Sorry, but I must address this

[Dragonbreathp9d]

It is getting harder and harder on here to talk about religion or faith or beliefs without many people calling it a myth, a falsehood, or idiocy. I have to say I find this rather offensive. I, as a Christian, can address beliefs that do not coincide with my own without saying that they are wrong or stupid. It is fine to post your opinion as to whether you agree or not or what your stance is, but why the attacks? I understand that voicing an Atheist, or even Agnostic opinion in todays world is generally met with a lot of flak, and I swear to you now that I would gladly fight and die in order to preserve your right to view life in whatever philosophical, religious, or any other way you choose, and I will NEVER attack YOUR beliefs by saying that they are nonsense, because to be quite honest NONE OF US TRULY KNOW! So how can any of us pass judgement onto another? It is true that more science backs up non-religious beliefs, but that is why it is called FAITH, because some things even science cannot fully explain, as much of a science man I am. Sure lots of crazy crap did happen or didnt happen, not of that really matters, what matters is 1. whether you believe it, and 2. what you do with it, no matter what you thoughts, ideas, philosophies, and/or beliefs.

I will end with stating that I am not close minded, I love to learn about new religions, philosophies, and theories, which to me are all basically the same thing, and if I happen to find one particularly attractive, I'll incorporate it into my own. (i.e. I believe in Creation AND Evolution.

So please, before you make a remark that someone may find offensive (other than freepers, because I think we can all agree on one thing), just think about how you would feel if someone made the same remark to you.

[bertha katzenengel]

1. It's a shame that this has to be addressed so often.

:hi: from an atheist - best to you

[tbyg52]

69. You hit the nail on the head....

..."none of us truly know." But gosh, what do you do about the people who not only don't know that none of us know, but get in your face about it......<sigh> I don't want to bash people's religion, I just want them to stop telling me I'm going to hell(can't stop them from thinking it.... ;) ), and in some cases acting as if I am.

[Finder]

128. None of us truly know what?

Much is known about the formation of particular doctrines in theology, science the bible and fallacies that are part of many religions. If every fact is dismissed because we don't know what caused the big bang then all is lost. May as well skip school and just read the bible.

[tbyg52]

141. Oop, sorry, context problem....

Or possibly "read what I expected to see" problem.

I thought the phrase I quoted from the original post meant "no one knows what deity, if any, is the 'real' one, and there's no way of proving it in any case."

That's what *I* meant, anyway..... :blush:

[Monkeyman]

2. You believe I believe but when its used as a political reason I fight back

[jedr]

39. Very true;

It's the mixing of church and state for political gain that angers me. Our country was not founded to be a christian government. Jefferson had a destine for religion and had written his own Bible, Franklin was very close to being atheist. All the founding fathers knew what State run religion had done to
Europe during the middle ages and wanted not to repeat those mistakes. The Bush "faith based" social services are a travesty. I do not want to hear about your personal beliefs when I apply for unemployment or be forced to send my children to a religious school because public education has been grossly underfunded nor to have my city/state/country defined as a Christan government.The attacks here tend to be a reaction toward having a theology forced upon us. Faith is an excellent way to go through your life, but not as a form of government.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

43. I agree wholeheartedly

otherwise I wouldnt be here! I just wish the attacks would stop, they are unecessary.

[varkam]

3. Here here

If this were a bar, I'd buy you a drink for that one. Very well put, K&R.

[Kajsa]

4. Excellent post, Dragonbreathp9d.

I agree completely with you.:thumbsup:

However, get ready to put on the flame suit.

Thank you for posting this!!

Kicked and recommended.

:kick:

[me b zola]

5. You are in a political forum

If you were to donate, you would receive a star and would then be able to go into the groups that discuss spiritual matters. :hi:

[SPKrazy]

11. Religion/Theology Discusses It

no star needed

General discussion is general discussion though, right? it isn't GD politics

[Dragonbreathp9d]

18. I wish I could

18 year old college student :/ Although I did give a little to the Kerry campaign I really cant afford to help, kinda feel bad about it.

[SPKrazy]

6. While There May Be Some That Do This

most don't

there's a few in every bunch

trust me, I've had threads on this kind of thing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=69094&mesg_id=69094

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=77896&mesg_id=77896


and there have been thread after thread on this subject
and they all seem to go to flame wars eventually

I agree with you generally, but on the other hand, there are atheists who would defend yours and mine's rights to believe as well here

Peace

[beam me up scottie]

62. Thanks for saying that, SPK.

I really appreciate it.:)



Besides, if we make you guys too angry, who will we fight with?

They ban all the trolls too fast and they're too dimwitted to put up much of a fight anyway.

When it comes to sparring, I'll choose an intelligent liberal believer over them every time.

[Kajsa]

126. Beam me up Scottie, you're a good guy.

I'm sorry we got into such a pretzel( for lack of a better word)
last time around.

Arnheim is right.
You are a good DUer.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

144. psst!

I'm a girl, actually, but thanks for the complement and I feel the same way about you!:D

I love Arnheim, she's everything I admire in liberal believers.:loveya:

[Kajsa]

148. Beam me up, I'm so sorry!

I'm a girl ( an older "girl") too.
Sorry for the mistake.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

149. Ha! No worries!

My profile is gender neutral because I find some people (men) tend to talk down to others (women) and often try to paint us as "emotional" or "overly sensitive" because they're intimidated(size issues).

Not all guys, don't need to start a war within a war, lol, but you know what I mean.

:D

[Kajsa]

155. I sure do!

;-)

[Goblinmonger]

178. I know

that you are just some big sissy girl who doesn't have two spare brain cells to rub together. What a dippy girl you are.

[beam me up scottie]

212. I'm telling T.Grannie!

She'll whoop your ass.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

176. Hey!

I thought I was your bestest friend?


LOL


can you tell I spent the day with gifted second graders?

[beam me up scottie]

210. I'm sorry T.Grannie, you know how much I love you!

:loveya:

[QuestionAll...]

7. I've cringed many a time over some way over the top comments

on religion here.

Just to let you know, there are way more peeps here that find that kindof behaviour repugnant, I am sure. I usually just pass those kinds of tinderboxes by and say nothing.

Maybe we should start speaking out about it. Nothing combative, just a simple retort of disagreement just to bring out some opposition.

[Orrex]

46. Are we truly to "question all," as your name suggests?

Or are some questions forbidden?

Some subjects, it seems, enjoy protection that others do not. If the questions make some people uncomfortable, then that's unfortunate, but it should stop anyone from asking.

[Jeanette in FL]

8. Give up judgment

It has worked well for me.

[Kiouni]

9. Thank you

for saying this. My cousin from NY recently spent the week with me and my girlfriend. I am a buddhist, she's gnostic christian and he's an ordained minister! made for some fun. But the point is we all agreed that religion is a good thing and tolerence should be encouraged. even if you dont believe it is real there is something to be learned from all religions. I may practice one faith but i still read the texts of others. I wish you success in your faith.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

19. And I in yours

Buddhism is another religion I like to borrow from, lots of good stuff there, my favorite is "All religions are different paths to the same end."

[goclark]

42. I agree with you ~ I try not to put down anyone's spiritual

beliefs.

I'm Christian but not "born again."

So when I hear somebody putting down Religion in general, that bothers me.


That is like telling me Religion is not worthy and IMO, that is a personal choice.

[autorank]

10. Can you give me some links to illustrate you poinr. Thanks. n/t

[SPKrazy]

14. Oh Poooooleeeeeze

and here it begins

[autorank]

52. fyi

There was a sincere reason for asking the question. Check this out...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=85027&mesg_id=85077

[Dragonbreathp9d]

25. Well

there is one a few posts down,

one here as well as others on that thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1919601&mesg_id=1924470

[autorank]

26. Thanks. I'll take a look.

[SPKrazy]

29. Do You Believe The Christian Creation Myth?

I mean, the idea that the world is 6K years old, that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, etc.?

Myth does not mean that it is all "fake"

Myth refers to cultural stories that become iconical in nature

The creation myth is (IMO) not meant to be taken literally

as a Christian, I don't believe much in the bible is to be taken literally

and a lot of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either

but I'm not one for throwing the baby out with the bathwater as there is a lot that does make sense and speaks to me

as I said earlier, there are some who will bash religion, and see no difference between the religious right wing and the religious left wing, or maybe more aptly put, the left wing people who are also religious. (because I don't think there is much of a movement out there for a left wing religious theocracy, whereas the religious right wing would love to have a theocracy)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

177. I think the Adam and Eve schtick

is basically hoo-haa...but there is a simple wisdom to it, as well.

Besides, I don't like snakes.

[autorank]

49. My experience with religious intolerance.

Subj: My experience with religious intolerance.

Occasionally, I'll make a point and quote or allude to one of the four Gospels or the Gospel of Thomas. I don't bookmark these but I wish I had so I could help you believe that when I do this no one on DU has ever given me a hard time, except on one occasion and that was a whopper. I'm an advocate for voting rights and also for a critical look at the conduct of elections from 2000 forward. I'd had a number of debates with a perpetual defender of the elections and, imho, the * administration (which I presume but do not know for sure). After making my points (and prevailing of course;)), I ended up putting the user on ignore since the users comments descended into nothing more than petty insults. It had been months and, of course, I didn't see anything the user posted since the "ignore" function makes their messages disappear (I recommend it, btw). Months later, someone tipped me off with a link to a paper this user had written and presented at a professional conference! The paper accused certain of us in the voting rights movement of "fundamentalism." The user took an entirely secularized take off on a common prayer (structure and meter) I did about elections and used it as evidence that I and others who agree with me were "fundamentalists." The implication was that our position was some how to be dismissed automatically because of the fundamentalist logic behind it. It went on for 3-4 pages in the academic paper. This really blew me away. I wondered if the user had read those 10-15 posts or if it was just a cheap shot based on my use of the prayer, which was truly innocuous.

When I read the paper I was really shocked. I thought what the heck is going on here? I'm not a fundamentalist but here someone is tarring fundamentalists by implication and then placing me in that category and using it as proof that my points were wrong! It was insulting on multiple levels although not bothersome since I have no respect for the individual's critical thinking capacity, not the least. In addition, I didn't see the logic...so what if I have fundamental, firmly held beliefs that the election system is much in need of repair and that elections have been stolen (our history is full of it). Furthermore, the person ignored major posts and publications I have on the matter where the reasoning behind the assertions is very clear and, I believe, very persuasive.

