HOME | DD

pressf In reply to ??? [2012-06-15 18:55:51 +0000 UTC]

Hatred is never justified. And I know of quite a few Atheists who are just as bad as some religious people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to pressf [2012-06-16 01:55:45 +0000 UTC]

The problem is all atheists who are being angry or seem "hateful", without exception, are acting in self-defense.
It's the bible that first tells people that non-believers are worthless tools of the devil, not to be trusted or listened to, and -in several places in the bible- killed.
How else do religious people expect us to react to that core belief of theirs? As soon as most theists hear is one word "atheist" they begin to treat you like a second class citizen, name-calling, shaming all for siding with reality. The atheist doesn't have a book that tells us to kill, discriminate or attack christians like they do for us. We might think a religious person is an idiot in that aspect of their life, but we'll at least give them the time of day to give their completely flawed case. And those of us who don't give them the chance were probably never given a chance by christians in the first place because their dogma tells them to.

They are the ones declaring war on everything non-christian: it's in their very scripture. To NOT fight against that kind of sanctioned bigotry is only enabling it.
And we atheists get all the shit because we're the ones who look angry while defending ourselves from religious tyranny that most christians don't understand because christians don't treat other christians like second-class citizens (unless they're from another denomination). We get the stigma even though we're DEFENDING the lives of other non-believers or members of other religions, from the discrimination that the jewish/christian/muslim god (specifically stated) requires of its followers.
We're pissed off because the spotlight is on us when the religious are always the ones (by default of their scripture) trying to push their god's bigotries on us.

They are ORDERED to hate us, and yet we're the ones who get the label. How is that fair?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pressf In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-06-16 02:40:56 +0000 UTC]

You're not getting it; not all Christians hate atheists, and not all atheists are as perfect as you're claiming them to be. I'm polytheistic, and I've been called a freak by an atheist. I know a few Christians who welcome atheists. It is not demanded that if you are a Christian, you hate all that are not. The same goes for every other religion. It's completely up to the person, no matter their religion, whether or not they hate atheists/Christians/Muslims/Jews/other.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to pressf [2012-06-16 09:29:28 +0000 UTC]

I KNOW not all christians hate atheists. I SAID THAT!
I am saying ALL CHRISTIANS support doctrine that sanctions HATE! They support it by putting belief in it. Even if they are cherry picking, they usually claim to support the bible, not "sections of the bible".
They are supporting a book that is being taught to children that includes lessons like to kill gay people, and to not listen to anybody who doesn't believe in the same thing. If it's personal, then they need to stop calling themselves christians, so that they vocally acknowledge that they are NOT supporting the bigotry that christianity ITSELF, DOES promote!
The doctrine itself is what needs to be eliminated. People are SMARTER than it, and its continued "respect" is making sure the bigots that use the bible cannot be held accountable, because they are cherry picking, too.

Again it's like saying you support Naziism, but you don't support hitler. It's putting support and money and credibility into the hands of BIGOTS!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pressf In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-06-16 13:43:18 +0000 UTC]

I'm just not going to bother...Point is, don't blame the Christians/any other religious people for everything. Sometimes, it's not their fault.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to pressf [2012-06-16 19:58:06 +0000 UTC]

Not everything is their fault, but you'd think people would fully reject a belief system and its characters if they were to ever support evil things - which both the main characters of christianity do, whether they say they believe those parts or not, they are putting support into them by still believing in the same evil characters. That cannot be denied.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LuxrayShinx In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 23:29:08 +0000 UTC]

I apologize: I must correct something I said regarding the first part of Psalm 14:1 (or Psalm 53:1, which quotes/repeats Psalm 14:1); though my definition of fool was correct in and of itself, it is NOT the same word that is actually used in the text in this particular verse: The actual Hebrew implies moral degeneration, especially of a flagrant variety, not denial of truth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LuxrayShinx In reply to ??? [2012-03-11 12:17:16 +0000 UTC]

After reading back over all of this, allow me to list the rhetorical fallacies that you have committed:
DOGMATISM & CONJECTURE — asserting your own truth statements as incontrovertibly true without validation or without addressing opposition
AD HOMINEM — attacking the PEOPLE presenting the arguments against you rather than the arguments themselves; using INSULTS instead of ARGUMENTS
STRAW-MAN — centering on minor, insignificant points or phraseology in an argument and ignoring the real issue; "making a mountain out of a mole hill"
CIRCULAR ARGUMENTATION & CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS — arguing in such a way that you prove nothing and produce never-ending circles that really, in effect, say nothing; making statements that contradict later or previous statements
EISEGESIS — Biblically speaking, taking words out of context and warping them to your own preconceived notions; putting INTO the text that which is not there, as opposed to EXEGESIS (what I and the others have been doing), TAKING OUT of the text that which IS there
GENETIC FALLACY — goes along with AD HOMINEM; assuming that our arguments are false simply because of who we are (as Christians)
LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!!!

