Athiests know there is a God - Page 2

Possibly. But as with a lot of these things there are often many layers. I think what he was doing was a couple of things:

- declare that only those without sin are allowed to execute this judgment and punishment

- show that no one (except him) is without sin

- demonstrate his grace by the fact that while the law was in effect, and only he was morally allowed to execute it, he did not

+1 this

Ditto. Although I believe one can truly know for themselves of the existence of God as a result of their faith.

I think this is a fair point. The word "know" has some shades of gray in its meaning:

Brain slip back there - it was Noah who was a retelling of Gilgamesh, not Moses. But I don't believe that Moses was a real person either, since there is no evidence of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt.

Wha...WTF? I am more than open to differing opinions. It's not the fact that you disagree...it's that you're being intellectually dishonest in the extreme. I also have trouble believing anyone who DENIES JESUS EXISTED AT ALL can possibly argue about what his message was. Now, understand, I'm not claiming to be an expert in any sense here. But I do know this:

--Being rich from material perspective does not make one a bad Christian, nor someone that "hates Jesus"

--Being pro-gun rights does not make someone violent.

--Supporting military action at times is not in conflict with biblical principles.

--Opposing socialist policies and a massive federal government does not make one a bad Christian


e#, what's funny here is that I get the impression you think the points (read: attacks) in the article are something new and clever. In reality, they are the same old anti-Christian rhetoric that Godless Left (among others) uses all the time. It's done to support a political agenda or, in your case, an anti-Christian viewpoint. The facts are that all of the above points are more complex, with different views throughout Christianity. Moreover, proponents of such nonsense often ignore that a central tenet of the religion is that perfection is impossible. In other words, we aspire to be more Godly, more generous, more forgiving, etc....but as human beings we often fail. But according to your logic, any Christian who fails (which inevitably is all of us) is "bad" and "hates Jesus." This from a guy that not only believes Jesus was not The Savior, but that he didn't even exist at all.

And a third point. Well said.

Wow.

SDW - I don't think you hate Jesus, I just don't think you follow his teachings. Most modern day Christians don't follow his teachings, but they still like him because he offers a free ticket out of hell even when you don't follow his teachings. Just because an argument is old does not make it wrong.

But, according to you, there was and is no Jesus...so there are no teachings of Jesus...or sayings of Jesus...so there's nothing to follow.

Who are you to judge that?


Unsupported and utterly false.


Anyone that believes that doesn't understand what Christianity is all about. Jesus accepts us despite our flaws. It is the acceptance of Him that leads to being saved, not to mention a better person. This is not a new concept. Edit: It is somewhat disputed however. Some believe that entrance to Heaven can only be attained through "good deeds."


Nor does being old make it right (see: jimmac--). And I am not saying it's wrong BECAUSE it's old. I'm saying it's as wrong today as it was when first used.

Not true - Huck Finn did not exist, but there are still sayings by Huck Finn. A fictional character can have a viewpoint and teach you things. Existing/not existing is totally besides the point.

SDW - it isn't as if modern Christianity tries to follow Jesus and falls short, it is that the whole platform of ideas espoused by modern Christianity is the direct opposite of what Jesus taught.

No, it's not. You're indicting an entire religion for not following teachings that....don't exist. Pardon the pun, but my GOD, it's like an episode of Star Trek that deal with the Space-Time Continuum.


I am not feeling particularly polite today, so rather than say this is misguided and wrong-headed, I'll just call it crap. Mmmk? Christianity does not teach violence. It does not teach selfishness. It does not teach the 7 deadly sins. It teaches people to be as Godly as possible. It teaches tolerance, peace and love...most importantly the love of the Savior, Jesus Christ. THAT is the "platform" of Christianity.

Imagine trying to use that excuse in an English class. "Mrs. Jones, I can't do my homework. It says to analyze Lenny's encounter with the rabbit but I can't because he isn't real!"

Congratulations, e-numbers. You earned a new high score. You've evoked a new pinnacle of stupidity. You win a free play!

Capitol Punishment is not violence? Many churches absolutely teach selfishness, and I don't see much tolerance of gay folk. You can love Jesus and still not follow his teachings - so I don't think that counts. The seven deadly sins are from the old testament, not part of the Gospel of Jesus - but I think that wrath (hatred of Muslims after 9/11, "lets go kill Bin Laden") is not very emphasized, tbh, and neither is pride (nationalism, "America is the best", etc).

