You Can't Steal My Christmas!

Poem by Sharon Steege


I don't know who they are
Saying I can't greet the crowd
The way that I want to
Can't say CHRISTMAS out loud.


I walk into a business place
See things that I rather not see
But dare I not say CHRISTMAS
And ask for a "holiday" tree.


What happened to freedom of speech
And living in the land of the free
How can they take my CHRISTMAS money
But can't say MERRY CHRISTMAS to me.


Men and women have given their lives
So we could still go free
I wonder how they would feel
At saying " HOLIDAY " TREE.





Come on AMERICA let's wake up
Don't let our freedom escape
If they get by with doing this
What else will they take.


This is starting to get out of hand,
And I've begun to keep track
Well I've just about had enough
I'M TAKING CHRISTMAS BACK.


So MERRY CHRISTMAS AMERICA!
I hope this gets all over the net
If we all stand united and take freedom back
'Twill be our best CHRISTMAS YET!!!'

Cute poem.

MERRY CHRISTMAS! :)

That's what I said to everybody I bought stuff from today. They didn't seem to mind ............................

Some of them said, "happy holidays" and I replied with "Merry Christmas". :evillol:

Why is this an issue? I say Merry Christmas to a guy I work with, and he says Happy Hannukah back to me and we both smile....that's the way it should be. Celebrate the season the way you like, and respect it if others celebrate differently.

Why is this an issue? I say Merry Christmas to a guy I work with, and he says Happy Hannukah back to me and we both smile....that's the way it should be. Celebrate the season the way you like, and respect it if others celebrate differently.
It's only an issue because the evangalist want it to be, the rest of us are glad to wish "good will to men and peace on earth" but not them there in your face wingnuts who want center stage this time of year.

It's only an issue because the evangalist want it to be, the rest of us are glad to wish "good will to men and peace on earth" but not them there in your face wingnuts who want center stage this time of year.Nice spin,but try again! If you read the paper,or watch the news(Cant read?),...for instance in WA state,its morons who want to stir things up,in this case eithiests,who placed a placard next to the Nativity scene at the state capital,stating that ALL religion is hate mongering trash.Why do you only see them have some sort of stance this time of year? Not any other time? Because they want publicity.:screwy: Why not just state what they believe w/o attacking other beliefs? By the way,Christmas is a federal holiday! You want recognition,petition Congress for your own holiday!

Nice spin,but try again! If you read the paper,or watch the news(Cant read?),...for instance in WA state,its morons who want to stir things up,in this case eithiests,
Sweet baby Jesus, Maximus, if you are going to accuse someone of being illiterate, then at least learn how to spell. It's atheists.

I have noticed that some Christians adopt a somewhat intolerant 'in your face' attitude and claim their religious rights are being infringed upon by others. IMO this is nonsense and poems like this only serves to incite hatred amongst the gullible with an approach that goes against the tolerance and acceptance that Christianity often preaches.

While I am not condoning nor unaccepting of the poem, I am sick of being trampled on as a Christian. Everytime I read a thread it has something to do with Christians doing something wrong in their eyes. As Ben Stein put it:

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary, Sunday, 12/18/05.

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:

I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are.

If this is what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu.

If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.

I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution, and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.

But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke, it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regarding Katrina)

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?


And while I am sure there will be response to this with people making reasons on why this does not make sense or that this does not apply, it does apply to me. I see all these explaining and pity threads about atheist yet I rarely see anybody attacking them. However, when we introduce something about our religion we go under attack seemingly. All in all (check my other posts if you need further evidence) I wish that we could just believe what we want and they what they want without disputing or people who believe in nothing to leave it alone. I am so sick of people trying to come up with their explanations of why Christianity is so bad. I have never spoken ill of atheist yet I continue to see people who believe in nothing try and take us down a notch. And frankly, if you do not believe in anything, why would you care in the first place? Quite a rant I know, but just something to think about...just get along regardless.

Sweet baby Jesus, Maximus, if you are going to accuse someone of being illiterate, then at least learn how to spell. It's atheists.

I have noticed that some Christians adopt a somewhat intolerant 'in your face' attitude and claim their religious rights are being infringed upon by others. IMO this is nonsense and poems like this only serves to incite hatred amongst the gullible with an approach that goes against the tolerance and acceptance that Christianity often preaches. 1st- I know how to spell,but as I've pointed out elsewhere on this forum,I type with one,sometimes 2 fingers...another reason I copy/paste... and sometimes I dont feel like going back to fix things.So,if you see that once in awhile,get over it.You know what I'm talking about.You think one word in one paragraph proves I'm illiterate? And you know why I asked if they could read--it was current events I was referring to.You knew that but you wanted to get your shot in just the same.Thats also why you used Jesus in your dumb attempt in that response. Cant you be a moderator who is moderate in his totally unnecessary response? 'Don't look like it,do it? Oops,theres my illiteracy again! 2nd- There will always be some bad apples in a very large barrel.This country is by far,predominately 'Christian',yet you hardly ever/never hear of them going to the extremes as other groups,right?

I am so sick of people trying to come up with their explanations of why Christianity is so bad. I have never spoken ill of atheist yet I continue to see people who believe in nothing try and take us down a notch. And frankly, if you do not believe in anything, why would you care in the first place?
Is this rhetorical or do you really want an answer? :)

Freedom of religion is a fundamental principle enshrined (as far as I know) in the Constitution. Atheists also want freedom from religion, which is more difficult to get.

Atheists are also tired of religious people's hostility about their alleged lack of beliefs and subsequent biased assumptions about our morality, state of being, worth as a person and alleged fate of our so-called soul.
So you see, hostility and prejudice work both ways.

Personally, I do not believe in god at all but I love Christmas. I also love the morality and guidance that Christianity provides.
So in the spirit of Christmas, peace brother, goodwill to all and the best of the Christmas season to you and yours. :)

Is this rhetorical or do you really want an answer? :)

Freedom of religion is a fundamental principle enshrined (as far as I know) in the Constitution. Atheists also want freedom from religion, which is more difficult to get.

Atheists are also tired of religious people's hostility about their alleged lack of beliefs and subsequent biased assumptions about our morality, state of being, worth as a person and alleged fate of our so-called soul.
So you see, hostility and prejudice work both ways.

Personally, I do not believe in god at all but I love Christmas. I also love the morality and guidance that Christianity provides.
So in the spirit of Christmas, peace brother, goodwill to all and the best of the Christmas season to you and yours. :) I think you got it wrong.99% of the population dont care one bit about atheists,in general,so they take whatever shots they can.Especially around Christian holidays,is when you hear about all this crap mostly attacking,not definiing their own beliefs.Why dont we hear a peep the rest of the year? Because,you know youre best shot is attacking Christians,to get publicity:screwy:

I think you got it wrong.99% of the population dont care one bit about atheists,in general,so they take whatever shots they can.

:rolleyes:
What the hell?? :wink:

If 99% don't care about atheism, they why the hell does the writer of this poem (and you, it seems) seem so upset and threatened by atheists? :frown:
Wow, that remaining 1% must sure be very powerful!!<note sarcasm>

Your point, mathematically makes no sense, as I recall reading that 20% of Americans describe themselves as having 'no religion'.
The remaining religious 80% does not equal the 99% you claim.