After saying all of this, I don't want you to get the idea that Christians are snobbish, supercilious people out to attack anyone who disagrees with them. I'm simply making a case for what the Bible says, and laying out Christian doctrine for what it is. It really does pain me that you are so angry with us and with God, and I have no problem telling you that I didn't sleep very well last night because I was worrying about you. After giving you all of this information, there is really little more that I - or any of the others who have tried to reason with you - can do...other than pray. You may laugh, you may scoff — go ahead. If you are dead-set on denying absolutely everything we say regardless of our proofs, then so be it: Nothing short of an act of God is going to turn you around, and even then you'll need to make your choice. I just pray that when that day comes - and it will come, I have no doubt - you will at least be more willing to look at Christianity with a more receptive eye. Despite what you may have seen, Christians are commanded to love as God loves, and, believe it or not, God loves you despite your apparent hate for Him. That alone proves the depth of that love. I have already given you the verses that can lead you to Christ. I have tried to present Christ to you as well as I humanly am capable, and I fervently pray that I have not omitted anything important to salvation. You should know that I have had no intentions of offending you, but rather to inform you; how you take that is up to you, I have no sway over it. I ask that you read back over what we have all said to you, read especially the verses that have been given, and read it all with a clear mind, one not occluded by your "justified" hatred or by dogmatic preconceptions. Just consider it — that's all that I can really ask you to do at the moment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RitaKatt In reply to LuxrayShinx [2012-03-14 22:47:21 +0000 UTC]

^ This.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LuxrayShinx In reply to ??? [2012-03-10 01:58:12 +0000 UTC]