The comments about me and my purported take on Christianity were not mentioned on DU, very cleverly, so there could be no consequence.

The entire process was very strange and gave me a hint at the really subtle prejudice against religion. The paper was presented at an academic conference and the sponsors, apparently, didn't see it as offensive. The basis for the comparison was random posts off of DU, which of course, is silly given alternative sources (in my case).

If someone asked me what I believe, I'd point to a few texts (all Gospels) but if they insisted on one source, I'd point to The Jefferson Bible which doesn't exactly make me a fundamentalist. Nevertheless, I was disparaged for believing in something that I don't but which, in general application (other than Pat Robertson and his ilk), I do not find objectionable. Furthermore, the identification of someone as a "fundamentalist" as an excuse for dismissing arguments they make in other areas is not only offensive, it's not logical.

The entire process was so weird - the use of random posts, the academic paper, the fact that people actually agreed to it's presentation - it made me think more about prejudice and how it masks itself. I looked at the posts in the thread you gave me and at least those folks were direct in stating their case. My take was that they were reacting to the Robertson/Falwell school of thought vis a vis evolution (after all, Darwin was a Christian).

I had not planned to discuss this but, hey, I guess this is a "safe environment" to describe and comment on the experience.

[Goblinmonger]

78. Because someone called it

a creation myth, that is offensive? High school literature texts refer to every other culture's description of creation as a creation myth. Do you think the Old Testament is literally true as regards to creation? If not, then you, actually, see it as a creation myth. If you take the OT literally, then we have to have another discussion.

I just don't really see that post as offensive.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

179. To me, "myth"

is the best term to use when discussing stories that strain credibility but that some folks find sacred. Much better than fairy tales or Santa, which are for children.

Say... haven't we already had this conversation before??

[immoderate]

219. How do you define myth?

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society *seduced by the American myth of individualism Orde Coombs* b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths

What about this definition offends you as applied to the traditional biblical account of creation?

I find that the story of the Garden of Eden, as a parable, is remarkable in it's revelations about human nature and psychology. To me, it represents, among other things, the burdens imposed on a species that has achieved self awareness. OTOH, if taken literally, it has no such value, and rather insults the intellectual achievements of our species.

I value culture and the stories that it grew up with. Can I not assign truth value to these? Judging, in terms of good or bad, is another matter. Religion has been good and bad.

Can I call Zeus a myth? Where is the line drawn? Some people are mightily offended if I don't share their beliefs. Are they right to do this? One man's fish is another man's poisson. Can't you live with that?

What's your definition of myth that doesn't include the creation story in Genesis?

If someone says Saddam and Osama were buddies, and truly believes it, should I respect that? Tell me where the difference lies. If something doesn't make sense, am I allowed to say it?

I'll state here, though I shouldn't have to, that I believe in treating all people with respect, and being civil, but it sounds like nothing they say can be challenged. What's the rule here?

--IMM

[Synnical]

12. The "Hide Thread" button is your friend

Take advantage of it.

Edit: caps typo

[cynatnite]

13. Considering I get told that hell is waiting for me...

by a few people when I do express my lack of religious beliefs...I already know.

I'm sure many agnostics and atheists know as well. It's been my experience that when I tell someone I am an agnostic I get either a weird look or an attempt to convert me...sometimes a bit of both.

Sorry, but I'm not going to change how I express my views on religion for anyone.

[driver8]

15. I always heard you were never supposed to discuss politics

or religion.

I'll discuss politics anytime, anywhere...when it comes to religion, I keep my mouth shut!!

Sorry this had to be addressed again.

[Ron Green]

60. I break that rule gladly.

How in the hell are we ever supposed to learn anything without discussing it? People always say "religion is a private matter," but it's also a public matter. Churches and faith-based organizations are part of the fabric of society, for better or worse, and I think we ought to work to make them better, not worse.

[mitchtv]

16. I'm sorry that has happened

I am a believer, but vehemently anti religion, I never call anyone's belief a myth. I will never drop my guard against those trying to smother debate with faith, however. Good Luck

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlooInBloo]

33. You're a lot nicer than I was inclined to be....

Religion rules the fucking world (and the "afterlife" too, to hear them spin the tale - LOL!) and they STILL bitch.

christ - save us from your followers.

But kudos to you for being nicer than me - otoh, that's really not setting the bar high - lol!

[TheFriedPiper]

38. well, I'm just trying to not get banned

Religion seems to bring out the worst in people and a quick trigger finger on the alert button.

[trotsky]

72. Interestingly enough,

some of the same Christians who whine about intolerance toward their religion on DU are among the first to join in a Scientology bashing thread, calling it all sorts of nasty names.

Tolerance to many Christians is a one-way street.

[WatchWhatISay]

20. Please think about what Dragonbreathp9d is saying

If we agree on anything around here it is surely in tolerance for others beliefs.
As an agnostic, I really hate it when I see people call others religion a myth or superstition. It is disrespectful, arrogant and a not very subtle jab, that belies intolerance and aggression for those who don't see things the way we do.

If you truly believe in seperation of church and state, then surely you must have respect for others right or need or whatever to believe in a higher power. We don't really put up with people insulting each others point of view in other areas, and we shouldn't tolerate it in regard to religion either.

It must drive some really good progressive/liberal/Democrats away from DU, and that is a shame.

I know it gets hard to put up with some people's pushing their religion, as is so common today, but I dont really see DUer's doing that. But I do see a lot of DUers belittling them for their beliefs, and it needs to stop.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

30. Thank you, you captured it perfectly

[FredStembottom]

56. What is an atheist but someone who thinks religion is a myth?

How odd to be offended by someone saying your religion is a myth or superstition when what makes them an atheist (or whatever)is the fact that they think your religion is a myth or superstition!

Again and again I read here at DU that people who think religion is a myth or superstition must be ever vigilant to never say so out loud to someone who believes in a one religion or another. Usually this means Christianity.

And yet, members of the Christian religion, especially, feel free to turn every meeting, phone call or car-ride into a conversion attempt, free-flowing church-chat or even condemnation of the other's very soul!

If you can inform me at the bus stop that I am going to Hell, I think I can feel free to call your religion a superstition on DU.

[beam me up scottie]

59. POTD!

:applause:

[WatchWhatISay]

143. I believe there is a difference between a belief and a myth

Belief has more to do with you personality and what fits into the way you make sense of the world.

Myth and superstition imply that a certain amount of naivite, or lack of education in order to believe such a thing.

[Finder]

129. How about calling it a fable like Jefferson did?

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

[TallahasseeGrannie]

180. I'm okay with fable

but I don't agree with TJ. I don't much care for the gentleman, myself, after reading his biography. Even if he did write the Constitution. To me, he is the democratic equal of St. Paul. Valuable but an SOB.

[Finder]

184. Oh my...what do you mean by that?

What would you not agree with him about?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

198. He was a slave owner

and held a very low opinion of women. Along with the majority of his peers. But they weren't unfortunate enough to have biographies written about them.

I understand he was a brilliant writer and statesman, but he was also a hypocrite. He never freed his slaves despite writing anti slavery treatises, and he fathered a child by a slave.

[Finder]

206. I don't think he was a hypocrite...

and there is more to the story. Sally Hemmings was his wife's half sister who was owned/sired by her father. TJ had many of the "slaves" educated. He never abused the slaves he owned but treated them like employees and/or extended family. I believe most if not all slaves he owned were inherited or came from his wife's family.

I don't think his opinion of women was low and he was admired by some feminists of that time. Not sure what biography you read but I would suggest you read his autobiography and other biographies written by non-christians of that time.

I am not saying he was perfect, but he has always been demonized by the fundamentalists.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

207. Maybe the book I read

was written by a fundie. I had no idea he was on their "list." I thought I was just being very discerning. I will readdress this and read some more.

But the slavery issue still does concern me. However, one needs to examine a person in light of the culture they lived in.

[salvorhardin]

205. I think you have to separate the ideas from the thinkers sometimes

Jefferson was brilliant but he was a product of his times. If we were to take almost anyone's list of the hundred greatest thinkers of the last 200 years you'd be able to find terribly disagreeable things about each and every one on the list despite their accomplishments.

Except Isaac Asimov of course. He was perfect in every way. ;-)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

209. So is George Clooney.

[beam me up scottie]

211. Yes.

Yes he is.

[Wonk]

21. If organized religions weren't at the root of so many of the world's

problems I might agree with you that bashing organized religions was uncalled for.

[Kiouni]

23. maybe but being tolerant

and respectful is still a better stance then arrogantly yelling.

[TheFriedPiper]

27. tolerance is expected, but respect should not be

I tolerate anyone's belief, no matter how fantastical.

I should not have to respect their beliefs.

Do I have to respect people's beliefs that God hates homosexuals?

Do I have to respect people's beliefs that I will burn forever for getting head from my wife?

Do I have to respect people's beliefs that blacks are inferior to whites?


Some beliefs do not deserve ANY respect. Demanding that we respect those that believe ancient stores edited and translated many times is asking a bit much.

[Kiouni]

31. because some

would say or do something that most would agree is wrong. I am not arguing the above points. This does not make them stupid, it makes them ill informed, you cannot force the truth on them you can only present them with facts. So you have to respect them as a human as they would you.

[SPKrazy]

32. Have You Seen DU'ers Who Are Religious Expressing Those Beliefs?

if so

HIT ALERT

[TheFriedPiper]

34. No, I haven't

My point was just this:

Where do you draw the line at what beliefs are fair for discussion and which beliefs are off limits?

The poor persecuted christian act does get old though (not saying that's what you're doing, so don't go there). It's almost as if they didn't control EVERY branch of government and 10% of TV on Sunday mornings or get to park in the road on Sunday without getting a ticket.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

181. My views are different

I respect other people, period. I respect their right to believe whatever they want. I might disagree with their beliefs but I still respect them.

Now, the things you mention.. blacks inferior to whites, burning in hell for oral sex, God hating homosexuals..are not the creed of any organized religion I know of, except for the troubled Mr. Phelps. And some folks are just mentally ill, and hate and paranoia are a part of that.

And that's where it gets challenging. Because I feel that my beliefs demand I respect even Mr. Phelps. Respect is not agreement, nor is it admiration. When he crosses the line between legal and illegal, then authority should step in. But even when he is in prison for his crimes, he is a human being and I will respect that. I might have to go take a shower, however. It is very difficult to accomplish.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Tolerant of the one of the biggest causes of problems in history?