Especially around Christian holidays,is when you hear about all this crap mostly attacking,not definiing their own beliefs.Why dont we hear a peep the rest of the year?
Imho the Christians are developing the peeps, not the atheists. It seems atheists are not doing the attacking, but Christians are claiming they are.
I would say complaints from Christians about being oppressed seem only to emerge around Christmastime.

:rolleyes:
What the hell?? :wink:

If 99% don't care about atheism, they why the hell does the writer of this poem (and you, it seems) seem so upset and threatened by atheists? :frown:
Wow, that remaining 1% must sure be very powerful!!<note sarcasm>

Your point, mathematically makes no sense, as I recall reading that 20% of Americans describe themselves as having 'no religion'.
The remaining religious 80% does not equal the 99% you claim.


Imho the Christians are developing the peeps, not the atheists. It seems atheists are not doing the attacking, but Christians are claiming they are.
I would say complaints from Christians about being oppressed seem only to emerge around Christmastime. I didnt take a scientific survey,but its a huge majority that are Christians in this country,& its what this country was founded on. You really want me to look it up? Why do you keep stirring the pot? You know I'm right. I dont really believe placing a sign making statements against Christianity, within a few feet of a Nativity scene,is what you think is freedom of religion,because THAT doesnt follow the guidlines.That is an ATTACK on religion,& not stating your alternative belief. You want your holiday,petition Congress. as for your inaccurate comment,about complaints this time of year,now ,again,you know why.:screwy: :shakehead

Atheists are also tired of religious people's hostility about their alleged lack of beliefs and subsequent biased assumptions about our morality, state of being, worth as a person and alleged fate of our so-called soul.
So you see, hostility and prejudice work both ways.

MagicRat, i'd like to jump in here and clarify the bolded statement if you don't mind. I, and my fellow Christians who take the effort to spread the gospel of salvation through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, do it NOT because of hostility to your worth as a person or soul, we do it out of love. We don't want to see ANY soul end up in a fiery hell in Gods Judgment.
We are ALL sinners and need a Savior, the Christian AND the Atheist.

If you have heard of J. Penn, he is an Atheist Comedian, and below he describes his thoughts about Christians who DONT "proselytize"
I am curious to know if you would agree with what he says about Christians who don't proselytize.
.
Merry Christmas, CL8 :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM)

Meh, just look back at them, repeat the message, or immediately say "I've changed my mind, give me my money back, I'm going elsewhere". Think about it.:wink:

MagicRat, i'd like to jump in here and clarify the bolded statement if you don't mind. I, and my fellow Christians who take the effort to spread the gospel of salvation through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, do it NOT because of hostility to your worth as a person or soul, we do it out of love. We don't want to see ANY soul end up in a fiery hell in Gods Judgment.
We are ALL sinners and need a Savior, the Christian AND the Atheist.

Thank you for the reply and the link. Unfortunately, my computer lacks a suitable audio device driver so I have no sound and cannot listen to the video.

I do like many Christians as many are my dear friends and relatives. I am touched by the concern that some, such as yourself express for the reasons you state.

However, there are as many interpretations of Christianity as there are Christians, it seems. While some, such as yourself are genuinely concerned, there are others who seek to have power and control over people; who feel driven to inflict their particular belief system upon those around them.

Imho this difference in interpretation and subsequent power and influence is why Christianity has become fractured into dozens of belief structures (churches) over the centuries.
Often they have conflicting views on many issues. (in fact their differences only reinforces my distaste for the institution of Christianity (but usually not the individuals))

So I appreciate your genuinely heartfelt concerns. But in my heart I know there is no god, no heaven and no hell. These thoughts bring me peace and contentment and allow me to focus myself on what is really important; my friends, my family and, in some small way, making our physical world and environment (not a mythical heaven or hell) a better place.

I didnt take a scientific survey,but its a huge majority that are Christians in this country,& its what this country was founded on. You really want me to look it up? Why do you keep stirring the pot? You know I'm right. I dont really believe placing a sign making statements against Christianity, within a few feet of a Nativity scene,is what you think is freedom of religion,because THAT doesnt follow the guidlines.That is an ATTACK on religion,& not stating your alternative belief. You want your holiday,petition Congress. as for your inaccurate comment,about complaints this time of year,now ,again,you know why.:screwy: :shakehead
Maximus, your arguments are flawed, inconsistent, excessively emotional and highly biased. They simply beg for rebuttal. That is why I 'stir the pot'. And don't get me started on your poor spelling and punctuation :smile:

Frankly, 'attacking Christianity' is freedom of expression. The event you describe is disrespectful and tasteless but is permissible under the constitution. If the Christian organization that is allegedly being 'attacked' does not like it, they can sue for damages in the nation's secular and impartial courts system.

BTW the US was founded to be a free nation (so long as you were not black or a woman) but not specifically a Christian one. In fact, many of the excesses of Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church of the day were among the influences that the Founding Fathers sought to limit or control, to ensure reasonable freedom for its citizens.

Maximus, your arguments are flawed, inconsistent, excessively emotional and highly biased. They simply beg for rebuttal. That is why I 'stir the pot'. And don't get me started on your poor spelling and punctuation :smile:

Frankly, 'attacking Christianity' is freedom of expression. The event you describe is disrespectful and tasteless but is permissible under the constitution. If the Christian organization that is allegedly being 'attacked' does not like it, they can sue for damages in the nation's secular and impartial courts system.

BTW the US was founded to be a free nation (so long as you were not black or a woman) but not specifically a Christian one. In fact, many of the excesses of Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church of the day were among the influences that the Founding Fathers sought to limit or control, to ensure reasonable freedom for its citizens. As I stated earlier,but I guess you cant read it,...here it is again for the last time 1st- I know how to spell,but as I've pointed out elsewhere on this forum,I type with one,sometimes 2 fingers...another reason I copy/paste... and sometimes I dont feel like going back to fix things.So,if you see that once in awhile,get over it.You know what I'm talking about.You think one word in one paragraph proves I'm illiterate? And you know why I asked if they could read--it was current events I was referring to.You knew that but you wanted to get your shot in just the same.Thats also why you used Jesus in your dumb attempt in that response. Cant you be a moderator who is moderate in his totally unnecessary response? 'Don't look like it,do it? Oops,theres my illiteracy again the country was based on Christian faith and values.Why dont you do a little research,instead of attacking,like the placard within feet of the Nativity in the Washington State capital building did that the whole country made her( the Governer) change,& quit changing the focus of this subject if you want to "make the world a better place"? If thats what you want you should learn how to have a peaceful discussion.

Thank you for the reply and the link. Unfortunately, my computer lacks a suitable audio device driver so I have no sound and cannot listen to the video.
I'm sorry you couldn't hear the clip. He basically says he has no respect for Christians who don't "proselytize" because, he says :
" How much do you have to hate someone to truly believe they will end up in a fiery hell when they die, and not warn them and tell them how to escape because you feel socially awkward?"

I do like many Christians as many are my dear friends and relatives. I am touched by the concern that some, such as yourself express for the reasons you state.