The first thing you need to understand is this: Hatred is not demanded of the Christian except à propos of sin itself: We are to hate that which God hates, and God hates sin. God does not hate men, but rather He loved them so much that He sent His Son, Jesus. So, no one here is exhibiting “hatred”…except perhaps you yourself.
To prove that the Christian is not commanded to hate, let me show you what Jesus said when asked what the greatest commandment of all was: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). In regards to loving one’s neighbor, Jesus showed through the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) that everyone is your neighbor. So, the Christian is commanded to love his neighbor. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul claims that three great facets of Christianity are “faith, hope, and love,” but that “the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13).
Undoubtedly some Christians come off as hateful…in the same way that many Muslims, Jews, and other “religious” people break their own commandments. Man is fallen and flawed, and he is prone to such infractions…which is exactly the reason that God sent His Son. You must realize that simply because they act that way does not necessarily mean that they are commanded to do so — even when sharing their faith: 1 Peter 3:15-16 commands us to share Christ “with gentleness and respect,” and even states that our greatest witness is example, not preaching. So, certainly there are some Christians who falter — Paul makes that very clear in Romans (I couldn’t begin to give you verses).
As a side note, you shouldn’t really call Christians “religious”: Christianity is a faith, and the Bible defines religion as caring for those in need and leading a life of purity (James 1:27). Also, the context of this discussion is specifically about Christianity, is it not? So, please address us as Christians.
The second issue you raised was that concerning the Old Testament and New Testament laws, correct? There are several pieces to this puzzle: The first is context.
The first set of laws God gave (in the Old Testament) was given to a people essentially surrounded by hostility, enveloped in a land that hated them and would have all too gladly and easily engulfed them had God not given them certain protections. (Read the accounts in Joshua, and then notice that God allowed judgment to pass on Israel once they were firmly established as a nation.) The law was given to protect a fledgling nation, a burgeoning people, and as such, just like the rules set by a parent on a toddler, they were very stringent. God needed to prevent His people from being exposed to corruption until they had been firmly politically established; otherwise, the combination of political instability and moral decadence would have shattered the infant Israel, which needed to survive in order to furnish God’s prophesied Savior.
I believe a major part of the issue was the apparent discrepancy between the Old Testament law and the New Testament? As already said, the laws given to Israel in the Old Testament were laws intended to protect them from the corruption around them until a suitable means of cleansing it could be executed (that means came through the cross, which, by the way, is what set us free from the law and placed us under grace); Romans 7 and 8 describe in great detail that the law was intended to prove to us that sin was a reality, that God hated it, and that even the tiniest imperfection was loathsome to Him (after all, He is perfect). The sacrifices that Israel was required to perform were a continual, ever-present reminder of that fact, the acceptance of which is the first step to salvation through Christ, whose death paid the full penalty for that sin and “fulfilled the Law of Moses” (as you yourself quoted, rightly so). So, you see, the law was light, designed to show that a problem existed (just as a medical diagnosis proves that there is a disease…but does not cure it — is it evil?), and Christ’s sacrifice is the fire whereby the problem is destroyed (the medication, if you will). For this reason, “sin shall not be your master, for you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14).
Both the law and the sacrifice which fulfilled it are expressions of God’s love, not evidence of His “fickleness.” Christians are no longer under the law because we have accepted Christ’s payment of the law and are now therefore under grace. A good passage to confirm this is Galatians 5:1-4 — “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
You stated that God “sent a part of [H]imself down to sacrifice [H]imself TO [H]imself”? You have missed the point that God is triune — three in one; and that though Father, Son, and Spirit are God, they are also individual persons with their own roles in the plan. Obviously, this is difficult to understand (Christians don’t – or shouldn’t – pretend to understand it either — but who can fully understand God? We know about Him only that which He has revealed), but it is the initial explanation. The next part of that is that you are perhaps thinking about things incorrectly: Imagine that you are in a court of law, and you have been fined an extraordinary amount, an amount that you never could possibly pay, a debt that would consume your very self as payment…and your judge steps down and pays it for you. That is what Christ did on the cross. That is why this is His ultimate expression of His love for us and for you.
You also implied that this seemed exorbitant to forgive Adam and “Eve and the apple” (which, by the way, was not an apple — the Bible says “fruit” ). However, you must realize that that sin tarnished that which God had created perfect. The standard of perfection is perfection, and even the slightest taint pollutes the entirety. Just as if you had a bottle of water and dropped in a minute amount of vomit, you would no longer drink it. Sin is similar: Even the most minute amount produces imperfection (because sin is imperfection, a departure from the standard of God), and for that reason all of humanity was cursed to be begotten of imperfection (how can that which is imperfect produce something perfect, after all?). So, it became by the very first sin impossible for man to pay his own debt; instead, Christ paid it for us (because only He who was perfect could die for the sins of others, and He became man because sin’s price requires the shedding of blood): 2 Corinthians 5:21 — “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (by the way, that second word sin can also be translated a sin offering). So you see, Christ paid our price, poured out upon us His very own righteousness, and brought us into His family once more, providing cleansing for all sins, past, present, and future (for reference, among several others, Colossians 2:13, Romans 8:29-30, Hebrews 7:25, Romans 5:7-10, Titus 3:4-6)
You have mentioned several “injustices” (for sake of caution, I use the word loosely) such as racism, homophobia, slavery, “hatred” of homosexuals, and calling unbelievers fools. Every one of these deserves qualification, if not outright refutation.
First is racism: The Bible nowhere enjoins racism, and in fact it speaks against it several times, usually by speaking of Jews and Gentiles, the primary “racism” occurring at the time. As already mentioned, there is the teaching of the Good Samaritan, and also we see in 1 Corinthians 12:13 (“For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”) that we are enjoined to really ignore race as a factor in considering others.
Second is homophobia: I think there may be some confusion about this term, so let me give the dictionary definition. Homophobia is “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.” The first part of this is absolutely false: As I have said, the Bible does not command hate (“antipathy” is essentially synonymous), but rather proscribes it. We do not hate homosexuals (Jesus equated hatred with murder in Matthew 5); anyone who does is committing a sin. We do not fear homosexuals — what is there to fear? However, the second part of the definition must be qualified: We are commanded to hate anything that God hates, and God hates sin, which includes homosexuality. He called it an abomination in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We hate the sin, not the sinner. By even explaining this, our “antipathy” is no longer “unreasoning” and therefore cannot be defined as homophobia.
I think it is worth calling to your attention that the Bible mentions homosexuality only eight (possibly nine) times, mostly in the New Testament, and almost always it is grouped with other sins and seen as no different from them before God; more often than not, it is grouped with “fornication” or “sexual impurity”; the only really explicit mentions of homosexuality are the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-25), in which God Himself took action, not men; and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which lists homosexuality as an offense before God, something that, without the sanctification of Christ, will preclude one from entering the kingdom of heaven…no more or less than any other sin.
The third “injustice” you mentioned was slavery: Slavery was very different in Biblical times; a slave was more of a servant, and the Bible places such heavy responsibilities on those who own slaves (Philemon, Ephesians, and 1 Peter are good sources) that it really was worse for the owner than the “slave”! The Bible outlines that slaves and masters must treat each other certain ways, so that slavery – a word which is tainted by the bloodstained history that goes with it – becomes less slavery and more contract.
I have already addressed the fourth of your “injustices,” “hatred” of homosexuals themselves.
The fifth “injustice” was that of the declaring of unbelievers fools. Psalm 14:1 declares that the only “fool” in this sense is he who “says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Actually, overall, the unbeliever is seen to be more misled than foolish. You also must bear in mind that the word fool is an insult in our times and language, but Biblically it is a categorization: It refers to people who know the truth, but do not observe it, do not live by it, do not accept it.
You mention the “40,000” denominations that skew our interpretations of Scripture? Firstly, I’d like to know where you got that figure — to the best of my knowledge, there are nowhere near that many churches that follow Christianity! Secondly, denominations typically and almost exclusively disagree on the interpretation of certain doctrines that the Bible does not emphasize or that are not essential to the faith itself, such as angelic doctrine, predestination, security and assurance of salvation (important, though Biblically vague), and such. Very few if any real disagreements occur on the basis of central doctrines such as Christ’s sacrifice or the Trinity. What disputes do occur are usually between a single correct party and a single incorrect party. That was what the Reformation was all about.
I just read back over something you said that I must address: In denouncing the idea of Christ sacrificing Himself to pay for our sins, you claim that it makes no sense for a God who could have forgiven us otherwise to not have done so. You are falling into a trap that, unfortunately, many people, Christian and non-Christian, fall into: the definition of omnipotence. Many people assume that this means that God can “do anything” — but the Bible lists several things that God cannot do: He cannot sin, lie, or break His own word. So, omnipotence really means that God is all-powerful within His nature: He can do anything that His own perfection will allow. This is the answer to your question of why Christ had to be sacrificed to pay for sins: God could not simply have brushed sin under the rug, because this would have denied His justice; instead, He chose to pay the price Himself, satisfy justice, and then make the way clear for forgiveness. Forgiveness for sin must be bought by blood, and Christ paid the price for all men, asking only that they believe it in order to receive the payment.
But don’t take it from me: Take it from the source. Romans 3:22-26 states that a “righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” So great is God’s love that He provided a way for our debt of sin to be paid by His own Son — even while we were yet in sin (again, Romans 5:7-10).
I realize that I have probably appeared to have gone overboard here, but I needed to explain these issues to you. I hope that I cleared up the problems. If you have any questions, please ask. But please, let’s all be respectful: No more calling people “child,” or any other such aspersion. This is a discussion, and we can all behave maturely here. Of course, I can’t make you believe any of this, but at least I can give you the knowledge you need. Again, I hope this has helped!
Whether it offends you or not, God bless!

