common sense, reason & science are w...
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#41 Nov 12, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the same way atheists claim their belief is proof? The "onus" is not on anyone. If you want me to prove to you that He exists and ALWAYS has how come I cant hold you to the same standard and ask you to PROVE He doesnt exist? Because you say so?
So…if someone tells you the tooth fairy exists you think it’s up to you prove it wrong?

“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”— Bertrand Russell
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#42 Nov 12, 2012
Punisher wrote:
1. <quoted text>Uh, untill the ones making the claims of these encounters can prove they are exactly as they claim - Ive already won most of the "battles."

2. IF this God of yours has communicated with men as many times as claimed - he sure does manage to send a lot of mixed messages. He seems incapable of being consistent in any Omniscient sort of way.
And if we stick to your reasoning than any and all claims are as legit as the others - be they within Your Religion or outside of it.

3. So the New Ager claims are as legit as Yours. Just each of you use a different vocabulary. But of course you'll say these others are not legit ONLY because they contradict with the rules of your Religion.
1. What constitutes winning a battle in these scenarios of discussing the issue of God's existence? At least with football there's a point system that designated an ultimate win. The problem with the idea of winning a discussion has it's problems. Many people viewed Romney as the winner of various debates with Obama. Yet Obama became the president.

2. There's mixed messages because there are 2 sources, God and Satan. And of course this concept is going to be even more problematic for you because you can only 'barely' acknowledge the slightest fraction of a possibility that merely "God" exists. And even then He's more of an entity mistaken for a God.

3. The New Agers have a completely different message. But it's actually common with other religions. The overall messages with "new age" is that we are, and/or can achieve levels of godhood. I don't deny that they have 'legitimate' spiritual encounters. Just not from the creator Himself.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#43 Nov 12, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>So your going to back-peddle Luthers obviously strong antisemitism...?
Huh, cant recall ever hearing that a strong amount of "frustrations" was ever the cause, or the root of such deep and obvious hatred for a a huge segment of any population.
I guess the Shia can use that excuse for their POV about the Sunni. Or the Hutu for the Tutsi...
It was just frustration..."Grrrr! I'm so frustrated with those people, I'm gonna murder, rape and pillage them out of existence!"
Who knew that all they needed to do was take a few deep breaths, walk away for 10 seconds to alleviate the frustrations. I think this new insight should be presented to the UN security council.
Anti-semitism is probably similar to racism, which can be broken down into 2 basic categories (with it's various in-between variations).

With racism, there are those who are racist by virtue of direct negative experience, and those 'without' direct negative experience. The former example is one who hates a racial group due to bad experiences with that group (was bullied in school, etc.). There was an Asian man interviewed on Larry King a few years ago who was labeled on the program as a 'racist'. While he was talking, words were being flashed on the screen stating he was a "racist", "hates whites", "hates blacks", "hates 'Asians'". What they didn't tell the audience is that the man had been bullied (and overall disgusted with media stereotypes of Asians).

The latter example is one who is 'not' racist due to direct experience. It doesn't matter how the targeted racial group has treated them. They just hate them. Often this has been done through indoctrination.

History reveals that Luther was 'not' the latter example as he initially supported the Jews:

“If the apostles, who were also Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles have dealt with the Jews, no Christians would ever have emerged from among the Gentiles.”

But to answer your comment, no, I don't think I'm back-peddling. I don't mind calling something for what it is. If it's "anti-semitism" in whatever form, then that's what it is. The problem is that the issue is being treated like it was on the "Larry King Show". There's no historical background taken into consideration. Obviously something(s) happened along the way between the prior quote, and the quote that gets far more attention.

But it does reveal the scriptural notation concerning the power of the tongue (and power of the pen). Whatever it's intention, it had a profound negative impact.

Job

Santa Clara, CA

#44 Nov 12, 2012
Punisher wrote:
1. <quoted text>
No, its truly more about getting Xtians to admit to the history, and LEARN from it!

2. As many of those old enmities continue to be dragged forward into current events.

3. Do you not think its important in the US for us to admit to our past treatment of non-whites, so to learn from it and continue to remove the racism from our midst?

4. We seem really eager to NEVER FORGET 9-11 (acts made against us) but not so eager to remember the sins this nation made against others who only either lived here first, or were forced to live here and be treated like chattel.

5. Or completely ignore the ones we continue to commit domestically and/or internationally - all while claiming moral superiority due to our Judeo-Xtian roots.