Probably the Amish come pretty close to following Jesus' teachings, with the non-violence and relative poverty. I don't really see how you can follow the teachings of Jesus without being a total pacifist and a communist. I am not a follower of Jesus' teachings, for the most part, but I agree with a lot of what he had to say.

It's really starting to look like you're speaking a sweeping generalities and caricatures...or maybe the churches I've attended (and currently) attend are the exceptions.



That's one interpretation, yes. I don't agree with that interpretation. But it is one view.



I'm glad to hear you don't (for the most part) follow the "teachings" of someone you don't believe existed.

How exactly do you justify that? He had tons to say on both pacifism and wealth/poverty. They were his main two things.

What makes you think the Amish are poor?

This nation could use quite a bit more "capitol punishment" ...

I guess I'm reading the totality of what he said differently than you are.

But then he doesn't really exist...so...for you it should be a moot point.

So, if Christianity does not teach "violence, selfishness and the 7 deadly sins", and *does* teach "tolerance, peace and love", then why is it that the US, which is often described by its Christian majority as a "Christian nation":

(1) has such a massive proportion of its population locked up, many for "crimes" which hurt nobody?

(2) Why do we march overseas on such a regular basis to flatten, with carpets of bombs, foreign nations who have never attacked or threatened us?

(3) Why do we routinely support some of the most vicious regimes on the planet?

(4) Why does the bastion of US Christianity, aka the "Bible Belt" have the nations highest rate of sexual crimes, child abuse, domestic violence and divorce?

(5) Why do individual Americans feel the mandate to arm ourselves to the teeth, so "I can shoot the other guy before he shoots me" mentality? Of whom are we so terrified that we have to carry lethal weapons around with us?

(6) Why do we reward, to the tune of $trillions, a criminal cartel of "banksters" who have regularly taken the country, on many occasions, down the road to economic ruin, and gouging the general public in the process?

(7) Why do we support torturing and permanently imprisoning people before their guilt or innocence has been properly determined in a court of law?

(8) Why do we execute (aka murder in cold blood) people to show that killing people in cold blood is wrong (yes, its a bumper sticker).

(9) Why do elements of our apparently, so-called "Christian" authorities regularly plan to attack facilities/people/buildings whatever, within our own nation, in order to blame others? (Thou shalt not bear false witness?)

(10) Why are we so proud of being anti-community and pro some nebulous notion of "rugged individualism?

(11) Why is racism, intolerance of/violence towards minorities of all types, so tolerated by large sections of this so-called "Christian" nation?

(12) Why are those who are active for "peace, love and understanding" routinely singled out by elements of our "Christian" government to be targeted, punished and harassed on such a regular basis?

(13) Why are we so proud of making life so goddamned difficult for those who are less skilled in the dubious art of making money.... in other words, those who occasionally or regularly get left behind in the material "rat-race", a large proportion of whom are decent hard working people of integrity, or combat veterans to whom the Pentagon says: "Ok, you've done your bit, now go screw yourself". When these people sometimes fall on hard times, we seem proud to make it as tough as possible for them to get started again. The homeless and hungry people are not fucking criminals, despite our bloody-minded, *weird* society's framing of them as such.

(14)We as a nation seem to be much more skilled in the practice of taking from the poor (and middle class for that matter... whats left of it), and funneling the proceeds to the wealthy élites, in greater proportions with each passing year.

*

I could type these lists ad nauseam, but I don't have the time.

There is an expression often used by people who like to call themselves "patriots" (misguided, for sure):

"My country, rIght or wrong". or the variation on the theme: "America, love it or leave it".

The original statement from which these misguided and incomplete quotes were lifted goes as follows:

"My country, right or wrong. When it is right, lets keep it right, when it is wrong, make it right".

*

We are very skilled at reframing everything from ideas to religious teachings, to conform to a certain set of values, for the sake of convenience, maintaining a lifestyle, or for ideological domination. This even includes convincing the public to support politicians who vote against their interests. How else did large portions of the Bible Belt politically transform itself over the last few decades?

