Police watchdog called in
Mayor calls 'BS' on list
U.S. authorities find bodies
Premier stands by pick
Canada's most-wanted list
Sask. will still get rebates
Santos ends comeback bid
Douglas C-54 plane crashes
Trump's 'eyes and ears'
US TikTok ban sent to Biden
Phish fans enter the Sphere
CN Rail profits fall 
Iginla off to Europe
Rockets ink prospect
Leafs even series
Alleged Tupac killer in court
Lawsuit accuses Megan
Bam Margera’s tour axed
Religious hypocrisy
-
cerealkiller
- Übergod
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Apr 26th, 2006, 9:26 am
Religious hypocrisy
Since we were talking about abortion on another thread and the theists expressed outrage and disgust, let's see who has abortions:
Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
This is from a christian web site
http://www.mswm.org/abortions.worldwide ... istics.htm
So women with a religious affiliation have 76% of all abortions in the US! The immoral heathens have less than a quarter of all abortions.
Hypocrisy abound!!!
Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
This is from a christian web site
http://www.mswm.org/abortions.worldwide ... istics.htm
So women with a religious affiliation have 76% of all abortions in the US! The immoral heathens have less than a quarter of all abortions.
Hypocrisy abound!!!
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
A.Einstein
A.Einstein
-
NAB
- Buddha of the Board
- Posts: 22985
- Joined: Apr 19th, 2006, 1:33 pm
Hmmmm, roughly equivalent to the US population breakdown of people professing religion/belief in God (~80%) compared to those who do not (~20%), so it would appear that women getting abortions are pretty much constant across the population and religious/non-religious spectrum. I don't know of course without researching it, but would suspect that the breakdown among the various religions mentioned are probably similar to the percentage of folk from the entire population who proclaim each one.
Interesting too that the site claims 64.4% of all abortions are performed on never married women. As well, on a world wide basis, 78% of abortions occur in developing countries, and only 22% in developed countries. And so the statistical offering goes on to look at it related to a whole bunch of different comparisons, including "Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely."
So " women with a religious affiliation have 76% of all abortions in the US! The immoral heathens have less than a quarter of all abortions."? yeah, right... 80 percent of the population has 76% of the abortions, and 20% of the population have 23.7% of the abortions - so what? - seems about consistent across ALL women based on religious versus 'heathen'. If anything, based on these numbers, the heathens seem to have a bit of an edge as to slightly higher abortion rate.
The only other thing it seems to prove is that religious women are not in general as fanatical about pro-life/anti-abortion as some would like to make them out to be compared to 'heathen' women. Of course it doesn't necessarily follow that the male population breaks down the same way (although I would be surprised if it were substantially different). Funny though how numbers can be cherry picked and interpreted in different ways depending on what we want them to support in terms of an argument.
Nabcom
Interesting too that the site claims 64.4% of all abortions are performed on never married women. As well, on a world wide basis, 78% of abortions occur in developing countries, and only 22% in developed countries. And so the statistical offering goes on to look at it related to a whole bunch of different comparisons, including "Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely."
So " women with a religious affiliation have 76% of all abortions in the US! The immoral heathens have less than a quarter of all abortions."? yeah, right... 80 percent of the population has 76% of the abortions, and 20% of the population have 23.7% of the abortions - so what? - seems about consistent across ALL women based on religious versus 'heathen'. If anything, based on these numbers, the heathens seem to have a bit of an edge as to slightly higher abortion rate.
The only other thing it seems to prove is that religious women are not in general as fanatical about pro-life/anti-abortion as some would like to make them out to be compared to 'heathen' women. Of course it doesn't necessarily follow that the male population breaks down the same way (although I would be surprised if it were substantially different). Funny though how numbers can be cherry picked and interpreted in different ways depending on what we want them to support in terms of an argument.
Nabcom
"He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still." - Lao-Tzu
-
cerealkiller
- Übergod
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Apr 26th, 2006, 9:26 am
So " women with a religious affiliation have 76% of all abortions in the US! The immoral heathens have less than a quarter of all abortions."? yeah, right... 80 percent of the population has 76% of the abortions, and 20% of the population have 23.7% of the abortions - so what? - seems about consistent across ALL women based on religious versus 'heathen'. If anything, based on these numbers, the heathens seem to have a bit of an edge as to slightly higher abortion rate.
