God

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Blindside
Hmmm.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
I believe that comes out of the Bible, which many people will say is the word of god.

I have no idea what that means.

You can spend the rest of your life to quote things out of the Bible that are wrong, inconsistent, wicked, bloody, self contradictory etc etc etc.
You can also talk endlessly about how out of date the current Christian doctrines may be in some areas.

I do not wish to go into that.

If you care to, read the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

 

[Blindside]

Hey Napalm chill out. This is a debate, you are now supposed to poke holes in my argument, not call me names.

Great analogy. . Your empirical view on religion and religious people, is WRONG. But, No one cares what you want for yourself. However, when you make an ignorant statement, expect to be rebutted.

This is not a rebuttal, A rebuttal means "to refute by offering countering evidence" something that you have not done.

I await your rebuttal.

Lamont

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by fist of fury
In my opinion it applies to the majority ,but this is only my opinion the majority of religious people I have met. I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong but until I see something to change my opinion I will stick with what I beleive. Many can't think outside of the "box" turn on any religious station. Look at the children that grow up in a church do you think thier parents teach them about other religious without a bias so the child can make his/her own decision. I don't think that everyone out there that has a religious faith is an ignorant boob but my opinion is that is the majority

I am not aware of the Bible belt situation. May be you should get away from those people. I can assure you that even in one of the best known research institutes in the country, I have met an extensive network of religious people who are doing the most advanced scientific research in their respective fields. And these are certainly quite UNLIKE what you have described. That is why. your assertion regarding the"majority" cannot be true.

 

[Cruentus]

Hey, thanks for explaining your position a little bit better. Believe me, I understand a bit of what you might be going through. As you had read, I had been a victim of bad s**t in the name of religion. It does make it really hard to want to even deal with the subject when that is the case. Also, I apoligize if I seemed rude, and I didn't really mean to put you in an uncomfortable position.

In regards to your husband being "saved", I can only imagine the problems that this could cause your marraige. I have never been married, but I have seen situations like that turn for the worst.

I'll relate to you my recent situation; maybe it might help a little. I have been with the same girlfriend for over a year now, and we have plans for marraige. My plans are to propose sometime this year (which is no secret to her; she knows it's comin' so I don't mind saying so online), and we will probably tie the knot 2005 spring.

When we had met, she had never been baptized. In fact, on our second date we had talked a bit about religion. It started when she was relaying to me a story about a Baptist who had been "saved" who she had gone on a date with. They had gone out to play racket ball, and he kept stopping the game to talk to her about religion; how she was all wrong in her beliefs and how she needs to go to his church, and how she hasn't been "saved" yet (cause of course HE could tell somehow who'll go to heaven and who won't) and yada-yada-yada.....he just wouldn't quit. Needless to say, that date ended early.

So we had a good laugh about that. We did talk briefly about our beliefs, and basically she had relayed to me that she believed in God, but she wasn't particularly religious. There was a lot she needed to look into. I had told her in more of a brief manner then I had even on this forum what my beliefs were, and I relayed the message in a non-threatening manner. I was just satisfied knowing that she was open-minded, searching, and open to the idea of "God". That was all I needed. I realized that it is HER journey, not mine, and that ramming my belief system down her throat would not turn her on to my belief system. She knew that I was there and available for questioning. She saw the way I lived and how important God was to me in my life. Other then that, it is really up to her to do her own searching.

Before this Christmass, an entire year after that second date, she had told me that she wanted to become a Catholic. I didn't ask, she told me. Prior to making this decision, she had read the parts of "The Catecism of the Catholic Church." Prior to that she had looked into other ways of thought. She had also talked to her Grandma (of whom she identified with pretty well) about the Church, and had gone to mass with her a few times. She had made an informed decision that was right for HER.

We went to mass this Christmass, and we have been going ever since. She is also in the RCIA program, which is basically the adult education program that prepares people for baptism. We are at a pretty cool church that keeps the tradition, yet at the same time the Priests are pretty open minded and progressive. This Easter, my girlfriend will be baptised, confirmed, and she will recieve holy communion. As somebody who wants to marry this girl, I couldn't be happier.

The important thing about this story is that she made this decision on her own. She did her own research, she did her own searching, and she decided that this was right for her. And by letting her search for her self, I was a possitive influence on her growth. Had I of tried to ram my ideas down her throat, no matter how good my intentions would have been, we wouldn't be together today, and she might not want to be a Catholic today.