However, there are as many interpretations of Christianity as there are Christians, it seems. While some, such as yourself are genuinely concerned, there are others who seek to have power and control over people; who feel driven to inflict their particular belief system upon those around them. That's very true, especially when it comes to T.V. evangelists. Many will preach false doctrine, just to intimidate listeners to support them financially. That is wrong and they will be judged for that.

Imho this difference in interpretation and subsequent power and influence is why Christianity has become fractured into dozens of belief structures (churches) over the centuries.
Often they have conflicting views on many issues. (in fact their differences only reinforces my distaste for the institution of Christianity (but usually not the individuals))
Thats true, not all people or churches who claim to be Christian are. Thats why any Christian Preacher whos heart and doctrine is right will tell their listeners to study and know the bible for themselves, then they will know which preachers are teaching false bible doctrine and which are preaching the truth.

So I appreciate your genuinely heartfelt concerns. But in my heart I know there is no god, no heaven and no hell. J penn in the video says the same thing. How is it I wonder, Christians such as myself know in our hearts that there is a God, heaven and hell, but Atheists like you and Penn know in your heart the opposite? We can't both be right.These thoughts bring me peace and contentment and allow me to focus myself on what is really important; my friends, my family and, in some small way, making our physical world and environment (not a mythical heaven or hell) a better place.
I'm curious do you know what "Pascals wager" is?

I am familiar with Pascal's Wager. Imho many people live by this wager, often without really knowing it. Imo anyone who lacks true conviction, or has any doubt, does this.

I cannot criticize people who do, it is a natural strategy for humans to 'hedge our bets' in life, whether it's about career, family life or buying insurance. We all want a 'back-up plan' for the unforeseen.

I try to lead a good, constructive and reasonably charitable life (just look at the more that 4000 technical-assistance posts I have written to people in need on this Forum) because it is the right thing to do. Like millions of decent people around the world, I do not need to be bribed by a mythical figure (and eternal happiness) to do so.

Social scientists have wondered about this human trait, because religious fervor simply does not explain all the acts of generosity and compassion that people from all walks of life display.

A popular theory is that humans have evolved over hundreds of thousands of generations to be good to each other because it is beneficial to our mutual survival.
As we know, the era of cities and larger communities is relatively new. For most of history, humans have survived in tiny nomadic groups or tiny villages and communities where one had to cooperate with others for survival. This included generosity of spirit. The selfish and the uncooperative were less likely to survive and reproduce.

So, in this sense, the majority of humans have 'evolved' to do the right thing in life.

How is it I wonder, Christians such as myself know in our hearts that there is a God, heaven and hell, but Atheists like you and Penn know in your heart the opposite? We can't both be right.
Well, many people for centuries have argued about this question, haven't they?
Here are two of the many reasons why I do not believe in god or any of his alleged institutions:

1. There is no proof of the existence of god. She has never tangibly appeared or done anything measurable and observable at all. All arguments to support his existence are derived from imo a lack of true understanding of the world around us.
For example, in the past much natural phenomenon (lightning, the Planets, the functions that power our Sun, etc) was not understood and thus attributed to be products of gods work.
However, as logic, reason and the sciences evolved, more rational explanations were found; all of which serve to undermine the claim that god exists.
Very recently the Catholic Church has furiously back-pedaled about Galileo's discoveries and his subsequent status in the Church, in order to quell criticism and restore some semblance of their credibility.

2. The concept of god is entirely man-made and are so tremendously variable. Who has the concept of god correct? Jews? Catholics? Baptists? Presbyterians? Shiites? Sunnis? You can see my point.
If god did reveal his existence to people then there should be much more consensus and agreement about the nature of our worship of him.

I realise that many people would say that god allows us to worship him in our own way, and that's okay. But millions of others simply hate that idea.
Millions of religious people truly believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong (and will burn in hell.) So who is right?
Imo the only rational answer to settle the tremendous quantity of inconsistencies and contradictions is that all religious explanations of god, heaven, hell etc are wrong and god simply does not exist.

3. Logic and reason are among the very few tools that humans have to create order and sense in this world. A belief in god is not logical and cannot be supported by reason.

So, why do I rely on logic and reason, and discount the notion of faith?

Religious people do discuss the aspect of 'faith' that is, an extraordinary belief in god in times of doubt or in the face of evidence to the contrary. However, the nature of faith is that it is intangible; it cannot be measured and can be very harmful. Millions of German Nazis had faith that they were the Master Race and the Jews had to be eliminated. Millions of Stalinist Communists had faith in their leader and did his bidding.

Imho humans can do better than faith. They can use their faculties or reason and rational intellect to build a better, more cooperative and more rational society. I can do my part in this by being an atheist.

Finally, in response to the proselytizing; this is why politics and religion are often hopeless at parties.
Proselytizing causes grief and strife. I can respect people who make the effort to do what they think is right, but they are arguing an irrational, incorrect belief system.
Logic and rationality can be clearly understood by reasonable people. Religion cannot; and the hundreds of religious -based wars demonstrates the end result of the proselytizing philosophy.

BTW I appreciate your replies and your input in this discussion.:smile:

As I stated earlier,but I guess you cant read it,...here it is again for the last time the country was based on Christian faith and values.Why dont you do a little research,instead of attacking,like the placard within feet of the Nativity in the Washington State capital building did that the whole country made her( the Governer) change,& quit changing the focus of this subject if you want to "make the world a better place"? If thats what you want you should learn how to have a peaceful discussion.
Before I say this, I consider myself a Christian, however, I try to be very open with my beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. I don't want to be one of those people that everyone else looks at and says "he's one of those Christians that is out to save your soul." I'm only interested in discussing why I believe what I do if the person I'm speaking to is interested in hearing about it.

MagicRat being an atheist doesn't bother me. Not in the least. And to play devil's advocate, I see where he is coming from. The only reason you feel there is no peaceful discussion is because he has a perspective that does not mesh well with yours. In fact, you seem to epitomize one of the problems that he has with the holiday season: You insist that you are right and he is wrong, that because he doesn't believe in God or have faith, that he has no right to an opinion on the matter or that whatever opinion he shares is "uncivil" in it's nature because it does not line up with your views.

To be completely honest, it bothers me quite a bit to see people tearing others down for their beliefs or lackthereof, especially because "they don't believe in the spirit of Christmas." Our country WAS formed on faith, but it was also formed on the belief that we could be free to worship and speak as we wish.

Does it bother me when someone sues an airport because there is a Christmas tree in the lobby? Yes, it does. Does it bother me when people defile nativities because they don't agree with what it stands for? Yes, it does. However, that is because those suits and those acts of vandalism are coming from people who are intolerant of something that is different from what they believe. People who are just as intolerant as you are when it comes to this discussion.

This is one of the reasons why I rarely come in here - because we have people who are steadfast in their perspectives but willing to engage in discussion with those who do not share the same perspectives and are often caught up in one-sided (from my perspective) discussions with individuals who cannot look outside of their own tiny boxes.

I'm glad that there are at least a couple of people in this thread that have heads attached tightly enough that they can keep things civil and respectful.