That's not only asinine, that's a direct request to be immoral.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

182. We could get into a pissing contest

whereby you provide me a fact about the heinousness of organized religion and I can then provide you with a fact about the fine things that have been accomplished in the name of organized religion. And we could go on forever.

It just isn't that simplistic. You can't blame all the ills of the world on organized religion, tempting as it is. Because wouldn't it be wonderful if it were JUST religion? It isn't. It is humanity. Religion is not separate and apart from humanity. It is a symptom of the problem and not the problem. The problem is territorialism, tribalism, testosterone, greed, cruelty.... etc. These things CAN fit quite nicely into the church and they do. But take away the church and they are all still there.

[Finder]

188. But they wouldn't be funded.lol n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

190. Sure they would!

We pay taxes, don't we?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

28. I dont like organized religion either

It has led to what I believe is corruption of religion, not to mention hypocrisy, mass killing, and hatred. But attack organized religion and attacking someones beliefs are two different things, people have been attacking beliefs, and I just dont find that necessary, or liberal

[eallen]

58. Some of the most radical fundamentalists are independent.

Many of the most right-wing Christian and Muslim congregations, they don't belong to any larger institution. There is a significant fraction of both right-wing protestantism and right-wing Sunni Islam that believe there cannot be any institutional intercession between the believer and (the Word of) God. It is no accident that the Islamic groups that committed 9/11, the 7/7 London bombings, and the Spanish subway bombings were Sunni. Shi'ites, who do have greater institutional affiliation, tend to be more regionally focused, e.g., Hezbollah and the Sadrists in Iraq. Similarly, the fundamentalists who have struck against abortion clinics have tended to be protestants who reject the notion of organized religion.

So it's not just organized religion that is a danger.

[Bill McBlueState]

136. that's a very good point

People tend to be really sloppy about their use of the phrase "organized religion."

[KAZ]

22. I'm a Christian also, and take no offense to what is posted.

Monkeyman above makes a good point in zeroing-in on the political aspects. My advise to you is to rejoice in your beliefs, and take no umbrage with those who disagree with the faith stuff. In fact "religion" is usually the problem, not beliefs.

[cynatnite]

24. I have far more respect for a person's spirituality than their religion...

You made a great point here.

[KAZ]

41. You're right Cynatnite.

I've often felt religion an obstacle in realizing a personal awakening. Wow, that sounded weird. Guess I've been exposed to too much group think(Roman Catholic upbringing, Korean martial arts). Thanks for the good words. I only wish I could be so sanguine when it comes to politics. :)

[lastknowngood]

35. A myth is not a lie it is a belief system. The real lie is that in this

country that claims to be religious they can't grasp the definition of the word myth. So myth has come to be known as a lie when in fact it's a belief system.

[Gatchaman]

37. Do you believe in other religions?

Ganesh? Allah? Odin? The Earth Mother? By definition, saying you are a christian is saying that all the other religions are bullshit.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

40. Who's definition?

My definition is that I belive in Christ, that he died for us. I dont belive you have to believe in him, and Allah is the same God as the one I call my own. And why cant they all just be different versions of the same thing? I believe in the teachings of love, toleration, and acceptance above everything else, which if you read Christ's teachings, is what he is about, he isnt about faith, or religion, he is about love.

[Kiouni]

44. Thats kind of like

saying all atheists are against christianity! or all religions

[TallahasseeGrannie]

183. How is that?

I choose the Christian faith. God and Allah? Same dude. Earth mother? Mary. Odin? Who knows? David, maybe?

I have never said nor felt that all the other religions are bullshit. I just don't see things in black and white like that most of the time.

[Orrex]

45. As you say "none of us truly know"

Therefore it seems to me that the only intellectually honest position to take, when faced with an utter lack of evidence, is the default position of "I don't know" or "I don't believe." Any other belief is a pure leap of faith and is no more credibly justified than any other. If someone can prove me wrong, please do so.

I make no apologies for comparisons I've made between religious belief and other beliefs, because I've made them honestly and without intent to harm. Religious freedom doesn't mean that a particular religious belief should be afforded greater respect than any other belief.

I have many times been called a liar, or arrogant, or blind, or stupid simply because I am atheist. I've found that the most benevolent reaction I can expect, when someone learns of my views, is a sort of condescending pity, as though I suffer from some deficiency or impairment. From this I have learned that to defend my views, and it seems fitting that others should be able to defend theirs.

I harbor no ill will toward any believer until that believer seeks to convert me. But I refuse to enshrine "belief" and declare it off-limits to examination or criticism.

[caligirl]

47. Faith is believing something you have no proof of,, belief in the

bible on faith. Some want proof that the bible is more than something man made.

[K8-EEE]

48. I'm Always Mystified By These Lectures

Several times a week I see these lectures on the GREATEST page like "stop doing (fill in the blank!) Stop treating all (fill in the blanks)as if we're (fill in the blanks.)

Basically I think people get their noses outta joint by a few people and then give us all a talking-to. It's getting a bit old.

Also in the subject line you should say what "this" is cuz if it was "I have to rag on people who make fun of my faith" I wouldn't read it cuz I don't do that. And frankly don't see a lot of that happening.

I propose all lectures be properly labeled so I can avoid them!

[eallen]

50. There's a very real issue here, and it's not easy.

We're living in a strange time. The 21st century has opened with religious wars. Islamic fundamentalists keep their own nations in theocratic bondage, where girls are executed for adultery, and men are executed for homosexual liaisons. In the western world, Islamic terrorists fly planes into buildings and bomb subways. In our own nation, the Christian fundamentalists are politically energized and seem intent on rolling the political and scientific clock back to the early 19th century.

Many of us who are secular liberals look at this, and say that faith isn't just an aspect of the religious right here and abroad, but is core to the problem. Our basic response to James Dobson and bin Laden is: there is no rational basis for your views, because they are grounded in religious faith. If you want to practice that faith in private, that is fine. But when you try to apply it publicly, we will oppose you.

That leaves the problem that most liberals are also people of faith, who take umbrage at a criticism of faith, per se. The usual tactic is to ignore that most of us are people of faith, and some of us not, and to work on common political goals. And that likely makes the most sense.

The problem is, a person of faith doesn't really have much basis for criticizing those whose faith is different. There's nothing more futile than a liberal and conservative Christian throwing opposing faith at each other, since in the end, for each, it is nothing but faith. Jesus isn't conservative and he isn't liberal. He is whatever the faithful want him to be. I don't claim more success debating a freeper, but at least, I can point to where his sickness is: "Hey, faith is make-believe. It's fantasy. Until you're ready to drop it, grow up, and discuss things in a rational manner, which means in part excluding faith-based claims, there's no point in talking." Of course, when I say that to a conservative Christian, the liberal Christian at my side goes, "wait a minute there, podner." OK, so what am I supposed to say to the conservative Christian or Muslim, who uses their faith to ply a political program that would take away our freedoms?

[C_U_L8R]

51. I'm christian and am horrified

at all the evil crap that is being done in the name of "God".
Sanctimonious preachers and holy rollers who vouch for Jesus
while pissing on the poor and fighting wars for oil.
That's the blasphemy. It's abhorant.
These fundie fuckheads and rapture lunatics don't speak for me
and I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't want squat to do with em.
I hope they rot in hell. They truly deserve it.

I hope people continue to speak out and defend their religion
(whatever their religion) from fundamentalist stupidity.

[eallen]

54. Well, see, James Dobson feels exactly the same about you.

And he's pretty sure that Jesus is on his side, and wouldn't want squat to do with you.

Now, you call that "fundamentalist stupidity." But here's my question: why is his view any more stupid than yours? If it boils down to faith, there simply is no answer to that. You have your faith and your Jesus. He has his faith and his Jesus. And that is all there is to it. If it is is a matter of how to view the Bible, then it boils down to faith. If it is a matter of what Jesus says in your heart, then it boils down to faith.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad for liberal Christians. I just don't know why they think James Dobson is stupid.

:hippie:

[C_U_L8R]

75. If James Dobson is a good man....

then there's no point having this discussion.

Good luck.

[madeline_con]

160. "... why they think James Dobson is stupid."

Have you seen his site?

For one thing, rampant homophobia.

And, new and exciting ways to entice women who might be "abortion minded" into your clinic, to prevent them having an abortion? HIV testing! Yep, the days of offering free pregnancy tests were great, but they need a new catch to start the process of trying to make women feel ashamed and worthless...

He does not have "his Jesus", he just thinks he does. Jesus would slap the shit out of him!

As for "how to view the Bible", Jesus was pretty clear in his message, and I don't recall the hatefull bull I hear from so-called righteous men who have billion dollar "ministries" being part of that message.

[eallen]

171. His faith tells him that that is what Jesus wants.

If you want to reason about the Bible, based on evidence, it is the syncretic result of a long period of political and religious composition, of mostly unknown authorship, open to wide interpretation. On the basis of reason and evidence, it's impossible to say how the historical Jesus would respond to Dobson, because we have scant historical knowledge of Jesus, all the stories about him having been written decades afterwords to a particular religious purpose. Your notion that "Jesus would slap the shit out of him" is not based on any historical reconstruction of a factual Jesus, but is based on your understanding of the Bible, and your faith.

Dobson has a different understanding, and a different faith.

Without the faith, Jesus is a largely mythical figure, whose historical basis is so slight that it is difficult to say much about him, and certainly not how he would view modern politics.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

185. James Dobson is a long way

from stupid. A long, long way. As a matter of fact, back 20 years ago when I was parenting, his books and series were excellent. They barely mentioned God. Just solid psychological and counseling advice. Then he went ka-boom or something. His ego exploded. I don't know what happened.

[Evoman]

53. Tolerance is expected, dignity is deserved, and respect is earned.

MY belief is that religion is intellectually bankrupt and completely fabricated. That is what I believe...I believe it not because I am atheist (atheism requires no belief) but because I am Evoman. Now then, are you required to respect my beliefs?

Not at all. In fact, you don't really. If you did, you wouldn't be complaining about it. You tolerate my opinions, of course. And for that I thank you. Now, if you were to try to get the mods to stop me from expressing my views (i.e that christianity is a falshood), then you would no longer be tolerant, and you and I would have a problem.

Respect is earned, and religion has not earned my respect. I tolerate religion..if I did not, I would be either attempted to convert people, or trying to destroy religious people, which I am not. And of course, you deserve to be treated with dignity, which is why I always separate the belief from the believer.