6. Crimes of Darwinian Evolutionists? Do you mean those who used Darwins science to foster their Eugenic policies-practices?

7. Its always a specious argument to say that these modern atrocities committed by Governments intolerant of Religion was for the cause of Atheism, or any twisted view of ToE. No one ever said, "we kill the Religious to further the machinations of Evolution, and/or to prove or please Atheism!" It was always a "sacrifice" to and for the Political States survival, unlike the many sacrifices made to the Xtian GOD - who was damn clear in his Sons message to NOT kill others!
1. Overall we do.

2. The examples you give are shaky (from my perspective). They're often it seems relegated to politicians, or politically related. The last references you made consisted of Tea-Party members, who are basically "right-wing" conservatives which doesn't mean they are fundamentalist Christians. The example of "The Family". I don't know know a whole lot about them, but I know they have been falsely accused. So 'their' demonization is questionable to me. The "Creationists"!(?).. That's a puzzling one. A differing view of creation is not an evil. And no, we don't deny science. We deny the 'conclusion' of evolutionary scientists. But again, is the walk going to match the talk concerning freedom of religion?

3. Yes! But the question still remains, what are Christians supposed to remove? Our view of creation?

4. I agree, but this seems more of a 'general' issue. The issues you point out are that of what all Americans need to evaluate. But you seem to place them all on Christians.

5. If the phrase "Judeo-Christian" roots are eliminated from the statement, we still have the same problem. If nothing else, just "Americanism". Liberals get caught up into the same Uber lingo as anyone else.

6. No. I'm referring to the crimes that lead to the placement of Africans on public display as being animals, half-human, lesser primates.

7. I personally avoid using the term "atheism" itself. Atheism is basically a "non-belief" in God. I don't make any more out of that. I generally focus on "anti-religion" which generally involves atheists, because they are the one's pro-active in removing Christianity and/or religion.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#45 Nov 12, 2012
Punisher wrote:
1.<quoted text>
-----> Deaths at the hands of Xtian Colonists worldwide - well into the billions over centuries as most of the victims went uncounted.

2. No one ever counted all the natives killed out of hand or with serious intent by Xtians doing "Gods work against the Savages." No one counted because these savages were not worthy of counting.
1. If communists had been in power over centuries, and had the same mobile ability as Christian European nations, I have no doubt we would see the same scenario. Including an attempt to eliminate religion from each conquered/colonized nation.

2. As far as Native Americans, they were murdered by numerous people (soldiers, lawmen, your average citizen, etc.). What's puzzling is the insistence that the founding fathers were deists, closet atheists, liberal(non-fundamentalist) Christians, or their Christianity wasn't worn on their sleeve. But when it comes to the slaughtering of Native Americans, fundamentalist Christians seem to 'magically' show up in history in vast numbers.
Flygerian

Chickasha, OK

#46 Nov 12, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
So…if someone tells you the tooth fairy exists you think it’s up to you prove it wrong?
“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”— Bertrand Russell
Comparing a tooth fairy to a Creator that put things in order? Yea thats logical lol. Nonetheless when speaking in THIS SENSE yes its up to you to prove nonexistence just as you want others to prove existence. You cant have it one way but not the other.

That quote may be that guys opinion but its ridiculous lol. Nothing comes into ORDER out of nothing
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#47 Nov 12, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Comparing a tooth fairy to a Creator that put things in order? Yea thats logical lol. Nonetheless when speaking in THIS SENSE yes its up to you to prove nonexistence just as you want others to prove existence. You cant have it one way but not the other.
“When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim.‘If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed’.”– Alex Michalos, Principles of Logic, 1969
Flygerian wrote:
That quote may be that guys opinion but its ridiculous lol. Nothing comes into ORDER out of nothing
If you believe your “God” came from nothing and simply exists then why can’t the universe simply exist?
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" -Stephen Hawking
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#48 Nov 12, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
“When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim.‘If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed’.”– Alex Michalos, Principles of Logic, 1969
<quoted text>
If you believe your “God” came from nothing and simply exists then why can’t the universe simply exist?
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" -Stephen Hawking
You're making a positive claim just as I am. This thread is in fact. So its on YOU just as it is on ME to prove it. If anyone made a claim FIRST it would be threadstarter. So (according to that quote) its on HIM to prove the nonexistence of God Almighty. But you know that its impossible. Just as its impossible for me to give you the proof that YOU'RE looking for. Which is showing HIM to you