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

LimeGreenSquid In reply to LuxrayShinx [2012-03-11 01:17:29 +0000 UTC]

You can't prove what a book says with that same book.
Any history in the bible are historically inaccurate or outright false, every quote written in with an agenda.
Some good writers passed through the ranks, but mostly horribly conquerors.

Anything that book says has to be corroborated with outside historical evidence, and historical evidence proves the bible invalid as a source of any historical truth.

But there is NO denying, that the bible holds more lessons on how to hate one another than it ever says to love one another.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LuxrayShinx In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-11 11:25:08 +0000 UTC]

I'd like to see your evidence: After all, since you place so much stock in historical data, you ought to be able to reproduce that data in order to prove your own point. Until you do so, by your own argument, you haven't proven a thing.
I don't see what you mean in saying that history proves the Bible false: Any historical event that can be confirmed HAS been confirmed, some very recently — perhaps your data is old and provincial? There have been recent archeological endeavors that have validated several pieces of Biblical history that were "in doubt."
And no, not EVERYTHING in the Bible needs to be historically validated: Philosophy is not history, it's philosophy, and it has no need of being historically validated.
The only historical event to which I referred was the death of Christ, which HAS been confirmed by both Roman records and Jewish historians. Everything else that I said was "philosophy" — you are attacking a straw-man.
You also realize that there is more corroboration of the actual Biblical text than there is of Plato's writings or of the accounts of Julius Caesar? It's true.
And I wasn't trying to "prove what [that] book says": I was proving to you what the TEXT of the Bible says, and that it does NOT teach hatred, except of sin itself. So, in an argument whose substance is the actual text, using the text is not only a valid source of corroboration, but also the ONLY source of corroboration. You can't prove that the Bible DOESN'T teach hatred without referring to it, and vice versa.
You have contradicted yourself: By stating that you can't use the Bible as a source of defining what the Bible says ("You can't prove what a book says with that same book."), you defeat your final point of "there is NO denying, that the [B]ible holds more lessons on how to hate one another than it ever says to love one another."
You said in earlier posts that Christians should look at the Bible without preconceived beliefs concerning it? You're doing exactly the same thing, only in the opposite direction. The only reason for you to get this offended by challenges to your belief is, to put it bluntly, that your belief is either ungrounded or ill-supported. Until you are willing to actually look at the evidence presented to you and not respond immediately with causticity, there's nothing I can do for you.
Again, the basis of ARGUMENT is evidence, and so far, you haven't produced a bit of evidence. Permit me to be blunt: You have been turning in circles, attacking straw-men and ignoring the real point. Whether you're doing that INTENTIONALLY...I can't say. That's something that you'll have to answer for yourself.
I get the feeling that you are angry with God - or the concept of God - for some reason, and that may be skewing your thought process: You don't WANT to believe what I'm saying. Until you have accepted God's reality, there is really no point in discussing this. Until you can accept the supernatural, there is no point in you engaging in theological arguments.
In closing, I have a question for you: If you truly are an atheist - there IS no God, no supernatural, no metaphysical - then WHY do you care what WE think? Why should it bother you so much if people disagree with you? It can't be for truth's sake — after all, if there is no end game to this world, why should even that matter? I'd like to no why you take such an interest in this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChikitaWolf In reply to LuxrayShinx [2012-03-10 02:02:50 +0000 UTC]