Now then, I've noticed that Christians here are often the first to complain about "tolerance" and lack of respect". But many of them behave IN THE EXACT SAME WAY when other people express their views. The disrespect towards scientoligists, for example, is palpable "Scientology is a fraud, or stupid, or silly". I've also heard one particular Christian tell me that the Bushman Mantis god was a false god and the religion was bunk. Hows that for respect?

Don't confuse respect and tolerance. I tolerate you. I tolerate your religion. I respect YOU. But I have no respect whatsoever for your religion.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

186. But are you able to respect me

even in the face of the fact that my beliefs are different from yours?

That's the question. Not respecting my religion. But me, within that religion.

[Evoman]

203. Yes

I can respect you, and I do respect you. I don't see you as being within a religion...I see religion as a little piece of you. My girlfriend likes Cheese Whiz, has developed a taste for it as a kid. I can't stand that shit, having never grown up on it, and it grosses me out when she eats it. But I still love her...

Now, respect is earned. However, it takes very little for someone to earn my respect. It takes repeated obesrvations of something causing harm for me to lose the respect. You have never lost my respect. Christianiy has never had my respect.

[TreasonousBastard]

55. Yes it is, and it's...

been that way for some time, unfortunately. When I was a mod we talked about this a lot, and I can't divulge what we did or didn't do about it, but I can say that aside from nuking a few of the worst offenders on both sides, we didn't see the situation as critical. Unfortunately, you do need a star to get into the other religious groups here.

If you try to ignore the obvious flamebait or really ignorant remarks (and they aren't all that common, although they sometimes seem to jump out) there is a a strange sort of community here, and I've been pleasantly surprised that even some of the more militant anti-theists here aren't really intereseted in ripping my religious throat out. Most of them are good people who might seem to be over-reacting, but aren't really attacking us, just raging at what they put up with every day.

I suspect many consider this a "safe place" to rant when they can't yell at the boss with the huge Ten Commandments in his office.

This forum will never be a scholarly theology forum, but there a are a few threads here and there that can be very interesting.

FWIW, a list I'm on is collecting a list of progressive religious blogs, which I hope to post when it gets a little bigger. It seems that there are at least 50 times as many fundie blogs as progressive ones, and it's about time we caught up.

[Vidar]

57. I have to agree, well said

[beam me up scottie]

61. I don't agree, not well said.

If people of faith can't be bothered to address the individuals who so grievously injure them when and if such a crime occurs, it would be really nice if they would stop posting broad brush lectures that make it sound like DU atheists are running amok skewering christians with our plastic pirate swords.


After reading countless "Don't do this/Don't say that" threads, I have yet to hear one valid reason why I should pretend to worship someone else's deity and have faith in their religious superstitions.


And that works both ways.


There is a christian on DU who has told us on numerous occasions that he believes atheists are going to hell.

I was angry the first few times I heard it, but then I realized that he wasn't telling me I was going to hell to offend me, he was just being honest about what he believes.

I won't ask Jeb (not his real name) to stop telling me what he believes.

That wouldn't be fair, and I actually respect Reb (not his real name) for being honest.

Just like asking atheists to pretend religious myths and superstitions are real isn't fair, and it would be dishonest for us to do so.

How the hell are we supposed to discuss religion if nobody can be honest?

Until and unless skinner bans all religious discussion on DU, all we can ask is that people don't turn honesty into a weapon to wound our fellow liberals.

[Random_Australian]

63. I'll agree with that. Very well put Bmus. And for the record, I do try to

calm debate by helping people use language that is not misinterpreted, so no calling me a malicious atheist. Well, with what I have planned, I don't think people will.

[neebob]

66. What?

We have plastic pirate swords? I didn't get mine. I want my plastic pirate sword!

[beam me up scottie]

145. Damn that Evoman and his preoccupation with his Ass Pimple god...

I told him to put them in the newbie kits.

Sorry about the confusion, here is your sword:


and I'm throwing in a couple of extras to make up for the oversight:

[neebob]

158. How thoughtful of you.

I especially appreciate the XXXXXX-large eye patch; it fits perfectly around my BIG FAT ATHEIST HEAD. I will practice with the sword until I can do it without the hat falling off. Thanks ... er, I mean aaarrrggghhh!

*Runs around room, waving plastic pirate sword in an extremely menacing manner*

*Stops to pick up hat*

*Stabs imaginary theist who says I can't say religion is a myth*

*Picks up hat*

*Pokes Santa Claus in the butt, just for fun - and by the way, Southpawkicker, he's still conferring with God on what to do to you*

*Picks up hat*

*Stabs imaginary theist trying to make me be nice*

*Picks up hat*

Well, that's enough practice for one evening. By the way, this is a very cool plastic pirate sword.

[beam me up scottie]

159. Yeah, this pirate gig is great.

We've deconverted a lot of believers with it.

Well, that and the beer volcanos waiting for us on The Other Side.

Nothing trumps beer volcanoes and pirate costumes.

[Evoman]

193. Gar, matey. Get off me back, ye mangy land-lubber.

Unless ye be wanting the Ass-Pimple God to wipe the poop-deck with ye.

[Zebedeo]

161. Hey, I resemble that remark

;)












"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne

[Realityhack]

216. Now THAT was well put n/t

[salvorhardin]

64. Actually quite a few believers make offensive remarks to atheists

All the time. Despite being repeatedly asked to not define our beliefs (or lack thereof) for us or to put words in our mouths. It still happens.

I don't mean to imply that because these few believers behave in this manner that any atheist is justified in behaving offensively in retribution. I don't think that's either justified or respectful of the vast majority of believers on DU who respect atheists.

I'm just pointing out that there does seem to be a bit of a double standard.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

187. I have an opinion on that

Sal...

But remember I'm a pushover mush. So take it with a grain of salt.

I think when Xtians attempt to define atheists, what they are doing is trying to reach out and find a commonality. Because to a person of faith, that 'atheist' tag can be a huge brick wall, and that is uncomfortable and sad. So we attempt to find a way over. And in doing so, generally piss you all off.

Oh well..no harm intended!

[Evoman]

192. Call me cynical, but I don't buy it.

Its not about reaching out and finding a commonality...its about finding a method of attacking a position that can't be attacked. Atheism can't be attacked, because its literally nothing...its a non-belief. You can bang your head as much as you want trying to find a commonality, but in the end, atheism asserts NOTHING...which makes it an unassailable position (not because its better, or more intelligent, mind you..but because its no position at all, really).

So christians, in essence, have to insist that Atheism is equal to Christianity in its claims, and in doing so, brings it up (or down) to its level. I'm sure it makes Christians uncomfortable, and I understand its frustrating, but thats the reality. You can insist as much as you want that the positions are equally strong, but its not going to make it true. Atheism is the default, and being such, requires absolutely no faith whatsoever.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

194. Ah, but in asserting [i]nothing[/i] arent they then asserting something?

Atheists bond togeather in their beleif in nothing, just as theists bond together in the belief of something. I find that basically the same thing. Technically speaking, atheism is just as valid a religion as christianity, for there does need to be faith in science, and in the unknown, and that what is unknown must also need to be explainable in science or other naturalistic way. That is a type of faith.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

197. Incoming!

[cosmik debris]

199. I think he/she just disproved your previous point n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

208. I think you are right!

At least from his perspective.

[Evoman]

200. Lol...I'm not gonna get into this AGAIN.

If you've had any conversations with atheists here, you would know what are you are doing in this post is considered an insult. Mainly, because it is based on your ignorance of atheism. But thats okay...I understand your inability to understand atheism. You take it for granted that god exists, so to you it would look like atheism takes faith. But it does not. It is not a type of faith. I have NO FAITH and if you continue to insist I do, we are going to have problems.

Thats all I'm going to say about it, because its been said to many times before.

[cosmik debris]

204. In your original post that started this thread you said

"So please, before you make a remark that someone may find offensive (other than freepers, because I think we can all agree on one thing), just think about how you would feel if someone made the same remark to you."

You seem to be ignoring your own advice.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

196. Well, I have to tell you

you aren't describing me. I have a number of atheist friends and when we discuss it I find myself looking for our similarities rather than focusing on our differences. But that's just my nature. I have always been a "fixer." I have spent years in therapy trying to move away from that.

I will tell you honestly that I never looked at Atheism as something that couldn't be attacked. I mean, that "frustration" honestly never occurred to me. Somebody doesn't believe in God, they don't believe in God. I don't ask them to prove that they are right, and expect the same and get it. But I'm not like a professional debater or anything like that. I honestly don't care.

I don't mean that in a snarky way. I care about the people..I just don't care what they believe or don't.

[Evoman]

201. I didn't think I was describing you.

Although sometimes I don't think you quite understand what we are talking about when we assert that we have no faith. I honestly don't think anybody who believes in god really understands it, given that to them, god most certainly does exist and it would take FAITH to not believe in him. Your an exception in that you don't push it and for that I thank you.

Evoman

[TallahasseeGrannie]

213. I probably don't fully understand

what life would be like without faith. And it has nothing to do with religion. I actually haven't been to church for quite a while now, as all the Episcopal churches in my town have split apart and I am very conflicted about it.

Now, do believe this. There is a small voice within that says "maybe it isn't so and you are just delusional." So I am certainly willing to consider that. But yet even my subconscious tells me there is something, because I dream about it.

Sometimes I wonder if we aren't like the Borg. A huge collective. Some of us are plugged into the mother ship and some of us are not. Those of us who are have one job to do, and those who are not have another. Kind of like bees.

Okay. I'm buzzed. I admit it. (no pun intended)

Have a good weekend.

[neebob]

65. You would fight and die to preserve my right to view life how I choose?

Gladly? Really? And you swear to me that you would do this. But if I say religion is a myth, a falsehood, or idiocy - and I probably wouldn't say idiocy, but I might say myth or falsehood in a certain context, and I probably wouldn't be addressing you personally, in a way that you could reasonably call an attack, because it doesn't much matter to me what you believe - you get all offended.

Why do I not believe you on that swearing to fight and die thing? Call me a skeptic.

[mogster]

67. Here, OK, at home not OK

I agree that there should be debate with some consideration here at the DU, no matter what religious affiliation one has.
Back home I'm not that forgiving, and have devoted, and will continue to devote, a cosiderable amount of time to kick neo-Christian ass. I am a Christian too, you know. I was baptized at birth, and are subsequently of God's flock. The rest is a question of faith. Or doubt.