That implies that the women with a religious affiliation are as moral or immoral as non religious women! Shouldn't there be a distinct difference? Remember "Thou shalt not kill"? So it's a hogwash anyways. If it comes to personal well being, financially, physically and emotionally, god's laws are quickly discarded. Non believers have no such doctrin, so they should have disproportionally more abortions than religious women! Actually, Western Europe with the lowest percentage of theists, has also the lowest number of abortions in the developed world.
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
A.Einstein
A.Einstein
-
eMeM
- Übergod
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: May 11th, 2007, 2:37 pm
cerealkiller wrote:So " women with a religious affiliation have 76% of all abortions in the US! The immoral heathens have less than a quarter of all abortions."? yeah, right... 80 percent of the population has 76% of the abortions, and 20% of the population have 23.7% of the abortions - so what? - seems about consistent across ALL women based on religious versus 'heathen'. If anything, based on these numbers, the heathens seem to have a bit of an edge as to slightly higher abortion rate.
That implies that the women with a religious affiliation are as moral or immoral as non religious women! Shouldn't there be a distinct difference? Remember "Thou shalt not kill"? So it's a hogwash anyways. If it comes to personal well being, financially, physically and emotionally, god's laws are quickly discarded. Non believers have no such doctrin, so they should have disproportionally more abortions than religious women! Actually, Western Europe with the lowest percentage of theists, has also the lowest number of abortions in the developed world.
The problem with so called "christians" today is that they do not believe they need to adhere to any specific rules (including "thou shalt not kill") If you took a look at those abortion statistics and found out how many of those "christians" actually believed they should follow the ten commandments the number of "Law abiding" christians would likely be very few, if any.
The issue with hypocritical "christians" is exactly that. They are quick to judge the actions of others without first looking at their own. There are very few true Christians on this earth and I can guarantee you they are not having abortions as they believe the true sense of the law that says "Thou shalt not kill."
-
cerealkiller
- Übergod
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Apr 26th, 2006, 9:26 am
Pause for thought for the theists??
December 13, 2007, 9:09 pm
Holier Than They
Tags: Christianity, politics and religion
For years, the left – and moderates – permitted the right to frame itself as the sole custodian of “family values” in the United States. It was only when vast numbers of American families woke up to the fact that they were not being valued at all – that, in fact, they were being fleeced – that non-conservatives shook themselves into a sentient state and began to talk about replacing empty words with substantive promises about health care, child care and college aid.
Now a similar thing is happening with religion. We are, we’ve repeatedly been told in the past week, in the grip of a faith war. There has been a lot of interesting discussion of Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism, about Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee outdoing themselves to appeal to Christian conservatives, and about John McCain’s belief in a “Christian nation.” There has been dismay about a political moment in which it seems a candidate must pass a religious litmus test to gain national viability. There have been comparisons to John F. Kennedy, talk of the Founding Fathers, of the separation of church and state, and of how the Puritans’ rather intolerant vision of religious freedom continues to trickle down to our day.
But one line of questioning, it seems to me, is missing. One point of view is inexpressible, taboo. I am not referring to atheism – the one belief system that clearly had no place in the vision of America Romney painted in his much-anticipated speech on faith last week. Rather, I’m thinking of the now entirely muted issue of whether the basic ethical foundations of Romney, Huckabee et al’s political views truly are “Christian” – in the good-neighborly sense of the word.
I am referring here to the sentiments that lie behind the candidates’ attitudes toward gays, which may have found their most honest and open expression in Huckabee’s recently resurrected 1992 suggestion that AIDS patients should be forcibly isolated. I am thinking too of Christian conservative opposition to progressive taxation, public spending for the needy and government “meddling” in such matters as anti-discrimination policies. And, of course, of the willingness to sacrifice women by genuflecting before a segment of the population that is scared witless by modernity and sugar-coats its fear and hate in the name of the sacred. (As governor, Huckabee, according to veteran Arkansas political journalist Max Brantley, once “stood in the hospital door, at least figuratively, to prevent state funding” for a mentally handicapped teenage girl who’d been raped by her stepfather and needed to have an abortion.)