I am familiar with Pascal's Wager. Imho many people live by this wager, often without really knowing it. Imo anyone who lacks true conviction, or has any doubt, does this. So in other words, in the gamble of what happens to you after you die, you are content to take the chance that you are right, there is no God, you will just non-exsist after death, rather than call upon God for salvation (in Christ).
If you are wrong you will burn for eternity, if Christians are wrong, no harm will come to them, they won't exist when they die. The Christian is taking the win-win position. Why take the chance of losing your own soul?

I try to lead a good, constructive and reasonably charitable life (just look at the more that 4000 technical-assistance posts I have written to people in need on this Forum) because it is the right thing to do. Like millions of decent people around the world, I do not need to be bribed by a mythical figure (and eternal happiness) to do so. I am thankful you strive to do right to other people, too many don't, but I'm sure you will admit those good deeds don't make you a perfect person by any measure.
That is where, in Christian doctine, the atonement of Christ comes in, to perfect us.

Social scientists have wondered about this human trait, because religious fervor simply does not explain all the acts of generosity and compassion that people from all walks of life display.I see from your statement here, the social scientists, by their puzzlement, show they know humans are NOT perfect and good, they know by nature we humans are selfish, so they ask "why do people try to be good?" ( Not "Why do people try to do bad?") that comes naturally.

A popular theory is that humans have evolved over hundreds of thousands of generations to be good to each other because it is beneficial to our mutual survival. If humans were what they should be to begin with, they shouldn't have to "evolve " to be good to eachother, they should do it naturally like eating or breathing, wouldn't you agree?





Here are two of the many reasons why I do not believe in god or any of his alleged institutions:

1. There is no proof of the existence of god.When you or any person can create life out of nothing, then I'll believe there is no proof for God.
For example, in the past much natural phenomenon (lightning, the Planets, the functions that power our Sun, etc) was not understood and thus attributed to be products of gods work. Has humanity yet been able to create a planet? Or has humanity even yet figured out how to live on a planet other than earth? I would say humanity has learned less than an infinitesimal amount about the univesre, compared to what knowledge is out there.

2. The concept of god is entirely man-made You can't prove that, no one can prove there is no God and are so tremendously variable. Who has the concept of god correct? Jews? Catholics? Baptists? Presbyterians? Shiites? Sunnis? Baptist doctrine has the correct concept of God.:smile:

Imo the only rational answer to settle the tremendous quantity of inconsistencies and contradictions is that all religious explanations of god, heaven, hell etc are wrong and god simply does not exist. But if you are wrong and God and hell exist you'll be eternally sorry at death (Pascals wager)

A belief in god is not logical and cannot be supported by reason. Neither is a belief that the universe popped into existence by itself

So, why do I rely on logic and reason, and discount the notion of faith?


Imho humans can do better than faith. Everyone uses faith everyday, you can't live without it, otherwise you wouldn't let the bank hold your money ( even though in this economy were losing faith in that!), people wouldn't drive, wouldn't do business with people, would NEVER stay or even get married. Living requires faith and trust.

Finally, in response to the proselytizing; this is why politics and religion are often hopeless at parties. I agree, I don't normally proselytize at parties, but I will discuss my faith when the topic comes up.

BTW I appreciate your replies and your input in this discussion.:smile:

It's my pleasure to reply, sincerely Cl8

Imho the Christians are developing the peeps, not the atheists. It seems atheists are not doing the attacking, but Christians are claiming they are.


Athiests aren't attacking christians? Do you live under a rock?
Haven't you heard about the athiest sign in the Washington capitol?

We're claiming you're attacking us because you are. If athiests wanted to put up a sign that said something constructive and positive, everybody would be cool with that. If you want to put up a sign to express your beliefs in a calm and informative manner, GO AHEAD. But that sign is not an expression of athiest ideals, its an attack on religion.


I would say complaints from Christians about being oppressed seem only to emerge around Christmastime.

Gee, maybe thats because its when all the christians get together to celebrate their religion in public?

No thats crazy talk, its all part of our plan to brainwash athiest kids, and apoint the Pope as Supreme Emperor of Earth! :grinno:


I personally don't see whats so offensive about nativity scenes and christmas trees. I drive past the Islamic Center of Clarksville every day, but for some reason I don't feel the urge to bitch and moan about intolerance and bigotry.

We're claiming you're attacking us because you are.


I'm fairly confident that just as many Christians attack non Christians and other non-believers as non-believers attack Christians. In any case, what right do people of any faith have to criticise "attacks" on their faith when people of their faith attack others?

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?"

its all part of our plan to brainwash athiest kids, and apoint the Pope as Supreme Emperor of Earth! :grinno:

While you may think this is amusing, it is actually true, generally speaking.

Most of any traditional Christian service in church is essentially indoctrination into the particular Christian way of thinking. Sermons, prayers and hymns all serve to reinforce religious instructions and ways of thinking into the people in attendance.
Such methods have been demonstrated as being very effective in getting an audience to adhere to the message being given. This is why for decades, commercial advertisements on TV, radio and print have used exactly the same methods.

Last I looked, there was no organized Atheistic movement to oppose the organized churches. There were no Atheist propaganda halls on every street corner. But there sure are many churches which have indoctrination sessions (services) several times each week.

Christianity is, by nature, expansionist. Virtually all Christian churches seek to spread their particular interpretation of god and increase the numbers of believers. Thus I am sure, the Vatican would be delighted if the ALL Christians, and even the entire world became Catholic.

Certainly many Muslims feel this way. Saudi Arabia spends millions of dollars to fund Islamic projects around the world. Many Muslims want to see an entirely Islamic planet under Sharia law.

So, what is keeping these competing religions in place? What has worked in the past to lessen the number of bitter religious wars? Atheistic principles such as the secular rule of law and the growing prominence of secular national interests, such as international commerce and stable international relations.

Last I looked, there was no organized Atheistic movement to oppose the organized churches.

Actually, they've been very effective in the courts and they continue to chip away at every aspect of religion in American life. They've been far too quick to find fault and offense where none exists or was ever intended.

The courts have lent a ready ear and the ACLU has been decidedly anti christian in its activities.

Personally, I believe that our society is paying the price for doing its best to exclude God from our lives.

No matter. These discussions never end on a good note. Scripture says that everyone who hears the message is then responsible for rejecting or accepting it. Once the hearer has heard, it's time to move on.

Everyone needs to decide what he/she believes and act on it. The Truth will be known on the Day of Judgment.

Actually, they've been very effective in the courts and they continue to chip away at every aspect of religion in American life. They've been far too quick to find fault and offense where none exists or was ever intended.

The courts have lent a ready ear and the ACLU has been decidedly anti christian in its activities.

Personally, I believe that our society is paying the price for doing its best to exclude God from our lives.

No matter. These discussions never end on a good note. Scripture says that everyone who hears the message is then responsible for rejecting or accepting it. Once the hearer has heard, it's time to move on.

Everyone needs to decide what he/she believes and act on it. The Truth will be known on the Day of Judgment.
I thought someone would interpret efforts to place a reasonable limit on religions as an organized effort to eliminate them.

Typically, efforts to limit religious activities have a purpose other than eliminating religion. Often, they are in place to promote harmony and equality for all by moderating the religious expression of any one particular group.

