thing.....a factor can be necessary or an unnecessary condition.  Do you understand the diff between the two?


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What is disheartening?


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was tired when I wrote the Op and could have done a better job, I suppose.  I didn't write it to "prosletise atheism" and I don't consider myself an atheist.  I have a firm belief in the Divine, but none whatsoever in an After-Life.  I'm not sure what the name of this belief system would be, but t'aint _atheism_.
> 
> I don't think forgiveness is always best.  Not if that means we forget. The Catholic Clergy of the 1950's and 1960's that I knew, observed, lived with and now judge were vicious child abusers, both physically and sexually (though thank God I escaped that horror show).  I am fairly convinced you cannot emotionally abuse a child who sees you as a perpetual stranger they wish would go away, but if you can the drumbeat of my childhood was "sex is bad and women are the source of all evil".  In order to feel a sense of dignity, I think it was necessary to reject that belief.  And it wasn't hard to do.  I think one reason my religious training never "took" is that it was far too much at odds with what I had learned from my folks, which seemed dead-on.  People have value, regardless of their station in life. Education and art matter but money does not, after you have paid the bills.  Forcing your neighbor to live in poverty is wrong.  Lying and bullying people is wrong.  Etc.
> 
> ...



Your parents taught you to love reading.  Try reading the Book of Enoch if you want to understand 'afterlife'... it demonstrates the pain of the fallen angels after discovering part of the punishment for their crime (of turning against the Lord).  Try reading the book of Jubilees for the 'answer' for dinosaurs (and other 'mythical' creatures).  It makes a very scary statement about just what the fallen angels 'bred'.
As for Christians.... each is an individual.  Judge them as such if you will.  Because someone claims to be something, does not make it so.  If you meet a wealthy (true) Christian, you will find they have been blessed, not keeping their neighbor down; they are among the most generous and kind people on the face of the earth.
Read Jerimiah to discover in the 'New Covenant', G*d will be written onto men's hearts (sense of right and wrong) and there will be no need for religious instruction.
Read the New Testament for what Yeshua says about the 'afterlife'.  He is the Truth and the Light.  He had no deceit in Him.
Your path is your own.  You have made statements/observations.  It will be up to you to decide how you proceed.


----------



## tommywho70x (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



with respect and the hope you aren't going to go ballistic on me, go back and really read what maddie wrote and then think about what you have been posting along with it and you tell me.

i've backed your play on a couple of other threads when you were trading four-letter words with others. i think it's kinda inappropriate on this one. 

maddie really reached deep for those words she posted. are you thinking as deeply or are you just 'rasslin'?


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

logical4u said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I was tired when I wrote the Op and could have done a better job, I suppose.  I didn't write it to "prosletise atheism" and I don't consider myself an atheist.  I have a firm belief in the Divine, but none whatsoever in an After-Life.  I'm not sure what the name of this belief system would be, but t'aint _atheism_.
> ...



Think the last time I read this post it was on a 3x5 index card with a stale candy cane attached.


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > tommywho70x said:
> ...



I'm being no less sincere than Maddy and I doubt that is in question.  I go ballistic because I get tired of so much bowlshit being served.  People like cecille and mudwhistle roll out the same crap claim superiority then confuse themselves with God and wonder why people aren't bowing down.  Most people know I will engage in any debate with sincerity if that is on the table but I have no patience for bullshit so if people can't handle it I just tell em to fuck off.  If they're that damn sensitive then sincerity is a foreign agent.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2010)

Anguille said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



She actually taught them a 'natural' birth control method.  It involved only having sex when the woman could not get pregnant.  Because she dealt with impoverished people, her method could be done with very little money in the beginning (a thermometer, writing utensil and calendar), and less money to maintain it, unlike: pills, IUD, condoms, spermicide, etc, etc, etc.  

She was not an outspoken accessory to murder that deceived women into killing their own children.  She taught them to limit them and to love the ones they had.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2010)

rikules said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Maddie, what if you are wrong? By the way, I am convinced.
> ...



Slavery still exists today.  Are you out there protesting it?
The Book of Enoch talks about slavery (I believe the beginning of slavery).  The Lord was not in favor of 'kings', but when the Hebrews wanted a king, He gave them Saul.  The Lord tolerated things that people did (slavery).  Some things, He would not tolerate.  He gave the Hebrews the Commandments when they BEGGED for rules to make their lives easier, not displeasing the Lord.

Also, in the Book of Enoch are different places mentioned for 'in the afterlife'.  One is an unpleasant place filled with darkness (as punishment for transgressions), where people will be kept for a time.  Another is a beautiful place with mountains of metal that people are taken there to prepare them for the 'presence of the Lord'.  Also in the Old Testament, it is said that cowards will be laid down with women and children killed in battle.

He is a just Lord.  You will be treated according to your actions.  You will be punished for your sins.  If your belief in Yeshua has led you to fight temptation and you try to walk in His ways, you will be welcome in His house.  In Revelations, it says that every person will be judged for their actions.  IMHO, this means that if you were too stubborn to believe another person's word (or the Bible), or were raised to believe in another religion, that when you come into His presence, you will recognize Him as the Lord.  If you are genuine, and have lived well, He will be forgiving, if not, then, you may be given the sentence of hell, so that you will not be driven mad by the knowledge that you will never again, be in His presence.

Socialism IS slavery.... what you said above there.  If you give power to the government over your life, you have sold yourself and your family into slavery.


----------



## logical4u (May 31, 2010)

Anguille said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



The Vatican relates to Soloman's temple: when the Hebrews were allowed to go back to Jerusalem (i believe Nebecanezzer was in charge) by the Persian king, they started to rebuild the Temple.  After the original leaders passed, the Hebrews grew distracted with every day life and did not finish the Temple.  The Lord punished them because they had built great mansions for themselves, but left His House, unfinished.  The church building is symbolic of the Lord's house.  Not that He needs it, but a 'sacrifice' or 'show of faith' to the Lord.  The church SHOULD build a tribute to the Lord that represents the BEST of what the community has to offer.  It is the Lord's house, not ours.


----------



## tommywho70x (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> tommywho70x said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i feel you, man and that's why i do back your play sometimes. i'm also not questioning your sincerity, but the propriety of the sort of shouting match you were having in relation to the context of this thread. 

almost says to me, well, there's one more reason i'm not a christian, muslim or jew. i claim adherence to their mother, the hebrew faith.

you're pretty young, yeah? (at this point, under 35 is pretty young in intellectual circles for me)

if i may, i studied philosophy under robert s. harder at u tampa. he's not widely known because he didn't teach at a big university and didn't publish much. it's more likely to have heard of his associate, robert saatkamp , who published more.

 most of these jerkoffs would get cut to ribbons arguing with him and he rarely had to dip to vulgar language to do it. i don't think i ever heard saatkamp cuss but i sure saw them both humble a lot of folks, including me.

i've only been here a few weeks and already i'm meeting so many people with really valid, relevant commentary of their own who are thanking me and giving me pos rep for mine, that i decided that i wasn't going to lock horns with the assholes in the threads. 

i don't want to undermine my own credibility and the respect that my writing is getting from so many cool folks whose writing is also respectable by getting into dungball fights like snarling baboons with these devolved mutants.

i decided that when some asswipe decides to point his flamethrower at me, i will only flame them back in a PM and ignore them in the thread so that i can focus on the worthy discussion.

i just did that to rabbi and it seems to have worked. he chickened out after one reply in the PM's and the thread didn't get ruined by a running, off-topic personal argument.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



I'm a bit curious as to what part of his vaunted "conscience" and "ethics" told Bigot Boy that it was a good idea to utter the sentence "It had to have a penis to rape Mary".  I think if that level of spiteful, vicious, intolerant attack is the sort of morality one gets from atheism, I'll pass.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Really, is English not your first language?

I never said I believed you were smart enough to realize that you were a dumbass and needed to apologize to people for it.  That's why I said "IF you did so".  The word "if" generally appears when something is only theoretically possible, not likely, such as you ever being smart enough to be ashamed of how stupid you sound right now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Really?  Common sense told you that God has no genitals?  Hmmm.  How exactly does that work?  You've never seen God, and certainly no detailed descriptions of God exist anywhere that I'm aware of, so would you mind explaining how you "logicked" out the state of His genitalia?

"A factor can be necessary or an unnecessary condition".  In the context of the preceding conversation, I would have to say:  What the fuck?


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2010)

Love God, (or goodness, itself) and Love thy Neighbor as thyself.   Follow in the footsteps of Jesus, the two great commandments.

Here they are:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second resembles it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. 
Mt 22:37-39


----------



## Father Time (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The word "if" generally appears when something is only theoretically possible, not likely, such as you ever being smart enough to be ashamed of how stupid you sound right now.



This coming from someone who can barely write a single post without juvenile name calling.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > The word "if" generally appears when something is only theoretically possible, not likely, such as you ever being smart enough to be ashamed of how stupid you sound right now.
> ...



Why are Christians not interested in being more like Christ?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2010)

Christians are interested in being like Christ.

We also recognize there is no way to attain perfection, hence we need the intervention of Christ.


----------



## Father Time (May 31, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



A lot of them are, Cessy is not one of them.


----------



## tommywho70x (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



 i posted the following in response to a off-topic and vulgar running argument you were having with curvelight earlier in this thread. it applied to both of you in that argument and now applies to both of you in this one.

be advised that if you turn on me with the same sort of attitude, the response will only be a PM. if you want to discuss this like an intelligent, open-minded adult, i'll be glad to intercourse with you in public. i'm going to do the nasty fuck you, fuck you back stuff in private from now on.



this sort of statement and others like it in this thread are disheartening to say the least in contrast with the beautiful heartsong madeline has been singing here.

i will not lower myself to share what my inner self is trying to get me to type about all of you who behave this way while people are being gunned down all over the world, the earth is crying and spewing tears that are killing her creatures, and our societies are putrifying in their own decadence.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Christians are interested in being like Christ.
> 
> We also recognize there is no way to attain perfection, hence we need the intervention of Christ.



How wonderful it would be if Christians who want to be more Christ-like prayed to Jesus to ask that their speech be pleasing to God.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Who said we aren't?  There's a difference between being interested in being more like Christ, and being interested in being more like Christ _as interpreted by someone who isn't even a Christian._  I have no interest whatsoever in conforming to YOUR view of what I should or shouldn't be, and what improvements I AM interested in are between me and God, and no one else's business.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Christians are interested in being like Christ.
> ...



How wonderful it would be if non-Christians would contain the arrogance that makes them feel qualified to tell Christians how to practice a faith they don't share.  Do I come in here and tell YOU how to be a Buddhist, and expect you to live up to my standards of how that belief system is practiced?

What you really want isn't for my speech to be pleasing to God, Sky.  What you want is for my speech to be pleasing to YOU.  Which begs the question of "who the heck are you that I should care?"


----------



## PixieStix (May 31, 2010)

And many love to use the name of God when they curse, buddha damn it


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


The point is that I completely agree with the essence of Christianity which is love.  You have a point.  I have no business telling you about the two commandments of Jesus.  I just happen to like them and think the world would be a better place if they were practiced in earnest.

If you don't care what I think don't read me or respond to me.  Fair enough?  Just put me on ignore and be at peace.


----------



## Ringel05 (May 31, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage.  All religion, all the time, 24/7.  I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday.  I had Religious Instruction every day at school.  So why didn't it stick?
> 
> The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy.  It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits.  Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set.  I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."
> 
> ...



And all this means.....  what?  And why should I care?


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Seems to me you're the kind of person that likes to front about biblical knowledge but then runs as soon as you realize you wore a yellow belt to a 7th degree blackbelt match.  So if forgiveness cannot be earned that means you shouldn't evaluate someone's behavior after forgiveness has been given.  You're in a secret contest to be more inconsistent than obushama. Just admit it cause you're tied so far.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You know, I looked at my User Control Panel, saw that you had made a new post on this topic, and I said to myself, "I'll bet he doesn't have a single useful thing to add to this subject."  Then I opened the thread, scrolled down, and won my bet.

Forgiveness, by definition, cannot be earned.  If one "deserved" to be forgiven, one would not NEED to be forgiven in the first place.  One of my favorite quotes ever is, "To forgive is an act of compassion. It's not done because people deserve it, it's done because they need it."  That pretty much sums that up.

One evaluates their behavior after not to judge whether the forgiveness was deserved, but to judge whether or not the remorse was sincere.  More to the point, since we are talking about God, who knew if your remorse was sincere at the time, the actions afterward are important because they are the other primary purpose of the entire exercise:  to enable you to become a better person during your time on Earth.

There's no inconsistency here.  Just a stubborn, pigheaded desire on your part not to understand what's being said, because your mind is made up, and goddamnit, no point of view will be allowed to have any merit except the one you've decided is correct.


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



I've seen God every time I've been blessed to be humbled enough to recognize acts of compassion that would make Jesus say "I should have started my ministry much earlier than at 30 years of age."

Have you ever really contemplated God or does it too often get in the way of adding another notch to your cotton candy soapbox?  Maddy roughly explained my position regarding anthropomorphism.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2010)

Curve--

What is God to you?  

I tend to think of God in terms of 'that which cannot be imagined or described' a state of pure being--that can be realized through qualities of love, compassion, joy and equanimity.

I don't see God as a superhuman personality made out of material substance.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Admittedly, I have not spent as much time thinking about God's genitalia or lack thereof as you have, nor have I apparently spent as much time pondering all the ways that God did things wrong by not consulting you on things first.  I was left merely to muse on more mundane, pedantic things, such as the Bible and the devotional and scholarly writings of devout theologians.

I would have to say I am nearly as disinterested in your grammatically-challenged ramblings on the subject of anthropomorphism as I am in anything that Mad would ever have to say about anything.  People who start entire threads in order to say, "I'm so much more fricking enlightened than you, and this is why I think so, and you should all now applaud me for being so wonderful" generally impress me as people who are farting out of both ends.

I personally think we've reached the point where you're out of arguments, know you've lost, and are just thrashing around, looking for a way to save face.  Move along.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 31, 2010)

God is a myth, an interesting myth, but one nonetheless....


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2010)

God is a state of being beyond conception which can be realized moment to moment.  God has nothing to do with religion as we know it.


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

tommywho70x said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > tommywho70x said:
> ...



Why give others so much power you let them help decide you will not be a C, M, or J?  Should Christians have stopped being Christians when it was revealed the RCC ordered priests to not report sex abuse to local authorities? Should Jews stop being Jews because some Israeli assholes whacked unarmed civilians on a boat of humantiarian aid?

I'm over 35 but don't let numbers or genders be a distraction.  I have it set up so I can't see anyone's gender or age and it's an interesting perspective.

I would refrain from name dropping because whatever the intent, it's always inherently tainted with a touch of inescapable patronization. I'm in the Boston area and have been fortunate enough to study under people from HDS, EDS, etc.  (See what I mean?)

The vulgarity is overrated. Highly, highly overrated. We got people defending the outright murder of unarmed civilians but somehow find being called a "****" a crime.  The shouting matches could and should be toned down but in my experience on the 'net, the "honey" approach is more often than not a failure and it just gives people another chance to pass on their bullshit.  A few of my closest flesh life friendships were built on the same treachorous language I use on here and the reason is because we found common ground in weeding out the fakers.  I'd much rather prefer an honest smack in the face with a tobasco-soaked crushed-glass dipped shovel than a fake handshake because at least the honesty is not a mystery.


----------



## rikules (May 31, 2010)

Toro said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard that claim before as a reason why people should be religious. That it will make them happy.
> ...




if deluding ones'self into believing in a fantastical fairytale makes you happy then perhaps we should create an even BETTER illusion....?

heaven sounds so dull and god so tyranical.....

lets make god a cute little puppy...

and heaven can be  a land full of chocolate and ice cream and fudge brownies!

anyway
bottom line
regardless of how happy they are mindlessly believing in whatever irrational religion they have chosen...


it isn't real
and their happiness is based on an inability to face reality

sad, really...

one must ask...."gosh!  just how miserable would these poor defective people be if they ever found out that there is NO god!??"

and now I think....
"golly....believing in a deranged hatefilled god who plans on burning 90% of the population in HELL FOREVER for petty offenses actually makes these people HAPPY?"

"wow...what sick bastards they are"


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> God is a myth, an interesting myth, but one nonetheless....



That's the same thing as fundies claiming God wears a jock strap....which they say.....explains the grand canyon as "He" needed a new waist band....or something....


----------



## rikules (May 31, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Was that intended as a display of your christianity? Or are you just willy-nilly showing your ass on any available thread?
> ...



1. there is no god

2. the god depicted in the christian bible is a very bad god

3. some christians ARE evil

4. more christians are not evil, they are just deluded

5. MANY christians, though not actually evil, would DO EVIL THINGS simply if they are told to by their christian leaders

a christian leader (who may be evil) might say;

"homosexuals, wiccans, atheists, liberals, feminists (or whomever) are OF THE DEVIL!

they are an ABOMINATION in the eyes of the dog

suffer not "homosexuals, wiccans, atheists, liberals, feminists (or whomever)" to live!"

"go forth and slaughter them for dog!"

and millions of simpleminded fear filled christians just might go forth, as part of dogs army, soldiers of dog, and slaughter millions of innocent people

you, for example
or willowtree
or retardedsgt....

are 3 who might easily be convinced that slaughtering the enemies of a nonexistant deity was a good  thing


----------



## rikules (May 31, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




so
is your god going to burn billions of people in hell forever is they have sex outside of marriage?
or get divorced?
or are gay?
or are atheist?

and how do you manage to reconcile your belief that slavery is wrong while god insists that slavery is ok?

I assume, of course, that you do disagree with god on this issue....

how do you feel telling god he/she is wrong about slavery?

are you afraid of eternal punishment?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (May 31, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > I've always found it mildly amusing myself when people claim we can't have any understanding of deified morality and yet at the same time believe it's all just listed out in a book.  I also found it largely amusing when religions claim morality, law, and ethics can somehow change over time, despite an omnipotent being demanding them.  Cuz ya know slavery isn't so bad cuz the bible says it's ok.
> ...


Actually I have a rather accurate understanding of the religion.  It looks like the point of what I said just went over your head, so I'll use smaller words and try again.

Christianity is based on Jesus, a Jew, and the Jewish deity.  The New Test is different than the Old Test in numerous places, including law and general morality.  So explain to me why an omnipotent being would ever require change of laws, morals, or "right and wrong".  Oh because you can hand waive and claim "well Jesus changed stuff".  Like the legitimacy of owning slaves?  Wiping away original sin somehow made basic human equality change?  Most people tend to overlook how basic decency completely changed in the New version, or why.


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




You won a bet you made with yourself? A bet in which only you and you alone could decide if you won or lost.  Then you proceed to proudly proclaim you won that bet.  You're the kind of bitch that fucks 3 guys in one night then the next morning pretend you're a "Godly woman" because you threw a few dead presidents in a collection plate then gossip about how you heard Sally was caught kissing a guy on the cheek.  Oh how cloud she!  You really don't want to fuck with me cause I'll put your ass to bed in tears.

You've tap danced around the conditions of forgiveness and in doing so, have complicated and negated your earlier position.  If no works can earn forgiveness from God then our actions post-apology are irrelevent on the basis of it being impossible to earn forgiveness from God. 

It's also revealing you claim special powers to be able to know sincerity.  Do you think it's fair to condemn people as being insincere when they fuck up?  Have you ever been around addicts who would fuck up and ask for forgiveness then go get high again?  Would you really be so arrogant as to accuse them of not being sincere or would you simply add a 4th or 5th guy to your evening's roster you self-righteous hag?


----------



## Liability (May 31, 2010)

Better thread title:

*Why would anybody care why Madmutt is or isn't a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Druid . . . . *


----------



## SmarterThanHick (May 31, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68]YouTube - An Atheist Meets God[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



You say you love God then accuse him of being lazy and doing nothing so it's all up to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

(Aslo....the Trinity is not constructed of three separate beings so if the Holy Spirit is doing something then God is also doing something)


----------



## CurveLight (May 31, 2010)

Liability said:


> Better thread title:
> 
> *Why would anybody care why Madmutt is or isn't a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Druid . . . . *



The less you post the smarter you look you whiny Snitch Bitch.

(The thread is about everone's ideas and they are creating the dialogue which was Maddy's intent.)

It's one thing to be an asshole (like me) but absolutely failing in the attempted razing is quite speshial.


----------



## Liability (May 31, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Better thread title:
> ...




Partial credit.  You are indeed an asshole.

But the more you post the more you merely confirm what everyone has now recognized about you.

You are an entirely dishonest and useless poster here at USMB.

And as for the dialog started by Madmutt, the question I posed would still be a superior thread title.  Nobody gives a crap why she is or is not a Christian.  nobody cares why you are such a drip.

It suffices to know that you are wholly dishonest and completely unintelligent and utterly useless.  

P.S.  MenstrualMess, old girl, when you wrote "razing" is that the word you thought it was?  

You are "speshial" too.  Special ed.


----------



## rikules (May 31, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



"So explain to me why an omnipotent being would ever require change of laws, morals, or "right and wrong"."


seems like a fair question.

is god an absolutist or a relativist?

are morals absolute or relative?

did god change his mind?

if god changed his mind once....maybe he'll change it again?

if god was wrong about some things...
what else might he be wrong about?

how can an omnipotent being ever be wrong in the first place?


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read. When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage. All religion, all the time, 24/7. I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday. I had Religious Instruction every day at school. So why didn't it stick?
> 
> The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy. It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits. Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set. I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."
> 
> ...


 

All this boils down to one thing.

The arrogance of man.  

Who's being irrational?  This all boils down to, "If there was a God, he would do things MY WAY.  But, since things aren't being done my way, there can't be a God."

Did it EVER occur to you, that just because things are out of YOUR control, it doesn't mean it's out of God's control?

Stop projecting.  It cracks me up.  People think they are being soooooooooooooo philosophical with these objections, when what they are really being is INFANTILE.

It's all about ME!  Things aren't going as the great I ME MINE would like it, so there is no God.

The little secret here is these people think THEY should be God.

Boo hoo hoo.  There's suffering in the world?

Well DUH!!!!!!!!  Where did God (in the Bible) ever say there wouldn't be?  

Unbelievable.  Grow up!


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The less you post the smarter you look you whiny Snitch Bitch.


I don't know much about your argument with that other person, nor do I want to get involved, but this sentence is hilariously ironic.



teapartysamurai said:


> All this boils down to one thing.
> 
> The arrogance of man.
> 
> ...


Yeah really?  How dare anyone use their brain to think about stuff?!  That's INFANTILE!  If there is to be any philosophizing it should be about how awesome the bible is.  That and cupcakes.  

Cupcakes are also awesome, and similarly cannot be questioned.

No exceptions.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 1, 2010)

rikules said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



What you claim as being wrong was really just the opening of another chapter. 

The coming of the Messiah.

It was foretold in the Old Testament and what it meant to the people of Israel was also foretold.....and they unfortunately rejected him.

Which by the way was also foretold.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 1, 2010)

Liability said:


> Better thread title:
> 
> *Why would anybody care why Madmutt is or isn't a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Druid . . . . *



Because we find some of her premises compelling and we're interested in religious topics.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



Your question is answered in Heb. 8.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Curve--

You haven't answered my question.  Scroll back to #242.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

rikules said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



If you keep this up some government genius bureaucrat is going to find a way to make people get an operator's license for trolling like we have driver's licenses for cars.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



I'm too lazy to go hunting.....what is the question?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You attempted to raze the op title by suggesting a new one you whiny snitch bitch and it's hilarious how jackasses like you complain about a thread then post in that same thread.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



It ought not matter who the listener is, Cecille. If the listener/reader tells you your language offends, causes pain or feels degrading then you should rock back on your heels and ask "Am I deliberately trying to steal someone else's Dignity?"  And clearly on this thread, the answer is "yes".  You repeatedly refer to me as an atheist when you know that is not true.  You attack others as "ignorant", essentially claiming that no one else's life experience or spirituality could have value next to yours.  

If this were how I viewed christians in general I WOULD be advocating for an end to such a vile religion.  But in fact I find you to be a bit of aberation.  Most christians do not attack other people with this sort of viciousness and deliberate distortion.

If you cannot see the value in treating other people respectfully, Cecille, you have not mastered chrisitianity 101.  If you think I am wrong, ask your priest or pastor -- anyone with a modicum of religious instruction would know, this sort of deliberate offensiveness is WRONG.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I disagree.  I think forgiveness serves only one person:  the man or woman who forgives.  Does the end of a feud benefit anyone else?  Possibly, but 99% of the time, we are carrying anger for someone who has long since moved out of our lives.

Frustration or impatience or irritation is not anger.  Anger is the fuel of rage; it murders, burns and destroys.  To carry the flame of anger inside you towards anyone who has harmed you is like agreeing to make a moment's distress permanently disfiguring.

You cannot love fully if you are angry at anyone.  You cannot achieve Real Peace if you are angry.  You cannot move towards Good, or God, if you are angry.  Justice is not yours to dispense, and the evil others do to us is part of Life, part of the Sorrows we will all know before we die.  Accepting that Life is sometimes sorrowful is yet another task an Adult must face.  Those who cannot do this and instead succumb to the seduction of Anger have done themselves a terrible injury and will be lonely until they let it go.

When you fantasize about all the vile things you'd love to see happen to someone you hate -- or worse, take any action to cause them to happen -- you do so at the cost of your own Humanity.


----------



## Liability (Jun 1, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MenstrualMess said:
> ...



As is so often the case with you and other retards like you, even when you've had the benefit of being corrected, you are unwilling and unable to learn.

"Raze" is a word, but not the word you seem to dimly think it is.  

I didn't complain about the thread, MenstrualMess.   I mocked it.  There is a difference.  You aren't nearly bright enough to grasp the distinction, however.  

And again, nobody cares why Madmutt is not a Christian.  Nobody cares why you are such a dull, boring, useless, dishonest, petty little troll, either.

Madmutt's self-chosen thread title appears to be paying homage to Betrand Russell.  He wrote a very interesting piece (he gave a lecture, actually) under the same title back in the late 1920's   Here's a link: Why I Am Not A Christian, by Bertrand Russell 

  People might care about his views.  Few care about the barely coherent ramblings of username Madmutt.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Curve--
> 
> What is God to you?
> 
> ...



Sky Dancer, I think God is Unknowable.  Maybe any view of God is as valid as any other....though the view that God is actually several Godettes and a chorus line of the Godette Dancers seems wrong to me, but it may have a version of right that I just cannot see.

I don't have an answer for what you are asking.  God is clearly present in every sunflower and in the painting "The Sunflowers" by Van Gogh.  I don't see how God could possibly be a "Sky Father" but I do get why some people need to view him that way.

I think what is hardest for many people to accept and honor is that God is inside US.  We each have a spark of the Divine, and we should cherish ourselves on account of it.  All of us are apples worthy of polishing.

If you have read this far, please take a moment and watch the video.  It explains things better than I ever could, and it is gorgeous.  If this video does not give you Hope, I am unsure what will.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-UTEoS5Noc]YouTube - Nature by Numbers[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I guess the Snitch Bitch needs a comprehension lesson.  You tried to demolish/destroy/tear down (hence: raze) the op by your blathering whining.  Damn Snitch Bitches are universally some of the most parasitic fucks in the world.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Curve--
> 
> What is God to you?
> 
> ...



I agree God cannot be imagined to a certain degree but in DeCartes' Mediatations he surmised God must exist because it would otherwise be impossible for imperfect creatures to imagine a perfect creature without pre-existence.  So on some levels we grasp a very minor comphrehensive handle on God.....like a grain of sand can comprehend the Earth's oceans.

The term "God" is similar to the word "coincidence."  Both terms are born out of the conflict between soft awareness and intimate knowledge.  When people proclaim "What a coincidence!" they are simply saying: 

"Wow! I caught a whisper of the chaos theory and have absolutely no chance of mapping it out but I can see this one fleeting destination."

A popular theory is we are alone in the world and in that loneliness God/Religion is sought to fill that void.  My view is pretty much at odds because we are not alone, ever.  The physical manifestion of our bodies is the reflection of our desires to seek independence from our collectiveness on the ethereal plane.  For whatever reason, we break away and create our existence of hell on earth and humans are pure illegal inhabitants.  If every single human died tomorrow the earth would continue to live on without missing a beat but if just a few precious resources on earth died the entire human population would soon follow.  So why are we here?  

To help answer that question we each create our own specific parameters of existences and purposes.  This includes Gods, deities, cults, atheism, etc.  To me, God is the concept of a conflict we are currently unable to resolve.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read. When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage. All religion, all the time, 24/7. I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday. I had Religious Instruction every day at school. So why didn't it stick?
> ...



teapartysamurai, anyone who believes _they_  are God is mentally ill.  The existence of evil in the world has fascinated every philospher since Man crawled out of the Primordial Ooze.  I think NOT asking questions is a betrayal of the Divine every one of us carries within -- we are gifted with a consciousness, and we are expected to USE it.

I am bumfuddled by people like you who seem to believe that learning, knowledge and awareness are somehow anti-God.  What is the value you perceive in ignorance?


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jun 1, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The less you post the smarter you look you whiny Snitch Bitch.
> ...


 
You know how you know you are winning a debate?  When the other side fabricates you made an argument (that you never made) and then argues against that.

Where did I say you can't question the Bible?  I didn't.

I simply pointed out what the op boiled down to is, "there can't be a God, because there is suffering."

But, I'm sorry, that really means "There can't be a God, because God would do things my way."

It's really is a statement that there can't be a God, because the universe doesn't revolve around what the great I, ME, MINE thinks should be right.

It's the reasoning of a three year old.  

Just because I point out that the Bible makes it plain there will be suffering, does not mean you can't question that.

It just means I'll probably be able to easily counter that argument.

So, please don't make up arguments that don't exist.  It just makes you look desperate.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Better thread title:
> ...



I dunno why someone who has no interest in religion would ever read the Religion Forum.  But I REALLY cannot understand why anyone would think this is All About Me.  Even if I gathered together everyone who loved me, a convo such as "So, what do _you_ think about what I think?" would be impossible to hold unless we listened to what EACH of us thinks.

Some of the people on USMB cannot bear being spanked in any debate.  Liability is on my Ignore List as he well knows, but apparently he is incensed by that too.  Why enter a dialogue among others about their most intimate selves only to whine that I don't seem to care much for what you've written elsewhere?  Who the fuck CARES if Liability and I are not seeing eye to eye?

How has that any bearing on anyone's spirituality?  The willingness of some folks here to litter on the threads, no matter how demeaning it might be to those engaged in dialogue, takes my breath away.  I just cannot understand that sort of selfishness.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


 
Here is another example.  

Making up an argument that I did not make.

Where did I say you cannot question??????

But you didn't question in the op.  You MADE CONCLUSIONS and stated that you can closed your MIND to the possibility of God, because God wasn't doing things your way.

That's not questioning.  That's closing your mind to questions.

You don't think I question suffering in this world?

The difference between you and me is, I haven't closed my mind off to the answers simply because I may not LIKE the answer.

Don't pretend otherwise.  The title of your op and your entire op made it plain.  You have closed your mind off to the existence of God, BECAUSE things aren't how you think they should be.

That's not questioning, that's narrowing and closing your mind.

Nice try.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Your reading comprehension skills suck, teapartsamurai.  You have made the same mistake as Cecille -- you read "I am not a christain" to mean "I am an atheist".  But there are OTHER religions, and each of them has a vision of God.  There are even people who just don't know (agnostics).

I don't belong to any religion and yet I DO believe.  I have ZERO doubt that God exists, just as I have ZERO doubt that irrational hatred like yours is Evil.

If you feel you can explain why Evil exists, then please do so.  Believe me, I'd love to have an explanation.  But so far, nothing you have written leads me to believe that I can learn much of anything from you.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



What is so difficult for you in this concept?

*Some people who are not christian nonetheless believe in God.*​
Your arrogance is almost as huge as your vile need to twist what others have written so that you can degrade them, or try to.  You seem incapable of Respect, teapartsamurai -- and Respect is a lesson even a two year old can master.

Only someone truly terrified by Life and by his own True Self could be so lacking in Empathy and Respect for others who are not like him.  If I selected out only the posts on this thread written by self-proclaimed christians, I'd have to say _most_  of you are making GREAT arguments for walking away from a religion you seem to believe will reward such bad behavior.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...


 
Nice try but stating, "I am not a Christian" is saying you have closed your mind off to possible answers to your questions.

And I am "evil" because I question YOU??????

You really do think you're God, don't you?  The arrogance gets worse by the moment.

Honey, I haven't misidentified you at all.  Sure you believe in a "god."  A little image of YOU that makes you feel comfortable, like all people that claim to be agnostic/atheist/I believe in god/gia/etc etc etc.

You can argue otherwise, but you let the truth slip out when you claimed I was "eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil" for simply questioning YOU.

Your the god in your mind, whether you directly recognize it or not.


----------



## rikules (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




trolling?

I am not trolling

I am asking reasonable questions that you are obviously either too stupid to understand or afraid to answer

is your god going to burn billions of people in hell forever is they have sex outside of marriage?
or get divorced?
or are gay?
or are atheist?

and how do you manage to reconcile your belief that slavery is wrong while god insists that slavery is ok?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



Looks to me like the op questions intimidate the hell out of you so compensation is sought in accusing Maddy of being closed minded.  Free advice: if you read an op beyond your capabilities pretend you didn't even see it and move on.  That's basically what you've done here with the exception of posting whiny accusations.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

> teapartysamurai wrote:
> 
> Nice try but stating, "I am not a Christian" is saying you have closed your mind off to possible answers to your questions.
> 
> ...



How is stating "I Am Not A Christian" closing my mind to the possibility that God exists, teapartysamurai?  All that says is I do not share YOUR religion, YOUR beliefs.  Rather than dialogue about them and the reasons each of us holds ours, you merely wave a magic wand and declare everyone else's beliefs are defective?

It is not evil to question me.  It _is_ evil to attempt to distort what I have said, to try to degrade me or to harrass me (and anyone else on USMB who is not christian) because you are insecure and want or need to feel superior.  This thread was begun to start a dialogue...*why not tell us why you ARE a christian?  *

I do think God can be found in most Huamns.  Not all.  I think some have acted in ways that extinquish that Light forever....but I am sure he is as present in you as he is in me.

Let's see a bit of the Light you say you've got, teapartysamurai.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



1.  You need to define "Evil" before I can offer theories.

2.  Are you asking for an explanation of evil or are you looking for a solution to evil?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

rikules said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



You asked a list of questions based on premises I have not stated nor accept yet demand an explanation.  That's trolling.


----------



## rikules (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




do you or do you not agree with god on slavery?

is your god going to condemn decent people to eternal hell for having sex outside of marriage?
or being gay?
or getting divorced?

are you afraid to answer these questions?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2010)

God doesn't condemn us for sinning.
He condemns us for not being repentant, and for refusing to accept him and his Son.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 1, 2010)

God isn't a personality.


----------



## rikules (Jun 1, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> God doesn't condemn us for sinning.
> He condemns us for not being repentant, and for refusing to accept him and his Son.





in other words

if a person doesn't repent for being gay
or for having sex outside of marriage
or for getting divorced
or for NOT believing in god at all

that person will be condemned to hell forever?

seems to me that any god so irrationally and illogically OVERLYPUNITIVE for such petty offenses is a real jerk

makes me wonder....
what  a massive eqo this jerk must have if he feels he MUST surround himself with ignorant, fear filled cowards who shiver and quake and grovel all day long telling him how wonderful he is (when he isn't wonderful at all....)


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Your question is answered in Heb. 8.


False. Hebrews 8 states a new covenant was needed with a new people because the old one was no longer being upheld.  It does not state why laws were changed.  In fact it states "I will put my laws into their mind" in the new covenant.  It does not say why such laws would change.  You may want to know your own bible a bit better.



teapartysamurai said:


> You know how you know you are winning a debate?  When the other side fabricates you made an argument (that you never made) and then argues against that.
> 
> Where did I say you can't question the Bible?  I didn't.


Where did I say you can't question the bible?  I didn't.  Now what were you saying about fabricating arguments?  Oopsies!



teapartysamurai said:


> I simply pointed out what the op boiled down to is, "there can't be a God, because there is suffering."


Did you read the same thing as me and everyone else?  It appeared to say quite a bit more.  Don't get me wrong, Mad can ramble on for a while, but my interpretation extended beyond your one-liner.

Perhaps you should try again.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Your question is answered in Heb. 8.
> ...



You asked why the laws were changed and Heb 8 states why. You may claim it is insufficient to your taste but don't add more layers of dishonesty to you bag of crybaby tears. 

"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.  But God found fault with the people and said..."
Hebrews 8 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

> teapartysamurai wrote:
> 
> 1. You need to define "Evil" before I can offer theories.
> 
> 2. Are you asking for an explanation of evil or are you looking for a solution to evil?



Let's just begin by focusing on the first question.  I would assume we can all agree that a man like Stalin or Pol Pot was Evil.  But Evil is much more commonplace; we have _all_  indulged in it.

Here's a little story of one of my Evil acts:

I am intolerant in the extreme of abuse -- of the elderly, of women, of kidlets, etc. One day I went to the grocery and saw a young woman lift her kidlet, about two, off the floor with his arm, using a twirling motion that swept his feet out from under him. You might not know -- and likely she didn't -- that this move, which usually causes no pain or injury, is a great way to tear a kidlet's rotator cuff. Such injuries can leave a kidlet permanently disabled.

So I yelled at the woman -- even though she was obviously poor, stressed out and overwhelmed. And she dropped the kidlet, so there was that. But whose needs did I serve? If I had spoken calmly and compassionately to her, she most likely would have listened. She might have learned to never do that again (as opposed to never doing it again in public). She might have felt validated, human and supported....but MY Pride came first. I was wealthy and obviously powerful, and I knew I could frighten her, so I did.

Scaring a young mom on the edge...now _there's_  an accomplishment to be proud of, huh?

So here's my question:  why is it that when God designed Mankind, he afflicted us with Pride and the other Evils we nuture in our breasts?  Why didn't he fill us with enough Divinity so that we would not have these impulses to tear one another down, or apart?

By the way, teapartsamurai, I greatly appreciate your willingness to open yourself up to the dialogue.  I was quite harsh to you and most would have replied angrilly and defensively; I am sorry I wasn't kinder.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 1, 2010)

There are many reasons why I am not a Christian. One of them is because I am thoroughly repulsed by the masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story and the whole glorification of martyrdom that goes with it. The cross has to be one of the most creepy religious symbols ever.


----------



## rikules (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You asked why the laws were changed and Heb 8 states why. You may claim it is insufficient to your taste but don't add more layers of dishonesty to you bag of crybaby tears. 


so god is a relativist!


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



CurveLight, it sounds as if you have taken the position that God changed the rules because he found a new set Humans would be more inclined to follow.  Seems pretty obvious we have not done so; has God given us defective rules _twice _ then?

The defect seems to be in the design of Humans, not the design of the rules.  How do you account for this?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

Anguille said:


> There are many reasons why I am not a Christian. One of them is because I am thoroughly repulsed by the masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story and the whole glorification of martyrdom that goes with it. The cross has to be one of the most creepy religious symbols ever.



The Sacred Heart gives me the willies.  Man, that thing used to scare me shitless as a child.  I don't agree that crucifixion is the worst possible death.  For one thing, it happens rapidly; I would think of dying of ALS is much more horrible.  As for a death at the hands of another, I'd climb the Cross in a New York minute rather than be torn apart by wild animals or set on fire.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

rikules said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



You're a fuxxing dumbass.  What part of: 

You asked a list of questions based on premises I have not stated nor accept....

Was mysterious?


----------



## Father Time (Jun 1, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read. When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage. All religion, all the time, 24/7. I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday. I had Religious Instruction every day at school. So why didn't it stick?
> ...



She's said repeatedly that she believes in a God just not the Christian God.

Now stop twisting her objections and grow the hell up.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 1, 2010)

Liability said:


> Better thread title:
> 
> *Why would anybody care why Madmutt is or isn't a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Druid . . . . *



If you don't care then skip over the topic, simple eh?


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jun 1, 2010)

rikules said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...


 

So, you think there should be no consequences for rejecting God?

God doesn't send anyone to hell.  God, so wanted to save the world from that, that he sent his only Son to stop it.

If you reject God's greatest Gift, God didn't send you to hell, you sent yourself.  

Take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming God.

As for slavery.  I have the same answer for you that Jesus gave the Pharisees regarding divorce.

"For the hardness of your hearts God, permitted this, but from the beginning it was not so."

Remember, the abolition movement began as a CHRISTIAN movement.

Besides, why are you worried about slavery of more than 150 years ago, if you are content to be a slave to sin, today?

If God was so for slavery, he wouldn't have sent his Son to deliver us from the worst slavery of all.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



$50 says that Cec will 
a. blow a fuse
b. try desperately to explain how a non-Christian couldn't possibly know more about Christianity than any Christian (not even one who attended a Christian school such as yourself, the moment you turn away from the faith all your knowledge of it is lost).


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


 
If it "intimidated" me as you claim, I wouldn't have answered it.  

What a lame attempt at an attack.  

Who is answering beyond their capabilities.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Anguille said:


> There are many reasons why I am not a Christian. One of them is because I am thoroughly repulsed by the masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story and the whole glorification of martyrdom that goes with it. The cross has to be one of the most creepy religious symbols ever.



Either you don't know the essence and definition of masochism or you are purposefully distorting the history of the Cross.  Which is it?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



What the fuck is wrong with you?  All you did was accuse the op author of creating a deceptive op underscored by hate you jackass soap boxing punk.


----------



## Father Time (Jun 1, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



If by reject you mean not believe, then yes.  



teapartysamurai said:


> God doesn't send anyone to hell.



Yes he does. He makes the rules and the punishments. 



teapartysamurai said:


> If you reject God's greatest Gift, God didn't send you to hell, you sent yourself.



No God was the one who decided punishment not the sinner. When a judge sentences someone to jail we say it was the judge who sent them to jail not the criminal.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > teapartysamurai wrote:
> >
> > Nice try but stating, "I am not a Christian" is saying you have closed your mind off to possible answers to your questions.
> >
> ...


 
Because I don't run around, stating, I am not a "you fill in the blank" because I have all these questions.

If you have questions, it means you don't have the answers.  But if you state categorically, because of these questions, you aren't "fill in the blank" it's because you have drawn a conclusion, aka closed your mind off to possible conclusions, regardless of the answers.

And I didn't start this op.  Why must I defend myself?  I didn't start a thread on why I am a Christian.  YOU started a thread on why you are NOT a Christian?

That's another way of saying you are losing the argument and you want to find a way to put me on the defensive. 

Nice try

And who's distorting?  Shall I remind YOU of your OWN WORDS?



> 1. If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world? I have heard every single justification for this, from free will to the "evil is necessary so goodness an show up by contrast" one. None of them wash with me.
> 
> 2. If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here? There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering. I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah". That person is supposed to SAVE us. I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.




Now, I don't care how you slice it.  That still boils down to, there can't be a god, (like the God in the Bible) because he isn't doing things my way.

And because there is evil, blah blah blah, that God in the Bible can't be true, even though that same Bible told you, there would be evil.

So, who's distorting here?

And how can you feel saved if you don't accept Christ?  DUH!  That would be like you are drowning, and you don't feel saved, because you won't take the life vest someone keeps trying to offer you.

Of course you don't feel saved, you are rejecting salvation.  Don't blame God for that.  That's your own actions.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > teapartysamurai wrote:
> >
> > 1. You need to define "Evil" before I can offer theories.
> >
> ...



I don't see a definition of Evil.  What is your definition?  To ask why it exists without supplying a working definition is moot.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 1, 2010)

What does evil have to do with the topic of why I am not a christian?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



The narrative in Heb 8 has nothing to do with new people but a new covenant.

Keep in mind this is not God speaking directly becauase these are translations of mediations between people and their quest for comprehension.  I think a better viewpoint of Heb 8 is people saying:

"Hey, those old laws are bullshit!  Who the fuck can live up to them with any hope of adherence even with the deepest convictions of sincerity?"

Jesus' entire ministry was about changing those bullshit rules so Heb. 8 is a rough summary.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> What does evil have to do with the topic of why I am not a christian?



Maddy asked why evil exists so I pointed out the question sans a def of evil is moot.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Maddy has repeatedly stated a belief that God exists so you are just proving yourself to be a fuxxing bitch whiny ass troll.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > What does evil have to do with the topic of why I am not a christian?
> ...



Evil exists because human beings are fallible.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > teapartysamurai wrote:
> ...



CurveLight, what the hell is vague here?  I said that Evil is commonplace, we all indulge in it and I gave an example of an occasion when I did.

Good grief, do we really disagree about whether abusing young, poor Moms in order to self-agrandize is Evil?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

You're 100% correct, teapartysamurai.  I long ago concluded that whatever I may come to know about God would not be learned from reading the Bible, the Cathecism or any other self-contained Recipe for Religion.   I think we are supposed to read whatever we may find instructive and digest it, ponder on it and draw our own conclusions.

I think we are _supposed_  to _*think*_.

IMO, most all we need to know about Good and Evil can be found in Albert Camus' novel "The Plague".  Do you see me beating anyone over the head with a copy of it?  No?  That's because I have respect for the myriad paths any one of us may take to quizzle on the Big Questions.

But you must quiz and puzzle and ponder to get my respect.  Advocating blind allegiance to a faith you have never examined does not elevate you in my eyes.  It seems to me that only a coward would do such a thing.

"The unexamined life is not worth living."  Spoken by Socrates.

_That_  is why I asked you why are you a christian?  What led you to conclude this body of beliefs best suited your needs for spiritual growth?  The replies you could have given were presumably very sincere and honest...but "why should I have to defend myself" ought not to have been one of them.  

Aren't you joyous you have this faith?  Why be ashamed of how you came by it then?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Well, agreed.  But Sky Dancer, if God designed Mankind and he is infallible, why even bother creating us with such a defect?

I can see only one value to Evil -- it gives Mankind something to test themselves on, to stand up against and suffer to defeat.  It creates a need among us for one another; but surely this could have been done some other way?  We could have needed one another just for the shared joy of it, or to learn more about being Human.


----------



## rikules (Jun 1, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you:

"So, you think there should be no consequences for rejecting God?"

I am NOT rejecting god

I am rejecting the belief in a non-existant god.

"So, you think there should be no consequences for rejecting God?"

even if your god does he exist he should be rational and logical enough to judge each person on their own merits; was he a decent person?  did he help others when he could? did he not murder or steal or rape?

a rational god would not punish decent people for the petty offense of disbelief.


you;

"If you reject God's greatest Gift, God didn't send you to hell, you sent yourself. "

that is ridiculous.
again, NOBODY deserves eternal punishment simply for disbelief.
if your god does that then your god should be sent to his own hell

why don't YOU and YOUR god take responsibility for YOUR own actions.

I am NOT sending myself to hell (whether or not there is one)

it's YOU and YOUR god who are doing it

stop blaming others for your and your gods acts
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for YOUR OWN ACTS!


"Take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming God."

I don't blame a god that I don't believe in
I blame deranged lunatics like YOU!

lets face it...
YOU are the one who believes that anyone who doesn't believe in your  god deserves to burn in hell.

that makes YOU a real sick and deranged arsehole


"Remember, the abolition movement began as a CHRISTIAN movement."

which was completely opposed by OTHER CHRISTIANS!

remember
christians in America went to war in order to preserve slavery!


and they believed tha god sanctioned slavery and could quote many biblical passages backing them up.

so
do you agree with god that slavery is ok?

or do you oppose god on this issue?


----------



## rikules (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



a. my discussion, currently, is with you, not maddy.

b. is this how christians speak?
"so you are just proving yourself to be a fuxxing bitch whiny ass troll"


so far you are proving yourself to be an ignorant moron who can't debate in a civilzed fassion.


----------



## rikules (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > teapartysamurai wrote:
> ...



sending decent people to hell for all eternity is evil.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

rikules said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



You've been demanding I explain positions that are not mine you fucking crybaby.  If you want to debate then do it on what I've stated and not your anemic strawmen.

As for how Christians speak....I'm confident others don't use my language and I don't give a fuck.  I'm not here to kiss ass and hide behind PC terms which would inhibit me from pointing out you're an angry troll hell bent on doing nothing in this thread except for trying to control the dialogue.  Want to say I'm a bad Christian?  Go ahead.....I won't argue against that.  What I will do is call out you fucking parasitic trolls whose main purpose is to compensate for your insecurities by attacking others.  You make my soul vomit.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



You're getting frustrated because you're realizing giving a working definition of evil is not as simple as it would appear.  Thus, your question of why evil exists is premature.  It does no good to try and use specific acts because then evil is being defined by positions and not principles.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

Well I hadn't anticiated that defining Evil would pose a problem.  A few gray areas maybe, but not the general idea.  In the example I gave I had the ability to assist that young Mom and did not.  I'd say that all by itself was an Evil thing.  Then I preyed on her because I felt like being an asshole and she couldn't fight back.  I'd say that was an Evil thing too.

The only thing I did right -- speak up for the kidlet -- was submerged in all that I did wrong.

Does that help any?


----------



## Intense (Jun 1, 2010)

*Madeline: So here's my question: why is it that when God designed Mankind, he afflicted us with Pride and the other Evils we nuture in our breasts? Why didn't he fill us with enough Divinity so that we would not have these impulses to tear one another down, or apart?*

Who's to say that He did? Was corruption there from the start? Maybe in the beginning there was more attachment? If there was a turning away, what caused it? Is there more to the equation than Each Individual, the Creator, and the choices we make, both individually and collectively? Is there a War in Heaven? We are told of Principalities and Powers. Care to speculate??? If the Prophets had the Divinity you speak of, did it improve Their quality of life or further separate them from us?


----------



## Liability (Jun 1, 2010)

rikules said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



Arguing with Curvey is like fighting a kid in the special ed class.  No matter how quickly and decisively you win, Curvey is still retarded.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

Intense, the concept of an After-Life just does not resonate with me.  I also can see no basis to believe that there is a Heaven or that super-natural beings exist alongside us in some alternative universe, pushing and pulling on us to amuse themselves or win some sort of battle vicariously.  All such notions seem to me to be just defense mechanisms Humans use to shield themselves from the reality that Dead is Dead and that we are 100% responsible for our own behavior.

This is what I cannot understand:  how was God able to design the hummingbird so perfectly and yet he messed up Humans so badly?

Wouldn't we all rather live in a world that was Just?

Watch the two videos below and tell me -- how could the same Being design BOTH?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBfbzxS1l4]YouTube - The Fibonacci Sequence[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jyqmRiSSXA]YouTube - Oil Spill LIVE feed: BP awaits 'Top Kill' results[/ame]


----------



## Intense (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Intense, the concept of an After-Life just does not resonate with me.  I also can see no basis to believe that there is a Heaven or that super-natural beings exist alongside us in some alternative universe, pushing and pulling on us to amuse themselves or win some sort of battle vicariously.  All such notions seem to me to be just defense mechanisms Humans use to shield themselves from the reality that Dead is Dead and that we are 100% responsible for our own behavior.
> 
> This is what I cannot understand:  how was God able to design the hummingbird so perfectly and yet he messed up Humans so badly?
> 
> ...



Some people need to be sold a bill of goods before they can accept a relationship with their maker. You are not that way and that is not necessarily a bad thing. You are not concerned with what is on the other side of the Life. So what? I've witnessed paranormal stuff, so I see it differently. Have you ever seen, dreamed, or envisioned anything before it's time? Have you ever experienced intuition or Deja Vu? I truly believe that maintaining a quality relationship with the Powers of Creation takes care of the rest of it. Got that ? ... Good. 

On Religion, I look at all of them as training wheels. They keep the masses more in check, than less in check, until they are weened. Righteousness, does not change, though Our perception of it does. We do not violate basic precept. I'm not knocking Organized Religion in any way. I'm just saying that there are things within each of us, like Conscience, personal witness, that are between each of us and Our Creator, that take precedent over everything else.   When any organization disconnects, turns away, that personal witness may be the only thing that can restore. Corruption of Spirit is a very unpredictable thing, usually demanding blind loyalty every step of the way. Whether it be the Corruption of Spirit, in Government, Civil Law and Justice, Safety procedures, basic maintenance, being ignored in Industry, the situation usually deteriorates before the catastrophe. Do You watch the signs and react or ignore them???  What is the primary message in both Testaments??? God First In All Things. Repentance, Reform, Reconciliation. What cause motivates you that is not ordained???? What Purpose??? What Principle??? 

There may be a thousand ways to accomplish a goal. Not all are within reason. The end does not justify the means. The mean is justified by circumstance, ability, and conscience, at least in part. Do you work on a resolution blind to the effect of your remedy, in a predetermined way, or do you apply, your senses to the effect of what you do, conscious and able to adjust? I know the answer to that when group think is applied, so only answer for yourself.  I'm not a big fan of consensus.  Substance over image every time thank you.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 1, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You asked why the laws were changed and Heb 8 states why. You may claim it is insufficient to your taste but don't add more layers of dishonesty to you bag of crybaby tears.


I did not claim it is insufficient.  It is clear to me now you are no more able to read and interpret my posts as you are your own holy book.  So I'll break it down for you.  I asked why the LAWS were changed.  Heb 8 states why the COVENANT was changed.  Note how they are not the same word.  I know how the big words can get all confusing for dumb hicks, but a quick googling will enlighten you and explain that a covenant is a fancy way of saying "agreement".    So Heb 8 explains why the agreement was changed: because the old people forgot about it and it needed to be re-established.  It does not however state that the law was changed, nor does this passage say why the law was changed.  

Again, this has little to do with an explanation being insufficient, so much as non-existent. But hey, if you claim I'm wrong without supporting anything you say, and back it up with words like "crybaby" that you seem to call everyone, maybe you can convince yourself you're right!  Cuz you're sure not convincing anyone else. 



teapartysamurai said:


> God doesn't send anyone to hell.  God, so wanted to save the world from that, that he sent his only Son to stop it.
> 
> If you reject God's greatest Gift, God didn't send you to hell, you sent yourself.
> 
> Take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming God.


So if someone broke into your house, held a gun to your head, and demanded you renounce your religion else you would die, then if you didn't and died, it was really suicide?!  THAT'S AMAZING LOGIC!  

I'm going to file that brilliant reasoning next to such lines as "if she didn't want to be raped, she wouldn't have dressed like that".

I take responsibility for my ACTIONS every day.  But according to you, actions don't mean anything as long as you just clap your hands and believe!



> As for slavery.  I have the same answer for you that Jesus gave the Pharisees regarding divorce.
> 
> "For the hardness of your hearts God, permitted this, but from the beginning it was not so."


Which again shows that laws and what is acceptable appears to change over time.  You're telling me an omnipotent being had to bend their will to permit poor behavior?  That's like saying "for the hardness of their arteries" the parents of morbidly obese children allow for poor eating habits.  In one sentence you say people should take responsibility for their actions, and here you claim an all powerful being simply changes law when they don't?  That's ridiculous.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 1, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You think there is an Infallible Creator-God and He/She created good and evil?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 1, 2010)

I think that's one of the most difficult questions to answer, Sky Dancer.  No, I don't think God has a personality.  He does not have moods.  He does not get tired -- one reason the creation myth of Genesis makes so little sense is the line "and on the seventh day, God rested".  

But God DOES exist, I believe.  And I think that one of the few aspects of him we Humans can imagine is that he is perfect.  If, as I believe, Humans begin life with a spark of that Divinity, that perfection, then why is there so much Evil?

I once litigated with a business owner who had filed false financial statements.  He was on the ropes; I knew I was winning.  One Monday I got in to hear that he had died in a sky diving accident, and I asked, "did they get fingerprints"?  My staff thought I was paranoid and preposterous....until he showed up alive three years later in the Caribbean.  He obviously murdered someone else so he could claim to be dead and collect his life insurance to escape the fate I was crafting, which he richly deserved.

I don't understand where this kind of thinking comes from.  Why do we even have such vile thoughts as "for money I will murder a complete stranger"?  How could the German people stand by -- or participate -- as Hitler led them through the horrors of Kristallnacht (Crystal Night, or the Night of Broken Glass) when 91 Jews were murdered and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and placed in concentration camps. 267 synagogues were destroyed, and thousands of homes and businesses were ransacked. This was done by the Hitler Youth, the Gestapo and the SS.  How could a parent look at their child in a Hitler Youth uniform after that night and not weep?

I've never been able to reconcile this for myself.  I believe there is a God, but I cannot understand why the Humans made in his image are so defective.