In the run-up to the presidential election, some Democrats have made an effort, with greater or lesser success, to reclaim and redefine some of the religious terrain previously grabbed by religious conservatives.
“We cannot abandon the field of religious discourse,” Barack Obama, the most eloquently convincing of them all, said back in June of 2006. “Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.”
These days, however, for all the talk of religion, there is little public soul-searching about the absence of care and compassion, love, acceptance and inclusion – the things that many consider to be the essence of Christianity – in the words of our purported Christian leaders.
The Christian conservative vote is, apparently, splintering. Younger evangelicals are increasingly said to be interested in putting their faith to greater use than bashing gays, promoting guns and putting God on the presidential ticket. That would seem to indicate that we’re facing a moment of opportunity: a chance to expand and amplify the reach of the voice of religious moderation. The silence I’m hearing makes me think, though, that as a society we’ve come to accept the slippage of prejudicial and hateful attitudes into religious doctrine as somehow normal. Whether that’s due to cynicism or due to cowardice, it’s very troubling.
Last week, on the very day that Romney’s faith speech dominated the news, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former member of the Dutch Parliament driven into United States exile for her outspokenness against radical Islam, published an op-ed in the Times that pleaded for “Islam’s Silent Moderates” to step forward and denounce the horrific violence against women being carried out in Islamic countries.
Writing in particular about the case of the 20-year-old woman in Saudi Arabia who was gang-raped and then sentenced to six months in prison, she asked: “Where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say … that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted – and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?”
In the winter of 2004, Howard Dean – a man who considers himself a faithful Christian – raised similar questions about the nature of American fundamentalism. ‘’Don’t you think Jerry Falwell reminds you a lot more of the Pharisees than he does of the teachings of Jesus?'’ he asked in Iowa. ‘’And don’t you think this campaign ought to be about evicting the money-changers from the temple?'’
This may well have been the beginning of the end for Dean’s campaign. But what a moral, values-driven (if politically foolhardy) thing it was, what a breath of fresh air it was, to suggest that Christian conservatives ought actually to be Christian in spirit as well as in name. It would be nice today to hear a candidate step up and oppose all that is “appalling, brutal and bigoted” in the limited religious views that substitute for spirituality in American politics today. Who knows — it might even be good politics.
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/
December 13, 2007, 9:09 pm
Holier Than They
Tags: Christianity, politics and religion
For years, the left – and moderates – permitted the right to frame itself as the sole custodian of “family values” in the United States. It was only when vast numbers of American families woke up to the fact that they were not being valued at all – that, in fact, they were being fleeced – that non-conservatives shook themselves into a sentient state and began to talk about replacing empty words with substantive promises about health care, child care and college aid.
Now a similar thing is happening with religion. We are, we’ve repeatedly been told in the past week, in the grip of a faith war. There has been a lot of interesting discussion of Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism, about Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee outdoing themselves to appeal to Christian conservatives, and about John McCain’s belief in a “Christian nation.” There has been dismay about a political moment in which it seems a candidate must pass a religious litmus test to gain national viability. There have been comparisons to John F. Kennedy, talk of the Founding Fathers, of the separation of church and state, and of how the Puritans’ rather intolerant vision of religious freedom continues to trickle down to our day.
But one line of questioning, it seems to me, is missing. One point of view is inexpressible, taboo. I am not referring to atheism – the one belief system that clearly had no place in the vision of America Romney painted in his much-anticipated speech on faith last week. Rather, I’m thinking of the now entirely muted issue of whether the basic ethical foundations of Romney, Huckabee et al’s political views truly are “Christian” – in the good-neighborly sense of the word.
I am referring here to the sentiments that lie behind the candidates’ attitudes toward gays, which may have found their most honest and open expression in Huckabee’s recently resurrected 1992 suggestion that AIDS patients should be forcibly isolated. I am thinking too of Christian conservative opposition to progressive taxation, public spending for the needy and government “meddling” in such matters as anti-discrimination policies. And, of course, of the willingness to sacrifice women by genuflecting before a segment of the population that is scared witless by modernity and sugar-coats its fear and hate in the name of the sacred. (As governor, Huckabee, according to veteran Arkansas political journalist Max Brantley, once “stood in the hospital door, at least figuratively, to prevent state funding” for a mentally handicapped teenage girl who’d been raped by her stepfather and needed to have an abortion.)
