Hello, i am a real Christian

[Thor]

I'll just leave it at I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine (not whim) than a skeptical, sinical society ruled by limted vision and science.

"A sense of morality dictated by doctrine"?



First of all, do you really think we need some magical man in the sky to come down and tell us that we shouldn't hurt, kill or steal? These are things that have been mores in human society since there have been humans. I'm sure that cavemen punished someone who stole from, hurt or killed another member of the community.

And, secondly, WHERE is this universal moral doctrine? Because believers can't even agree among themselves what is moral and what is not. Devout believers come down on both sides of issues like capital punishment, abortion, gambling, drinking, assisted suicide, etc....

[Minimalist]

I guess ill try one last time, because it seems you only read what you want to read. The Church does not have a divine status because lots of people believe in it. It does because it is the oldest religious organization we ever known, out of thousand of religions. I know that i am repeating myself but i cant seem to get that element across.

It makes no more sense now than when you first said it.

It is a silly argument.

I know I am repeating myself but you don't seem to catch on. (True of a lot of theists, though. Don't feel special about it.)

[tackattack]

---

I'll just leave it at I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine (not whim) than a skeptical, sinical society ruled by limted vision and science.

"A sense of morality dictated by doctrine"?



First of all, do you really think we need some magical man in the sky to come down and tell us that we shouldn't hurt, kill or steal? These are things that have been mores in human society since there have been humans. I'm sure that cavemen punished someone who stole from, hurt or killed another member of the community.

And, secondly, WHERE is this universal moral doctrine? Because believers can't even agree among themselves what is moral and what is not. Devout believers come down on both sides of issues like capital punishment, abortion, gambling, drinking, assisted suicide, etc....

---

1- No I don't think we need some "magic man" in the sky or God to tell us what's moral. I don't believe I ever said that.
2-I don't believe I said "universal" doctrine at all either. Why don't you ( and those who kudo'd that) just tell me what I'm saying and we'll call it a day. I'd like it if there was a universal doctrine, but since religion is so subjective it's very hard to come up with the "axiom of morality" everyone is looking for. It's not for lack of trying, mind you. They've rewritten the Bible numerous times to keep it relevant with today's society; and that's just one segmented religion's doctrine. I do however have a personal belief of my morality and I chose a doctrine that coresponds to what comes naturally to me morally.

---

I'll just leave it at I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine (not whim) than a skeptical, sinical society ruled by limted vision and science.

Ever heard of ethical philosophy? You can have moral principles that aren't on a 'whim' without a load of religious bullshit attached to it y'know. Ethical philosophy actually thinks about ethics and studies it, as opposed to just agreeing with whatever is written in ancient scripture you happen to take a liking to.

There is nothing that religion gives you that's positive that you can't have without it - in secular society. However, there is a lot of bullshit in religion indeed - and if believed it can be merely an irrational placebo at best, and dangerous irrational bullshit at worst IMO.

EvF

---

[irony] I agree that the relgious bs attached to it like respect and reverence are unnecessary. Who needs to show respect anyways? [/irony]So what you're saying is that as long as the books they study in ethical classes aren't the bible it's ok? Or are you saying that as long as we don't flat out agree without any thought as to why relgious takes on ethics are ok?

I agree that there's nothing exclusive to religion that you can't find in secular society. That's because religion is a honing tool, that when used properly, can help elevate society's standards. I would not go as far as to say that nothing positive comes from religion which is what you imply here. Fanatacism in any form, I agree, is dangerous at best.

---

Let's just say it's possible to abolish all organized religion what would be left with as a society? I think a lot less good things, IMO.

No more suicide bombings and children dying because of the power of prayer would be a good example. Perhaps kids getting fucked by members of the church and genital mutilation practices would be abolished as well. And maybe we can even get rid of Sharia Law and make sure girls who get raped don't get punished for it.

But a lot less good things...yea.

I'll just leave it at I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine (not whim) than a skeptical, sinical society ruled by limted vision and science.

Then go live in Iran or Tribal Afghanistan - they have everything you listed. Everything that you enjoy today is because of modern science - based on skepticism and doubt. Don't feed me this garbage that the world needs religion to behave. It's demonstrably false. It's no secret that the least religious nations are doing the best economically and developmentally, not to mention they give more to charities than their more religious counterparts.