Now, Jill, bear with me here.....I'm no Dr. Phil, and I don't know the exact situation between you and your husband, but I would guess by the sound of it that he needs to let you do your own searching. This will be tough for him because many of the people who follow the evengelical idea that they know when a person has been "saved" or not also follow the idea that in marraige 2 people literally become one person, with the husband as the "head." The two beliefs don't have to go hand and hand, but they usually come in the same package. He may in fact be getting this package every Sunday morning at church service. Under this belief system, it becomes inherently difficult to allow the woman in the marrage to have her own identity. Regardless, what he probably needs to realize is that 9 years ago when you two first got married, niether of you upheld the Christian beliefs that he now follows. Whether for the better or not, HE is the one who changed his belief system, NOT YOU. Just because he has changed his values, he can't expect you to run out and do the same just because he wants you to. He needs to allow you to have your own journey, so you can make the decision on your own. From a Christian perspective, he needs to trust in God, and that the Holy Spirit will lead you in the right direction. He also needs to be prepared to accept you if you choose a different path then he. He also needs to understand that the more he pressures you, the more difficult it will be for you to have your own journey.

O.K.....I know that it was unsolicited, but dammit I just spent all that time writting it, so it is to late now, I'm postin' it! Hopefully that was helpful, and hopefully I made sense and didn't sound like a moron.

In all seriousness though, I hope that I helped. I do wish you and your husband the best. I hope that your 9 year marraige lasts many more happy years.

With Humility and Respect,
PAUL
:asian:

 

[Blindside]

I don't want to turn this into an evolution debate.

Cool, maybe we'll make it a seperate thread. Nah, I'm not up on the latest counter and counter-counter arguments. Let me get up to speed, say six months or so?

Lamont

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Blindside Evolutionary theory is not a fact, it is a THEORY. A theory that is shown to be essentially true becomes a law. However, the current model for evolution is the best model out there because no other model can survive near the level of examination it has. It has problems, and those problems are being addressed by current research, just like any othe scientific issue. The counter theory of creationism really doesn't have any evidence for it, it just pokes holes in the evolution argument.

Lamont

The majority of Christian parents teach their children about creationism, just like they teach their children about Santa Claus, the Tooth fairly and the Easter Bunny.

 

[fist of fury]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I am not aware of the Bible belt situation. May be you should get away from those people. I can assure you that even in one of the best known research institutes in the country, I have met an extensive network of religious people who are doing the most advanced scientific research in their respective fields. And these are certainly quite UNLIKE what you have described. That is why. your assertion regarding the"majority" cannot be true.

Well the bible belt covers alot of the southern portion of the U.S. it's hard to get away from. It's actually kind of funny to see so many churches everywhere it's almost like fast food chains you can order whatever religion you want. At then end of my street are 2 different churches sdown the road there is going to be another one. And I have met alot of highly intelligent scientist also that have strong faith and I credit them for helping me to think more.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by Blindside
Hmmm.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

I believe that comes out of the Bible, which many people will say is the word of god.

The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.


:soapbox:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
Johnathan Napalm, you wish not to be sterotyped, yet you give a stereotypical reply. You failed to read and understand ANY point in my post, and instead of responding rationally, you counter-attacked with an emotional, baseless diatribe. I could have re-constructed your post almost verbatim from various discussions with other theists over the past few years.

That's why I don't usually engage in these debates. I cannot use reason to oppose emotion, and religions are entirely emotional.

Why don't YOU reread my post again? I rebutted you point by point. And showed the serious flaw of you assertion.

Your dismissive attitude rivals your narrow mindedness in this area.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I have no idea what that means.

You can spend the rest of your life to quote things out of the Bible that are wrong, inconsistent, wicked, bloody, self contradictory etc etc etc.
You can also talk endlessly about how out of date the current Christian doctrines may be in some areas.

I do not wish to go into that.

If you care to, read the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

That IS the New Testament.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by fist of fury
Well the bible belt covers alot of the southern portion of the U.S. it's hard to get away from. It's actually kind of funny to see so many churches everywhere it's almost like fast food chains you can order whatever religion you want. At then end of my street are 2 different churches sdown the road there is going to be another one. And I have met alot of highly intelligent scientist also that have strong faith and I credit them for helping me to think more.

Heck, where I used to work, there were 10 churches between my downtown apt and my office. I walked past them every day. No one ever preached to me nor harassed me, except for this jerk who told me I was going to hell b/c I am a Catholic. *sigh*

 

[Blindside]

.Posted by qizmodius The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

Yeah, I actually read that last week, but I hadn't had any confirmation on it so I didn't bring it up. (It is also why it came to mind so fast.) If they had kept the original hebrew "poisoner" term it is a quite logical thing to do.

Lamont

 

[fist of fury]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.


:soapbox:

I've been there myself , but as I read the bible for myself and did more research I found that it doesnt push the don't question issue that's more of a church thing. I've learned more by questioning my own beliefs than just accepting things. I also attempted to learn about other faiths and see what they beleive and why instead of just assuming they are wrong.

 

[Jill666]

Hey Paul- well congratulations. I hope all goes well with you both.