----------



## blu (Jun 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I can believe God exists, but I cannot believe in an After-Life.  Dead is dead.  Finito.



look up the history of the after life. it was made by egyptian royalty who thought they were eternal and descended from god. they were power tripping dbags who didn't want to think that after death they just rot in whatever they were buried in. its much like people who get all excited over the after life today. imagine if all the poor people in the world whose only salavation is religion and the afterlife they think it gives them found out it was a hoax? all 3rd world countries would be in anarchy


----------



## Madeline (Jun 2, 2010)

blu, I agree with you.  But I don't dismiss the beliefs some have about an After-Life as pointless defense mechanisms.  I think some folks truly believe there is a parallel universe or alternate reality or whatnot where the egos of the living survive after their death.

I'm not sure why so _many_  claim they believe this, or why so many seem to plan their entire lives around the belief.  Why would knowing you survive death as some sort of ego have any bearing on deciding what is right and wrong while you are alive?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> blu, I agree with you.  But I don't dismiss the beliefs some have about an After-Life as pointless defense mechanisms.  I think some folks truly believe there is a parallel universe or alternate reality or whatnot where the egos of the living survive after their death.
> 
> I'm not sure why so _many_  claim they believe this, or why so many seem to plan their entire lives around the belief.  Why would knowing you survive death as some sort of ego have any bearing on deciding what is right and wrong while you are alive?



1.  Some Buddhists say there is an afterlife--and it is in one of six realms of existence, hell realm, animal realm, preta realm, human realm and two god realms.  These realms are debated as being states of mind more than actual places.
2.  The ego and personality do not survive death.   What is carried forward is habits, karma, qualities developed in the course of a lifetime.
3.  Life is a continuum, moment to moment.  Buddhists describe the dissolution of the elements at the time of dying.
4.  If you think of the continuum of life, it isn't far fetched to see that we all have had many lives in one life.  Our life as an embryo and fetus, our life as an infant and child, teenager, young adult and so on.  


This is all just food for thought because in my case, this isn't a defense mechanism, I find it useful to contemplate death and dying in order to aspire to have a conscious lviing and dying process.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Intense, the concept of an After-Life just does not resonate with me.  I also can see no basis to believe that there is a Heaven or that super-natural beings exist alongside us in some alternative universe, pushing and pulling on us to amuse themselves or win some sort of battle vicariously.  All such notions seem to me to be just defense mechanisms Humans use to shield themselves from the reality that Dead is Dead and that we are 100% responsible for our own behavior.
> 
> This is what I cannot understand:  how was God able to design the hummingbird so perfectly and yet he messed up Humans so badly?
> 
> ...



Death is another term people have invented to assuage the pains of what is incomprehensible.  There is no after-life because there is no death.

How do you know the hummingbird doesn't think the same thing?  How could a Being create people so perfect with arms and legs? The ability to travel the globe?  Create art, movies, and dance?  The ability to leave earth altogether, visit another place, and return, while also living in space?  The ability to build places where they can get out of the rain and snow anytime they wish without needing to move just to avoid dying?  Think you get the idea.

As for your last question....the same Being did not design both.  Unless you are claiming BP somehow traveled back in time to India over 2200 years ago.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

What do you mean there is no death?  There is death.  Look around you.  Read the news.  See dead insects on your windshield.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You asked why the laws were changed and Heb 8 states why. You may claim it is insufficient to your taste but don't add more layers of dishonesty to you bag of crybaby tears.
> ...



I have supported it you whiny jackass. You obviously don't understand because you claim the old Covenant needed to be re-established because people forgot about it.  Pay attention you asswipe snob: 

"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

Nothing was "re-established" you ignorant hick. Nobody "forgot" about the old Covenant either and that claim shows how unbelievably ignorant you are. They were unable to maintain their end of the deal so God made a new Covenant. 

If you change a Covenant then the laws must also be changed. If no laws are changed then the Covenant is the same. If you change the laws then the Covenant must also be changed. 

Your attempt to paint others as dimwitted while you clearly do not grasp fundamentals is fucking hilarious. Bitches like you do this because you think you are intellectually superior to people of Faith but it stings really bad when you realize you are not shooting fish in a barrel as you hoped. You are the fish.


----------



## blu (Jun 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> blu, I agree with you.  But I don't dismiss the beliefs some have about an After-Life as pointless defense mechanisms.  I think some folks truly believe there is a parallel universe or alternate reality or whatnot where the egos of the living survive after their death.
> 
> I'm not sure why so _many_  claim they believe this, or why so many seem to plan their entire lives around the belief.  *Why would knowing you survive death as some sort of ego have any bearing on deciding what is right and wrong while you are alive?*



are you asking this rhetorically? how many people have you seen on message boards alone where they say that before they became religious or without religion they were basically savages. The only thing keep many poor people in check is that they are indoctrinated about hell. as another example imagine if all the women in middle astern countries found out that muhammad was a pedophile fraud and that they really didn't have to accept getting raped by their husband and his freinds everynight to get to heaven


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> What do you mean there is no death?  There is death.  Look around you.  Read the news.  See dead insects on your windshield.



Everything is always in motion. Even when a body ceases to function it is still in motion through decomposition and even after the flesh has melted off the bones continue to change through motion, albeit a lot slower than flesh. What we call "death" is a transformation transcending our finite comprehension abilities. 

A rough analogy is a gallon of milk. You can buy one and set it outside.  Do nothing to it, do not touch it at all and leave it there for two weeks. At the end of that time period look at it again. Would it still look like milk or something else?  It would be clumpy, have a foul odor, and have a different appearance in color.  In essence the milk has "died" but since we can use science to give a methodical explanation of the transformation we are not intrigued nor do we need to invent theological theories on why we no longer recognize it as milk. 

Imagine the same scientific access for explaining what happens to living bodies. We have this ability with the caterpillar to butterfly, as well as other creatures who go through a metamorphosis. We call it "death" not because of the change from functioning to non-functioning, but only because we do not understand that change.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

blu said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > blu, I agree with you.  But I don't dismiss the beliefs some have about an After-Life as pointless defense mechanisms.  I think some folks truly believe there is a parallel universe or alternate reality or whatnot where the egos of the living survive after their death.
> ...



This concludes this hour's portion of theological musings of bigots. Up next, Don Black with give his objective and unbiased views of African Americans.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Better thread title:
> ...



Which premise did you find "compelling"?  Was it when she dismissed the entire clergy of the Catholic Church as "sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits [sic]"?  When she admitted that she's heard many answers to her questions, but decided none of them were really answers because she personally didn't happen to like them?  Perhaps it was one of the multiple times she denigrated Christians as "nutters" and "evil", or maybe it was when she pretended that children's representations of Christian concepts were serious doctrinal tenets in order to further mock and insult the whole of the Christian community.

I'm really curious about when it was that Mad said anything "compelling" or, for that matter, with more intellectual depth than your average mud puddle.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 2, 2010)

teapartysamurai said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > teapartysamurai said:
> ...



I find it interesting that Mad can start off an entire thread by calling Christians "evil, sadistic fuckwhits [sic]", "nutters", etc., and then accuse someone ELSE of being hate-filled and evil merely because they - rather mildly, in fact - criticize HER and HER beliefs.  I guess it's a good thing you didn't attack her beliefs at the same level she attacked others.

Hypocrisy much?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...




Stop fucking whining or give us all coupons for snorkel equipment so we won't drown in your tears of self righteousness.


----------



## Newby (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



How would good be recognized or defined without evil?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

We could call the absence of good a kind of evil I suppose.


----------



## Newby (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> We could call the absence of good a kind of evil I suppose.



I think we needed to understand what it is, see it, in order to make a choice.  There's a book called The Shack by William P. Young that does a really good job of explaining the relationship of God and the existance of evil in the world.

TheShackBook.com


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...




If there was no evil there would be no need nor desire to have the label of "good."


----------



## Madeline (Jun 2, 2010)

> Cecille wrote:
> 
> I find it interesting that Mad can start off an entire thread by calling Christians "evil, sadistic fuckwhits [sic]", "nutters", etc., and then accuse someone ELSE of being hate-filled and evil merely because they - rather mildly, in fact - criticize HER and HER beliefs. I guess it's a good thing you didn't attack her beliefs at the same level she attacked others.
> 
> Hypocrisy much?



Here's what I actually wrote:



> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read. When the folks were gone, I was raised in a *Catholic orphanage*. All religion, all the time, 24/7. I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday. I had Religious Instruction every day at school. So why didn't it stick?
> 
> The first thing I objected to was t*his need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy. It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits.* Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set. I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."



This must be the tenth or eleventh time on this thread that Cecille has tried to twist what I said to deny -- or try to -- that my life experience or POV has any validity.  Any NORMAL person reading this would feel compassion, and almost everyone by now must know, there was a terrible problem among Catholic Clergy in the era in which I was raised.

But Cecille cannot muster respect or even be truthful.  She simply is so enraged at the idea that anyone would walk away from christianity, she cannot tolerate the dialogue that has grown up around this thread.  

Tell me....does _anyone_  reading her posts on this thread find Cecille's claim to be a christian at _all_  plausible?

Cecille -- you need to print this thread and take it to your priest or pastor and ask him or her for guidance.  Your words in defense of christianity are cruel, vicious lies and I cannot imagine any clergyman approving of them....if your faith has ANY value to you, you need to confront the inner demons that drive you to say such ugly things and get past them.


----------



## Newby (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Perhaps evil is the absence of God?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 2, 2010)

Human behavior is not a color wheel, on which we cannot perceive white unless we contrast it to black.  The limited imagination I have, as a Human, allows me to conjecture that Humans could have struggled for knowledge and enlightenment and that would have been as interesting as their struggle with Evil.

What's the premise of the book you recommend, Newby?  

I don't think God is ever absent; but I do think that some Human acts are so depraved, his presence feels remote.  And I think a person's bad acts can accumulate to a tipping point beyond which, his Humanity and Divinity cannot be reclaimed.  I think it is possible to do so much Evil, you lose your Humanity.


----------



## Frank (Jun 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> By the way, I don't belong to any organized religion but I singled out Christians because I have been treated to their irrationality somewhat more often.  No Muslim or Jew or Buddist, etc. has ever prosletized to me.



From what I have read, it sounds more like your feelings toward the Catholic Church than Christianity as a whole.  There are many different Christians who worship and conduct themselves in different ways than those of catholicism.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Liability said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




How bad does it suck Snitch Bitch? No matter how often you follow me around you get your punk ass smacked down regularly.  Most people can see how fucking stoopid it was for you to complain about the OP....then post in the thread you whined about.  But given your lack of observation skills I'm not surprised.  You're so fucking blind you posted a youtube vid of an F4 on a rocket propelled track then claimed the flames were coming from the F4 engine that......was not even on.  Lol....


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...




That's been one of my perceptions for a while.  Anything not in 100% communion with God is in Hell.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 2, 2010)

Frank, I do not ladle all the sins of the RCC on to every christian -- I don't even blame every Catholic.  But in deciding what to do about my spiritual life as an adult, I considered (and rejected) the possibility of joining another christian denomination.  The whole shebang, from the Trinity to the Virgin Birth to the After-Life, just does not resonate one bit with me, and I would have only been acting out of fear instilled in me as a child.  I happen to think cowardice is wrong.

I am at peace with my beliefs and choices. Sometimes, I wonder what it'd be like to have a "church family", but I think very few people who attend regularly have that sort of relationship with the rest of the congregation.  I don't see why mutual support couldn't be had from any group of people, as long as everyone is willing.

I considered seriously converting to Judaism, because their beliefs seem to best match mine, but I was stymied by the complex rules for devote Jews and I couldn't answer when I asked myself "why?".   I can not see the rationale behind worshiping God.  Obeying him, trying to bring him into more of your life, turning to him when in need -- yes.

But why would God want or need Humans to _worship_  him?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > blu, I agree with you.  But I don't dismiss the beliefs some have about an After-Life as pointless defense mechanisms.  I think some folks truly believe there is a parallel universe or alternate reality or whatnot where the egos of the living survive after their death.
> ...



I do too, Sky Dancer.  One of my conclusions has been that Death is not something to fear, especially as compared to extreme old age.  Death seems to me to be the release from all life's struggles, and a blessing.

Do Buddists believe in reincarnation?


----------



## Frank (Jun 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Frank, I do not ladle all the sins of the RCC on to every christian -- I don't even blame every Catholic.  But in deciding what to do about my spiritual life as an adult, I considered (and rejected) the possibility of joining another christian denomination.  The whole shebang, from the Trinity to the Virgin Birth to the After-Life, just does not resonate one bit with me, and I would have only been acting out of fear instilled in me as a child.  I happen to think cowardice is wrong.]?




Many true Christians believe, worship, and practice not out of fear, but out of love and hope.



> I am at peace with my beliefs and choices. Sometimes, I wonder what it'd be like to have a "church family", but I think very few people who attend regularly have that sort of relationship with the rest of the congregation.  I don't see why mutual support couldn't be had from any group of people, as long as everyone is willing.



Understandable.  However, belonging to a "congregation" is not a requirement.  It can, however, provide support to others who have the same beliefs.



> I considered seriously converting to Judaism, because their beliefs seem to best match mine, but I was stymied by the complex rules for devote Jews and I couldn't answer when I asked myself "why?".   I can not see the rationale behind worshiping God.  Obeying him, trying to bring him into more of your life, turning to him when in need -- yes.
> 
> But why would God want or need Humans to _worship_  him.



Well, not being arrogant enough to "know" what God wants or needs, it can summized that, if man is created in his image and the basic want and need of people is to feel loved, then perhaps that gives some understanding as to why.  But that is a serious shot in the dark for me to even imply such.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Well, as a Buddhist who doesn't believe in a creator God I may take exception to that, lol.  On the other hand, I think all beings have the purity of Buddha nature within--even the Hitlers among us and that any and all can be ultimately purified.  No one is condemned for all of eternity in Buddhism.

I tend to think of God in a Buddhist way that goes something like this:  'That which cannot be imagined or described, the Truth beyond conception".

 I intuit a bit of what you mean about evil being the absence of God.  When we forget our true nature we get in serious trouble.  Hitler never knew he had Buddha nature,  or in your terms, God within him.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Well I hadn't anticiated that defining Evil would pose a problem.  A few gray areas maybe, but not the general idea.  In the example I gave I had the ability to assist that young Mom and did not.  I'd say that all by itself was an Evil thing.  Then I preyed on her because I felt like being an asshole and she couldn't fight back.  I'd say that was an Evil thing too.
> 
> The only thing I did right -- speak up for the kidlet -- was submerged in all that I did wrong.
> 
> Does that help any?




I don't think what you did was evil at all.  It's even more than a little possible your assertiveness planted a seed to show just how far off the grid her behavior had slid.  

So we are back to square one.  The "general idea" of evil is mysterious.  Is it Evil when a lion kills the cubs to mate with a female lion to pro-create new cubs?  Is it evil for a spider to spin a nearly invisible trap for unsuspecting flies?  So yes, a clear definition of evil is necessary to entertain theories on why it exists.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Frank, I do not ladle all the sins of the RCC on to every christian -- I don't even blame every Catholic.  But in deciding what to do about my spiritual life as an adult, I considered (and rejected) the possibility of joining another christian denomination.  The whole shebang, from the Trinity to the Virgin Birth to the After-Life, just does not resonate one bit with me, and I would have only been acting out of fear instilled in me as a child.  I happen to think cowardice is wrong.
> 
> I am at peace with my beliefs and choices. Sometimes, I wonder what it'd be like to have a "church family", but I think very few people who attend regularly have that sort of relationship with the rest of the congregation.  I don't see why mutual support couldn't be had from any group of people, as long as everyone is willing.
> 
> ...




How do you know God created us directly?  With unknown life forms in the vast expanses of the universe how do you know we are not the creations of creatures created by creatures created by God?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

Curve--

I wouldn't call any of those natural things you mentioned--the spider and the lion as evil.

Evil lurks in the hearts/ minds of human beings.


----------



## blu (Jun 2, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



then everything would be evil b/c there is no god


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



This is a topic Buddhists debate.  From all I've heard and contemplated 'something' is carried from lifetime to lifetime but it isn't an ego or personality as we know it.  What goes on into the next life is karma--habits, tendencies, qualities. 

Death can be a peaceful release or a terrifying ordeal.  It all depends on preparation and karma.


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2010)

MestrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



How bad does it suck to be you?

Massively.

You are like the black hole of suckiosity.

You are unable and unwilling to be honest.

You say nothing of value at any time.  Ever. You are all but universally ridiculed -- and rightly so.

And you can't even deliver an _ad hominem_ without resorting to bald faced lies, and they all suck anyway even so.

Yes indeed.  You do suck massively.


----------



## blu (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



do you have a refutation? do you have any idea of the history of how religion was used to oppress poor people and suppress insurrection against rulers?


----------



## Newby (Jun 2, 2010)

blu said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You pov, not mine.


----------



## Newby (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You're either walking away from God, or towards Him.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

Here is an essay that outlines ten reasons you may want to avoid organized religion.

As someone who practices in the Buddhist tradition with a community I still find the essay thought provoking.

What are your thoughts?

Here's one provocative snippet: 

"One of the worst mistakes you can make in life is to attach your identity to any particular religion or philosophy, such as by saying &#8220;I am a Christian&#8221; or &#8220;I am a Buddhist.&#8221; This forces your mind into a fixed perspective, robbing you of spiritual depth perception and savagely curtailing your ability to perceive reality accurately."
10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion


----------



## blu (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



which god? and when should he/she/it/they be followed? Should the books of popular gods such as the torah, bible, and koran be taken literally? does any deviation from the exact words take you "out of communion" with god? What if you think you are following god but in fact are being led astray by the 1000s of times the book you look for guidance in was translated and manipulated?


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Here is an essay that outlines ten reasons you may want to avoid organized religion.
> 
> As someone who practices in the Buddhist tradition with a community I still find the essay thought provoking.
> 
> ...



Unless, of course, there does happen to be divine merit in Christianity in which case the big mistake would be not identifying one's self as a Christian.  In other words, if God isn't looking to see how open your mind can be to false beliefs, but rather how receptive you might become to some on "true" belief, then the mistake is being too willing to accept the false choices.


----------



## Newby (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Here is an essay that outlines ten reasons you may want to avoid organized religion.
> 
> As someone who practices in the Buddhist tradition with a community I still find the essay thought provoking.
> 
> ...



*1. Spirituality for dummies*

The first topic tells me that it's not exactly objective.

*4. Toilet-bowl time management.
If you devote serious time to the practice of religion, its safe to say you practice toilet-bowl time management, flushing much of your precious life down the drain with little or nothing to show for it.*

Again, not objective, and actually kind of insulting.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an essay that outlines ten reasons you may want to avoid organized religion.
> ...



Yes.  The article is quite biased and anti-religion.  IMO it's not good advice.  I've read many other essays by the author that are helpful and balanced.  This one lends me to believe success has gone to his head.

It's all ego, all the time.  If anyone is in need of spiritual guidance, it's the author.

However, I find it useful to read things like this that make me uncomfortable.  He has a point.  It's less important for me to label myself as a Buddhist, than it is for me to find realization of buddha nature, moment to moment, without the label.

If the author had made a few of his points more gently, without trying to insult people into agreeing with him, he would have been far better off and we would be praising him for his insight.  As for the toliet bowl time mangement.  I consider every moment I spend in meditation, prayer or contemplation to be worthwhile even if my mind is wandering.  It's the intention to make a connection that is so important and time well spent.


----------



## Newby (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



As my grandmother used to say, you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...




Either way, you're not in 100% communion with God.

(And again....God has no gender)


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

Here is the rebuttal to the controversial Steve Pavlina article on Ten reasons why you should never get a religion:
10 reasons why you should never get a religion (The Rebuttal) - Society and Religion Combined - Zimbio

While I think the response interesting I think it misses the main point.


----------



## Newby (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, you can never be without sin, so 100% communion is not possible here.

(To each his own...)


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Here is an essay that outlines ten reasons you may want to avoid organized religion.
> 
> As someone who practices in the Buddhist tradition with a community I still find the essay thought provoking.
> 
> ...




Hmm....

"....savagely curtailing your ability to perceive reality accurately."

Not only is it hyperbolic, it falsely claims there is a "reality."  He's making the same false claim most organized religions make so by his own argument his own position is wrong.


----------



## dab11999 (Jun 2, 2010)

I practice the teachings of Christ but I don't necessarily feel I belong to the religion. I haven't been to a church in many years. But I see the truth of his teachings and practice them in my daily life. He has given me gifts I never thought possible. In my opinion, people ask for the wrong things when they pray. They mostly pray for themselves. Christ did not teach others to pray this way. Nor did he teach them to discriminate against others for their beliefs. Yet I see many doing just that in the name of religion and tradition. Christ himself asked; Why do you sacrifice the Kingdom of Heaven for tradition?
I might want to point out that it was religion that rejected Christ and had him crucified. It will be religion that worships the anti-christ.  A false religion. Because someone claims to be a religion, does not automatically make them righteous. If you doubt this, then read the letters to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation. 
People in religious circles continuously argue about the fine points of tradition as if it was law. But this was the very thing that Christ did not like about them and he called them hypocrites, snakes and vipers. He felt that their traditions undermined the intent of the law. They hated him for speaking the truth. But I find that both in and out of religion.
All I can say is, believe on Christ. Religion is nothing more than man applying his philosophy to God's Word. But strip away the philosophy and what is left is truth. If you can't see the truth, then you will not rise above this life. Your spirit will perish along with the lie that has mastered you. 
What proof is offered? None. Have faith in the truth, the rewards are greater than you can imagine.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

blu said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



The God....the one that transcends all of human's attempts to locate, describe, and define the God described in all religions.


----------



## blu (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



nice cop out


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

blu said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...




Fuck off you bigoted jackass.  You have nothing but whiny bowlshit to serve.


----------



## blu (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



refute or ansswer something ive said instead of ad hominem


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

blu said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Show me something that warrants a response.


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You are far too retarded to have seen any number of posts worthy of an intelligent response;

and you remain woefully unequipped to complete that mission in any case.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Curve--
> 
> I wouldn't call any of those natural things you mentioned--the spider and the lion as evil.
> 
> Evil lurks in the hearts/ minds of human beings.




Nature is a myth.  So how do you define evil?


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



From a dipshit, like you, who can drown in the shallows, PussyPuddle, such comments are highly amusing.

Why Madmutt is not a Christian is of no  concern.

The discussion about religious beliefs might be more informative if you were capable of debating intelligently.

But such is way beyond your meager abilities.

Let's put you to the test.  Let's get back to the root of it all.  Pre-Christianity.

*The universe and everything in the universe exists.  Matter, energy, time, space.   Physics advises us that matter cannot be created.  So, how did it all come into being?*

After you ponder that and try to address it, maturely, the next question will incorporate your answer into the larger issue of "First Cause."

If the discussion progresses well, at some point we might even (naturally) get back to the topic of specific religions, such as Christianity.  But let us first see how you handle the highlighted question, above.


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2010)

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MestrualMess said:
> ...



Yes.  You do lie.  For example, in your endless willingness to lie, you neglect to mention the limited purpose for which the F4 crash test was provided.  YOUR stubborn and decidedly stupid unwillingness to be honest about it doesn't change anything.  

I edit your posts, by the way, PussyPuddle, because I don't want you to be gratified by your silly use of your retarded terms.  You can't even control your own dishonesty and stupidity.  I deny you permission to control anything about my posts, MenstrualMess.

Oh, and for the record, all of your totally dishonest self congratulation doesn't establish that you have ever pwnd me or anybody else.  You never have.  You lack any such ability.  You are far too stupid and dishonest for such things.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Rotfl!  Start a new thread Snitch Bitch and I will respond to cough "your" question....cough cough.  So go ahead and start that thread Snitch Bitch.....


----------



## Anguille (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > There are many reasons why I am not a Christian. One of them is because I am thoroughly repulsed by the masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story and the whole glorification of martyrdom that goes with it. The cross has to be one of the most creepy religious symbols ever.
> ...


I'd respond to your post, but I'm not a masochist.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



It was fucking ignorant to claim the Cross is a symbol of masochism so your safest path is to run and hide....


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:
			
		

> I have supported it you whiny jackass. You obviously don't understand because you claim the old Covenant needed to be re-established because people forgot about it. Pay attention you asswipe snob:


Heb 8 states it needed to be re-established "because they continued not in my covenant".  No one was following it, so a new agreement was made.  A new what?  Law?  No.  That's not what Heb 8 says.  A new covenant AKA agreement was made.  No, new agreements do not need to change laws.  I can make an agreement with you right now, and the US Constitution doesn't change.  The agreement works within the law.  Nowhere in Heb 8 does it state law was changed.  You seem to continue disagreeing, yet provide no quote that contradicts me.



			
				CurveLight said:
			
		

> If you change a Covenant then the laws must also be changed. If no laws are changed then the Covenant is the same. If you change the laws then the Covenant must also be changed.


You seem to fail at basic logic, huh?  OK let's go through this.  All apples are fruit.  All fruits are not apples.  If the law changes, then the covenant must also be changed.  You were correct about that part.  But the first sentence in this quote is just plain stupid.  Agreements can change without laws changing.  

The rest of your useless rant appears to be name calling instead of actually making a point or supporting any of your illiterate garbage.  However you appear to be moving away from the original issue: no reason is stated why the LAW was changed, and the only reason for why the covenant was changed was "because they continued not".  So because people stopped continuing the agreement, a new one was made.  It doesn't say why laws were needed to be changed, and you have yet to quote a single part of Heb 8 that says otherwise.  Hey I have a great idea: maybe you can continue typing useless posts that make vague references to a bible passage that doesn't actually address the topic being discussed!  Throw some cursing in there too.  That will help your cause.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> We call it "death" not because of the change from functioning to non-functioning, but only because we do not understand that change.


No actually death is defined as not functioning.  Doctors don't call "time of death" based on bone decomposition.  That's ridiculous.  And what you are talking about on that inane rant was decomposition, not death.  You're trying to philosophize a pretty simple concept.  Even 5 year olds can figure out the difference between life and death.  If you want to get unnecessarily nitpicky and claim we don't know EXACTLY the nanosecond in which it happens, fine, but that doesn't mean we don't know when it occurs at all.



Newby said:


> You're either walking away from God, or towards Him.


Have you seen this lately?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU]YouTube - Only A Sith Deals In Absolutes[/ame]




CurveLight said:


> It was fucking ignorant to claim the Cross is a symbol of masochism so your safest path is to run and hide....


The cross is a symbol of a murder weapon used at the conclusion of severe torture.  If Jesus was tortured and then shot with a gun, would you wear an outline of a gun around your neck?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh man. You actually edited my post to remove the verse I quoted from Heb 8. When ***** like you actually remove supporting evidence from others' posts there's no hope of dialogue.  You've just proven you're a snobby self righteous cocksucking bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > We call it "death" not because of the change from functioning to non-functioning, but only because we do not understand that change.
> ...



You keep proving how fucking stoopid you are.  The Cross was used explicitly for terrorism and was torture in and of itself.  The victims suffocated to death and it was a long slow, excruciating death meant to send a message to others.  Jesus took the most ostensible tool of terrorism and used it to show that violence and rule by fear and military dominance could be answered with non-violence and that God's justice was not about vengence.  But don't let such.....basic information stew your little world you fucking useless bitch.

Why is it fuckwads like you get a few dustballs of misinformation in your pocket then believe you are actually educated or informed?


----------



## rikules (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



"Fuck off you bigoted jackass.  You have nothing but whiny bowlshit to serve"

spoken like a REAL christian


----------



## rikules (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



"Oh man. You actually edited my post to remove the verse I quoted from Heb 8. When ***** like you actually remove supporting evidence from others' posts there's no hope of dialogue. You've just proven you're a snobby self righteous cocksucking bitch. "


well

you've convinced me.

with ALL of your posts full of swears and filth you have managed to convince me that there IS a god...

and I DO hope you burn in hell


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



That Which Cannot Be Imagined or Described

Pure being, suchness itself.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Exactly!


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

rikules said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



You're the kind of laughable troll that should be charged to even quote posts.  You whine about cusswords you fucking parasite and you expect....what?  If I didn't cuss you'd look for some other reason to hold the exact same position of self righteous denial you have right now.  Also, nobody can ever "convince" anyone else God exists.  It is such an intimate conversation that only a fucking fool like yourself believes you have the power to invade such a place.  Guess what?  Not only do I cuss....but today I texted while driving over the speed limit!  To Hell I go!

Let's see what else you can whine about.....


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2010)

GutlessCoward said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MenstrualMess said:
> ...



Must you ALWAYS be such a devotee of cowardice?

I asked the question HERE you gutless wonder.

Man up for once in you pathetic excuse for a "life" and deal with the questions as they come up.  Your bobbing, ducking, weaving and abject cowardice is very stale.  And all you manage to do is expose yourself even more clearly and fully with each empty-scrotum maneuver you make.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 2, 2010)

Liability said:


> GutlessCoward said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I deleted my last few posts to you because you are not worth derailing this thread you Snitch Bitch.  It's simple....start the new thread and I will address the question.  Other than that there is nothing else to say to you in this thread and while I've no doubt you are arrogant enough to believe you could bully me, or anyone else into answering your question, I'm even more convinced your personal opinion of me carries less weight than a hummingbird's fart.  See ya Snitch Bitch.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




 * 	 Why I Am Not A CurveLight  *


----------



## rikules (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





You are truely scum


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Oh man. You actually edited my post to remove the verse I quoted from Heb 8. When ***** like you actually remove supporting evidence from others' posts there's no hope of dialogue.  You've just proven you're a snobby self righteous cocksucking bitch.


Actually, I just shortened all the crap and quoted the exact same passage from a different translation, the point being exactly the same.  Here's your quote:
"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
Note that just like my quote in a different translation, it says the exact same thing: that the covenant is new.  Note further how it does NOT state the law is new.  Now go re-read my previous post on how you can't seem to comprehend the difference between the two.  Alternately, find me a quote that states the law is new, changed, or why.

In other words: you're finding bullshit reasons to whine about how everyone else sucks instead of of actually addressing the real points.  Again.

Let me know if you still are confused with the difference between law and agreement.



CurveLight said:


> > The cross is a symbol of a murder weapon used at the conclusion of severe torture.  If Jesus was tortured and then shot with a gun, would you wear an outline of a gun around your neck?
> 
> 
> 
> You keep proving how fucking stoopid you are.  The Cross was used explicitly for terrorism and was torture in and of itself.  The victims suffocated to death and it was a long slow, excruciating death meant to send a message to others.  Jesus took the most ostensible tool of terrorism and used it to show that violence and rule by fear and military dominance could be answered with non-violence and that God's justice was not about vengence.  But don't let such.....basic information stew your little world you fucking useless bitch.


Oh I see now!  You have enlightened me.  Now I know the cross was used as "a long slow, excruciating death".  See I had it wrong by calling it "the conclusion of severe torture".  Somehow "long slow excruciating death" and "torture" are different in your head.  That's amazing.  

And you say it's different because it was terrorism.  So perhaps I should rephrase my question: if Jesus was killed in a terrorist car bomb, would you wear a Kia symbol around your neck?

Hey I have another great idea: How bout instead of addressing the actual topic, you come up with irrelevant name calling, preach about crap no one mentioned, exalt Jesus in unrelated methods, and then continue to fellate yourself into believing everyone else is wrong for no particular reason whatsoever.  Cuz hey, we all gotta do what we're good at, right?


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2010)

GutlessCoward said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > GutlessCoward said:
> ...



Application denied, MenstrualMess.

This thread will suffice.  Keep ducking the question like the utter and undeniable coward you are, PussyPuddle.  It will surprise nobody.

It *is* simple though:

You are completely lacking in guts.  You are an unmanly coward even when it comes to mere debate.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 2, 2010)

Frank said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I don't belong to any organized religion but I singled out Christians because I have been treated to their irrationality somewhat more often.  No Muslim or Jew or Buddist, etc. has ever prosletized to me.
> ...



There are also many different and various Catholics.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 3, 2010)

rikules said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...




Oh.  You took the:

"Let's see what else you can whine about...."

a bit too literal.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 3, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Oh man. You actually edited my post to remove the verse I quoted from Heb 8. When ***** like you actually remove supporting evidence from others' posts there's no hope of dialogue.  You've just proven you're a snobby self righteous cocksucking bitch.
> ...



You didn't quote 8:13 you punk bitch because you completely ignored it.  You did that because you claimed the covenant was "re-established" when I showed it was new and not re-established as you claimed.  The part you partially quoted was from verse 9.  

A Covenant is based on a set of conditions, including laws. If none of the laws are changed then it is impossible to have a new Covenant. That is why it states in verse 9:

"It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers..."

So if it wasn't like the old covenant then what changed?  The obvious answer is given in verses 11 + 12:

"No longer will a man teach his neighbor, *or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' **because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. *For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Are you so fucking ignorant that you are blind as to how many laws were changed within just those two verses?  Do you have any knowledge on ancient Jewish laws regarding atonement?

As for the Cross....I was pointing out your analogy to a gun was stoopid because guns are generally used for instant death........not hours and hours of suffocation hanging on a Cross.  I also don't wear a Cross and have always been outspoken about not wearing them.....but not for the reasons you so ignorantly have tried to spell out.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 3, 2010)

CurveLight, what does some minutiae of christian theology have to do with the main question of this thread?  Can you please link it up for those of us not involved in the dispute?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Apparently there are no RRC dioceses which have completely escaped the sex abuse scandals, Cecille.  That is/was institutionalized Evil.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 3, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CurveLight, what does some minutiae of christian theology have to do with the main question of this thread?  Can you please link it up for those of us not involved in the dispute?



I took it that a couple of posters were desperate for a smack break.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 3, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



"....so your safest path is to run and hide..."


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 3, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Madeline said:


> CurveLight, what does some minutiae of christian theology have to do with the main question of this thread?  Can you please link it up for those of us not involved in the dispute?



It's pretty bizarre to claim the Cross is a sign of masochism and since you thanked the person for making the accusation it didn't seem to be minutia to you.  My beef is how claims like that are made then the accuser runs and hides.  If you would like I can pm you my posts for approval before I actually post.  How would that be?  

That accusation and the op have a lot in common because both are making proclamations that try to justify deriding Christianity.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> God has no gender


 
The G-d of the Bible does.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > God has no gender
> ...



So you're saying there is more than one God. Okay.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Are you still trying bait me, Curvey?  

Explain to me how it is that you are authorized to makes rules about what the cross may or may not symbolize to me.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > God has no gender
> ...





Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



You made an objective claim the Cross is "creepy" because it is a sign of "masochism."  You made that claim on a historical basis but since a few days have passed you want to wiggle out by this bullshit.  So basically, fuck you and your blatant attempt of dishonesty. 

If you or anyone wants to make the cross be a symbol of grasshoppers you can........based on your simple world fantasies, but not based on facts. The historical background of the Cross is no where near masochism so your claim was made out of ignorance.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

I am once again reminded of why I am glad I am not a curvelight.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

Anguille said:


> I am once again reminded of why I am glad I am not a curvelight.




Once again you dodge.  You're a fucking waste.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

You are welcome to your version of history. And I to mine. 

You were amusing for about 30 seconds but now your act has fallen flat. Enjoy your day.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 5, 2010)

Anguille said:


> You are welcome to your version of history. And I to mine.
> 
> You were amusing for about 30 seconds but now your act has fallen flat. Enjoy your day.




Alright I'll bite. So why do you say the christians are masochists and not sadists. Or is the whole lot an S&M thing combined?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > You are welcome to your version of history. And I to mine.
> ...


I never said that. Go back and read my original post if it really interests you.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 5, 2010)

Anguille said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Alright I'll bite. So why do you say the christians are masochists and not sadists. Or is the whole lot an S&M thing combined?
> ...



I did




Anguille said:


> There are many reasons why I am not a Christian. *One of them is because I am thoroughly repulsed by the masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story and the whole glorification of martyrdom that goes with it.* The cross has to be one of the most creepy religious symbols ever.



So I will ask again if you care to elaborate on this statement.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

Anguille said:


> I am once again reminded of why I am glad I am not a curvelight.





Anguille said:


> You are welcome to your version of history. And I to mine.
> 
> You were amusing for about 30 seconds but now your act has fallen flat. Enjoy your day.





syrenn said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Good luck.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You didn't quote 8:13 you punk bitch because you completely ignored it.  You did that because you claimed the covenant was "re-established" when I showed it was new and not re-established as you claimed.  The part you partially quoted was from verse 9.
> 
> A Covenant is based on a set of conditions, including laws. If none of the laws are changed then it is impossible to have a new Covenant.


I think we're making progress here now.  You say a covenant/agreement is based on a set of conditions including laws. But a covenant is NOT the laws themselves.  It is a construct that references the laws.  So changing the agreement does not inherently change the laws.  For example, if we have an agreement that you will mow my lawn for some compensation, and we then later change the agreement, the local, state, and federal laws need not be changed in the process.  The "covenant" works within the established laws.



> So if it wasn't like the old covenant then what changed?
> 
> "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, *or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' **because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. *For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."


This is the issue.  I ask for an explicit reason, and you give some hand waiving speculation.

OK, so where in the bible does it say that man is required to teach his neighbor that by law?  You'd need to point out the actual contradiction instead of just continuing to speculate away from the actual topic, which your guessing doesn't even address.  That is specifically: WHY did the law change?  You've established why the covenant changed.  If you can provide a direct contradiction of law from the old testament, you will have even showed that the law changed, but you have yet to point out a quote that states WHY the law was changed.

But let's face it: you're just going to curse some more, claim other people don't know what they're talking about, and not support anything you say.  Hey if I'm lucky you'll throw in more guesses and hand waiving: always entertaining.



> As for the Cross....I was pointing out your analogy to a gun was stoopid because guns are generally used for instant death........not hours and hours of suffocation hanging on a Cross.  I also don't wear a Cross and have always been outspoken about not wearing them.....but not for the reasons you so ignorantly have tried to spell out.


You're saying guns can't be used for torture?  Really?  You don't get out much to go to the movies ever I take it.  Die Hard 4 was just on TV recently and would show you to be incorrect. 

But yet again you seem to avoid the actual issues to complain and curse about something close but unrelated: if Jesus was tortured for hours with a gun, or an iron maiden, or water boarding, would you think it smart to use that device as a symbol for your religion?  Don't backpedal now about how you don't wear a cross.  That was never the point that made you throw your temper tantrum.  You are misdirecting by saying "no but it was torture" and yet you tried to shoot down someone for claiming it is a masochistic symbol?  Wow you're pretty dense.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't quote 8:13 you punk bitch because you completely ignored it.  You did that because you claimed the covenant was "re-established" when I showed it was new and not re-established as you claimed.  The part you partially quoted was from verse 9.
> ...



Are you babbling again?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 5, 2010)

well, once again your words are useless, but this time it looks like you gave up on cursing along with missing the point.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't quote 8:13 you punk bitch because you completely ignored it.  You did that because you claimed the covenant was "re-established" when I showed it was new and not re-established as you claimed.  The part you partially quoted was from verse 9.
> ...





SmarterThanHick said:


> well, once again your words are useless, but this time it looks like you gave up on cursing along with missing the point.



What are you fucking whining about now?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


What I said pretty much sums up as well as I can put it as to why I am repulsed by the cross symbol. I remember the first time I saw a Dying Jesus on a cross. I was about 9 and it was in the main Cathedral of Montreal. It scared the bejesus out of me , no pun ...., . I think it's freaky to glorify suffering.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I was referring to your feud with SmartThanHick, not Anguille.  I think you have misread Anguille's response.  I suspect that he meant "I will not reply because I am not a masochist". If you are too upset by other's POVs to sustain reading comprehension, you probably aren't enjoying this thread anymore, CurveLight.  You feel free to stop posting to it, at least for awhile.  No one will assume you concede a thing if you do.

I do not need to "justify deriding christianity".  My Op is not about anger or hatred for christians -- it is about the total submersion I endured as a child in a faith that never made sense to me and still does not.  Others have had similar life experiences, and whether they fetched up with the same beliefs as I, it seems to me the rejoinder would be something like "why I follow christianity", not "you are all assholes".  

Just a thought.  Please feel free to carry on however you see fit; it's my Op but I am not the USMB Hall Monitor.  I just hate to see a generally rewarding convo tank, is all.

Maybe you can answer some questions, CurveLight.  If God is unknowable, reality is a fiction and Evil cannot be defined, then how are you a christian?  To me, you sound like a Nihilist.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I'm not misreading anything.  Anguille clearly stated:

"....masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story..."

and that is what I challenged because there is no masochism at all.

As for my ex-feud with NotSmarterThanHick I don't know how in the hell you could consider it a "minutae" of Christian theology.  In a nutshell, Heb 8 summarizes the entire theological reason for Jesus.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I'm not misreading anything.  Anguille clearly stated:
> 
> "....masochistic overtones of the Crucifixion story..."
> 
> and that is what I challenged because there is no masochism at all.



You don't understand how people getting all excited over a story which you describe as "a long slow, excruciating death" as having masochistic overtones?  I think this is yet another one of those times where you don't actually understand the meaning of certain words but try to refute them anyway.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not misreading anything.  Anguille clearly stated:
> ...



This is why you are not smarter than a hick you dumbfuck.

 mas·och·ism *(ms-kzm)n.1.  The deriving of sexual gratification, or the tendency to derive sexual gratification, from being physically or emotionally abused.

Even if you remove the sexual component how fucked up do you have to be to think Jesus received any type of pleasure?  Or anyone who was crucified?  What the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## del (Jun 5, 2010)

i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.

thank you


----------



## Modbert (Jun 5, 2010)

del said:


> i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.
> 
> thank you



Sorry, religion & ethics threads all require long winded answers.


----------



## del (Jun 5, 2010)

Modbert said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.
> ...



i believe god works through people and that perhaps jesus was used for that purpose to a greater extent than the usual human. god's in everything, IMO.

that's just how i roll


----------



## Modbert (Jun 5, 2010)

del said:


> i believe god works through people and that perhaps jesus was used for that purpose to a greater extent than the usual human. god's in everything, IMO.
> 
> that's just how i roll



Sorry, needs to be more long winded.



All seriousness, good answer though. Especially since it involved no insulting of any other religion to get your own point across.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 5, 2010)

Anguille said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Are you sure you don't mean sadistic overtones?  When you say masochistic do you mean speaking from a "roman" POV or the guy on the cross POV?

I would consider the entire thing more sadistic then masochistic.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

del said:


> i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.
> 
> thank you



You don't have to believe he was divine to be a Christian.  Even Jesus himself made a few statements that denied divinity.  The most obvious is he said he didn't know when the End Day would happen.

So I'm not sure where you're getting your info but I'd double check.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> > You don't understand how people getting all excited over a story which you describe as "a long slow, excruciating death" as having masochistic overtones?  I think this is yet another one of those times where you don't actually understand the meaning of certain words but try to refute them anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah very good.  You figured out how to use the dictionary.  Unfortunately, you appear to lack the capability of understanding that words have multiple definitions.  Had you read down past #1, you would have seen:
mas·och·ism: 
2. gratification gained from pain, deprivation, degradation, etc., inflicted or imposed on oneself, either as a result of one's own actions or the actions of others
alt 3. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.

So no need to remove the sexual aspect as the word doesn't necessitate it.  Did Jesus "subject [him]self to unpleasant or trying experiences"?  Do people gain gratification from the telling of the story despite pain, deprivation, and degradation inflicted or imposed as a result of the actions of others?  You've already established you are incapable of basic reading comprehension.  Cherry picking a single dictionary definition, believing it is the end all meaning of a word, and ignoring all other definitions is just laughable.


----------



## Toro (Jun 5, 2010)

I'm a Christian because you can do whatever you want in your life, then repent and accept Jesus on your deathbed and still get into heaven.

That's awesome.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


You are so utterly clueless. And being a sadist, I will leave you in that state of mind.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

Modbert said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.
> ...


You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.


----------



## del (Jun 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.
> ...



last time i checked, to be a christian meant that one believed that jesus was god. i don't believe that. i don't believe in an end day, either. i don't know if i'm right or wrong, but that's what i believe.


----------



## del (Jun 5, 2010)

Toro said:


> I'm a Christian because you can do whatever you want in your life, then repent and accept Jesus on your deathbed and still get into heaven.
> 
> That's awesome.



i'm a uu- we don't believe in hell and everybody goes to heaven eventually.

works for me


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


No. To me the cross is a call to sacrifice oneself. I think it encourages people to become victims. To lay down and die. That's just my point of view and how it has always affected me. Everyone has their own experience.


----------



## Toro (Jun 5, 2010)

del said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I've never known Jesus to be God.  I've always known Jesus to be the son of God.

But I'm a lazy Christian.  I'll go ask Neubarth.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.
> ...


God forbid del, or anyone should have a different interpretation than you.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 5, 2010)

Anguille said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



 I don't know if "masochism" works for me in describing glorying suffering. I think that crhistians think of it more as a veneration of the suffering that was endured. For me the inception of the "idol" of the cross was that it was part of the "picture book bible" way to explain and bring people to understanding of the event when the bible was only read in Latin by the clergy. 

But I sure see how that image would scare the shit out of a child.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

 Glad you can see that. I also see your other point.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 5, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Glad you can see that. I also see your other point.




 I think it was meant to scare. I think it was meant to inspire aw. In that I have always seen what you meant and understood.


----------



## del (Jun 5, 2010)

Toro said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i was raised in a trinitarian religion.

you're definitely making the right move asking neubarth, especially since pubes is unavailable.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

del said:


> i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.
> 
> thank you





SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > > You don't understand how people getting all excited over a story which you describe as "a long slow, excruciating death" as having masochistic overtones?  I think this is yet another one of those times where you don't actually understand the meaning of certain words but try to refute them anyway.
> ...



No. Jesus did not subject himself to it you dumb bitch. 

Why do ***** like you get so caught up in trying to prove others wrong that you fail to realize how much you make an ass of yourself?  There is nothing in any of 2 or 3 that applies you ignorant fuck.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 5, 2010)

Oh? Are you really trying to say Jesus didn't subject himself to pain and torment?  Did he not know his actions were leading to public outcry for punishment?  Did he not predict he would be betrayed and yet did not flee?  Did he not refuse wine laced with a drug to lessen pain?  

You do know your own religion, right?  Cuz from my perspective it appears that he knowingly allowed for the maximum amount of pain to be endured, despite being given multiple opportunities to avoid or reduce it. And yet you claim he in no way subjected himself to to unpleasant or trying experiences?  Perhaps you should go look up more words in the dictionary.  Be sure to get past the first definition this time.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

Anguille said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



That was when you were nine.  How old are you now?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

Anguille said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Toro said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Son of God is still an assignment of divinity.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 5, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Oh? Are you really trying to say Jesus didn't subject himself to pain and torment?  Did he not know his actions were leading to public outcry for punishment?  Did he not predict he would be betrayed and yet did not flee?  Did he not refuse wine laced with a drug to lessen pain?
> 
> You do know your own religion, right?  Cuz from my perspective it appears that he knowingly allowed for the maximum amount of pain to be endured, despite being given multiple opportunities to avoid or reduce it. And yet you claim he in no way subjected himself to to unpleasant or trying experiences?  Perhaps you should go look up more words in the dictionary.  Be sure to get past the first definition this time.




Oh boy you are one dumb hick.  This is your free tutor lesson of the day.  If you require anymore you must first obtain paypal info and pay a sufficient amount.  So. Please. Pay. Attention.

A masochist will subject him/herself to punishment/pain purely out of seeking that pain.  They will often go to a place....house in the suburbs or a "massage" parlor in the city and they will pay money or be in a reciprocal relationship.  

What Jesus did was accept the consequences of his actions.  He accepted responsibility for his actions.  That is not "subjecting yourself to pain" you dumb fucking hick.  He did not run to the Roman/Temple rulers and say:

"Oh please beat the fuck out of me for the hell of it."

You really should not get your biblical knowledge from shitty snuff films made my anti-Semitic fuckwads like Gibson.

Do you see the difference yet?  If not....get ready to paypal your way to another lesson you drowner.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 6, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Glad you can see that. I also see your other point.
> ...



It has often been twisted to fit a political agenda and some fall out from that agenda can be seen in this op.  It is a morose irony because Jesus died on the Cross largely to say:

"You are Forgiven"

but power fucking control freaks have been trying to molest that message into saying: 

"You should feel Guilty."


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 6, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Glad you can see that. I also see your other point.
> ...





del said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



UU is an acronym for:

"I want to cover all the bases so in case I'm personally wrong I don't have to accept the consequences."

(Many friends are UU and they laugh when I say that.  I dated a UUSC employee in Cambridge for a while too so I'm somewhat familiar and a good friend has recently been given a UU Minister position in Maine)


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


 
No, I am saying that the G-d of the Bible is *not genderless*...which has absolutely nothing to do with how many *g*ods there are.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read. When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage. All religion, all the time, 24/7. I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday. I had Religious Instruction every day at school. So why didn't it stick?
> 
> The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy. It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits. Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set. I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."
> 
> So in no special order of importance, here's a list of the reasons I am not a Christian. I am hoping someone who is can address any of them and we can dialogue.



I can see that you were raised under the law and not under grace which is what has turned many people away from G-d.




> 1. If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world? I have heard every single justification for this, from free will to the "evil is necessary so goodness an show up by contrast" one. None of them wash with me.



Just because I create evil doesn't mean you have to choose it. You even say so later on in your argument. So that excuse in your words "doesn't wash." 




> 2. If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here?


 

Because it is a personal choice...no one is forcing it on you.




> There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering.



Some of those wars occured because of those with the idea that you just stated thought "they" had to usher in the peace of Christ so they went on crusades to bring about Christ's reign. Those imbiciles thought that Christ couldn't do it himself.




> I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah". That person is supposed to SAVE us. I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.



It appears that you aren't understanding it. Christians understnd very well that they ARE saved. Saved by grace. 




> 3. I don't get what the Holy Spirit is about. A Supreme Being that seems not to have existed before God wanted to knock Mary up and now has no purpose at all.



The Holy Spirit IS G-d.




> 4. The notion of a Trinity seems to contradict the first of the Ten Commandments: monotheism. If there is only one God, there cannot be three. It just isn't rational.



.... this issue is a big space taker so I won't go to far ... but are you telling me that you don't understand how you and your spouse are "one" (supposing you are married)? The Bible says that you are "one." Not that I am saying that is an all inclusive explanation of the Trinity because in understanding the Trinity you have to remember that we are 4 dimensional being trying to understand a multidimensional being.




> 5. Speaking of rational, thanks for the condemnation of abortion, birth control, sex for Clergy (that paid off so well, didn't it?), people who are not Catholic (or whatever flavor you may be), etc. A special thanks to the "Creationism" nutters who've brought a new age of enlightenment into the classroom.



I'm having trouble reading through the sarcasim on this one. Could you rephrase it?




> 6. How is it "Christian" to deny food or medical care to a child if their parents won't first agree to convert to your religion?



Just because a nut calls themself a Christian doesn't mean that their actions are Christ like.




> If your religion is so great, won't the people whom you serve eventually get curious about it? Why's it okay to coerce people into relinquishing their culture and their beliefs in favor of yours because you have the economic upper hand?



Because there is no such thing as a vacuum of ideology.




> 7. If prayer actually works, and God actually listens, isn't it evil to pray for the defeat of a high school football team or the results of a test? Doesn't God expect that you'll only pray for stuff that brings you closer to him?



I don't know if "evil" is so much the word. "Sensless" better describes it. Again, just because there are nuts that call themselves Christians doesn't mean that what they do is Christ like. G-d places His desires in our hearts that we may seek that which honors Him and brings Him the glory. If passing a test or winning a football game does this then it is very sensible to do so... Also rember, G-d is your Father. If you are a father or mother, I am sure you would want to bless your children, wouldn't you?




> 8. How is it possible to reconcile, in your own mind, all the hatred and aggression undertaken in the name of religion with any message of any major religion? You know that it is wrong. How is it okay to commit Major Evil as long as you invoke God's name?



Well if G-d doesn't exist then "what is evil?" and what does it matter? If G-d does exist then it is more important to find out what he wants rather than what "we" want. All the evil committed has been in the name of people wanting concerned about what "they" wanted rather than what G-d wanted.




> 9. How can you seriously believe that a man in a red jump suit "tempts" you?



A man in a red jump suit is a common falicy. Satan is actually a very beautiful creature. (Ezekiel 28:11-19)




> Why can't you just accept responsibility for the evil you do? You're human -- no one has to tempt you. You're full of evil, selfish impulses and can only control them through the wonders of social conditioning, like the rest of us.


 
But what is evil and who determines it? What if I define "evil" differently that you do?

For example, when it comes to speeding, I could go 70 miles per hour on a highway which would be perfectly lawful, but come to a small rural road and find out that going that speed makes me an evil criminal... Was it the speed that made me a criminal? NO... it was the law that made me a criminal at that speed in that zone.

If there is no supreme being from which absolutes are derived, then nothing is absolute and everyone is their own god judging what is right or wrong in their own eyes.




> 10. Why do you need a "promise of Heaven" to do what you know is right? Don't you have a conscience? When you do the wrong thing, don't you feel that?



G-d is a G-d of LOVE, not of laws. Laws were only given to show man that he is sinful and to point him towards his maker. Real love can only come from the heart.


----------



## Amanda (Jun 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds, and taught such things as how to read.  When the folks were gone, I was raised in a Catholic orphanage.  All religion, all the time, 24/7.  I said the rosary every night and went to Confession every Saturday.  I had Religious Instruction every day at school.  So why didn't it stick?
> 
> The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy.  It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits.  Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set.  I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."
> 
> ...




The correct answer is free will whether it washes with you or not. There wouldn't be any point to any of this if we didn't have free will.



Madeline said:


> 2.  If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here?  There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering.  I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah".  That person is supposed to SAVE us.  I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.



It apparently isn't time yet.



Madeline said:


> 3.  I don't get what the Holy Spirit is about.  A Supreme Being that seems not to have existed before God wanted to knock Mary up and now has no purpose at all.



I have issues with the "trinity" idea too. I think it was Paul's attempt to appeal to the polytheistic people he was trying to reach.   



Madeline said:


> 4.  The notion of a Trinity seems to contradict the first of the Ten Commandments:  monotheism.  If there is only one God, there cannot be three.  It just isn't rational.



See #3.



Madeline said:


> 5.  Speaking of rational, thanks for the condemnation of abortion, birth control, sex for Clergy (that paid off so well, didn't it?), people who are not Catholic (or whatever flavor you may be), etc.  A special thanks to the "Creationism" nutters who've brought a new age of enlightenment into the classroom.



I think you're making a common mistake, and that is blaming God for what people have done. 

6.  How is it "Christian" to deny food or medical care to a child if their parents won't first agree to convert to your religion?  If your religion is so great, won't the people whom you serve eventually get curious about it?  Why's it okay to coerce people into relinquishing their culture and their beliefs in favor of yours because you have the economic upper hand?



Madeline said:


> 7.  If prayer actually works, and God actually listens, isn't it evil to pray for the defeat of a high school football team or the results of a test?  Doesn't God expect that you'll only pray for stuff that brings you closer to him?



I don't know if I'd call it evil, but it's lame. I doubt that such prayers do any good, and probably make the person look bad before God. It's like the people that say they believe because if it's true they win, if it's not, then they have nothing to lose anyway. My position is that if it's true people like that are screwed. I'm pretty sure God can see through that sort of shit.



Madeline said:


> 8.  How is it possible to reconcile, in your own mind, all the hatred and aggression undertaken in the name of religion with any message of any major religion?  You know that it is wrong.  How is it okay to commit Major Evil as long as you invoke God's name?



People that think that's ok are wrong, IMO. There's a world of difference, in my mind, between what people do in God's name and God. As I said in #5 I think it's a huge mistake to confuse the 2.



Madeline said:


> 9.  How can you seriously believe that a man in a red jump suit "tempts" you?  Why can't you just accept responsibility for the evil you do?  You're human -- no one has to tempt you.  You're full of evil, selfish impulses and can only control them through the wonders of social conditioning, like the rest of us.



I think you're getting rude with this 1. If you want an open dialogue please meet me half way without insulting me.

I don't believe the wonders of social conditioning are all you seem to have them cracked up to be. I do plenty of things that society (and probably God) frowns on because I want to do them and I don't think they do any harm. And then in other cases people follow the societal norms and it leads to what, IMO, is an immoral act, like when people walk by the victim of some incredible violence without helping and that person dies because it's better to not get involved.  



Madeline said:


> 10.  Why do you need a "promise of Heaven" to do what you know is right?  Don't you have a conscience?  When you do the wrong thing, don't you feel that?