In the run-up to the presidential election, some Democrats have made an effort, with greater or lesser success, to reclaim and redefine some of the religious terrain previously grabbed by religious conservatives.
“We cannot abandon the field of religious discourse,” Barack Obama, the most eloquently convincing of them all, said back in June of 2006. “Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.”
These days, however, for all the talk of religion, there is little public soul-searching about the absence of care and compassion, love, acceptance and inclusion – the things that many consider to be the essence of Christianity – in the words of our purported Christian leaders.
The Christian conservative vote is, apparently, splintering. Younger evangelicals are increasingly said to be interested in putting their faith to greater use than bashing gays, promoting guns and putting God on the presidential ticket. That would seem to indicate that we’re facing a moment of opportunity: a chance to expand and amplify the reach of the voice of religious moderation. The silence I’m hearing makes me think, though, that as a society we’ve come to accept the slippage of prejudicial and hateful attitudes into religious doctrine as somehow normal. Whether that’s due to cynicism or due to cowardice, it’s very troubling.
Last week, on the very day that Romney’s faith speech dominated the news, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former member of the Dutch Parliament driven into United States exile for her outspokenness against radical Islam, published an op-ed in the Times that pleaded for “Islam’s Silent Moderates” to step forward and denounce the horrific violence against women being carried out in Islamic countries.
Writing in particular about the case of the 20-year-old woman in Saudi Arabia who was gang-raped and then sentenced to six months in prison, she asked: “Where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say … that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted – and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?”
In the winter of 2004, Howard Dean – a man who considers himself a faithful Christian – raised similar questions about the nature of American fundamentalism. ‘’Don’t you think Jerry Falwell reminds you a lot more of the Pharisees than he does of the teachings of Jesus?'’ he asked in Iowa. ‘’And don’t you think this campaign ought to be about evicting the money-changers from the temple?'’
This may well have been the beginning of the end for Dean’s campaign. But what a moral, values-driven (if politically foolhardy) thing it was, what a breath of fresh air it was, to suggest that Christian conservatives ought actually to be Christian in spirit as well as in name. It would be nice today to hear a candidate step up and oppose all that is “appalling, brutal and bigoted” in the limited religious views that substitute for spirituality in American politics today. Who knows — it might even be good politics.
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
A.Einstein
A.Einstein
-
Big ned
- Grand Pooh-bah
- Posts: 2734
- Joined: Feb 4th, 2006, 3:06 pm
-
cerealkiller
- Übergod
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Apr 26th, 2006, 9:26 am
That is the way it should be. As soon as the christian/jewish/islamic fundamentalists stop imposing their moral values on everybody, we could be living all in harmony. If they don't, it would be a unity on their terms.
I read Romney's speech and found it consiliatory and smart. Yet I missed a part "...It would be nice today to hear a candidate step up and oppose all that is “appalling, brutal and bigoted” in the limited religious views that substitute for spirituality in American politics today."
There are roughly 40 million non religious people in the US; I think they deserve a statement like that.
I read Romney's speech and found it consiliatory and smart. Yet I missed a part "...It would be nice today to hear a candidate step up and oppose all that is “appalling, brutal and bigoted” in the limited religious views that substitute for spirituality in American politics today."
There are roughly 40 million non religious people in the US; I think they deserve a statement like that.
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
A.Einstein
A.Einstein
-
eMeM
- Übergod
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: May 11th, 2007, 2:37 pm
cerealkiller wrote:That is the way it should be. As soon as the christian/jewish/islamic fundamentalists stop imposing their moral values on everybody, we could be living all in harmony. If they don't, it would be a unity on their terms.
I read Romney's speech and found it consiliatory and smart. Yet I missed a part "...It would be nice today to hear a candidate step up and oppose all that is “appalling, brutal and bigoted” in the limited religious views that substitute for spirituality in American politics today."
There are roughly 40 million non religious people in the US; I think they deserve a statement like that.