The universe just existed in perfection? Something that doesnt move, talk, believe, you know? Doesnt have LIFE? Has always existed in perfection? And not only that but created life? Naw cant get with that. Its just people tryna ignore a god for the belief that there isnt one.
Job

United States

#49 Nov 12, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Using these "encounters" as a means of absolute proof is what I think is the issue at hand. A lot or people claiming something is not proof of the details. A lot of people claim to have seen not just UFO's, but actual aliens...but the claims are not proof. Or should we allow them to be simply because of the need to make religious claims legitimate? The brush has to paint in both directions, no?
I have had many "encounters" of what would be called a spiritual kind, I simply don't believe them to be interactions with any God/s, divine entities. IMO, they were created by my body, not just my brain, but the body in full.
IMO, mine and others are all within the parameters of the natural, physical world that we have to yet to figure out their exact causes/sources.
What is the cause of human insight, imagination and most of all creativity? IMO, its a natural thing that we simply have not and might never figure out in complete detail. And I have no problem with that, and see no reasons to solve it by saying its a God interacting with us.
Sure its MY opinion, but until someone can prove a God at work and not just claim it is - my POV remains the most satisfactory and should be accepted by all people.(intentional sarcasm there)
Your opinion should be respected. I'm just not sure how others, and possibly yourself respect the opinions of (fundamentalist) Christians. If you truly respect our opinions, then you have to come to grips with the fact that we're going to be outspoken as everyone else in terms of socio-political issues. That's a right that we have like anyone. And the issue of having to carry a burden of proof wouldn't be an issue.

An example of this would be your statement that we should stay away from expressing opinions on morality like abortion. I doubt that you think that opinion on morality shouldn't be addressed. Just that Christians shouldn't have an apparent say?*

*The question mark is as an opening for correction.
Job

United States

#50 Nov 12, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>I think the problem with the cliche, "God works in mysterious ways" - is that it truly offers no real insight. Its merely a way to close the door to inquiry.
What do we do with that expression when its used? Where do we go from there?
Q; Why does God make innocent children suffer?
Ans; God works in mysterious ways.
WTF!? What do we do with that? Where do we go? How do we even explore these Big Q's when the answer is so trite and shuts down exploration..??
Q; Why did my house get spared the ravages of the storm but my neighbors got trashed?(common Q these days)
Ans; God works in mysterious ways.
WTF!?!?
The phrase is just a coin phrase. Nothing to make a doctrine out of. It's not meant to close doors on inquiry. However, like it or not, there are mysteries. And there's no limit to inquiry on what is mysterious. For instance, the Bible states that no man knows the exact time of His return (day, hour, etc.). It doesn't mean that the issue of His return shouldn't be studied ('signs' of His return, etc.).

Now the issue of 'why' God draws individuals in different ways is interesting. And there's no reason 'not' to explore it's dynamics.
Job

United States

#51 Nov 12, 2012
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
“…death as a warning”…that’s a helluva warning! I hope no one ever gives me or you that kind of warning.

2.“The prevailing view among historians is that Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany, and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the Nazi Party's attacks on Jews.”- Richard Grunberger, British historian ,“A Social History of Nazi German 1933-1945”
“…just about every anti-Jewish book printed in the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther.…Luther's 1543 pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies was a ‘blueprint’ for the Kristallnacht.”- MacCulloch Diarmaid,“Reformation: Europe's House Divided”
1. I agree.

2. There's no doubt that it did (that I'm aware of). I'm certainly not condoning Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric.

My point is that his rhetoric, anti-Jewish sentiment, anti-semitic sentiment, whatever one wants to call it, is not the same thing as Hitler/Nazi sentiment. Luther, as strong and profound as it was, suggested a warning of death. Hitler gave no warning. He did the opposite. He coaxed them with a deceptive promise of protection from anti-semitic foreigners. Many of the Jews went into captivity believing that they were goint to not only be protected, but have a better life.
Job