That was definately worth the read. God bless you for writing this, and I pray this'll get the point across better than what I've attempted x'D

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SionnaDehr In reply to ??? [2012-03-09 04:23:52 +0000 UTC]

Wait, so, let me get this straight. I want to be quite clear on your stance of this. Because you think that our Bible supports the hate of people groups, you are justified in showing hatred to us? You say this while you're preaching tolerance and acceptance and love towards everyone? You're preaching (oh yes I said preaching) non-hate while hating...

Westboro, let me introduce you to *LimeGreenSquid , you both have something in common.

Two negatives do not equal a positive as two positives do not equal a negative. Its that black and white.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

OverlordNeon In reply to SionnaDehr [2012-03-21 03:21:14 +0000 UTC]

I definitely don't think its right of you to compare him to people like Westboro

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SionnaDehr In reply to OverlordNeon [2012-03-21 03:31:23 +0000 UTC]

Actually, I feel it's fairly accurate. What would have been below the belt is if I compared him to some batshit insane evil people. Westboro is just full of hypocrites and are not necessarily evil, just prejudiced. This person is prejudiced while claiming not to be. I think its a good match.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OverlordNeon In reply to SionnaDehr [2012-03-21 04:10:18 +0000 UTC]

They are certainly batshit insane people.
'Evil' being an opinionated word -one that I would use to describe them, as prejudice is far too nice- Westboro hates on people, I'm pretty sure Limey here just hates the religion itself or the 'teachings' of the bible, or else I'd think he'd just be directly attacking the christian people....just like Westboro does to everyone else. (then again, I didn't ask, I'm just speculating as much as you are)
-be that, I don't agree that Atheist hatred is justified anymore than than Christian's

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SionnaDehr In reply to OverlordNeon [2012-03-21 04:48:57 +0000 UTC]

That was the point I was trying to make in the beginning... it was why I was comparing him to Westboro anyway. They both feel that their beliefs justify their hatred.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OverlordNeon In reply to SionnaDehr [2012-03-21 05:28:41 +0000 UTC]

I still don't think its a right comparison for this.
The difference is like a water-drop and an ocean: both made of water but one is just dramatic in size...
But then, I don't think Westboro is right to compare to anyone in general

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LimeGreenSquid In reply to SionnaDehr [2012-03-09 14:45:53 +0000 UTC]

I do not have a book telling me that i should hate poeple, but christians do. I fight that. That is what my hatred is directed towards. If you fail to see self-defense as my entire reason, then you fail at thinking about a situation from the whole story.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SionnaDehr In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-09 15:28:58 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, well, if you had actually read the Bible, you'd know that it doesn't support hatred.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

LimeGreenSquid In reply to SionnaDehr [2012-03-11 01:32:38 +0000 UTC]

Said by someone who hasn't read the bible. Any book that tells me to kill homosexuals, to never usurp power of a woman over me, a book that tells me "my people" are the chosen ones (racism), or that i should take slaves from the neighboring nations is a book full of hate.

Read it. All of it, not just the sunday school snippets.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SionnaDehr In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-11 04:14:13 +0000 UTC]

I have. Not all of it is meant for gentiles and Christians.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Killexi In reply to SionnaDehr [2012-03-10 05:54:06 +0000 UTC]

It goes back and forth between saying love everyone and kill everyone for MINOR disagreements.

In other words, contradictory.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

whyhavedeactivedpage In reply to ??? [2012-03-06 13:34:30 +0000 UTC]

You're only proving part of this stamp right.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to whyhavedeactivedpage [2012-03-07 12:16:54 +0000 UTC]

By fighting for those who are being hurt because religion tells the religious to hurt those people?
Self defense, it's people who glaze over the suffering of others just because it isn't your problem is what's proving the stamp wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

whyhavedeactivedpage In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-07 15:01:57 +0000 UTC]

That's not what the stamp is saying, but only that there is bigotry from theists and non theists towards each other all the time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to whyhavedeactivedpage [2012-03-07 19:02:44 +0000 UTC]

It is minimizing the struggle by claiming hate is the reason, and not self-defense. It's just painting a picture that we're trying desperately to fix with proper level-headed discussion, and it's just frustrating is all. Disgusts me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

whyhavedeactivedpage In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-07 20:37:26 +0000 UTC]

What struggle?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to whyhavedeactivedpage [2012-03-07 21:48:25 +0000 UTC]