I can't answer for anyone else but I try to do things in a way that I think will please God most of the time. I have some things that probably don't sit too well with him that I do, but I'm not that worried about those things because I don't think I'm going to heaven anyway. So how does this work then? The promise of heaven isn't mine and I still try to be a good person in God's eyes. I guess we're not all as you imagine us to be.  



Madeline said:


> By the way, I don't belong to any organized religion but I singled out Christians because I have been treated to their irrationality somewhat more often.  No Muslim or Jew or Buddist, etc. has ever prosletized to me.



I've never really got why this upsets people so much. In some parts of the world you can be executed for religious transgressions and you don't even have to be a believer. If the worst thing a Christian ever did was try to tell you about what they think is a pretty good thing then I just don't see the problem. I don't know of any Christian that gets a commission on conversions. It's not like they're doing it for themselves. They're trying to help. And I've never seen any of them told someone wasn't interested and heard them continue anyway like some kind of door-to-door salesman with the hard sell. If you have, please accept my apology on behalf of Christians, that isn't right.

Are there hardline, fundamentalists out there? Sure, but they aren't the majority, just the loudest. Don't paint us all with the same brush just because the media does.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i'm not a christian because i don't believe christ was divine.
> ...



Do you just pull this stuff outta your ass CurveLight?  HTF can someone who does not believe Christ was Divine call themselves a christian?  If you reject the "Messiah" claim, what's left apart from some guidance on living right?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 6, 2010)

Toro said:


> I'm a Christian because you can do whatever you want in your life, then repent and accept Jesus on your deathbed and still get into heaven.
> 
> That's awesome.



I agree, it's a helluva inducement -- if behaving like an asshole appeals to you.

_*Winks*_


----------



## Madeline (Jun 6, 2010)

The Light wrote in part:



> But what is evil and who determines it? What if I define "evil" differently that you do?
> 
> For example, when it comes to speeding, I could go 70 miles per hour on a highway which would be perfectly lawful, but come to a small rural road and find out that going that speed makes me an evil criminal... Was it the speed that made me a criminal? NO... it was the law that made me a criminal at that speed in that zone.
> 
> If there is no supreme being from which absolutes are derived, then nothing is absolute and everyone is their own god judging what is right or wrong in their own eyes.



I'm not feeling you guys so much.  No one but me thinks there is a class of behaviors that are always Evil?  Am I surrounded by situational ethicists and humanists?


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Light wrote in part:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are surrounded by circumstance. How you rationalize and cope is up to you. What principles do you apply, in what order, degree, is for you to decide and live with. We all know consequence, whether we admit it or not. What do you learn from cause and effect?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 6, 2010)

What principles?

Life matters more than gain.

Art matters more than gain.

Dignity is good but Pride is Evil.

Trust and Intimacy cannot happen if there is Deceit of any sort.

Anger is a force for Evil but Righteousness is a Force for Good.

An unexamined life is a waste.

We're duty bound to help each other.

Don't pick endangered wildflowers.

SERIOUSLY?

"Treat your neighbor as you wish to be treated."


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> What principles?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





What principles?

What is your motive or intention applied to circumstance? What is the driving force behind it?


Life matters more than gain.

What is the point here? What is the value of anything you obtained here after you are dead? 


Art matters more than gain.

Really??? So if your house was on fire, rather than run to save your vital records, possessions, and treasures, you would instead, run to the refrigerator to save your child's drawings??? Not likely. Everything has it's place. Preservation of Life way up there.  Circumstance generally dictates what is attainable within reason. We all live with the weight of our choices. What does that imply? Choose wisely as opposed to having predetermined expectations and duplicate specifications of how you expect everyone around you to react. Maybe part of true religion is being in the present and using your own mind to resolve, what perturbs you. You keep looking outside yourself for affirmation, when maybe, in part, the answer lies within?   


Dignity is good but Pride is Evil.

True, the Bible teaches that pride is evil. I would point out that anything that violates our individual relationship with our maker becomes an obstacle and a sin. Glory be to God. God first in all things. 


Trust and Intimacy cannot happen if there is Deceit of any sort.

Totally disagree. Perfect argument for "The New Covenant". In spite of what we think, say, do, fail to do, our reason for being out weighs our tangents. A parent stops loving a child because of short comings or deceit??? No! 


Anger is a force for Evil but Righteousness is a Force for Good.
Misplaced anger is a force for evil. Acting without reason, complicating a situation by applying the wrong resolution compounds the evil. Righteousness is inspired by what? What does it serve, to what end?  Cannot Anger be Righteous? Of course it can. 


An unexamined life is a waste.
   I'm a Virgo, that's all we do! I'm tired of it! I want a life! I want to be free!   

Thank You for letting me vent. I feel better now. 

There is allot of waste in this realm without purpose behind our actions. 


We're duty bound to help each other.

Yes and no. You have predetermined expectations of what you think other people owe you. Other people owe you and I nothing. Too many spit on the gift that others in fact do provide which is a sin in itself. Have you ever read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand? For an Atheist, she sure nailed conscience, inspiration, and purpose well. 


Don't pick endangered wildflowers.

Why? Is there no point in their life when it is not okay? Or is this about who is in control??? 


"Treat your neighbor as you wish to be treated."

I'm sure many a life has been preserved through etiquette, politeness, courtesy. Positive projection.


----------



## del (Jun 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



good friends often laugh at jokes that aren't funny. you should look up acronym in the dictionary.

Q: what do you get if you cross a unitarian and a jehovah's witness?

A: someone who goes door to door with nothing to say.

now, that's funny

drive safely and remember to tip your server

thanks!


----------



## Madeline (Jun 6, 2010)

God bless del.


----------



## del (Jun 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> God bless del.



awwwww


----------



## Toro (Jun 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I said I was going to ask_ *Neubarth!*_

You aren't a male model champion pugilist bigamist reverend who has sired hundreds of kids and speaks to militia groups.  WTF do you know?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Oh boy you are one dumb hick.  This is your free tutor lesson of the day.  If you require anymore you must first obtain paypal info and pay a sufficient amount.  So. Please. Pay. Attention.
> 
> A masochist will subject him/herself to punishment/pain purely out of seeking that pain.  They will often go to a place....house in the suburbs or a "massage" parlor in the city and they will pay money or be in a reciprocal relationship.
> 
> ...


Looks like you went to another dictionary to explain something for you, you copied and pasted the dumbed down version, and once again ignored all other definitions of the same word. "house in the suburbs"?  Wow.  As the previous definitions I posted specifically demonstrated, he did not need to go to anyone and ask or pay for the pain.  He simply needed to allow it to be brought upon him.  He was given chances to lessen the pain, and he refused.  I couldn't help note that you didn't deny this.  In fact you completely ignored it.

As for your entertaining paypal reference, I take this to mean you find yourself thoroughly beat on this topic, and you're trying to give yourself a way out of continuing it so as not to continue looking so foolish.  Good effort, but too late.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 6, 2010)

I, Yukon, am a former priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I was, I am , and I will die *CHRISTIAN.*

*PRAISE JEASUS for He is the only path to Heaven and Life Eternal.*


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Oh boy you are one dumb hick.  This is your free tutor lesson of the day.  If you require anymore you must first obtain paypal info and pay a sufficient amount.  So. Please. Pay. Attention.
> ...



Wow!!! I really want to thank you for aligning me with Curve light, You really are caught up in your own glow. You are sure now that you want to paint Christ as a Masochist?

Here is the first of two Old Testament Depictions. 


 Isaiah / 53


53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?   

53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.   

53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.   Defenders Notes >>   Defenders Notes >>



53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  

53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.   

53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.  

53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.   

53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.  

53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 

53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.   

53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.   

53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

Psalms / 22


22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?   

22:2 O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.  

22:3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.   

22:4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

22:5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.  

22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.   

22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.   

22:11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

22:12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

22:13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.   

22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.  

22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. 

22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.  

22:17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

22:18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.   

22:19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.

22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.   

22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.  

22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.  

22:23 Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

22:24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

22:25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.

22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

22:28 For the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations.

22:29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

22:30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.

22:31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this. 

The Holy Bible


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

Maybe some of the experts herecan both distinguish between the Catholic and Protestant Cross, and explain the meaning of each.


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

Latin Cross
Latin Cross; a symbol of Christianity.

&#65279; 
 The Latin Cross
also called the Roman, Protestant, Western or Plain Cross

Latin Cross
The Latin cross (crux ordinaria) is a stipe (upright post) with a patibulum (horizontal beam) inserted at right-angles. It is a symbol of Christianity even though it was used as a pagan symbol for millennia before the foundation of the Christian Church.

Although an identification mark of their faith, Christians cannot (and generally do not) claim that they have exclusive right to use the symbol. The Latin Cross is not a registered trademark and it is used freely in heraldry, fashion jewelry, by Freemasons, and still today, by Pagans.

As a Pagan symbol...
... it has been found in China and Africa. It appears on Scandinavian Bronze Age stones depicting the destructive hammer of Thor, their god of thunder and war. It is regarded a magical symbol, bringing good luck and diverting evil. Rock carvings of the cross have been interpreted as a solar symbol, or a symbol of Earth with its points representing north, south, east, and west.

To alchemists, the cross was a symbol of the four elements: air, earth, fire, water. Elsewhere, the cross variously symbolised health, fertility, life, immortality, the union of heaven and earth, spirit and matter, the Sun and the stars.

As a representation of the human form:

&#8226;upper section - corresponds to the north wind, the most powerful, the all-conquering giant, the head and intelligence
&#8226;lower section - the south wind, the seat of fire and passion, and of melting and burning
&#8226;right arm of the crossbeam - the east wind, the heart and the source of life and love
&#8226;left arm of the crossbeam - the gentle wind from the spirit land, the dying breath and the subsequent journey into the unknown
The meteorology concerning wind direction was something of a mystery until the 18th century, when George Hadley proposed the atmospheric mechanism by which the Trade Winds are sustained. Even so, something in the Bible written 2,300 years ago shows a surprising understanding of atmospheric circulation1. Note to skeptics: How's that for a Biblical prophecy?

(more...)

As a Christian symbol...
...it is sometimes referred to as the Western Cross to differentiate from cross designs favoured in the East. The Latin Cross is typically used as the basic floor plan of Western churches2. It can be the identification mark for a church or chapel, hence the alternative names: Chapel Cross or Church Cross3.

As a representation of the Trinity, the three shorter sections represent the Three Persons of the Trinity and the longer, lower portion signifies the One Divinity.

It can also be called a Protestant Cross because it is plain, without any corpus4 attached. It does not deny the suffering on the cross but focuses the mind on Christ's resurrection and is mostly used in Protestant churches.

Baptists, for example, tend to favour the empty Latin cross to emphasize the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. (See also Baptist Union Logo)

When the cross includes a corpus, it is usually referred to as a crucifix and emphasises Christ's suffering and sacrifice which gives meaning and sense to His resurrection.

For many Catholics, the corpus is sacramental and its removal would be heretical5. Protestantism initially prohibited the corpus as a graven image and idolatrous. Rood screens were pulled down to allow closer access to the altar by lay worshippers and Altar Crosses were removed as illegal 'Ornaments Rubrics'.6 This helped Protestants distance themselves from Roman Catholics and even today, crucifixes are found more in Catholic churches than Protestant churches7.

Generally today however, Protestants no longer protest too much and not averse to using a crucifix, and Catholics are quite happy to use a plain cross. Christ's resurrection is central to Christian doctrine, whatever the sect.

(more...)

In Freemasonry...
...the Latin cross with its single horizontal bar, is known as a Passion Cross. (With two bars a cross is known as a Patriarchal Cross and with three bars, a Salem Cross, signifying the ultimate rank of the wearer.
Latin Cross


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 6, 2010)

It still represents a bloody, humiliating death.


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> It still represents a bloody, humiliating death.



Good reminder of what we all put others through.


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> It still represents a bloody, humiliating death.



Ever been to a Sun Dance???


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 6, 2010)

Intense said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > It still represents a bloody, humiliating death.
> ...



That's exactly the point someone originally made in that the story and symbolism of the cross has masochistic overtones.  It's a constant reminder of a bloody, humiliating death that shows you what we put people through and what people endure.  Good job agreeing with us.

By the way, no one reads your copied and pasted bible quotes.  If you want to make a point, use your big boy words with evidence to support as needed.


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



No one can ever accuse you of letting Bible verse cloud your prejudice.    

There are many interpretations of the cross or crucifix. You point to one of many. We agree on that one. You catch on real fast sparky.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 6, 2010)

Intense said:


> Maybe some of the experts herecan both distinguish between the Catholic and Protestant Cross, and explain the meaning of each.



There is no difference my child. Christ died on the cross for all of us. The only way to Heaven and eternal life is through Jesus. If you fail to believe in Him then you will be cast out, there will be weeping and knashing of teeth for all of eternity.


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe some of the experts herecan both distinguish between the Catholic and Protestant Cross, and explain the meaning of each.
> ...



Nice that you have interest in your vocation.  What I was referring to was the Crucifix having the body of Christ on it, and the Protestant Cross not. One more focused on the cost or sacrifice. The other focused more on what was overcome.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 6, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Oh boy you are one dumb hick.  This is your free tutor lesson of the day.  If you require anymore you must first obtain paypal info and pay a sufficient amount.  So. Please. Pay. Attention.
> ...



I'm disgusted with punks like you because you're so dishonest. 

Once again. He accepted the consequnces for his actions. If someone gets a speeding ticket and pays the fine does that make them an economic masochist?  No.  They accepted responsibility for their actions.  

He "allowed" it because he accepted responsibility for his actions.  Do you get that yet you fucking toxic ****?  He even wanted to avoid it all together.  I'm guessing you're ignorant of the weeping prayers he engaged just prior to his arrest begging for a way to avoid the Crucifixion.  

Like I said, you're the kind of whiny bitch that focuses more on posters instead of the topic and that is why you cannot debate nor be honest so I don't give a fuck what you do because you aren't worthy of concern.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 6, 2010)

Intense said:


> Maybe some of the experts herecan both distinguish between the Catholic and Protestant Cross, and explain the meaning of each.



Wow that could be a tome. There are so many variations within those two that a contrast requires a layered web of conceptual translators without compromising underlying theological contradictions.  Basically, I don't have the first fucking clue where to begin.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> It still represents a bloody, humiliating death.



To me it represents Pure Love.  He broke many laws of the Temple and Roman Empire but he committed no real crime, except maybe the property destruction of the Temple.  Yet he practiced what he preached and freely gave his life to improve and save the lives of many people he didn't even know.  He even loved those who fucked him over.  The real test of love is much like the test for defending free speech:  if you don't stand up for the rights of your enemies you are never standing at all.

The humiliation does not fall on the one on the Cross.  Only on the ones who put him there.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 6, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> I, Yukon, am a former priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I was, I am , and I will die *CHRISTIAN.*
> 
> *PRAISE JEASUS for He is the only path to Heaven and Life Eternal.*



Yukon, why are you misspelling "Jesus"?  Is it something Canadian?


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 6, 2010)

Madeline,

Even I make mistakes on occasion. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

p.s. I never buy cookies from the Girl Guides.


----------



## del (Jun 6, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> Madeline,
> 
> Even I make mistakes on occasion. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
> 
> p.s. I never buy cookies from the Girl Guides.



does your ankle bracelet give you a shock if you approach them?

perhaps you could buy them on the internet, eh, *father*?


----------



## Intense (Jun 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe some of the experts herecan both distinguish between the Catholic and Protestant Cross, and explain the meaning of each.
> ...




The Catholic Encyclopedia
Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Archaeology of the Cross and Crucifix


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Yukon. said:
> 
> 
> > I, Yukon, am a former priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I was, I am , and I will die *CHRISTIAN.*
> ...





Intense said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



I'm familiar with the textbook approach but I was speaking more on the dynamics of the theological evolutions regarding the symbol of the Cross.

Personally, I abhor all Crosses worn as jewelry and especially the gold/jeweled Crosses because it's basically pissing all over what Christ did while people try to shower themselves in self righteous costumes.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 6, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> Madeline,
> 
> Even I make mistakes on occasion. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
> 
> p.s. I never buy cookies from the Girl Guides.



No worries, Yukon.  If you had said it was Canadian, I'd have believed you.

Please lose the mass murderer avatar; it is creeping me out.


----------



## JW Frogen (Jun 7, 2010)

Note to self; 

Never serve Ms. Madeline fava beans and nice Chianti on a first date.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 7, 2010)

"Frogen, confess.  What is this divine looking amuse bouche?"


"I'm afraid if I tell you, you won't even try it."


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 7, 2010)

Intense said:


> There are many interpretations of the cross or crucifix. You point to one of many. We agree on that one.


Yes, we do agree that it is an interpretation.  CurveLight however says such cannot be an interpretation.  



CurveLight said:


> Once again. He accepted the consequnces for his actions. If someone gets a speeding ticket and pays the fine does that make them an economic masochist?


Well, yes.  If someone knowingly speeds over a prolonged period of time, accumulating and paying off tickets, it can similarly be said to be a financially masochistic tendency. Masochism has nothing to do with accepting consequences for ones actions.  It's clear you STILL don't understand the actual meaning of the word. And look!  People who speed don't even need to "go to a house in the suburbs" to pay for sexual gratification!  Hey, you're starting to catch on now.  



> He "allowed" it because he accepted responsibility for his actions.  Do you get that yet you fucking toxic ****?  He even wanted to avoid it all together.  I'm guessing you're ignorant of the weeping prayers he engaged just prior to his arrest begging for a way to avoid the Crucifixion.
> 
> Like I said, you're the kind of whiny bitch that focuses more on posters instead of the topic and that is why you cannot debate nor be honest so I don't give a fuck what you do because you aren't worthy of concern.


And as usual, you wrap up your lack of a supported point with more useless name calling.  It's clear to me you take any opinion that differs from your own personally, which makes you incapable of discussion, or seeing another point of view.  There's a word for that you may want to look up in your fail-dictionary: blind.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > There are many interpretations of the cross or crucifix. You point to one of many. We agree on that one.
> ...




"He even wanted to avoid it all together.  I'm guessing you're ignorant of the weeping prayers he engaged just prior to his arrest begging for a way to avoid the Crucifixion."  

You ignored that because you're a dishonest fuck.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 7, 2010)

Again, you claim everything is dishonest whenever I don't address your useless unrelated ramblings.  I can shoot down every single sentence of yours but what's the point?  In this case, he did NOT avoid the pain when offered a numbing drug.  He could have lessened it but instead willingly took the full brunt of it.  You continue to exhibit your incapacity to understand the actual meaning of this word.

Let me know if there are any other useless noncontributory sentences of yours you wish me to shoot down.  In the meantime, stop whining everytime I don't address every letter.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Again, you claim everything is dishonest whenever I don't address your useless unrelated ramblings.  I can shoot down every single sentence of yours but what's the point?  In this case, he did NOT avoid the pain when offered a numbing drug.  He could have lessened it but instead willingly took the full brunt of it.  You continue to exhibit your incapacity to understand the actual meaning of this word.
> 
> Let me know if there are any other useless noncontributory sentences of yours you wish me to shoot down.  In the meantime, stop whining everytime I don't address every letter.



Pointing out Jesus begged to avoid being Crucified is "non-contributory?"  Rotfl! 

He didn't drink the wine because he chose to accept full responsibility for his actions.  Hmmmm...how many more times you need that spelled out? 

Even people who think I'm a complete asshole can see you're doing nothing but embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Intense (Jun 7, 2010)

John Chapter 17

17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:   

17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.   

17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.  

17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.  

17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.  

17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.   

17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.   

17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.   

17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.  

17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.  

17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;   

17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.  

17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 

17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.


The Holy Bible


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> He didn't drink the wine because he chose to accept full responsibility for his actions.  Hmmmm...how many more times you need that spelled out?



Which still has nothing to do with the concept of masochism.  This is going in circles.  I continually return to the actual point being made, and you continually return to irrelevant or preceding moments that don't actually have anything to do with the concept of the point.  It's sad you keep looking for excuses, but pain and responsibility are not inherently linked.  Pain and masochism is.  Further, people finding joy in the telling of this brutal story similarly holds masochistic overtones.

Even other Christians who appear to know the bible better than you agree that it is a valid interpretation.  Stop being all butt-hurt and taking it as a personal insult and just accept it.


----------



## Intense (Jun 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't drink the wine because he chose to accept full responsibility for his actions.  Hmmmm...how many more times you need that spelled out?
> ...



It is you that refuse to see what is before you so that you can go on chasing your tail. Don't let reality stand in the way of you bigotry. You are about as objective on Christianity as a Klansman at a MLKing rally.    Real main stream.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 7, 2010)

Intense said:


> It is you that refuse to see what is before you so that you can go on chasing your tail. Don't let reality stand in the way of you bigotry. You are about as objective on Christianity as a Klansman at a MLKing rally.    Real main stream.


What bigotry?  You yourself already agreed with me that one interpretation suggests masochistic overtones.  So it appears my objectivity is doing just fine.  So please point out this bigotry you mention.



			
				Intense said:
			
		

> There are many interpretations of the cross or crucifix. You point to one of many. We agree on that one.



Were you mistaken then or are you mistaken now?  Is it a valid interpretation or not?


----------



## Intense (Jun 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > It is you that refuse to see what is before you so that you can go on chasing your tail. Don't let reality stand in the way of you bigotry. You are about as objective on Christianity as a Klansman at a MLKing rally.    Real main stream.
> ...



My interpretation does not nor has ever included masochism, that you projected on your own. Beyond that, we are in agreement on the issue of cross and crucifix. From my perspective you are confusing Sacrifice with masochism. That is my issue. I presume you are Old Testament, and if true, I have no problem with that.  Your tone however suggests much disrespect to the New. Believer or not, civility goes allot farther than ridicule, true enough on both sides.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 7, 2010)

My tone says nothing of any religious literature.  The condescension is reserved exclusively for CurveLight, who seems incapable of understanding the viewpoint of others.  I wasn't even the one who originally stated that one interpretation is of masochistic overtones.  I just picked it up when CurveLight was idiotic enough to not know the meaning of the term and claim only the way he wants the bible to be interpreted is the correct way.

Willingly accepting maximum amounts of pain given the chance to lessen it, as well as people retelling the story or horrible torture in gratifying admiration says nothing good or bad of the story itself, but it still does hold masochistic overtones just as it holds feelings of grievance, torment, and injustice.  We don't get to cherry pick only the positive emotions because the story holds personal meaning unless one is seeking ignorance.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Again, you claim everything is dishonest whenever I don't address your useless unrelated ramblings.  I can shoot down every single sentence of yours but what's the point?  In this case, he did NOT avoid the pain when offered a numbing drug.  He could have lessened it but instead willingly took the full brunt of it.  You continue to exhibit your incapacity to understand the actual meaning of this word.
> 
> Let me know if there are any other useless noncontributory sentences of yours you wish me to shoot down.  In the meantime, stop whining everytime I don't address every letter.





SmarterThanHick said:


> My tone says nothing of any religious literature.  The condescension is reserved exclusively for CurveLight, who seems incapable of understanding the viewpoint of others.  I wasn't even the one who originally stated that one interpretation is of masochistic overtones.  I just picked it up when CurveLight was idiotic enough to not know the meaning of the term and claim only the way he wants the bible to be interpreted is the correct way.
> 
> Willingly accepting maximum amounts of pain given the chance to lessen it, as well as people retelling the story or horrible torture in gratifying admiration says nothing good or bad of the story itself, but it still does hold masochistic overtones just as it holds feelings of grievance, torment, and injustice.  We don't get to cherry pick only the positive emotions because the story holds personal meaning unless one is seeking ignorance.



And you claim I don't know the def of masochism.............lol


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't drink the wine because he chose to accept full responsibility for his actions.  Hmmmm...how many more times you need that spelled out?
> ...



You are a complete fucking cocksucking jackass.   You edited my post to remove where I pointed out the fact Jesus begged to avoid the Crucifixion then you straight up lie and say Christians who appear to know the bible better agree with the bullshit masochistic overtones.

Intense explained it in a nutshell that you are confusing Sacrifice for masochism and you have repeatedly ignored the fact Jesus begged to avoid the Crucifixion.  You are quite sad.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 7, 2010)

CurveLight,

You disgust me.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 7, 2010)

Anyone else wanna demonstrate their "christianity"?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 7, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't drink the wine because he chose to accept full responsibility for his actions.  Hmmmm...how many more times you need that spelled out?
> ...





Yukon. said:


> CurveLight,
> 
> You disgust me.




I'm not out of toilet paper so stop trying to kiss my ass.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 7, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Anyone else wanna demonstrate their "christianity"?



You think your glass gavel produces anything but shards of your dishonesty?  I'm a horrible example of a Christian because I don't know how to love dishonest fucks but at least I'm truthful.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 7, 2010)

How have I been less than honest CurveLight?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 7, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Anyone else wanna demonstrate their "christianity"?





Madeline said:


> How have I been less than honest CurveLight?



You've got an axe to grind and I gave you the benefit of the doubt but your endorsement of the masochistic ties to the Cross seal the deal. Oh, didn't you also accuse me of "misreading" posts yet when I proved I didn't you suddenly seemed to not care. Keep playing your games and you are an example of why I don't waste much time with calling out dishonest fucks like you.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 7, 2010)

O for pity's sake.  So what if the cross creeps me out?  I have walked away from all of christianity; it hardly seems to matter if I find the cross creepy.  (BTW, I said the Sacred Heart creeped me out, but that I could understand why the cross was as well.)

I don't understand your POV, CurveLight.  You admit that you post in a VERY un-christian manner and seem to think that's excusable so long as you only attack non-christians.  But you've offended Yukon, who has been a voice for kindness on this thread, and I don't see you apologizing to him.  Is he a "disposable christian" to you because his posts have been inconvenient?

You seem to elevate the importance of symbols to a nutty degree and downplay or discard the principles and teachings of Christ.   The fact that you find this conduct defensible or consistent with christianity is possibly more disturbing to readers than anything I could have written about the religion.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 7, 2010)

Madeline said:


> O for pity's sake.  So what if the cross creeps me out?  I have walked away from all of christianity; it hardly seems to matter if I find the cross creepy.  (BTW, I said the Sacred Heart creeped me out, but that I could understand why the cross was as well.)
> 
> I don't understand your POV, CurveLight.  You admit that you post in a VERY un-christian manner and seem to think that's excusable so long as you only attack non-christians.  But you've offended Yukon, who has been a voice for kindness on this thread, and I don't see you apologizing to him.  Is he a "disposable christian" to you because his posts have been inconvenient?
> 
> You seem to elevate the importance of symbols to a nutty degree and downplay or discard the principles and teachings of Christ.   The fact that you find this conduct defensible or consistent with christianity is possibly more disturbing to readers than anything I could have written about the religion.



What the fuck you talking about?  I'm as asshole to everyone whether they are Christian or not. My rudeness does not discriminate on anything other than bullshit positions. 

Then you claim I seem to elevate the symbol of the Cross to a "nutty" level?  You jackass. I'm the one that said precious metal and jeweled Crosses are bullshit. 

I've simply been pointing out the ignorance of claiming the Cross has ties to masochism.  That is a pure bullshit claim based on no historical facts. 

It always cracks me up how whiners complain about my not being "Christian" enough.  Fuck you. I'm not going to kiss your ass or anyone else's. If you want respect then earn by being honest and giving facts for your positions.  People like you who whine about the "Un-Christian" manner of my posts don't give a fuck about Christianity.  All you are doing is looking for another scapegoat.  You got a claim to make?  Then make it and back it up but don't fucking whine because you don't think my Christian lips are puckered up enough.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 7, 2010)

This is a thread about people who reject christianity, CurveLight.  I don't know what "facts" you expect apart from the few auto-biographical ones I have given.  Once again you seem to deliberately misread aka twist what I wrote.

I did not say you elevate the cross -- I said you elevated the importance of symbols to a nutty degree.  You remind me of a priest who would murder to protect some ruin or artifact he thinks is blessed....never seeing the error of committing a grave sin chasing after a _symbol_  of goodness.

I hardly think anyone's POV on the cross is germane to their beliefs on spirituality.  Most likely, a rejection of the symbol occurs because the viewer is repulsed by the violence of the crucifixtion, as any good christian should be.  I find your obession with the symbol odd in light of your apparent disregard for the other posters to this thread.

In your world, apparently _symbols_  matter very much to you but _people_  never do.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 7, 2010)

OK. I must be in the Twilight Zone tonight if Yukon is a voice of kindness here.  Next thing I know, Dante will make sense.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Madeline said:


> This is a thread about people who reject christianity, CurveLight.  I don't know what "facts" you expect apart from the few auto-biographical ones I have given.  Once again you seem to deliberately misread aka twist what I wrote.
> 
> I did not say you elevate the cross -- I said you elevated the importance of symbols to a nutty degree.  You remind me of a priest who would murder to protect some ruin or artifact he thinks is blessed....never seeing the error of committing a grave sin chasing after a _symbol_  of goodness.
> 
> ...



Oh holy piss balls you are an ironic piece of work.  You accused me of misreading posts but here you are doing that very thing.  I've not elevated the symbol of the Cross to a nutty level and how in the hell you can compare me to a murdering priest is bizarre.  Strike that.  It makes perfect sense because you are blinded with rage.  

Want an examle of how to use facts?  Here's one.  Jesus begged to avoid going through the Crucifixion.  That in itself proves the masochistic claim is bullshit but you keep ignoring that.  Then....lol....you say any "good" Christian should be repulsed by the violence of the Crucifixion.  People being killed on Crosses is repulsive but that doesn't mean you get ignore the events that lead up to Jesus being Crucified.

Since you obviously don't like Christianity and have walked away then what makes you think I or anyone should give a shit what your opinion is on who is or is not a "good" Christian in your eyes?

Try paying attention.  I'm pointing out the bullshit masochistic charge of the Cross because it gets used as a springboard to deride Christianity as a whole, as has been clearly proven on this thread.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You are a complete fucking cocksucking jackass.



Well this once again seems to be the only point you make.  

And once again I will point out that begging to avoid pain does not supersede the not actually doing anything to avoid it later on.  But hey, why should I try to keep helping you understand the meanings of words above your reading level?



			
				curvelight said:
			
		

> Then you claim I seem to elevate the symbol of the Cross to a "nutty" level?


Yeah you really have.  Then you reject other nutcases who do the same by saying you don't like jewel encrusted crosses.  Putting down other nutjobs doesn't make you less of one yourself.


----------



## Newby (Jun 8, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Anyone else wanna demonstrate their "christianity"?



Silence to your assinine troll posts is demonstration enough in my opinion.  Have a lovely day, Madeline.


----------



## Newby (Jun 8, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> OK. I must be in the Twilight Zone tonight if Yukon is a voice of kindness here.  Next thing I know, Dante will make sense.



Yeah, I got a good laugh out of that comment myself.


----------



## Newby (Jun 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Since you obviously don't like Christianity and have walked away then what makes you think I or anyone should give a shit what your opinion is on who is or is not a "good" Christian in your eyes?



It's not about him/her disliking Christianity per se, altho I'm sure that the baiting all stems from that. But, it's still a complete bait.  Bash Christianity, say whatever insulting things can come to your mind, degrade it's symbolism and then sit back and wait for someone to take the bait.  Quit taking the bait Curve, they're not worth the effort.  Don't feed the trolls.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Madeline said:


> This is a thread about people who reject christianity, CurveLight.  I don't know what "facts" you expect apart from the few auto-biographical ones I have given.  Once again you seem to deliberately misread aka twist what I wrote.
> 
> I did not say you elevate the cross -- I said you elevated the importance of symbols to a nutty degree.  You remind me of a priest who would murder to protect some ruin or artifact he thinks is blessed....never seeing the error of committing a grave sin chasing after a _symbol_  of goodness.
> 
> ...





SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You are a complete fucking cocksucking jackass.
> ...



Are you in the Farmers Union?  The way you cherry pick makes it look that way.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Since you obviously don't like Christianity and have walked away then what makes you think I or anyone should give a shit what your opinion is on who is or is not a "good" Christian in your eyes?
> ...



I enjoy taking the bait because I'm arrogant enough to think I can turn their agenda upside down. An example is the masochistic charge.......not one of them has addressed the fact Jesus begged in prayer to avoid it.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 8, 2010)

What do you think is the central message of christianity, CurveLight?  Do you think it in any way pertains to the symbolism of the cross?  I kinda sorta think it is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I think it's more than ironic that so many -- like you -- post to this thread to insult and annoy others and then claim they are "real" christians.  Has it occurred to you that your posts here have been a terrible advert for the religion you claim to follow?

I dunno what "agenda" you'd like this thread to step sideways into; nothing prevents you from starting a thread of your own.  It is no more necessary to twist what anyone else says than it is to insult people.  If you cannot show a modicum of respect to others, I hope you will take Newby's advice and stop posting.


----------



## Newby (Jun 8, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I dunno what "agenda" you'd like this thread to step sideways into; nothing prevents you from starting a thread of your own.  It is no more necessary to twist what anyone else says than it is to* insult people*.  If you cannot show a *modicum of respect to others*, I hope you will take Newby's advice and stop posting.





I can only laugh at the irony of your words Madeline.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


But he didn't do anything himself to avoid it. His passivity cannot be ignored. Also you are not even addressing the issue of all those who worship the cross because it somehow validates their own passivity and even glorifies it by association with a mythic figure known as much for his   humanistic teachings as for his bizarre acceptance and, one could even say, willing embrace of public humiliation and torture. 

You're not arrogant. You're just starved for attention.


----------



## Newby (Jun 8, 2010)

More trolling....


----------



## Anguille (Jun 8, 2010)

Newby said:


> More trolling....


If Christians can't take honest criticism of their religion, they shouldn't be too surprised so many are rejecting it.  

You always turn into a crybaby, Newby, whenever someone even expresses the mildest doubt about Christianity. I think that only reflects upon what must be your own repressed doubts. Most deeply religious people are able to accept other people's points of view, even if they do not agree with them. You however, seem very insecure in your faith.


----------



## Frank (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > More trolling....
> ...



It's not mild doubt or criticism that I've seen at least.  It's unadultered baiting and bashing.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 8, 2010)

Why I am not a christian: because jesus didn't smoke weed.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Since you obviously don't like Christianity and have walked away then what makes you think I or anyone should give a shit what your opinion is on who is or is not a "good" Christian in your eyes?
> ...





Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > More trolling....
> ...



It's not honest criticism when you make a claim then run away and hide.....and you accuse others of being crybabies?  Lol.....what a hypocritical bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Frank said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No, it's not even close to that. It's mainly whiny people making claims they can't support then whine when shown they are wrong.


----------



## Newby (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> You always turn into a crybaby, Newby, whenever someone even expresses the *mildest doubt about Christianity*. I think that only reflects upon what must be your own repressed doubts. Most deeply religious people are able to accept other people's points of view, even if they do not agree with them. You however, seem very insecure in your faith.



Is that what you call it?? Too funny.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You're actually condemning Jesus for choosing to accept responsibility for his actions?  If he would have chose to not accept responsibility you'd be saying he set a bad example for not being accountable.  Do you really not see how no matter what....you're doing nothing but looking for a way to bitch?

I cannot speak to how others worship the Cross and my position here is to point out your masochistic charges related to the Cross is not based on anything but your own whiny rants and it is not based on the facts.

Look at how much you lie you fucking bitch.  This is a great example because you accuse him of:

"....willing embrace of public humiliation and torture."

You say that when we have the specifics of his state of mind in the hours before he was arrested.  He begged and wept to God in prayer to avoid the torture and Crucifixion.  Keep ignoring that you dishonest fuckwad.


----------



## Newby (Jun 8, 2010)

It's a disease, she can't help herself.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...





Madeline said:


> What do you think is the central message of christianity, CurveLight?  Do you think it in any way pertains to the symbolism of the cross?  I kinda sorta think it is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> 
> I think it's more than ironic that so many -- like you -- post to this thread to insult and annoy others and then claim they are "real" christians.  Has it occurred to you that your posts here have been a terrible advert for the religion you claim to follow?
> 
> I dunno what "agenda" you'd like this thread to step sideways into; nothing prevents you from starting a thread of your own.  It is no more necessary to twist what anyone else says than it is to insult people.  If you cannot show a modicum of respect to others, I hope you will take Newby's advice and stop posting.



Newby never advised me to stop posting you dishonest shit stack.  I don't have to justify my Faith to you or anyone else and if you don't like my posts then put me on ignore.  Earlier you thanked me for my kindness and now you are whining.  Do you see any correlation between the two time periods?  Isn't it possible I was giving you respect by benefit of the doubt (hence you thanked me for being kind) and now that it is clear you have an axe to grind I'm calling you out on it and suddenly I'm not kind.  I'm not going to give you respect simply because you try to hold me emotionally hostage to how you think I should post as a Christian.

Maybe you should try posting with Johnson's Baby Shampoo?  (You know....no more tears)


----------



## Anguille (Jun 8, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > You always turn into a crybaby, Newby, whenever someone even expresses the *mildest doubt about Christianity*. I think that only reflects upon what must be your own repressed doubts. Most deeply religious people are able to accept other people's points of view, even if they do not agree with them. You however, seem very insecure in your faith.
> ...


I'm speaking about your reactions in general. You seem to have some kind of persecution complex about being Christian.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


I see what subscribing to a religion whose symbol has masochistic overtones to it has done to your mind.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I see what living in a fantasy world of strawmen has done to your (in)ability to debate.  Fucking bitches like you take your petty jabs, back away, then pat yourselves on the back.  It's a good thing Jesus loves cause you're a pure asshole.


----------



## Newby (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I think I know the difference between bullshit and civil debate that makes a valid point, which is why I won't even discuss this topic with certain people.  So, it has nothing to do with having a 'persecution complex' as you so nicely put it, but more to do with recognizing bullshit when you see it, and then avoiding it.  I do enjoy reading it tho, it amuses me.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 8, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...




That explains why you are such good pals with Curvey Delight.


----------



## Newby (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Who said we were 'pals'?  When I agree with someone, it doesn't mean we're 'pals'.  You know what they say about assumptions, don't you?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



All you've done in this thread is whine, gossip, then whine some more.....yet....maddy hasn't said a fucking thing about it.

I could ask when you're going to address the facts you've been ignoring but I'd have better luck convincing Tiger Woods that since he is a sports hero he can bang chicks on the side and never get caught.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 8, 2010)

Madeline said:


> What do you think is the central message of christianity, CurveLight?  Do you think it in any way pertains to the symbolism of the cross?  I kinda sorta think it is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> 
> I think it's more than ironic that so many -- like you -- post to this thread to insult and annoy others and then claim they are "real" christians.  Has it occurred to you that your posts here have been a terrible advert for the religion you claim to follow?
> 
> I dunno what "agenda" you'd like this thread to step sideways into; nothing prevents you from starting a thread of your own.  It is no more necessary to twist what anyone else says than it is to insult people.  If you cannot show a modicum of respect to others, I hope you will take Newby's advice and stop posting.



The Central message of Christianity is Redemption. The Gospel, or Good News, is literally that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth, suffered and atoned for the sins of the world, and Rose from the dead on the Third day in Triumph. Everything else is an apendage to that.

That's the Gospel. That's the Central message because that is what enables everything else. Because of Christ, though we die, we will yet live. Every single on of us has nothing to fear from death because Physical death has been overcome.

But that's only half of it. He has given us the ability to Repent. We can change our lives because of Him. If there is something that impedes us or holds us back, we can overcome it through Christ. He not only cleanses us of our past mistakes but empowers us to become new people of virtue and honor.

We don't have to be brought down by the weaknesses of our flesh. We don't have to be brought down by death or sickness. We don't have to be brought down by past mistakes that haunt us. We can grow. We can overcome. We can choose good because Christ makes it possible.

That is the Central message of Christianity. And the invitation goes out to all men to have faith in Christ unto repentence and be baptized for the remission of your sins. And then you can recieve the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. And the Holy Ghost will teach you all things. Literally, all things, as fast as we are capable of handling it.

There is so much beauty in the world. So much knowledge and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in it's purity and strength encompasses all of it.

I can't speak for the others about why they say or do what they do. But I've seen the power of that message first hand. I would be lying if i denied it. And who am I to deny God? I just know there are alot of things hid from the world, even those who profess faith, because they haven't prepared themselves for it. I know there is much I still have to learn. And I hope that I will continue to recieve greater light and knowledge line upon line and precept upon precept.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think is the central message of christianity, CurveLight?  Do you think it in any way pertains to the symbolism of the cross?  I kinda sorta think it is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> ...



I agree about halfway regarding the theological aspects.  Where we part is I don't buy that bullshit that people should feel bad or guilty about being......people.  The major offense practiced by the Temple was extortion through guilt and fear. Jesus condemned that system because it did not permit the love of God.  It only paid for a permit to keep the masses in the dark.

 Mainstream Christianity has become the system of fear based extortion Jesus gave his life to try and stop and prevent.  Have you ever noticed the mirror propaganda between MC and the "War on Terror?"  For decades US Christians have been referring to satan-this everywhere but nowhere always threatening force-as "The enemy.". Do you think it is a coincidence the Neocons have been focusing on using that very same term to justify the bullshit ways we (ab)use our military?  

The message of today's Christianity is not the same message that Christ brought because he did not teach us to be guilt tripping weapon toting self righteous greedy assholes. 

Fuck the Catholic church for hoarding wealth while millions suffer.

Fuck the Protestant churches for trying to condemn the Catholic church while they practice the same forms of oppression while wearing different clothes 

Fuck all churches who keep their doors locked while countless men, women, and children are left outside.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 8, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> He has given us the ability to Repent. We can change our lives because of Him. If there is something that impedes us or holds us back, we can overcome it through Christ. He not only cleanses us of our past mistakes but empowers us to become new people of virtue and honor.
> 
> We don't have to be brought down by the weaknesses of our flesh. We don't have to be brought down by death or sickness. We don't have to be brought down by past mistakes that haunt us. We can grow. We can overcome. We can choose good because Christ makes it possible.



All of those things are possible without Christ. Christianity does not have a monopoly on goodness and personal growth. Some people actually change their ways and become better people WITHOUT the carrot of eternal life being dangled in front of them.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > He has given us the ability to Repent. We can change our lives because of Him. If there is something that impedes us or holds us back, we can overcome it through Christ. He not only cleanses us of our past mistakes but empowers us to become new people of virtue and honor.
> ...





But can you blame people for seeking inspiration beyond and above themselves?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 8, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


No. Whatever floats their boat. I just get tired of people who claim their way is the only way.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





So you think they're just a stupid sucker after a carrot?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 8, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


"Stupid" and "sucker" are your words. But if people need a reward for being good, then it would seem they don't really believe in it for it's own sake.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> All of those things are possible without Christ. Christianity does not have a monopoly on goodness and personal growth. Some people actually change their ways and become better people WITHOUT the carrot of eternal life being dangled in front of them.



Really, How do you rise from the dead without Christ?

How do you recieve Divine power to overcome weaknesses without Christ?

There is no doubt that some reformation is possible without invoking God, but in order to change our very nature, we need Christ. No if ands or buts.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Of course it pisses you off because you see the absurdity of making false claims yet live in denial you don't make them yourself.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 8, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Avatar4321 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > All of those things are possible without Christ. Christianity does not have a monopoly on goodness and personal growth. Some people actually change their ways and become better people WITHOUT the carrot of eternal life being dangled in front of them.
> ...



Jesus never said that.  You're applying the commercialization of Jesus instead of being pragmatic about what he did say.  When he said "No one comes to the Creator but by me" he wasn't dehumanizing himself into a product.  Much of today's Christian theological framework is not based on what he said but rather a carefully chosen cherry picked amalgamation of verses that are often taken out of context.  This is rooted in the Nicene Creed which was formed out of seeking political power instead of biblical comprehension.   

Saying we have to "accept Jesus" for forgiveness is exactly the same theological balderdash the Temple system ran.  The changes are purely cosmetic but the underlying philosophies are the same and at odds with what Jesus taught.

One of the best examples of contemporary alienation of Jesus' teachings is found in the Lord's prayer.  He clearly stated "...forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us."  What does that one line prove?  Forgiveness is not found in "accepting Jesus" as if he were a product.  Forgiveness is not unconditional.  We can forgive each other through each other and not need to have our downfalls exploited by churches who claim an inherent authority in our lives when Jesus died to sever that illusion.  

We receive Divine power whenever we place others ahead of ourselves.  Isn't that what Jesus did?  We receive Divine power because Jesus taught we all have direct access to God whenever we want it.  What happens when we ignore basic teachings and invent our own?  A solid example is how the Catholic church mandates celibacy.  That is not a biblical instruction and Paul actually stated the exact opposite and said we should get married instead of burning with passion.  I'd guess at least some priests who diddled kids are not clinically defined pedophiles.  They just sought human interaction they chose to commit to deprive themselves of.  So what is the fallout of ignoring clear teachings?  A LOT of people got hurt and are still getting hurt.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > All of those things are possible without Christ. Christianity does not have a monopoly on goodness and personal growth. Some people actually change their ways and become better people WITHOUT the carrot of eternal life being dangled in front of them.
> ...


If you had read my post correctly you would see I did not include the rising from the dead stuff. There is no such thing as "Divine power".

I'm not particularly interested in rising from the dead, myself. I think eternal life in paradise, as lovely as it might seem when you first get there, could get pretty deadly boring after a few eons or so. I should think, that after a long and fruitful life, I will be contented and not afraid to die. 

You have a very narrow mind if you think people cannot change their nature and improve themselves unless they are followers of the Christian religion. 

"No if ands or buts."

LOL!  Such fanaticism.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> *You have a very narrow mind if you think people cannot change their nature and improve themselves unless they are followers of the Christian religion. *
> "No if ands or buts."
> 
> LOL!  Such fanaticism.



Yet he didn't say that at all.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > *You have a very narrow mind if you think people cannot change their nature and improve themselves unless they are followers of the Christian religion. *
> ...



What Avatar said was this:

"How do you recieve Divine power to overcome weaknesses without Christ?

There is no doubt that some reformation is possible without invoking God, but in order to change our very nature, we need Christ. No if ands or buts."

which is very similar to what Anguille paraphrased.   The narrow conclusion Avatar draws is no other path than Christianity is valid.  Anguille rightly asserts that goodness is not the monopoly of Christianity.
__________________


----------



## Liability (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...




She "rightly asserts" that?

Nice of you to make the ultimate judgment.  Unless, of course, you happen to be wrong.

Since most of us do not actually have a direct line to the Almighty, it is difficult for most of us to state definitively that the claim of the Christian faith that *there is but one way to the Father* is an invalid or erroneous claim.  [i.e., Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' -John 14:6]

You may fully believe that claim is wrong.  So your article of faith is different than some Christians' article of faith.  But it is, nevertheless, you who _could_ be wrong.  

As for me, I don't know nor do I pretend to know.  I'm not very devout.  Well, maybe devoutly convinced that I don't know.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



She said 'Cannot change their nature and improve themselves'.  He did not imply that or say that, he said that you don't have eternal life otherwise, nor do you receive divine power to help overcome weaknesses.  Big difference.

***************************************

Really, How do you rise from the dead without Christ?

How do you recieve Divine power to overcome weaknesses without Christ?

*There is no doubt that some reformation is possible without invoking God,* but in order to change our very nature, we need Christ. No if ands or buts.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


You must be going blind. Here, have some large print.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

What happened to ScurvyDelight?  Looks like he has turned tail and bolted from this thread. Oh well, what do you expect. 

_shrug_


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Perhas you are?  Do I really need to copy what you said? *sigh*

You have a very narrow mind if you think people cannot change their nature and improve themselves unless they are followers of the Christian religion. 

Does not equal

*There is no doubt that some reformation is possible without invoking God,* *but in order to change our very nature, we need Christ.*


----------



## Liability (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> What happened to ScurvyDelight?  Looks like he has turned tail and bolted from this thread. Oh well, what do you expect.
> 
> _shrug_



**chuckles**

ScurvyDelight.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> What happened to ScurvyDelight?  Looks like he has turned tail and bolted from this thread. Oh well, what do you expect.
> 
> _shrug_



Perhaps he's bored with your narrow minded posts?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


All you can do is argue semantics?  Didn't your god bestow you anything more divine than that?


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Semantics?   Okay.  Whatever makes you happy, girl.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

The term "we cannot change our very nature without Christ" has one meaning for Christians and another for non-Christians.  It implies that life cannot have meaning without Christ--a truism for Christians only.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...






Yes, those are my words...I ask the question because that is the impression you gave, as if Christianity is only for bizarre and delusional masochists (stupid) who are seeking after some mythical reward (sucker) ???    


Do you think it is goodness that inspires you to diminish other people's faith?







>>





Anguille said:


> Also you are not even addressing the issue of all those who worship the cross *because it somehow validates their own passivity and even glorifies it by association with a mythic figure* known as much for his humanistic teachings as for *his bizarre acceptance* and, one could even say, *willing embrace of public humiliation and torture.
> *






Anguille said:


> I see what subscribing to a religion whose symbol has *masochistic overtones to it has done to your mind*.






Anguille said:


> All of those things are possible without Christ. Christianity does not have a monopoly on goodness and personal growth. *Some people actually change their ways and become better people WITHOUT the carrot of eternal life being dangled in front of them. *


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> All you can do is argue semantics?  Didn't your god bestow you anything more divine than that?



Words mean something. Ignoring that so you can create straw men may be acceptable to you, but the rest of us don't find it productive in discussion.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 9, 2010)

"Change our very nature" is a meaningless phrase to me.  I'm not sure what quantity of change is being discussed; it seems to me this is circular.  Christians believe their lives are without meaning unless they worship Christ.  They cannot seem to accept that worship of Christ without belief is also meaningless.

This inability or unwillingness to recognize and honor the Divine in people who are not christian is one of the most damning aspects of the religion IMO.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Putdowns on either side are not helpful for the discussion.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Madeline said:


> "Change our very nature" is a meaningless phrase to me.  I'm not sure what quantity of change is being discussed; it seems to me this is circular.  Christians believe their lives are without meaning unless they worship Christ.  They cannot seem to accept that worship of Christ without belief is also meaningless.
> 
> This inability or unwillingness to recognize and honor the Divine in people who are not christian is one of the most damning aspects of the religion IMO.



'Change our very nature' would have a negative meaning for me as a Buddhist.  All beings have Buddha nature.  Why change that?  We find the nature of all beings to be pure in essence.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 9, 2010)

Once again, I don't understand why a mature adult would need the promise of eternal life/threat of eternal damnation to choose to do the right thing.  I just don't believe most people find stealing or lying all that gratifying; I think most realize it is a mistake and regret the instances where they choose badly.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 9, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Once again, I don't understand why a mature adult would need the promise of eternal life/threat of eternal damnation to choose to do the right thing.  I just don't believe most people find stealing or lying all that gratifying; I think most realize it is a mistake and regret the instances where they choose badly.





Speaking only for myself (just as every individual commenting here is doing) I can tell you that eternal damnation and or eternal life are not at all what inspires me as a Christian.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I don't understand why a mature adult would need the promise of eternal life/threat of eternal damnation to choose to do the right thing.  I just don't believe most people find stealing or lying all that gratifying; I think most realize it is a mistake and regret the instances where they choose badly.
> ...



Why not tell us what inspires you as a Christian?    I for one, am always interested in hearing about what inspires others be they Christian or non-Christian to 'keep going' and live a fulfilled life.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


Since this topic of this thread is "Why I am not a Christian" I gave some of my reasons why I am not a Christian. If you or anyone wants to take that as a condemnation of Christianity, that says more about your way of interpreting what I had to say than what I actually said. One of the reasons that I don't post much in these soerts of threads is because of the thinskinnedness of many Christians who can't accept that their symbols means other things to non Christians and that non Christians are not bound by any law to accept doctrinaire Christian meanings of symbols. I honestly don't see the value in being a Christian if you can't learn from how others feel about being a non Christian in a Christian society.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Just to take a step back for a moment, Anguille.  Can you see how a Christian may feel hurt by your view that the cross is a masochistic symbol?  Masochism is a loaded term and very negative.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > All you can do is argue semantics?  Didn't your god bestow you anything more divine than that?
> ...


Nor do I find your closemindedness productive in discussion. It's a shame that you cannot recognize that other people have different opinions than your and they might be just as valid for them as yours are for you. If it bothers you that some people chose not to be Christian, stay out of threads like this one. 

After reading stuff like I've read in this thread I have to keep reminding myself that, thank dog,  not all Christians think alike.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The term "we cannot change our very nature without Christ" has one meaning for Christians and another for non-Christians.  It implies that life cannot have meaning without Christ--a truism for Christians only.


Thanks. Now I have an idea of what is meant by that. Too bad it took a non Christian to have the sense to explain that.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


Too bad. Those are my feelings and I should not be made to feel I must suppress them because someone reading this thread might be too uncertain of their faith to handle hearing what my experience and impressions have been. 

Besides, wouldn't this just be like some Of Christ's sufferings that Christians are supposed to revere?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



No need to suppress your feelings I just wondered if you had considered how your words are heard from the other side?  You come across as if you have a chip on your shoulder the size of a boulder about Christianity.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



You are so dishonest.   You're trolling.  You say insulting things to hurt others, to get under their skin, to put them and their beliefs down in the most demeaning manner you can come up with. Yet you say you have no need for any divine inspiration, imagine that.  It has nothing to do with 'interpretation' of anything, it has nothing to so with anyone having a thin skin .  At least have the decency to own your own damn words, they are there in black and white for all to see.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...





I'm not one to turn a topic into being all about me..I feel most comfortable expressing my faith through deeds not words, nothing personal...I don't feel like I have anything to prove as if it is even a debatable topic.  I just don't like seeing people being mocked over what inspires them one way or the other, it's personal and so the stray comments become personal and deliberately hurtful only to what end?  Ego gratification?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


I've had varied reactions from Christians with whom I've discussed Christian symbols. I can never know how it will affect people. If I was a Christian, I don't think I would be surprised to hear other people don't see things quite the way I do. But then again, I'm not a Christian.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The term "we cannot change our very nature without Christ" has one meaning for Christians and another for non-Christians.  It implies that life cannot have meaning without Christ--a truism for Christians only.
> ...



I really don't think you needed it explained to you.  But whatever, keep playing dumb, I'm not buying it.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


I see you edited. I'm not really worried about how I come across to people. One place it seems you should not have to worry about being politically corect is on a message board.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Oh, I didn't consider that my follow up question as to what inspires you as a Christian would make you uncomfortable.

i think there are some 'hard edges' in this discussion and the burden to take the discussion to a 'higher ground' is with those practicing a spiritual path.  JMO.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Bingo!


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Who cares what you buy. Now go back to bashing non Christians with your pal, ScurvyDelight.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



It has nothing to do with someone not believing the same way, or having a different viewpoint.  You demean, put down, insult.  You do it deliberately, and then play dumb when someone calls you on it.  If you want to bash and insult, fine, but don't expect others to not recognize exactly what you're doing.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Honestly Anguille.  If Newby is bashing non-christians I've completely missed it.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Sorry, you're living in fantasy land.  I've never bashed anyone for what they believe or don't believe.  I've only called you out on doing that very thing every time there is a thread like this.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


She's only actually bashing me. But I find it telling and amusing in a sad sort of way that she accuses me of doing all the things that ScurvyDelight does. 

The two of them deserve eachother.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Uh no, dear, I'm simply pointing out that you are NOT the victim here, much as you like to play otherwise.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Whatever you say, Church Lady.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I'm probably the only poster on this thread who doesn't know who 'ScurvyDelight' is.  Doh, I just figured it out.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Now, in a a very Christianlike way, I will allow Booby to have the last word. Nice debating with you all even if tempers got hot.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille, if you think renaming posters in an insulting way isn't bashing then what is?


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I hope that you someday manage to lose the obvious bias that you have against people of faith, or maybe I should say 'christian faith' since I don't know your feelings on the others.  The majority are very good people who are only trying to make sense of what life is all about and do their best to make their lives and the world a better place.  Respect is the key.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 9, 2010)

With all due respect, Sky Dancer, I've found some of what Newby has written to be annoying and it seemed to me he meant it to be hurtful.  But whatever -- you're right.  There needs to be an elevation of this discussion by those who are capable of it.  Enough mud-slinging.

Newby, you seem to believe that any non-christian in my life circumstance (raised christian in the US) has to have a residue of anger towards the religion and its followers.  I truly do not think you are right, at least about me.  I am outraged by the RCC's continued efforts to suppress news of the sex scandals, etc. but outrage is not anger.