United States

#52 Nov 12, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>The killing is the same. Its the motivation that bothers me. You xtians keep telling us how moral and all filled with good you all become with Jesus in your life. So its hard to figure how you would and could be 1. so callous towards others, 2. kill them in the cause of your loving God. When his Son was damn clear about how to treat others
I dont think either approach is moral or justified - its just that Xtians are not supposed to be so Evil. Even if the State tells them to do it! Xtians are supposed to be above all that. Of course allowing for a few bad apples, one would think that a moral majority of Xtians would have taken up against various States that told them to kill for them. Like say Nazi Germany, Socialist Russia/USSR - lets not forget those countries were filled with Xtians - NOT Atheists. Now of course there were some good Apples in both regimes...but it seems most others were rotten.
Thats more the point. That and apparently Xtianity itself in these places was complicit in justifying and basically promulgating hatred of the Jews, etc...for a long time leading up to these State sanctioned atrocities. Xtianity in nearly all of Europe and Russia was long guilty of persecution of the Jews in the run up of the State ordered genocides. You simply cant wish away the complicity of Xtian teachings re; the Jews and their subsequent persecutions.
Teaching suspicion and hate and justifying the use of violence as a legitimate tool of Faith all play major roles in Xtian history.
One may not be able to relate to this concept unless they are at least willing to believe in the possibility of the Biblical God, but Christian European history had one particular dynamic that was unique. And it's the reason why not only would Euro history not be a hindrance for Christians in historically "non-Christian" nations/continents; but not a hindrance to American or modern Euro Christians.

This 'unique' dynamic was the establishment of Christianity being made into law. The Bible is very clear that one cannot become a child of God by any method of 'man'. It's impossible. A nation declaring that they are a "Christian nation", everyone 'must' convert can only lead to disaster.

Just to paint a hypothetical scenario. Suppose a high school drop out, no interest in academia including history becomes a believer (Christian) by 'divine' intervention by God Himself. He becomes utterly grateful for God's mercy, and his newfound relationship with the creator of the universe. Chances are he's not going to care much about Christian history in Europe...at least not at first. And even when confronted with it, chances are he will realize that people have done things in the name of Christianity, that were not inspired by God, and even condemned by God.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#53 Nov 12, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
You're making a positive claim just as I am. This thread is in fact. So its on YOU just as it is on ME to prove it. If anyone made a claim FIRST it would be threadstarter. So (according to that quote) its on HIM to prove the nonexistence of God Almighty. But you know that its impossible. Just as its impossible for me to give you the proof that YOU'RE looking for. Which is showing HIM to you
You’re obviously not very familiar with logic.

If you tell me that a god exists you have made a claim. If I refuse to believe your claim I have not made a claim of my own I have simply refused to believe your claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Similarly, if I tell you that life exists on Mars I have made a claim and if you refuse to believe my claim you have not made a claim you have simply refused to believe my claim. The burden of proof is on me.
Flygerian wrote:
The universe just existed in perfection? Something that doesnt move, talk, believe, you know? Doesnt have LIFE? Has always existed in perfection? And not only that but created life? Naw cant get with that. Its just people tryna ignore a god for the belief that there isnt one.
If you can believe your “God” can simply exist there’s no valid reason why you can’t believe the universe simply exists.

I’m not an atheist I’m an agnostic and my only contention is that there are some things we just don’t know yet.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#54 Nov 12, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I agree.
2. There's no doubt that it did (that I'm aware of). I'm certainly not condoning Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric.
My point is that his rhetoric, anti-Jewish sentiment, anti-semitic sentiment, whatever one wants to call it, is not the same thing as Hitler/Nazi sentiment. Luther, as strong and profound as it was, suggested a warning of death. Hitler gave no warning. He did the opposite. He coaxed them with a deceptive promise of protection from anti-semitic foreigners. Many of the Jews went into captivity believing that they were goint to not only be protected, but have a better life.
You wrote:
“The Nazis had their own religion. Hitler's bible was Mein Kampf.”

I think I have demonstrated quite clearly the Archbishop Tutu was absolutely correct about Christians being responsible for the holocaust.

According to the German census (1939) 94% of Germans considered themselves Christian, 54 % Protestant and 40% Catholic, with only 3.5 % claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5% unbelievers. On August 19, 1934 about 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the polls and gave Hitler 38 million "Yes" votes (90 percent of the vote). Mein Kampf was published in 1925 the German Christians had 9 years to read about Hitler’s ideas an they obviously accepted them.