---

1. Don't forget the holy wars, dark ages, the inquisition, Hui Minorities' War, the 30 years war, Hitler, ritual suicides and human sacrifices, etc. Or are you going to target only one or 2 religions. Modern Paganism, buddhism, shinto, Din-i-Ilahi, Confucianism, Bön, Māori religion, non-denominational Christianity, etc. are all religions that I believe teach tolerance of others and haven't started any wars, done any ritualistic killlings, mutilate their genitals, or hold child molestation seminars. Let me ask, is it fanatacism and intolerance you want to abolish or religion?
2. I'm not knocking on science, I love innovation and scienific principles. Just as the bible thumpers could use a lot less holier-than-thou attitudes; A lot of atheists I've spoken with could use anti-supr-smarmy pills. The world doesn't need religion to behave, but I'm not just going to throw it away. If we threw away all religions based off of small groups or singular people misguiding others against the doctrine's of their religion, why not get rid of the entirety of the house and senate. By percentage, I'd wager there was a lot more corruption in Govt. than in the entirety of religion.
3. Do you mind citing some references for your statement "It's no secret that the least religious nations are doing the best economically and developmentally" and "they give more to charities than their more religious counterparts." I'd like to do some of the reading on that.

[Loki_999]

1. Don't forget the holy wars, dark ages, the inquisition, Hui Minorities' War, the 30 years war, Hitler, ritual suicides and human sacrifices, etc. Or are you going to target only one or 2 religions. Modern Paganism, buddhism, shinto, Din-i-Ilahi, Confucianism, Bön, Māori religion, non-denominational Christianity, etc. are all religions that I believe teach tolerance of others and haven't started any wars, done any ritualistic killlings, mutilate their genitals, or hold child molestation seminars. Let me ask, is it fanatacism and intolerance you want to abolish or religion?

Shai Hulud!

I would guess that those religions have done little harm because they have not achieved any significant power or less extreme. The problem with some of the bigger religions is that they think they can control how people behave... absolute power corrupting and all that.

This is one of the problems with how Christian's happily portray the modern catholic church. Oh look, we don't do any of that nasty stuff anymore. When was the last time we had a crusade? When was the last time we had popes like the Rodrigo Borgia? Our church doesn't do bad things any more....

Sure, putting aside allegations of child molestation and plain stupid comments made by senior priests, does anyone really believe that if the Catholic church was to regain significant world power they would not abuse that power? They would not return to the old ways of forcing their opinions on those who do not believe or those who stray from the path? Give it long enough and a form of Spanish Inquisition would return.

This has nothing to do with religion directly, just power, control, and humanity, but religion tends to create a rather inassailable moral position for the church and its easy for them (when in control) to tell others that they are sinners and heretics and they will burn in the fires of hell... and there are always those who are willing to speed up the process, not wait for god's judgement, and burn people alive just to show how faithful they are.

In other words, people will use any excuse to justify their actions, and god is the ultimate excuse.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The fact is that outside of the Church, not a single religious organization, out of the thousands of religions, has lasted 2000 years.

Fail.


The highly organised and increasingly sophisticated Egyptian theocratic religion lasted for at least 3 thousand years. Pre dynastic Egypt goes back to 5000 BCE,no one knows exactly when organised Egyptian religion began. It was still extant at the time of Julius Caesar. ( born July13,100BCE.)

Zoroastrianism,which still exists ,is over 3000 years old.


Hinduisms is over 2000 years old.


Buddhism, which is based on Hinduism,predates Christianity by around 500 years. (founded by Siddhartha Guatama c583-483BCE)


Judaism is over 2000 years old.

Christianity is one of the newest religions,containing no new ideas,it remains as it has been since it ceased being a minor Jewish sect; just another failed millennial movement,

[Rwandrall]

1. Don't forget the holy wars, dark ages, the inquisition, Hui Minorities' War, the 30 years war, Hitler, ritual suicides and human sacrifices, etc. Or are you going to target only one or 2 religions. Modern Paganism, buddhism, shinto, Din-i-Ilahi, Confucianism, Bön, Māori religion, non-denominational Christianity, etc. are all religions that I believe teach tolerance of others and haven't started any wars, done any ritualistic killlings, mutilate their genitals, or hold child molestation seminars. Let me ask, is it fanatacism and intolerance you want to abolish or religion?