Such moderating efforts do allow other, less prominent religions to flourish by helping to prevent bias and prejudice.

Frankly, imho if there seems to be an anti-religious bias, this is due to the expansionist philosophy of Christianity, which seeks to spread its influence as quickly and as far as possible. Imho it is reasonable for a secular society to try and limit such efforts, or risk becoming a theocracy.

As for the ACLU, they have repeatedly demonstrated a reasonable balance between religious and secular concerns. Some of their actions have supported an individual's right to freedom of religious expression.

So in other words, in the gamble of what happens to you after you die, you are content to take the chance that you are right, there is no God, you will just non-exsist after death, rather than call upon God for salvation (in Christ).

If you are wrong you will burn for eternity, if Christians are wrong, no harm will come to them, they won't exist when they die. The Christian is taking the win-win position. Why take the chance of losing your own soul?I am thankful you strive to do right to other people, too many don't, but I'm sure you will admit those good deeds don't make you a perfect person by any measure.

Who presumes to know the mind of God? I think that if God exists, that an atheist that has good moral standards and was a good person in life would be given the opportunity to see God and believe before being cast into hell - for only through God can you reach everlasting salvation (pardon me if I quoted incorrectly) but we do have free will and are all different. Add to that, that God is a good and forgiving God.

The atheist that lives a good life has more chance of going to heaven than the hypocrite that goes to church on Sunday, believes, and does evil during the week then is granted forgiveness again later.

Typically, efforts to limit religious activities have a purpose other than eliminating religion. Often, they are in place to promote harmony and equality for all by moderating the religious expression of any one particular group.

Methinks yon gentleman doth protest too much. You know full well that the effect has been an attempt to eliminate religion. Ask Ms. O'Hare how that worked out. I lived through that time and I watched it happen. She was pretty adamant and mean spirited about it. The liberal left and the atheist movement has done/is doing its dead level best to remove God from all aspects of public life.

No "balance" about it. Spin it your way, and I'll spin it mine. It's all a matter of perspective and I'm OK with that. No one is going to change their mind as a result of an internet forum.

It's no surprise, really. Man is rebellious and unrepentant for the most part. It galls the unbeliever to think that there is an absolute truth and that we have to answer to an omniscient and omnipotent being who sets standards for our behavior. It's in the nature of the humanist to believe that man's efforts and intellect are the supreme accomplishment of existence.

Who presumes to know the mind of God? I think that if God exists, that an atheist that has good moral standards and was a good person in life would be given the opportunity to see God and believe before being cast into hell - for only through Christ can you reach everlasting salvation (pardon me if I quoted incorrectly) but we do have free will and are all different.

I fixed that for ya. Works alone won't do it. "Being good" won't do it. "Being bad" won't negate the power of forgiveness that comes through Christ's sacrifice. Witness the conversation between Christ and the thief on the cross at their crucifixion. I'll let you look it up.

That opportunity to see God and believe happens every time you hear the message of Christ's death and resurrection and the opportunity to accept or deny it also happens every time you hear it. The bottom line is still this and it always has been: if you've heard the message and you reject it, it's on your head, not the messenger's. There's the free will you speak of. You are quite correct on that point.

No one put a gun to my head to make me believe, but I do think the day will come when I'll be forced to recant or die. So be it.

I'm fairly confident that just as many Christians attack non Christians and other non-believers as non-believers attack Christians. In any case, what right do people of any faith have to criticise "attacks" on their faith when people of their faith attack others?

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?"

Christians attack athiests because of what they support, athiests attack christians because of what they believe.

The big reason christians are at odds with athiests isn't that athiests don't believe in god (I don't speak for all of us), it's because athiests support issues that conflict with our beliefs.

If I found an athiest who was anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-states rights I could easily be friends with him.

Garth: Thanks for shopping. Merry Christmas!
Customer: I don't celebrate Christmas.
Garth: Bummer. Merry Christmas anyway.

I don't speak for all of us

and this is where/why most of these discussions fail.
I cannot speak for all people who share my beliefs just as you cannot speak for all people of your beliefs.

Christians attack athiests because of what they support, athiests attack christians because of what they believe.

what's the difference here?
a person does not (usually) give support to something if they do not believe in the thing. This is also where one of the Christian anti abortion arguments fail because their belief does not result in a rational reason; it is simply because they believe it is so.
The typical pregnancy from rape scenario is perfect case for discussion.

If I found an athiest who was anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-states rights I could easily be friends with him.

Interesting way of putting this which puts a few questions in my head.
If a person is gay and wishes to make a lifelong commitment to his/her partner, does that mean they cannot be Christian?
If a person believes that the individual has a right to choose an abortion, they cannot be Christian?
Not entirely sure what being pro-state's rights has to do with this...

Who presumes to know the mind of God? I think that if God exists, that an atheist that has good moral standards and was a good person in life would be given the opportunity to see God and believe before being cast into hell - for only through God can you reach everlasting salvation (pardon me if I quoted incorrectly) but we do have free will and are all different. Add to that, that God is a good and forgiving God.

The atheist that lives a good life has more chance of going to heaven than the hypocrite that goes to church on Sunday, believes, and does evil during the week then is granted forgiveness again later.

Only if that "good life" leads him to repent and believe on Christ for salvation.
(No one can "work" their way to heaven.)

Interesting way of putting this which puts a few questions in my head.
If a person is gay and wishes to make a lifelong commitment to his/her partner, does that mean they cannot be Christian? 1 John 5:18 says that "...whosoever is born of God sinneth not..." that actually means a Christian doesn't continually live in sin ( Christians do fall from time to time) so if a person is living IN sin and not feeling guilty about it, no he would not be a Christian.
If a person believes that the individual has a right to choose an abortion, they cannot be Christian?There's nothing wrong with a Christian believing a person has the "right" to an abortion, as long as they also believe they also have the "right " to suffer the consequenses for killing a human life.
Not entirely sure what being pro-state's rights has to do with this...

Interesting way of putting this which puts a few questions in my head.
If a person is gay and wishes to make a lifelong commitment to his/her partner, does that mean they cannot be Christian?

For issues like this, it may be best not to think of Christian as a unified belief system. There are many, many issues like this that has rendered Christian faiths and produced the wide variety of Protestant franchises that we see today. <cough Martin Luther cough>

For example, The Anglican Church of Canada (thats Episcopal for you folks) has been split in two by this very question. Half want to endorse gay priests. The other half believe a practicing homosexual is sinful and is not fit to represent Christian values. There is a strong likelihood that the 'pro gay-Christian' half will break away entirely and form their own group of churches. I am pretty sure the 'anti gay' half would not regard that breakaway church as being Christian.

Indeed, historically, such divisions in opinion, thought and practice has created such a vast range Christian ideology it is almost impossible to identify many specific positions as being 'Christian'.

I know people may not want to hear the 'A' word from me, but such divisions do reinforce my opinion that all religious belief systems cannot be taken as being literal fact.

and another question,
if one of the defining aspects of America is Democracy and Democratic right, how does Christianity fit into being American if there are things where decisions may be made simply because "the Bible says so"?