Most times, I accept or reject a person based upon their acts.  Since this is a message board, there are no acts, just words.  I think entering a thread on "Why I Am Not A Christian" to announce that all non-believers are going to Hell is counter-productive and annoying.  I'm not sure why a christian would post to this thread but it would seem to me that exemplifying the peace and better nature y'all keep claiming to have found might be a better use of your time.

All of us reading or posting here who have eliminated christianity from our lives have done so after thought and spiritual quests.  No one did so just to aggravate our parents, etc.  If you really wish to engage any of us in convo, then a tone of respect is necessary.  If you just want to bash us for failing to believe as you do (or claim to) then it seems to me the first step should be asking yourself why you feel the need to do that at all.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Where have I said that anyone was going to hell?

Another hugely dishonest post.  I've not bashed anyone for what they believe or don't believe.  Period.
Why do you have to lie to make your point?  I've seen you do it on more than one thread.  You assign people words and thoughts that they've never spoken or displayed in any way.  If I have too, I can pick your post apart just as I have done before.


----------



## Frank (Jun 9, 2010)

Madeline said:


> All of us reading or posting here who have eliminated christianity from our lives have done so after thought and spiritual quests.  No one did so just to aggravate our parents, etc.  If you really wish to engage any of us in convo, then a tone of respect is necessary.  If you just want to bash us for failing to believe as you do (or claim to) then it seems to me the first step should be asking yourself why you feel the need to do that at all.



Bash non-Believers???  You have got to be kidding!  There has been, at least from what I have witnessed and read here, a continuous bashing against Christians and their beliefs.  Not honest questioning or debate, but beligerent disrespect and belittling.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Frank-

You have to expect in a thread about 'why I am not a Christian' that non-christians will weigh in on their reasons.

As a non-christian, who is posting on this thread, I take exception to you saying that this thread is full of non-christians bashing Christians and Christianity.

If you want to be respected, be respectful.  Quite a few of us have put time and thoughtful energy into this thread.  Notice that too.  Respect is a two way street and it is_ earned._


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank-
> 
> You have to expect in a thread about 'why I am not a Christian' that non-christians will weigh in on their reasons.
> 
> ...



There's a vast difference between you, Sky, and the few others posting in this thread.  You have been very respectful.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Frank-
> ...



Thank you for the compliment.  I don't notice a vast difference between myself and the other non-christians--except for Anguille.  She gets a bit gnarly.


----------



## Newby (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Well, while Madeline attempts to come off as having honest questions, as demonstrated by her last post, she is actually very dishonest.


----------



## Frank (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank-
> 
> You have to expect in a thread about 'why I am not a Christian' that non-christians will weigh in on their reasons.
> 
> ...



I did not say "full of non-christians" because some do debate and discuss in a somewhat civilized manner.  I should have been more clear that I was referring to this entire Religion Forum and not just this particular thread only.  However, I have been careful not to use such words as "all" also because that is not the case.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 9, 2010)

Madeline said:


> With all due respect, Sky Dancer, I've found some of what Newby has written to be annoying and it seemed to me he meant it to be hurtful.  But whatever -- you're right.  There needs to be an elevation of this discussion by those who are capable of it.  Enough mud-slinging.
> 
> Newby, you seem to believe that any non-christian in my life circumstance (raised christian in the US) has to have a residue of anger towards the religion and its followers.  I truly do not think you are right, at least about me.  I am outraged by the RCC's continued efforts to suppress news of the sex scandals, etc. but outrage is not anger.
> 
> ...



You're like an unemployed Liberty University admission counselor.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 9, 2010)

Madeline said:


> With all due respect, Sky Dancer, I've found some of what Newby has written to be annoying and it seemed to me he meant it to be hurtful.  But whatever -- you're right.  There needs to be an elevation of this discussion by those who are capable of it.  Enough mud-slinging.
> 
> Newby, you seem to believe that any non-christian in my life circumstance (raised christian in the US) has to have a residue of anger towards the religion and its followers.  I truly do not think you are right, at least about me.  I am outraged by the RCC's continued efforts to suppress news of the sex scandals, etc. but outrage is not anger.
> 
> ...





Anguille said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



It's not about Christianity, symbols, or anything else.  It's about raggedy dishonest people like yourself who make bullshit claims then run and hide when you are shown wrong.  You're fucking life parasites because you pretend to be sincere just long enough to sucker people in.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille, if you think renaming posters in an insulting way isn't bashing then what is?


Ummm, where do I claim not to have bashed ScurvyDelight? Of course renaming him is bashing him or insulting him. After repeated name calling from him I decided to indulge in a a little myself. I nornally don't  bother bashing people, or calling them liars such as Booby has called me, it's doesn't seem worth the bother. But sometimes I like to give the trolls a little taste of their own medicine, especially when I come up with something amusing that I know I will get pos rep for it.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


I hope that someday you will learn to actually listen to what people are saying without jumping to the defensive and playing victim and rejecting everything they say as lies.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


You are either so ignorant that you think everyone in the world understands Christian theology or you are just playing the usual troll game of insinuating someone is a liar. Either way that makes you a less than worthwhile poster to debate with.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Madeline said:


> With all due respect, Sky Dancer, I've found some of what Newby has written to be annoying and it seemed to me he meant it to be hurtful.  But whatever -- you're right.  There needs to be an elevation of this discussion by those who are capable of it.  Enough mud-slinging.
> 
> Newby, you seem to believe that any non-christian in my life circumstance (raised christian in the US) has to have a residue of anger towards the religion and its followers.  I truly do not think you are right, at least about me.  I am outraged by the RCC's continued efforts to suppress news of the sex scandals, etc. but outrage is not anger.
> 
> ...


  Good post. I couldn't agree with the last sentance more.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > "Change our very nature" is a meaningless phrase to me.  I'm not sure what quantity of change is being discussed; it seems to me this is circular.  Christians believe their lives are without meaning unless they worship Christ.  They cannot seem to accept that worship of Christ without belief is also meaningless.
> ...


Getting back to the topic, I thought about your explanation of why Christians only think they can change their nature with help from Christ and it occured to me that their understanding of changing human nature has something to do with their idea of original sin. That is another reason I could not be a Christian. I don't believe we are born sinful.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


"Gnarly" I thought you were calling for a moratorium on insults?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Interesting.   I don't think we are born 'sinful' either.  At the same time, we're not born enlightened.  We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.  

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



LOL.  It was the kindest way I could think of desribing some of your posts.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


It seems to me that Buddhism has a more positive, perhaps even more loving view of humans than the Judeo Christian religions do.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



There are certain aspects in Buddhism that are definately positive and friendlier toward human beings.  For one thing, everything is impermanent.  Even if you earn a hell realm in your next life the negative karma of being in hell will eventually be purified.    

Christians have it easy in some respects.  They have only one hell.  Buddhists have 13, but ours are impermanent.  There are heaven realms too, but they aren't to be aspired to.  The heaven realms are impermanent and much harder lives to reach enlightenment in.  The lifetime we all aspire to is the human realm for it's unique advantages for attaining enlightenment.  The other fortunate and unique teaching to Buddhism are the teachings on emptiness.  So, in one way, we talk about these realms as if they truly existed and in another way they can be thought of as states of mind.

All beings will one day be enlightened.  We all have that potential, even the meekest or most vile creature on the earth has Buddha nature-essential purity.  We just have to wake up and realize it.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 9, 2010)

Newby, after reviewing your posts I agree...you never said all non-christians are going to hell.  My apologies.

I agree, little babies are without sin.  I don't think consciousness or personality begin to emerge before about a year and I don't think responsible choice is possible before about age six.  And even then, it isn't until adulthood (over 21) that I would hold someone 100% responsible for their choices.

This belief that we all have shame and guilt seems unhelpful to me.  We all have done things wrong, and should regret them, but I don't find shame or guilt to be positive emotions or ones that prompt change in people.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Madeline--

Since you acknowledge that having regret over misdeeds is useful, don't you consider the regret to be a necessary step in restoring a sense of wholeness to the person who has committed wrongs?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 9, 2010)

I do acknowledge that Sky Dancer.  I think not just regret, but real sorrow is called for if the misdeed is serious enough.  But I don't think trying to make children feel shame or guilt is especially useful, nor do I think many adults benefit from a free-floating sense of guilt.   Mostly, I think these emotions are destructive to people.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 9, 2010)

Toxic shame and guilt can be the basis of neurosis.   I think that some families mix the teachings of their religion with their family dysfunction.  I don't fault the religion itself.  It's a misunderstanding that sometimes occurs since it is fallible human beings after all who are interpreting the teachings.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 9, 2010)

I wouldn't know.  All the shame-flingers in my childhood were clergy.  Talk about cognitive dissonance:  being told to feel bad by someone who clearly needs to and does not.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 9, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille, if you think renaming posters in an insulting way isn't bashing then what is?
> ...



I'd be amazed if you could be honest and explain how you susbscribe masochism to Jesus when he begged to avoid the Crucifixion.  That is why I call you a dishonest bitch because you have ignored that point at least five times.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 9, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Light wrote in part:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Could you point out for me a perfect person (barring yourself of coarse... I know everyone somehow happens to be perfect in their own eyes )?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 9, 2010)

The Light, having a sense of right and wrong does not make a person perfect.  It just makes them normal.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 10, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Light, having a sense of right and wrong does not make a person perfect.  It just makes them normal.



You shouldn't post after smoking crystal meth


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Maybe it's a case of the person not thinking answering your questions is worthwhile much less concerned about what you think in the first place. 

There a people like yourself that simply aren't worth the aggravation.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Not all christians believe that either, buy hey, according to Ang, we're all the same, right?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



This is more of the stoopid childish excuses bullshit.  When fuckstarted jackasses like you know you're wrong you simply throw out any scapegoat no matter how ridiculous.  Your arrogant ignorance is particularly funny considering the fact that person is the only one on the whole thread that has specificallly requested my presence and falsely accused me of running away from the thread.

So I'm not worth the aggravation of addressing facts but I'm worth it to ask where I am.......do you get paid good money to embarrass the hell out of yourself?  I realize I've hurt your tender feelings and you can't get over it but you should realize I will not apologize for your lack of honesty or intelligence.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Not all Christians are the same.  Not all Buddhists are the same, nor atheists either.  Unfortunately, there is harm in the world done in the name of religion and people are naturally upset over it.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


Thanks. I did answer it's questions. I just did not give the answers it wanted to hear. At this point, Scurvey has passed into the realm of message board clown.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...





Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Anguish is just looking for something else to whine about.  The only good sign is unlike the ignorant masochistic charge this one is pretty accurate because while not all Christians share the same concepts of Original Sin the mainstream version is easily one of the biggest theological and practical problems of carrying over antiquated ideas into the New Testament that engender circular guilt.  This arguably negates Jesus' teachings and explains why 2000 years later Christianity very closely resembles the Temple system Jesus fought against.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


Nope. As a matter of fact, in an early post I noted that I had to keep reminding myself that not all Christians are the same. Why are you such a snide person, Newby?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Interesting. I've heard it said that Buddhism is not really a religion as much as it is a philosophy. I would suppose that would depend on what one's definition of religion is.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



State or link the post where you specifically addressed how you reconcile your charge of masochism with Jesus begging to avoid the Crucifixion.  We all know you didn't so all you are doing is hoping your dishonesty will be given a free pass because I'm an asshole.  You're pathetically transparent.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Buddhists debate whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion.  Considering that meditation is a core practice and that the teachings of Buddhism are not mere conceptual philosophy I think it falls somewhere in between.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You just contradicted yourself dumbass.  You said you are not a Christian based on your claim of the universally accepted concept of original sin.  If not all Christians are the same then not all Christians subscribe to the belief of original sin, which means......you try to figure it out.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...





Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



It's an organized religion based on the worship of existence superceding human experience.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I wouldn't know.  All the shame-flingers in my childhood were clergy.  Talk about cognitive dissonance:  being told to feel bad by someone who clearly needs to and does not.


Sky makes a great point in her post about family dysfunction and distortion of religion but so do you about the clergy. Since in organised religions it is the clergy who defines what the tenets of the religion are, then I would tend to aggree with you, that the cleary can reflect very bably on a religion.

 My thought on religion is that the ideals which have inspired the invention of religions are all well meaning but because they are created by fallible humans they are sometimes misguided. And at the very worst, they are twisted and exploited by nefarious types.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Not all Christians are the same.  Not all Buddhists are the same, nor atheists either.  Unfortunately, there is harm in the world done in the name of religion and people are naturally upset over it.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> ... *this one is pretty accurate because while not all Christians share the same concepts of Original Sin the mainstream version is easily one of the biggest theological and practical problems of carrying over antiquated ideas into the New Testament that engender circular guilt.*  This arguably negates Jesus' teachings and explains why 2000 years later Christianity very closely resembles the Temple system Jesus fought against.



Could you expand on that?  I'm not following what you're trying to say here.   What negates Jesus' teachings exactly?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year.  That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic.   It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.

That said, Buddhists are known to do prostrations around Mt Kailash in Tibet.  It's a strenuous and painful purification process but the point is to engage body, speech and mind in practice, to be wholly and fully engaged.

It's all about context, IMO.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Perhaps it represents an evolution of religion from superstition and ritual into something intellectual.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Intellect and debate are core to Buddhism.  We are taught to take nothing on faith but to question everything.  Nonetheless, confidence or faith in meditation grows out of experience.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year.  That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic.   It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.
> 
> That said, Buddhists are known to do prostrations around Mt Kailash in Tibet.  It's a strenuous and painful purification process but the point is to engage body, speech and mind in practice, to be wholly and fully engaged.
> 
> *It's all about context*, IMO.



And that's it exactly.  Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

That said then it's all of our tasks to put things in perspective by talking about context.  For example, the charge that the symbol of the cross is masochistic.  Roman Catholics display the cross in somewhat gory detail showing obvious signs of Jesus' agony while some Protestant churches merely use the plain cross.

One is not more 'right' than another, just different expressions.  The cross is a universal symbol of the Christian faith.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year.  That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic.   It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.
> ...


For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > ... *this one is pretty accurate because while not all Christians share the same concepts of Original Sin the mainstream version is easily one of the biggest theological and practical problems of carrying over antiquated ideas into the New Testament that engender circular guilt.*  This arguably negates Jesus' teachings and explains why 2000 years later Christianity very closely resembles the Temple system Jesus fought against.
> ...



The concept of Original Sin attempts to explain why people hurt themselves and each other and why evil exists.  Many claim Jesus came to make amends between us and God for OS and that is why they say "Jesus is the only way."  That was not Jesus' message or teachings.  He was saying everyone is a beautiful child of God regardless of nationality, gender, etc.  Jesus came to disabuse the concept of OS and show atonement is within ourselves through relationships with each other and that a Temple-clergy system was at odds with what "God" represents.  

As I pointed out earlier, Jesus stated forgiveness from God was conditional upon our forgiveness for each other.  People have largely ignored that out of selfishness.  What is more appealing to the masses?  Work to make amends with each other out of trying to find love for each other and being accountable or......say you "accept Jesus" and that's basically it?  The modern concept of Salvation is designed to inculcate people with OS to constantly make them feel guilty about being fallible selfish human beings.  Jesus took the opposite position and admitted our faults but did it with a license of freedom in admitting we are all fuck ups in one way or another.  By obsessing over Original Sin most people never have to opportunity to actually study Jesus' teachings and many Christians shy away from this dilemma out of being theological paralyzed by the prospect of a complete world ethos makeover. 

Buddhism is much much closer to Jesus' teachings than Christianity and it is mind blowing how Mahayana Buddhism has a Trinitarian philosophy very close to Christianity and both schools were formed about the exact same time but thousands of miles apart from each other.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Your innocent childhood reaction to the crucifix is not uncommon.  That said, there are depictions of wrathful meditational deities in Tibetan Buddhism that are quite shocking until one has teachings about them and understands what they symbolize.   Generally, these depictions of the wrathful side of compassion are hidden from a neophyte because of the misunderstandings that arise.

 Sometimes something shocking is a wake up call.  Which would you rather have?  A swat on the bottom by your mother to keep you from running out in front of that car or getting squished under its wheels.  That's an example of wrathful compassion.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



This is why I have no respect for you.  Stop trying to hide behind the child that first saw the cross because your argument has been based on the charge that Jesus "willingly embraced" the torture and crucifixion.

Do you really believe everyone can't see the fact you have always ignored Jesus begged to avoid the crucifixion?  Your dishonesty is tiresome.  Try to be honest sometimes....it's not as scary as it seems...


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



What you don't seem to get is that people do not worship the cross.  You have very little understanding or a warped understanding of the concept of christianity.  You seem to have stalled at whatever perceptions you've gotten from a minority and refuse to move away from that perception.  I think you would benefit from trying to be a little more open minded and throwing away your inaccurate perceptions or at least try to not apply them across the board.  Your perceptions of Christians are only true for a very small minority, but you don't seem to understand or believe that.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So, you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus then?  How do you then interpret all of his comments about the only way to God being through Him?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Kissing the crucifix or Jesus feet could be percieived as worshipping the cross.  It's a Catholic practice.
http://www.fisheaters.com/crucifixes.html


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



It's honoring what the cross stands for, the sacrifice for humankind so that their transgressions may be forgiven, not the tangible and physical act of crusifixion.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yes.  I agree.  It's a symbolic practice of devotion.  That doesn't mean it can't be misunderstood.  Even some Protestant religions consider that practice idol worship.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


A swat on the bottom from my mother teaches me something useful. The sight of a gory Crucifix taught me to stay the hell out of churches. I would say that Buddhists are wise to keep their depictions of the wrathful side of compassion hidden. I also believe that scary images are intended to scare people. Sort of like, if we can't win you over with sweetness and honey, we'll scare you into following our beliefs. Part of the abuse of religion that occurs in every society.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Symbols mean different things to different people. No one owns a symbol and can rightfully say their interpretation is the only one permitted. 
Regection of idol worship is one thing that makes sense to me.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



We're certainly familiar with fire and brimstone sermons in our country.  It's true that fear of consequences is what allows alot of us to keep our behavior in check.

Your early experience with the crucifix set you out on a different path of questioning.  Keep asking uncomfortable questions.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...





Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Jesus was as divine about as much as a human can be but by his own words we know he was not omniscient and he never ever said to accept him as our Saviour.  If you compare John to the synoptics you can see huge leaps of theological claims easily taken out of context.  Jn 14:6 is saying we have to follow Jesus' example.  How do you literally "accept" Jesus?  He's not a product to be accepted like a free sample cookie.  The phrase "accept Jesus" is a euphemism for "accept personal responsibility."  Do you see how that falls right in line with the Lord's Prayer in Jesus teaching that we pray our sins are forgiven as we forgive those who sin against us?

His often overlooked victory on the cross is he stood by his own teachings. His followers were extremely devoted and many lusted after a military revolt to restore the house of israel against the roman empire and its client kings that oppressed jews.  Jesus could have given the word and avoided the torture but unlike us, he was not a hypocrite.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Exactly. According to the story Jesus chose to die rather than to continue the fight. Basically he committed suicide. His choice and his to make. But not a reason to applaud his actions, IMO.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



If someone said the skull + crossbones symbol represents love, life, and an eternal supply of orgasmic quality chocolate would you respect that claim?  Obviously not. Why? It's not based on facts.  Of course everyone has the ability to ascribe any meaning to any symbol but only the dishonest pretend it's valid.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I guess you think people who are sentenced to death in a criminal court have also 'chosen to die' and 'comitted suicide' as well then?  How do you think he could have 'continued the fight' exactly?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



You're so damn dishonest I don't give a fuck what you think.  You're the kind of sick fuck that would say rape is a compliment because the rapist was so attracted to his victim he risked his freedom for sex.  You know you are being dishonest you just don't care so long as you can whine.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



She is either completely ignorant of the story of Jesus Christ, or incapable of understanding the story in the right context, or is being willfully obtuse, or is trolling.  Take your pick.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I'm convinced she doesn't give a shit about anything but striking that balance between outright trolling and taking advantage of kindness from people like Sky to try and pretend she isn't trolling.  Only trolls ignore obvious evidence then continue their pontificating.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I'm not sure whether you believe Jesus to be the son of God then? Sent by God?

So, what about John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

And for reference John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


So, you interpret that as just following his example then, not neccessarily believing that he was the son of God sent to save those who believed in Him?  Say a person doesn't believe that he was the son of God, or doesn't even necessarily believe in God, but follows Jesus' example (and not because they even know of Jesus), do you believe they will be saved then?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Anguille--

Is it possible for you to acknowledge there are teachings about the Crucifixation that you don't understand and just leave it at that?  I'm not a Christian either.  I don't interpret Jesus dying on the cross as suicide.   I have my own strange way of coming to terms with the Crucifixion from a Buddhist perspective.

In a Buddhist way, I understand the Crucifixion as a profound purification practice offered by Jesus for the sins of all people.  Jesus endured the suffering of the Crucifixion and opened his heart thinking only of others.  In that, he gives a worthy example to follow.  Now in Buddhist teachings no one else can purify our karma but ourselves.  We don't have a savior/redeemer.  We have to 'take up the cross' ourselves.  That's why there are so many purification practices in Buddhism.   While we all have Buddha nature, it is obscured and we have to clear away the dross of ignorance from ourselves.

For some of us teachings on suffering open our hearts.  At least, it worked that way for me in Buddhism.

It's possible to skip the whole Crucifixion aspect entirely and concentrate on another aspect of Jesus' life.  There is great beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and on the two great commandments--to love God with ones whole heart and to love ones neighbor as oneself.  

Prostestants don't emphasize the Crucifixion, they look at other parts of Jesus life.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



John is a tricky gospel and much of it is allegory and employs metaphors as a way of sending the message.  Jesus is the son of God as in a child of God as are all humans.  Have you ever noticed how often Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man?  That means "the human one."  John 3:16 is not ascribing a special status to Jesus as eternally unique from all people.  It is acknowledging that at that time Jesus had a unique existence in communicating between human existence and what lays beyond.  

If someone follows Jesus' example of course they are saved.  What crime did Jesus commit that prevented his salvation?  If you answer "none" then someone who followed his example would not be guilty of a crime preventing salvation either.  God does not want us to live as guilt laden creations wallowing in the sewers of our own tears drowning in the despair of never knowing the purpose of our existence and the value of our lives.  That is the philosophy Jesus fought against.  

How do you reconcile the claim forgiveness is found in "accepting Jesus" with Jesus teaching us forgiveness from God is found in our forgiveness of others?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Ironically your view of the crucifixion is more in line with the concept of Original Sin.  The crucifixion itself was not a purification.  His actions and life needed no purification.  The message he sent from the cross is even the strongest military superpowers in the world, with all of their power, weapons, brutalities, and murders, cannot conquer and kill Life.  Given the military history of the Israelites from the Old Testament, you can see how Christianity departed from the OT by fighting against injustice without violence on people.

There has been way too much theological creedence ascribed to the cross when the real theology of Jesus is found in his actions.  People following his example of non-violent resistance is the only reason we know of him today.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



So we can know Christ through the actions of Martin Luther King?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Very much so....though I doubt Jesus would have been unfaithful to his wife.  We don't remember Jesus or Dr. King for their military tactics.  They chose superior weapons as outlined in Ephesians.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> John is a tricky gospel and much of it is allegory and employs metaphors as a way of sending the message.  *Jesus is the son of God as in a child of God as are all humans.  *Have you ever noticed how often Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man?  That means "the human one."  John 3:16 is not ascribing a special status to Jesus as eternally unique from all people.  It is acknowledging that at that time Jesus had a unique existence in communicating between human existence and what lays beyond.
> 
> If someone follows Jesus' example of course they are saved.  What crime did Jesus commit that prevented his salvation?  If you answer "none" then someone who followed his example would not be guilty of a crime preventing salvation either.  God does not want us to live as guilt laden creations wallowing in the sewers of our own tears drowning in the despair of never knowing the purpose of our existence and the value of our lives.  That is the philosophy Jesus fought against.
> 
> How do you reconcile the claim forgiveness is found in "accepting Jesus" with Jesus teaching us forgiveness from God is found in our forgiveness of others?



You don't really answer my questions directly tho, so I'm still not sure what you really believe.  It sounds like you do not believe him to be a divine being then.  Do you consider him to be the only human to have lived completely without sin?  If you believe what I bolded above, how does that make him any different or special from any other person then?  What sets him apart that you would follow his example and not someone else's who also lived a selfless life?

And I'm curious as to where you come by your understanding of this?  Just your own interpretation of what you've read or something more formal than that?  I've never heard the concept that you've presented in quite the same way that you've described it before.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

I thought the whole point of Jesus was that he was human and divine and he came to teach how to be one with God through love?


----------



## Frank (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> I thought the whole point of Jesus was that he was human and divine and he came to teach how to be one with God?



Actually, his purpose was to provide those that believe in him a way to salvation.  Since the Old Testament condemns "man" based on the original sin, God sent "his son" to provide "man" with that way to be with God.  His crucifixion was taking on mankind's sins and after his death on the cross, he went into hell for man, but was able to rise up.  Thus, in a nutshell, giving "man" salvation to be eternally with God.

ed...I saw your add....and Christ's teachings are through love and compassion and him giving his life on the cross was the ultimate example of love by taking on mankind's sins.

From the way I know it anyway.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the whole point of Jesus was that he was human and divine and he came to teach how to be one with God?
> ...



Thanks.  That clarifies the difference for me between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist, Christian and non-christian.  We Buddhists don't have a redeemer.  Shakamuni Buddha pointed out the path to enlightenment but he didn't purify our karma.  We have to do that ourselves.

That said there are some similarities between Buddhism and Christianity.  We each have a role model and and teachings to follow, prayers, contemplation or meditation.


----------



## Frank (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



And what I have bolded is the differences in some "Christian" religions as well.  Some believe that penance can come through rituals while others believe that forgiveness of sin can ONLY come through Christ.  I do get concerned when people refer to most denominations as "christian".


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...



Why are you concerned that people refer to most denominations as Christian?  Aren't they Christian if they call themselves so?  And this is where some of us non-christians get confused and sometimes frustrated.  Do you allow for differences among you or is one way the right way?  How do you honor and respect each other when your practices are so different?

Who is to take responsibility for Christians who are misguided?


----------



## Frank (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Why are you concerned that people refer to most denominations as Christian?  Aren't they Christian if they call themselves so?  And this is where some of us non-christians get confused and sometimes frustrated.  Do you allow for differences among you or is one way the right way?  How do you honor and respect each other when your practices are so different?



(I'm going to preface my response by saying that this is what I have been taught and believe)

My concern is that ALL christians are viewed upon based on some radicals that are not true to Christ's teachings, thus closing their minds.  Example, Waco and David Curesh (sp?)

It's not that christians "allow" for differences.  Each domination has some nuances that differentiate themselves.  Some of those nuances are more pronounced than others.  And how I believe, it's not my place to honor or respect other religions as I was taught not to judge others.  My place is, well, to do what I'm doing right now and that is to honestly answer a query as best I know how, but in a manner that is not disrespectful.

As for responsibility, we are each responsible for our own salvation through acceptance of Christ.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you concerned that people refer to most denominations as Christian?  Aren't they Christian if they call themselves so?  And this is where some of us non-christians get confused and sometimes frustrated.  Do you allow for differences among you or is one way the right way?  How do you honor and respect each other when your practices are so different?
> ...


Ok.  I see what you mean.  It's true that all Christians get lumped together with the least skillful among you--David Koresh case in point.  It's the same with Islamic radicals who take up terrorism.  All Muslims--including the millions of peace loving ones get lumped together with terrorists.

It just shows the frustration we have with being helpless in the face of suffering and wanting someone to blame for the wrongs committed.


----------



## Frank (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



The one fact that many do not realize is that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all have their foundations in God/Allah.  All believe basically the same thing up through Abraham and his sons.  Christianity and Judasm follow the line of his son Isaac while Islam follows the line of his son Ismael (sp?).  Then, Christianity and Judaism diverge with Christ.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you concerned that people refer to most denominations as Christian?  Aren't they Christian if they call themselves so?  And this is where some of us non-christians get confused and sometimes frustrated.  Do you allow for differences among you or is one way the right way?  How do you honor and respect each other when your practices are so different?
> ...



Very well put as usual Frank.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > John is a tricky gospel and much of it is allegory and employs metaphors as a way of sending the message.  *Jesus is the son of God as in a child of God as are all humans.  *Have you ever noticed how often Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man?  That means "the human one."  John 3:16 is not ascribing a special status to Jesus as eternally unique from all people.  It is acknowledging that at that time Jesus had a unique existence in communicating between human existence and what lays beyond.
> ...



What qualities are necessary for a divine being?

How do you reconcile the claim forgiveness is found in "accepting Jesus" with Jesus teaching us forgiveness from God is found in our forgiveness of others?

These are my thoughts with various influences.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I hadn't heard that before.  Where does it come from?  I like it.


----------



## Frank (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



In The Lord's Prayer...



> "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us"


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 10, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I've heard and even recited the Lord's prayer many times in my youth and never understood it to mean that forgiveness from God is found in our forgiveness of others.


----------



## Frank (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> I've heard and even recited the Lord's prayer many times in my youth and never understood it to mean that forgiveness from God is found in our forgiveness of others.



I learned that meaning later on in life.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I don't think one necessarily correlates to the other either.  There are many places in the Bible that would indicate that forgiveness from God does not solely come because you practice forgiveness in your own life.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So you do not understand what it is to 'accept Jesus' then?  Do you believe in baptism?


----------



## Frank (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...



I agree that God's forgiveness doesn not "solely come" from our ability to forgive others, but I do think that it is one thing that we must do to receive His forgiveness.


----------



## Newby (Jun 10, 2010)

Frank said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I agree, but Curvelight seems to think that is the entire meaning of the message from Jesus, at least that is how I'm interpreting his comments.  There are so many other things in the Bible that he is overlooking, but he's not really explained how he's reached his conclusions either.  I asked about John 14:6 and how he would explain what Jesus meant, but he didn't really answer when I asked.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



A conversation is a two way street.  Right now you're on One Way Highway.  I will not answer any more of your questions until you have addressed mine.

I fully understand what is meant by "accepting Jesus" so please don't arbitrarily ascribe ignorance. 

I've fully answered your question about Jn 14:6 but am too apathetic to look up the exact post....it was on the last page I believe.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard and even recited the Lord's prayer many times in my youth and never understood it to mean that forgiveness from God is found in our forgiveness of others.
> ...



You're way ahead of me....I'm still a major fucking asshole.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No. I never said that was the entire meaning. I pointed to that in response to the claims in Jn 14:6 + 3:16.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



no kidding!


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


He had the opportunity to get away.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


 Exactly who here is being dishonest?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Exactly why should I "leave it at that"?  I think you expecting me to be politically correct again. Bible stories are open to interpretation to everyone, though some Christians seem to disagree. Maybe you are not able to understand my take on the Crucifixion story because you were raised RC?

You seem to think I base my opinion on this Jesus character solely on what he does at the end of the story. I approve of many of the things he did in much of the book. He was also arrogant and a real crankypants in other parts. He was human. He was not perfect.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Frank said:


> him giving his life on the cross was the ultimate example of love by taking on mankind's sins.
> 
> From the way I know it anyway.


  So Jesus was a sin-eater. That's a very pagan concept.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



You fucking trolling bitch.  What the hell was so ambiguous when I said I don't give a fuck what you think?  I wasn't joking.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


It sounds a bit like the concept of karma.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


I can see that you don't give a fuck what I say.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 10, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Light, having a sense of right and wrong does not make a person perfect. It just makes them normal.


 
So you are saying there is no one perfect (i.e. imperfect = normal), yet you said that anyone could fulfill the law and do good if they wanted to. These two don't add up.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 10, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


 
No, because when push comes to shove it is Jesus in us that enables us to walk his path. And not only that, but we must be redeemed by his blood. As you stated in one of your later posts, Jesus is the only way. Why? because we must be reborn into a clean bloodline; one free from the sin nature inherited through the first Adam. This can only be done through Jesus. There is no other way to salvation.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood... Leviticus 17:11


----------



## Argene (Jun 10, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> No, because when push comes to shove it is Jesus in us that enables us to walk his path. And not only that, but we must be redeemed by his blood. As you stated in one of your later posts, Jesus is the only way. Why? because we must be reborn into a clean bloodline; one free from the sin nature inherited through the first Adam. This can only be done through Jesus. There is no other way to salvation.
> 
> For the life of the flesh is in the blood... Leviticus 17:11



"Christians and your bloody religion!"  I have heard that a hundred times.  So that is the verse that it applies to????


----------



## Argene (Jun 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



My goodness!  So much wrath and animus. Usually that happens when somebody has a drinking problem, but since I do not know who the other party is I will hold off in making that assumption.  But you sure look suspect. Have you ever been to an anger managment class?


----------



## Frank (Jun 10, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > him giving his life on the cross was the ultimate example of love by taking on mankind's sins.
> ...



And it was so civilized today.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 10, 2010)

Argene said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > No, because when push comes to shove it is Jesus in us that enables us to walk his path. And not only that, but we must be redeemed by his blood. As you stated in one of your later posts, Jesus is the only way. Why? because we must be reborn into a clean bloodline; one free from the sin nature inherited through the first Adam. This can only be done through Jesus. There is no other way to salvation.
> ...


 
You either accept the price he so graciously paid for us or not. The choice is yours. But if I were you, I wouldn't hesitate to give some thought to your eternal destiny at a minimum. And who knows, maybe along the way you will see the light and realize how much your Creator and eternal Father in heaven cares for you. But remember, there is only one way to the Father and that is through the LORD Jesus Christ.


----------



## rikules (Jun 10, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Argene said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...




"You either accept the price he so graciously paid for us or not."


price?

what price?

seems to me that god and jesus merely faked jesus' death....

i mean
jesus IS the son of god, right?

and had all these powers...

so

I imagine you can't actually kill the son of a god...

i'll bet he doesn't even feel pain.....


the whole thing was a  plant
a fake
a staged event

like the moon landing 

"But if I were you, I wouldn't hesitate to give some thought to your eternal destiny at a minimum. ""
But remember, there is only one way to the Father and that is through the LORD Jesus Christ."

and this is where we part company

you seem to think that this makes sense....

I mean.....eternal damnation?

fiery pits of hell?

the torment of demons?

are these the acts of a sane person?

you actually RESPECT and LOVE a god that would do these things?

this god is a sick and deranged son of a bitch...

and you are WORSE for worshipping this nazi

good and decent people
whose worst crimes are that they had sex outside of marriage
or smoked pot
or merely didn't believe in the existance of a god

do NOT deserve such horrendous punishments!

THAT......
is SICK!

even if your god existed (this extremely deranged, angry and overly punitive devil that you present as your chosen deity)
I would REFUSE to worship him on principle!

unlike YOU
I have morals and ethics

unlike YOU
I will NOT sell my soul to a deranged god simply out of fear


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 10, 2010)

rikules said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Argene said:
> ...



You say that because you don't know Him. You have let your pride blind you to the actual state of man.

You think you are good? You think any of us are good? Are you honestly, telling me that you've lead a life of perfection?

You don't understand that to become like God, to inherit everything He has, we have to be perfected. And we can't do that without Him to help us.

It doesn't matter how small the imperfection, imperfection aka sin will keep you from becoming like God. You can only progress so far, and then you will be stopped or damned because you will cease to grow. That is why the Atonement was provided. So that we can overcome those limitations.

But what good is the gift if you don't accept and use it? What good is a phone if you don't call people with it? What good is a book if it's not read? What good is a bed if you sleep one the ground?

You can claw at the wall all day long, but until you walk over and climb up the ladder, you won't get to the top.

You are also wrong about our motivations. When you have felt the love of God, thoughts of damnation leave. When you experience His power, you can't help by rejuice by the pureness, goodness that exists. You are literally empowered to do anything that you need to do. Perfect love casts out all fear.

Ironically, your own post admits that Christ rose from the dead. And thankfully He did because without them we would be dead forever, having no redemption from physical death.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 11, 2010)

"You don't understand that to become like God, to inherit everything He has, we have to be perfected. And we can't do that without Him to help us."
It's amazing that you guys can live your whole lives in a certain way because you read something in a book to which you associate some sort of magical powers. I tip my hat to you for your dedication to a fictitious novel. I guess it's better than dressing up like Harry Potter and trying to ride a broom.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

JoLouis said:


> "You don't understand that to become like God, to inherit everything He has, we have to be perfected. And we can't do that without Him to help us."
> It's amazing that you guys can live your whole lives in a certain way because you read something in a book to which you associate some sort of magical powers. I tip my hat to you for your dedication to a fictitious novel. I guess it's better than dressing up like Harry Potter and trying to ride a broom.



Maybe you should ask yourself why you care so much how people conduct their entire lives that you need to insult and belittle them.  Does that somehow make you feel better, like you're surperior to them?  I don't understand how people can be hurtful to others who are doing nothing to hurt them, all because they have a different viewpoint about the meaning of life.  So, guess that makes us even.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 11, 2010)

Argene said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I teach anger management.  What other bright observations do you have today?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Argene said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


Sez you.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


And what of your own pride?  You are so certain that you are right and that whatever it is that you have experienced is right for everyone else. I pity fools like you.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

JoLouis said:


> "You don't understand that to become like God, to inherit everything He has, we have to be perfected. And we can't do that without Him to help us."
> It's amazing that you guys can live your whole lives in a certain way because you read something in a book to which you associate some sort of magical powers. I tip my hat to you for your dedication to a fictitious novel. I guess it's better than dressing up like Harry Potter and trying to ride a broom.


  I think Harry Potter is cuter than Jesus.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Newby said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> > "You don't understand that to become like God, to inherit everything He has, we have to be perfected. And we can't do that without Him to help us."
> ...


Do you not see how you insult and belittle others yourself?  Or are you above blame because you have "The Lord" on your side?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Argene said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


You must have a unique approach.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

JoLouis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...


He has probably found something in the Bible which gives him free license to be one.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Argene said:
> ...



Exactly, that's his viewpoint.  You have yours, he has his, I see no need to belittle what he believes or how he feels.  His opinion isn't affecting your life in any way, just like yours isn't affecting his.  See how simple it is?   Why people are so thin skinned and defensive that they have to hurl insults is what is puzzling.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Frank said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...


Thanks for the neg rep, Frank. So loving and Christian of you. 

If you think Christ's message was new and original you have vast gaps of knowledge.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


So why do you continue to insult me? To call me a liar when I express my opinions and to encourage ScurvyDelight's abuse of me and others? Are only those whose opinions you approve of allowed respect? You are always on the defensive, Newby. I think your faith must be very fragile, thus your need to play victim.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



  So what?  You think he's wrong, and no one is forcing you to do anything.  Yet here you are calling him a fool for stating his beliefs.  You've got to tear him down to make yourself feel better?  I think you need to reconsider who might be in need of pity.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 11, 2010)

Argene said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Newby said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> > "You don't understand that to become like God, to inherit everything He has, we have to be perfected. And we can't do that without Him to help us."
> ...



Did you ever address how Jesus said we are to pray to God for forgiveness as we forgive others?


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > JoLouis said:
> ...



You show where I've thrown the first insult.  You've had others on here point out to you the absolutely huge chip you have on your shoulder and how crass and insulting you are, yet you continue to chose to ignore their comments as well. You have rationalizations for everything, don't you?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



You are drawn to this thread like a moth to the flame. You just can't stay away. Sorry that you don't approve of non Christian's sharing their thoughts but these things are permitted at USMB. Try to deal.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Where have I called you a liar?  I've only called you out on your obvious bias and trolling.  

And I leave playing the victim to you sweetie, you do it so well.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



   That takes balls talking about me not staying away from this thread, take a look in the mirror dear. 

And don't put words into my mouth that I didn't say.  I have never once said I didn't approve of non Christians sharing their thoughts, it's you who attacks and bashes every christian on here who dares to show their thoughts.  Every comment that's been made by a christian in this thread has been responded to by you with insults and bashing.  It's in black and white for all to see and read.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


You are only one playing that, "you have a chip on your shoulder" card. You have been obnoxious to me in other similar threads. You seem to be the one with some kind of chip on her shoulder. Why is it you don't accept that some people chose not to be Christian?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



You don't simply "express" your opinion you dishonest fuck.  You troll then play victim every single time.  Then....lol....you accuse others for having thin skin while claiming I "abuse" you and others.  

This

Is

A

Fucking

Message

Board

How in the hell in your twisted play-the-victim world you can fit "abuse" into your fantasy world is amusingly sad.

"Whaaa!  Whaaa!  Curvelight called me a name!  Mom.  Mom!  Mommieeeeeee!  I need (sniff sniff, swallows hard) a new band-aid!  Mommieeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!"


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Why do you have to attribute opinions to others that they don't have?  Is that the best you got? I've responded to you here and in other threads when you start your trolling and bashing of those that don't think like you do, then you turn around and try to play the victim just as you are here.  Your MO is well known.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


You're too clever to say liar out right. You just call me dishonest and say I pretended not to know Christian theology. But it's the same thing. I wish some Christians with an honest desire to debate and understand other points of view would join this thread. But it seems like the more intelligent and rational ones are avoiding it. Perhaps they do not want to be seen in bad company such as yourself and CurveBall.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

All I can say, Newby, is you got issues!


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



No, I have no idea what background you have.  All I see is an apparent hatred towards anything Christian, so I speculated on several different things.  Judging by your posts and your reponses, you have no clue, nor do you desire too, what meaning the Bible has.  So, instead of educating yourself and having an open mind, you just continue to insult others who have found peace and value in it.  Only you know the answer as to why that is.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Cop out, but whatever.  Go back and read any sincere post on here by a Chritian trying to explain how and why they believe as they do and look at your responses to them.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> All I can say, Newby, is you got issues!



  Yeah, you go with that if it makes you feel vindicated.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Dream on. Your insults are juvenile. 

I'm actually beginning to believe you are doing a satire of religious nut. If so, Bravo!


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Degrading and insulting those who have beliefs.  Yet you're the 'victime' here, right?  It's such a knee jerk reaction with you that you don't even recognize you're doing it apparently.  But, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 11, 2010)

This thread is done


----------



## Madeline (Jun 11, 2010)

CurveLight, if you are done posting to this thread, that's fine (though I don't know why you'd need to announce it).  I think everyone else can decide for themselves if the convo still has value.

I have a question for Newby:  there does seem to be some anger in what you've written.  I won't say it hasn't been provoked, but I wonder -- why on a thread about spirituality are so many people so angry?  As for being open minded and "learning what the bible says", isn't that a sub rosa way of insinuating only christians "have it right"?   I don't see the mutual respect from you I had hoped to.  It seems to me that almost all the christians who have replied (and no, Newby, I don't expect you to speak for anyone else) strongly believe that the beliefs of non-christians are defective and they will suffer for holding them.   Is that how you feel?  Can you understand why others would be put off by such a belief?  I'm unsure why it is essential to your belief system that you form opinions about what will happen to me and others like me.....I have all I can do to manage the ethos of my own life.   I don't understand how you can embrace a belief that this is not just right for you, but for everyone else -- and they'll suffer if they don't share your belief.

Is it really so hard to understand why someone might examine christianity in detail and still reject it?  For some people, like me, the concepts and rules and symbols just do not resonate -- is that a basis on which to condemn anyone?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Madeline said:


> CurveLight, if you are done posting to this thread, that's fine (though I don't know why you'd need to announce it).  I think everyone else can decide for themselves if the convo still has value.
> 
> I have a question for Newby:  there does seem to be some anger in what you've written.  I won't say it hasn't been provoked, but I wonder -- why on a thread about spirituality are so many people so angry?  As for being open minded and "learning what the bible says", isn't that a sub rosa way of insinuating only christians "have it right"?   I don't see the mutual respect from you I had hoped to.  It seems to me that almost all the christians who have replied (and no, Newby, I don't expect you to speak for anyone else) strongly believe that the beliefs of non-christians are defective and they will suffer for holding them.   Is that how you feel?  Can you understand why others would be put off by such a belief?  I'm unsure why it is essential to your belief system that you form opinions about what will happen to me and others like me.....I have all I can do to manage the ethos of my own life.   I don't understand how you can embrace a belief that this is not just right for you, but for everyone else -- and they'll suffer if they don't share your belief.
> 
> Is it really so hard to understand why someone might examine christianity in detail and still reject it?  For some people, like me, the concepts and rules and symbols just do not resonate -- is that a basis on which to condemn anyone?



You're being a hypocrite and dishonest.  You don't say a fucking word when Christianity is bashed.  I can't speak for anyone else but my anger is not from any position.  It's from the fact people make claims to try and justify their bashing but ignore relevent facts.  It also comes from deception being practiced by people like you.  Don't try to pretend you're rolling on some high ground.  You've seen messed up shit posted in this thread and as long as it was directed in line with your agenda you didn't say shit.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 11, 2010)

That might be a fair criticism, CurveLight -- but anger at christians is obviously not directed at me.  What would you like me to do?  Take anyone who insults someone else on this thread to the woodshed?  I think you've been out of line, and so have others.  Maybe I have as well...I did say Newby claimed all non-christians were going to hell and that was an error.

Quite apart from trying to play the "USMB Miss Manners", a role that obviously does not suit me, I rather prefer to engage in the conversation.  At the moment, I am hoping for a reply to this question:

Why's it necessary for any christian to form a belief about the worthiness of anyone else's beliefs?  I don't have an opinion about yours, not if you invested time and sincere effort in forming it.  So why's there so much effort made by christians on judging others, rather than on focusing on their own personal spiritual growth?


----------



## blu (Jun 11, 2010)

I am not a christian because I am capable of critical thought


----------



## Madeline (Jun 11, 2010)

Are you insinuating that no christian is equally capable, blu?  Or that critical thought is the only reasonable baiss for forming spiritual beliefs?

Seems to me there's a bit too much "my way is the best" self-congratulatory bullshit going on here.  I find it had to believe everyone is so at peace with their own beliefs they have all this time left to ponder and judge the beliefs of everyone else.


----------



## blu (Jun 11, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Are you insinuating that no christian is equally capable, blu?  Or that critical thought is the only reasonable baiss for sorming spiritual beliefs?
> 
> Seems to me there's a bit too much "my way is the best" self-congratulatory bullshit going on here.  I find it had to believe everyone is so at peace with their own beliefs they have all this time left to ponder and judge the beliefs of everyone else.



no it was actually just a post to encite people. I figured newby would have went crazy on me by now. I know plenty of critical thinking christians and try not to paint with a broad brush


----------



## Frank (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Actually, I prefer to think of what I did as a rather calm and gentlemanly way of telling you that I personally did not appreciate what had been some thoughtful and respectful question and answering earlier in the day turn into yet another sarcastic display filled with ridicule.

Example - never did I say it was "new or original" and then you lop on the "vast gaps of knowledge" comment to bait me.  Not this time.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 11, 2010)

What seems so odd to me is that a discussion of our fundamental beliefs about the human experience is verging into terrible anger so much.  In my experience, most anger is about fear.  The only fear I can imagine behind all this is the fear that we are wrong, that we believe in error.  I dunno why Frank felt he needed to neg anyone on this thread, or why blu is mad at anyone else.  I've been impatient with CurveLight for his insults and for trying to derail the convo, but angry?  No, I can't say I've really been angry at him.  It seems pretty unlikely I'll ever be angry at anyone on USMB merely for what they write -- and if ever I do, I'll stop reading this board awhile, because that is 'net stress.  It's a disproportionate response.  Anger should be about a real life threat or injury -- not anonymous words on a message board.

I've had doubts myself.  I've tried a few times in my adulthood to reconnect with the RCC so I could bathe in the rituals and beliefs and enjoy that wonderful feeling of reconciliation with one's traditions.  I just could never get it to work; I'd find myself at Mass, listening to some hypocritical homily and feeling the old disgust...or worse, wondering why the experience was meaningless to me when it apparently had meaning for others.

Ultimately I have always concluded the same:  I am meant to puzzle this out on my own.  There is no playbook.  I cannot wholesale import a belief system and expect it to fit comfortably.  Instead, I have to build one based upon reflection and study and experience.

It seems to me that many christians here on this thread have done almost the same thing, except that they have a bias in favor of resolving any open question in a way that is consistent with their preference for christianity.   I don't knock it, but I will say this.

For thirteen years, I tried to make a broken marriage work by any means EXCEPT divorce.  That was an option I would not consider, as I had a child.  One day, the scales fell from my eyes and I realized that ONLY divorce would solve our problems.  When you begin a quest for fundamental answers by blinding yourself to some possibilities, you may never get close to real truth.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Frank said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...


Neg rep is petty. Nothing gentlemanly about it. I think you just don't like the fact that that I pointed out that sin-eating was not invented by Christians.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Madeline said:


> When you begin a quest for fundamental answers by blinding yourself to some possibilities, you may never get close to real truth.


----------



## Frank (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Petty.  It's a message board.  It beats me flying off the handle, so yes, it is gentlemanly.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 11, 2010)

Frank said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...


If it was a way to avoid beating your kids or somebody then I'll gladly take it. I have yet to reach the level of anger and resentment a few of you Christians have reached in this thread. I hope I never do. I'd certainly leave the thread and take some time for reflection if I did. 

You guys are not setting a good example of how being a Christian could improve a person's life or make them a better person. In the OP, Madeleine mentions being mistreated by members of the RC clergy. Sounds like you might have the same anger problems they did.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 11, 2010)

I don't happen to see repping -- neg or pos -- as especially important.  I don't give a flying fuck what my rep numbers are and likely never will.  It is not my goal to overcome anyone else's POV with mere "popularity"; either they find what I have to say persuasive or they don't.  Nonetheless, most neg reps I have received have been insulting and I always wonder -- why not merely post this opposing POV on the thread rather than sneak around and whisper to me that we disagree?

What I am asking is this -- for those of you who've been angry enough to insult others on this thread, why?  Are you inflamed at the idea that not everyone believes as you do?  Do you feel that your beliefs were disrespected?  Do you want or need or feel entitled to respect for your beliefs because they are mainstream?  I'm not a christian.  I don't value christian symbols.  Seems easy enough to grasp -- why's it so offensive?

In case no one has noticed, I don't think a single other person on USMB believes as I do -- that God exists _but there is no afterlife_.   I don't feel any special need to persuade anyone else to join me in my beliefs, but I enjoy discussing with others who do not share them the various ways we see things.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CurveLight, if you are done posting to this thread, that's fine (though I don't know why you'd need to announce it).  I think everyone else can decide for themselves if the convo still has value.
> 
> I have a question for Newby:  there does seem to be some anger in what you've written.  I won't say it hasn't been provoked, but I wonder -- why on a thread about spirituality are so many people so angry?  As for being open minded and "learning what the bible says", isn't that a sub rosa way of insinuating only christians "have it right"?   I don't see the mutual respect from you I had hoped to.  It seems to me that almost all the christians who have replied (and no, Newby, I don't expect you to speak for anyone else) strongly believe that the beliefs of non-christians are defective and they will suffer for holding them.   Is that how you feel?  Can you understand why others would be put off by such a belief?  *I'm unsure why it is essential to your belief system that you form opinions about what will happen to me and others like me*.....I have all I can do to manage the ethos of my own life.   I don't understand how you can embrace a belief that this is not just right for you, but for everyone else -- and they'll suffer if they don't share your belief.
> 
> Is it really so hard to understand why someone might examine christianity in detail and still reject it?  For some people, like me, the concepts and rules and symbols just do not resonate -- is that a basis on which to condemn anyone?



The minute that you stop forming opinions about me and my belief systems, then maybe you can talk.  Pot meet kettle.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Well said.  They're allowed to sling shit all they want, but then turn judgemental when it's slung back, questioning why we're being judgemental.  They should look in the mirror.


----------



## Newby (Jun 11, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



What's sad is that no one is angry, except maybe Curve.  You're not worthy of my anger, never will be.  You have more my sympathies than anything else.  You have a lot of anger and hatred, unwarrented, towards anything christian.


----------



## nraforlife (Jun 11, 2010)

Madeline said:


> .................1.  If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world?  .............





because combat against your sort builds the Faith & Character of the Elect for the Long Haul aka Eternity. Your short and ultimately futile existence (and all like you) will be imvisible in the Bright LIght of Eternity.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 11, 2010)

> Newby wrote:
> 
> The minute that you stop forming opinions about me and my belief systems, then maybe you can talk. Pot meet kettle.



Fair enough.  In your view, what lies beyond death for non-christians?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 11, 2010)

nraforlife said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > .................1.  If God is Omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world?  .............
> ...



I'm not following you, nraforlife.  The presence of Evil in the world "builds Faith"?  How?  Wouldn't it be a little easier to believe in God if you looked around and saw more Justice?

BTW, I don't see you and I as enemies.  Why do you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2010)

Madeline said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Might've had something to do with the nasty, combative, hostile tone of your OP.

I'm just saying . . .


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 11, 2010)

nraforlife said:


> because combat against your sort builds the Faith & Character of the Elect for the Long Haul aka Eternity. Your short and ultimately futile existence (and all like you) will be imvisible in the Bright LIght of Eternity.


That is sick reasoning.  It's like saying getting assaulted or living in filth as a child helps build character and that it's a good thing.  No.  



Anguille said:


> You guys are not setting a good example of how being a Christian could improve a person's life or make them a better person. In the OP, Madeleine mentions being mistreated by members of the RC clergy. Sounds like you might have the same anger problems they did.


Yeah it's kind of sad that the people representing Christianity in this thread are raving lunatics and clearly not following the teachings of their religion.  Don't see them as representative.  




THE LIGHT said:


> You either accept the price he so graciously paid for us or not.


Someone else questioned this as well.  Graciously?  I must have missed which part of being unwillingly arrested and tortured to death is gracious. Please clarify.



CurveLight said:


> I teach anger management.  What other bright observations do you have today?


False.  Getting out your anger by lecture/yelling at your pet guinea pigs is not teaching anger management.  Why are you so stoopid and dishonest?



THE LIGHT said:


> No, because when push comes to shove it is Jesus in us that enables us to walk his path. And not only that, but we must be redeemed by his blood.


And "by his blood" you're referring to the wine you believe is magically transformed into blood because some dude in a white cape waves his hand over it while you're on your knees?  Or those little wafers are part of his body?  Do you even realize the cannibalistic undertones of these ceremonies?  Do you even realize the Jesus wafers are made in a packing plant next to the Jersey shore?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 11, 2010)

> Cecille wrote:
> 
> Might've had something to do with the nasty, combative, hostile tone of your OP.
> 
> I'm just saying . . .



I am sorry you were offended, Cecille.  I tried to be honest but it wasn't written to annoy christians.  How would you like for me to phrase "I find some of this just plain ridiculous"?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > Cecille wrote:
> >
> > Might've had something to do with the nasty, combative, hostile tone of your OP.
> >
> ...



You could start by recognizing that no one ever requested you to pass judgement on the validity of other people's beliefs in the first place.  In short, get over yourself.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 12, 2010)

So lemme see if I understand you correctly.  Christians must be accommodated to such a degree that non-christians should not even voice their beliefs?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 12, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You could start by recognizing that no one ever requested you to pass judgement on the validity of other people's beliefs in the first place.  In short, get over yourself.


Hi there.  It looks like you're new here, so I wanted to take this opportunity to welcome you to THE INTERNET. 

All people are created equal.  Beliefs are not.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 12, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Someone else questioned this as well. Graciously? I must have missed which part of being unwillingly arrested and tortured to death is gracious. Please clarify.


 
I didn't say gracefully, I said graciously. He didn't have to do it for us but he did.

And no, it was not "unwillingly" but willingly that he gave his life up for us.



> And "by his blood" you're referring to the wine you believe is magically transformed into blood because some dude in a white cape waves his hand over it while you're on your knees? Or those little wafers are part of his body? Do you even realize the cannibalistic undertones of these ceremonies? Do you even realize the Jesus wafers are made in a packing plant next to the Jersey shore?


 
That which is spirit is spirit. That which is flesh is flesh.

No, what I am referring to is the blood that Jesus shed for us on the cross. The blood that washes you clean when you accept Him as your savior.

He said to take communion often in "remembrance." The grape juice is grape juice and the crackers are crackers, but what they represent is the blood shed for us. The crackers, be they crackers, are not just simple crackers, but rather as part of the whole passover Seder they are a perfect representation of the death of Christ. And to think the passover was instituted centuries before Christ but foretold his sacrifice for us. Amazing ain't it.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 12, 2010)

Anguille said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Argene said:
> ...


 
Yes, sez me, and G-d, and a whole bunch of other people that have seen the light. But that isn't what matters. What matters is that you find out your eternal destination on your own. All I am saying is that you search it out and you do it soon; because it IS that important. Eternity is a really long time, so I would venture to say that it is something worth researching with an open heart. 