If not them, then it will be someone else imposing their moral values. Without law there is anarchy, which some I'm sure would welcome. The fact of the matter is that all laws are based on someone's idea of morals. The founding fathers based their laws loosely on the ten commandments and have been re-evaluated due to societies lack of morals and "I'll do whatever I want and how dare you tell me how to live my life" attitude.
Take a look at some of the alternatives. There's a political party in Holland or something that wants to lower the legal age of sexual consent. The members of this party? Pedophiles. Perfect example of someone else's "morals" (or lack thereof)
-
cerealkiller
- Übergod
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Apr 26th, 2006, 9:26 am
As long as the moral values imposed are derived from basic human principles, I wouldn't mind. All of us have the same moral values. Some of us choose to ignore them for whatever reason. Even a mass murderer knows that killing is wrong and yet continues. A fraudster knows that bilking people out of money is wrong and still ignores his conscience (we all have one according to Freud). On the other hand there is no law enforcing us to do good to other humans. Either we do good because we care (or hope to go to heaven, or both) or we don't.
A pedophile also knows he does wrong and ignores that fact because his physical gratification takes presedence over his conscience. So he does not act in accordance with basic human moral values.
I refuse to accept 2000 year old stories as a moral guideline. Especially if the code of ethics contains bloodbaths, bigotry, discrimination, and all the other horrific acts in the bible, that we know are intrinsicly wrong, and yet so many believe the same book to be their guide for life.
A pedophile also knows he does wrong and ignores that fact because his physical gratification takes presedence over his conscience. So he does not act in accordance with basic human moral values.
I refuse to accept 2000 year old stories as a moral guideline. Especially if the code of ethics contains bloodbaths, bigotry, discrimination, and all the other horrific acts in the bible, that we know are intrinsicly wrong, and yet so many believe the same book to be their guide for life.
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
A.Einstein
A.Einstein
-
eMeM
- Übergod
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: May 11th, 2007, 2:37 pm
cerealkiller wrote:As long as the moral values imposed are derived from basic human principles, I wouldn't mind. All of us have the same moral values. Some of us choose to ignore them for whatever reason. Even a mass murderer knows that killing is wrong and yet continues. A fraudster knows that bilking people out of money is wrong and still ignores his conscience (we all have one according to Freud). On the other hand there is no law enforcing us to do good to other humans. Either we do good because we care (or hope to go to heaven, or both) or we don't.
A pedophile also knows he does wrong and ignores that fact because his physical gratification takes presedence over his conscience. So he does not act in accordance with basic human moral values.
I refuse to accept 2000 year old stories as a moral guideline. Especially if the code of ethics contains bloodbaths, bigotry, discrimination, and all the other horrific acts in the bible, that we know are intrinsicly wrong, and yet so many believe the same book to be their guide for life.
The irony with your statement is that the "Christian" doctrine you so vehemently oppose IS/SHOULD BE basic human principles.
Dont kill
Dont steal
Dont screw around on your spouse
Love your parents
etc, etc, etc
It's basic common sense, unfortunately some fail to see it that way.
-
cerealkiller
- Übergod
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Apr 26th, 2006, 9:26 am
Those lines are wonderful, but do we need a book to tell us that we should not kill?
Does that mean all people who do not adhere to this book are killers and hate their parents?
And where does that leave such lovely passages in the very same book as 'kill witches, disobedient children and homosexuals'? Are these basic moral values and human principles?
God killed over 2 million people in this book. Does that represent moral values of decency and love? 'Anybody collecting sticks on a Saturday should be put to death on the spot'. This is all in the same book that you so vehemently defend. And we should take guidance from that?
Does that mean all people who do not adhere to this book are killers and hate their parents?
And where does that leave such lovely passages in the very same book as 'kill witches, disobedient children and homosexuals'? Are these basic moral values and human principles?
God killed over 2 million people in this book. Does that represent moral values of decency and love? 'Anybody collecting sticks on a Saturday should be put to death on the spot'. This is all in the same book that you so vehemently defend. And we should take guidance from that?