The struggle to keep our fellow humans educated about the real world, and not fantasy stories proven to have mostly never happened, so they can focus on not trying to convert everybody, so we don't have to be so angry and oppressed all the time. Try saying you;re an atheist in a group of christians - they'll treat you very differently - because their book tells them to since birth.
The struggle to get indoctrinated bigotry out of the hands of educators.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

RitaKatt In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-14 00:22:01 +0000 UTC]

You say that it's been "proven to have mostly never happened," so please give examples of your proof. Send me source links. Anything. I'd like to see this so-called "proof" please. Thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to RitaKatt [2012-03-14 04:33:27 +0000 UTC]

Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, and they include nothing about a Jewish exodus, nor even holding hebrew slaves. There was no record of a moses, no plagues, any of that.
I shouldn't have to cite proof other than, "well, does it happen in reality" concerning things like the virgin birth, the walking on water, the flood, and Jonah's whale.
There are no geological traces of a giant earth-wide flood, but there was a large flood in the ancient history that spooked several cultures, one of which evolved into judaism when they decided to declare the god of war El (one out of 3, and he had a wife, Asherah) as their "one true god" changing his name to Yahweh.
The fact that the four gospels don't even agree on when and who was around during Jesus birth OR crucifixion.
It just goes on and on. I was going to link you to some videos of a lady who read the bible and compared its history to the actual recorded history of the time, but the account is missing right now.
Just showing how certain things in the bible are historically inaccurate or dishonest, as certain people, places and events didn't even occur around the same times as the records kept and agreed upon by all the other historians.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RitaKatt In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-14 14:59:30 +0000 UTC]

I'd like to see the sources where you obtained the information that it did not happen, because as of right now, the only real information that I have is that it did in fact happen as the only records I've seen for myself are in the bible itself. Shoot me a link to these records of yours and I'll look them over, but I'm not asking for historian's opinions on the subject, I'm looking for the facts themselves. Thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to RitaKatt [2012-03-14 21:51:47 +0000 UTC]

Historians have more facts than the bible. The bible can't even agree with itself whether jesus was born before Herod died or after, because events in his early life are determined by his giving orders after jesus was born, as well as him not being alive at all when jesus was born.
When a source of history can't even agree with itself, and multiple other historical sources DO agree with each other, but disagree with the above source, we must take the above source as the incorrect source against the multiples that support and verify each other. The bible fits under the "one source" category of my statement there, because it is unreliable even to use itself as a basis for its own ideas, since it contradicts them almost at every turn anyway (don't kill, but kill all men and boys and woman who have slept with a man, and take the untouched women and daughters as your own slaves, for example - god's orders). Not to mention the whole "the bible is true cuz the bible says it is" circular reasoning that can only convince children and people who don't like to think about they're being told to believe.

And who do you think wrote the bible? Just humans trying to convince people that a god spoke to them, posing as historians.
And when has that ever not been someone lying to get something?

When the bible is filled with blatant lies, and orders to kill homosexuals, and put women below men, and to only care for god's "chosen" people (aka racism), plus being horribly wrong on almost all its historical accounts, besides a few place names and leader names that did exist around the time, just most of the events never took place at all, or much differently in real history to how the bible writers wanted their followers to believe, it shouldn't need atheists to point out to you that it's incorrect. If you were truly invested in your belief, you should know all this already, and then i'd wonder why you'd still choose to believe in any of it without being completely disgusted with yourself.

Also, Noah was 900 years old. You really need me to convince you that the bible is completely false?

The stories in that book disprove themselves on a regular basis when compared to reality. Killing a bird and using its blood with some cow dung and other ingredients will NOT cure leprosy, and yet that's the recipe god gave to his people.
All you have to do is let go of the blinders of "love" for the stories, the human words claiming to be holy (aka the bible), a love of the words of man pretending to be god that the religious force onto you as a kid, and read it with unbiased eyes. One read of the bible by someone who values life and loves people should be enough to completely disgust someone with how its god treats people and orders us to treat people.

All you have to do is a little research. It's your religion, you've chosen to put your belief in it without any reason (aka, faith), it's your job to do the research and make sure what you've put stock into is correct and worth supporting.
Make sure that you are not putting your vote or support into some organization whose purpose is to hold onto as many ancient bigotries it can get away with (they lost the war against women voting, they lost the war on keeping slaves, they are losing the war against homosexuality and gay marriage - why is the organization that claims to love and tolerate everyone do so much responsible for making sure certain people are discriminated against and hated?
Oh yah, it's all in the bible, ordered and encouraged by god. But when you point this out to christians they just say, "No it isn't," as if their pride alone will change the facts, and that's just sad and frustrating.