We know that time is the 4th dimension in which we live, but time as we know it is running out. The creator of the universe and time itself is fulfilling what he said he would according to His Word. All of our lives are as a vapor just as he says in James 4:14. Death is something that we are all certain of, but are you certain of where you are going when you die? Time is scientifically not constant but varies and is just something our mortal flesh is stuck in. We also know that everything before our eyes is made up of things which are not seen just as the Bible says in Hebrews 11:3. Scientists cannot tell you what holds an atom together but I can.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 12, 2010)

The Light, do you seriously revise scientific facts with religious dogma?  Why?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Someone else questioned this as well. Graciously? I must have missed which part of being unwillingly arrested and tortured to death is gracious. Please clarify.
> ...




This is fallout from people buying poor biblical exegesis.  Jesus did not say "do this in rememberence" because he wanted cannibalism to be symbolized.  He was saying they should break bread together in Peace in rememberance of his teachings.  There was a lot of strife between the 12 disciples as well as many other groups and this is easily seen in the epistles written after the crucifixion.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Someone else questioned this as well. Graciously? I must have missed which part of being unwillingly arrested and tortured to death is gracious. Please clarify.
> ...





Madeline said:


> That might be a fair criticism, CurveLight -- but anger at christians is obviously not directed at me.  What would you like me to do?  Take anyone who insults someone else on this thread to the woodshed?  I think you've been out of line, and so have others.  Maybe I have as well...I did say Newby claimed all non-christians were going to hell and that was an error.
> 
> Quite apart from trying to play the "USMB Miss Manners", a role that obviously does not suit me, I rather prefer to engage in the conversation.  At the moment, I am hoping for a reply to this question:
> 
> Why's it necessary for any christian to form a belief about the worthiness of anyone else's beliefs?  I don't have an opinion about yours, not if you invested time and sincere effort in forming it.  So why's there so much effort made by christians on judging others, rather than on focusing on their own personal spiritual growth?



Shouldn't matter if it's directed at you or not.  You want to police posts by Christians but give everyone else a free pass.  You've noticed this and made an effort to be more even keel as shown by your response to blu.

The reason I called out the bullshit masochistic charge is the same reason I call out people who claim islam was founded by a pedophile.  Bullshit excuses to justify bigotry deserve to be called out regardless of the target.


----------



## nraforlife (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> .......................................Wouldn't it be a little easier to believe in God if you looked around and saw more Justice??



define justice



Madeline said:


> .....................................BTW, I don't see you and I as enemies.  Why do you?



clearly you have chosen your side and I have chosen mine.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 12, 2010)

And?  Holding different beliefs makes us enemies IYO?


----------



## nraforlife (Jun 12, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> > because combat against your sort builds the Faith & Character of the Elect for the Long Haul aka Eternity. Your short and ultimately futile existence (and all like you) will be imvisible in the Bright LIght of Eternity.
> ...



YES

Romans 8:28 (New International Version)

More Than Conquerors 
 28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[a] who* have been called according to his purpose.


Footnotes:
a.Romans 8:28 Some manuscripts And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God
b.Romans 8:28 Or works together with those who love him to bring about what is goodwith those who*


----------



## Madeline (Jun 12, 2010)

Are these scripture passages supposed to be on-point?  How's about you reply using words _you've_  written, nraforlife?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > Newby wrote:
> >
> > The minute that you stop forming opinions about me and my belief systems, then maybe you can talk. Pot meet kettle.
> 
> ...



The same exact things that wait for Christians, agnostics, chocolate lovers, muslims, buddhists, hindus, jews, and even....bush supporters.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

Here's an often overlooked great book: 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d.html/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/179-9687168-3227015?a=157174357X]Putting on the Mind of Christ: The Inner Work of Christian Spirituality:Amazon:Books[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Are these scripture passages supposed to be on-point?  How's about you reply using words _you've_  written, nraforlife?



It's a backhanded way of saying you are a piece of shit but since he quoted scripture (out of context) he can pretend he didn't say anything bad.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 12, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Someone else questioned this as well. Graciously? I must have missed which part of being unwillingly arrested and tortured to death is gracious. Please clarify.
> ...


I didn't say gracefully either, I said graciously.  You may want to upgrade to fifth grade reading levels before claiming someone is putting words in your mouth.

As CurveLight and I established earlier in this thread, he was unwillingly arrested.  CurveLight can even point out the biblical reference of when he prayed to escape.  What did you think happened?  He just walked into the Roman jailhouse and turned himself in?  What we also established was that he did not take a drug that could have lessened the pain, which is what lead to the discussion on masochistic overtones.

But why do you think he willingly gave up his life, when it's clear to everyone else he was hunted down, unwillingly arrested, and then tortured to death?




> That which is spirit is spirit. That which is flesh is flesh.
> 
> No, what I am referring to is the blood that Jesus shed for us on the cross. The blood that washes you clean when you accept Him as your savior.
> 
> He said to take communion often in "remembrance." The grape juice is grape juice and the crackers are crackers, but what they represent is the blood shed for us. The crackers, be they crackers, are not just simple crackers, but rather as part of the whole passover Seder they are a perfect representation of the death of Christ. And to think the passover was instituted centuries before Christ but foretold his sacrifice for us. Amazing ain't it.


Where does passover foretell this?  And why is eating a cracker representing a human body not cannibalistic in meaning?



CurveLight said:


> This is fallout from people buying poor biblical exegesis.  Jesus did not say "do this in rememberence" because he wanted cannibalism to be symbolized.  He was saying they should break bread together in Peace in rememberance of his teachings.


I would see breaking bread as sharing a meal together, the Judaic symbolism that he saw and practiced his entire life, not getting on your knees in front of a priest and being given a piece of bland cracker.  



nraforlife said:


> clearly you have chosen your side and I have chosen mine.


once again:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

There was nothing that "lead" to the discussion of masochistic overtones.  It was a straight up unsupported charge by Anguish.  Some tried to argue his refusal to drink wine somehow equates to masochism but accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism.  To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 12, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > nraforlife said:
> ...


yes, you are just sayin' , talking out out your ass really. There is nothing nasty, combative or hostile in Madeline's OP. What you have just described is your _own_ MO. For which you are well known.

Instead of trying to denigrate Madeline, how about addressing the questions she raises? Or aren't you brave enough?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism.  To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.


False.  The two have nothing to do with one another.  One can accept responsibility and be masochistic.  One can reject responsibility and be masochistic.  Altering a ridiculous man-made "consequence" does not alter responsibility.  If he had been lashed 10 more or 10 fewer times, would the religion in any way be changed?  No, the end result is the same.

Now call me dishonest.  I want to feel you chastise me as I take responsibility for my naughty naughty dishonesty.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 12, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


I know you mean well but you make some false assumptions that know it alls often do. I've probably done more "soul searching" than you have (even though I don't have a soul  ) and my mind might just be more open than yours. The fact trhat you claim to know better than scientists what holds an atom together and that you call yourself The Light leads me to suspect you might have delusions of grandeur. Or be a con. Get back to me when you have something more substantial to peddle than fairy tales.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 12, 2010)

"The creator of the universe and time itself is fulfilling what he said he would according to His Word."

He said this where? And to whom? Don't say the bible, cuz I'll burst out laughing.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> There was nothing that "lead" to the discussion of masochistic overtones.  It was a straight up unsupported charge by Anguish.  Some tried to argue his refusal to drink wine somehow equates to masochism but accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism.  To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.


Instead of bluster and namecalling why not address the reasons why some people see a theme of masochism in the story of Christ's death and are repulsed by the veneration of an instrument of torture. You do the Christian faith no favors by denying people's right to their own opinion based on their own experiences. The Bible, like any novel, is open to interpretation. And I think you know very well that the Bible is one of the most widely interpreted books there is. 

You act like you think you are some sort of caped crusader defending Christians. You are the one who is a bigot. You assume everyone who has a problem accepting all tenants of a religion must hate all those who follow that religion. Get off your soapbox and get real.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Are these scripture passages supposed to be on-point?  How's about you reply using words _you've_  written, nraforlife?





SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism.  To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.
> ...



I don't think you're being dishonest.  It's more of a lack of comprehension.  As you've acknowledged, he did not want to go through the torture but he accepted responsibility for his actions.  Nothing more. Nothing less.  You're trying to claim he chose a masochistic route for not taking drugs.....but you fail to understand that does not equate to masochism on any level.  If he was masochistic he would not have cried and begged for a way to avoid the torture.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 12, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism.  To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.
> ...


lol!


----------



## nraforlife (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Are these scripture passages supposed to be on-point?  How's about you reply using words _you've_  written, nraforlife?



because arguing with you is a waste of time. You were given the answer BUT..... you don't want to hear. Fine the consequences are on your head.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > There was nothing that "lead" to the discussion of masochistic overtones.  It was a straight up unsupported charge by Anguish.  Some tried to argue his refusal to drink wine somehow equates to masochism but accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism.  To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.
> ...




You fucking trolling bitch.  What the hell was so ambiguous when I said I don't give a fuck what you think?  I wasn't joking


----------



## Madeline (Jun 12, 2010)

So, in essence what I get from some of the christians on this thread is:  fuck off and die.  And that just leads me back to my earlier question:  why are the christians (some) so angry at the non-christians?

I know this will sound odd, but at times you guys seem a bit _envious_  to me.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





Madeline said:


> So, in essence what I get from some of the christians on this thread is:  fuck off and die.  And that just leads me back to my earlier question:  why are the christians (some) so angry at the non-christians?
> 
> I know this will sound odd, but at times you guys seem a bit _envious_  to me.




I'm not saying fuck off and die.  I'm saying if you want to debate then do it honestly.  The Anguish bullshit masochistic charge is a great example.  You know she has never addressed the fact Jesus begged and wept to avoid the suffering of the crucifixion and when I call her out on that you use it to claim I'm angry.  

All you are doing is repeating your op soapbox broadbrushing bullshit.  Not all Christians do many of the things you claim in the OP but instead of being honest you use the broadbrush to try and justify your anger.

Go back and re-read your op.  You start off fairly objective and provide valid criticisms but as it progresses your anger shines through more and more.  I hate it you (and anyone) has had to suffer under the hands of self righteous sick clergy but your experiences to not grant a license to bash everyone who disagrees with you.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 12, 2010)

Anguille said:


> You act like you think you are some sort of caped crusader defending Christians. You are the one who is a bigot. You assume everyone who has a problem accepting all tenants of a religion must hate all those who follow that religion.


I think this is the real issue here.  The original claim of masochistic overtones can be perceived as having a negative connotation.  While a completely valid interpretation of the events and the religion's emphatic rejoicing of those events, he only perceives the claim as somehow bashing the entire religion.  That's not the case, but he feels the need to get all cute and huffy anyway, as if he is somehow defending his honor, despite the facts actually supporting your claim.



CurveLight said:


> As you've acknowledged, he did not want to go through the torture but he accepted responsibility for his actions.


As I've acknowledged and you've repeatedly ignored, "pain" and "responsibility" are not congruent.  Nor have you showed how or why they are linked in any way.  Masochism deals with knowingly pain and bringing pain upon oneself, actively or passively.  He knew his actions were severely upsetting people, which is actively bringing pain upon himself.  He refused anesthetic, which is passively bringing pain upon himself.  And while you can continue to argue the case of "accepting responsibility" all you want, it still has nothing to do with pain. 



> If he was masochistic he would not have cried and begged for a way to avoid the torture.


You still demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the word masochism.  Saying "no, stop!" is part of it.  Look up the term "safeword" if you need more convincing.  Why do you think so many Christians believe he willingly did this?  Oh I almost forgot: you pick and choose which parts you like to believe.

So again, masochistic overtones have nothing to do with taking responsibility.  Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself?  Yes or no?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > You act like you think you are some sort of caped crusader defending Christians. You are the one who is a bigot. You assume everyone who has a problem accepting all tenants of a religion must hate all those who follow that religion.
> ...



Not all masochistic sessions involve saying "stop" you dumbfuck.  The safe word can be used in myriad scenarios but thanks for demonstrating you really don't know what you are talking about.

By your logic everyone who marched for Civil Rights with Dr King were masochists because they knew marching would bring severe consequences.  So basically in your view anyone who stands up against oppressive forces with non-violence means they are also masochistic.  That is your lack of comprehension.  

Many Christian denominations have evolved into different levels of masochism but it has nothing to do with what Jesus actually did.  It has to do with exploiting human guilt to make people feel bad about about being human.  That is not the message Jesus brought.  

How do you reconcile Anguish's claim that Jesus "willingly embraced" the torture with your own claim he went unwillingly?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Light, do you seriously revise scientific facts with religious dogma?  Why?



Could you please point out what scientific facts that I have revised?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 12, 2010)

I'm sorry, I couldn't help notice that you once again blatantly ignored the question: Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no?  I'll give you a hint as to why you won't answer a simple yes or no question: because you know the answer proves you wrong.

Do you really want to compare Jesus's crucifixion, a horrible tortured death, to marching for civil rights, where the worst case scenario for the large majority of supporters was a little time in the local jailhouse?  Prolonged torture equals short imprisonment in your mind?

Once again you are linking a term dealing with pain to things like justice, responsibility, equality.  They have nothing to do with one another.  So once again: Did he or did he not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively? Yes or no?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I'm sorry, I couldn't help notice that you once again blatantly ignored the question: Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no?  I'll give you a hint as to why you won't answer a simple yes or no question: because you know the answer proves you wrong.
> 
> Do you really want to compare Jesus's crucifixion, a horrible tortured death, to marching for civil rights, where the worst case scenario for the large majority of supporters was a little time in the local jailhouse?  Prolonged torture equals short imprisonment in your mind?
> 
> Once again you are linking a term dealing with pain to things like justice, responsibility, equality.  They have nothing to do with one another.  So once again: Did he or did he not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively? Yes or no?



You really are fucking ignorant.  You think the worst case scenario for the majority of Civil Rights' protesters was time in a local jail?  Since you obviously don't know US history very well I'm not surprised you don't know basics of 1st century Judea.

I didn't ignore any question you dishonest fuckwad.  It is you that ignored the questions.  Not to mention the fact what you are asking is known as a loaded question.  Masochistics willingly subject themselves to pain for the explicit purpose of finding pleasure in that pain.  As you've already admitted, Jesus begged for a way to avoid the pain of the Crucifixion.  You are trying to equate masochism with anyone who commits an act that actively or passively brings pain.  That means all athletes are masochists.  Anyone who willingly goes to a dentist is a masochist.  Anyone who exercises in a gym is a masochist.  You stoopid fuck.  You don't get to re-define masochism to fit your agenda.  

Jesus knew there would be consequences for his activism just like most activists who marched in the 60's knew there would be consequences.  Like them, Jesus did not actively or passively bring pain.  The harm they suffered falls squarely in the hands of those who inflicted the pain.

You're using logic that is exactly the same logic sick fucks use to blame rape victims.  Think about it einstein.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 12, 2010)

So, avoided answering the simple non-loaded question yet again I see.  



CurveLight said:


> You really are fucking ignorant.  You think the worst case scenario for the majority of Civil Rights' protesters was time in a local jail?  Since you obviously don't know US history very well I'm not surprised you don't know basics of 1st century Judea.


Really now?  Tell me then: of the >250,000 people who marched on Washington for civil rights with King, what percentage of them had anything worse than local jail time befall them?  Give me a number here.  

Why do you continue to equate a tortured prolonged death with civil rights peace marches in the 60s?  Are you not aware of the drastically different laws and common practices between the times?  Even if you go back several decades to when public killings were taking place, they STILL weren't as bad as crucifixion.  But we're talking about King's march on Washington, which was widely successful, had little risk, and produced great benefits.  Ridiculous.  Hey maybe next you'll whip out Godwin's law and compare the crucifixion to the holocaust or some other unrelated unequal historical event.



> I didn't ignore any question you dishonest fuckwad.


Oh?  What is your answer then?  Yes or no?



> Not to mention the fact what you are asking is known as a loaded question.


What part is loaded?  He either did or did not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively.  It's a pretty simple question with two simple possibilities.



> You are trying to equate masochism with anyone who commits an act that actively or passively brings pain.  That means all athletes are masochists.


This is mass masochism masquerading as sport
Masochistic and Proud
USATODAY.com - Go hard fitness buffs push extreme even further
Mountain Masochist Trail Run - 50 miler, Trial Running, Extreme Ultramarathon, Ultra Running
The Role of Consent in Sado-masochistic Practices  - Journal Article
Simon Hattenstone: City masochists get their kicks from the joy of six | Sport | The Guardian

It's almost like you set yourself up for fail.  If I had an inclination that this was anything short of pure stupidity, I'd claim you had a little masochism in you too. 

Let's face it: you're clueless on this topic.  It's clear to me you came into the discussion with the idea that the word only referred to a sexual act.  You even cherry picked a dictionary definition of that when someone said otherwise.  Since being proven wrong from the start, you've been back-pedaling, warping the meaning, splitting, making incongruous analogies, and generally digging yourself into a deeper fail. 

I had to come in, give secondary dictionary definitions that showed the full meaning, and have continued explaining the meaning of the word to you ever since then.  Now, it seems you have this idea that masochism is a specific act, or refers to any pain regardless of reason or outcome.  This too, is a completely made up idea of yours.  

Your idea of its meaning has been shot down in this thread more times than I can count now.  Why not just cut your losses and assume you still don't actually understand what it means?

I look forward to you avoiding the simple question yet again.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I'm sorry, I couldn't help notice that you once again blatantly ignored the question: Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no?  I'll give you a hint as to why you won't answer a simple yes or no question: because you know the answer proves you wrong.
> 
> Do you really want to compare Jesus's crucifixion, a horrible tortured death, to marching for civil rights, where the worst case scenario for the large majority of supporters was a little time in the local jailhouse?  Prolonged torture equals short imprisonment in your mind?
> 
> Once again you are linking a term dealing with pain to things like justice, responsibility, equality.  They have nothing to do with one another.  So once again: Did he or did he not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively? Yes or no?





SmarterThanHick said:


> So, avoided answering the simple non-loaded question yet again I see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol.......you're a fucking dumbass. You wish to pat yourself on the back based on your own shit instead of addressing the facts then you accuse me of not knowing the definition of masochism when I was the first onr to post the definition.  

Now I know you'll whine like a little bitch if I don't spell out your dishonesty.....shit.....we both know you'll whine even if I don't but at least you can't say you were never taught.

I referred to Civil Rights marchers who in general were subjected to physical beatings and other forms of physical violence so you respond by pointing to a single fucking march.  Instead of acknowledging marchers were regularly subjected to violence.  You did that because I explained your piss poor logic that anyone who fights oppression with non violence somehow means they are masochistic.  I answered your question so will you keep lying?  Probably.  You're pure bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Hey NOTSmarterthanhick.....you keep ignoring this question:

How do you reconcile Anguish's claim that Jesus "willingly embraced" the torture with your own claim he went unwillingly?

I anticipate you trying to hide behind the claim I didn't answer your question so I will point out again that your question is bullshit and doesn't apply because you are blaming the victim.  If you continue to be stubborn then the answer is "no."  Why?  Because people who fight against oppression are not "actively or passively" bring on physical torture you dumbfuck.  They are fight for rights and if the oppressors try and use violence to shut them up that doesn't mean the people fighting are "masochists" you dumb bitch.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> you keep ignoring this question:
> 
> How do you reconcile Anguish's claim that Jesus "willingly embraced" the torture with your own claim he went unwillingly?


Differing times.  You said at one point he prayed to not be arrested.  Putting aside the question of why Jesus would need to pray for anything, he later on, also known as a different point in time, after being arrested, knowingly turned down anesthetic, thus providing the masochistic overtones originally mentioned. 

So let's overview in small words for you: the idea of him initially avoiding the arrest and thus having nothing to do with pain has nothing to do with masochistic overtones.  The idea of refusing anesthetic and knowingly experiencing the full amount of pain is directly associated with masochistic overtones by definition.  Perhaps it's the word "overtone" that is throwing you off too?

Let's use your self-failing sports example.  In Rocky 7, before he fights The Juggernaut, he says he can't go on because he feels Juggernaut is bigger and better than him.  Then Adrienne gives him a pep talk and says he has to do it to save the world from evil mutants with superhuman abilities, and he mans-up and fights anyway, knowing full well he's going to win but barely be breathing at the end.  Now, are there masochistic overtones when he is feeling down and wants to avoid the fight?  Nope.  What about when he's in the ring getting the snot beat out of him?  Well, yeah.  

Again what you are showing is called splitting: assuming masochism is inherent to the person instead of the situation, whereby someone has to ALWAYS or NEVER exhibit such tendencies.  Once again: FALSE.

So now that I've answered your question, again, will you answer mine?



> If you continue to be stubborn then the answer is "no."  Why?  Because people who fight against oppression are not "actively or passively" bring on physical torture you dumbfuck.  They are fight for rights and if the oppressors try and use violence to shut them up that doesn't mean the people fighting are "masochists" you dumb bitch.


You also used another horrible example in your previous post of going to the dentist.  Are people who go to the dentists masochists?  Well, no.  The people who go to the dentist *and refuse anesthetic* while getting their teeth drilled because they want to feel it are exhibiting masochistic tendencies.

You're still missing this.  Masochism has nothing to do with oppression, fighting for equality, or taking responsibility for ones actions.  Nothing.  0% to do with those things.  You continually go back to them as some warped sense of justification for willingly bringing pain onto himself, when the masochism only refers to the actual pain part.

So you really think Jesus in no way, actively or passively, despite turning away anesthetic, experienced pain he could have otherwise avoided?  Your answer is "no"?  Really?  Wow.  I mean it was clear to me you'd do anything to get out of admitting to a mistake.  I mean you went this far while being wrong about the concept of masochism, but I didn't think you'd be dumb enough to blatantly contradict simple concepts and facts such as the pain and how it could have been avoided.  

You just became the most entertaining person on this forum.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 12, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The Light, do you seriously revise scientific facts with religious dogma?  Why?
> ...



What about your claim that scientists cannot explain what holds an atom together, but you (presumably your faith) can?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

NOTsmarterthanhick, I didn't say people who go to the dentist are masochistic you dumb fuckwad.  I said "by your logic" they are masochistic.  So you just had a little strawman party and are too fucking dumb to realize it.

You also tried to weasel out of your contradiction with Anguish but I'm not surprised.  That dishonest bitch claimed he "willingly embraced" the torture and we know from the fact he prayed and begged to avoid it proves that claim wrong.  Then....lol....your stoopid ass actually asked why Jesus would pray at all?  Rotfl!  You"re way up to speed!


----------



## Madeline (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, I couldn't help notice that you once again blatantly ignored the question: Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no?  I'll give you a hint as to why you won't answer a simple yes or no question: because you know the answer proves you wrong.
> ...



All this debate is predicated on a belief that someone named Jesus really lived and had a life resembling what is (somewhat contradictorially) described in the Bible.  THEN we are supposed to "have faith" (read "suspend disbelief") and take things a step further and accept that Jesus was God.  And from this confusing, contradictory, irrational jumping off point we are supposed to debate what "historical facts" the Bible contains and what they mean?  I feel as if I'm listening to you to debate the hidden meaning of the "Tale of Rumpelstilskin" (which by the way makes more sense than the Bible).

PassSSSSsssssSSSSssssssss.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 12, 2010)

ScurvyDelight knows how to please his audience. 

A few years ago I had a conversation about this subject with a devout Catholic friend of mine. I told him how I was a house guest once a home where the bedroom I slept in had a crucifix hanging over the bed and that it creeped me out so much that after the first night I took it down and put it in the nightstand drawer. He said that he, himself, preferred to sleep under an image of the living god so he had a small statue of Jesus holding a flower or a bible or something hanging on the wall over his bed.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 12, 2010)

They used to make glow-in-the-dark reliefs of the Sacred Heart.   If that isn't enough to give most kidlets nightmares, nothing is.  Floating, disembodied, bleeding, tortured heart muscle -- so quaint, huh?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> NOTsmarterthanhick, I didn't say people who go to the dentist are masochistic you dumb fuckwad.  I said "by your logic" they are masochistic.  So you just had a little strawman party and are too fucking dumb to realize it.
> 
> You also tried to weasel out of your contradiction with Anguish but I'm not surprised.  That dishonest bitch claimed he "willingly embraced" the torture and we know from* the fact he prayed and begged to avoid it proves that claim wrong.*  Then....lol....your stoopid ass actually asked why Jesus would pray at all?  Rotfl!  You"re way up to speed!


First of all, there is no "fact" that he did anything. It's just an unproven story. 
Second of all, praying and begging instead of taking action to escape show him to to be hypocritical in his supposed desire not to be crucified.

Third, Jesus need not even be masochist for the story and all other martyred saint stories to have masochistic overtones when they are held up for veneration. 

By the way, did I mention that Jesus was a passive-aggressive as well?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> They used to make glow-in-the-dark reliefs of the Sacred Heart.   If that isn't enough to give most kidlets nightmares, nothing is.  Floating, disembodied, bleeding, tortured heart muscle -- so quaint, huh?


Too bizarre!


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> NOTsmarterthanhick, I didn't say people who go to the dentist are masochistic you dumb fuckwad.  I said "by your logic" they are masochistic.  So you just had a little strawman party and are too fucking dumb to realize it.


Except by my logic, as I just pointed out, it's the refusal of anesthetic, not the going to the dentist itself, which is masochistic.  So you're wrong AND ironic at the same time with that strawman comment! Hilarious! 



> You also tried to weasel out of your contradiction with Anguish but I'm not surprised.  That dishonest bitch claimed he "willingly embraced" the torture and we know from the fact he prayed and begged to avoid it proves that claim wrong.


Yet again you seem incapable of differentiating time points.  Allow me to explain.  First, one thing happens.  Then, later on, at a different point in time, a second thing happens.  Note that the two things do not occur at the same time.  Therefore, they should not be compared and contrasted as if they are occurring at the same time.  

Combined with the fact that masochistic tendencies can occur at different times, and are inherent to the situation, not the person or time, it can be easily shown that someone can wish to avoid pain at one point in time, then later wish to NOT avoid pain.  Notice, again, how these are different points in time, and therefore elicit their own individual evaluations of whether they exhibit masochistic tendencies.

So to repeat: when begging to avoid the pain, instead of just, you know, fleeing, no masochistic tendencies were exhibited.  You seem to understand this simple concept up until this point, but lose it thereafter.  After this point, when he refused an opportunity to avoid pain, he did exhibit masochistic tendencies.  This is the very meaning of the word.

Let me know if you're still having trouble figuring out how time works.



Anguille said:


> Third, Jesus need not even be masochist for the story and all other martyred saint stories to have masochistic overtones when they are held up for veneration.


This is also true, and yet another reason why the entire story has masochistic overtones.  CurveLight has said nothing to refute this.  Celebrating the tortured death of someone is usually seen as sick and psychopathic in this society.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



You're making assumptions and really stoopid claims.  Nobody who takes biblical studies seriously doubts Jesus existed.  If you'd ever done biblical studies you would know this and not continue with foolish statements.  Then again....this is USMB so who will notice?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > NOTsmarterthanhick, I didn't say people who go to the dentist are masochistic you dumb fuckwad.  I said "by your logic" they are masochistic.  So you just had a little strawman party and are too fucking dumb to realize it.
> ...



So you're saying Jesus was masochistic because he refused wine.........it's an endless circle because you refuse to stop confusing accepting responsibility for masochism.

Was Dr. King a masochist?  He would get beat up on the street for his activism yet he kept on with his fight against social injustices.  Simple yes or no question.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 12, 2010)

I saw this in anther thread and thought it might have relevance in this one. 



tsalkonocii said:


> Curvedlight seeks to deceive and to mislead. Knowingly or otherwise, curvedlight is an agent of Lucifer, who seeks to corrupt the Word and mislead men so they will not accept jesus and the Word of God.
> 
> Jesus warned of people like you.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You're making assumptions and really stoopid claims.  *Nobody who takes biblical studies seriously doubts Jesus existed.*  If you'd ever done biblical studies you would know this and not continue with foolish statements.  Then again....this is USMB so who will notice?



Dream on.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 12, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Third, Jesus need not even be masochist for the story and all other martyred saint stories to have masochistic overtones when they are held up for veneration.
> ...



Anguish claimed Jesus himself was masochistic and not simply the overall story.  But let's not let goal post moving interrupt your ingorance bash.

Secondly, it is not true the torture and murder of Jesus is celebrated.  If anything, it is regarded with deep sorrow, but strawmen are what keep you whiners going so don't stop now.


----------



## rikules (Jun 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




I think anyne who tries to debate with a vulgar, foulmouthed piece of donkey doo like curvelight is a masochist


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


 
What part of that do you have a problem with?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 12, 2010)

Madeline said:


> So, in essence what I get from some of the christians on this thread is: fuck off and die. And that just leads me back to my earlier question: why are the christians (some) so angry at the non-christians?
> 
> I know this will sound odd, but at times you guys seem a bit _envious_ to me.


 
I think sometimes people let their emotions get in the way which shouldn't be the case.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 12, 2010)

Anguille said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


 
Somehow the statements in bold don't add up. Which one is it? Do I mean well or am I a con?

If your version of science wasn't such a "religion" then you would be full of joy to find out that someone knew something further about science, but unfortunately, such is not the case.

Let me know when you come up with a better explanation.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 12, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I didn't say gracefully either, I said graciously. You may want to upgrade to fifth grade reading levels before claiming someone is putting words in your mouth.


 
Well, you were the one that seemed confused so I was trying to help you sort things out and in doing so I was going through the list of possabilities.



> As CurveLight and I established earlier in this thread, he was unwillingly arrested. CurveLight can even point out the biblical reference of when he prayed to escape. What did you think happened? He just walked into the Roman jailhouse and turned himself in? What we also established was that he did not take a drug that could have lessened the pain, which is what lead to the discussion on masochistic overtones.



I'm glad you two are woking things out. 




> But why do you think he willingly gave up his life, when it's clear to everyone else he was hunted down, unwillingly arrested, and then tortured to death?


 
Because he said so.

Matthew 26:53 - "Do you not think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more that twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

John 10:18 - "No man takes it (his life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father".


----------



## LuckyDan (Jun 13, 2010)

Will you fartsniffs please give it up? Christ kicks all your butts. Quick and clean.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 13, 2010)

rikules said:


> I think anyne who tries to debate with a vulgar, foulmouthed piece of donkey doo like curvelight is a masochist



Don't look now.....but nobody gives a fuck about who you think people should debate with.  Now take your thin skinned got-no-game whiny ass back the to corner.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 13, 2010)

FYI, Jesus was crucified for being gay.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 13, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



The part where science courses in public schools are hijacked by "creationists", where scientific discoveries are frustrated by opposition to stem cell research, where safer abortificants are withheld from the US public for "religious reasons", etc.

In short, I have a problem with anyone who elevates his own irrationality and frustrates science.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 13, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > So, in essence what I get from some of the christians on this thread is: fuck off and die. And that just leads me back to my earlier question: why are the christians (some) so angry at the non-christians?
> ...



I suspect that some christians have never looked long and hard at their faith; that they have merely followed the path laid down for them by others (most likely parents) and resent those of us who walked away after full immersion.  What seems to escape notice is that the search we undertook was not without price, and that no one has bolted the door on their own intelligence and curiosity but them.

Doubtless after a quest, some would return to the faith of their childhood, even if only for "emotional" reasons.  I happen to think, though, that there'd be more acceptance of those who do not as well as contentment among those who do, if there was a bit less pre-programmed, knee-jerk adherence to _any_  system of belief.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 13, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



kind of like how you elevate your own irrationalities to try and justify your broad brushing of Christians. Why do you practice what you also condemn?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 13, 2010)

Which of my "irrationalities" frustrates science, CurveLight?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 13, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Which of my "irrationalities" frustrates science, CurveLight?



I didn't say your irrationalities frustrates science.  I pointed out another example of your hypocrisy and you choose to ignore it.  When you're ready to face it, you will.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 13, 2010)

I consider it dishonest to fling accusations and curses around, and then when asked directly about the reasons why, evade answering.  Whatever your issue might be with what I have written, let's hear it.

In which of my posts did you find what I have written to be hypocritical and why?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 13, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Which of my "irrationalities" frustrates science, CurveLight?





Madeline said:


> I consider it dishonest to fling accusations and curses around, and then when asked directly about the reasons why, evade answering.  Whatever your issue might be with what I have written, let's hear it.
> 
> In which of my posts did you find what I have written to be hypocritical and why?



Maybe if you quoted post 821 and responded to it directly you wouldn't look so damn silly.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 13, 2010)

> CurveLight wrote:
> 
> kind of like how you elevate your own irrationalities to try and justify your broad brushing of Christians. Why do you practice what you also condemn?



Okay, I'm game.  I disagree that I have made sweeping generalizations about christians.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 13, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > CurveLight wrote:
> >
> > kind of like how you elevate your own irrationalities to try and justify your broad brushing of Christians. Why do you practice what you also condemn?
> 
> ...



From your OP:

2. If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here? There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering. *I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah". *That person is supposed to SAVE us. I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.

Really?  Do you know "most Christians"?  Since there are millions of them worldwide, I'm going to say you don't.  So how do you know that "most" of them don't understand the concept of the Messiah?  Just because their version of it doesn't match up to what YOU, PERSONALLY, think it should be?  Sweeping generalization AND offensive, self-absorbed insult all rolled into one.

4. The notion of a Trinity seems to contradict the first of the Ten Commandments: monotheism. If there is only one God, there cannot be three. It just isn't rational.

I'm quite sure you're unaware - since you've obviously never bothered to learn anything about Christians except what feeds your own sense of self-righteousness and ego - but not all Christians believe in the Trinity.  So when you say this prevents you from being a Christian, as opposed to "this is what prevents me from being a Catholic, etc.", you are sweepingly generalizing.  Again.

5. Speaking of rational, thanks for the condemnation of abortion, birth control, sex for Clergy (that paid off so well, didn't it?), people who are not Catholic (or whatever flavor you may be), etc. A special thanks to the "Creationism" nutters who've brought a new age of enlightenment into the classroom.

Since you don't bother to specify a particular group whom you are thanking for these condemnations, and your thread is about your hatred of and bigotry toward Christianity in general, I must assume you are thanking ALL Christians for these things.  Unfortunately for your narrow little worldview, not all Christian sects condemn birth control, sex for the clergy, people who aren't part of their own group, or even abortion.  I do like, however, that you also manage at this point to sweepingly generalize that anyone who doesn't share your worldview is irrational.  Again, two for one.  I have to commend your efficiency, even if your tolerance and open-mindedness are sadly lacking.

6. How is it "Christian" to deny food or medical care to a child if their parents won't first agree to convert to your religion? If your religion is so great, won't the people whom you serve eventually get curious about it? Why's it okay to coerce people into relinquishing their culture and their beliefs in favor of yours because you have the economic upper hand?

Obviously - to everyone but a purblind bigot, that is - not all (or even most) Christian sects deny medical care to their members.  In addition, despite the fact that you've decided no one could EVER be converted except by force, not all (or even most) Christian sects use coercion, economic or otherwise.  Nice generalization, though.

8. How is it possible to reconcile, in your own mind, all the hatred and aggression undertaken in the name of religion with any message of any major religion? You know that it is wrong. How is it okay to commit Major Evil as long as you invoke God's name?

I'm really fascinated by your leap in logic that tells you that all Christians rationalize and justify evil in God's name.  More generalization AND offensive insult rolled together.  Tell me again why I'm supposed to view your posts as a sincere, rational curiosity and not a bitter, hate-filled attack?

9. How can you seriously believe that a man in a red jump suit "tempts" you? Why can't you just accept responsibility for the evil you do? You're human -- no one has to tempt you. You're full of evil, selfish impulses and can only control them through the wonders of social conditioning, like the rest of us. 

By "man in a red jump suit", I assume you are invoking a child's rendering of Satan.  So aside from offensively denigrating our beliefs by expressing them on a puerile level, you have ALSO generalized the belief in Satan as an actual, sentient being to all Christians, despite the fact that not all Christian sects believe that.  Congratulations.

10. Why do you need a "promise of Heaven" to do what you know is right? Don't you have a conscience? When you do the wrong thing, don't you feel that?

I see.  So ALL Christians do the right thing simply for the "promise of Heaven".  Rude, offensive, AND sweepingly general.

By the way, I don't belong to any organized religion but I singled out Christians because I have been treated to their irrationality somewhat more often. No Muslim or Jew or Buddist, etc. has ever prosletized to me. 

All Christians don't prosletize [sic].  If Muslims don't prosletize [sic], how do you suppose they get so many prison converts, genius?  Maybe they're not prosletizing [sic] you simply because you don't know any, ever consider that?

I can assure you that as long as I'm alive, any generalization as to the desire of Christians to convert you and save your soul will be false.  I'm sure it makes me a bad Christian and I will have to answer to God for it, but I find myself really not caring one way or the other.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> So you're saying Jesus was masochistic because he refused wine.........it's an endless circle because you refuse to stop confusing accepting responsibility for masochism.


No, it was masochistic to knowingly refuse an anesthetic, which just so happen to be in the wine.  You continue to claim there is confusion with the concepts of "accepting responsibility" and "masochism".  The two have nothing to do with one another.  They are completely unrelated.  Saying anything about accepting responsibility holds no sway on whether a situation is masochistic in nature or not.  It is you who originally brought up the idea of "accepting responsibility", and you who continues to use it as a justification for a concept which is completely unrelated to it.  Once again, unrelated things are unrelated.



			
				CurveLight said:
			
		

> Was Dr. King a masochist?  He would get beat up on the street for his activism yet he kept on with his fight against social injustices.  Simple yes or no question.


Yes!  Absolutely! Getting beaten and then going back for more is a masochistic tendency. Did you not see my explanation of Rocky 7?  It's ALMOST like you're catching on now.

I suspect you will return, stating that King did it for great and justified reasons.  That's true.  And yet unrelated things are still unrelated.  It's clear you still don't understand the idea of masochism, and yet you keep talking.



CurveLight said:


> Secondly, it is not true the torture and murder of Jesus is celebrated.  If anything, it is regarded with deep sorrow, but strawmen are what keep you whiners going so don't stop now.


It is an event venerated by millions of people, that has spurred worship of it, movies to be made of it, and general joy that Jesus removed sin.  Let's now contrast that to the analogy you like so much, which has continued to work against you.  No one celebrates MLK's death.  People venerate his actions in life.  Compare that to Jesus, where people celebrate both his actions in life, and the passion.  People truly believe that a great thing came as a result of his prolonged torture and death.  This is sick reasoning, and absolutely speaks of masochistic overtones.  But again, this is a concept which you needed to go to the dictionary to first figure out, and you didn't even look at all the meanings of the word, so I can't really expect you to understand it now.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 13, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > CurveLight wrote:
> ...



*


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I'm not sure how you got all that out of what I said but anyhoo...

Don't you realize that you have based this entire thread off of your pre-programmer hate for Christianity because of your childhood? Maybe taking a little of your own advise could help you out a bit. No? 

Why not take that quest again but this time do it without the preconceived notions and resentment. You will be astonished at the results.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

The Light, I am not entirely sure a person can "hate" a belief system the same way they "hate" other people.  I'm outraged by the RCC, and I think justifiably so.  Beyond that I'm not sure I have an emotional response to christianity....I do to the behavior of some who call themselves "christians", but that is not quite the same thing.

I suspect the easy way out for some of you reading this who accept that I had "every opportunity" to become a christian adult and yet did not is to try a bit of psychoanalysis and conclude that my resentment of the injustices I endured and saw as a child drove me away from the faith I otherwise would have been so at home with.  The "but for" argument.  And it is true, if things had been different they wouldn't be the same.

However, none of that responds directly to any of the points I made about the faith.  None of it addresses the inconsistencies, the misuse or the flawed logic.  Replies like the one you have made may marginalize me in the eyes of some readers, but they don't happen to be accurate and they don't respond to any of the criticisms that have been made of the faith by myself and others.

Maybe if you did me the courtesy of accepting that what I have written is my own truth, rather than making up a fairy tale for me to substitute for your comfort, we'd get further in this discussion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

_From your OP:

2. If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here? There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering. I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah". That person is supposed to SAVE us. I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.

Really? Do you know "most Christians"? Since there are millions of them worldwide, I'm going to say you don't. So how do you know that "most" of them don't understand the concept of the Messiah? Just because their version of it doesn't match up to what YOU, PERSONALLY, think it should be? Sweeping generalization AND offensive, self-absorbed insult all rolled into one.

*That may have been fun to write, but it simply is not true. I've yet to find many people outside the Jewish faith who have bothered to learn the basics of their religion, and I don't happen to know any christians who don't believe "Jesus saves". I'm so sorry you feel insulted, but that does not change reality.*_

And what, pray tell, does the handful of people YOU personally know have to do with the price of tea in China?  You asked for examples of you generalizing, and projecting your own, personal, narrow acquaintance onto "most" Christians qualifies.  The more you talk, the more it qualifies.

And no, you're NOT sorry I'm insulted, so don't bother compounding it by a pretend apology you don't mean.  You typed your OP with the express purpose of being offensive to Christians, so don't try to convince yourself you're really a nice person NOW.

_4. The notion of a Trinity seems to contradict the first of the Ten Commandments: monotheism. If there is only one God, there cannot be three. It just isn't rational.

I'm quite sure you're unaware - since you've obviously never bothered to learn anything about Christians except what feeds your own sense of self-righteousness and ego - but not all Christians believe in the Trinity. So when you say this prevents you from being a Christian, as opposed to "this is what prevents me from being a Catholic, etc.", you are sweepingly generalizing. Again.

*How can anyone be a christian without believing in Jesus as God? This makes no sense.*_

Who said anything about not believing Jesus is God?  I said they don't believe in the Trinity.  I will do you the courtesy of pointing you in the direction of the research you should have done before you opened your fat, smug, generalizing puss, but I have no intention of taking you all the way through explaining their beliefs.  Go look it up as you should have already done.

Non-Trinitarianist Churches:

Unitarians
Jehovah's Witnesses
Seventh Day Adventists
United Pentecostals
Christian Scientists
Quakers

_5. Speaking of rational, thanks for the condemnation of abortion, birth control, sex for Clergy (that paid off so well, didn't it?), people who are not Catholic (or whatever flavor you may be), etc. A special thanks to the "Creationism" nutters who've brought a new age of enlightenment into the classroom.

Since you don't bother to specify a particular group whom you are thanking for these condemnations, and your thread is about your hatred of and bigotry toward Christianity in general, I must assume you are thanking ALL Christians for these things. Unfortunately for your narrow little worldview, not all Christian sects condemn birth control, sex for the clergy, people who aren't part of their own group, or even abortion. I do like, however, that you also manage at this point to sweepingly generalize that anyone who doesn't share your worldview is irrational. Again, two for one. I have to commend your efficiency, even if your tolerance and open-mindedness are sadly lacking.

*Fair enough. I should have said "some" not implied "all" christians.*_

Excuse me if I don't thank you for noticing that you were talking out of your ass.

_6. How is it "Christian" to deny food or medical care to a child if their parents won't first agree to convert to your religion? If your religion is so great, won't the people whom you serve eventually get curious about it? Why's it okay to coerce people into relinquishing their culture and their beliefs in favor of yours because you have the economic upper hand?

Obviously - to everyone but a purblind bigot, that is - not all (or even most) Christian sects deny medical care to their members. In addition, despite the fact that you've decided no one could EVER be converted except by force, not all (or even most) Christian sects use coercion, economic or otherwise. Nice generalization, though.

*It is true of Catholics. I am surprised it is (claimed) not to be true of other christian sects. In both cases, this only happens in foreign ministries, although here in the US it is not uncommon to be forced to pray before receiving whatever assistance the charity dispenses.*_

Are you at all aware that Catholics are just one out of many, MANY Christian churches in the world?  I realize that you have some serious, deep-seated psychological issues with Catholicism, which would be much better taken up between you and a therapist rather than on an Internet message board, but do try to lift your eyes from your obsession just a bit and notice the bigger picture.

_8. How is it possible to reconcile, in your own mind, all the hatred and aggression undertaken in the name of religion with any message of any major religion? You know that it is wrong. How is it okay to commit Major Evil as long as you invoke God's name?

I'm really fascinated by your leap in logic that tells you that all Christians rationalize and justify evil in God's name. More generalization AND offensive insult rolled together. Tell me again why I'm supposed to view your posts as a sincere, rational curiosity and not a bitter, hate-filled attack?

*I think "bitter, hate-filled attack" is too strong. But look over history, Cecille...the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the betrayal of Italian Jews, etc. Unless you happen to belong to a christian sect that was invented last week, all the major ones have blood on their hands.*_

I think "bitter, hate-filled attack" is too mild, but I was in a hurry, and no stronger words were coming to mind at the moment.

I'm not interested in debating your ignorant OP and opinions with you, because that would simply serve to legitimize you and make you feel like you're a serious poster instead of a deranged bigot in serious need of some couch time at the local psych ward.  My point is simply that you do nothing BUT generalize, and while I'm at it, to make sure you understand that you are a nasty, petty, hate-filled bigot, whatever lies you want to tell yourself.

_9. How can you seriously believe that a man in a red jump suit "tempts" you? Why can't you just accept responsibility for the evil you do? You're human -- no one has to tempt you. You're full of evil, selfish impulses and can only control them through the wonders of social conditioning, like the rest of us. 

By "man in a red jump suit", I assume you are invoking a child's rendering of Satan. So aside from offensively denigrating our beliefs by expressing them on a puerile level, you have ALSO generalized the belief in Satan as an actual, sentient being to all Christians, despite the fact that not all Christian sects believe that. Congratulations.

*Alrighty then. According to you, there are christians who do not believe in the Trinity, who don't believe Jesus is God and who don't believe in Satan. Pardon me for not realizing this.*_

Not just "according to me", twit.  According to anyone who isn't blinded by mental disease or defect and has actually bothered to acquaint himself with the reality of the wide diversity of Christian denominations and doctrines.

Once again, I will not do the research for you that you should have done before opening your flapping piehole, but I will point you in the right direction.

Unitarians
Some Lutherans
Some Anglicans/Episcopalians

Those are just actual churches teaching that Satan is a metaphor (The Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcopalian churches officially adhere to a doctrine of literalism on the subject).  In addition, many individual Christians, whatever their church's official doctrine, believe that Satan is merely a metaphor.

_10. Why do you need a "promise of Heaven" to do what you know is right? Don't you have a conscience? When you do the wrong thing, don't you feel that?

I see. So ALL Christians do the right thing simply for the "promise of Heaven". Rude, offensive, AND sweepingly general.

*Why's it rude or offensive? Are you saying there are also christians who don't believe in an after-life?*_

You seriously have to ask me what's offensive about what you said?  Seriously?!

*By the way, I don't belong to any organized religion but I singled out Christians because I have been treated to their irrationality somewhat more often. No Muslim or Jew or Buddist, etc. has ever prosletized to me. 

All Christians don't prosletize [sic]. If Muslims don't prosletize [sic], how do you suppose they get so many prison converts, genius? Maybe they're not prosletizing [sic] you simply because you don't know any, ever consider that?

WTF is up with all the [sic], Cecille? I have no misspelled words in that sentence.*

The word is "proselytize", not "prosletize".

_*Anyway, what difference does it make whether Muslims proletize to prison inmates? How does that alter the truth of what I wrote? BTW, Jews not only do not proletize, they discourage conversion.*_

Um, it makes a difference because you act as though Christians are the only ones who do it.  The truth is, you just don't have a very wide or varied acquaintance, but can't seem to resist projecting it onto all of humanity as "the way things are".

_I can assure you that as long as I'm alive, any generalization as to the desire of Christians to convert you and save your soul will be false. I'm sure it makes me a bad Christian and I will have to answer to God for it, but I find myself really not caring one way or the other.

*Is this a long winded way of telling me that you hope I go to hell? How completely charming. Goodness knows, the example you've set on this thread should be attractive to many....if justifying hate and anger is their aim.*_

No, telling you to go to Hell would imply that I care one way or another where you go or what you do, and I frankly don't.

You clearly still flatter yourself that my aim is to convert you and other like-minded, smug jackasses touting yourselves as the pinnacle of knowledge and sophistication around here.  Please take this opportunity to get the smuck over yourself.  God has many nice, friendly followers who will be glad to smile and pretend along with you that you're a good person despite all evidence to the contrary.  He also has people like me, who are built to give you the good, hard shot of reality to the ass when you need it, and to defend the nice, friendly folks who can't do it for themselves.

If there's a problem with me acting according to my God-given nature, then it is for HIM to address it.  It most assuredly is not for the likes of YOU to even CONSIDER doing.  The immensity of your sheer GALL in presuming to tell me how to be something you've already declared that you are not is staggering.  How do you fit that bloated, inflamed ego through doors?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Project much, Cecille?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying Jesus was masochistic because he refused wine.........it's an endless circle because you refuse to stop confusing accepting responsibility for masochism.
> ...



Okay.  You're just too fucking dumb to understand fighting for Civil Rights doesn't mean one has "masochistic" tendencies even if it entails physical violence.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > CurveLight wrote:
> >
> > kind of like how you elevate your own irrationalities to try and justify your broad brushing of Christians. Why do you practice what you also condemn?
> 
> ...



I don't care if you agree or not.  Your op proves otherwise.  Boring.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> So lemme see if I understand you correctly.  Christians must be accommodated to such a degree that non-christians should not even voice their beliefs?



Maybe you can learn to voice your beliefs without bashing others in the process?  Perhaps that what people take offense too, not that you're voicing your beliefs.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Alrighty then.  I feel thoroughly spanked for my bad manners.

Though I suspect no matter how I phrased it, an Op saying "I find some of this ridiculous" would give offense to some.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > CurveLight wrote:
> ...



Only if you attribute the defects I perceive in the religion to all its adherents.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Yanno guys, I am beginning to sense that it is criticism of christianity, not the tone or the manners or any perceived criticism of its adherents, that really upsets you.  Tell me -- why's the subject so touchy we cannot discuss it without so much angst?

Are you this careful not to offend others?


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



You still just don't get it.    Or perhaps it's willful stupidity, it has to be one or the other.
I do not resent you or your beliefs or lack thereof.  I resent the lack of respect for my beliefs, the constant bashing against my beliefs that people like you feel compelled to do to somehow make themselves feel better.  You want respect, but you're unwilling to reciprocate.  Not only are you unwilling to reciprocate, you go on the offensive, as shown in the op, to attack and degrade and then act all surprised and hurt when people are offended by your degrading their beliefs.  Do you get it yet?  YOU are the instigator here, YOU are the one that degraded and put down Christianity, and then claim that christians somehow 'resent' you for your beliefs.  What I don't understand is why you hide?  Why not just bash christianity outright and be proud of it and quit hiding behind the supid little games?


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> _From your OP:
> 
> 2. If Christ is the Messiah, then why didn't humanity enjoy a better life after he was here? There were still wars, and poverty, and suffering. I don't think most Christians understand the Jewish concept of a "Messiah". That person is supposed to SAVE us. I'm not feeling the saving bit so much.
> 
> ...



  Awesome job!


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

The Op lays out some of the reasons I find christianity impossible to accept.  You choose not to address them, but rather to tell me I didn't write it nicely enough.  Fair enough, I've been told before I'm not tender sometimes.  Okie-dokie; now that we have all staked out our morally superior positions, let's talk.

Do you agree with Cecille that some branches of christianity reject the Trinity, Jesus as God and an after-life?  Because I happen to think she might be wrong about those things.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline 

You have every right to criticize Christianity and to lay out all the reasons why it isn't your path.  It's the way you're going about doing this that has everyone in an uproar. 

sky


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Alrighty then.  I feel thoroughly spanked for my bad manners.
> 
> Though I suspect no matter how I phrased it, an Op saying "I find some of this ridiculous" would give offense to some.



Why do you have to comment on the 'ridiculousness' of other's beliefs in order to talk about your own?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Maybe you can send me a fucking list of pre-approved words that I can use to try and express myself, Newby.

Apparently anything is preferable to you to discussing the substance of what I or any other non-christian has said on this thread.  Why is that, I wonder?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline
> 
> You have every right to criticize Christianity and to lay out all the reasons why it isn't your path.  It's the way you're going about doing this that has everyone in an uproar.
> 
> sky



Well thankies, Sky Dancer.   I'm trying to be all ass-kissy but t'aint coming out right, I guess.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Maybe you can send me a fucking list of pre-approved words that I can use to try and express myself, Newby.
> 
> Apparently anything is preferable to you to discussing the substance of what I or any other non-christian has said on this thread.  Why is that, I wonder?



Maybe because nothing of substance has been said.  Calling other's beliefs 'ridiculous', calling them 'nutters', implying they're stupid, etc... isn't going to win you any friends.  I think you got just what you wanted out of your bashing op.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline
> ...



It's coming out just as you planned and you know it. You baited your hook, I hope your fishing expedition was successful, perhaps one of these fishing trips will finally teach you something, but I'm doubtful.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

I have not called any particular person a nutter, Newby.  Where is all this ultra-sensitivity coming from anyway?  The whole thread is about why some people reject christianity -- when you began reading were you surprised it happened sometimes because the beliefs did not ring true for them?

This all feels like an elaborate dance around the issue and I have to wonder why the topic at hand is not being discussed.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline
> ...



If you want respect for your point of view, be respectful to others.  You seem to forget that ones spiritual path is dearly held by devotees.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Alright,. alright, alright.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> If there's a problem with me acting according to my God-given nature, then it is for HIM to address it.


Here is demonstrated another reason why I could never be Christian. The attitude that some Christians have that they are not responsible for their actions. That God made them the way they are and being his children, so they have an excuse for their immaturity.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I didn't write the Op as some sort of master manipulation, in hopes of learning something.  I wrote it sincerely and hoped it'd open a dialogue -- with anyone.  You seem to think that if I am not persuaded of the error of my ways and return to the flock, I have not learned.

Personally, I think your post is more offensive than anything I have written, but since Sky Dancer is on me about my manners, I'll take the hit.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > So lemme see if I understand you correctly.  Christians must be accommodated to such a degree that non-christians should not even voice their beliefs?
> ...



Okay, give us a demonstration of how a non Christian should, according to your rules,  express their honest reaction of repugnance at the veneration of crucifixes.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Okie-dokie; now that we have all staked out our morally superior positions, let's talk.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline
> 
> You have every right to criticize Christianity and to lay out all the reasons why it isn't your path.  It's the way you're going about doing this that has everyone in an uproar.
> 
> sky


I see that a bunch of people are in an uproar but it seems to me Madeline has bent over backwards and been quite patient with them in an attempt to engage them in genuine debate.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline
> ...



I guess I see it differently, Anguille.  Madeline has said some things that are like waving red flags in front of bulls.  I was out of town for a few days and looking forward to catching up on this thread and I couldn't believe what's happened to it.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Maybe you can send me a fucking list of pre-approved words that I can use to try and express myself, Newby.
> 
> Apparently anything is preferable to you to discussing the substance of what I or any other non-christian has said on this thread.  Why is that, I wonder?


Kudos to you for trying. My past experiences with Newby have always ended up in her crying victim and accusing people of dishonesty and Christian bashing. I have begun to think she intentionally tries to derail discussions into dysfunctional debate due to some sort of emotional need she has to feel attacked so as to feel some sort of identification with Christ on the cross.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Waving red flags?  Are you sure you don't have Madeline confused with ScurvyDelight?


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



You can express it any way you like, your feelings on Christianity and Christians, while completely wrong, have been clearly stated.  I could personally care less how you feel about any of it.  My point is that if you hate christianity and want to bash it, then do so honestly and don't hide behind the 'victim' status that you falsely create to hide behind. I'll call it like I see it, if you don't like that then don't create threads meant to bash other people and their beliefs. Don't pretend that you want some kind of an 'honest dialogue so that you can better understand where people are coming from'.  The 'shock value' of your hateful statements is now gone, you'll have to come up with something new, or pick new victims.  I wouldn't discuss any of my beliefs or why I hold them if you paid me a million dollars. You disrespect them, you insult them, you have no honest desire to truely understand anything, so why would anyone waste their time at this point?


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you can send me a fucking list of pre-approved words that I can use to try and express myself, Newby.
> ...



  Who cries 'victim'???  Hilarious.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline
> ...



The way she puts it is she's trying to be all 'ass kissy'.    There's a vast difference between trying to be ass kissy and being genuinely respectful.