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.”- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#55 Nov 12, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re obviously not very familiar with logic.
If you tell me that a god exists you have made a claim. If I refuse to believe your claim I have not made a claim of my own I have simply refused to believe your claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Similarly, if I tell you that life exists on Mars I have made a claim and if you refuse to believe my claim you have not made a claim you have simply refused to believe my claim. The burden of proof is on me.
<quoted text>
If you can believe your “God” can simply exist there’s no valid reason why you can’t believe the universe simply exists.
I’m not an atheist I’m an agnostic and my only contention is that there are some things we just don’t know yet.
Threadstarter made a claim. Therefore he has to prove his claim in your theory. When debating things that are beyond sight, you cannot prove it EITHER WAY. Even in your stance of Mars, you cannot prove it either way to be SATISFACTORY in either side. But when having a debate (which is what this is) you cannot just tell one side to prove it and the other side is guiltless of providing proof. You know thats not right

Well a person can believe whatever they choose to. Doesnt mean its logical. The universe (which is a thing, it does live, talk, walk breathe) just existed right? Well it existed in perfection? How? How does something lifeless provide life to the perfect extent that humans and animals are? Provide a sun that can PERFECTLY support life on a surrounding planet? It cant because it has no life. Everything would be by chance not it "always existing" To me this premise isnt logical. Now A Creator putting the universe into motion makes more sense since things are in order in this universe. If I had 1 arm another had 3 another had 6 another had 2 and so forth than maybe I could agree that the universe just "existed" But since this isnt the case its hard for me to get on board with it
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#56 Nov 12, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Threadstarter made a claim. Therefore he has to prove his claim in your theory. When debating things that are beyond sight, you cannot prove it EITHER WAY. Even in your stance of Mars, you cannot prove it either way to be SATISFACTORY in either side. But when having a debate (which is what this is) you cannot just tell one side to prove it and the other side is guiltless of providing proof. You know thats not right
I think the evidence shows that reason and logic are winning over Bronze Age mythology.

“Nones” on the Rise

“The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace.” Poll Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life October 9, 2012

You know that for 1,500 years non-believers were burned at the stake. A couple of hundred years ago we put a stop to that. Now the only threat they can make burning in hell in an afterlife, and reasonable people aren’t buying it.
Flygerian wrote:
Well a person can believe whatever they choose to. Doesnt mean its logical. The universe (which is a thing, it does live, talk, walk breathe) just existed right? Well it existed in perfection? How? How does something lifeless provide life to the perfect extent that humans and animals are? Provide a sun that can PERFECTLY support life on a surrounding planet? It cant because it has no life. Everything would be by chance not it "always existing" To me this premise isnt logical. Now A Creator putting the universe into motion makes more sense since things are in order in this universe. If I had 1 arm another had 3 another had 6 another had 2 and so forth than maybe I could agree that the universe just "existed" But since this isnt the case its hard for me to get on board with it
You’re absolutely correct religious people can believe anything they choose (and they do) but scientists and rational thinkers don’t have that luxury. Stephen Hawing is a scientist and doesn’t claim to know how the universe came into existence because he cannot provide proof (he understands the burden of proof) but he does claim that it didn’t have to be “God” and that he can prove.

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science.…This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." - Stephen Hawking
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#57 Nov 12, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the evidence shows that reason and logic are winning over Bronze Age mythology.
“Nones” on the Rise
“The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace.” Poll Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life October 9, 2012
You know that for 1,500 years non-believers were burned at the stake. A couple of hundred years ago we put a stop to that. Now the only threat they can make burning in hell in an afterlife, and reasonable people aren’t buying it.
<quoted text>
You’re absolutely correct religious people can believe anything they choose (and they do) but scientists and rational thinkers don’t have that luxury. Stephen Hawing is a scientist and doesn’t claim to know how the universe came into existence because he cannot provide proof (he understands the burden of proof) but he does claim that it didn’t have to be “God” and that he can prove.
"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science.…This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." - Stephen Hawking
I rather say "hell in the afterlife" and be wrong than to say theres "no hell" and find out Im wrong. How about you?

Religion is not the blame to the worlds problems. Its people THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE of religions or Religions that TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE. I will say for the MOST PART, the three biggest religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) do not do the latter. But people do the first (people taking advantage of others) that screws things up. But even Islam has commands about nonbelievers so I can see why there are extreme Muslims