Logic says that while occasionally, there may be issues that the majority do indeed match with the religious (or perhaps more accurately, one religious) perspective, there will be cases where it doesn't.

in other words, doesn't religion defy democracy?

monkey, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that there is no place in America for Christians, or are you saying that we have no right to call ourselves Americans?

If you are suggesting that government decisions are being made "because the bible says so," I don't buy it. Lots of decisions are being made that have no basis in scripture whatsoever. If anything, I'd say our "democracy" in its present form defies religion (whatever "religion" means; there are a lot of "religions" out there.).

I'm not attacking, I'm just not sure what you're trying to say. :dunno:

and another question,
if one of the defining aspects of America is Democracy and Democratic right, how does Christianity fit into being American if there are things where decisions may be made simply because "the Bible says so"?

Logic says that while occasionally, there may be issues that the majority do indeed match with the religious (or perhaps more accurately, one religious) perspective, there will be cases where it doesn't.

in other words, doesn't religion defy democracy?

If you look at the Christian Church in the new testament, it was run very democratically. Decisions were brought before the wholw congregation.

What Christianity and the Bible does is gives a set of pirameters to allow a democracy to run effectivly.
As was stated, not all our laws are taken directly from the Bible, especially one that go against the Bible, like abortion.
But "thou shall not steal, kill, commit adultery" etc. are very much a part of our system of law in our democracy.
Without abiding by these rules a democracy breaks down.

This is also where one of the Christian anti abortion arguments fail because their belief does not result in a rational reason; it is simply because they believe it is so.
So its not rational to oppose abortion because:
-Human life is sacred. (there are even some athiests who agree with that)
-Abortion can lead to mental trauma for the mother.
- It devalues human life and desensitizes people to death.

If a person is gay and wishes to make a lifelong commitment to his/her partner, does that mean they cannot be Christian?

The Bible classifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of creating a good family structure to raise children.

If a person believes that the individual has a right to choose an abortion, they cannot be Christian?
The Bible teaches that human life is sacred, so technically no.

Not entirely sure what being pro-state's rights has to do with this...
The federal goverment has a tendency to ignore the wishes of the people to please a small group of people or make themselves look good.

and another question,
if one of the defining aspects of America is Democracy and Democratic right, how does Christianity fit into being American if there are things where decisions may be made simply because "the Bible says so"?

Logic says that while occasionally, there may be issues that the majority do indeed match with the religious (or perhaps more accurately, one religious) perspective, there will be cases where it doesn't.

in other words, doesn't religion defy democracy?

'Because the bible says so' is a very good standard to base your decisions on.

You can't deny that the majority of the teachings in the bible have very positive effects.

For example:

Traditional marriage - ever watch 'Cops' and see all the trailer parks where one mother is in charge of 5 or 6 delinquints? Having a family led by a mother and father provides the perfect enviroment to develope necessary skills and behaviours.

Abstinence - Remember the sexual revolution back in the sixties? The one that was supposed to 'liberate' people from the constraints of a christian society? THAT ended well, by the end of the decade there were millions of illegitamate children running around and everybody had an STD.:grinno:

Respect thy mother and father - Remember the kid down the street who cussed at his parents and got everything he wanted? Those kids almost never turn into productive, responsible adults.

Actually, they've been very effective in the courts and they continue to chip away at every aspect of religion in American life. They've been far too quick to find fault and offense where none exists or was ever intended.

The courts have lent a ready ear and the ACLU has been decidedly anti christian in its activities.

Personally, I believe that our society is paying the price for doing its best to exclude God from our lives.


Nailed it. :iagree:

The only time the Athiest Coalition of Liberal Usurpers (catchy, ain't it :grinyes:)
supported a christian group is in the case of The Westboro Baptist Church.
They're the ones who shout obscenities at soldiers' funerals while the families are trying to cope with the tragic loss of a loved one.

Isn't it just shocking that the ACLU would support a cult that tarnishes the image of real christians?

monkey, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that there is no place in America for Christians, or are you saying that we have no right to call ourselves Americans?

If you are suggesting that government decisions are being made "because the bible says so," I don't buy it. Lots of decisions are being made that have no basis in scripture whatsoever. If anything, I'd say our "democracy" in its present form defies religion (whatever "religion" means; there are a lot of "religions" out there.).

I'm not attacking, I'm just not sure what you're trying to say. :dunno:

I'm not making any comment on what qualifies a person to be an American; merely posing the question of whether true democracy can exist in a place that is run in part by a religious aspect or where a part lets religious aspects decide what is or isn't allowed and in that context, posing the question of where religion stands in relation to democracy with regards to America.

The case cited most often and one that causes a lot of discussion is abortion.

What real religious reasons are there against abortion and do they really stand against reason?
Is a pregnant woman really expected to keep an unwanted child?

I don't believe that any real world case is ever truely represented by any law passed by committee or by religion adn this is in part why our legal system is the way it is and that everything is judged and tried case by case.
There often seems to be a flexibilty in modern laws that the more vocal religious voices seems to be blind to.

Where do the anti-abortionists stand on euphanasia?


Traditional marriage - ever watch 'Cops' and see all the trailer parks where one mother is in charge of 5 or 6 delinquints? Having a family led by a mother and father provides the perfect enviroment to develope necessary skills and behaviours.

Abstinence - Remember the sexual revolution back in the sixties? The one that was supposed to 'liberate' people from the constraints of a christian society? THAT ended well, by the end of the decade there were millions of illegitamate children running around and everybody had an STD.:grinno:

Respect thy mother and father - Remember the kid down the street who cussed at his parents and got everything he wanted? Those kids almost never turn into productive, responsible adults.


Irrelevent.
For every example you cite, one can just as easily find examples of the opposite.

Is a pregnant woman really expected to keep an unwanted child?


No. Put the child up for adoption. I've watched childless couples literally go through hell trying to adopt.

I've watched my niece and her husband go through untold heartache to conceive and deliver a set of twins, only to lose one and have the other spend weeks in the hospital before they could bring him home. They were just here this past weekend and he's a pretty cool little dude. It's nice they went to all that trouble to bring him into the world.

Aren't you glad your mom didn't abort you? Of course, if she had, you wouldn't exist to be aware of it, so it's more a rhetorical question than anything else.

The only time the Athiest Coalition of Liberal Usurpers (catchy, ain't it :grinyes:)
supported a christian group is in the case of The Westboro Baptist Church.
They're the ones who shout obscenities at soldiers' funerals while the families are trying to cope with the tragic loss of a loved one.

Isn't it just shocking that the ACLU would support a cult that tarnishes the image of real christians?
:uhoh:
Utter and complete nonsense!!!!! Your statement is a complete fabrication.
You are making a rhetorical comment that is factually incorrect.

The VAST majority of ACLU issues and actions are entirely secular in nature and have no religious context at all!
Take a look: http://www.aclu.org/newsroom/viewallpressreleases_21660.html

When perusing the press releases, you can see the latest religious issue shows the ACLU protecting the religious freedom of an individual:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/37958prs20081203.html

As for the Westboro Church, they are a fine example of how the inherent inconsistencies in Christian ideology can be interpreted in a harmful way. IMO they simply are doing what other Christians do; pick-and-choose parts of theology to suit their own ends.