You know I'm not a Christian, but I wouldn't dream of debating Christianity's pros and cons with a practicing Christian nor would I attempt to show how Buddhism is superior.   I could instead talk about why it works for me.

I could point out places that confuse me about Christianity and ask for clarification from practicing Christians.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Madeline admitting she's trying to be 'ass kissy' is a red flag.    There is no need to walk on eggshells if you genuinely want an intelligent interfaith dialogue.  You do have to start with a genuine respect for the other side.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Well, I _would_  dream of debating christianity's pros and cons with anyone -- including a practicing christian.  I'm very sorry if that marks me as mean in your eyes, Sky Dancer.

Newby is female, BTW?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I think you can express your repugnance at crucifixes and your own honest reaction without implying that your reaction is the truth of how things are.  It's just a reaction, Ang.  The cross means different things to different people.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Well, I _would_  dream of debating christianity's pros and cons with anyone -- including a practicing christian.  I'm very sorry if that marks me as mean in your eyes, Sky Dancer.
> 
> Newby is female, BTW?



I didn't say you were mean, Madeline.  Mischievous, yes.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



The things I find valuable in christianity never seem to be valuable to practicing christians.  They all seem to value the aspects of the faith that strike me as most irrational, anti-human and anti-rational.  

Nonetheless, I do find much of what Jesus allegedly taught to be quite true.  And have said so.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I _would_  dream of debating christianity's pros and cons with anyone -- including a practicing christian.  I'm very sorry if that marks me as mean in your eyes, Sky Dancer.
> ...



Thankies for that, Sky Dancer.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Why not debate the pros and cons of Christianity with a Christian?  Not all demand to be handled with kids gloves. In a thread titled Why I Am Not A Christian reasons why people chose not to be Christians is what I would expect to read. If anyone finds the idea that someone would chose not to be Christian too upsetting they are perfectly free not to enter the thread. http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-not-a-christian-post2408373.html#post2408373


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille, forgive me if you have already stated.....but were you raised as a christian?


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Okay, so you're stating that you then find practicing Christians to be irrational, anti-human, and anti-rational?  And you expect a christian reading your words to not be insulted?

So what is it exactly that you find valuable that you think practicing christians do not which in turn makes them irrational and anti-human in your opinion?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I wouldn't debate the pros and cons of Christianity with a Christian because I respect other peoples choices even though they are different from mine.  I'm not a Christian scholar, and I don't have the informed experience of putting Christianity into practice for myself.  I'm a Buddhist.  When Christians debate their faith I read what they say with interest but I don't interject my view unless I have a question or some confusion about it.

That said, I think what you and Madeline have to say is important too and can be valuable for the Christians here if they're willing to be challenged by it.  It's a challenge to be insulted and not respond to the insults.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Please point out to me where I said my reaction to the cross symbol was the only reaction a person could have or that my reaction is "the truth of how things are", whatever that is supposed to mean. 

The only truth I have expoused is that I, personally,  am repulsed by the veneration of the cross and the glorification of cruxification. 


  "The cross means different things to different people."

Duh!  

I think in your aim to play conciliator in this thread, Sky, you are losing sight of what is actually being discussed.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Why bother whenever the objective isn't debate, it's to insult, degrade and disrespect.  Then they get their panties in a twist whenever you rightly question their motives. Neither one of them have an honest interest in debating anything.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



OK.  Point taken.


----------



## del (Jun 14, 2010)

whether or not she intended it, the OP is disrespectful to the beliefs of christians, IMO.

it's not terribly surprising to me that the result is more heat than light.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Anguille, forgive me if you have already stated.....but were you raised as a christian?


No. I was raised in a religion-free home. I didn't even know Jesus Crist was something other than a no-no swear word till I was about 7.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Actually, I think they are both interested in debating Newby.  It's incredibly skillful to debate without being insulting.

It's possible, but it isn't easy.  I rarely see good honest debate on forums.  Too often they veer off into mutual insult land.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



BFD, you've stated your feelings on it about what, 20 times now. Good for you, what the hell do you expect someone to say to such a statement anyway? You're welcome to feel however you want about it, it doesn't change my feelings or anyone else's, so what is the objective in stating it 20 times? The only objective I see is that you think it's 'shocking' and you're just trying to provoke, like I said you'll have to find new victims to play your games with.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



From my own perspective, Newby (as if I could borrow anyone else's) most christian sects are anti-sexual.  I don't happen to recall Jesus saying women were defective or that sex was evil, etc.

I do recall him saying that wealth is so corrupting, almost everyone who experiences it will suffer a spiritual death.  That does not happen to seem to be a guiding principle in the lives of many christians, IMO.  Maybe because it is not a guiding tenet of many sects.

I could go on, but those two at least give us something to discuss, if you are willing.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Sorry, but I disagree with you when it comes to their motives, their intent is to be shocking and insulting.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Saying that 'most' Christian sects are anti-sexual is an unsupportable statement.  It puts all the Christians here on the defensive to prove that they are sexual and spiritual beings.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Maybe you could begin by listening to Anguille with an open mind, Newby.  It doesn't take much imagination to empathsize with someone else's pain, if you set aside your own needs and desires for just a moment.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



We disagree.   That's ok.  I feel it's ok to ask what their motives are but not to state definitively what is in Anguille or Madeline's mind and heart.  Only they know that.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Anti-sexual?  You didn't address what practicing christians do that is irrational or anti-human?  You've now changed the subject.  I'd like you to address your previous comments before making new ones.  So, back up what you said with actual examples.

You stated:

The things I find valuable in christianity never seem to be valuable to practicing christians. 

So what are those things?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Sky Dancer, I'm just not as concilliatory as you.  Sometimes I state the obvious, bluntly.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Not to mention that it didn't address the previous comments made at all, just diverted the topic to something completely different.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Sorry, I have no trust in her whatsoever to be honest or altruistic, and I'm pretty much at the same point with you.  Your intensions are not honest or good.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



And sometimes you're just up to mischief.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

del said:


> whether or not she intended it, the OP is disrespectful to the beliefs of christians, IMO.
> 
> it's not terribly surprising to me that the result is more heat than light.


Perhaps that is because we live in a predominantly Christian society and many Christians are not used to having their beliefs rejected by others. Non Christians in our society are more familiar with having their beliefs rejected and so we are used to keeping a cool head when it happens. Perhaps we just wrongfully assume everyone is like us.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

You want to discuss your disapproval of my manners s'more?

Fine.  Lemme know when you are done and ready to actually discuss the flaws I and others see in christianity that drove me off.  If that ever happens.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



So, how is it 'obvious' that Christians are anti-sexual?  You can answer this after you've answered the other charges first.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> You want to discuss your disapproval of my manners s'more?
> 
> Fine.  Lemme know when you are done and ready to actually discuss the flaws I and others see in christianity that drove me off.  If that ever happens.



It would be cool if you'd answer any of the questions that I've just asked you too, but as predicted, I really didn't think you would.  I think we both know why that is.  I've given up being naive a long time ago.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

> Newby wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I have no trust in her whatsoever to be honest or altruistic, and I'm pretty much at the same point with you. Your intensions are not honest or good.



Why accuse Anguille of dishonesty?  Personally I don't doubt the crucifix repels her, and why not?  She can't be the only human on earth who does not feel elevated by dwelling on someone else's torture.

I dunno what evil intentions you think I have, Newby.  I'm not here to undermine your faith.  I'm more than happy to discuss my own beliefs.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Still waiting.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > You want to discuss your disapproval of my manners s'more?
> ...



_*Yawns*
_
Got any other dodges, Newby?  This one's getting boring.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > whether or not she intended it, the OP is disrespectful to the beliefs of christians, IMO.
> ...



Now that makes sense.  Don't  you think that some people try and bait someone who has taken up a spiritual path and when they fall for it and react to the insult they can stand back and say 'you reacted, you have no faith'.  I get that as a Buddhist.  People expect me to be calm, cool and collected and to never lose my temper or speak unskillfully.   Then I show my human foilbles and they judge me for it.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Newby asked a follow up question.  What are the Christian beliefs that you find valuable?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


20 times?   Exaggerate much? 

"you'll have to find new victims" ? I think that statement confirms my psychological assessment of you in an above post.

Sorry, to disappoint you, Newby, but I could not care less if I've changed your feelings about the meaning of the cross symbol or not. When will you proselytizing fanatics ever learn that, unlike you, not everyone wants to push their beliefs in everyone else.


----------



## del (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > whether or not she intended it, the OP is disrespectful to the beliefs of christians, IMO.
> ...



there's a difference between rejecting someone's beliefs and mocking those beliefs.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



  Thanks for confirming you're a complete waste.  Where's this 'debate' you wanted?  I'm still waiting for you to answer questions about remarks you made.  Let's go, Madeline, put your beliefs out there.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Thank you Del, very well said.  Mocking is the word that I've been lacking.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



And waiting....


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Then why repeat it over and over again?  I ask again, what's the point?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Must be another exampke of you "NOT" broad brushing Christians.  Again.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Valuable but rarely taught or emphasized:  That wealth is very likely to cause spiritual death.  That judgment of another is usurping God's authority.  That forgiveness is necessary to one's spiritual health.

Worthless (and in error, I think):  That sex is bad.  That sexuality is only permissible to procreate, or more liberally inside a heterosexual marriage.  That women are defective.  That GLBT folks are going to hell.  That abortion is evil and must be stopped by any means, sometimes including murder.  That the function of a christian in this world is to help govern the behavior of others, especially the sexual conduct of others.  That prostitution is the lowest a woman can fall (without condemning her customers) and that the term "good christian woman" could never apply to a whore.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

> Newby wrote:
> 
> Then why repeat it over and over again? I ask again, what's the point?



Maybe Anguille would enjoy the feeling of being heard, Newby.  If you didn't rush in (not you personally, but others as well) to tell her how stupid and erroneous her feelings were and instead just acknowledged them and maybe even began a dialogue about them, maybe she'd get what she needed.

Just a theory.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

> CurveLight wrote:
> 
> Must be another exampke of you "NOT" broad brushing Christians. Again.



Fair enough.  Sleep well?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I haven't experienced the Christian posters on this thread as proselytising Christianity.  I have seen them defend their faith and points of view.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > Newby wrote:
> >
> > Then why repeat it over and over again? I ask again, what's the point?
> 
> ...



Newby said that it's ok that Anguille sees the Crucifix the way she does and that she disagrees with Anguille's view.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I don't know what Christian church you've ever attended, but the three things that you listed are absolutely taught.  How could you read about the life of Jesus and the words and examples that he gave and not get those messages.  So, you're wrong with your assumptions.

I've never attended any church that even addressed sexuality or lack thereof.  

I've never been told that women are defective by anyone in any church.  

I've never been told to go out and tell non-believers that 'they're going to hell', nor have I ever personally done that.  

Abortion has never been discussed on the pulpit in the church that I attend, but I personally believe it to be wrong, it's the murder of your own child.   

I'm supposed to govern the sexual conduct of others?  Really?  

Jesus personally stopped the stoning of a prostitute and told her to go and sin no more.

So, I don't know where you came up with all of these misguided notions, but they're so far off of the mark that I don't even know how to address them.  Where have you learned such things, because it wasn't from any christian church that I'm familiar with?  Or are you just making this up as you go along?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I have not called any particular person a nutter, Newby.  Where is all this ultra-sensitivity coming from anyway?  The whole thread is about why some people reject christianity -- when you began reading were you surprised it happened sometimes because the beliefs did not ring true for them?
> 
> This all feels like an elaborate dance around the issue and I have to wonder why the topic at hand is not being discussed.





Madeline said:


> Maybe you can send me a fucking list of pre-approved words that I can use to try and express myself, Newby.
> 
> Apparently anything is preferable to you to discussing the substance of what I or any other non-christian has said on this thread.  Why is that, I wonder?




Proposal:

Maddy, I'll start a new thread specifically to try and answer your questions. The only way it will work is if you and I both promise to ignore others' posts until we've exhausted our dialogue. Having been a Christian for ten years and being one class shy of a degree in biblical studies I think we can get down to the nitty grity. The major perk is I don't give a fuck how rude you are so long as we are discussing the issue.  Ball is in your court.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Seriously?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I have not called any particular person a nutter, Newby.  Where is all this ultra-sensitivity coming from anyway?  The whole thread is about why some people reject christianity -- when you began reading were you surprised it happened sometimes because the beliefs did not ring true for them?
> ...



I don't promise to ignore anyone else, CurveLight but yes, I'll reply.  I'll be back after a bit.

Please leave a link so I and anyone else interested can follow you.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



What church taught you such things or where did you come by those opinions?  I was raised Catholic, and I'm not a catholic any longer, but I know for a fact that the Catholic church does not teach any of the things you mentioned either.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I can only speak from my own experience.  The Catholic Church that I grew up in was anti-sex and was very big on teaching about mortal sin--those things that would send you to hell.

Not ordaining women as priests sends a message that women are not worthy of the priesthood--aren't Christ-like, a deeply anti-female belief and practice.

I was a Catholic as a child in the fifties and sixties.  The nuns in our Catholic school were a bit dotty.  They taught us things like good girls don't wear patent leather shoes because boys can see the reflection of your panties under your dress.  The nuns were also into hitting kids.

I had my work cut out for me to sexually liberate myself as an adult.

Being raised a Catholic was a real mixed bag.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


It's so easy to just dismiss people by claiming they are selfish liars.

Whatever it takes to preserve your fragile sense of superiority, I suppose.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I grew up Catholic as well, but I did not have the same experiences that you did, altho it was a bit later than when you were probably involved.  I don't agree with a lot of the things the Catholic church as an entity does, but that does not mean that every Catholic church is the same either.  I don't agree with their stances on the sex of priests, I don't agree with their stance on birth control.  I see them as a large political entity that has lost its way in teaching what Christ said was to be taught.  It became all about the church and not about Christ, which is why I am no longer Catholic.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



You complained about Christians avoiding the topic so I offered a solution I knew you would ignore.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



As long as there are Churches around who teach from a misguided point of view you're going to have criticism of Christianity--and rightly so.

It's important to point out which Churches and what Christians practice this way and which ones don't.  I am curious about what congregation you settled into Newby.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


I reread Madeline's OP and can now understand where some could hear in their heads a mocking tone. That is always a problem with posts. You can only surmise with which tone the author has said it in their head and often your assumption is related to how you feel about the authors opinions. To me her OP it came off as somewhat provocative and bit flippant but I felt she was being completely sincere in her questions. Many of us non believers frequently question our non belief. We wonder why is it everyone else believes but we do not. Part of us wants to belong too. We can only get satisfying answers by asking some challenging questions. In Madeline's case, she asks why she did not end up a christian in spite of having a strict Christian upbringing. If someone could give me a valid reason to be a Christian, I'd not hesitate to be one. It's not always fun being the outsider. But our frustration comes from never getting reasonable answers and then being chastised and accused of dishonesty and of having all sorts of evil intentions for asking basic questions. Sometimes it's not difficult to see the remnants of the attitudes that led Christians to resort to burning heretics in the past, in the behavior of some Christians today.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



This is a great post.  I'd rep you but I have to spread some around.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Curvelight, has told me my interpretation of the crucifixion story is wrong and his is right and has demanded I agree with him/her. I call that proselytizing. I am also referring to past experiences with some of these same posters in other threads.


----------



## del (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



no it isn't; people are still people, after all.


a good reason to be a christian would be believing in the divinity of christ. 
since i don't, i'm not. i believe in a god or spirit that works through other people. i believe that this spirit worked through jesus more than the average human, but i don't believe that jesus was god.

but that's me and what works for me may not work for you or anyone else. 
that doesn't give me the right to say you're wrong, just different.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



OK.   I can see how Curvelight trying to convert you to his point of view could be seen as proselytizing.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

I must commend you, Sky, on your willingness to concede points. I think you are probably being the most fair of us all in this thread.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


Agreed, it's not a Christian thing, per se, it's just human nature at it's worst.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I don't think he was trying to 'convert' you, he was pointing out the fallacy of your logic, completely different.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 14, 2010)

Curvelight is wrong about the crucifixion. Jesus was crucified for being gay. He was the first gay rights activist.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

JoLouis said:


> Curvelight is wrong about the crucifixion. Jesus was crucified for being gay. He was the first gay rights activist.



You sound like Elton John, "I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Alrighty then.  I feel thoroughly spanked for my bad manners.
> 
> Though I suspect no matter how I phrased it, an Op saying "I find some of this ridiculous" would give offense to some.



Insofar as it's offensive on the face of it to feel compelled to tell people that you consider their core beliefs ridiculous when no one asked you, yeah.

Is this revelation of basic human etiquette and good manners such a surprise to you?


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Alrighty then.  I feel thoroughly spanked for my bad manners.
> ...



Cecilie giving etiquette lessons!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Yanno guys, I am beginning to sense that it is criticism of christianity, not the tone or the manners or any perceived criticism of its adherents, that really upsets you.  Tell me -- why's the subject so touchy we cannot discuss it without so much angst?
> 
> Are you this careful not to offend others?



I'm not at all careful not to offend others.  The point is that I don't deliberately offend people and try to pretend that my aim is anything else, nor am I hypocritical enough to be deliberately offensive and then expect others to be otherwise, or to be offended myself when they are offensive back.

And make no mistake, it IS your offensive tone that's the problem here, not anything else.  If you had made your criticisms in a tone of honest curiosity and confusion, with a sincere desire to understand Christian beliefs, most of the responses - including my own - would have been equally polite.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Here's an example of something I believed in as a child but now find ridiculous.  That a fat man in a red suit could squeeze down my narrow chimney with a huge bag of toys just for me.

Lucky for me there is no santa religion so I don't have to worry about causing offense.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno guys, I am beginning to sense that it is criticism of christianity, not the tone or the manners or any perceived criticism of its adherents, that really upsets you.  Tell me -- why's the subject so touchy we cannot discuss it without so much angst?
> ...



Cecilie poilte? That I'd like to see!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Op lays out some of the reasons I find christianity impossible to accept.  You choose not to address them, but rather to tell me I didn't write it nicely enough.  Fair enough, I've been told before I'm not tender sometimes.  Okie-dokie; now that we have all staked out our morally superior positions, let's talk.
> 
> Do you agree with Cecille that some branches of christianity reject the Trinity, Jesus as God and an after-life?  Because I happen to think she might be wrong about those things.



Why should any of us address them, given your nasty tone?  You make it very clear that you think we're all idiots, and our core beliefs, around which we base our lives, are so much ridiculous gibberish to you, so can you tell us what about that should inspire us to do anything but answer in the same tone?  Point to me the part of your OP that says, "Please, sincerely open up and explain your beliefs so that I can criticize and mock them even further"?

If you walk up to me and my 17-month-old son and say, "Good grief, your baby is ugly and funny-looking", do you really think I'm going to launch into an enthusiastic attempt to convince you he's really cute, or am I going to tell you you're a complete jackass and possibly punch you in the nose, depending on my personal predilections?  Why is the concept that snotty, condescending rudeness will and should be met with the same hard for you to grasp?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Maybe you can send me a fucking list of pre-approved words that I can use to try and express myself, Newby.
> 
> Apparently anything is preferable to you to discussing the substance of what I or any other non-christian has said on this thread.  Why is that, I wonder?



There is no "substance" to "Christianity is ridiculous".  Until and unless you genuinely accept and apologize for your "I'm so wonderful, and you're all so lame" tone of voice, you deserve nothing but the same in return.  And if you're so goddamned incapable of civil discourse that you need someone to give you a list of acceptable words to do it with, then you REALLY don't deserve anything else in return.

Good grief, even _I _know the difference between polite, sincere discussion and snotty attacks, and can moderate myself between the two.  What's your frigging problem?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecille, the cure for what ails you is painfully obvious:  stop reading this thread.  Stop posting to it.  I dunno where you get the notion that I wrote it directly to you but that just ain't so.  We can carry on without you.

1,001 posts to claim "she started it" are not terribly illuminating.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you can send me a fucking list of pre-approved words that I can use to try and express myself, Newby.
> ...



Precisely.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Does anyone else here feel the use of the term "ass-kissy" implies a lack of sincere remorse?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

There are some teachings that are ridiculous.  I gave an example of one offered to me as a child by nuns in Catholic school.  That good girls don't wear patent leather shoes because boys can see up your dress.

Now that's an example of a ridiculous belief passed on by Catholic clergy.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno guys, I am beginning to sense that it is criticism of christianity, not the tone or the manners or any perceived criticism of its adherents, that really upsets you.  Tell me -- why's the subject so touchy we cannot discuss it without so much angst?
> ...



So if I had written the Op from the POV of a confused, beleaugered christian that would have been okie dokie.  It's the fact that I don't believe as you do that's the real rub.

I don't think this dilemma you see lends itself to resolution on a message board thread.  I wonder:  would you have been more tolerant of my posts had I gone through with conversion to Judaism?  Is there any religious belief other than yours you feel respectful towards?


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> There are some teachings that are ridiculous.  I gave an example of one offered to me as a child by nuns in Catholic school.  That good girls don't wear patent leather shoes because boys can see up your dress.
> 
> Now that's an example of a ridiculous belief passed on by Catholic clergy.



That's not a religious belief, that's advice.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Exactly.  As much as I might personally not care for Sky here, as much as I might disagree with her beliefs, I would never refer to them as "ridiculous", or use the term "nutters" in relation to, for example, Buddhists who choose to live in a remote monastery and keep a more severely Spartan lifestyle than others.  I don't even vaguely relate to that mindset and life choice, but that doesn't make it okay for me to be derogatory about it to Sky.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > There are some teachings that are ridiculous.  I gave an example of one offered to me as a child by nuns in Catholic school.  That good girls don't wear patent leather shoes because boys can see up your dress.
> ...



The belief is that boys are looking up little girls dresses via their shiny shoes.  It's ridiculous.

The mind of that nun teaching such a thing was definitely warped.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > If there's a problem with me acting according to my God-given nature, then it is for HIM to address it.
> ...



I am absolutely responsible for my actions.  Point is, I'm not responsible to MAD for them.  I'm responsible to GOD, and HE is the one who gets to question and chastise me for what I do with the personality He gave me, not Mad or any other non-Christian.

Oh, and this sort of criticism is rich coming from a group of people who like to tout the belief that we're all just animals, and therefore can't be wrong in acting on our animal instincts.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You said it was a religious teaching or belief tho, which it was not.   You don't think little boys try to look up little girls' dresses by whatever means possible then?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Hahaha.  That was cute.  I appreciate the sentiment.  You don't care for me, you disagree with my beliefs but you don't want to go out of your way to be derogative.  Fair enough.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



While I'm sure you're sincere in your belief that we're all just ridiculous idiots and you're much superior to us, you are NOT sincere about any sort of respect for those who don't suckle at the same philosophical teat that you do.

And Newby, despite your sincerely-held belief that everyone on the planet is just DYING to add your illustrious self to their religious fold, doesn't actually give a damn if you're convinced to believe in Christianity or not.  He just wants to convince you to believe in the concept of behaving like a civilized, courteous person instead of an arrogant savage.

And believe ME, when _I _am able to justifiably criticize you for rude behavior, you have REALLY sunk to the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



And I would absolutely respond politely and in-depth to such a thread from you - I believe I even have in the past - and make a sincere effort to help you understand my beliefs.  I think we have both even enjoyed such exchanges before, because while I don't share your faith, close members of my family have been Buddhists.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



OK.  If you want to defend the nun's position, go for it.  I see it differently.  I think the nun was ridiculous about patent leather shoes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I personally wouldn't even express it as a "repugnance".  It's entirely possible to express confusion as to its usage without ever mentioning THAT reaction at all.


----------



## Newby (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I'm not defending her, I'm just saying she didn't need attacked to begin with, that's all.  Seems like you're making a bigger deal out of something pretty small, at least from my point of view.  I'm sure the little girl's parents will put whatever shoes they want too on her, despite the nun's opinion of them.  At least I would if I were her parent.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I hope you're not waiting for profuse thanks in deigning to grace some of our beliefs with your lofty approval.

Actually, I hope you ARE waiting, and I hope you're holding your breath while so doing.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



For some reason Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ comes to mind.  I understand it was very gory.  One can certainly question why that was necessary.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

del said:


> whether or not she intended it, the OP is disrespectful to the beliefs of christians, IMO.
> 
> it's not terribly surprising to me that the result is more heat than light.



You know we're ass-deep in alligators when I'm agreeing with Del, but it would be dishonest of me not to admit it when he's right.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



If Christians are anti-sexual, then how come so many Christian sects are famous - or even infamous - for having enormous families with huge numbers of children?  Are we finding them under cabbage patches, or being invaded by swarms of storks?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Let's see if I follow.  You think I _attacked _the nun who taught that patent leather shoes were bad?

I'm making an example of something that I was taught by a nun that I think is ridiculous.  I'm not attacking the nun.  As an adult, I'm calling her belief to task for teaching a child something so silly and misguided.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> You want to discuss your disapproval of my manners s'more?
> 
> Fine.  Lemme know when you are done and ready to actually discuss the flaws I and others see in christianity that drove me off.  If that ever happens.



Given that you have yet to apologize OR demonstrate any sort of remorse for gratuitously attacking us, I can't see any reason to stop discussing your continuing lack of manners, nor any reason that we wouldn't WANT to drive you off, or would want to bring you back.  It never ceases to amaze me that you continue to harbor the belief that your company is so desirable that Christians would vie for it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

del said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



And anyone who thinks Christians aren't used to both has got his head in his colon, checking for polyps.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Gees Cecile--You're comin on like gangbusters.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I have not called any particular person a nutter, Newby.  Where is all this ultra-sensitivity coming from anyway?  The whole thread is about why some people reject christianity -- when you began reading were you surprised it happened sometimes because the beliefs did not ring true for them?
> ...



I would absolutely be willing to fill anyone in on confusing aspects of Christianity, and do so courteously so long as he or she was willing to be courteous and respectful in return.  Despite my acerbic tongue and willingless to give as good as - or better than - I get, I'm actually a good source on both my own church and most mainstream Christian denominations, although I would have to look up some of the more obscure stuff.

But I abso-fucking-lutely will not even BEGIN to pretend that someone is one iota nicer a person than they actually are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I was completely serious earlier when I said that Mad has some serious childhood psychological issues that she projects onto the rest of the world.  I was also completely serious when I said she needs to take them to a therapist and work them out.  She reminds me very much of a woman who was molested as a child and now can't wrap her head around the idea that ALL men aren't evil rapists.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

JoLouis said:


> Curvelight is wrong about the crucifixion. Jesus was crucified for being gay. He was the first gay rights activist.



I hope you're not imagining that you're adding anything of value to this thread.  Even Mad is doing better than this verbal equivalent of a steaming pile of dung.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

One step forward three steps backward.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

JoLouis said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



As I've said before, when you're such a shithead that I'm justified in teaching you etiquette, you know you've scraped the bottom of the barrel.

But where Mad is an uncivilized savage, YOU are a chimpanzee in the monkey house, and I have neither the ability nor the interest to raise you the sufficient number of evolutionary rungs to make you suitable company for humans.  FLUSH!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Here's an example of something I believed in as a child but now find ridiculous.  That a fat man in a red suit could squeeze down my narrow chimney with a huge bag of toys just for me.
> 
> Lucky for me there is no santa religion so I don't have to worry about causing offense.



I never believed in Santa.  My parents - and I continued this mindset with my own children - felt it was best to always tell me the truth as they knew it about everything, which made it much easier for me to believe them in everything they DID say.  I considered that they might be WRONG, but I never considered that they were untruthful.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Cecille, the cure for what ails you is painfully obvious:  stop reading this thread.  Stop posting to it.  I dunno where you get the notion that I wrote it directly to you but that just ain't so.  We can carry on without you.
> 
> 1,001 posts to claim "she started it" are not terribly illuminating.



Nope.  Pretending that asinine jerks like you don't exist does not cure the fact that you do.  In fact, it only encourages it by allowing you to be an asinine jerk without being called on it.

You have no cause whatsoever to have your panties in a ruffle with me, sweetie.  I didn't start this fight, you did, and you're the one who continues to refuse to admit that you were wrong and apologize.

Maybe you should learn not to let your mouth write checks the rest of you can't cash.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> There are some teachings that are ridiculous.  I gave an example of one offered to me as a child by nuns in Catholic school.  That good girls don't wear patent leather shoes because boys can see up your dress.
> 
> Now that's an example of a ridiculous belief passed on by Catholic clergy.



Did they tell you that was a central tenet of Catholic faith, or just their own personal observation (which, by the way, is true if your patent leather shoes are polished enough)?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You don't think little boys try to look up little girls' skirts, and use any shiny, reflective surface handy to do so?  I beg to differ, based on my memories of little boys from the time when I wore patent leather shoes.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

The teaching was that girls who wore patent leather shoes were bad.  I guess that includes you Cecile, since you wore those kind of shoes, you naughty thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I don't want to be derogative at all.  I don't adhere to the Buddhist faith, and I'm not built to share the mindset, but I have great respect for Buddhism and those who sincerely practice it.  I'll admit to a bit of contempt for celebrity Buddhists, who appear a lot more interested in seeming mystical and spiritual than anything else, but that's not actually to do with the religion itself.

I even respect Islam as a religion, up to the point where it inspires people to start killing others.  I personally know a number of Muslims who are every bit as peaceful and law-abiding as anyone else, and want only to live their own lives and serve their deity quietly, and I can do nothing BUT respect that.  Shoot, I even respect that sincerity in Scientologists, and I would have to say in all honesty that I have trouble crediting that as even being a real religion.  Nevertheless, if that's what someone truly believes and they are genuinely seeking after self-betterment without hurting anyone else, more power to 'em.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I imagine she WAS more zealous on the subject than it required, but it's hard to blame her.  Seriously, if you're someone who has a lifelong abjuration of all things sexual, you're not likely to approach the subject with the same equanimity as other people, are you?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You've got a good point.  How could one expect Catholics who are trained by celibate monastics (in your words, with a lifelong abjuration of all things sexual) to have a healthy view of sex?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You DO know what the word "passion" in this context actually means, don't you?  (I ask in all sincerity, because it turns out many people actually don't.)  It is defined as "the sufferings of Christ between the night of His last supper and His death".  We get our current usage of the word to mean "intense emotion", usually romantic or sexual, precisely because those things so often FEEL like suffering.

Mel Gibson's movie was ABOUT the suffering of Christ, which was even more gory than that in reality.  The Bible tells us that He was unrecognizable as a man when He was carrying the cross.  The entire point of the movie was to bring home to the viewer what Christ went through and why.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Gees Cecile--You're comin on like gangbusters.



Hey, I was out of the loop for a while.  What can I say?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The teaching was that girls who wore patent leather shoes were bad.  I guess that includes you Cecile, since you wore those kind of shoes, you naughty thing.



Hey, I wore what my mom bought me.  She didn't exactly consult me on the subject.  Noticeably, however, she never polished them to the point where they were reflective.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



One of the many reasons why my church doesn't advocate celibacy for its clergy.  In fact, my church positively ENCOURAGES its pastors to be married and have families, and it's quite rare to find a full pastor occupying a pulpit who is not or has not been married.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

as an FYI for anyone interested:

edited with a new link to a better article:
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/CatholicSex.htm


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



When did I ever say we're all just animals and no act of ours is wrong?  

BTW, why are you not responsible to others for the impact your conduct has on them?  Is this another flight of fancy you have as a result of being "christian"?  The rest of us are responsible to one another -- what do you claim makes you so special?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



When did I ever say YOU said it?  Just another example of how incredibly self-centered you are.

I am responsible for what I choose to do.  I am not remotely responsible for how YOU choose to feel about it or react to it.  That's all you.  As for "claiming to be special", I'M not the one who presumes to lecture others on how to practice a religion I not only don't share, but disdain.  So once again, you have ventured off into arrogant hypocrisy.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Newby, maybe you had to be there.  One of our chores was to clean the church, but we were not allowed, ever, to approach the altar.  Not to clean it or anything else -- our mere presence would have defiled it.  Over and over and over, the same damnable message.  Sex is evil.  Women cause men to be tempted to have sex (and so do little girls).  As if there was not a single, solitary thing worth knowing about ourselves, or any woman.

I don't believe that every other sect of christianity has rejected this motif.  Where do all the gay bashers, abortion doctor murderers and "defenders of marriage" come from, if not the christian right?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I'm dead serious about this.  Seek some professional therapy.  I know that from inside your little head, it seems perfectly normal to have this level of irrational hatred and to spread it to anyone even vaguely resembling a Catholic, but trust me, it's not.  You have real, severe psychological issues.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I remember that women were not allowed to approach the altar.   I remember being told that girls were the 'occassion of sin' for boys.  In other words, if a boy was aroused by a girl and felt lustful, the girl was at fault.

These are compelling reasons why it was necessary for you to reject those notions and find your own way spiritually.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



One tactic in dismissing points of view that one cannot debate adequately is to call the other side crazy.

IMO Madeline has valid reasons for choosing to not practice the Christian faith.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



See, I was taught that whether the girl held SOME fault (because the primary fault for the boy's lust ALWAYS lies with the boy) depended on whether she had done something to incur his lust.  Which seems perfectly rational to me.  Then again, my church doesn't have any holy objects that people are forbidden to go near.  This was actually, if I remember correctly, a big part of why the Protestant churches originally schismed from the Catholic Church.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her.  I'm stating a fact.  While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You have no basis for this claim.  Madeline has valid reasons to opt out of being a Christian.

It's insulting for you to label her with mental disorder.  If you label your opponent crazy you miss an opportunity to debate the issues she raises.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I have a very good basis for that claim.  It's called "reading her posts".  The only way you can read what Madeline has to say about Christianity and NOT come to the conclusion that she has unresolved childhood issues that impair her judgement on the subject is if you actively WANT to believe it's not true.

I didn't label her with a mental disorder.  I never said, "You're a schizophrenic" or "you're a borderline personality".  Everyone has issues, Sky, even you.  Not everyone is impaired by them or requires counseling to deal with them, but I firmly believe Mad is and does.

And there's no "opportunity to debate the issues she raises" because she hasn't raised any.  Literally the only thing she has raised is her own hatred and bigotry, and I am duly discussing it.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Madeline has stated that Christianity is anti-female and anti-sex.  Those are debateable issues.

Whether she does or doesn't have 'unresolved issues requiring counseling' is none of your business.  I don't recall Madeline inviting you to diagnose her with paranoia.

It's a logical fallacy.  Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot.  There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Okay.  You're just too fucking dumb to understand fighting for Civil Rights doesn't mean one has "masochistic" tendencies even if it entails physical violence.


This is hilarious.  You have shown yourself to have no clue about the meaning of the word since you had to go look it up in the dictionary and pick out the wrong definition.  You once again are splitting this into an all-or-nothing idea, whereas you see "masochism" as a bad thing, and good causes can't possibly have bad aspects to them.  FALSE!  The reason is irrelevant.  If someone is willingly taking on pain, either actively or passively, it is a masochistic tendency, regardless of whether the cause is sexual gratification, striving for civil rights, or winning a sports match.  The cause doesn't matter.  The fact that you still don't understand this fact is just laughably incredible.  






Sky Dancer said:


> Saying that 'most' Christian sects are anti-sexual is an unsupportable statement.


It's surprising anyone would contest this point.  Sexuality has been condemned and suppressed by Christianity for centuries, and is still very clearly seen in today's society under the guise of "family values" and "morals".  Let's look at Catholicism, and it's stance on pre-marital and life-long priest celibacy. What is the church's stance on masturbation?  Which group is solely responsible for pushing abstinence only education even after it was proven to increase teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD transmission?  Which group in America is largely responsible for abhorring and preventing gay marriage and other LGBT community activities? 

It's clear to me that the only form of sexuality accepted widely by the leaders of Christianity is the form they deem as appropriate.  You're missing a large part of sexuality if you can only experience it under someone else's rules. 

As for the question regarding the large Christian families: this is a product of the sexual constrictions.  Do you not realize they exist because of lack of belief in birth control?  Are you unaware of the emotional and financial burden it can be to only have unprotected sex and just take the consequences?  Come on, think why.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  You're just too fucking dumb to understand fighting for Civil Rights doesn't mean one has "masochistic" tendencies even if it entails physical violence.
> ...



My point is when you argue from 'most' or 'all' it's unsupportable.  I agree with you that the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality are repressive.   That's why you have the phenomena of "Cafeteria Catholics', those Catholic swho take up some but not all of the core principles of Catholicism.  The Church's stance on contraception, masturbation and divorce are examples of places where individual Catholics reject the Church's teaching but still consider themselves Catholics in good standing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



No, they aren't, because she didn't say it based on any knowledge of Christianity at large.  She said it based on her own personal issues with CATHOLICISM, which she then projected onto every other Christian denomination in existence.  Which, by the way, bears out my statement concerning "paranoia".  She attributes Catholic dogma, or what she perceives Catholic dogma to be, onto anyone who even remotely resembles a Catholic in her eyes.

I have no intention of arguing the beliefs of MY church with someone who's assuming what they are based on some OTHER church's beliefs.  That's ridiculous.



Sky Dancer said:


> Whether she does or doesn't have 'unresolved issues requiring counseling' is none of your business.  I don't recall Madeline inviting you to diagnose her with paranoia.



Then you must not have read her OP, or any of her successive posts.  When she hauls her fucking childhood in a fucking Catholic orphanage out for everyone's delectation and then starts spewing crazed, bigoted rants about Christianity based on it, she sure the hell HAS invited me and anyone with two brain cells to rub together to figure out that she has issues.  And if she can start a whole thread to tell us how much she hates Christians, then I can sure respond with how much I think she needs therapy.  She seems so proud of how "blunt" she is, so she can bloody well suck up a little blunt speaking in return.



Sky Dancer said:


> It's a logical fallacy.  Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot.  There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.



I'm not impugning anything.  I'm making a statement of fact.  She's a bigot, and she hates Christianity.  Is it my fault that the character aspects I notice are flaws, or her fault that the character aspects she EXHIBITS are flaws?  Am I supposed to pretend that a Klan member dressed in a white sheet and spewing against black people is not a racist jerk?

She's not taking the Catholic Church to task on its teachings.  She's tarring and feathering the whole of Christianity (of which the non-Catholic members FAR outnumber the Catholic ones, thank you so very much) based on what a handful of people running an orphanage when she was a child did.  And she's hating ALL OF US for it.

If you can't see that, then I can only assume you have another agenda here that makes you willfully blind, because it's as plain as the nose on my face.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I give up Cecile.  We may have come to an impasse.  If I don't agree with your view of Madeline then I have an agenda that makes me 'willfully blind'?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> My point is when you argue from 'most' or 'all' it's unsupportable.  I agree with you that the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality are repressive.   That's why you have the phenomena of "Cafeteria Catholics', those Catholic swho take up some but not all of the core principles of Catholicism.  The Church's stance on contraception, masturbation and divorce are examples of places where individual Catholics reject the Church's teaching but still consider themselves Catholics in good standing.


I'm aware of the underlying idea, but I've never heard it called "Cafeteria Catholic" before.  I'll have to remember that one.  It sounds like we are generally in agreement on this topic.  Making gross generalizations of "most" or "all" doesn't quite work, but it's clear where she's getting the stereotypes from.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > It's a logical fallacy.  Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot.  There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.
> ...


Her posts are blunt, but I see no bigotry in them.  Sky Dancer is right in that you are not actually pointing out and shooting down bigoted remarks, but are instead just attacking Madeline personality.  No one really cares that you're crying "bigot".  Point out where, point out why, and refute it with evidence.  Otherwise, no one wants to listen to your whining.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 14, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > My point is when you argue from 'most' or 'all' it's unsupportable.  I agree with you that the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality are repressive.   That's why you have the phenomena of "Cafeteria Catholics', those Catholic swho take up some but not all of the core principles of Catholicism.  The Church's stance on contraception, masturbation and divorce are examples of places where individual Catholics reject the Church's teaching but still consider themselves Catholics in good standing.
> ...



I have no idea where you've been this entire time that you're unaware of all the time I ALREADY spent pointing out her bigotry and shooting it down, although I seem to vaguely remember an utterly boring and pointless debate concerning masochism in which neither party knew squat about the subject.  I skipped it.  Meanwhile, perhaps you could make the effort to go back and find out what was going on while your head was up your ass before accusing me of not doing something I spent several pages doing.

I'm glad to know that you accept that you're no one, but it's really unnecessary for you to go to so much trouble to tell me you're interested in my posts.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


Except that would be entirely dishonest of me to pretend I was not revolted by the practice. It's not your place to tell me how I feel. I'm sure nothing will stop you from doing so, however.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Maybe something to do with not using birth control?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


It was the first step in teaching a little girl that boys are unable to control their sexual urges and it's the little girl's responsibility not to wear patent leather shoes which might make the little boy lose control and make a sexual attack on her. In which it would be all her fault for tempting the little boy.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> One step forward three steps backward.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Actually, you imply that I, since your post is a response to me, come "from a group of people who like to tout the belief that we're all just animals, and therefore can't be wrong in acting on our animal instincts." I just dismissed it as more of your inanities.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Well said, Cecilie's tactic is just another version of Newby's "You have a chip on your shoulder" deflection.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


It's simply amazing that you are able to diagnose mental disorders and disease from anonymous posts on a message board!  You must be a medical genius!!! I wonder why Oprah has not discovered you yet!


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 14, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Maybe Madeline is a 'recovering Catholic'.

 I found a young woman's website who wrote her own personal "12 step program for Catholics Anonymous."  This website includes testimonies of ex-christians.
http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2006/04/recovering-catholic.html


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I seem to vaguely remember an utterly boring and pointless debate concerning masochism in which neither party knew squat about the subject.  I skipped it.


That's amazing.  You appear to have both skipped the conversation AND evaluated it at the same time!  That's talent right there.



Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm glad to know that you accept that you're no one, but it's really unnecessary for you to go to so much trouble to tell me you're interested in my posts.


This is just feeding to the point that you seem to type nothing but 3rd grade insults instead of actually addressing the topic of conversation.

I don't much care if you made some semblance of relevant point pages ago.  Going on for pages after that about absolutely nothing but personal gripes still makes you a whiner.  If you have a point to make about the topic, make it.  If you've already made it, stop typing. Pointing fingers and resorting to name calling doesn't support anything you've said.  Return to making points.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Yanno guys, I am beginning to sense that it is criticism of christianity, not the tone or the manners or any perceived criticism of its adherents, that really upsets you. Tell me -- why's the subject so touchy we cannot discuss it without so much angst?
> 
> Are you this careful not to offend others?


 
Oh, I'm fine with it alllllll day long... While your at it though, maybe you can tell me why you all get so offended at Christians defending themselves or sharing their faith? 

If you want to talk about touchy, just mention the word Jesus and the opposition goes ballistic. But they have no problem bashing all day long. Why is that?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Light, I am not entirely sure a person can "hate" a belief system the same way they "hate" other people. I'm outraged by the RCC, and I think justifiably so. Beyond that I'm not sure I have an emotional response to christianity....I do to the behavior of some who call themselves "christians", but that is not quite the same thing.
> 
> I suspect the *easy way out* for some of you reading this who accept that I had "every opportunity" to become a christian adult and yet did not is to try a bit of psychoanalysis and conclude that my resentment of the injustices I endured and saw as a child drove me away from the faith I otherwise would have been so at home with. The "but for" argument. And it is true, if things had been different they wouldn't be the same.




Easy way out? Ain't it interesting how you try to do a bit of psychoanalysis on Christians and then when I turn the tables you call it "the easy way out"?




> However, none of that responds directly to any of the points I made about the faith. None of it addresses the inconsistencies, the misuse or the flawed logic. Replies like the one you have made may marginalize me in the eyes of some readers, but they don't happen to be accurate and they don't respond to any of the criticisms that have been made of the faith by myself and others.


 
It responds to the post that you used to attempt a marginalization of Christians. 




> Maybe if you did me the courtesy of accepting that what I have written is my own truth, rather than making up a fairy tale for me to substitute for your comfort, we'd get further in this discussion.


 
Unfortunately, that is precisely the problem. I read your OP and accepted it as coming straight from the horses mouth.

Let's read again in case you forgot already...



Madeline said:


> The first thing I objected to was this need some folks seemed to have to have their asses kissed because they were Clergy. It didn't help that they were, almost to a person, sadistic, uncaring, evil fuckwhits. Ass kissing has just never been part of my skill set. I had a checkmark for "fails to show proper respect to Clergy" on my report card even single time for a decade -- and every time I would think "seems like the proper amount of respect to me -- ZERO."


 
This was YOUR second paragraph in the OP. You know the OP with the title "Why I am not a Christian"

You are the one writing your own fairy tale I guess. All I'm doing is connecting the dots.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

This seems to summarize the responses from the christians so far:

Avatar says he has pondered long and hard and still has questions. (Fair enough.)

Pixie Stix says the faith changed her life and is meaningful to her for that reason (and it's a good one) but she doesn't care to debate it.  (Fair enough.)

CurveLight says the wrong people respond to his posts and apparently is no longer willing to dialogue because of it.

Cecilie says I am mentally defective and unworthy of her time and attention -- 1,001 times.

Newby says she'd reply substantively if I weren't so damed rude.

TheLight sees a mental defect and is so fascinated, he cannot reply substantively either.

Have I got this right?  If none of the christians cares to address any of the issues others have with the faith, okie dokie.  Stop posting and allow the rest of us to discuss.....whether you acknowledge it or not, your faith influences all our lives.  From the Moral Majority to the claim that "this is a nation founded on christian values" to a million other issues, your boot is on _our_  neck.

A person does not have to be a practicing christian to have legitimate complaints/issues/questions about christianity.  It might be nice to discuss them with christians, but that t'aint necessary.....just to dialogue about them at all is welcome, at least to me.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> This seems to summarize the responses from the christians so far:
> 
> Avatar says he has pondered long and hard and still has questions. (Fair enough.)
> 
> ...


Madeline, I'm interested to know at what age did you begin to have doubts about the validity of your Christian indoctrination. How did you come to have your own original ideas about the existence of God and the nonexistence of an afterlife?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

I was about 5 when the folks died, and I really cannot recall any attendance at church while I lived with them.  I made my First Holy Communion the following year, and that was great -- pretty white dress, etc.  Having to memorize a bunch of stuff didn't put me off, but First Holy Confession did.  I wasn't too clear on what a sin was or how I might have committed one as a six year old.  It made no sense and when I asked, I was punished...a pattern that would be repeated ever-after.  By the 4th grade, I had my priviledges to ask questions during Religious Instruction class revoked permanently, creating a huge gap between what made sense to me and what I was expected to learn and believe, not to mention, arousing a sense of injustice in me.

(I've had an odd sense of deja vu about this reading some of the posts to this thread.  Just shut up, shut up shut up -- don't ask questions. Doing so makes you a bad person.)

I went to all the services I was required to during childhood, but I was the kid who aped singing because, unless the hymn was in Latin and I could amuse myself by translating, I was b-o-r-e-d.  During my whole childhood, I made my Confession every Saturday with the same sins to the same priest -- and received wildly varying penances as a result.  I also wondered why the priest didn't clue in that I was admitting to saying "shut up" twice and lying once during the past week every single week.  I didn't think he was paying attention, and the whole exercize seemed like a meaningless ritual to me.

Once I was free, it just never even occurred to me to return.  I attended a family funeral at about 19 and watched "The Exorcist" around then as well, and both aroused powerful feelings for the "faith of my youth".  For the rituals, really.  But each time the feeling faded quickly.

As for how my beliefs formed, that's harder to answer.  I am the only girl I knew in childhood to have survived even into young adulthood -- drugs, crime and suicide claimed the rest as far as I know.  I think to some degree, I have survivor guilt and explain the odd result I have benefited from by assuming there is a God.   And as I said, there have been moments -- months and years really -- when I think I was only able to go on with God's Grace.  The funny thing is, though I cannot articulate some fantabulous proof that God exists, I feel certain in my bones that he does.

There's been a "death in the family" almost since I can remember.  So more than most kidlets, I knew death happened, I knew what it meant and I had to cope with its aftermath.  I'm not a big believer in self-comfort from bullshit.  The dead are gone, for good.  Somewhere around age 40 it dawned on me what good news this is -- if a person has been extinguished completely, there is nothing left of him to suffer.  Add to this, of course, all the ridiculous intricate shifting descriptions of Heaven and Hell I had been treated to, along with a list of who went where.  Being rebellious, I thought if there was a destination I'd rather be entertained in Hell than bored in Heaven.  It's a bit difficult to live your life aiming to wind up in Hell, and since all my efforts to reform myself went nowhere, I just chucked the whole thing.  Not a very elegant reply on this issue either, I suppose, but again -- in my bones I feel that I have this nailed 100% correct.

If God exists and an after-life does not, I mused, then what call is there for ethics?  Maybe I just have an over-active conscience, but I felt badly when I acted badly.  From there sprang all my beliefs about what really constitutes Justice, etc.

What about you, Anguille?  Were you raised as a christian?


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> This seems to summarize the responses from the christians so far:
> 
> Avatar says he has pondered long and hard and still has questions. (Fair enough.)
> 
> ...



I have responded and done so to sincere questions and in a respectful manner to those asking,  but I did not get into a sparring match.  Just like it has been said, a "dialogue about them at all is welcome" is not true from what I have seen.  Rather, a bait and bash session is more of what is wanted.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

My apologies, Frank.  The thread is now almost 70 pages long and to be honest, I don't recall your replies.  I'd agree they most likely were not incendiary or I would.

So would you care to dialogue?

I see christianity as anti-female and anti-sexual; do you agree there's a problem in this regard?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



The 'issues' that you are raising are from specific Catholic churches 25 to 35 years ago and have nothing to do with 95% of christianity as it is practiced today.  Yet no matter how often that is said, you all continue to insist that it's all exactly as it was whenever your youthful experiences took place.  I guess that's the only place from which you can continue to feel justified for the constant bashing tho, so you chose to remain in that time warp.  I think Cecilie is completely right in the observation that counseling may be a good thing since it doesn't seem possible for movement out of the mindset that was formed when in childhood.  I'm sincerely sorry that some have had bad experiences as children where religion was concerned, however, by adulthood one should realize that their childhood experiences were unique to them and perhaps a small percentage of others and not paint an entire religion with the same disdain they held for their childhood influences.  Quit using what you experienced in your childhood as a crutch or an excuse, move on or get help with it.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Then how do you explain many people who have not experienced the same things that you or she has experienced?  I grew up Catholic and never felt that it was anti-female or anti-sex.  Maybe it's possible that other people have had difference experiences than you?  It's not only possible, it's a fact.  Why isn't 'she' bashing on the Muslim religion then if those are her issues?  They are far more anti-female and anti-sex than the Christian religion ever was, yet I haven't heard a peep about Islam from any of you.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

The topic is "Why I Am Not A Christian'.  I would think it has interest for all of us.  We all have stories as to what led our paths in live a certain way.

There is no need to pathologize our choices.  If the topic is uncomfortable then there is always the choice to not participate.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



'Repressive' is in the eye of the beholder is it not?  It's a very subjective term and what you may find repressive another may not.  You're making judgments based on your own definition of the word.  Maybe those who believe in the commitment of marriage and keeping sex within the marriage don't find the Catholic church 'repressive'.  Why does everyone have to think like you do?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I'd like to hear you say that to a person who was raped by a priest.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Excellent.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby, which faith organizes and opposes gay marriage?  The repeal of DADT?  Which one fights against a woman's right to abortion?  Which one lobbies the FDA to keep safer abortificants away from US women?  Which one opposes teaching sex ed to public school students?

We cannot even elect a politician or nominate someone to the judiciary without doing a gut-check on their adherence to christianity.  Yes, there are exceptions....but read the Kagan bashing threads.  Far too many complain she might not decide cases along the lines their christianity dictates.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Get a clue. She wasn't raised a Muslim. If you want to start a thread about "Why I am not A Muslim", nothing is stopping you. 

What a whiner you are!


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Is that different than being raped by your stepfather, your brother's friend, your uncle, or any other male that had even more trust than any priest in your life?  How is that Christianity's fault or even associated with 'religion'?  Was the priest acting in a way that comported with what the church taught?  Was the priest acting in a way that comported with what Jesus taught?  Absolutely not.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



How do I explain that many people have not experienced the Catholic Church as anti-female or anti-sex?  I don't need to.  We've all had different experiences.  You, Madeline and I were all raised Catholics and we each left the Catholic Church for different reasons.

Why would Madeline comment on Islam instead of Christianity?  She wasn't raised a Muslim and the Islamic faith was not central to her spiritual path.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 15, 2010)

You want Islam? Mohammed could have KICKED Jesus' butt!!!!!!!!


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Obviously, since it's become known that the Catholic church protected priests who were/are child rapists.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



The Catholic Church had a practice of systematically protecting pedophile priests.  Tell me how that's ok.  The sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is growing around the world.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


I've known many people of many ages who have told me pretty much the same things you and Madeline have said about experiences being raised in the Catholic church. I have one friend who is now an atheist who says she believes she had a unique experience as child in the Catholic church in that all she remembers is fun festivities and being part of a large happy community. She says she misses all that but when she started to question her faith in god she found she actually had none and so she left the church.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

> Newby wrote:
> 
> Is that different than being raped by your stepfather, your brother's friend, your uncle, or any other male that had even more trust than any priest in your life? How is that Christianity's fault or even associated with 'religion'? Was the priest acting in a way that comported with what the church taught? Was the priest acting in a way that comported with what Jesus taught? Absolutely not.



Yes it is different, Newby, and I bet you know that.  It does not take a long ponder to realize that there's a great deal more room for mind-fucking when the abuser is clergy and the victim is Catholic.  Then there's the entirety of the RCC's conduct, denying care to victims, shielding their property, taking depositions that reduced victims to tears, electing a pontiff with dirty hands, etc. etc. etc.  I cannot believe anyone would even try to defend/excuse/minimize the RCC's history of sexually abusing children.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I find it odd that one would sit in judgment of a religion because it is supposedly anti-female and anti-sex, yet not make one comment about the religion that actually meets those two criteria in spades.  It says to me there's another agenda in place, it's not about anti-female or anti-sex, it's about anti-christianity.  I have more respect for the people that just come out and say it rather than trying to hide behind some sad childhood story.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

JoLouis said:


> You want Islam? Mohammed could have KICKED Jesus' butt!!!!!!!!



Are you Muslim, JoLouis?  Isn't that difficult, as a gay person?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Come on Newby, be honest.  You have no respect for Madeline's experience.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I see, so the your contention is that the church actually taught their priests to rape children, that they preached this to their congregation?  It was out in the open and everyone knew about it?  Why would they need to 'protect' them if it was just a part of the church doctrine as you are so pitifully trying to claim here?


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> My apologies, Frank.  The thread is now almost 70 pages long and to be honest, I don't recall your replies.  I'd agree they most likely were not incendiary or I would.
> 
> So would you care to dialogue?
> 
> I see christianity as anti-female and anti-sexual; do you agree there's a problem in this regard?



No, I don't agree.  You are generalizing that, based on your experience or perhaps your perceptions, that ALL of Christianity falls under the Catholic teachings.  They do not.  I never felt that how I was taught was "anti-female" at all in any way, shape, or form.  As for "anti-sexual", I would not classify my upbringing as "repressed" or "anti-sexual", but simply something that was delegated to the family to convey and not for open discussion.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I've never said it was 'okay', and I never would.  What the Catholic church did had nothing to do with Christianity or what Jesus taught in the Bible or what the church itself supposedly taught.  That's my point.  To associate what the Catholic church does with christianity in general is ridiculous, to use one of Mad's terms.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You have to be ignoring a lot of evidence to make this claim.  The Catholic Church as an institution knew it had pedophile priests and the Church protected those priests by shipping them around from parish to parish spreading the pedophilia around.

I can't believe you think that's ok.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

> Newby wrote:
> 
> I find it odd that one would sit in judgment of a religion because it is supposedly anti-female and anti-sex, yet not make one comment about the religion that actually meets those two criteria in spades. It says to me there's another agenda in place, it's not about anti-female or anti-sex, it's about anti-christianity. I have more respect for the people that just come out and say it rather than trying to hide behind some sad childhood story.



I'm not hiding a thing, Newby.  The thread title should be a clue, the Op, all my posts -- the topic is "Why I Am Not A Christian".   I'm saying one reason the faith held no charm for me was that it is crushingly mysoginistic and anti-sexual.  Doubtless there are other faiths that are as well, but claiming that it is a "hidden agenda" to dicuss the most mainstream of all US faiths unless every other faith is likewise scruitnized is disingenuous.

The thread is not meant to be a comparative theology discussion, and claiming that other religions are "just as bad" as yours gets us exactly nowhere.