Still loving christianity or Yahweh or Jesus AFTER reading the bible is like loving Nazism and Hitler because he was a vegetarian and built up the German economy, just so long as you can stomach yourself ignoring the holocaust and racism and stuff. (He was christian, too, and did all his work in the name of Jesus Christ - will he be in heaven simply because he believed? some christians would say yes... and call you less of a christian for saying no - just as you're thinking of saying about Hitler and those christians who would support him...)

No, it doesn't work that way.
You either support christian bigotry, or you're not a christian. That's that. One is indefinitely chained to the other, so long as the story of the religion is based on Jesus and his father god, Yahweh from the stories within the bible.
Whether you participate in the bigotry yourself or not (and i understand and acknowledge most believers are just token believers, believe just enough to be safe from hell - which doesn't work anyway, according to their own rules, but whatever, so long as you're not killing gays and raping women and blaming the women for it - like the bible tells you to do), but your support of this book, keeping it as a relevant source for current morality, with everything else that it still says and encourages, allows every bigot who wants to do something about his discrimination a free pass because everything they believe is in the bible, too, ordered and encouraged by the highest leader possible (within the book at least, not in reality): Yahweh himself, whom you also claim to support.

Do you not see a problem with that?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RitaKatt In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-14 21:56:50 +0000 UTC]

Do you intend on answering my request or not? So far, you've failed to give me what I've asked for, and seeing as how historians weren't really there in the past, that's not a relevant source. Giving me links or information to find books from that time period would be more helpful to me.

By the way, I don't really feel like reading your wall of text as it is evident that you have still not answered my request.

Thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to RitaKatt [2012-03-14 22:03:59 +0000 UTC]

I have answered, you refuse to listen or do research. If you are ok with supporting racism and bigotry, be a christian - one cannot be separated from the other so long as the bible is involved. If you are a huge supporter of ignorance, keep going the way you're going kid.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

RitaKatt In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-14 23:50:25 +0000 UTC]

I've decided to give up on you. Reading through other comments, people are asking for the same thing I have and you have refused to answer them as well. You are a failure in yourself. Good day to you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

darkdragon43 In reply to RitaKatt [2012-04-25 04:25:37 +0000 UTC]

The Catholic Church denied the heliocentric theory until the 1970's

They also said that the black plague was caused by god punishing us, when it actually turned out to be spread by corpses used in histories first recorded incident of biological warfare, and ticks on rats on mice on boats. (Nat Geo documentary)

The Catholic religion was prominent at the time the bible was written. Who knows how much of the bible was changed due to greed and such.

Those are my only two/ three reasons, And why don't you show some proof that this actually happened, before you too are a failure in yourself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

FireFlyExposed In reply to darkdragon43 [2012-10-05 18:05:44 +0000 UTC]

Not sure why I am doing this ... it usually results in arguments (and I know your post is old). Not trying to rag on you or whatever ... but I studied a basic outline of the history of the Bible and the other books that pertain to it and found it interesting.

BUT ... here goes
There are copies of the Bible in various old languages ... Coptic, Greek ... etc. There are a few dozen copies dating back to 350AD and earlier. The Bible has not changed per say ... just the different books have been added or removed (No more books were added to the Bible after 150 AD ... may need to confirm that for you, but I'm really lazy right now). In fact the Bible is still being translated from these old texts. The Bible is being more accurately translated than ever before because of all the scholars working on it.

The rest of your argument on proof is not as easy since I haven't gone into that section of history yet so I'm not even going to attempt it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

darkdragon43 In reply to FireFlyExposed [2012-10-05 21:05:57 +0000 UTC]

Oh, I won't deny it, the bible certainly does make for a good story, but I think that we've just grown too smart for archaic religions. I don't mean for everyone to be atheist, but for some sort of alternative where the words can't be twisted into preaching love with hate, and spur controversy every other day. And for saying that the bible hasn't changed in your second paragraph, well, I guess that's my point. Change is inevitable, and if it weren't, we'd probably still be preforming sacrificial rituals to a multi headed fire breathing dog of the moon (or something like that ).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FireFlyExposed In reply to darkdragon43 [2012-10-05 21:23:56 +0000 UTC]

I'm not sure I get your point on the books not changing. Christians are meant to believe in a living book ... which is to say that they live with the Holy Spirit and live the book in the way they conduct their lives. The Bible essentially grows with people and it's not 100% static ... it gives you stories to learn with and basic rules to guide you (not always pretty rainbows and fields of wheat in the wind)

I consider myself smarter than the average person and I still believe in God. Smart is not always they way to see things ... it's the wisdom that makes the difference ... not many people are wise. Wise enough to use what they know and wise enough to conclude things for themselves (I am not saying I am wise either). Take the atheists that say they are free thinkers - how freely are they thinking when they say that anyone not thinking like them, is not thinking? Is free thinking not the ability to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions?