Sure, they hate gay people and feel the gay lifestyle is against god's teachings, but so do most Christians. In this case, the Westoboro Church is (tragically) prepared to do something about it.

When perusing the press releases, you can see the latest religious issue shows the ACLU protecting the religious freedom of an individual:

How do you know this guy isn't a pedophile or a murderer? What was he preaching up on the stage? Neo-nazis carry bibles and use the guise of being a religious group to take advantage of freedom of speech. If you really want to make a point, cite a case where an innocent, constructive member of society has genuinely been denied one of their basic rights.

As for the Westboro Church, they are a fine example of how the inherent inconsistencies in Christian ideology can be interpreted in a harmful way.

Every group of people has a couple of nutjobs (Ex: Islamic Extremists).
ANY ideaology on any subject can be interpreted in a negative way, that doesn't say anything about the mainstream members of the group.


IMO they simply are doing what other Christians do; pick-and-choose parts of theology to suit their own ends.

Please explain further, the way you bait us with insults like that intrigues me.

Please explain further, the way you bait us with insults like that intrigues me.

As far as I can read, I hardly consider his comment an insult... the whole thing about the denominations of Christianity is so people can choose the parts of the Bible they want and brush aside the other things they aren't so fond of.

For example... all the good Christians cite that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. What about Adam and Eve? Not only are they related (incestuous relationship whether there was divinity involved or not) but they weren't even married. *gasp* Oops.

All organized religions pick and choose - that's why there are so many denominations. It's not an insult, it's an observation.

As far as I can read, I hardly consider his comment an insult... the whole thing about the denominations of Christianity is so people can choose the parts of the Bible they want and brush aside the other things they aren't so fond of.

Wrong. The point of denominations is so a christian can live in a fellowship of other believers who have interpreted the word of god in a similar way and embody the same beliefs.

It's like clothes shopping.

Even though a friend shops at American Eagle and I shop at Walmart, we both wind up wearing clothes. We still have the same base beliefs.

[quote=speediva] For example... all the good Christians cite that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. What about Adam and Eve? Not only are they related (incestuous relationship whether there was divinity involved or not) but they weren't even married. *gasp* Oops.
[quote]

God created them and placed them in a serene enviroment to live together in harmony as perfect beings in gods image, there was no need for marriage in that situation.

Wrong. The point of denominations is so a christian can live in a fellowship of other believers who have interpreted the word of god in a similar way and embody the same beliefs.


Interpretation is another pretty word for "I take what I want and throw the rest out the window". I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, but it's still picking and choosing...

God created them and placed them in a serene enviroment to live together in harmony as perfect beings in gods image, there was no need for marriage in that situation.

That's your interpretation. My interpretation is that the Bible has holes... that's just one of my personal faves. As for creating perfect beings, God didn't even get that part right since Eve sinned.

Don't get me wrong... I do believe in a higher power, but I do NOT believe in organized religion. Once you get a group of people all picking and choosing, you start to lose sight of the bigger picture.

Wrong. The point of denominations is so a christian can live in a fellowship of other believers who have interpreted the word of god in a similar way and embody the same beliefs.

:uhoh: Tell that to the Huguenots. They fought 8 wars with the Christian establishment of the day in the 16th century in their efforts to gain religious freedom
Please read some history.:smile: Your statement is excessively idealistic, naiive and does not reflect Christian history.

The history of Christian fragmentation is rife with violence and condemnation, especially during the Reformation. The notion of Christian cooperation is relatively recent and is imo due to the beneficial effects of secular law and modern, peaceful international relations.

Historically the Christian establishment has bitterly resisted change or fragmentation for a variety of economic and political reasons.

Much of historical religious ideology is about power and control of the masses by an elite few. For centuries, the Vatican ruled over their followers, wielding excommunication and inquisition as tools to ensure their followers stayed in line and continued to financially and politically support the Catholic hierarchy.

The Jesuits were established (16th Century) in part to be the shock-troops during the Reformation in order to (literally) fight the rise of Protestantism.

The Reformation and the rise of Protestant sects was all about groups and even entire nations violently rebelling against the Catholic church and their political supporters (including other nations). Look at the Thirty Years War as a prime example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

Even Protestant splinter groups had to struggle with opposition faced from the existing Protestant establishment. For example, the Puritans did not become American pioneers for their health. They had to struggle for their religious freedoms. And the Mormons certainly did not move to Utah for the climate.
(And yes, I consider the Mormons to be as Christian and make as much sense as any Christian group. :smile: )

:uhoh: Tell that to the Huguenots. They fought 8 wars with the Christian establishment of the day in the 16th century in their efforts to gain religious freedom
Please read some history.:smile: Your statement is excessively idealistic, naiive and does not reflect Christian history.

The history of Christian fragmentation is rife with violence and condemnation, especially during the Reformation. The notion of Christian cooperation is relatively recent and is imo due to the beneficial effects of secular law and modern, peaceful international relations.

Historically the Christian establishment has bitterly resisted change or fragmentation for a variety of economic and political reasons.

Much of historical religious ideology is about power and control of the masses by an elite few. For centuries, the Vatican ruled over their followers, wielding excommunication and inquisition as tools to ensure their followers stayed in line and continued to financially and politically support the Catholic hierarchy.Exactly right, which is why they are a heretical denomination, teaching false bible doctrine. No denomination, being biblically correct will come into existence to weild power over others.

The Jesuits were established (16th Century) in part to be the shock-troops during the Reformation in order to (literally) fight the rise of Protestantism.

The Reformation and the rise of Protestant sects was all about groups and even entire nations violently rebelling against the Catholic church and their political supporters (including other nations). Look at the Thirty Years War as a prime example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

Even Protestant splinter groups had to struggle with opposition faced from the existing Protestant establishment. For example, the Puritans did not become American pioneers for their health. They had to struggle for their religious freedoms. And the Mormons certainly did not move to Utah for the climate.
(And yes, I consider the Mormons to be as Christian and make as much sense as any Christian group. :smile: ) Mormons teach that Jesus is Satans brother. That is as anti-Christian as you can get.

Rat,

Do you actually understand real, vital Christianity, or do you only know what you find in the history of "religion"?

Each of the points you make, while valid in their own right, can also be made for the humanist manifesto throughout history. At the risk of incurring invocation of Godwin's rule, I won't mention the most notable group in recent history to visit evil upon the world. Was Stalin a Christian?

Have you read the bible? Do you really know what scripture tells true believers about how they should behave and treat others? As easy as it is to denigrate the Christian movement for doing things "because the bible says so", the bible is the book of rules (from God) for the Christian to follow. We are considered to be walking in error if we do not follow scripture. We are to examine what we do and say and determine if we are acting to bring a positive message in our lives.

True Christianity does not force itself upon anyone. Believers are obliged to share their faith (in fact, we've been told to do so) but we have also been told to move on if the hearer does not accept the message. Recipients of the message are still free to accept or reject it as they see fit, to answer eventually for doing so.

One may bristle at the message, but even Penn himself said, in his video blog, that Christians who don't share the message with unbelievers are not acting out of love. We'd have to really hate someone not to share what we believe to be a positive message of hope and salvation for eternal life.