BTW, how can any self-respecting woman not find the RCC anti-female?


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



The Catholic church does NOT represent ALL of Christianity.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > Newby wrote:
> >
> > Is that different than being raped by your stepfather, your brother's friend, your uncle, or any other male that had even more trust than any priest in your life? How is that Christianity's fault or even associated with 'religion'? Was the priest acting in a way that comported with what the church taught? Was the priest acting in a way that comported with what Jesus taught? Absolutely not.
> 
> ...



That's pure bullshit.  You're telling me if an uncle is raping you and telling you it's okay and to not tell anyone else in the family and taking advantage of his role in your life, that that's better than some priest who has limited access and authority over you?  Give me a break.

I'm not the one minimizing it, you're the one trying to make it more deviant or worse than any other situation where a trusted adult is sexually abusing a child, and that's bullshit.


----------



## froggy (Jun 15, 2010)

The answer is found in the opening of your op "I was raised (in my early years) by two pinkos with VERY independent minds," problem solved.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Newby be honest?  lol!


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



To be honest with you Sky, I don't believe her story, I think most of it is made up.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

> Newby wrote:
> 
> That's pure bullshit. You're telling me if an uncle is raping you and telling you it's okay and to not tell anyone else in the family and taking advantage of his role in your life, that that's better than some priest who has limited access and authority over you? Give me a break.
> 
> I'm not the one minimizing it, you're the one trying to make it more deviant or worse than any other situation where a trusted adult is sexually abusing a child, and that's bullshit.



I'm not in the habit of dismissing anyone's pain by decreeing that it is not as severe as someone else's IMO.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > Newby wrote:
> ...



IMO a priest raping a child is a worse offense because it not only violate the child emotionally but alos damages the child spiritually.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Thanks for admitting that.  I believe her.  I have had my own journey of leaving Catholicism and finding Buddhism.  Why would I doubt anothers?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Frank, it doesn't matter.  Choose any mainstream sect you like -- they all have struggled with anti-female and anti-sex attitudes and while some have done better in overcoming them, the majority have not IMO.


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



And answered that earlier.  You just haven't responded.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


I think _yours_ is invented.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Now you're being dishonest, Sky. I have never once said what they did was okay.  You're completely missing my point.  The Catholic Church does not officially in any capacity ever promote the sexual molestation of children, it was not taught in their church.  A lot of people did a lot of work to cover up what was going on, which meant that they knew it was wrong.  Ang tried to insinuate that the raping of children was part and parcel of what the Catholic church taught whenever I made the comment that raping children was not taught by Christianity, the catholic church, or was Jesus taught in the Bible.  It has nothing to do with religion, it was a blatant act of exactly the opposite.  That it happened in places of worship by people who are supposed to represent christians is abhorent.   Tell me why the stigma of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks never seems to stick to the entire religion of Islam, yet the Catholic church's crimes always seem to speak to the whole of christianity to people like you?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > Newby wrote:
> >
> > That's pure bullshit. You're telling me if an uncle is raping you and telling you it's okay and to not tell anyone else in the family and taking advantage of his role in your life, that that's better than some priest who has limited access and authority over you? Give me a break.
> >
> ...



Yet you did exactly that.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I appreciate it as well, Newby.  It most honest than Cecilie's allegations that she can diagnose on the 'net.  The fact is, it's all true -- and much more.  

Your POV is convenient, but Newby, do you simply not believe that Catholic orphanages once existed?  Or do you think all the children raised in them have since died?  Or that they all had a jolly good time?

In other words, this device may suit to shield you from the need to debate the substantive matters I have raised but only at the cost of _pretending_.   IMO, if you have to _pretend_  a lot to remain a faithful adherent of christianity, the price is too high.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Why don't you go back an honestly address that post, or can't you?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I can't believe that you would say a child raped by a priest is worse off than any other child raped by a trusted adult.  That's pretty sad in my opinion.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I take exception to being called dishonest.  I have my point of view and you have yours.  That's all.  The Church *as an institution *supported and covered up for pedophile priests.  This was policy from bishops on down.

You cannot separate the religious institution from the religion.  The Church aided and abetted criminal acts as common policy.  The Church harbored and protected pedophiles placing the value of the sick priest over the innocence of children.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



How the hell would you know?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Because you continue to put words in my mouth. You are not worth my time of day. You are a selfish prig who wants to hold onto her delusions at all costs. You are offensive to other posters. You try to derail threads and throw up red herrings. I have no respect for petty, not very original, very tiresome trolls like yourself.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Well, I take extreme exception to someone insinuating that I think it's okay for priests to rape children, which is exactly what you said.

And you absolutely can separate the religion from the institution.  They were not representing what Christianity is about with their actions.  Are you saying that suicide bombers represent what Islam is all about then?


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Yes, you can.  First, and YET AGAIN, the Catholic church does not represent ALL of Christianity.  Second, people are not perfect.  People sin.  That does NOT condemn the teachings of Christ.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Ditto.  Don't go away mad, just go away.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Only a former clergy would really know, Newby.  But examine a few Catholic attitudes:

Priests are God's emmisaries on Earth.  Judging and controlling them is the exclusive province of Church hierarchy.  People cannot parish-shop; they have to attend Mass etc. in the parish where they live.

Women and little girls are the source of all sexual temptation and in fact, the source of original sin.

Females are defective.

Anything is better than renouncing one's vows and getting married; for that, you get ex-communicated.

Masturbation is a sin.

Etc.

I could go on, but I think you take my point.  It's my opinion that clergy with celibacy issues were encouraged sub rosa to consider abusing children as a viable alternative.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

Why would anyone need to join the southern baptists, methodist, lutherans, episcopalians, etc. before they could _accurately_  observe their conduct and beliefs?


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Why would anyone need to join the southern baptists, methodist, lutherans, episcopalians, etc. before they could _accurately_  observe their conduct and beliefs?



Huh?  I've responded to your questions, but this one I simply do not understand.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


The Catholic church does not represent all of Christianity, as you say. but you must realize that it represents a large part of it for many people.


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



No, it does not.  Perhaps that some of our frustration with this whole thread in that ALL of Christianity is painted with the broad strokes of the Catholic brush.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No one is condemning all of Christianity or the teachings of Christ.    We can honestly say the institutions of Christianity--Catholic Church, as an example, case in point, have committed wrongs and should be held accountable for it.


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



And to that, I agree.  But what should be held accountable are the individuals and the institution that sinned, not the religion.  And furthermore, from what I have read, "catholic" and "christian" have been used interchangably throughout this thread.  My participation in this discussion, to no avail I may add, has been to distinguish between them and to answer questions about "christianity" as I have been taught and understand.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



That's all really nice, but none of that comports with the teachings of Jesus Christ, aka, Christianity.


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Newby, they aren't "getting it".....


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Why would anyone need to join the southern baptists, methodist, lutherans, episcopalians, etc. before they could _accurately_  observe their conduct and beliefs?



Because you don't learn what their beliefs are or see what their conduct is unless you attend their services.  Are you now going to claim that you've done that as well?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



It speaks to Madeline's reasons for rejecting Christianity which is what this thread is all about.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



What am I personally not getting Frank?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




The thread title does not state 'Why I am not a Catholic' and then lists in the op all the vile reasons the author is not a Catholic.  It clearly says 'Christian'.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



No, this thread is about why she rejected Catholicism, or are you all just going to continue to pretend they're one and the same even tho it's been pointed out ad nauseum they are not.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Last time I checked the Catholic Church is considered a Christian denomination.  It considers itself the original Christian Church.  It's as Christian as you get.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



So that makes it represent all of christianity in your eyes?  Like I've asked already and not been answered, does that make suicide bombers represent the teaching of all of Islam then?


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I did not reference you directly.  Moreso to those who cannot differentiate between the two.  And honestly, I feel it's a shame that opinions based on say the "catholic" experiences have prompted some to condemn Christianity as a whole.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Jesus Christ and His teachings are the original Christian church.  Why are you so hell bound to associate all of Christianity with the Catholic church?


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



No it's not.  At least not in my book.  There are things that the Catholic church do that I seriously disagree with in regards to Christianity.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Good for you.  The Catholic Church considers itself the orignal Church of the apostles.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with Christianity, which is the teaching of the words of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> *I didn't say the Catholic Church represents all of Christianity.*
> In the case of the pedophile priests you have bishops interpreting Church doctrine to mean they need to protect pedophile priests at all costs.  That's the truth of how it was.



Actually, yes you did...





> Last time I checked the Catholic Church is considered a Christian denomination. It considers itself the original Christian Church. *It's as Christian as you get.*


...and that's not true at all.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



duplicate.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You are confusing me with someone else.  I am not 'hellbound to associate all of Christianity with the Catholic Church'.

How many times do I have to say that I respect Christ's teachings?  Why are you so angry?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



It can consider itself whatever it wants too, that doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I'm not angry at all, I just don't understand why you're so eager to paint the evil done in the Catholic church with all of christianity.  You keep insisting on pairing them with just about every post you make.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...



Ah, a point of agreement.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I am pointing out that Madeline has valid reasons to reject Christianity based on her experiences.

You are ignoring the many posts I've made that are supportive of Christians and Christianity.  Why is that?

I feel that I have every right to participate in this thread as someone who was raised a Christian and who, like Madeline, has chosen another path.  We each were raised Catholics and left the Church and took up practices that work for us.

Can we be at peace with our differences?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




She has valid reasons to reject Catholicism.  None of the things that she's stated are true for many other christian churches and organizations, some may be true about the Catholic church, but that's about it.

I haven't ignored your posts, I've thanked you on several of them, and I appreciate the respect that you've shown.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Catholicism is the Christian religion of her childhood.  Are you claiming that the Catholic Church isn't Christian?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Are you claiming that Catholic doctrine is the only christian doctrine?

As I've said, she's an adult now, she knows that what she grew up with in her childhood (if it's even true) is not what many christian churches represent today.  So, why is there an apparent need to paint all of christianity with the catholic brush by some?  I see dishonesty and an agenda at work.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No.  I'm not claiming that Catholic doctrine is the only Christian doctine.  I don't see anyone painting all of Christendom with the same brush, nor do I see dishonesty and an agenda at work.

Can we just agree to disagree?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




The op and Mad are doing exactly that.


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Precisely.  And to some extent, Sky, you have as well as I pointed out earlier.  Those are the misconceptions and preconceived notions that we are trying to address.  Perhaps, if that hurdle is overcome, others could see what is being said in answering and defending Christianity as we view it.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



What I don't understand is why Christians feel they have to answer and defend against Madeline's experience.  Here experience is her experience.  It doens't represent all of Christianity or all Christians.

Like it or not, Catholics are Christians too.  Some of what is taught in the Catholic Church, to view sexuality as 'sin' are mirrored in other Christian expressions.  What is refreshing to me is when Christians talk about how their own experience of Christ's teachings is open and tolerant and loving.  We could use a bit more of that on this thread.  Show and be the contrast, Christians.  It's a great opportunity to shine.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Sorry to put a damper on your glee. You don't make me mad. I"ve seen your act before. It's mediocre. 

I have no intention of leaving this thread because of you.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...


Catholics are among the most numerous of the Christian cults. Catholic teachings were also the foundations of many Protestant sects. I don't think it makes sense to deny the influence the Vatican has had on Christianity and how it is perceived. But if I was a non Catholic Christian I think I would get a little exasperated too when people just assumed the Vatican was the final word on what Christianity is.


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



That's what I have tried to do.  To no avail.  I am not defending Christianity against Madeline's experiences.  Actually, I haven't addressed them directly.  What I have attempted to do is to convey that not ALL Christian denominations fall under Catholicism.  There is a difference and my defense is more of the generalization against that in the hopes to do what you just said - show that not all Christianity is Catholicism.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > My apologies, Frank.  The thread is now almost 70 pages long and to be honest, I don't recall your replies.  I'd agree they most likely were not incendiary or I would.
> ...


 If something is "not for open discussion" how is that not repression?


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Because it's not being repressed, but left up to the parents to discuss it.  It wasn't "demonized" nor projected as something "dirty", but a private subject because different children at different ages need it discussed.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


So now you believe her? Try to get your story straight.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Well, I think I can present a reason which is one of the reasons I am not a Christian that everyone can agree is a valid reason for not being a Christian of any denomination. del pointed it out and I had to laugh when he did because it's so obvious a reason that it was completely over looked.

I do not believe Christ was divine.


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Well, I think I can present a reason which is one of the reasons I am not a Christian that everyone can agree is a valid reason for not being a Christian of any denomination. del pointed it out and I had to laugh when he did because it's so obvious a reason that it was completely over looked.
> 
> I do not believe Christ was divine.



Fair enough.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Don't you think that any Christian faith is a 'cult' though?  

Perception is not reality.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...



I think it would be interesting to discuss what is and what isn't a cult.  Almost always a cult is what _some other _religion is.  I thought this was interesting:  

"The word "cult" connotes neither good nor evil. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a cult as "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents."  Based on this rather simple definition, every church body may be classified as a cult. But there is another definition offered by Webster's , which is more akin to the use of the word employed by theologians and sociologists: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents," and "great devotion to a person, idea, or thing."
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/isitcult.htm


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...



Lucky for you that's how sexuality was presented in your family.  Not everyone has been so fortunate.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



That's how it was in my family growing up as well, I never recall the church ever addressing anything (good or bad) about sexuality.  Not everyone has been unfortunate either.  It's a shame if all you had was misguided zealots to teach you about God.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...



I look at it as my great fortune.  I doubt I would have become a Buddhist if the Catholic Church of my childhood had been all 'sweetness and light'.  I feel very happy have taken the path of the buddhadharma.


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Oh, don't mistake what I am saying.  I'm not saying that my family presented the subject in a healthy manner at all.  I'm simply addressing the stance that my church took on the subject.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Frank said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...



The Catholic Church of my childhood viewed sexuality as being designed only for procreation.

Pope Paul VI issued a declaration in 1975 on many aspects of human sexuality. 2 It is titled: "Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics." Priests and other officials in the Roman Catholic church are not allowed to offer alternative opinions in public, or even to suggest that change is needed.  

Some of the pope's comments in Persona Humana apply to masturbation: 

"...masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder..." 
"...masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act...the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship." 
"Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of 'impurity,' 'unchasteness' and other vices contrary to chastity and continence." 
"The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man's innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity." 3 
http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba10.htm


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Again, I am not Catholic and have never practiced catholicism, so I cannot speak as to what you have posted above.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

Well, let's see where we are.  I may or may not be a liar, and not all christians are Catholics.  If I recall correctly, the offer to discuss any other christian sect was declined on the grounds that I have never joined one.  (Which is actually not the case.  I have belonged to a Methodist church and to a Lutheran one.....pretty much the same reactions.)

So we cannot discuss prevailing christian attitudes in _any_ context?  Or would someone please choose a sect we _can_  discuss, so we can get on with debating whether modern day American mainstream christianity is anti-female and anti-sexual?

BTW, would anyone care to address the faith's silence on Jesus' teaching that wealth is almost always a spiritual death?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Frank said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Have there been no new declarations since 1975?


----------



## Frank (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Well, let's see where we are.  I may or may not be a liar, and not all christians are Catholics.  If I recall correctly, the offer to discuss any other christian sect was declined on the grounds that I have never joined one.  (Which is actually not the case.  I have belonged to a Methodist church and to a Lutheran one.....pretty much the same reactions.)
> 
> So we cannot discuss prevailing christian attitudes in _any_ context?  Or would someone please choose a sect we _can_  discuss, so we can get on with debating whether modern day American mainstream christianity is anti-female and anti-sexual?
> 
> BTW, would anyone care to address the faith's silence on Jesus' teaching that wealth is almost always a spiritual death?



I have.  You've chosen not to respond.  Not much I can do.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Frank said:
> ...



I don't know, Newby, I'd have to research it.  I was no longer a Catholic by 1975.  I went to my first Buddhist retreat in 1982.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Well, let's see where we are.  I may or may not be a liar, and not all christians are Catholics.  If I recall correctly, the offer to discuss any other christian sect was declined on the grounds that I have never joined one.  (Which is actually not the case.  I have belonged to a Methodist church and to a Lutheran one.....pretty much the same reactions.)
> 
> So we cannot discuss prevailing christian attitudes in _any_ context?  Or would someone please choose a sect we _can_  discuss, so we can get on with debating whether modern day American mainstream christianity is anti-female and anti-sexual?
> 
> BTW, would anyone care to address the faith's silence on Jesus' teaching that wealth is almost always a spiritual death?



I believe several pages back I asked you for examples of anti-female and anti-sexual attitudes and where you come up with your 'point of view', but you ran away.

And how can you speak to the 'faith's silence' when you don't attend the services of any christian church?  Where do you come by all of this knowledge that you claim to have about my faith when you don't practice it?  My church isn't silent at all about any of Jesus' teachings, so from my point of view you haven't a clue as to what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.

Certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.

Examples of intrinsically disordered sexual acts include: masturbation, homosexual acts, any sexual acts with more than two participants, oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, sexual acts involving objects or devices, etc.

These sexual acts can never be justified regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose. These sexual acts are unnatural because they violate the natural law. The human person was designed by God so that sexual relations would consist in acts of genital-to-genital intercourse, open to life, between one man and one woman. Other kinds of sexual acts are contrary to this intention and purpose of God, which He designed within human nature.
So, for example, a husband cannot deliberately stimulate the genital organs of his wife in order to give her sexual pleasure, for such an action is defined within the Catechism as a type of sexual act which is "intrinsically and gravely disordered." The masturbation of another person is no less immoral than the masturbation of oneself. And regardless of whether this "deliberate stimulation of the genital organs" is done with the hand or the mouth or an object, it remains essentially the same kind of act, one which is intrinsically and gravely disordered, according to the Catechism.

"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11)

"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable." 
(Pontifical Council for the Family, Vade Mecum for Confessors concerning Some Aspects of The Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 4)
Sexual Sins within Marriage


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.
> 
> 
> Certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.
> ...



Of course, the Catholic church wants a lot more little Catholics out there, so their 'policies' are going to reflect that.  Again, this is Catholic doctrine, not christian.  So this is not an example of christian anti-sexuality as far as I am concerned.  I attend service fairly regularly and I can honestly say that I've never heard any teachings having anything to do with sex one way or the other where I go, nor have I seen any policies either.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.
> ...



Are Catholics Christian or not?    Catholics are clearly Christian.  They base their teachings on Christ and the Apostles.  This is as clear an example of anti-sexuality (save perhaps the Taliban)  that I've ever seen.

How many more examples of anti-sexuality do you need?


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Okay, Sky, you win.  We're all anti-sexual.  Happy now? 

This is ridiculous, believe whatever you want to believe, it matters not to me.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I'm not saying that all Christians are anti-sexual.  I am saying that, like it or not, Catholics are Christians and that Catholic doctrine as I have shown is clearly anti-sexual.  Catholics are the largest Christian denomination in the world. Here is another source:

Matthew chapter 5 (NLT)

27 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 So if your eye - even if it is your good eye - causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your hand - even if it is your stronger hand - causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

31 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a letter of divorce.' 32 But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."


http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/transcript/marriage1.htm


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I conceded, we're anti-sexual and anti-female.  Now we can all go on with our lives.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Why concede something you don't believe and I am clearly not even saying.  I never stated that all Christians are anti-sexual and anti-female.  Clearly, some are, and in that Madeline is correct in her claim.  Catholic doctine is anti-sexual and Catholics are the largest Christian denomination in the world.


----------



## Newby (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



No thank you.  My patience is about worn out on this topic at the moment.

Take care Sky.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 15, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I support you in replenishing your patience.  Take care Newby.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Well, let's see where we are.  I may or may not be a liar, and not all christians are Catholics.  If I recall correctly, the offer to discuss any other christian sect was declined on the grounds that I have never joined one.  (Which is actually not the case.  I have belonged to a Methodist church and to a Lutheran one.....pretty much the same reactions.)
> 
> So we cannot discuss prevailing christian attitudes in _any_ context?  Or would someone please choose a sect we _can_  discuss, so we can get on with debating whether modern day American mainstream christianity is anti-female and anti-sexual?
> 
> BTW, would anyone care to address the faith's silence on Jesus' teaching that wealth is almost always a spiritual death?



Hossy hell........I unsubscribed after my last post because Maddy was bitching about what could or couldn't be discussed after I offered a reasonable solution that was declined.

I look at the thread again and the first damn thing I see is maddy whining about the same damn shit.  That is just too funny!


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

CurveLight, this is a message board.  I am not going to follow you to another thread under an agreement to ignore what anyone besides the two of us writes.  To do so seems elitist and exhibitionistic to me.  Why on earth would you and I need a message board to carry on a private conversation?

Explain to me how anyone can claim mainstream American christianity is _not_  both anti-sexual and anti-female when:

1.  So many try to interfere in government to advance religious views.

2.  They oppose gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, and gay rights in general.

3.  They oppose abortion -- but not content with having chosen for themselves, they seek by any means possible to foreclose that option for all American women.

4.  They lobby the FDA to keep safer abortificants out of the hands of American women.

5.  They oppose teaching sex ed in schools.

Shall I go on?  None of these things is identified primarially with the RCC and none of the mainstream christian sects is totally innocent of them.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 15, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Well, let's see where we are.  I may or may not be a liar, and not all christians are Catholics.  If I recall correctly, the offer to discuss any other christian sect was declined on the grounds that I have never joined one.  (Which is actually not the case.  I have belonged to a Methodist church and to a Lutheran one.....pretty much the same reactions.)
> 
> So we cannot discuss prevailing christian attitudes in _any_ context?  Or would someone please choose a sect we _can_  discuss, so we can get on with debating whether modern day American mainstream christianity is anti-female and anti-sexual?
> 
> BTW, would anyone care to address the faith's silence on Jesus' teaching that wealth is almost always a spiritual death?





Madeline said:


> CurveLight, this is a message board.  I am not going to follow you to another thread under an agreement to ignore what anyone besides the two of us writes.  To do so seems elitist and exhibitionistic to me.  Why on earth would you and I need a message board to carry on a private conversation?
> 
> Explain to me how anyone can claim mainstream American christianity is _not_  both anti-sexual and anti-female when:
> 
> ...



You were whining and falsely accusing Christians of not directly responding to your questions so I offered a solution where there would be no distractions.  It's not about "following me" but solving a problem you were whining about.

Mainstream Christianity is fucked up and is anti-sex, anti-women, and generally saturated in selfishness and bigotry.  People who claim otherwise have their eyes glued to their ear drums so they can't see or hear those obvious issues.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


I was using the word "cult" in the original sense of the word.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


I'd be interested to know your reasons for leaving the Catholic Church and whether you went straight to Buddhism or if you explored other religions or atheism before settling on Buddhism.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.
> 
> Certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.
> 
> ...


 Holy Crap!!!


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Why would anyone claim Catholics are not Christians? It seems Newby consideres itself to be the arbiter of all that is Christian. I feel that anyone who self-identifies as a Christian should be considered a Christian. Not to do so is disrespectful and presumptuous.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


LOL! You are a saint.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Mainstream Christianity is fucked up and is anti-sex, anti-women, and generally saturated in selfishness and bigotry.  People who claim otherwise have their eyes glued to their ear drums so they can't see or hear those obvious issues.


Please expand on those thoughts.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2010)

I would like to say, that at this point, many have expounded on how righteous their individual religious leanings might be. But only Sky has actually demonstrated, by her honorable behavior, how her religion might just be a truly civilized and truth seeking religion worthy of respect.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

> CurveLight wrote:
> 
> You were whining and falsely accusing Christians of not directly responding to your questions so I offered a solution where there would be no distractions. It's not about "following me" but solving a problem you were whining about.
> 
> Mainstream Christianity is fucked up and is anti-sex, anti-women, and generally saturated in selfishness and bigotry. People who claim otherwise have their eyes glued to their ear drums so they can't see or hear those obvious issues.



I don't consider the POVs of other people to be distractions.  I'm having difficulty imagining what could possibly be left of the christian faith you treasured enough to get a degree in theology?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> I would like to say, that at this point, many have expounded on how righteous their individual religious leanings might be. But only Sky has actually demonstrated, by her honorable behavior, how her religion might just be a truly civilized and truth seeking religion worthy of respect.



Yup.  Sky Dancer has been a class act.


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 15, 2010)

Anguille said:


> I would like to say, that at this point, many have expounded on how righteous their individual religious leanings might be. But only Sky has actually demonstrated, by her honorable behavior, how her religion might just be a truly civilized and truth seeking religion worthy of respect.



I thought she followed the Buddha.  It's not technically a religion.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.
> ...



So sky, besides just lying there, is there anything you do during sex?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > CurveLight wrote:
> >
> > You were whining and falsely accusing Christians of not directly responding to your questions so I offered a solution where there would be no distractions. It's not about "following me" but solving a problem you were whining about.
> >
> ...



I didn't say I studied theology.  I said biblical studies.  It was from a historical, anthropological, and social perspective.   The heart of ancient Christianity is very much like buddhism and is nothing like we see in the mainstream today.  By studying the biblical texts from a historical pov it provided the benefit of context.  The biggest problem with American Christians today is they learn the bible through modern American eyes instead of using fundamentals like an Oral Performance model and most are completely fucking clueless about the politics between Rome, the different Jewish sects, and different pagan groups.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > CurveLight wrote:
> >
> > You were whining and falsely accusing Christians of not directly responding to your questions so I offered a solution where there would be no distractions. It's not about "following me" but solving a problem you were whining about.
> >
> ...





Madeline said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to say, that at this point, many have expounded on how righteous their individual religious leanings might be. But only Sky has actually demonstrated, by her honorable behavior, how her religion might just be a truly civilized and truth seeking religion worthy of respect.
> ...



She's too soft and has been patronizing.  But as long as she didn't call people out then she's revered.  That's what people like you enjoy.  Coddled fantasies.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Mainstream Christianity is fucked up and is anti-sex, anti-women, and generally saturated in selfishness and bigotry.  People who claim otherwise have their eyes glued to their ear drums so they can't see or hear those obvious issues.
> ...



You really are thick headed.  When I said I don't give a fuck what you think I was not joking.  I don't care how much you follow me around or cross-thread post my posts.  You've proven yourself to be a troll in lipstick.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CurveLight, this is a message board.  I am not going to follow you to another thread under an agreement to ignore what anyone besides the two of us writes.  To do so seems elitist and exhibitionistic to me.  Why on earth would you and I need a message board to carry on a private conversation?
> 
> Explain to me how anyone can claim mainstream American christianity is _not_  both anti-sexual and anti-female when:
> 
> ...



What about the female babies murdered every day during abortions?  I guess that makes you 'anti-female' too, right?  You really should be standing up for all of those unborn female babies being killed every day, Mad, what kind of a person are you?

And since when does being against gay marraige make you 'anti-sexual'?  That's quite a leap as well, but I'm not surprised that you would make it.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, Sky, you win.  We're all anti-sexual.  Happy now?
> ...



You quoted Matthew above.  Let me ask you a few questions Sky about what you quoted?  Do you think it's okay for a man to treat a woman as sexual object?  Is that what you are promoting, or what you're using to define christians as being 'anti-sexual'?  So what that verse in the Bible is saying is that men should not view women as sex objects and lust after them, but you think they should?  You'd want your spouse or significant other to be looking at someone else like that?  That's respectful?

The second verse is about the committment of marriage, something that is sadly lacking in our society today.  Your lust wears off, that's okay, just dump them and move onto the next person.  That's really treating people respectfully and showing your love and commitment to them, right?  And still this has nothing to do with being 'anti-sexual'.  I mean if being 'sexual' to you people means going around and fucking whoever you feel like whenever you feel like it, then I'll cop to being anti-sexual any day of the week.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to say, that at this point, many have expounded on how righteous their individual religious leanings might be. But only Sky has actually demonstrated, by her honorable behavior, how her religion might just be a truly civilized and truth seeking religion worthy of respect.
> ...


We discussed that briefly. For me it qualifies as a religion. Particularly because of it's ideas about reincarnation, though from what I've read, the various Buddhist sects have differing opinions on it.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to say, that at this point, many have expounded on how righteous their individual religious leanings might be. But only Sky has actually demonstrated, by her honorable behavior, how her religion might just be a truly civilized and truth seeking religion worthy of respect.
> ...


Maybe you don't see it as a religion because it doesn't fit in neatly with the Judeo Christian tradition we have here in the West?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > CurveLight wrote:
> ...


  Oh, she calls people out. Just not in the juvenile know it all way that you do.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


You said that so Newby would lay more pos rep on you, didn't you.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I'm not a big fan of the "projection" charge but it absolutely applies here.  No, unlike you I don't make childish posts to get pos rep and I don't give a fuck what my rep number is. Last I checked it did absolutely nothing.  

You're so pathetic you probably have your rep number on the ceiling over your bed so it's the last thing you see at night and the first thing you see in the morning.  

Newby isn't even on my "received rep" list you dumbfuck.  Keep embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

JoLouis said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



A good Catholic woman according to this cathechism would just lie there and make a baby.  No other activity is permitted.  Sex is for procreation.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Newby didn't pos rep you? Awwww... don't be such a crankypants about it. Rep is not all that important, you know.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



In a way, I just 'fell away' from Catholicism in high school and then college.   I just stopped participating in the Church.  I didn't have deep thoughts about it at the time.  

Then in 1981, I had a spiritual crisis.  My father committed suicide.  There was nowhere to turn for comfort.  I started to seek out other spiritual resources and spent alot of time in a theosophical library.   A transitional spiritual resource for me were the teachings of Murdo Macdonald Bayne, who was a Christian minister who studied Buddhism in Tibet.  Macdonald Bayne used Christian language to present Buddhist concepts.  And that made me see something deeper in the Christian teachings I'd heard all my life.  I co-facilated a "Raised Catholic' group for women.  The purpose was to either reconcile and go back to the Church or move on.  There's alot I could say about what we discussed that were frustrations for all of us women who had been raised in the Catholic Church but suffice it to say I chose to move on.  I went to my first Buddhist teaching about six months after my fathers death.  It was a teaching on the Four Noble Truths.  The truth of suffering, the truth of the causes of suffering, the truth of the cessation of suffering, and the truth of the path that leads to the cessation of suffering.

Then I attended my first ten day silent Buddhist meditation retreat.  I went to Buddist retreats of five to ten day lengths every few months or so for a number of years and still didn't identify or call myself a Buddhist.  It was a gradual shift.

I did need to come to peace about leaving the Catholic Church.  There's a saying that once you're a Catholic you're always a Catholic.  When I took my refuge vows in Buddhism the Lama cuts a bit of hair on the crown of your head and I was shaking thinking that God would strike me dead for changing my religion.

In a way, Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy and way of life and active meditation practice.  So, I identify as an atheist because that's how the world sees it and Buddhism is non-theistic.  Other times I identify with others who are Christian or who practice another spiritual path.  I'm kind of in the middle that way.  I feel a kinship with both sides.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I accept your interpretation of these verses.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



You're correct.  Various Buddhist traditions see rebirth differently.  In my tradition, we talk about six realms of existence and rebirth occurring in one of these realms due to karma.  The realms include: animal, human, hell, preta or hungry ghost, and two god realms.  It is the human realm that we aspire to be reborn in due to its' unique opportunites for enlightenment.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> What about the female babies murdered every day during abortions?  I guess that makes you 'anti-female' too, right?  You really should be standing up for all of those unborn female babies being killed every day, Mad, what kind of a person are you?
> 
> And since when does being against gay marraige make you 'anti-sexual'?  That's quite a leap as well, but I'm not surprised that you would make it.



Maddy was talking about sexual repression which is one of the biggest problems in American Christianity.  Evidence?  Evangelicals have the highest divorce rates. Why?   They are raised to live by the "no sex before marriage" bit so they get married largely to have guilt free sex only to find out the hard way if you don't test drive a life long committment you get fucked with no pleasure.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > What about the female babies murdered every day during abortions?  I guess that makes you 'anti-female' too, right?  You really should be standing up for all of those unborn female babies being killed every day, Mad, what kind of a person are you?
> ...



What's an 'evangelical' and what percentage of Christians in America today are 'evangelicals'?

And where did you come by your information that they have the highest divorce rates, let alone conclude that it's related to sex?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Lol....you're the only one on this thread that's bragged.....literally bragged about getting pos reps for childish bullshit.  Fucking troll.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I just invent everything as I go along.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



It was a serious question tho, I wanted to know what you defined as an 'evangelical', and if there is really statistical information about their divorce rates.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Here's some statitistical information:
Evangelicals: Why Do We Have the Highest Divorce Rate? - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

and here are some definitions of evangelical:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...l&sa=X&ei=f9sYTNilKZWgnQfVqrS3Cg&ved=0CBUQkAE


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I was asking for his definition of the word, and I know how to use Google.  Thanks.

The Barna poll was taken in 1999, and there is no longer any information about how the poll was conducted or how the data was collected.  This is from the artible you linked.

Several reasons were suggested by the Barna Poll, including:

1. Christians are generally younger when they marry the first time.

2. Christians are less likely to have pre-marital counseling than non-Christians.

3. Christians tend to view their faith as protecting their marriage from divorce.

4. Christians are more likely to be ignorant about the problems that can develop within a marriage.



The article title said 'evangelicals', the article itself says 'christians', I guess they're assumed to be one and the same.  Number 2 I would say is highly inaccurate, if you attend church regularly and are planning a marraige, most churches require pre-marital counseling.  Where do non-Chritians get their marriage counseling at, the justice of the peace office?  What would christians viewing their faith as protecting their marriage have anything to do with the divorce rate?  They get married without thinking about it?  Is that what is supposed to be implied here?  And that last one, number 4, is truely laughable.  Where the hell do they come up with that one?  Why are christians more likely to be 'ignorant' about problems that can develop?  We're just all uneducated idiots?  The bias in this article is farily obvious.


Also not mentioned or taken into consideration, if the data is even accurate to begin with, is the fact that Christians are more likely to get married than to live together to begin with.  How many more Christians are married overall than non-christians?  I would guess quite a few more, therefore the divorce rate is going to potentially trend higher as well since more of them marry to begin with.  But, the biggest point of note is that there is nothing about sex being the cause of the divorce rate mentioned in any of the groups, christian or non-christian.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Sorry.  I can't win for annoying you.


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



You couldn't be more wrong.  I have studied Eastern religions since I was very young.  I was a follower of Buddhism for a number of years.  Siddhartha Gautama would be outraged at the way people have created a religion out of his teachings.  However, that's just human nature and everything identified as a religion suffers from this.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I addressed your article, interesting reading to be sure.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Surveys on divorce are hard for numerous reasons but it's clear Christians do not have a lower divorce rate than other groups.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight, this is a message board.  I am not going to follow you to another thread under an agreement to ignore what anyone besides the two of us writes.  To do so seems elitist and exhibitionistic to me.  Why on earth would you and I need a message board to carry on a private conversation?
> ...



All pregnancies occur to females, and IMO, all females deserve the right to control their own reproduction and lives.  This has been the law of the land here in the US since 1973 but decades of christian officious intermeddling has attempted to frustrate the rights of others who don't see things their way.   SOME christians have apparently led such orderly, God-like lives they have the time and energy to devote to managing the lives of others (insert symbol for sarcasm here).  The problem, Newby, is you guys cannot manage your boundaries and remain content to ruin the lives of women you actually influence -- you reach out by means so devious and heinious at times, I wonder how any of you can bear it.  All in the name of punishing (mostly poor) females for having sex.

If you can't see the way in which opposing gay marriage makes a person anti-sexual, you are denying the sexuality of GLBT folks -- and again, it is not your place to decide how anyone else should live.  It's bad enough you hold such repugnant attitudes, but to make donations to PACs to do up tv and print ads, lying about GLBT people so as to defeat their rights -- that exceeds all my ability to tolerate your evil behavior.

It seems to me most christians have a playbook for sex that we must all follow, or they will punish us -- or try to.  If THAT isn't anti-sexual, I don't know what would be.  And this from the same people confused about whether clergy sex abuse is a real injury.  If I ponder this too long, the hypocrisy may make me ill.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I don't know enough about Buddism to judge it, and I very much doubt anyone else besides Sky Dancer does either.  What difference does it make how the rest of us would classify it?  It matters only what value it has for its followers....and I would guess, it means quite a lot.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



It occurs to me that one could say the same thing about Christianity.  Allow me to paraphrase your words.  That it doesn't make much difference how non-christians classify Christianity.  It only matters what value it has for its followers, and I would guess it means quite a lot.

It also matters to you what Christianity is or isn't because of your personal spiritual choice.  I would like to ask you what you think you need to be at peace with Christianity not being your choice?  What would you like to call yourself other than a non-christian?  

I once participated in a  'Raised Catholic support group' and found it helpful.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

I need christians to stop shoving their errant beliefs down my throat.  I need to be able to elect athetists and agnostics to any political office, if they are qualified.  I need for my younger women friends to have access to any safe form of birth control and abortificant they choose, without interference from christians.  I need them to admit that others, who do not share their beliefs, are equally valuable in the US and deserving of respect.

Oh, and I need the RCC to once and for all clean up its act, address the needs of sex abuse victims and get out of the forced conversion biz.

In short, confine your spirituality to yourself and your family.  Leave me and my community alone.  "Live and let live" only works if the feeling is mutual; as long as they are so terribly aggressive, they surely must expect to get pushed back.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I need christians to stop shoving their errant beliefs down my throat.  I need to be able to elect athetists and agnostics to any political office, if they are qualified.  I need for my younger women friends to have access to any safe form of birth control and abortificant they choose, without interference from christians.  I need them to admit that others, who do not share their beliefs, are equally valuable in the US and deserving of respect.
> 
> Oh, and I need the RCC to once and for all clean up its act, address the needs of sex abuse victims and get out of the forced conversion biz.
> 
> In short, confine your spirituality to yourself and your family.  Leave me and my community alone.  "Live and let live" only works if the feeling is mutual; as long as they are so terribly aggressive, they surely must expect to get pushed back.



Ok.  That's quite a few requirements for peace.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Ya I know.  I don't have your knack for seeming peaceful, and I'm hot.  There's no a/c in my office....makes me crabbier than usual.

Basically, I can hold christians in no higher regard than they hold me.  Seems you aren't having this issue, Sky Dancer.  Wanna tell me how you manage that?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Ya I know.  I don't have your knack for seeming peaceful, and I'm hot.  There's no a/c in my office....makes me crabbier than usual.
> 
> Basically, I can hold christians in no higher regard than they hold me.  Seems you aren't having this issue, Sky Dancer.  Wanna tell me how you manage that?



I spent quite alot of time examining the effect my childhood religious conditioning had on me before I came to peace with it.  Mine was mixed up with dysfunctional family patterns.  I spent years on it in fact.  I also participated in a support group for women who were raised Catholic.  I wanted to be at peace so I sought out ways to do that.

My meditation practice helps me too.  I learn how to stand beside and offer kindness to all my feelings, including the ones that aren't peaceful.

I don't focus as much on the Christians who reject me or who stand in opposition to my politics.  I focus on finding good heart in people of all faiths.

If you look for that, you find it everywhere.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...


Just offering my thoughts, since you asked. 
Buddhism, as Sky describes it having rituals, does fit my definition of religion. You may be right about how the original teachings of Buddha have been altered but are you sure he would be "outraged"? Was he a control freak?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



The Buddha is awake.  That's what Buddha means.  In Tibetan, Buddha is called sang gye which means to clear away and to unfold.  What is cleared away are anger, attachment, ignorance, jealousy and pride.

I doubt the Buddha would be outraged.  The Buddha taught 84,000 methods of awakening.  That leaves plenty of room for variety in the Buddhist path.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Ya I know.  I don't have your knack for seeming peaceful, and I'm hot.  There's no a/c in my office....makes me crabbier than usual.
> ...



I have had to find my own way to peace, Sky Dancer.  I had a (perhaps) greater need than most to resolve the question of Justice.  While it is not my place or need to teach other adults how to behave, I am not adverse to holding up a mirror so they at least have a chance to see their conduct from someone else's POV.

As I have said, I don't seem to have your knack for writing in a way that reads peaceful to others -- and I'll admit, sometimes the behavior of some people in the name of christianity makes me so mad I'd like to smack the snot out of them.  I have a noisy, cantankerous personality (which has been a wonderful blessing much more often than a curse) and I will doubtless be a pain in the ass till I die.

Do you agitate for Justice, Sky Dancer?  I'm wondering how you reconcile the worldly acts of agitation with the meditative practices of Buddism.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



You're a fucking lunatic, Maddie.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Another substantive reply from Newby.  What a surprise.  When pressed to address any of the issues, all you can do is fling insults and run?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I've been influenced by the work of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship which brings social justice and social action together with Buddhist principles.  Buddhist Peace Fellowship

Truth is, I 'lose it' (my patience) all the time.   Some posters here are great teachers that way.  I have to take a step back and try another approach and remember that my main goal is to cultivate peace.

It helps to have a sense of humor.  Sometimes it's one step forward and three steps backward so that the times when it's only one and half steps backward it's progress!


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Another substantive reply from Newby.  What a surprise.  When pressed to address any of the issues, all you can do is fling insults and run?



I've addressed all of your stupid, assinine, pompous, condescending 'issues'.  When I do all you do is run away and then come back a day later and continue spewing the same shit that started this thread without batting an eye.  It's become pretty amusing as a matter of fact, which is why I got a good laugh out of the last post.  When you start calling people 'evil' along with all of the other crap you just posted, you're far worse than any self agrandizing, judgmental 'christian' I've ever come across.  What's funny is the irony of that apparently goes right over your head.  Have a nice afternoon, Mad.  P.S. You might want to take Sky's advice and seek help.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

You do make it sound inviting, Sky Dancer.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> You do make it sound inviting, Sky Dancer.



Meditation works wonders and you don't have to be a Buddhist to do it.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

So do you ever agitate, Sky Dancer?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Another substantive reply from Newby.  What a surprise.  When pressed to address any of the issues, all you can do is fling insults and run?
> ...



Some behavior is evil, Newby.   There aren't many people I'd discard altogether as evil.  I know it's hard to read the posts with which you disagree carefully, but if you look, you'll see the error.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Evil is a Judeo- Christian concept.  We don't use that term in Buddhism.  What people do you consider evil Madeline? 

 I'm reminded of a book by M Scott Peck called People of the Lie; The hope for healing human evil.  What I remember that impressed me was his discussion of 'ordinary evil' especially the evil done by one human being against another--the kind that crushes the spirit.  That happens to some people in religion.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

I'd condemn all the mass murderers....Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.  Some of the criminals.  I love true crime and have read extensively about Ted Bundy (evil), Jeffrey Dalhmer (not evil -- crazy), etc.

A few people I have met in real life have given me a terrific "evil" vibe that has scared me badly.  I haven't got a conclusion about them, but nothing could make me approach them either.

While it is rare, I do think a person can commit such heinous acts as to extinguish his humanity and become something akin to a black hole.  Pondering such things is a philosophical exercise; the vast majority of us will never encounter such a person.

We would do better to concentrate on the evil in real life.  Our own, so it can be corrected, and the evil others do, so it can be resisted.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Your definition of 'evil' must then be very warped Mad.  I would say the act of killing your own child is evil.  You defend it.  In my opinion, you're the one with evil behavior.  See how that works?  Probably not.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I'd condemn all the mass murderers....Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.  Some of the criminals.  I love true crime and have read extensively about Ted Bundy (evil), Jeffrey Dalhmer (not evil -- crazy), etc.
> 
> A few people I have met in real life have given me a terrific "evil" vibe that has scared me badly.  I haven't got a conclusion about them, but nothing could make me approach them either.
> 
> ...



There is such a thing in Buddhism as the Five Heinous Acts.  They always result in hell realm karma.  But no one is forever condemned.  The karma can always be purified.  I think the evil term gets used a bit too fast and loosely.  Just my opinion since we seem to be tossing that one around at each other on this thread.


----------



## RevRabbiJCG (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > CurveLight wrote:
> ...


How do you equate Buddhism with Christianity? 
  In the 1st Century AD (that's anytime after 4 BC to, but not after 100 AD) the founders of Christianity were the actual followers of Jesus and were taught by Him. The disciples died for what they believe in and suffered horrible deaths. Some were beheaded, others crucified (one upside down) some were flayed alive ( their skin was peeled off of their bodies. One was stoned to death, Paul and Silas were imprisoned for simply being a witness. 
     After the 1st Century the Roman persecuted the early Church (see Foxe's Book of Martyrs), in fact; there were seven primitive persecutions in order to stomp out Christianity and as you can see what they did vastly differs to what Christians go through today. 
   They were fed to the lions, Nero used them as torches in his garden, some were run through with spears from pagen priests, drowned, ect.ect.ect. 
    Can any of you stick to what you believe even under the treat of death. In a recap, the only disciple to not suffer the death of a martyr was John the writer of Revelation. All the others died for what they believed.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

If I shared your POV, Newby, then I would agree.  See how that works?  We have a society that allows people to disagree, to have different values and beliefs, and to conduct their lives as they see fit.  

Why is that so unappealing?  Why try to force those who disagree with you to behave in accordance with your values...especially by such underhanded means as phoney abortion clinics, etc.?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I'd condemn all the mass murderers....Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.  Some of the criminals.  I love true crime and have read extensively about Ted Bundy (evil), Jeffrey Dalhmer (not evil -- crazy), etc.
> 
> A few people I have met in real life have given me a terrific "evil" vibe that has scared me badly.  I haven't got a conclusion about them, but nothing could make me approach them either.
> 
> ...



That reminds me of the pith instructions that the Buddha gave: "Do not non-virtue absolutely. Practice virtue thorougly.  Completely tame your own mind."


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> If I shared your POV, Newby, then I would agree.  See how that works?  We have a society that allows people to disagree, to have different values and beliefs, and to conduct their lives as they see fit.
> 
> Why is that so unappealing?  Why try to force those who disagree with you to behave in accordance with your values...especially by such underhanded means as phoney abortion clinics, etc.?



So murder is a part of your values and beliefs?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I'd condemn all the mass murderers....Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.  Some of the criminals.  I love true crime and have read extensively about Ted Bundy (evil), Jeffrey Dalhmer (not evil -- crazy), etc.
> ...



I'm not being casual, Sky Dancer.  I'm sorry if that seems to be the case.  I have struggled with this a great deal, and perhaps my conclusion only speaks to my limits as a person....but I do think that a person can extinguish his own humanity through the evil he does.  But then, since I don't believe in an after-life, the conclusions I drew seem more or less irrelevant, so why it poses such a dilemma for me I dunno.

I guess it's partially the idea that someone who has led a life of destruction and cruelty could get the Last Rites and be forgiven.  Yes, I know that is a Catholic ritual, but as I understand it most christian sects have a similar belief.  If you can escape the consequences of your evil merely with some sort of "whoopsie", the notion of Justice seems to me to have no value at all.


----------



## JoLouis (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > If I shared your POV, Newby, then I would agree.  See how that works?  We have a society that allows people to disagree, to have different values and beliefs, and to conduct their lives as they see fit.
> ...



It's part of the values and beliefs of ALL Americans. Murder, war and the NRA, it's the American Way!


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > If I shared your POV, Newby, then I would agree.  See how that works?  We have a society that allows people to disagree, to have different values and beliefs, and to conduct their lives as they see fit.
> ...



Newby, abortion is and has been an American practice during at least all of the 20th and 21st centuries.  It will not ever stop.  All that can ever be done is forcing it back underground again and if that were to happen, it is the poor females who will suffer and die.  

Seems to me that anyone who finds abortion repugnant could find 1,001 sex-positive, non-judgmental ways to curtail its use that do not denigrate women or impair their rights.  Punishing women who choose to use the procedures and drugs to halt a pregnancy they do not want is wrong, IMO.  That other person's choices are protected by the constitution that we all live under, and to attempt to interfere with their free exercise shows a terrific lack of respect and compassion.

IMO.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



It's a 'right' to murder a child?  Sounds like rationalization for murder to me, but whatever lets you sleep at night.    My respect and compassion is for life.  Your words are empty Mad, and I think you know it.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Like it or not, Newby, an American woman has a right to reproductive freedom.  Are you telling me that you approve of all the devious and even murderous ways in which various christian groups have sought to interfere with their exercise?


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Like it or not, Newby, an American woman has a right to reproductive freedom.  Are you telling me that you approve of all the devious and even murderous ways in which various christian groups have sought to interfere with their exercise?



Well, Mad, for me it has nothing to do with religion.  I would be against murder regardless of my religious background, and you would think most other people would too.  Murder is something that our society doesn't tolerate.  But, paint it as 'reproductive freedom', whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, and suddenly you can fool yourself into believing that you're supporting something that's right.  You can fool yourself, maybe for a little while, but not others, and I doubt you're fooling yourself either.  Paint whatever pretty picture you want, it's murdering your own child, that's the bottom line.  It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with humanity and compassion.  With all of the technology and means there are today to not get pregnant, it shouldn't even be needed.  But, I'm sure you feel the same way about one taking responsibility for their actions as well.  It's over rated, right?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Yanno, Newby I sorta regretted that this topic had arisen, as it is so divisive.  But mebbe it can be instructive.  Let's see.

You and I are in disagreement about abortion.  The law says I can freely exercise my rights.  Why is not enough for you to decide what to do with your OWN womb and leave me in peace?  Am I over in your yard, bellyaching that YOUR choices are different than the ones I would make?

I don't understand why mutual respect is not valued by christian groups.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline,

You have put your point-of-view across quite nicely and with manners. It is unfortunate though that most of the people who respond are intellectually inferior to you thereby making them incapable of logical, rational, and mature debate.

I look forward to perhaps one day debating with you - I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Literature, and a Masters Degree in theology. 

ex- Fr. Yukon


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Yukon, I am not trying to shame anyone, least of all you.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Yanno, Newby I sorta regretted that this topic had arisen, as it is so divisive.  But mebbe it can be instructive.  Let's see.
> 
> You and I are in disagreement about abortion.  The law says I can freely exercise my rights.  Why is not enough for you to decide what to do with your OWN womb and leave me in peace?  Am I over in your yard, bellyaching that YOUR choices are different than the ones I would make?
> 
> I don't understand why mutual respect is not valued by christian groups.



Guess what Mad, I'm not a 'christian group', I'm an individual.  I will never respect a woman who chooses to kill her child because she was foolish enough to have unprotected sex, so her child has to pay the price.  I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.  I don't understand how any woman that has carried a baby to term and given birth could ever support the murder of innocent children.

The law is based on non-existant words claimed to have been found in the Constitution.  Murder is deemed against the law by our society.  Killing your child is murder.  Are you incapable of being responsible for your 'choice' to have unprotected sex?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby, no birth control method is an absolute guarantee against pregnancy, not even sterilization.  It's unlikely that "most aborted pregnancies result from unprotected sex".  But even if it were true, my compassion lies with the female who's life is forever altered and the child who was not wanted, and it is with the female dying from the results of an illegal abortion.

Whether we agree or not about abortion is not really the point.  I have asked you (and you have not yet answered) do you disapprove of the underhanded and even murderous routes taken by some christian groups to inhibit the rights of women?  Do you subscribe to the "means justifies the ends" POV?


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby, no birth control method is an absolute guarantee against pregnancy, not even sterilization.  It's unlikely that "most aborted pregnancies result from unprotected sex".  But even if it were true, my compassion lies with the female who's life is forever altered and the child who was not wanted, and it is with the female dying from the results of an illegal abortion.
> 
> Whether we agree or not about abortion is not really the point.  I have asked you (and you have not yet answered) do you disapprove of the underhanded and even murderous routes taken by some christian groups to inhibit the rights of women?  Do you subscribe to the "means justifies the ends" POV?



What 'underhanded and even murderous routes' are you referring too?  What christian groups?  What rights?  Be specific.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby, this is a little goofy.  It's hard to believe you've missed the entire public discourse on the means used by the anti-abortion groups in the US.

*  Murdering doctors who administer the procedures.

*  Publishing their names and addresses and picketing their homes.

*  Setting up phoney abortion clinics to draw in potential patients and "counsel" them.

*  Blocking the release of safe abortificants by the FDA and keeping others on the prescription drug list unnecessarially.

If a person really opposes abortion and wants to reduce the incidence of it, why not instead:

*  Advocate for meaningful sex ed in schools.

*  Underwrite the cost of birth control and agitate for wider availability.

*  Underwrite the costs of pregnancy and assist new parents.

Or any of 1,001 other sex-positive, non-judgmental means?


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby, this is a little goofy.  It's hard to believe you've missed the entire public discourse on the means used by the anti-abortion groups in the US.
> 
> *  Murdering doctors who administer the procedures.
> 
> ...



Could you please provide relevant and specific cases of each point you posted above?

*  A link to 'murdering doctors' would be nice.  Of course, that's what abortion doctors too, kind of ironic, isn't it?

*  Publishing their names and addresses where?  Aren't they public information to begin with?  Picketing is their right, or would you take that away making you as bad as you claim they are?

*  Link to 'phoney abortion clinics', never heard anything prior to your claim here.

*  How do 'they' block safe abortificants exactly?  Legislation of some kind?  Link please?

*  There already is meaningful sex ed in schools, where have you been?  I'm sure you know of one that doesn't have sex ed as an example, right?

*  Last time I checked, free birth control was widely available at any Planned Parenthood clinic.  You want condoms and pills handed out in junior high?

*  We already do that as well, it's called welfare.

You didn't say what christian groups you were referring too specifically either.

You think irresponsible sex is a positive thing?  Sex at any cost, is that your motto?  Society should have to pay for each person's irresponsible behavior?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

I can't believe this thread is now about abortion politics.


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> I can't believe this thread is now about abortion politics.



Well, it's about Mad's feelings that evil Christians are trying to take women's reproductive freedom away, so we're technnically still on topic.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe this thread is now about abortion politics.
> ...



IMO Abortion isn't a great topic for a spiritual discussion.  It's political, it's judgmental, it's combative and rarely productive.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Okay.  What do you suggest, Sky Dancer?  Gay marriage?


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Okay.  What do you suggest, Sky Dancer?  Gay marriage?



How about answering my post?  You made a lot of accusations without backing any of them up.  You're the one that continually brought up abortion, so now I'm discussing it and you want to quit.  Why is that?


----------



## Newby (Jun 16, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Tell that to Mad, she brought it up, not me.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Okay.  What do you suggest, Sky Dancer?  Gay marriage?



I think it would be easier to stay with one or two of your points without going into every single issue you have with Christians.

For example, staying with the anti-sex or anti-female assertion.  This is just a suggestion.

The thread is all over the map.  Evil, abortion, etc.  Any one of those topics could be it's own thread.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  What do you suggest, Sky Dancer?  Gay marriage?
> ...



Because a simple google search would fully answer all your questions.  Because Sky Dancer feels it's not the right topic for this thread, and on reflection, I agree with her.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


I'm beginning to think Booby is evil. 

Just kidding!  I'm with Sky and the Buddhists on the concept of evil. It is a Judeo-Christian concept. I don't believe it exists. The word suggests an active destructive force at work. Something I don't believe in either.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  What do you suggest, Sky Dancer?  Gay marriage?
> ...



I'm hot.  I'm out of gas here, Sky Dancer.  Care to give it a shot?

It isn't even so much that I see christianity as practiced by most Americans sects as anti-sexual and anti-female; it's that they insist on trying to shape the lives of others to their own values that truly bothers me.

Believe whatever you like, but why I cannot be permitted the same luxury is just beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Just want to note that abortion was legal during Colonial times and for some time after that.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby, no birth control method is an absolute guarantee against pregnancy, not even sterilization.  It's unlikely that "most aborted pregnancies result from unprotected sex".  But even if it were true, my compassion lies with the female who's life is forever altered and the child who was not wanted, and it is with the female dying from the results of an illegal abortion.
> 
> Whether we agree or not about abortion is not really the point.  I have asked you (and you have not yet answered) do you disapprove of the underhanded and even murderous routes taken by some christian groups to inhibit the rights of women?  Do you subscribe to the "means justifies the ends" POV?


Newby believes being forced to give birth is an appropriate punishment for a woman who has sex and gets pregnant.  Imagine being brought into this word to serve as your mother's punishment!


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I'm just trying to help you get to what really irks you about Christians.  It sounds like you experience some Christians as wanting to interfere in your life and the lives of others.  Is that the main issue?  Christianity is about values.  They're certainly welcome to shape the lives of their adherents to their own values.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 16, 2010)

Madeline said:


> It isn't even so much that I see christianity as practiced by most Americans sects as anti-sexual and anti-female; it's that they insist on trying to shape the lives of others to their own values that truly bothers me.
> 
> Believe whatever you like, but why I cannot be permitted the same luxury is just beyond my comprehension.