There are plenty of stupid atheists (just to reiterate my point on people have not grown too smart for religion) and plenty of smart theists. I think it's more to do with how you feel your way through life. Some people cannot accept a god while others cannot accept a life without a god. My experiences in life have made me come to the conclusion that there is no other god but God and that He is the creator of the universe and all it contains. It's my conclusion and if you are of a differing opinion then so be it ... it's simply the way you see your life.

:/ sorry ... comment longer than intended (I'm too tired to fix it)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

darkdragon43 In reply to FireFlyExposed [2012-10-05 21:53:10 +0000 UTC]

The lessons the books teach are great, and I understand it's not static. That's the way it should be, and I like that aspect about christianity. But when it's taken so far that people believe the Earth was made 10,000 years ago (and I do get that that's only a select, radical few), I think that something's wrong. It's just that some people have the inability to learn that times are changing, and certain aspects of life cannot be denied merely for the sake of comfort.

"How freely are they thinking when they say that anyone not thinking like them, is thinking?"... I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't know how else to say this- I just read a news article about Christian facilities used to turn gay people straight. And remember that preacher guy down in Florida who wanted to burn the Quran because the Islamics were burning the american flag? I also remember reading about a girl who was suspended for school for having piercings on her face due to her religion.
What is free speech if there can only be one opinion?

Science proves that there is a god, but which god is it? For all we know, it could actually be the flying spaghetti monster. As a deist, I believe that there is a god, but not a conventional one. And that last sentence in your third paragraph... that could be the answer to all religious conflicts, but all in all- only so many of us take the time to realize that.

It's okay, I'm pretty tired too

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FireFlyExposed In reply to darkdragon43 [2012-10-06 06:48:00 +0000 UTC]

Well certain things are not read in context with other things in the Bible. As a Christian we cannot say the earth is 6000 years or whatever that time is ... if you read it in conjunction with other passages you will read that God and time are not what we understand ... a day could be day or it could be a millennium or even a million years or more. Christians believe in an all powerful God who created time ... why would He not manipulate it?

I'm not talking about free speech ... I'm talking about free thinking. What people do to force others into thinking the way they do is against rights. Free thinking however is a different story. The tag of FFRF is "Free thinkers" ... because if you're thinking differently to them ... you're not thinking for yourself. That's my interpretation anyway.

As I said ... some people have different experiences that lead them to conclude things for themselves. I just happen to believe in God where you believe there is a god but not the conventional sort. It's not clear cut stuff where I can say to you that you are wrong and here are my facts to prove it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RitaKatt In reply to darkdragon43 [2012-04-25 13:59:00 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for at least telling me where you found some of your information.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

darkdragon43 In reply to RitaKatt [2012-04-25 14:07:25 +0000 UTC]

Welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RitaKatt In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-14 22:39:09 +0000 UTC]

Excuse me, but you are the one who is unwilling to cite these "sources" of yours. All I asked was for a few links or book titles or authors. Anything that could allow me to do the research you've apparently done on the subject. You are the one who's failed on your part by sending me these walls of text that contain unreliable information, because as far as I can tell, you're stating your own opinion, not the facts you act like you are.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

whyhavedeactivedpage In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-08 03:01:10 +0000 UTC]

A christian saying they are so meets the same odds in a group of atheists. That is all it is saying.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to whyhavedeactivedpage [2012-03-08 22:00:43 +0000 UTC]

Yah, thing is christians are told to act that way. Most atheists are victims of the hate christians are trained with they are reflecting back. It's this reflecting back that is now blamed on us for being angry and hateful.

This is the cycle that this stamp minimizes and why it disgusts me. If atheists are full of hate, christians are the ones always feeding the flames with fuel they've been trained with since birth. Cruel reactions to simple things like, "No, i don't believe in god." Support in the bible is the number one encouragment of people who choose to be bullies - should any kid decide to actually follow god's actions and words...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

whyhavedeactivedpage In reply to LimeGreenSquid [2012-03-09 05:06:06 +0000 UTC]

There is a difference between being angry at things like religion and fundies and treating every person who identifies as Christian poorly. The later is just bigoted because most Christians are not assholes. The later just justifies bad feelings towards atheists and continues this cycle mentioned. After all, if christians are told atheists are bad people, our response is to justify it with automatic hatred?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LimeGreenSquid In reply to whyhavedeactivedpage [2012-03-09 14:44:48 +0000 UTC]

What else is a kid to do, when he's told only bad people go to hell, but also non-believers go to hell. This programs into minds too young to know all the issues into a form of bigotry against anyone who doesn't believe in god, automatically thinking they are bad people, and thus when any atheist innocently admits his or her position, all hell breaks loose in the form of angry christians feeling attacked while not being attacked in the slightest.
Raising children on "the fool says he doesn't believe" is raising children on bigotry. PERIOD. And that book is the source of things like this. Against homosexuals, against women, against other races of people. How is any of that valuable teachings to children?
Why would anyone defend this?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1