As for the debate that has taken place in the last 24- wow. Guys cool off a bit, you're making good arguments.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.


:soapbox:

Blame your parents! Heck Christians children are taught that God loves them. Jesus loves them. The angels protect them.

Growing up, I have not been told otherwise. I was warmed that if I broke the laws and commit crimes, there would be hell to pay. I was never forbid to question nor to explore.

I have seldom met religion organizations that are as close minded as you described. Granted there will always be a few nuts. But that is not the majority.

Just what kind of churches you people have been exposed to? Don't you realize it is the nuts thumbing the Bible "invoking God's name in vain" that is the source of the problems? and not religion itself.

To use your analogy. In martial art, a knife hand to the wind pipe is a death blow. It is a fact. Now if some crooks learn that and kill someone with a knife hand that crushed the windpipe. Does that make the martial art evil? ENLIGHTEN ME PLEASE!!

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Why don't YOU reread my post again? I rebutted you point by point. And showed the serious flaw of you assertion.

Your dismissive attitude rivals your narrow mindedness in this area.

As Blindside already pointed out, you didn't rebut my points, you simply disagreed, vehemently in some cases. The dismissive attitude was yours, not mine, and is unfortunately all too common. Again, I would suggest that, in order to avoid being stereotyped, don't respond in a stereotypical way.

Regarding my reference to peoples' beliefs about atheists, I admit to exaggerating quite a bit. To be more precise, and less inflammatory, I should have stated it thus: The vast majority of people in this country believe that atheists are immoral. There are, demonstrably so, large subgroups of believers that hold additional beliefs about atheists, including the ones that I mentioned. Our illustrious president's own father once suggested that atheists like myself should not be considered as citizens of this country during his presidential campaign. There are probably between 20 and 40 million atheists in our country right now, but how often do you ever see any of us actually speak up? I can assure you, it isn't due to any additional apathy beyond the current background level in this country. What do you think would happen to a political candidate who admitted to being an atheists, even if he/she had an outstanding record of philanthropy, generosity, and general morality?

And as usual, in a discussion where folks were asked to reveal their beliefs, the atheists are attacked, simply because they do not share your beliefs. I've found, that my simple existence is offensive to many people.

Not once did I ever make judgements of believers in my posts. All I did was express my opinions of RELIGIONS. You chose to take those opinions are attacks on your person. Whose fault is that?

Finally, your accusation of narrow-mindedness on my part is extraordinarily ironic. You, I'm sure, won't agree.

 

[Blindside]

As for the debate that has taken place in the last 24- wow. Guys cool off a bit, you're making good arguments.

Last 24 hours? Hah, I think most of this thread has happened this morning. Oh, yeah this is really helping my work productivity, I'll just have to work late tonight.

Lamont

 

[Cruentus]

Hey Paul- well congratulations. I hope all goes well with you both.

As for the debate that has taken place in the last 24- wow. Guys cool off a bit, you're making good arguments.

Actually, this debate flared up within about the last hour or so. I was at work writing a response to you, and by the time I got around to posting, there where pages of writing in fromt of me.

Guys slow down! I have to catch up here! :CTF:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by fist of fury ...
I've been there myself , but as I read the bible for myself and did more research I found that it doesnt push the don't question issue that's more of a church thing......

Exactly. It is the people. Not the religion itself. The religion itself cannot do anything, any more than a martial art can go out and hurt someone, or a gun walking down the street to shoot someone.

It is the nuts using these tools to cause problems.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Blame your parents! Heck Christians children are taught that God loves them. Jesus loves them. The angels protect them.

Growing up, I have not been told otherwise. I was warmed that if I broke the laws and commit crimes, there would be hell to pay. I was never forbid to question nor to explore.

I have seldom met religion organizations that are as close minded as you described. Granted there will always be a few nuts. But that is not the majority.

Just what kind of churches you people have been exposed to? Don't you realize it is the nuts thumbing the Bible "invoking God's name in vain" that is the source of the problems? and not religion itself.

To use your analogy. In martial art, a knife hand to the wind pipe is a death blow. It is a fact. Now if some crooks learn that and kill someone with a knife hand that crushed the windpipe. Does that make the martial art evil? ENLIGHTEN ME PLEASE!!

That's somewhat appropriate, but the real question is this: Does the intent or the "evilness" of the person diminish the damage done by the weapon? It is true that "evil" isn't an attribute of the art, or of the weapon. But regardless of intent or attitude, if I hit you in the throat with a swordhand, you'll still die. And, in the same light, if a child is taught to be unworthy, he/she will fell unworthy.

I'm not speaking of religious nuts here. My experience is quite mainstream. My family are as non-nutty as you can imagine. They're simple, lower-middle-class American Roman Catholics. Nothing weird, nothing crazy, just simple believers who brought me up the same way they were brought up.