  Christianityhas had an enormous impact on American society, not much of which I can see was for the good of the country. 

I don't understand why you would want to be "permitted that same luxury" of "trying to shape the lives of others"?? Perhaps I am misreading your post.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



The problem I have with the evil concept is that it's taken as absolute but it's actually a relative concept.  Evil is in the eye of the beholder.  What's identified as evil varies widely over time.  

Edited to add.  I just found this and thought it interesting:

"Carl Jung, depicted evil as the "dark side of God". People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project their shadow onto others. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing his own shadow."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil


----------



## Madeline (Jun 16, 2010)

I am not all that interested in interfering with the behavior of others; there are some religious practices such as never seeing a doctor, handling snakes, etc. that I think put children at risk and I would outlaw, but mostly whatever you want to believe is good with me.

The problem I have is with groups that organize around religion (invariably christianity in the US) to protest sex ed in school; evolution in science class; etc.  It is disturbing to me to see people conduct their religious lives in the political realm, and trying to bend others who believe differently to their will.

I disagree with you and Anguille, Sky Dancer.  Well, sort of.  I don't think evil is some external force to people -- if we all disappeared from Planet Earth tomorrow, so would all evil.  But I also don't think how we measure evil is just a question of perception.  I think there are some absolutes.  

I'm curious as to whether you think any act's goodness or evil is subject to interpretation?


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Madeline said:


> *I am not all that interested in interfering with the behavior of others; there are some religious practices such as never seeing a doctor, handling snakes, etc. that I think put children at risk and I would outlaw*, but mostly whatever you want to believe is good with me.
> 
> The problem I have is with groups that organize around religion (invariably christianity in the US) to protest sex ed in school; evolution in science class; etc.  It is disturbing to me to see people conduct their religious lives in the political realm, and trying to bend others who believe differently to their will.
> 
> ...




Never seeing a doctor?  Handling snakes?  

Mad, all you do is keep making these accusations over and over again and then whenever I try to address them and ask you direct questions, you 'out of steam' or direct me to google.  Quit making untrue statements if you can't back them up.

People are allowed to protest whatever they want, it's called American freedom.  For you to sit there and say that people can only protest what you think is valid to protest makes you no better than what you are saying they are.  What makes you think you get to control what people protest?  Who the hell are you to try to tell others what to believe in or protest for or against?  How are you any better than all of these christians that you say are foisting their beliefs on you?  You aren't.  Every person has the right to vote and to push for legislation that they feel is right, regardless of you what you believe to the contrary.  

You just said up above that you're not interesting in controling other's behavior, but then immediately proceeded to speak to how you would do just that.   I'd also love to know where you see all of these christians 'protesting' sexual education in school, or protesting evolution being taught?  This is the 10th time you've brought it up.  Where are you seeing this on even a small scale??  You never back up the accusations you make.  I know people have made arguments, written articles perhaps about other beliefs besides evolution being taught, or along side evolution, since evolution is only a theory and is not fact. Where are all of these outraged christians that are forcing their values down your throat, Mad??  Please, share with us where you get all of these 'perceptions'.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I am not all that interested in interfering with the behavior of others; there are some religious practices such as never seeing a doctor, handling snakes, etc. that I think put children at risk and I would outlaw, but mostly whatever you want to believe is good with me.
> 
> The problem I have is with groups that organize around religion (invariably christianity in the US) to protest sex ed in school; evolution in science class; etc.  It is disturbing to me to see people conduct their religious lives in the political realm, and trying to bend others who believe differently to their will.
> 
> ...


Newby-

Christian Scientists may not see a doctor, there are stories in the news about parents who refusie to treat their child medically due to their spiritual beliefs.

There are Christians who go to school board meetings to protest sex ed in the schools and who want Creationism taught in science class.  You've said you can google with the best of us, the evidence is available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right


Madeline

Rather than address the question of evil, for it's not a Buddhist concept, I can tell you that we look instead at the five poisons of the mind; ignorance, attachment, aversion, jealousy and pride as the source of all unskillful and non-virtuous actions.

IN an conventional way, we can certainly identify Hitler as a doer of evil, but where a Buddhist differs is that we maintain that even Hitler had buddha nature, original purity.  While he earned a hell realm several times over, it's not forever, he can eventually purify that karma.  The Christian right is not going away.  They are organized and politically savvy.    You've got your work cut out for you on how to remain peaceful while you stand for your beliefs of truth and justice


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I am not all that interested in interfering with the behavior of others; there are some religious practices such as never seeing a doctor, handling snakes, etc. that I think put children at risk and I would outlaw, but mostly whatever you want to believe is good with me.
> ...



So there's something wrong with going to *your* school board about the cirriculum being taught in *your* school to *your* children?  You would be willing to tell people they don't have that right?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Did I say that?  NO I did not.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



*There are Christians who go to school board meetings to protest sex ed in the schools and who want Creationism taught in science class.  You've said you can google with the best of us, the evidence is available.*

What's your implication then?  You're not saying that it is wrong for them to do this?  That they shouldn't have the right to do it if they choose?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Lighten up Newby.  I'm not the enemy.  I'm not saying it's wrong for Christians to organize and try and dominate school boards to get their way.  It is what it is.  Madeline is right that Christians organize against sex education and against evolution being taught in science class.

I'm saying that Madeline has reasons to oppose the dominant religion in our country, Christianity, both personally and politically.  You may understand if she feels outnumbered.  She is.

When we talk about rights in our country we most always say majority rules.  We call people from minority view points who protest 'whiners'.

America is a plurality.  That means we will always have differences among us.  There will always be a struggle to have a minority view heard.  When Christians demonstrate a concern that all views be heard and respected I find it heartening.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



'Dominate' school boards?   Is that what they do?  Has creationism been put into the cirriculum anywhere?  I think you very well know that the answer is 'no'. Yet evolution is not a proven fact either, but I'm sure you're okay with that.  It is absolutely apalling to me that you can talk about taking people's rights away to voice their opinions because they are part of a 'dominant' religion.  You are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.  Christians founded this country and they founded it in such a way that people with minority view points were not trample over, why do you think that is?  I'm sorry, but I just don't see your view point trying to be squashed anywhere in this country, yet the majority is christian.  How does that happen?  You're crying wolf, it's as simple as that.  No one is trying to take your rights away, no one is trying to force you to live your life according to their beliefs, the christian boogie man is not out to get you.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Please reread my post.  Madeline has the same right to have her voice heard as you do.  I'm not your enemy.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I did read your post.  The fact that you think christians 'dominate' school board meetings is all I needed to hear, that pretty much said it all.  You do not have an open mind about it when you use terminology like that, it shows that you have a bias.

No, Madeline's posts are all about voices that don't agree with her not getting to have thier opinions and voices heard. She wants them shut down.  Haven't you read her posts?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



So you're offended by my use of the term 'dominate'.  I accept that set off a button for you, but it's your button not mine.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I'm not offended by it, but it tells me where you're at and it isn't in the middle.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I have biases like everyone else.  Most of the time, I prefer to keep them to myself, and listen to both sides.  I  don't have a pony in this creationism race.  I'm not an activist for the school board.  

I don't think religious instruction belongs in science class.  If Christians want creationism taught they ought to do it in church or ask for a comparative religion class in their school.

Just my opinion.  It doesn't make me your enemy.  At least, not on my side.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




I'm not putting you into any group, you and others are on here trying your best to put christians into one group, and that is what I am voicing my opinion on.  I don't 'have a pony' in the creastionism race either, and guess what???  I've never been to a damn school board meeting either.  I'm not an 'activist' for the school board either, and my point is that neither are 99.9% of chrisitans out there.  But, for you to try to stop the voices of the other .1% based on the fact that you think they're trying to 'push their views' on you isn't right.  If you don't like what they're doing or saying, organize your own protest, no one is stopping you. Go to school board meetings, no one is stopping you.  Petition your law makers, no one is stopping you.  This system was designed by christians, supported by christians over the last 200+ years, and many christians died in wars to keep these ideals,  so don't tell me how christians are trying to stop the voices of anyone not like themselves, it's bullshit.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I never said you were my enemy, nor have I ever thought so.  Why are you insinuating that I think this is a theocracy?  I've never said anything of the kind.  I'm merely pointing out that christians have always been the majority in this country, yet the voices of minorites are heard, creationism isn't taught in sience class, and abortion is legal.  So, what's the bitching about exactly?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



That you call my views 'bitching' says alot.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




I'm not your enemy, Sky.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



That's good.  Now how about acting like a friend?  I have some evidence that evolution is being taught in the schools:

 In western Wisconsin, the small Grantsburg School District now requires that alternative theories of evolution be taught. 

&#8226; In Ohio, the state school board passed a measure that encourages the teaching of evolution and "intelligent design," a hypothesis that says life is so complex that some intelligent force was responsible. 

&#8226; In Kansas, the defeat this month of a "pro-science" incumbent on the state school board by a candidate who had questioned evolution has shifted the balance of power on the 10-member board and ensures that the issue will come up again. The board ended the teaching of evolution in 1999, then reversed that decision after a subsequent election. It has been deadlocked since.

Debates over religion, science and natural phenomena are not limited to schools and evolution. The bookstore at Grand Canyon National Park sells Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a Colorado River guide. The book says the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood, not through millennia of erosion by the Colorado River.

The fight over evolution is heating up as the country tries to come to terms with the role of religion in government. The American public remains divided. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 1,105 people conducted Nov. 19-21, 48% said religion has too much political influence in American life, and 40% said it has too little influence. Seven percent said religion has about the right amount of political influence. The poll's margin of error was +/&#8212;3 percentage points. 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-11-28-schools-evolution_x.htm


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I guess that means I'm not?  Why do you think that?  Should I think the same of you then as well?  Why are there always negative insinuations with every post?


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



And what's wrong with that?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You said that creationisim is not being taught in the schools and I show that it is.  I did not say it was 'wrong'.  I have stated my two cents worth is that I prefer for creationism to be taught in a comparative religion class and not in a science class.

 America is divided on how much power if wants religion to have in government.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

The biggest embarrassment of American Christianity is currently bigotry towards gays.  All the Christian groups that devote their lives to preventing equal rights in gay marriage understand neither America nor Jesus but claim to love both.

It's absofuckinglutely hilarious that MA is called an "immoral" state when we've consistently had the lowest divorce rates in the nation and even after 6 years of gay marriage we still have the lowest divorce rates.  If we had high divorce rates like some of those "bible belt" states you know damn well gay marriage would get blamed.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> You said that creationisim is not being taught in the schools and I show that it is.  I did not say it was 'wrong'.  I have stated my two cents worth is that I prefer for creationism to be taught in a comparative religion class and not in a science class.
> 
> America is divided on how much power if wants religion to have in government.




It's not that divided........when was the last time you saw a major protest for eliminating Federally paid holidays for specifically Christian ceremonies?

Imagine what would happen if Muslims demanded equal treatment?  It's okay if our entire national business schedule revolves around Christianity.  We're the good guys!


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I didn't say that it wasn't in all schools, in most it is not.  I was saying that every christian in the country is not out 'dominating' school boards or their respresentatives to have laws enforced to uphold their beliefs, I doubt even 1% are.   

Why should evolution be taught in a science class as tho it were fact?  It's not proven any more than intelligent design is.  What's the difference between the non-christian or non-religious clamoring and getting all up in arms whenever a school addresses religion in a class, but then they want to shut the religious up whenever we do the same thing when it comes to their unproven theories?  Like I said, it's the pot calling the kettle black, maybe the religious will shut up whenever the non-religious shut up as well.  Until then, both sides have a right to voice their opinions, protest, contact their representatives concerning legislation, etc...  The religious are no more pushing their views on anyone than the non-religious are, so don't cast stones at others when you live in a glass house.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The biggest embarrassment of American Christianity is currently bigotry towards gays.  All the Christian groups that devote their lives to preventing equal rights in gay marriage understand neither America nor Jesus but claim to love both.
> 
> It's absofuckinglutely hilarious that MA is called an "immoral" state when we've consistently had the lowest divorce rates in the nation and even after 6 years of gay marriage we still have the lowest divorce rates.  If we had high divorce rates like some of those "bible belt" states you know damn well gay marriage would get blamed.



I happen to agree with you when it comes to gays, and I'm not the only christian either.  It's their life, everyone has to answer at some point for their actions, and that's between each person and their creator.  No one is sin free.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest embarrassment of American Christianity is currently bigotry towards gays.  All the Christian groups that devote their lives to preventing equal rights in gay marriage understand neither America nor Jesus but claim to love both.
> ...




Good for you but I'm curious why the principle of respecting privacy doesn't extend to women and pregancy?  I'm personally against abortion and in the past have always given advice to avoid abortion when confronted by friends with the dilemma.  But I could never ever support a law that puts legislation between women's legs.  No matter how you look at it, it's rape.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Because there is another innocent human life at stake there, it's not just the mom's body. Our society believes that murder it wrong, and I see it as murder, pretty simple.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Women don't lay eggs and walk away.  It's not that the pregnancy is in the woman's body, it's that her body is the pregancy.  I don't care what label is applied be it "innocent human, embryo, baby, oh shit college tuition, or zygote."  Those terms are red herrings because no matter how much you dance you can't step away from the fact the law invades women between their legs.  When guys commit rape what has happened?  They have forced women to submit their bodies to someone else regardless of their wishes.  Laws that control women's bodies are no less invasive so in one case we pass laws to send the criminals to prison and in the exact same violation some want to pass laws that would send the victim to prison and reward the criminal.  

Before you guffaw at the comparison try to understand what is being compared.  Privacy.  Women have the right to say no to sex because they have autonomy over their bodies and that is legally protected.  The same principles must apply in the abortion issue.  The biggest problem is not realizing positions should be based in principles and not emotions.  

The other side of the coin is the consistency issue.  I could respect anti-choicers more if they were consistent.  Many say the child has a right to be born on the basis of a Right to Life.  Sounds good.  Until you get into related issues like healthcare and education.  If every unborn deserves and equal right to life then every born deserves an equal right to healtcare and education.  This means all children, regardless of parents' income should have the exact same access to education and healthcare.  For some reason, when the baby is born it becomes a matter of "luck."  What happened to all that Right to Life stuff?


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I'm a mom to two boys, I certainly don't need you to explain to me how it works.  I've carried two boys to term and gave birth, they're the best things that have ever happened to me.

The woman has obviously allowed something else between her legs before any baby came along, so why is that okay to do but then just get rid of the consequences like it's a piece of trash?  When you're allowing sex to happen, you're well aware of the potential consequences and if you don't want them, then don't have sex or make sure you're using good birth control.  It's not that difficult.  Tell me why there are so many abortions in our country whenever birth control is easily and readily available to everyone?  What's the excuse?  No one forced the woman to have sex, she made that choice.  No one forced a thief to rob a bank, but the theif damn well has to pay the consequences for their actions by potentially losing personal freedom to spend time in prison.  

Right to life is in no way comparable to any other rights, especially education or healthcare. Not to mention that all children are educated and low income families receive medical welfare for their children.  So, I'm not sure why that would even come up.

You're killing a baby, another person, that's the bottom line.  The value of human life is a couple hundred bucks, what a nice thing that says about our society.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Does it matter to you when a woman becomes pregnant due to a rape, or incest, or if she terminates the pregnancy because her life is in danger?  Do you think the decision to terminate a pregnancy lies with the woman and her mate, their minister and doctor or you?

How do you feel about the morning after pill?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...




Mostly emotion with very little substance or a response to principles.  What is the logical model that shows your "Right to Life" is completely separate from healthcare?  How can you separate the very institution devoted specifically to preserving and saving lives from a "Right to Life" claim?

It seems like your entire position is rooted in emotion with an attempt to justify it by lack of ability to control other women.  It doesn't matter if birth control is used or not.  It doesn't matter if a chick bangs two guys every night for a month or has sex with one guy on an annual basis.  None of that addresses the fact it is an issue of Privacy.  The fact you bring up sexual habits to try and defend your position reveals more about it not being about "protecting an innocent life."   

When you use emotion instead of reason and principle in forming your political positions you are swamped in blinded hypocrisy.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, my position is about personal responsibility for one's actions.  There are consequences to actions, if you can't handle the consequences then don't do the action.  Murder is not the solution to not live up to responsibilities for actions that you have taken of your own free will knowing what potential consequences there for the actions you took.  Murder is the cop out, the easy way out, and it's affecting someone else's life, not just your own now.  It has nothing to do with privacy, it's murder.  What percentage of abortions are for birth control?   Do you have any idea how many babies have been murdered in the US in the last 30 some years?  I guess privacy is more important than life to you.  

Yeah, I just want to control everyone else's behavior.  

And sorry that I'm emotional about the loss of innocent human life, it sure beats the hell out of having no compassion for life at all.


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

You know what I think Curve, I think it's easy for you to use the rationalization that those of us that oppose abortion are just out to control everyone else's life.  Why the hell would I give a damn about what anyone else does with their life?  It's about the death of innocent life that we're supposed to be protecting, it has nothing to do with control.  But you go on telling yourself that if it's the only way you can understand since you can't understand why I would want to protect innocent life.  I think it's amazing how we can condemn murder in our society, but let millions be murdered by their own flesh and blood and call it 'privacy'.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Is the mother of the child undeserving of compassion?  Does she have a right to make her own ethical decision or is her decision up to a committee?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Food for thought:

Our culture places great value on something called "moral clarity." Moral clarity rarely is defined, but I infer it means ignoring the messier aspects of complex moral issues so that one can apply simple, rigid rules to solving them. If you take all facets of an issue into account, you risk not being clear.

Moral clarifiers love to rework all ethical problems into simple equations of right and wrong, good and bad. There is an assumption that an issue can have only two sides, and that one side must be entirely right and the other side entirely wrong. Complex issues are simplified and oversimplified and stripped of all ambiguous aspects to make them fit into "right" and "wrong" boxes. 

To a Buddhist, this is a dishonest and unskillful way to approach morality.

In the case of abortion, often people who have taken a side glibly dismiss the concerns of any other side. For example, in much anti-abortion literature women who have abortions are portrayed as selfish or thoughtless, or sometimes just plain evil. The very real problems an unwanted pregnancy might bring to a woman's life are not honestly acknowledged. Moralists sometimes discuss embryos, pregnancy and abortion without mentioning women at all. At the same time, those who favor legal abortion sometimes fail to acknowledge the humanity of the fetus.

The Fruits of Absolutism
Although Buddhism discourages abortion, we see that criminalizing abortion causes much suffering. The Alan Guttmacher Institute documents that criminalizing abortion does not stop it or even reduce it. Instead, abortion goes underground and is performed in unsafe conditions.

In desperation, women submit to unsterile procedures. They drink bleach or turpentine, perforate themselves with sticks and coat hangers, and even jump off roofs. Worldwide, unsafe abortion procedures cause the deaths of about 67,000 women per year, mostly in nations in which abortion is illegal.

Those with "moral clarity" can ignore this suffering. A Buddhist cannot.

 In his book The Mind of Clover: Essays in Zen Buddhist Ethics, Robert Aitken Roshi said (p.17), "The absolute position, when isolated, omits human details completely. Doctrines, including Buddhism, are meant to be used. Beware of them taking life of their own, for then they use us." 
Buddhism and Abortion - The Buddhist View of the Morality of Abortion


----------



## Newby (Jun 17, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Is the mother of the child undeserving of compassion?  Does she have a right to make her own ethical decision or is her decision up to a committee?



I'll show her as much compassion as she shows her unborn child.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Is the mother of the child undeserving of compassion?  Does she have a right to make her own ethical decision or is her decision up to a committee?
> ...



I think both pregnant parents and fetus deserve an equal kind regard.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby, IMO that lack of compassion is shown by most christians to those of us in the US with whom they disagree.  So what if I have a bright kidlet and want that child to learn _actual_  science?  So what if I want my child's friends and boyfriends to have some working knowledge of sex and birth control?  So what if I want to protect the younger, mostly poorer women in my community from the horrors of illegal abortion?  So what if I love my gay friends and want to attend their marriage?

When anyone's values diverge from yours and you feel religion gives you a basis for condemning or marginalizing their behavior, you don't hesitate to do so.  As you have acknowledged, christians form an overwhelming majority in this country.

Can you understand why some of us resent the bullying?


----------



## Neubarth (Jun 17, 2010)

syrenn said:


> The question I always love to ponder is " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does that mean I can covet my neighbors husband?


Yep, until you get AIDS, herpes and fifteen other venereal diseases.

Remember, when there is a prohibition in scripture, it is usually there because of thousands of years of seeing the consequence of living without the prohibition.  Back when eating pork could kill you, many religions forbade the consumption of pork. 

Since liberal sex resulted in the spread of venereal disease and death therefrom, liberal sex was outlawed.  

Just think about it, if there was no sex outside of marriage, there would be NO AIDS, and all those other venereal diseases.  Makes sense, don't it?  

Back when men were more prone to kill somebody for flirting with their wives, all conduct of that nature was prohibited by most religions.  It resulted in far fewer men being killed because they "Looked" at another man's wife.  

The reality  is that if it saves lives and makes sense, most religions pick it up eventually.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 17, 2010)

Newby said:


> No, my position is about personal responsibility for one's actions.  There are consequences to actions, if you can't handle the consequences then don't do the action.


A theoretically ideal stance, but practically useless.  People in this camp seem incapable of actually dealing with a situation presented before them, stating that somehow the past should have been changed to undo the issue before it occurred.  This argument came up a lot in the stem cell debate, when thousands of embryos had to either be researched or destroyed, and the "moral" response was "but they shouldn't have been created in the first place".  Well, sure, but they were.  Similarly, it's easy to say "well you should have done something differently".  Sure.  But responsibility shouldn't stop just because of contraception failure.

So sure, your theoretical ideals are correct.  Practically though, it's useless.  



Newby said:


> You know what I think Curve, I think it's easy for you to use the rationalization that those of us that oppose abortion are just out to control everyone else's life.  Why the hell would I give a damn about what anyone else does with their life?  It's about the death of innocent life that we're supposed to be protecting, it has nothing to do with control.  But you go on telling yourself that if it's the only way you can understand since you can't understand why I would want to protect innocent life.  I think it's amazing how we can condemn murder in our society, but let millions be murdered by their own flesh and blood and call it 'privacy'.


Oh I see.  Let's break that down.  What do you feel is the underlying reason behind protecting innocent life?  I'm not disagree, I'm trying to get to your personal reasons.  Don't give me "because it's right".  Tell me why, ethically, it is right.



Neubarth said:


> Remember, when there is a prohibition in scripture, it is usually there because of thousands of years of seeing the consequence of living without the prohibition.


Yeah, it was a surprisingly decent form of public health for its time.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 17, 2010)

Thanks to Neubarth and Newby for illustrating my point:  mainstream christianity _is_  anti-sexual and anti-female.  Anyone who does not fit your model of "sex within marriage" deserves all the horrors than denied medical care can heap on them...because you feel ready, willing and able to judge and decide for someone else, against their will.

If you two weren't being led by the nose, I'd call this delusional self-aggrandizement.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Thanks to Neubarth and Newby for illustrating my point: mainstream christianity _is_ anti-sexual and anti-female. Anyone who does not fit your model of "sex within marriage" deserves all the horrors than denied medical care can heap on them...because you feel ready, willing and able to judge and decide for someone else, against their will.
> 
> If you two weren't being led by the nose, I'd call this delusional self-aggrandizement.


 
And thanks for proving my point that you believe morality is not absolute.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


 
So since you cannot answer what problem you have with what I have said nor refute it scientifically; what problem do you have with creationists now?

You mean safer murder?

In short you have a problem with anyone who won't let you do what you see right in your own eyes.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> No, my position is about personal responsibility for one's actions.  There are consequences to actions, if you can't handle the consequences then don't do the action.  Murder is not the solution to not live up to responsibilities for actions that you have taken of your own free will knowing what potential consequences there for the actions you took.  Murder is the cop out, the easy way out, and it's affecting someone else's life, not just your own now.  It has nothing to do with privacy, it's murder.  What percentage of abortions are for birth control?   Do you have any idea how many babies have been murdered in the US in the last 30 some years?  I guess privacy is more important than life to you.
> 
> Yeah, I just want to control everyone else's behavior.
> 
> And sorry that I'm emotional about the loss of innocent human life, it sure beats the hell out of having no compassion for life at all.



You don't care about the Right to Life.  If you did you wouldn't ignore the woman's life.  Do you not understand you are contradicting yourself?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Is the mother of the child undeserving of compassion?  Does she have a right to make her own ethical decision or is her decision up to a committee?
> ...




So you want to control her based on your opinion of her compassion.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 18, 2010)

Neubarth said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > The question I always love to ponder is " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" does that mean I can covet my neighbors husband?
> ...



You're a Christian that openly advocates incinerating millions of innocent lives purely based on geography.  Forgive us if we ignore your opinion like Tiger Woods on a fidelity speech.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> You know what I think Curve, I think it's easy for you to use the rationalization that those of us that oppose abortion are just out to control everyone else's life.  Why the hell would I give a damn about what anyone else does with their life?  It's about the death of innocent life that we're supposed to be protecting, it has nothing to do with control.  But you go on telling yourself that if it's the only way you can understand since you can't understand why I would want to protect innocent life.  I think it's amazing how we can condemn murder in our society, but let millions be murdered by their own flesh and blood and call it 'privacy'.



What are common positions among anti-choicers?


Pro-death penalty

Pro-war

Anti-equal healthcare

Anti-equal education

Anti-gay marriage

I know not all positions apply to you but the only common thread throughout those positions are based in control.  You revealed yourself when you spent more time justifying your position based on the sexual practices of women versus the pregnancy itself.  Let's apply your logic to other areas:

If you get in a car accident....so what?  You know driving or riding in vehicles and lead to accidents so people who lose limb and life have no one to blame but themselves.

If you take an airplane and it crashes...so what?  You know planes can crash.


----------



## Frank (Jun 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You know what I think Curve, I think it's easy for you to use the rationalization that those of us that oppose abortion are just out to control everyone else's life.  Why the hell would I give a damn about what anyone else does with their life?  It's about the death of innocent life that we're supposed to be protecting, it has nothing to do with control.  But you go on telling yourself that if it's the only way you can understand since you can't understand why I would want to protect innocent life.  I think it's amazing how we can condemn murder in our society, but let millions be murdered by their own flesh and blood and call it 'privacy'.
> ...



Anti-choicers?  That's a new one.....

Actually, I've questioned my stance on the death penalty as I have gotten older.  That's a tough one to deal with.  But, even if someone is executed, that is the punishment for their crime.  An unborn child has commited no crime.

I'm not pro-war, but I do support our troops and also understand what was done in Iraq was something that had to be done.  I'm sure that there are millions of Jews that wish someone had stepped forward and in the case of Iraq, the US was following through with MANY UN resolutions that were ignored by Iraq.

I'm not anti-equal healthcare - but I'm damn sick and tired of going to work everyday, doing the responsible thing, only to have my money taken to cover those who are not nearly as responsible.

I'm not anti-equal education - I believe in the voucher system.  It's about educating the children, not pandering to the NEA.

And as for anti-gay marriage, I believe that there is a minority of people who want this.  But, as has been proven by ELECTIONS, the MAJORITY  of voters are not.  In this country, the majority makes the rules.

And your analogy is stupid.


----------



## Newby (Jun 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You know what I think Curve, I think it's easy for you to use the rationalization that those of us that oppose abortion are just out to control everyone else's life.  Why the hell would I give a damn about what anyone else does with their life?  It's about the death of innocent life that we're supposed to be protecting, it has nothing to do with control.  But you go on telling yourself that if it's the only way you can understand since you can't understand why I would want to protect innocent life.  I think it's amazing how we can condemn murder in our society, but let millions be murdered by their own flesh and blood and call it 'privacy'.
> ...



  Yeah, 'group' people together based on how they feel about certain moral areas, that'll really work. 

You've attributed positions to me that I neither said I had or even implied that I had, so there's no point in even further discussing this when the discussion can't be honest.  Same goes for Madeline, that's all she knows how to do, maybe someday people will learn to debate and discuss issues honestly.


----------



## Newby (Jun 18, 2010)

For Mad and Sky.

What a surprise, progressive politics bullying people with their 'moral' values, or lack thereof using the force of government.  I could probably post a hundred links to similar stories across the country where progressives are using government to force their values on everyone else in their community.  But, it's christians that do these sorts of things, right?  Why don't you people try for once to be honest with your bullshit claims.  They're even over riding what parents feel should be taught to their children or in this case given to their children.  Tell me again how Christians are over riding your society with their morals?

School committee in Provincetown, Massachusetts approves elementary school condom distribution plan

*School committee in Provincetown, Massachusetts approves elementary school condom distribution plan *

June 12, 9:02 AMSex Education Examiner Sarah Estrella  

New* no-minimum-age *condom distribution policy approved for Provincetown SchoolsAccording to a report in the Provincetown Banner yesterday, this week the school committee in Provincetown, MA unanimously approved a new condom distribution policy for the Provincetown Public Schools, *including both Provincetown High School and Veterans Memorial Elementary School.*

The policy requires students to speak with a school nurse or other trained counselor to receive the free condoms, but is notable because it does not have a minimum age limit and also because *the policy explicitly states that "the school district will not honor requests from parents that students not be allowed to receive condoms*."

The most controversial portion of the policy seems to have been over requiring students to speak with a nurse or counselor to get the condoms.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> For Mad and Sky.
> 
> What a surprise, progressive politics bullying people with their 'moral' values, or lack thereof using the force of government.  I could probably post a hundred links to similar stories across the country where progressives are using government to force their values on everyone else in their community.  But, it's christians that do these sorts of things, right?  *Why don't you people try for once to be honest with your bullshit claims. * They're even over riding what parents feel should be taught to their children or in this case given to their children.  Tell me again how Christians are over riding your society with their morals?
> 
> ...



I don't recall ever suggesting that progressives aren't politically active.  So, now I'm dishonest and my point of view is bullshit.  Sad, Newby.


----------



## Newby (Jun 18, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > For Mad and Sky.
> ...



Oh, so it's okay that progressives are politically active, but Christians aren't allowed to be?  Why don't you tell me what your point of view is about it then?  You've been beating around the bush, backing up Mad's posts with links that I guess you think back up what she's saying, implying to me that you agree with her opinion that Christians are trying to force their values down everyone else's throat all the time.  Do you agree with that or not?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No.  I don't agree that all Christians are trying to force their values down everyone elses throat all the time.  I think some of them are doing that and want their moral choices to be everyone elses.  The Catholic Church and LDS poured a ton of money into the state of California to defeat gay marriage.  They seek to make their morality everyone elses.

I think some Christians would be quite happy if America was a Christian theocracy.

I don't think that you or Frank or Curve Light fall into that category--although you may about abortion.  You have no compassion for the women with unplanned pregnancies.

This thread is about why Madelines chooses to not be a Christian.  She has valid reasons from her point of view.


----------



## Newby (Jun 18, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Anyone can have valid reasons to not be a christian, that doesn't mean that you have to imply what has been implied about them in this thread and basically lie, as she has done.  If you don't want to be a christian because some of them are politically active and support causes and/or legislation that they think are good, then I guess you wouldn't want to be a member of any other social group in our society either then since just about all of them do the same thing.  Seems like a pretty stupid reason to me, which is why I said that this thread is just about bashing christians and little else.  Thanks for at least stating your position.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



It's difficult to hear criticism about your faith and not feel bashed.  I think there is a difference between Madeline owning her heartfelt feelings and saying that the world is how she says it is.  She has made a few good points and so have you.  Some of what you say Madeline is lying about she just hasn't provided links for the evidence that back up her claim.  I try to do that myself.  I also posted a nuanced view of how Buddhists see the abortion issue.


----------



## Newby (Jun 18, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



There's a difference between criticism and lies.  Madeline's perceptions are not realities and she should educate herself before she makes blanket statements that aren't true.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



There is a difference between not backing up your claims and trying to deliberately deceive someone.  I think you're way too quick to call your opponents liars.


----------



## Newby (Jun 18, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Maybe that would be true if she hadn't continued to say the same thing over and over several times after having been asked to back them up but did nothing.  I don't see an honest mistake there, I see deliberate intensions.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I see someone who has a bias against Christian activism, and apparent hyprocrisy, not a liar.


----------



## Newby (Jun 18, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



And it's your perogative to give the benefit of the doubt, I choose not to in this case, as is my perogative.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Where do I stand with you?  You've called me dishonest too.


----------



## Newby (Jun 18, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You stand in good stead with me, at least you are respectful, which I appreciate.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 18, 2010)

Madeline,

Forgive me my hild if I mislead you. I didnt mean to leave you with the impression that I thought you were trying to shame others. On the contrary. It is your inteligent posts that lead to their shame because they are incapable of responding in kind. Unfortunately idiocy begets idiocy.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Oh boy.  How did you overlook where I said:

"I know not all positions apply to you ...."

You accuse me of being dishonest after I pointed out not all positions apply to you.  Looks like you couldn't handle defending your position so you looked for any escape hatch.  Your complaint about "honesty" is sad.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 18, 2010)

Frank said:


> Anti-choicers?  That's a new one.....
> 
> Actually, I've questioned my stance on the death penalty as I have gotten older.  That's a tough one to deal with.  But, even if someone is executed, that is the punishment for their crime.  An unborn child has commited no crime.
> 
> ...



Looks like you fit every single issue so your positions are based on control and not morals or principles.  You Godwinned Iraq then accused me of putting forth a bad analogy?  We've been killing people in iraq for over 20 consecutive years.  We've killed a hell of a lot more iraqis than saddam ever did.  We violated the UN with the invasion and occupation but you cite the UN as justification?  You really really truly seriously do not understand the first thing about Iraq. 

You are not pro-life if you support the death penalty and war and I'm sick of anti-choicers trying to claim a moral high ground using a dishonest term.  That is why I reference the term "anti-choicer" because that is exactly what you are if you wish to outlaw abortions.  

Your defense of being against gay marriage further reveals the "control" issue.  What would you say if the majority of voters stated short people could not get married?   Would you really state that is legit?  America was built on the idea of equality so a "majority" ruling on equal rights is bullshit.  You cannot justify granting bits and pieces of the Constitution based on how many bigots vote.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> For Mad and Sky.
> 
> What a surprise, progressive politics bullying people with their 'moral' values, or lack thereof using the force of government.  I could probably post a hundred links to similar stories across the country where progressives are using government to force their values on everyone else in their community.  But, it's christians that do these sorts of things, right?  Why don't you people try for once to be honest with your bullshit claims.  They're even over riding what parents feel should be taught to their children or in this case given to their children.  Tell me again how Christians are over riding your society with their morals?
> 
> ...



So what's the problem?  If they really wanted effective birth control they could just post pics of rosie odonnel in a bra on bulletin boards.


----------



## Newby (Jun 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > For Mad and Sky.
> ...



Something I can agree with.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 18, 2010)

Newby said:


> Something I can agree with.



I see the condom issue as trying to break the stigma of demonizing sexual aspects of being human.  Instead of keeping sex a dirty kind of dark closet secret we should focus more on realizing by making it a taboo subject you are creating more problems than you are avoiding.  If you compare alcohol consumption practices between the US and Europe you'll see Europe has far few alcohol related problems.  This is because the cultures approach education on alcohol quite differently thus kids growing up in Europe don't reach a tipping point of binges.  Plus, how fucking stoopid is it we will give an 18 year old an automatic weapon, fly him 6,000 miles away from home to have him kill people he never met, but will throw his ass in jail if he has a beer?  

P-Town is also a rare kind of place so I'm not surprised it passed.  If we treat children as being too stoopid or immature to have candid discussions then they will find out basics the hard way.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 18, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to Neubarth and Newby for illustrating my point: mainstream christianity _is_ anti-sexual and anti-female. Anyone who does not fit your model of "sex within marriage" deserves all the horrors than denied medical care can heap on them...because you feel ready, willing and able to judge and decide for someone else, against their will.
> ...



I am not sure how you drew that conclusion, The Light.  I definately think the aim of mainstream christianity is evil in this regard, and the methods used to achieve it are utterly repugnant.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 18, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...



I have a problem with people who are driven by religion to remove science from science classes or to withhold medical advances or care from others because they take issue with it.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I don't follow your statement.  What do you think is the aim of 'mainstream christianity' and how is it evil and repugnant?  What is 'mainstream' Christianity?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Even I know that Neubarth's view on the Bible is in error.  Many, many biblicial figures had polyamorous lives.  Sex was hardly confined to monogamous marriage beds.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


 
Evil in what regard?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I have a problem with people who are driven by religion to remove science from science classes or to withhold medical advances or care from others because they take issue with it.


 
Same here. We just have a difference of religions. Mine is a religion of life and yours is a religion of death.

Of course, your religion contradicts itself by stating that we humans came from one single cell and YET, you find any way you can to excuse murdering innocent children having NOT ONE, but about 751,879,699,200,000 cells. So if you say life began with a single cell, how is 751,879,699,200,000 cells not life? How is that innocent child that you chop up with a coat hanger not a living thing yet a single cell is?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 18, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I have a problem with people who are driven by religion to remove science from science classes or to withhold medical advances or care from others because they take issue with it.
> ...



Huh?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 18, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Neubarth said:
> ...


 
There you go again, trying to put down someone else's religion to justify your failing ideologies.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 18, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> how is 751,879,699,200,000 cells not life?


Please, don't make up numbers.  Your ignorance is astounding enough without you blatantly pooping out whatever happens to be the result of mashing your number pad.  Again, please don't make up numbers.



Frank said:


> And as for anti-gay marriage, I believe that there is a minority of people who want this.  But, as has been proven by ELECTIONS, the MAJORITY  of voters are not.  In this country, the majority makes the rules.



At one point, the majority of the country was pro-slavery.  It is the responsibility of the majority to look out for the interests of the minority, especially when the interests of the minority in no way interfere with the majority.  Your reasoning is crap.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 18, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > how is 751,879,699,200,000 cells not life?
> ...


 
Sorry for distracting you with numbers. Now, just imagine your favorite number greater than 1 and answer my question.

I'm not holding my breat by the way.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 18, 2010)

Well you know how you made up numbers that had nothing to do with the actual biology?  The answer to your question is that you also make up definitions of terms that have nothing to do with the actual biology.  A single celled embryo is a living cell, much like any other tissue in your body.  Your intestine, for example, is comprised of living cells.  Note how your intestine is not a live person, despite almost having the same number of nerves as your brain.  It cannot survive outside the body.  Let me know if you need help figuring out how that applies to an embryo.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 18, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Well you know how you made up numbers that had nothing to do with the actual biology?  The answer to your question is that you also make up definitions of terms that have nothing to do with the actual biology.  A single celled embryo is a living cell, much like any other tissue in your body.  Your intestine, for example, is comprised of living cells.  Note how your intestine is not a live person, despite almost having the same number of nerves as your brain.  It cannot survive outside the body.  Let me know if you need help figuring out how that applies to an embryo.



You're comparing an embryo to the intestines, and HE doesn't know anything about actual biology?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 19, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You're comparing an embryo to the intestines, and HE doesn't know anything about actual biology?



No.  I'm not likening an embryo to the intestines.  I am pointing out an isolated similarity that both share: living tissue.  If you read that and thought I was saying intestine = embryo, you're a moron.

Just because parts of wholes can be shared in common, does not mean the wholes are equal to one another.  Thinking otherwise is a ridiculously inane fallacy.


----------



## Famus (Jun 19, 2010)

I'm think that telling a woman that she can't kill a grouping of cells in her uterus is very wrong. If you think that an abortion is wrong then simply don't get one. Have a baby but you should also respect a woman who doesn't want a child and through some mistake and is pregnant. It is her body...don't stop her because of some Jesus fueled opinion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 19, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > You're comparing an embryo to the intestines, and HE doesn't know anything about actual biology?
> ...



_A single celled embryo is a living cell, *much like any other tissue in your body*. Your intestine, for example, is comprised of living cells. Note how your intestine is not a live person, despite almost having the same number of nerves as your brain. It cannot survive outside the body. Let me know if you need help figuring out how that applies to an embryo._

In English, we call that a "comparison".  What do they call it in YOUR language?


----------



## ConHog (Jun 19, 2010)

Famus said:


> I'm think that telling a woman that she can't kill a grouping of cells in her uterus is very wrong. If you think that an abortion is wrong then simply don't get one. Have a baby but you should also respect a woman who doesn't want a child and through some mistake and is pregnant. It is her body...don't stop her because of some Jesus fueled opinion.



See I find it odd that you will defend a woman's right to choose an abortion while ridiculing another person's belief in Jesus. 



Here's how I feel about abortion

1. It's a sin, but impossible to define as a crime
2. Some women are going to get abortions no matter what the law says, it's stupid to deny them safe medical care
3. No doctor should fear for their lives if they choose to give abortions
4. NO tax payer money should ever be used to fund an abortion


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 19, 2010)

Famus said:


> I'm think that telling a woman that she can't kill a grouping of cells in her uterus is very wrong. If you think that an abortion is wrong then simply don't get one. Have a baby but you should also respect a woman who doesn't want a child and through some mistake and is pregnant. It is her body...don't stop her because of some Jesus fueled opinion.



I hope that will fulfill the obligatory recitation of this senseless, illogical mantra and spare us any need to hear it again, but I realize I'm probably hoping in vain.  Way too many people think uttering this tripe substitutes for real thought on the subject.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 19, 2010)

Cecille1200 said:
			
		

> I hope that will fulfill the obligatory recitation of this senseless, illogical mantra and spare us any need to hear it again, but I realize I'm probably hoping in vain.  Way too many people think uttering this tripe substitutes for real thought on the subject.




Fyi:  you don't need to quote a post to state an opinion of your own.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 19, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



This is rich coming from you, Newby.  You claim ignorance of abortion clinic bombings, murders of abortion doctors, phoney abortion services to harangue women in need, and any other violent or devious manuveur to prevent women from excersizing their rights -- all done by christian groups.  If there has been any lying going on on this thread, t'aint by me.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 19, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You aren't exactly free of practicing dishonesty to defend your position.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 19, 2010)

The only statement of fact I have made that I needed to correct concerned Newby, and the  assertion that non-christians are going to hell. I apologized to her for it; it was an error.

How else have I been less than honest IYO?


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 19, 2010)

Madeline said:


> "...that non-christians are going to hell. I apologized to her for it; it was an error..."
> 
> 
> [/FONT]



Stating that non-Christians are going to hell is not incorrect. 

The absolute fact is that God has told us in the Book of John 3-16 *"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."*

You can not enter Heaven unless you believe in Jesus. The Jews, the Muslims, all non-Christian faith followers are doomed to burn in the firey pits of hell for all eternity. Believe in Jesus, the Holy Trinity, and you shall have everlasting life. 

Praise Jesus,
ex-Fr. Yukon


----------



## Madeline (Jun 19, 2010)

The error was that I attributed the remark to Newby and she had not written it.  Though I obviously don't believe the theology, either.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 19, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> In English, we call that a "comparison".  What do they call it in YOUR language?



Are you really so dense as to not understand the difference between drawing comparisons between entire concepts, and drawing comparisons between aspects of concepts?  The latter occurred.  It was a comparison.  The former did not, so it should not be concluded that I at any point likened an embryo to intestine outside the similarity that both shared.

Let me know if you are still having trouble with this concept.


Regardless of your misdirecting fallacy, the point still remains that we can call a one celled embryo living because it is a living tissue, without making a claim about it being a living human being.  LIGHT seemed to not understand that.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 19, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Well you know how you made up numbers that had nothing to do with the actual biology? The answer to your question is that you also make up definitions of terms that have nothing to do with the actual biology. A single celled embryo is a living cell, much like any other tissue in your body. Your intestine, for example, is comprised of living cells. Note how your intestine is not a live person, despite almost having the same number of nerves as your brain. It cannot survive outside the body. Let me know if you need help figuring out how that applies to an embryo.


 
I almost forgot... for you people, it always goes back to quality of life. I know a lot of people in the hospital that cannot live on their own. I suppose it's time to abort them right? Oh, yeah, we already do.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 19, 2010)

Whenever pinned on any issue, The Light just flits off to a new one.  Debate with some of them is like trying to play ping pong with a monkey.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 19, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Well you know how you made up numbers that had nothing to do with the actual biology? The answer to your question is that you also make up definitions of terms that have nothing to do with the actual biology. A single celled embryo is a living cell, much like any other tissue in your body. Your intestine, for example, is comprised of living cells. Note how your intestine is not a live person, despite almost having the same number of nerves as your brain. It cannot survive outside the body. Let me know if you need help figuring out how that applies to an embryo.
> ...



I see that instead of responding to the actual issue being discussed, you decide to rant in an unrelated direction that no one here has brought up.  If you can't handle the answer because you get all hurt being proven wrong, then don't ask the question.

As for this new argument: it has nothing to do with abortion.  No one has ever stated we should euthanize the elderly against their or their family's will.  

This post applies to you.  You see two aspects of completely unrelated things that are in common, and assume both things are the same in their entirety.  They're not.  

Now if you want to get into a discussion as to why they are different, and why we actually have the murder laws we do, I'd be happy to discuss this further.  But don't continue making irrational comparisons.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 19, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Whenever pinned on any issue, The Light just flits off to a new one. Debate with some of them is like trying to play ping pong with a monkey.


 
The problem is your brain has wandered off to a new topic. I'm still on the same one that YOU never answered.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 19, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...


 
It is the direction that I brought up that you were trying to avoid.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 19, 2010)

This isn't a thread about abortion.  It's a thread about why someone chooses not to be a Christian.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 19, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> It is the direction that I brought up that you were trying to avoid.


As I just said in my previous post: I have no problem talking with you about this topic if you actually want to get into it.  But let's be honest: you got completely shot down with your last point, and instead of continuing it or conceding stupidity, you just misdirected somewhere else.

But watch! With the magic of the internet, we can talk about both at the same time!

Topic 1: Do you now understand why people can consider a one celled embryo living tissue and at the same time not see it as a living human being?  Do you see how the term "living" applies to do completely different things there?

Topic 2: You have yet to show how or why policy should affect the elderly and an embryo in the same way.  You haven't shown why they are the same at all, so why compare them in such a fashion?

I'll be waiting for you now to ignore both issues to start something completely different and claim that's where you really wanted to go.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 19, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > "...that non-christians are going to hell. I apologized to her for it; it was an error..."
> ...




Dumbasses like you who can't distinguish between concepts such as theology and fact should never try to claim one is the other.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 19, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> This isn't a thread about abortion. It's a thread about why someone chooses not to be a Christian.


 
Talk to Madeline about it. She's the one that brought up abortion. I'm just following her diversion.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 19, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > It is the direction that I brought up that you were trying to avoid.
> ...


 
No, you are the one that wanted to dodge my point. My point was "living" after which you tried to switch to "living on its own" so I am just following along YOUR diversion.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 19, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> No, you are the one that wanted to dodge my point. My point was "living" after which you tried to switch to "living on its own" so I am just following along YOUR diversion.



False.  You cannot quote me in that regard whatsoever.  And now you are dodging BOTH topics.  

So why not pick one, or both, and discuss them?  Are you still confused as to how the term "living" applies differently?  Are you still confused about what differentiates an embryo from the elderly?  

You tell me which you'd like to discuss instead of dodging both by talking about dodging points.  I'll discuss either, so you can't really claim I'm dodging anything.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Cecille1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



FYI:  I do when my opinion is about the post in question.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 19, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > In English, we call that a "comparison".  What do they call it in YOUR language?
> ...



And that brings me back to my point about your lack of basic biology.  An embryo is a lot more than just "living tissue", which is why your bringing up intestines - however much you are now vainly trying to backpedal and pretend that you weren't comparing the two - was ridiculous.  Please go find a biology textbook - junior high should do it - and look up the words "tissue", "organ", and "organism".

And please don't make any more sad attempts to educate people on a subject you are so fuzzy on yourself.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 19, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> And that brings me back to my point about your lack of basic biology.  An embryo is a lot more than just "living tissue"



You made the same straw man mistake as someone else did in the abortion thread.  An embryo is living tissue.  This is fact.  Claiming I am not saying anything else about it and adding words like "is a lot more than just" before that fact does not change that fact.  

An embryo IS a living tissue, just as intestines is living tissue.  These are still factual statements which you have yet to refute.  That still does not mean an embryo is equivalent to intestine.  I can't tell whether you don't understand the word "comparison" or don't understand "living tissue".  

So if you think it is MORE than living tissue, please tell me what is included in an embryo, comprised of three layers of cells, aside from living tissue.  I look forward to hearing all the additional things, since you claim it is a lot more.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 19, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > And that brings me back to my point about your lack of basic biology.  An embryo is a lot more than just "living tissue"
> ...



::sigh::  Look, Biology Boy, an embryo is "living tissue" in the same way that YOU are.  You're wasting my time and everyone else's trying to dance around the fact that an embryo is ALSO an organism, separate and distinct and alive, just as you are.  Nothing needs to be "included" in an embryo for it to be a living organism.

Embryo - New World Encyclopedia


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 19, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You're wasting my time and everyone else's trying to dance around the fact that an embryo is ALSO an organism, separate and distinct and alive, just as you are.



Well yes, I am comprised of living tissue as well.  The difference between me and an embryo is a ton of differentiation, and individual self-supporting independence.  I make the claim an embryo is living tissue and you flip out even though the statement is not wrong.  But then you say it is MORE with a wrong statement.  You think an embryo is a separate organism?  Separate from WHAT?!  Certainly not the parent.  In fact, the very reason the cutoff for abortions is at 24 weeks is because that is the point where the fetus CAN be separate and distinct.  Before that point, it cannot.

Please try again.


----------



## Newby (Jun 21, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Whenever pinned on any issue, The Light just flits off to a new one.  Debate with some of them is like trying to play ping pong with a monkey.



OMG!   Thanks for the laugh Madeline!!!! The irony in that statement made my morning!!!


----------



## Madeline (Jun 21, 2010)

Well, that was better than the vitriol you have written on this thread before, Newby.  I am glad I gave you a chuckle.  Maybe there is room for some agreement and consensus after all......or at least, mutual respect.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 23, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are the one that wanted to dodge my point. My point was "living" after which you tried to switch to "living on its own" so I am just following along YOUR diversion.
> ...


 
How quickly you forget...



SmarterThanHick said:


> ...Your intestine, for example, is comprised of living cells. Note how your intestine is not a live person, despite almost having the same number of nerves as your brain. *It cannot survive outside the body.* Let me know if you need help figuring out how that applies to an embryo.


 



> So why not pick one, or both, and discuss them? Are you still confused as to how the term "living" applies differently? Are you still confused about what differentiates an embryo from the elderly?


 
I never said "embryo," you did in your effort to dodge my point. 



> You tell me which you'd like to discuss instead of dodging both by talking about dodging points. I'll discuss either, so you can't really claim I'm dodging anything.


 
No you won't, you'll just dodge again and then claim you never did.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 23, 2010)

so you're still making no point, just talking about dodging.  

let me know when you want to make a point.



THE LIGHT said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > THE LIGHT said:
> ...


You specifically asked me how the two are differentiated.   "So if you say life began with a single cell, how is 751,879,699,200,000 cells not life?"  Remember this? When you made up numbers?  Now you claim my answer is dodging a point?  You asked for a concept, and I gave it to you. I didn't "switch" living to "living on its own".  You just didn't like the answer, even though the answer didn't switch anything outside of your own head. This is called denial. Don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.  



			
				LIGHT said:
			
		

> I never said "embryo," you did in your effort to dodge my point.


You can use the word "fetus" in there if you like too, and it doesn't change the point.  But I can understand how using big words can confuse you like that.  Once again nothing is dodged, but you're too clueless to understand the response, are looking for a way out, and so resort to this lame cop-out instead of continuing the discussion.


So to recap the discussion: You completely fabricate numbers about the amount of cells in a human body.  You ask to differentiate how a one celled embryo and a developed adult are different if both are considered alive, but then claim I dodge the point when I offer an answer.  You don't understand that a one celled fetus IS an embryo, and also claim I'm dodging points for calling it that, even though that's the correct term to use. Overall you attempt to back-pedal away from this topic by pointing fingers.  Meanwhile you've made no points outside of stupid remarks about coat hangers, and supported nothing you've said.  

The offer still stands: I'll be here when you actually want to make a point instead of whining about your fabricated theories of dodging the topic.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 25, 2010)

SmarterThanHick said:


> so you're still making no point, just talking about dodging.
> 
> let me know when you want to make a point.


 
Maybe, I was to generous to say you were dodging. Maybe it is just that you are too ignorant.



> You specifically asked me how the two are differentiated. "So if you say life began with a single cell, how is 751,879,699,200,000 cells not life?" Remember this? When you made up numbers? *Now you claim my answer is dodging a point?*


 
It is.



> You asked for a concept, and I gave it to you.


 
No, I asked for an answer. Which you never gave me. All you did was divert into switching words and termonology.



> I didn't "switch" living to "living on its own".


 
Yes you did and you continue to deny it even when I show you your exact quote where you did.



> You just didn't like the answer,


 
If I asked you a question about apples and got an answer about oranges, of course I wouldn't like the answer now would I?



> even though the answer didn't switch anything outside of your own head. This is called denial. Don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.


 
Yes, I know you are definitely in denial.



> You can use the word "fetus" in there if you like too, and it doesn't change the point.


 
There you go again...Yes, it does change the point. I said "child" not fetus.



> But I can understand how using big words can confuse you like that.


 
Let's see, 

child = 5 letters 
fetus = 5 letters

hmmm... both the same size. I guess you only know one big word in your vocabulary and cannot process any other. Is that it?



> Once again nothing is dodged, but you're too clueless to understand the response, are looking for a way out, and so resort to this lame cop-out instead of continuing the discussion.


 
I asked a question which did not need "child" "fetus" or "embryo" to be in the answer, but you put it there to intentionally dodge my question.

The offer still stands: you can answer my question whenever is convenient for you.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 25, 2010)

Yanno, The Light, the contempt you show others on a thread about spirituality is hardly showcasing your purported beliefs.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 25, 2010)

I would just like to add Neubarth to the list of reasons I am not a Christian.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 25, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Yanno, The Light, the contempt you show others on a *thread about spirituality* is hardly showcasing your purported beliefs.


 
You mean a thread bashing Christians?


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 25, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> I would just like to add Neubarth to the list of reasons I am not a Christian.


 
Christianity is a personal choice. Your excuses won't matter 100 years from now.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 25, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I would just like to add Neubarth to the list of reasons I am not a Christian.
> ...



No offense intended, but neither will yours.

the Light is a Neubarth sockpuppet?
Figures....


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 25, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



offense not taken. You are right, just not in the way you probably meant it. Simply put, your statement is meaningless in your belief system. 



> the Light is a Neubarth sockpuppet?
> Figures....



interesting you call two Christians who agree on an issue sockpuppets but if we disagree on something you will say Ha! See Christianity is false because Christians cannot agree. 

All of which I expect from someone trying to make up excuses.


----------



## Madeline (Jun 25, 2010)

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno, The Light, the contempt you show others on a *thread about spirituality* is hardly showcasing your purported beliefs.
> ...




For the 1,001 time, I have never bashed christians.  I have been snotty about some christian beliefs and practices, I admit.   But seriously, The Light --  I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who has done more to disgrace christians on this thread than you.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jun 25, 2010)

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I know that's what you said about the last several christians. If I said anything any differently than I have it wouldn't change a thing for you. If you don't like the way Christians are, then become one and be a "better" Christian, but I know you won't because it opposes your world view. After all, your choice to be an atheist was not based on the virtue of atheists. It was because you wanted to do what you wanted when you wanted.

 God is a god of Grace and love. Many of the bible characters were murderers but forsook their ways to follow him. That is what makes it grace is because it isn't because of our work but rather His. You don't enjoy that grace unless you accept Him though for he is a just god also.

It is never appeasing to say what is right, but I'm not here to be mr popular. It's a choice one has to make and I have made that choice. After all, I thought you were pro-choice?


----------



## Madeline (Jun 25, 2010)

You know I am not an atheist.  Abortion has nothing to do with my criticism of your manners.  If you need to lie and obfuscate to craft a reply to me, perhaps it isn't worth writing.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jun 25, 2010)

LIGHT.  You seem to not understand the topics at hand.  We are talking about fruit and you use apple as an example and I use orange.  No, they're not identical.  Yes, they're both fruit, which is the topic of conversation.

Regardless, since you seem to set on claiming I am dodging a question, feel free to ask it again for yet another answer to it.


----------