What? Scientists are free to believe what they wish and they do. I mean look at your quote. The laws of science PROVE THAT god ISNT NECESSARY? Well what made the laws of science? The universe that doesnt have life? Something had to make those BINDING laws that science finds out about.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#58 Nov 13, 2012
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
I rather say "hell in the afterlife" and be wrong than to say theres "no hell" and find out Im wrong. How about you?
Religion is not the blame to the worlds problems. Its people THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE of religions or Religions that TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE. I will say for the MOST PART, the three biggest religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) do not do the latter. But people do the first (people taking advantage of others) that screws things up. But even Islam has commands about nonbelievers so I can see why there are extreme Muslims
What if the Muslims are right and the Christians are wrong where does that leave you?
The Egyptians believed in an afterlife and the ancient Greeks believed they would go to the Elysian Fields and the Vikings to Valhalla and none of these beliefs were based any kind of rational evidence but merely on the fear of death the inability to accept death as final.
"I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. No agnostic ever burned anyone at the stake…”- Daniel J. Boorstin, American historian
Flygerian wrote:
What? Scientists are free to believe what they wish and they do. I mean look at your quote. The laws of science PROVE THAT god ISNT NECESSARY? Well what made the laws of science? The universe that doesnt have life? Something had to make those BINDING laws that science finds out about.
Science is based observation, experimentation and objective rational evidence. Scientists don’t accept each other’s claims on the basis of divine revelation.

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." ~Carl Sagan
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#59 Nov 13, 2012
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
You wrote:
“The Nazis had their own religion. Hitler's bible was Mein Kampf.”

2. I think I have demonstrated quite clearly the Archbishop Tutu was absolutely correct about Christians being responsible for the holocaust.
1. That's correct. Hitler replaced the Bible with the book "Mein Kampf" in German schools. The Nazis developed their own churches to replace the Christian church. Hitler viewed Christianity as an inferior religion. His embracing of Christianity was only in relation to Christianity being a part of German culture, similar to the Norwegian evolutionist (and probably atheist) terrorist.

2. No, not quite (and it's fairly rare anyone can prove anything by a quote). Don't get me wrong, some of the people you quote are/were brilliant people...but mere human.

Mr. Tutu draws obvious suspicion. I understand that because you're quoting an arch-bishop affiliated with the church, that what he states must be valid. It appears that he's probably speaking out of ethnic bias. In other words, would he make the same claim had the same scenario occurred within a Bantu speaking nation instead of Germany? Where a Bantu dictator slaughtered Jews with the support of Bantu Christians? If he had, I think there would be more validity to his statement. The contemporary view of pagans today are those being from non-White Christian nations (except for those who claim to practice ancient Euro paganism, and/or neo-paganists). I think he's making a distinction between Western Judeo-Christianity and "non" Western-Judeo Christianity. Not Western Judeo-Christianity and Western Paganism. What's clearly absent from his statement is the word "we" (we Christians). He's obviously, I would say,'excluding' himself.

The same types of diatribes relating to White Western-Christians are also expressed toward White Westerners without that 'hyphen'(White Western-Christians). By virtue of us being 'White', particularly 'male'(I'm assuming you're also a White male), "we" (you and I) are accused of being responsible for many evils worldwide. And these people are not impressed by a White Westerner who claims to be an atheist, and/or shuns Christianity. Do you side with them as well? Or do you really think you are off the hook because you left Christianity?

And truthfully, our ancestors 'have' committed atrocities. How convenient it is to now say "it's you Christians that are responsible for (fill in the blank with historical atrocity)". Does it relieve some guilt?

Do you see a pattern here?

"You Jews are responsible!"...."Yo u Christians are responsible!"...
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#60 Nov 13, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>

According to the German census (1939) 94% of Germans considered themselves Christian, 54 % Protestant and 40% Catholic, with only 3.5 % claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5% unbelievers. On August 19, 1934 about 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the polls and gave Hitler 38 million "Yes" votes (90 percent of the vote). Mein Kampf was published in 1925 the German Christians had 9 years to read about Hitler’s ideas an they obviously accepted them.
“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.”- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
The problem here is what to do with the remaining 6% "non-Christians". Basically, their inclusion means that "non-Christian" are just as responsible.

If 10 kids vandalize public property, get caught; 8 of them of the Ba'hai faith, 1 from the Rastafarian religion, 1 from an atheist family; all parents are going to be called and held responsible. They are not going to exclude the Rasta and atheist parents because they are in the minority/

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why lie about the truth? Christian mistranslat... 10 min blessed 1,377
gen 49: 27 1 hr Barmsweb 636
Intelligent People Question Everything 1 hr Barmsweb 922
The Moral Failure Of Christians 1 hr Barmsweb 325
1 Corinthians 11: 4-5 1 hr little lamb 11
Just A Talk With You Christians. 1 hr little lamb 531
Why did Christ come to Earth? 1 hr blessed 795
Bible Interpretation 7 hr Thai cun 1,638
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 8 hr Thai cun 20,783
More from around the web