But at the core I'm a liberal, I'm not ashamed of that, I will never BE ashamed of that, and I think MY values trumph Christian values, every time.
I live and breathe liberalism, and if the neo-Christians does not release their clammy grip on my society, I'll fight it - and if need be, erase every trace of it.
I don't fight the fundie version of Jewish religion, or the fundie version of Muslim religion too much - that should be done by moderate Muslims or moderate Jews. Each kick it's own. There's a strict code built into me by my upbringing forbidding that. The same goes when I'm 'abroad', concerning Christians. There are limits.

Christianity is infected by an evil strain that resembles nazism, fascism, everything evil, and uses commercialism as their tool, to brainwash people. If there ever was a religion that kills people, with no remorse whatsoever, it's Christianity. They have adopted every deadly sin; gluttony, sloth, wrath, pride, envy and greed, turning Jesus upside down and making him their war hero. Take a look at the pathetic crowd of 'compassionate conservatives' and see how they feed off society without giving anything back. All in the name of God. Fucking sneaks.

There's a reason for everything, and if people ridicule the religions, it's because of the distinct odor of death that goes with them.

[GeorgeGist]

68. I hope you're not offended but ...

do you have more faith in religion or in your soul?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

70. Thats a good question

and I would have to say my soul.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

71. I realize that some do criticize atheist and agnostic beliefs

but that does not afford the right to criticize back. I would never say that what you beilieve or dont believe is false, or a myth, just because I don't believe in it. And yes I would fight and die to protect your rights, thats what this country, and my morals, are all about, and I am glad to have a good discussion without too much negativity, something that could almost only happen here on DU. If you were to merely say that you disagreed or did not believe, then I would have no problem, and would not try to convert you, in fact, I wouldnt even talk about it unless you wanted to have a discussion such as this one or some other discussion/debate. And I am sorry to say that most Christians are not like me in that respect. But out of respect, not for faith, or beliefs, or religion, but for humanity and brotherhood, I just ask that certain labels be not applied. I dont think a mod should make a rule or anything like that, any suppression of speech I dont like, just realize that you might offend someone, and if it is your goal to do this, then just dont post. Liberalism is about tolerance, acceptance, and loving everyone for who and what they are, and for all of us, this includes what/who/if we believe.

[eallen]

76. There is an important asymmetry you're missing.

I don't want to get into the whole semantic issue over what is an atheist or an agnostic. Imagine, though, what would happen if you simply lacked faith, and the beliefs that came from it. That is what many of us nonbelievers are. We do not propose alternate beliefs to religious beliefs. We do not propose an alternate faith. And you can't say what I don't believe is a fantasy or myth, because that just doesn't make sense. (Well, you can say it, but it still doesn't make sense.)

The tension, as I posted above, is that the basic criticism that many of us secular liberals make of those on the religious right, of both James Dobson and Osama bin Laden, is precisely that they are acting on faith. I understand that any criticism aimed at their faith per se is going to sting the liberal believers at my political side. "Wait? What do you mean? Are you saying it is their faith that makes the religious right nuts?" Well, yeah. What else would it be?

I'm not sure how liberal Christians propose to criticize people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Gary Bauer. Sharing a common faith, or somewhat common faith, I guess it's a matter of telling them that they get Jesus wrong. But since that statement, or any similar religious statement, is based on faith, Jerry Falwell has just as much basis for saying that liberal Christians get Jesus wrong. They're both arguments that work only for those whose faith already generates the same answer.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

79. The difference is

a true liberal Christian would not try to force their faith onto you, whereas a conservative* one does. A liberal accepts your choice of beliefs (or lack there of, but not believing is still a type of belief) and a conservative* does not.

*most, there are always exceptions

[trotsky]

81. "a true liberal Christian would not try to force their faith onto you"

You're missing the point. That in itself is a statement of your faith.

The worst abuses and wars in Christian history came about when one group insisted that they knew what "true" Christianity was. I don't think you want to go there.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

83. the quotes were more "true liberal"

[trotsky]

91. So what you're saying is that liberal and conserative Christians

are equally valid expressions of the Christian faith. Is that correct?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

93. Yes, as is moderate, and any other way

Any view of anything is valid, I may not agree with it, but they are all valid, they are just different.

[trotsky]

95. Thank you for acknowledging that.

I hope more Christians can come to your level of realization.

However, it does bring up its own set of problems. Moving away from Christianity specifically, is it a valid view that there is a comet that's going to swing by and pick us up as long as we commit suicide by putting on tennis shoes, drinking a poison, and putting a black bag over our heads?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

97. Lol, well, technically, yes, it is as valid

its just a little odd (my own personal opinion). But it is just as valid as saying that Gramps talked to a burning bush.

[trotsky]

101. But let's think about that for a bit.

Say you had a child in the UFO/Comet cult and knew of their plans. Would you do something to stop them?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

102. Yes I would

because I would try to save his/her life. As a parent, thats kind of a requirement (even though I believe suicide should be legalized, its not our place to dictate that). I think you're having to go a little far there for me to be hypocritical. Just because I am a Christian doesnt mean I'm like the rest.

[trotsky]

103. Stay with me.

Wouldn't you be saying, then, that your child's and/or the UFO cultists' view is invalid, then?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

105. Soley based on my parental status, yes, because

I would not be able to accept it. But if they chose any other path through life that did not include offing themself or sacrificing virgins or anything like that, I would not interfere. (Or if they got too hateful and intolerant of others)

[trotsky]

107. But you just said that other views were equally valid.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, because now you're putting restrictions on what a "valid" view is. Can't be too extreme. But too extreme compared to what?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

108. Haha, do you see how far you had to go to make me contradict myself?

I doubt you would let your kin drink the coolaid. By-the-by and totally unrelated, I like your name!

[trotsky]

109. Not too far, actually.

Just framing things a little closer to home.

My point is, it's impossible to take the view that "everyone's beliefs are equally valid." In order to live together in a society, we HAVE to prioritize one view over another. Since religious-based views don't offer up empirical evidence or otherwise verifiable data to support themselves, I think the rationalist/naturalist approach is the one society MUST use. That today's most stable and peaceful states are also the least religious speaks to that well.

Thanks for the compliment on the name, just know it's not at all related to the historical Trotsky. (As you can imagine, I have to bring that up a lot.)

[Dragonbreathp9d]

111. Well, based off of scientific evidence

there is just a hair more for non-theistic views. Having a document of some type (no matter how much it may have been changed, corrupted, or made to be representative instead of fact, is still a piece of evidence, and estimated times of Noah's Flood jog with scientifically identified time periods where human life drastically decreased and with the birth of othe religions that begin life with a flood. And more and more scientists are finding things that really could support or defraud religion. I actually find scientific takes on theology fascinating. So, while non-theist views do have MORE evidence, theist views are not without some evidence.

[trotsky]

116. Just a hair?

I'm going to have to intensely disagree with you on that point. The overwhelming amount of evidence for the naturalistic worldivew is undeniable. Much of religion is hiding in the few spots where answers aren't clear yet. The old "god of the gaps" theology. You're doing it here - claming that the time of the legend of Noah's flood "jog"s with time periods when human population "drastically decreased." (By the way, do you have a reference for this claim?) You, like many religious believers, are looking for a little gap in scientific knowledge so you can insert a religious belief.

Is there scientific evidence that some of the events described in the bible actually occurred? Sure there is. Is there any evidence that they occurred A) exactly AS described in the bible, or B) as a result of divine intervention? Absolutely not. It should not be surprising that a religious text refers to actual events that happened during the time it was written. But that doesn't validate the rest of the religious text, it just proves that the people who wrote it were aware of the actual event.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

118. I'll see if I can find a source

I saw it on a doc on Discovery or History or somthing. And if you're looking for proof of devine anything... you'll never find it. I will concede this point, unless God came down and bitchslapped Bush on national TV, there will never be anything to prove it, and I don't think many things happened EXACTLY as stated in texts. But there are a lot of holes in scientific theory as well, and a lot of it is just theory, the same thing as faith really. Just as you cannot prove that God does exist, you cannot prove that he/she/it doesnt. Even if at some point science can explain everything with no gaps (albeit unlikely or with coincidences that might as well be devine), it still will not prove or disprove the existance of something more or higher or lower or whatever.

[trotsky]

124. There is no need to prove gods don't exist.

Just as there is no need to prove that huge green pigs DON'T live in the Andromeda galaxy. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim. Atheists don't claim anything, they just don't accept theists' claims.

Hiding your god in the gaps of knowledge is fine, but you need to realize that's what you're doing.

[Evoman]

150. And the gaps are getting smaller and smaller and smaller.

Pretty soon people are going to start saying that "god is everything" or the "god is the universe" or that god is some non-detectable energy swimming in all of us.

Oh wait...

[Dragonbreathp9d]

195. Ever read Stranger In A Strange Land?

My favorite book actually.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

191. Valid

but dysfunctional and also illegal. We can always find comfort in the everlasting arms of Lady Justice!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

189. I think so, yes.

And therein lies the rub.

Sucks, doesn't it?

[eallen]

84. Do you distinguish faith-based beliefs, in that regard?

The fact is, we -- all of us -- routinely base policies on our beliefs. We pass laws that require school children to be vaccinated and that require municipal water supplies to be chlorinated, because of beliefs about the efficacy of those practices in controlling certain diseases. There are fringe groups who oppose these practices. The reason I support these policies anyway is not just that the large majority share my view, but because that view is grounded not in faith, but in empirical evidence. Similarly, I think public schools should teach science courses, including evolution.

Of course, I'm happy for adults to choose whatever course they want. If some believer wants to suffer the inevitable demise from a fatal disease, because the treatment goes against their faith, I'm happy to let them go their way. But in making public policy, where it has a positive element, I make no pretense in wanting that decided on evidence, with faith completely set aside.

Does my support for this "pushing" of belief make me illiberal? If so, I'm not sure how we're supposed to discuss policy at all. Every policy is based on some positive claims about the world. And if liberals have to stand neutral on that, well... they pretty much cut the floor out from under themselves.