Anyone recall the story of Jesus in the temple.. the only time in the gospels where Jesus became violent? His target was the banksters and currency scammers of the day... the Chase Manhattan/Goldman Sachs/Enron/etc etc etc of the region.

What would Jesus think about our monetary methods?

Hmmmm..

People can describe themselves as anything they want. It doesn't make it true. For example, the official name of North Korea is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Yet it is arguably the least democratic nation on the planet and certainly not a republic.

I, personally, do not call the United States a "Christian Nation". I acknowledge that it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And it is BECAUSE it was founded on those principles that people of all different nationalities, religions, and cultures have been more welcome here than in any other nation.

The further we depart from those principles, the worse things get.

This is a good point. For example there are a couple of posters in this forum who insist that Barack Obama is a conservative. Perhaps they're right. Maybe not. But he certainly doesn't describe or market himself that way at all.

Are you mocking my beliefs? The parallels are very striking - Abraham was a Sumerian, and his tribe just adapted Sumerian mythology. The Christian god also probably started out as a household god of Abraham during a time where each house had its own god.

Well... Obama *used* to be a liberal, we know that from his track record. he did a 180 as soon as he took residence in the Oval Office. How many liberals would support the systematic transfer of funds, euphemistically referred to as a "bail out", from the generally honest US taxpayers, into the coffers of the elite banking institutions that shafted us to the tune of $trillions, on account of their criminal practices? There's Obama-socialism for you... the classic "reverse Robin Hood" operation: taking from the ordinary folk, by coercion and "financial terrorism", to render the wealthiest elite criminal classes even wealthier, without a trace of accountability.

And to question such was referred to by Rep. Brad Sherman when he famously said in 2008: "Congress was threatened, to the extent that to vote against the (TARP) such that the bailout fails to pass, will result in the imposition of "martial law" in America.

Capitalism is rescued by socialism, that is, for the ultra-criminal classes... and of course, few complain. No "black welfare mom" was involved, perhaps?

There is no liberal vs conservative.

There is no Democrat vs Republican.

There is only The State vs YOU.

I agree with almost all of that, but (imho) no one faith has a monopoly on (what they see as) the truth. The claim of "its my way, or the highway" is characteristic of the M.O. of much of the major religions.... or certainly the more fundamentalist practitioners of such, and is one of the root causes of war and human misery.

Atheists, a very small minority of the human population, are one of the very least of our problems!

I disagree - I think that the less popular religion gets, the more "Christian" our society gets. Correlation does not imply causation - but we used to lynch black people, women didn't get the vote, we owned slaves, etc. Things get less horrible as time goes on, and fewer people go to church as well. The whole story of the fall of Adam and Eve from grace is a bad one, IMHO - it makes people think that the world used to be much better than it is now, it wasn't. Go read "A people's history of the United States" - the further back you go into history the crappier life got for people, and the more religious they were also.

I agree about the medication, TV and food - but that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Haha... And as I have pointed out so many times before, faith is such a very reliable way to find truth.

The last time I went to a church service was about six months ago. The denomination was Methodist, a denomination which in my mind compares well to other more fundamentalist and evangelical denominations. The first service I went to concerned Paul and his statements on civic responsibility. We had a great church group discussion later, and ideas flowed freely. I thought, 'this is not so bad', and my wife and I went to the service the following week.

That next sermon, however, was about a woman in the US who had been the result of a botched abortion, had survived, and set herself on a mission to travel to governments around the nation and around the world to ban abortion. All I could think was how much more useful, productive, and tolerant of freedom it would have been for her to go around lecturing to women instead on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But the Pastor was gushing about how wonderful this stupid woman was. Never mind that he was factually wrong on many of the things he was talking about, such as legality of abortion at the time of the woman's birth. Never mind that he made no distinction that it was an illegal abortion at that time, as well as at this time. Never mind that the doctor had been negligent both in his prognosis and in his surgery.

My view of Christianity trying to enforce their beliefs on others was reinforced. I will not be going back to church, and every time I think about church service, I feel sick to my stomach thinking about that hate-filled sermon.

That pastor, like it or not, was teaching hate and intolerance towards people who believe as I do that a first trimester fetus is not a 'child' any more than the sperm that remains in your testes when you refrain from having unprotected sex is a 'child'.