Give it long enough and a form of Spanish Inquisition would return.

Hey, just wanted to comment on that, although i agree completely that religion and christianity hae done lots of wrongs in the world, the Spanish Inquisition was far less terrible than what has been said. Actually it was propaganda from the UK. Do not use that argument against intelligent theists because they can refute it (although "intelligent" and "theist" dont often go together)

[tackattack]

Nice shot.. at least you don't try and cover it. I agreed with Loki enough for a kudos, but I'd like to make one comment. One of the overall teachings of the Bible is to be in the world not of the world. People seek power and it does corrupt, horribly. I wish that religion was a strictly uninfluential aspect of society and that we could all seperate our emotional, intellectual and spiritual sides more as individuals. That would help limit religions control over political and intellectual pursuits (excluding the theologicaly related sciences), though I don't see it happening anywhere in my lifetime.
o I know someone will correct me on that phrase not being in the bible but

---

1 John 2:15-17 (KJV) "15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. "

---

or

---

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (New Living Translation) " 19 Even though I am a free man with no master, I have become a slave to all people to bring many to Christ. 20 When I was with the Jews, I lived like a Jew to bring the Jews to Christ. When I was with those who follow the Jewish law, I too lived under that law. Even though I am not subject to the law, I did this so I could bring to Christ those who are under the law. 21 When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law,[a] I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ. 22 When I am with those who are weak, I share their weakness, for I want to bring the weak to Christ. Yes, I try to find common ground with everyone, doing everything I can to save some. 23 I do everything to spread the Good News and share in its blessings.

---

should suffice.

[Atheist_named_Christian]

I wish that religion was a strictly uninfluential aspect of society and that we could all seperate our emotional, intellectual and spiritual sides more as individuals. That would help limit religions control over political and intellectual pursuits (excluding the theologicaly related sciences), though I don't see it happening anywhere in my lifetime.

This could only be if religion was non-existent or at least completely irrelevant to people (I think this is about the same thing, anyway). Or how could something you consider an integral part of your life not be influential? To me, "Religion" and "not influential" are highly contradicting each other.

[SleepingDemon]

Why do christians believe that christianity is older than it actually is? Christianity was so insignificant during the 1st century that the Roman's didn't even see it as a threat to their already existing theology. Christianity began as a highly varied practice amongst cavedwelling cults, and it wasn't until the council of Nicea that an actual "church" and unified doctrine existed. Constantine and the religious leaders from the larger christian sects worked out a series of compromises to unify the religion to unify the empire. Your church began as a political ploy to strengthen the Roman empire. It's doctrine was taken from a thousand different belief systems that existed at the time, it's holidays mirrored pagan holidays to ease the transition. The only reason that christianity is as widespread as it is today is because it had an empire behind it. The Romans purged Europe, either converting or annhilating every opposing culture and religion. It's insulting for christianity and morality to even be in the same sentence. Christianity burned the world in it's first millenia of existence, a lot, a LOT of people died at the hands of the religious ruling body of Rome.

Early christianity wasn't this diluted jesus loves you hippy nonsense we see these days. The church used it's massive influence within the government to destroy any remaining ideologies that could threaten it. A lot of cultures and religions simply ceased to exist in europe after it's inception, not because the church was spreading it's morality, but because the church justified apartheid and genocide as god's work. A few real history classes might be a good idea dude.

And ANC, religion is a philisophical idea, however it's believers don't see it as such. I would have no problems with it were it simply used as a philosophy, however instead I can't even watch a presidential election without it coming up.

[Thor]

1- No I don't think we need some "magic man" in the sky or God to tell us what's moral. I don't believe I ever said that.

Okay, you did say this:

I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine.

So what is the source of this "doctrine" if not a deity?

2-I don't believe I said "universal" doctrine at all either.

I meant "universal" within your particular religion, not "universal" in that it applies to everyone, everywhere.

I'd like it if there was a universal doctrine, but since religion is so subjective it's very hard to come up with the "axiom of morality" everyone is looking for.

And this reinforces my point. Devout believers within a particular religion will disagree on what is moral and what isn't. There is no universal morality for all things.