A different tact is to say that it is alright to push evidence-based beliefs in issues of public policy, but not faith-based beliefs. That difference makes a lot of sense to me. Of course. But many people of faith would object that that proposal makes faith second-rate.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

85. I think I actually base my faith around my beliefs

not the other way around. I basically found Christianity on my own and found that it jogged with what I already believe (morally et al)

[okasha]

110. It's about power, not faith

The tension, as I posted above, is that the basic criticism that many of us secular liberals make of those on the religious right, of both James Dobson and Osama bin Laden, is precisely that they are acting on faith. I understand that any criticism aimed at their faith per se is going to sting the liberal believers at my political side. "Wait? What do you mean? Are you saying it is their faith that makes the religious right nuts?" Well, yeah. What else would it be?

I'm not sure how liberal Christians propose to criticize people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Gary Bauer. Sharing a common faith, or somewhat common faith, I guess it's a matter of telling them that they get Jesus wrong. But since that statement, or any similar religious statement, is based on faith, Jerry Falwell has just as much basis for saying that liberal Christians get Jesus wrong. They're both arguments that work only for those whose faith already generates the same answer.

Osama bin Laden and James Dobson--and you can throw in the whole tribe of Muqtada al Sadr and Falwell and their ilk--are not acting on faith. They are acting on a desire for power. Religious zeal is the fig leaf they use to try to hide that desire for power. Falwell may be able to get his fellow Southern Baptists to go along with the idea of building a righteous nation, but he would have far less success if he were honest about his desire to build himself a 10,000 sq.ft. mansion and a bloated Swiss bank account.

It's not all that hard to separate the liberal Christians from the religious right. All you have to do is look at their records. Liberal Christians were at the root of the African-American civil rights movements of the 1960's. Liberal Jews, liberal atheists and liberal pagans were right in there with them. Liberal Christians have been in the thick of the fight for equal rights for gays ever since Stonewall. They've championed women's rights and the cause of the poor. So have liberal Jews, liberal atheists and liberal pagans. Liberal Christians oppose the identification of church and state. So do liberal members of other religions and liberals of no religion. Liberal Christians have consistently been at the core of movements in opposition to Latin American and other dictators--Bishop Oscar Romero, anyone?--and racist regimes in South Africa and elsewhere--Desmond Tutu, for example. Liberal Christians are involved in enviromental movements accross the globe--as a liberals of all other philosophical and religious stripes. So are some who are religiously conservative but socially liberal.

The religious right, on the other hand, has gone missing in every one of the causes that is designed to expand legal protection of minority or oppressed populations. They've gone missing in every effort to improve living conditions for the disenfranchised and to protect the environment. So have the non-religious right and right-wing atheists. I'll include right-wing pagans, too, even though I've never met one. In every case, they have abetted the consolidation of power in the hands of right-wing governments with the expectation of sharing in that power.

It's very true that each side claims the other has Jesus wrong. If you make the criterion the words attributed to Jesus, though, it's fairly clear which side has him right, and the distinction has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. It has to do with action. Jesus denouced the dictators and tyrants of his day. He called the outcast, the oppressed and the so-called "unclean" into his community. He preached economic justice. Which set of Christians behaves similarly?

Slam dunk. It's that "by their fruits you shall know them" thing.

[trotsky]

112. Ah, if only it were that clear.

Osama bin Laden and James Dobson--and you can throw in the whole tribe of Muqtada al Sadr and Falwell and their ilk--are not acting on faith. They are acting on a desire for power.

How do you know that? Can you read their minds? How do you justify such a blanket statement?

It's just not that simple. Conservative Christians have helped the world, too. Even Pat Robertson has an organization to feed the hungry. Oh I'm sure you're thinking, "Well, it pales on comparison to what the REAL Christians do." Uh-uh, no qualifiers. You said this was a slam dunk.

Not everything is always black-and-white, okasha, no matter how much you want it to be.

[okasha]

120. Can't read their minds and (eew!) wouldn't want to

Trotsky, how do you judge a person's intent? Do you give more emphasis to what a person says, or what a person does? I justify my statement about Falwell because he has a history of seeking power. Ditto Osama. Ditto Pat Robertson. Ditto Sadr--he doesn't keep a militia around just to have somebody to play poker with on Saturday night, after all.

Yes, conservative Christians have helped the world,too. I believe I mentioned that. I've also been quite careful to distinguish between conservative Christians per se and the religious right. Example: one of my dearest friends is a member of an independent Baptist Church. Son of an East Texas Baptist fire-and-brimstone preacher. He believes in the divinity of Christ, the literal resurrection and a host of other miraculous occurences reported in the gospels. He's a conservative Christian. He's also an evolutionary biologist and has devoted the last thirty years of his life to environmental justice causes. His closest partner in that work is an atheist. He's never tried to "save" me, a gay pagan, or any of his atheist/agnostic friends. He's one of the good guys, based on his actions.

Oh I'm sure you're thinking, "Well, it pales on comparison to what the REAL Christians do." Uh-uh, no qualifiers. You said this was a slam dunk.

Who's mind-reading now, Miss Cleo? I haven't called either camp "REAL Christians." If Jerry Falwell wants to call himself a Christian, I have no quarrel with that. If Jerry Falwell claims to act in accord with the teachings of Jesus, he can be called on the discrepancies between his claim and his actions. His thoughts aren't public domain. His actions are.

And a general comment: the best explanation I've seen of the dynamics of the religious right in the United States is Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy. Recommended reading, even though it will scare you out of ten years' growth.

[trotsky]

123. Your argument, then, has nothing to do with religion

but the superiority of the liberal political viewpoint over the conservative one.

I don't think you'll find many detractors on DU. But why link religion in, then?

If Jerry Falwell claims to act in accord with the teachings of Jesus, he can be called on the discrepancies between his claim and his actions.

But as has been pointed out numerous times, how do we know exactly what "the teachings of Jesus" are? Jesus didn't say a thing about homosexuality. Is gay marriage OK according to Jesus? What about abortion? What were Jesus' teachings on that?

[okasha]

133. Why bring religion in?

Because eallen did, and that is the poster to whom I was responding.

But as has been pointed out numerous times, how do we know exactly what "the teachings of Jesus" are? Jesus didn't say a thing about homosexuality. Is gay marriage OK according to Jesus? What about abortion? What were Jesus' teachings on that?

You don't really want a long essay on form, source and redaction criticism, do you? Let's simplify it. We know what actions and teachings have been attributed to Jesus because those are recorded in the gospels, both the official four and the para-evanglical books (Thomas, Barnabas, Mary, etc.). Using those as a basis:

Jesus is not recorded as saying anything about homosexuality, but he is recorded as doing something. In Matthew 8, a Roman centurion asks Jesus to heal his "beloved youth." Jesus does so, praising the Roman's faith above his fellow Israelites'. No screed about a "sinful lifestyle," or "repenting and sinning no more." He just heals the young man and commends his lover for his devotion. He also doesn't seem to mind being called "Son of David," who was Jonathan's lover.

There is no direct statement about abortion in the teachings attributed to Jesus. It is, however, worth noting that the Jewish law of the time--like most laws in the western world prior to the nineteenth century--regarded abortion as an option for ending a preganancy up until the point of "quickening," when the mother feels the baby move.

[trotsky]

134. No fair dodging.

I think trying to extend Matthew 8 to cover a tacit approval of homosexual marriage is a LOOOOOOOONG reach. And in the NIV, the centurion is referring to his servant, not "beloved youth." So there's the translation issue, which again supports my point - we really can't be sure what those teachings were.

Likewise with your dodge on abortion - you admit my point (Jesus never said anything about it) yet try to state that it was settled anyway. But there's disagreement - it's clearly not a settled issue, and even the oldest Christian institution in the world has changed its stance.

[okasha]

137. The dodging is yours, Trotsky.

I never said anything about "extending Matthew 8 to cover a tacit approval of homosexual marriage." That's your misreading. I pointed out that Jesus, according to Matthew, treats homosexual people just as he does any other sort of people. He praises their faith when they have it, and heals them when they ask for it. Regardless of what the NIV says in English, the Greek word is paide, "youth." And intimos, with its roots in time ("honor," "public reputation"} is not a word a Roman officer would use about someone who simply polished his armor and ran his bath water.

Yes, in Jesus' time and place, the issue of abortion was settled. Yes, it's unsettled now. What's your point?

[trotsky]

140. I specifically asked what Jesus' teachings were w.r.t. gay marriage.

You offered up Matthew 8, so what else am I supposed to assume? I didn't realize that your utter failure to address the point was just that - an utter failure. Same with the abortion issue. Jesus didn't speak of it AT ALL. You couldn't address that either, instead copping out to say it was "settled" then. Prove it.

What are your credentials, by the way, that put you in a position to tell the translators and editors of the NIV they were wrong?

[okasha]

152. Trotsky, you're beginning to bore me.

You said: Jesus didn't say a thing about homosexuality.

That was the point I was addressing. He didn't say anything on the subject that we're aware of. He did do something. Even though he is not recorded as saying anything on the subject of marriage equality, he treats homosexual people with exactly the same respect and compassion he shows to others seeking his help. That doesn't necessarily imply anything about marriage because marriage in Roman/Greek/Jewish law was essentially an economic relationship between a provider and his (almost always his) dependents. The protections and privileges of marriage could be secured by other means by same-sex couples in the ancient world. We are told that David and Jonathan made a "covenant." Same gender adults could be adopted as heirs. (Just as a side note, however, there were some medieval Catholic theologians who regarded the relationship between Jesus and the Beloved Disciple as a "spiritual marriage." King James VI/I of KJV fame, seemed to think so, too, when he compared his relationship with George Villiers to that betweeen Jesus and John. And here we are dealing with more modern, romantic ideas about marriage.)

You couldn't address that either, instead copping out to say it was "settled" then. Prove it.

Exodus 21:22-25. A fetus is property; it is not treated as human life.
In another passage, Numbers 5:11-31, a woman suspected of adultery is to be given an abortifascient. If she miscarries, she is guilty. If she does not, she is innocent. This certainly implies quite clearly that abortion was not regarded as an evil. The favored means of controlling family size in the ancient Mediterranean world, however, was to expose or sell off an unwanted infant.

My credentials are degrees in languages and literature, including Classics; teaching and research in both areas and in linguistics.

How about yours?

[trotsky]

156. A shame, you were boring me several threads ago.

I've used those very verses arguing with fundies, and they have explanations at the ready.

I'm sorry you just don't get it - but please, direct your perfect understanding of everything Jesus said and meant to those who are using a supposedly incorrect interpretation of his studies to make life miserable for all of us, won't you? Or is it just more fun to use me as a proxy?