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
A.Einstein
A.Einstein
-
eMeM
- Übergod
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: May 11th, 2007, 2:37 pm
cerealkiller wrote:Those lines are wonderful, but do we need a book to tell us that we should not kill?
Does that mean all people who do not adhere to this book are killers and hate their parents?
And where does that leave such lovely passages in the very same book as 'kill witches, disobedient children and homosexuals'? Are these basic moral values and human principles?
God killed over 2 million people in this book. Does that represent moral values of decency and love? 'Anybody collecting sticks on a Saturday should be put to death on the spot'. This is all in the same book that you so vehemently defend. And we should take guidance from that?
Cereal, please don't lump me in with all the christians you hate. I don't go to church or subscribe to the religious views of the masses. I'm simply stating my opinion with regard to your simplistic view of one religion.
"All athiests were lawless degenerates that want to run around murdering people because God told them not to."
Is that reality? I doubt it.
Short sighted and simplistic? To say the least.
I've read several of your posts in this forum and it bothers me that you insist an entire group of people are so terrible because of the actions of a few.
You can continue to ruffle the feathers of all the "christians" on this board all you want. I'm not one of them, I have my own opinions that are very different from the majority. The reason I replied to your original post is to bring up the fact that although there are many "self proclaimed" christians that don't act the part, there are some (albeit very few) who do act accordingly.
-
cerealkiller
- Übergod
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Apr 26th, 2006, 9:26 am
Cereal, please don't lump me in with all the christians you hate. I don't go to church or subscribe to the religious views of the masses. I'm simply stating my opinion with regard to your simplistic view of one religion.
Oh come on; nowhere did I mention you or lump you in with anybody.
My simplistic view of religion is about any and all religions. (I should get a template for that, that's how many times I wrote that).
"All athiests were lawless degenerates that want to run around murdering people because God told them not to."
Is that reality? I doubt it.
God told us atheists nothing. We don't have a dogma that calls for killing gays and people who work on Saturdays. Unfortunately that is exactly what the bible calls for (and much more). Simplistic? Well it's in the book that so may adore. If there is a more complicated explanation I would be all ears and eyes.
You can continue to ruffle the feathers of all the "christians" on this board all you want. I'm not one of them, I have my own opinions that are very different from the majority. The reason I replied to your original post is to bring up the fact that although there are many "self proclaimed" christians that don't act the part, there are some (albeit very few) who do act accordingly.
I am quoting from christian web sites, the bible and news reports. I am really getting tired of the simplistic accusations that I spread hatred etc. If these christian/muslim/jewish doctrins wouldn't have anything hateful in them how could I spread hatred by posting from there?
I agree, there are a few christians who really act like one. I am writing about the religious extremists (see topic of this thread) and the silence of the mainstream christians about them.
Again mm34, it does not matter to me (and probably most atheists) what you believe in. The discussion is about organized religion and it's abominations. From what I can see here from the christians is denial and defense. I have not read a single post from a theist here, stating that he/she wrote a letter of protest to the powers that be in the theist hirarchy. There are many wrongs to voice an opinion over.
Last but not least, I don't hate any christians. Hatred is a waste of time.
Christians hate me for being honest, but I have no such sentiment. Organized religion is my target. I couldn't care less if theists wear magic undies or put a towel on their head, I object if they want me to do the same or display their icons and symbols public places such as courts or schools.
Us freethinkers want our planet back, all the theists can get together and work out amongst themselves who believes in the true deity. Just leave us out of it.
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
A.Einstein
A.Einstein
-
eMeM
- Übergod
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: May 11th, 2007, 2:37 pm
Okay, so organized religion in general is your target. Fair enough. The problem with organized religion is that it is made up of people. The problems of today's world is not organized religion per se, but humanity. "Human Nature" is the issue. It doesn't matter what religion, if any a person adheres to, if left unchecked, human nature dictates.
People are not born compassionate, looking out for others or putting others ahead of themselves. So as long as people allow their own desires to dictate what they do, we will forever be having this debate as the issues of hypocrisy (and bad behaviour in general) will not go away.
People are not born compassionate, looking out for others or putting others ahead of themselves. So as long as people allow their own desires to dictate what they do, we will forever be having this debate as the issues of hypocrisy (and bad behaviour in general) will not go away.