Just because one sermon you link to doesn't spew hate, it doesn't mean hate doesn't exist in that church. I'm quite sure at some time that the church you linked to has hosted sermons spewing hate against people who believe in reproductive choice, hate against people who believe two people no matter which two people should have the right to sanctify in their terms the union of their love under God should they wish, hate against people who believe evolution is solid and necessary science in every student's curriculum (I've seen lots of that hate here on these boards). There is plenty of hate there, and one goal of nearly every church is to spread the word of that hate to others outside the church, as that woman in the sermon was doing, and which Pastor John was praising.

This is what e# is talking about, Fellowship.

Your view of what constitutes hate is very distorted. Or you did not describe this very well.

Christianity: putting the rose colored glasses on hate for two thousand years.

sammi, none of that addresses that teachings and "platform" of Christianity. None of it.


You mean politicians like....Barack Obama?



I don't know what that means.


I think that he would condemn those who lie, cheat and steal. He would speak to the principle of of not being "run" by money as a person. I think He would also recognize that in this world, money is a tool and is necessary for fulfill human needs. He would not condemn someone just because he was wealthy.

Do you claim that you do not try to enforce your beliefs on others?

Well said.


Also well said.


I wouldn't call him a "liberal" exactly. He's more of a progressive-socialist with dictatorial tendencies. He has a lot more in common with say, Marx, than he does true "liberals" of the past. Handing out corporate welfare doesn't make one a conservative. In fact, I'd argue that doing so is antithetical to conservative principles. This is one reason there is a lot of conservative opposition to TARP and other bailouts.


Eh..."compares well" doesn't mean "equivalent to."


That's your thought, and you're welcome to it. As she is welcome to hers.


There are many women (from what I've read) that have abortions that are not botched at all, yet they regret the decision. In fact, Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") is now a member of the pro-life movement. Who are you to tell them their time is better spent elsewhere?


Why, because she opposes abortion and thinks it is morally wrong? She has every right to make her case, whether or not people happen to agree. Liberals do this all the time. Liberals do this HERE. You know, tonton, it's my opinion that your time could be better spent going out and directly helping the poor rather than arguing that government should help more. See how this works?


How is that hatred? He believes that people who have abortions are taking a life. You don't. He's not professing hatred, he's decrying what he sees as the taking of life. That's not hatred. You simply can't stand that he has a different view. Gee, there's a surprise.


That's another trick liberal use...reframing and re-terming things. What you call "reproductive choice" is, in fact, taking a life. Right or wrong, that's what it is.


Most religious people (not just Christians) agree that God does not support this, and in fact condemns it.


Any hate you have seen is merely the reflection of the hatred you project. In fact, a mirror image is really the perfect metaphor. You condemn, say, Fellows for drawing different conclusions than you. You tell him he's ignorant, insinuate he cannot comprehend the complexity of the issue, and accuse him of intellectual laziness. And he's the one who's hateful?


Here, again, you show your complete intolerance of those with different views. The woman in the sermon was trying to communicate to others that she felt taking a life was wrong. She feels abortion should be illegal as a result. I don't agree with that, but she is certainly free to argue for what she feels is the right thing. Incidentally, how do you think others feel about your position? Millions of people believe that you are the one spewing hate. They view you as someone that argues for the taking of life, abortion as birth control, confiscatory tax rates, an opponent of religious expression and more. So who is the one who spews hatred?

*Just to clarify my own views here for second:

1) I believe strongly that life begins at conception.
2) I have serious problems with Roe v. Wade. It is was a poor decision...primarily because the USSC invented a Constitutional right where none existed.
3) Number 2 aside, I believe the primary responsibility for making the decision on whether or not to end that life lies with the mother...subject to certain limitations (length of pregnancy, for example).
4) Following up #3, I think states and localities should have ability to restrict or even prevent legal abortion under their powers under the 10th Amendment.
5) If abortion rights were on the ballot in my state, I would certainly vote to keep abortion legal.
6) Finally, I oppose taxpayer-funded abortion.

and on gay marriage:

I support civil unions, not gay marriage. Granted, we're basically down to the word marriage here...but that's important. Marriage is what it is. As I'm fond of saying.."words mean stuff."