[trotsky]

164. The New Living Translation

Arguably the most liberal one, definitely one of THE most recent ones, uses the word servant, with a footnote of "Possibly child." Not "youth," not "lover," not anything remotely suggesting a homosexual partner.

So, tell me how your degrees make you a better expert than the following people responsible for that translation:

GOSPELS AND ACTS

Grant R. Osborne, Senior Translator
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Matthew

Craig Blomberg
Denver Seminary

Donald A.Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

David Turner
Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary

Mark

Robert Guelich (deceased)
Fuller Theological Seminary

George Guthrie
Union University

Grant R. Osborne
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Luke

Darrell Bock
Dallas Theological Seminary

Scot McKnight
North Park University

Robert Stein
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

John

Gary M. Burge
Wheaton College

Philip W. Comfort
Coastal Carolina University

Marianne Meye Thompson
Fuller Theological Seminary

Acts

D. A. Carson
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

William J. Larkin
Columbia International University

Roger Mohrlang
Whitworth College

[okasha]

165. No creds, eh? Thought so.

I'm not familiar with the NLT, but I am familiar with the reputation of some of the very, very conservative schools cited on that list of translators. Don't know how anyone makes "liberal" out of Wheaton College or the SBC. Wheaton recently expelled a gay student for being gay when he was a few credits short of his degree.

[trotsky]

167. okasha, I can't find a single translation that agrees with you.

NLT has been referred to as a very liberal translation, so I took it as an example.

But the bias of any translator should be noted - yourself included. Why do so many other translators disagree with you? What makes your credibility superior to theirs?

[okasha]

169. The NLT is the product of Wheaton College.

Its direct antecedent, apparently, was the Living Bible, which was/is a radically conservative paraphrase. The NLT was compiled by "ninety evangelical scholars." See

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html

Check your sources, Trotsky. That's the first principle of research.

Again: it is not exclusively "my" translation. Other scholars have been there before me and after me.

Are you seriously asking why traditional Christian translators would avoid terminology that would suggest Jesus approved of, in any degree, a same-sex relationship? Even the Jeruasalem Bible, which is otherwise the best rendition of the original texts, not only dances around the question but goes out of its way to draw parallels between the destruction of Sodom for supposedly homosexual activity and the tale of the Levite and his murdered concubine.

You still haven't produced any credentials, Trotsky. As Stephen of Ireland says in Braveheart, "Answer the fookin' question!"

[trotsky]

170. okasha, I keep telling you - this isn't about me.

Quit leveling your attacks at me the person, and focus on the argument, won't you?

It's about your opinion (and that of some unnamed "other scholars") versus the opinion of the translators and editors of every major bible version I've been able to check. You insist that your reading is correct, while everyone else is wrong. I'm wondering how you justify that claim.

[okasha]

174. See above.

Stepping out of this discussion. You're stonewalling and adding nothing productive.

[trotsky]

175. Step out if you must, I merely asked why your translation

is better than that of the people who translated every other bible I've been able to check. You are unable (or unwilling) to answer that question. You tell me who's stonewalling.

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C008.htm

Hort and Westcott
kai legwn kurie o paiV mou beblhtai en th oikia paralutikoV deinwV basanizomenoV (Greek font did not copy)

Latin Vulgate
8:6 et dicens Domine puer meus iacet in domo paralyticus et male torquetur

King James Version
8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

American Standard Version
8:6 and saying, Lord, my servant lieth in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

Bible in Basic English
8:6 Saying, Lord, my servant is ill in bed at the house, with no power in his body, and in great pain.

Darby's English Translation
8:6 and saying, Lord, my servant lies paralytic in the house, suffering grievously.

Douay Rheims
8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and is grieviously tormented.

Noah Webster Bible
8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick with the palsy, grievously tormented.

Weymouth New Testament
8:6 "Sir," he said, "my servant at home is lying ill with paralysis, and is suffering great pain."

World English Bible
8:6 and saying, "Lord, my servant lies in the house paralyzed, grievously tormented."

Young's Literal Translation
8:6 and saying, `Sir, my young man hath been laid in the house a paralytic, fearfully afflicted,`

Young's Literal Translation is the closest I've found - but do you think that's a legitimate translation? Is that what you're doing - taking words literally instead of in context like other translators have done? Ah well, I guess you're done with these horrible nasty questions anyway. You know better than every other bible translator.

[eallen]

114. The one who said, "render unto Caesar things which are Caesar's"?

Personally, I don't see much in the New Testament to justify liberal politics. I'm happy for the liberal Christians who read it that way. But as a book, it easily serves a broad variety of political causes. Paul told slaves to obey their masters. A liberal would be telling masters that slavery was wrong. There were plenty of political wrongs in Jesus's day. He never spoke against any of them. At least, not as far as is recorded. He never condemned slavery. He never called for a fairer criminal justice system. He never called for expanded representation. Liberalism is something that developed centuries later.

Sure, I can tell a liberal by his fruits. That doesn't tell me a thing about their Christianity, since I am judging their fruits by my liberal criteria. I have no reason at all to think that bin Laden and Dobson are not acting out of faith. You say they aren't. But that's just your say-so. You say they're after power. But how do you know that's not in the service of their faith? Bin Laden seems quite willing to personally die in a cave, if that will spur on Islamic jihad.

[okasha]

132. The very same. Let's take it in context.

This is from Mark 8, the first verse of which tells us that Jesus was teaching in parables, stories with a hidden or metaphoric meaning.

13 They sent some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians to him, that they might trap him with words.

14 When they had come, they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you are honest, and don't defer to anyone; for you aren't partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?

15 Shall we give, or shall we not give?" But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why do you test me? Bring me a denarius, that I may see it."

16 They brought it. He said to them, "Whose is this image and inscription?" They said to him, "Caesar's."

17 Jesus answered them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." They marveled greatly at him.

Okay, so here are some establishment types--the Church/State types--who are trying to get Jesus into trouble. And they ask him whether a good Jew can pay taxes to the Roman occupation government. If he says "yes," he betrays his own cause; if he says "no," the cops move in and bust him for treason.

But he doesn't fall for it. Instead, he tells one of his questioners to "Bring" (otherwise "show me" or "hold up") a denarius, a Roman coin with the Emperor's image on it and the inscription "Caesar divi," "Divine Caesar." For a pious Jew, it's an idolatrous object. Note that Jesus refuses to touch it himself, but instead has the collaborator display it. The action says, "Here is a man (Caesar)who claims to be a god other than Adonai/Yahweh and who is therefore a blasphemer in Israel."

When Jesus says, "Give Caesar what is his," what is due to Caesar is what is due to a blasphemer and a pretender to godhood above the god of Israel--something that isn't possible within the Jewish faith. So what is Caesar's due?

You're giving this passage the religious right's reading--i.e., obey the government. Paul would say that's Caesar's due, but Paul was no liberal, and he was a Roman citizen. Another possible reading is, "Give Caesar back his corrupt and idolatrous coinage, reserving your real loyalty and and love for God, the true King of Israel." This is the interpretation chosen by Dr. Hugh Schonfield in his Jewish New Testament, and in a Jewish context it makes much more sense than the conventional, Pauline/religious right reading. A third, and possibly overlapping reading is also possible. Remember that at least one of the Twelve was an anti-Roman zealot, a terrorist by twenty-first-century standards. Jesus might be saying, in well-veiled terms, "Give Caesar the boot and acknowledge the Messiah, the son of David, as the true earthly King of Israel under Yahweh." The last, of course, is an outright call to revolution. Paul would never approve.

Paul told slaves to obey their masters. A liberal would be telling masters that slavery was wrong. There were plenty of political wrongs in Jesus's day. He never spoke against any of them. At least, not as far as is recorded. He never condemned slavery. He never called for a fairer criminal justice system. He never called for expanded representation.

It's true that Jesus never "condemned" slavery in so many words that we know about. He did, however, say that he had come to set slaves free, which certainly implies condemnation. When he opens his ministry with the reading from Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth, he says,

"The spirit of the Lord has been given to me,
for he has anointed me.
He has sent me to bring the good news to the poor,
to proclaim liberty to the captives
and to the blind new sight,
to set the downtrodden free,
to proclaim the Lord's year of favour.

. . .Then he began to speak to them,'This text is being fulfilled even as you listen.'" Luke 4:18-21 (Jerusalem Bible)

This passage is a call for a fairer social system in all its aspects. Given that he's talking about liberating captives from prison, it would seem that the criminal justice system is included. "Setting the downtrodden free" probably comes as close as anything possible at the time to "expanded representation," given that the Roman Empire was not a representative government in any meaningful sense, and a demand to send Jewish Senators to Rome would be a call for collaboration with the occupation. As for slaves, the "Lord's year of favour" (also "the acceptable Year of the Lord") refers to the Year of Jubilee, when alienated property is to be returned to its original tribal jurisdiction, debts are cancelled and slaves are freed. In its ca. 33-35 CE context, this is an absolutely politically inflamatory speech.

On social justice themes, see also the Beatitudes and the Magnificat. (An Episcopal priest who's a friend of mine calls Mary the first liberation theologian.) His paternity may be a matter in question, but the Jesus of the gospels takes quite strongly after his mother.

You say they're after power. But how do you know that's not in the service of their faith? Bin Laden seems quite willing to personally die in a cave, if that will spur on Islamic jihad.

I say they're after power because all their actions indicate that they're after power. Bin Laden didn't die in a cave; he scarpered when he could. Leaders of political movements--and Falwell and bin Laden are leaders of political movements, no matter how they dress it up with religion--are pretty much by definition seeking power. There hasn't been a real Cincinnatus since--well, Cincinnatus.

[trotsky]

135. Mark 8:13-17 not the right passage.

Did you mean Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26, or Matthew 22:15-22?

And I see your post has phrases like "another possible reading." You're acknowledging here what we've said - you can't be sure what the true meaning is. Certainly you might be able to narrow it down, but the original words may have shades of meaning that are lost to the ages. You're taking a stab at it, declaring that because it can be spun your way that the radical right is wrong, and that you know they're in it for the power and not their faith.

Tell you what, okasha, how about you take your airtight analysis and present it to the Falwells of the world? Surely they will see the error of their ways?

[okasha]

138. Mark 12. Thank you.

Certainly you might be able to narrow it down, but the original words may have shades of meaning that are lost to the ages.