Some groups will get it wrong and do things contrary to scripture. It's up to each of us to examine that behavior and determine whether or not it fits with God's word. Churches do suffer through splits over doctrine and some decisions are made because of selfishness and pride. New churches are started every day. People are free to disagree. The apostles themselves had disagreements, but they all worked toward a common goal, which was preaching the Gospel of Christ.

Christians aren't perfect, nor will we ever be in this corporeal existence. We are, however, accepted by God as His children through Christ's sacrifice and intervention before the Throne of God on our behalf.

Recipients of the message are still free to accept or reject it as they see fit, to answer eventually for doing so.


Nothing is more telling about Christianity than this simple statement. The use of fear in maintaining control traces its roots a long way back, to the middle ages and feudal times. The parallels are rather frightening, actually. Fear-mongering is largely isolated to the Coservative Christian community nowadays, but it is still very much alive. Just check in the politics forum and the ridiculous doomsday predictions from members who will remain unnamed, and you can see this sort of thinking in action.

Luckily, those of us who live in the US exist largely free from this fear-mongering (despite the current administration's attempts to the contrary). We choose to follow the logical, scientific interpretations of the world that generally lead to Atheism and live free of fear because we have no reason to believe in the fairy tales that are the bible. If a god were to exist, he/she/it would be VERY different from that found in Christian theology. :thumbsup:

[quote=MagicRat]The notion of Christian cooperation is relatively recent and is imo due to the beneficial effects of secular law and modern, peaceful international relations.quote]

You actually think 'secular law' is benefiting society? Its tearing society apart. How is it possibly beneficial for the goverment to get involved with religious issues? How is it beneficial to wipe away hundreds of years of positive traditions, simply to please a tiny proportion of the population?

Without God, there is no foundation for basic morals and a sturdy ethical code.

Do you really think a bunch of bearucrats and lobyists can invent a morally stable society? All of these secular movements are hurting America, not helping it.

Fear-mongering is largely isolated to the Coservative Christian community nowadays, but it is still very much alive. Just check in the politics forum and the ridiculous doomsday predictions from members who will remain unnamed, and you can see this sort of thinking in action.



I'm not sure I'd call what I said fear mongering, but I can see how one might perceive it as a threat if it stirs even a small doubt about the existence of a life beyond this one and consequences in the hereafter. I can't answer for the wrong doings of others; I know what the people I associate with are doing, and we don't spout fire and brimstone in anyone's face, nor do we threaten to club anyone to death for not accepting a message about salvation.

I suppose we could lie about what we believe and leave out the part about the consequences of rejecting the message, but stating it in simple terms doesn't amount to any attempt on our part to control anyone. I'd liken it to warning someone about to step out into traffic in front of a truck.

Doomsday predictions have been around since Christ was crucified. The first century Christians thought they were living in the last days.

It's not just Christians; how about that 2012 and the Mayan calendar deal?

[quote=MagicRat]The notion of Christian cooperation is relatively recent and is imo due to the beneficial effects of secular law and modern, peaceful international relations.quote]

You actually think 'secular law' is benefiting society? Its tearing society apart. How is it possibly beneficial for the goverment to get involved with religious issues? How is it beneficial to wipe away hundreds of years of positive traditions, simply to please a tiny proportion of the population?

Without God, there is no foundation for basic morals and a sturdy ethical code.

Do you really think a bunch of bearucrats and lobyists can invent a morally stable society? All of these secular movements are hurting America, not helping it.

You'd be surprised how convinced Atheists are that "basic morals" evolved when mankind saw what was most beneficial for them and society.:confused:

But if thats the case shouldn't we have a lot FEWER inmates in prisons for cimes? Not a record high number of inmates in prison?

Any of you Atheists correct me if I have it wrong in how you think.

You actually think 'secular law' is benefiting society? Its tearing society apart. How is it possibly beneficial for the goverment to get involved with religious issues? How is it beneficial to wipe away hundreds of years of positive traditions, simply to please a tiny proportion of the population?

Without God, there is no foundation for basic morals and a sturdy ethical code.

Do you really think a bunch of bearucrats and lobyists can invent a morally stable society? All of these secular movements are hurting America, not helping it.

Lol, lol, and lol...so when did rape, murder, slavery, and human sacrifice (all of which are rampant in the bile) become good morals that are part of a sturdy ethical code?

Atheists, in general, support object secular humanism, social justice, equal rights, and environmentalism. Is this a poor moral code? I'd be delighted to see how that is.

Lol, lol, and lol...so when did rape, murder, slavery, and human sacrifice (all of which are rampant in the bile) become good morals that are part of a sturdy ethical code?

Atheists, in general, support object secular humanism, social justice, equal rights, and environmentalism.

The sins you mentioned are Gods way of explaining and teaching about what is right and wrong. They are recorded in the Bible for the same reason cancer is included in anti-smoking advertisements.

And by 'equal rights' you mean having the federal goverment force religious groups to abandon their traditions because of some homosexuals who don't want to go through the trouble of rewriting civil union laws?

Gee, thats 'social justice'.

The sins you mentioned are Gods way of explaining and teaching about what is right and wrong. They are recorded in the Bible for the same reason cancer is included in anti-smoking advertisements.

:confused: Cancer is mentioned in anti-smoking ads because it is a consequence of smoking. To cite just one example, the Bible supports the slaughter of all the people in a town, followed by the kidnapping, forcible marriage, and rape of hundreds of innocent women. (Judges 21:10-24) So are you saying that this should be used a guideline for how to act morally? That innocent women deserve to be kidnapped and forced into marriage and then repeatedly raped for no other reason than they happened to be conveniently located relative to the aggressors?

And by 'equal rights' you mean having the federal goverment force religious groups to abandon their traditions because of some homosexuals who don't want to go through the trouble of rewriting civil union laws?

Gee, thats 'social justice'.

Well, I do agree that the homosexual community needs to consider making concessions in with respect to civil unions as opposed to marriage, but at the same time this is eerily similar to the problem of separate but equal entities, which everybody knows is one of the greatest civil rights failures in our country's history.

Either way, homosexual couples should be granted the full legal and social privileges enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, including adoption rights. Anything else is blatant discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is strictly forbidden in our constitution. As a moral Christian, you don't believe in discrimination, right?

Well, I do agree that the homosexual community needs to consider making concessions in with respect to civil unions as opposed to marriage, but at the same time this is eerily similar to the problem of separate but equal entities, which everybody knows is one of the greatest civil rights failures in our country's history.

Either way, homosexual couples should be granted the full legal and social privileges enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, including adoption rights. Anything else is blatant discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is strictly forbidden in our constitution. As a moral Christian, you don't believe in discrimination, right?

Do homosexuals have the right to be legally classified as a couple? Yes.
Do they have the right to adopt a child? Yes.
Do they have the right to the same benefits (Inheritance, Helthcare benefits, etc.) heterosexuals have? Yes.

The issue for christians isn't all of that, we would love to see homosexuals get the rights you listed above. The issue is that marriage is a religious institution, and we don't want the goverment butting in and creating regulations and such that would force churches to marry gays under the threat of a discrimination lawsuit (that seems to be a common tactic, note the Eharmony case).

We are worried that the goverment is going to get involved with religion, and begin scraping away at our traditions.