(March 28, 2013 at 7:48 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: From perspective of evolution, we come to believe in things that work to enhance our species.

Unfortunately half the world believed Hitler, Mao and Stalin had the answer for the species, and 100 million innocent people and soldiers died an early death in a single century, more than all the religious wars combined. They latter 2 atheists killed or starved to death 70 million innocent people who were, ironically, the skeptics. (Hitler was a pagan who thought he was the Messiah and is responsible for about 30 million deaths).

What Jefferson called "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals ever recorded" led to the end of religious persecution, slavery and the rise of democratic thinking through the preaching of the Word. (See Professor Nancy Rutenberg's work on the political fallout from George Whitefield's preaching)

Yes indeed, what people believe makes all the difference, and ironically it doesn't matter much whether you think the Bible is true. Christians (albeit not many) have always been the salt of the earth, setting the highest examples for the rest of us to follow. They were reponsible for the rise of democracy, the end of religious persecution of heretics, the abolition of slavery, the exposure of the evils and injustices of Communism, the fall of same, the freedoms minorities enjoy and even the overthrow of one major African government in modern times.

It is easy to state that Christianity did so much good, and then forget all the bad that was done in the name of the christian god. Holy wars, witch burnings, child abuse in the church, the church's rejection of science, and the list goes on:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm

It's also easy to state that since an organization with humans is flawed therefore it should be abolished and then not apply that to governments or anything else... People are flawed. Christians will do bad things. It doesn't mean Christianity is a bad thing.

Then christians doing "good things" wouldn't make christianity good either (or in any way form a compelling case for christendom). Goose and gander. Perhaps you could find a better way to reach your brother in christ Radorth on this count Tex, since you seem to have an easy grasp of it?

Hell as a concept is not containment or corrective, it is clearly an act of revenge. Catholics try to do a run around this with "purgatory", but if the "hell" is still there to put some people in then it is still a threat of revenge.

A book that describes the head master as being "jealous" certainly fits the description of someone capable of revenge. In the civil west in reality we are NOT allowed to rule by mob. We are not allowed to stalk and follow our boyfriends or girlfriends or spouses if they try to leave, and most certainly not allowed to beat them forever or murder them.

Civility in the west is in spite of that book, not because of it.

(April 4, 2013 at 12:32 pm)Brian37 Wrote: A book that describes the head master as being "jealous" certainly fits the description of someone capable of revenge.

What does jealousy have to do with revenge in respect to the God of the Bible, especially when He is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

(April 4, 2013 at 11:54 am)Tex Wrote: It's also easy to state that since an organization with humans is flawed therefore it should be abolished and then not apply that to governments or anything else... People are flawed. Christians will do bad things. It doesn't mean Christianity is a bad thing.

Unless you understand the difference between the human right to claim something, vs the ability to demonstrate a claim, you will NOT understand how wrong you are.

Christians are certainly capable of morality, but it is because they are humans and humans are capable of morality. If you can accept that people outside Christianity can be moral, then you should be able to see that morality is evolutionary based and NOT the invention of a label.

This lack of understanding is WHY ANY religion AS A CONCEPT is dangerous. Not because all in that label, any label, are or will be dangerous, but because religion DOES set up "in group" vs "out group" and bases the "in group" mentality as being the special inventor of all human morality.

Religious division is PRECISELY because of the false notion that A LABEL and not nature itself, invented morality. THAT is what makes religion dangerous. Failing to recognize this allows you, who may not be violent yourself, to make excuses for the others within Christianity who are and would be violent if given the chance. Now please don't falsely accuse me of picking on your religion, or hating religious people.

I am simply saying that bad use of logic based on "I am special because of my label" sets up the bloody tribalism our species suffers from, even if you yourself don't want it. Religion is NOT universal it is tribal and local. It is merely a form of politics to justify a tribal alpha male status above the "out group".

"They shouldn't do that" is also not my point. "They aren't real(whatever)" is also not my point. Religion sets up in group vs out group the same as a political party. When you understand this you will see religion as the weapon it should be treated like.

If as believers of all labels around the world claim "religion works", if it worked so well then why is there still so much global division? The part they always miss is "works for who?" And it "working" always comes at the expense of the "out group".

---

The reason a mother in Iran breast feeds is the same reason a mother in Israel does for the same reason a Christian does. The same reason Hindu or atheist may react to someone robbing their house or business. Because our sense of morals is evolutionary, not magical. Religion is dangerous because it takes nature and needlessly conflates it to comic book levels to the point division and violence occur, regardless of how much people in those clubs want it to be peaceful it cannot be because it is not built for inclusion, but division.

(April 4, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Godschild Wrote: What does jealousy have to do with revenge in respect to the God of the Bible, especially when He is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

A troubling description..lol.

(April 4, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 4, 2013 at 12:32 pm)Brian37 Wrote: A book that describes the head master as being "jealous" certainly fits the description of someone capable of revenge.

What does jealousy have to do with revenge in respect to the God of the Bible, especially when He is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Stupid question. It is written in the book that he ADMITS he is jealous. And hell as a concept reflects that jealousy. Now please proceed with your dodging and cherry picking.

(April 4, 2013 at 1:04 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Stupid question. It is written in the book that he ADMITS he is jealous. And hell as a concept reflects that jealousy. Now please proceed with your dodging and cherry picking.

Stupid answer. The original Hebrew word means jealous/zealous.
Please proceed to cherrypick "jealous"...