Sorry, but koine Greek isn't that much a mystery. Neither is Judean history before the destruction of Jerusalem in CE 70. Stop dodging, Trotsky. You like the radical right's reading because it fits with your negative opinions of Christians and Christianity. If you want to defend it, then defend it on actual linguistic and historical grounds.

Say, why don't you take your analysis--lost koine meaning and all--and present it to a scholarly conference? Let us know how you get on.

[trotsky]

139. Quit mischaracterizing me.

It certainly doesn't speak well of your attempt at forming an argument.

I am merely pointing out that even your most well-constructed personal interpretation of a text is just that - an interpretation. Not THE interpretation. Because if it were, there would be no disagreement among Christians as to what it was. History clearly shows that's not the case.

Between the two of us, I'd say your view (that a certain passage MUST mean something, and that only) is much closer to the radical right's methodology than mine.

[okasha]

142. Sorry, but I'm not mischaracterizing you. You're just dodging again.

Trotsky, they're not just my personal interpretations. They're founded in a well-established tradition of exegesis. They're not even, most of them, original with me. When I first read Matthew 8 in Greek, I thought I'd made a great discovery. Turns out there were half a dozen scholars there before me. That was a let-down in one sense, but it was also reassuring to know that I wasn't a total maverick with what was at the time a rather radical interpretation.

I've never said, by the way, that my interpretations are the only possbile ones. I gave three different possible ways of looking at the "Render unto Caesar" passage. For a number of reasons having to do with historical and literary context, I don't favor the religious right version. If you want to argue that the others have no more validity than the religious right's version, then give us and argument based in history, linguistics and exegetics, not just your usual fallback of "It's all a matter of interpretation, and one interpretation is just as good as another."

The meaning and history of individual words is less open to argument, at least among most people. That's just the way language works. Now, if you want to offer a linguistic argument, be my guest. If you just want to kick up sand by imagining that koine is some mysterious language lost in time, then you're admitting you have nothing useful to say on the subject. Religion isn't a science, but linguistics most certainly is.

[trotsky]

146. I'm sorry you want to keep making this about me.

It's not. It's about the religious right and how their faith empowers them. I am trying to point out that your brilliant textual analysis (which in this case picks a different word than every version of the bible I've been able to check) is utterly useless when it comes to defeating the fundie cretins. You can have all the weight of the world behind you, but it's not going to matter one bit because it ultimately comes down to religious faith. It's just a problem with the nature of revealed religion. Someone might fully understand what a passage is *supposed* to mean, but upon praying about it, are convinced that god has explained to them what it *really* means. And if you allow for the possibility of a personal god existing, then you have to allow for that too. That's how revealed religion works.

[okasha]

154. I think you've misplaced this post.

If you haven't, what word in the "Render unto Ceasar" passage are you talking about?

BTW, since you seem to be setting yourself up as an authority on the mechanisms of revealed religion, would you be so good as to share your credentials with us?

[trotsky]

157. It's the very concept of a revealed religion, okasha.

Do you know what the term means?

[okasha]

166. "The very concept of a revealed religion"

is your expertise? Hoooookkkaaayyyy. . .. Are you speaking in tongues now or just being cryptically mystical?

[trotsky]

168. Answer my question.

Do you know what the term "revealed religion" means?

[neebob]

86. I'm guessing this reply was intended for me

and I'll give you that this new statement about fighting and dying is a little more believable than the first one, although I doubt your morals are really all about my rights. If you want to fight and die, or if saying you would helps you feel good about yourself, you go.

Being a writer, I'm pretty precise about language, and right now I don't have time to sit and think on how to tell you what my morals are all about, beyond being a caring person and adding value to society and not creating problems for others. I'm talking about significant physical, tangible, and quantifiable problems - not little emotional problems that arise out of your perceptions of the words I choose and exist entirely in your mind and you have complete control over.

Here's the thing about me: I insist on my right to say what I think, and I just don't see the problem with saying religion is myth, or falsehood, or even idiocy. I don't see that as creating a problem for you, of a scale and magnitude that I need to take responsibility for. Asking me not to do it creates a little emotional problem for me, and while that's clearly my responsibility and I recognize your right to ask, I'm not willing to comply. It infringes on my rights that you say you'd fight and die for.

My saying religion is myth, falsehood, or idiocy does not infringe on your rights.

The rule that I try to follow is criticize the behavior, not the person. Similarly, it's A-OK with me to criticize inanimate objects and concepts. The rule here is no personal attacks. Saying religion is this, that, or the other thing does not violate that rule. You can complain about it all day, and it just makes me think you have some other issue.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

87. My issue here is just to be considerate

I try to be as much as possible, I'm not asking you to even think about my religion, just realize that belittling it "creates a little emotional problem for me." I'm not asking for censorship, just consideration.

[neebob]

88. Yeah, you are asking for censorship.

You're asking others to censor themselves out of consideration for you.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

89. If we didn't,where would that leave us?

Being NICE is a human ideal to me. I just dont find it necessary for anyone to use any belittling adjectives about anyone's beliefs

[neebob]

98. Nice, schmice.

We're talking about rights here. Mythical and false are not belittling adjectives. Idiotic, okay, I'll give you that one. And I really have to get to work now.

[Brazenly Liberal]

73. Brace yourself, baby, because it's only going to get worse.

This is how people react to oppression and attempted oppression.

Unfortunately for you, your religion has been hijacked by the Christianists who use it as a political and social bludgeon rather than as a source of personal inspiration and comfort. And it's getting worse. It was only a source of small but bearable annoyance that your holiday is the only religious holiday that's a national holiday. When our tax dollars are spent to fund an organization that blatantly discriminates against non-Christians, you're going to get some blowback.

As the Christianists become more powerful and more baldfaced with their power grabs, Christians will inevitably suffer the consequences of being associated with them. It's unfortunate and unfair, but the Christianists are louder than you are and when someone starts out with "I'm a Christian," you can't blame people for flinching when 90% of what they've seen follow that intro lately has been theocratic bullshit.

Note that I said it was unfortunate and unfair. I don't blame you for being put out about it, but if you really want this to change, your efforts would be better spent dealing with the assholes who hijacked your religion than complaining about people who overreact a little when they don't like having it shoved down their throats.

[cosmik debris]

74. Whenever the majority claims to be persecuted by the minority

I take it with a grain of salt.

Have you ever been fired from a job because you refused to attend religious services?

Have you ever had to leave a job because your participation with Planned Parenthood violated your boss' religion?

Have you ever filed an EEOC complaint and law suit to defend your right to avoid your boss' religion?

I have. And I don't feel sorry for the poor oppressed majority.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

77. I do feel sorry for you

there are a lot of assholes out there. I have been asked to leave a Scout Camp when I refused to join in their Sunday service, though I have not experienced it to the extent that you have. All I'm asking is that people are nice. And I do know some of what atheists go through, as I have been labeled one by the rapture right that inhabits the texas town I live in, just because I am open minded and like to question things. I have been excluded socially and ridiculled, once again, not to the extent that you have, and please know that I do support you and everyone else.

[trotsky]

80. I'm curious to know what you think about post #56.

The poster makes a good point - by merely identifying as an atheist, one is essentially saying that they think everyone's religion is a myth or fiction. Why should we not be allowed to express our opinion? Personally, I think there is a big difference between calling a religion false, and calling an adherent of that religion stupid for believing in it. I think you and other Christians who from time to time voice their concerns about this topic on DU are mistaking the first sentiment for the second.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

82. Maybe so

but sometimes in context it seems venomous almost. But would you not be offended if I said that atheism was false/fradulent or other discounting term?

[trotsky]

90. By being a theist, you ARE saying those things.

That's kind of the point.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

92. No, actually I'm not

You ASSUME I feel that way because of how I believe. But NONE OF US KNOW what the truth is, so I DONT say those things.

[trotsky]

94. Sure you are.

By associating with a monotheistic religion, you are implicitly saying that you believe there is a god, and that atheists are wrong, or that atheism is false. I mean, at the base level, that's what the theist-atheist difference is: each thinks the other is wrong, w.r.t. the question of whether a god exists.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

96. I dont think you are wrong

just as I dont think I am right. I've got an idea, thats all, I dont know if it is right or wrong, it is just what I tend to believe. And, saying that something is wrong, and saying its stupidity are also two different things.

[trotsky]

99. But there are very few people who come right out and call it stupidity.

And, if they do, they should be alerted on and the post deleted. That's the DU rules.

But keep in mind the difference between calling a belief stupid and a believer stupid.

[Goblinmonger]

104. So you label yourself as an agnostic?

You tell all your friends that you are agnostic?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

106. Actually, I label myself as "An Open-minded, Liberal, Christian"

with some Buddhist ideals ;)

[cosmik debris]

113. I don't need more sympathy, I need less hypocrisy

Every day someone on this board says something offensive. If you can't endure that you may leave. But don't pretend that offense in one direction is worse than offense in the other direction. Honestly, being offended is a minor problem compared to the things that atheists endure in the course of ordinary life. That is why I shared my experience. Not for a pity party, but to put your whine in a larger perspective.

At least a dozen times I have seen people in this forum swear that they would fight and maybe even die for my right to be an atheist, but when I had a $10,000 legal bill they were no where to be seen. I suspect that they were in church praying for my soul. So please don't waste your sympathy on me. If you really want to show your support, know that it takes more than lip service.

[Goblinmonger]

100. Why is this what we talk about all the time

I know, I just started another thread on it so I am hypocritical.

But why all the complaining? Is it really so bad that atheists actually get to say what they think about religion? That it is a myth?

Everyone complains that the atheists here are rude, but I very rarely see examples of that. Toughen up a little. If you don't want to read people saying that you religion might not be right, donate $10 and go to one of the groups for your religion. If you seriously can't afford it, let people know that you trust and they can find someone to donate for you. I would be inclined to do that for someone.

[Exiled in America]

117. If I had my wish

The religion and theology board would be a place for religious folks to discuss religion and theology. Instead the religion and theoloyg board is dominated by atheists. It's always funny to me how much time and engery atheists here put into the subject of religion and theology when they don't even believe in it. But for some reason it seems to be terribly important to them that they argue, debate and fight with everyone who does for reasons that pass my understanding.

I would be much happier if this board wasn't treated as a "debate" board but was a place for people of religious beliefs to come and discuss comparative religions, philosophy of religion, religion(s) in general and theology both systematic and comparative.

There's already an atheist forum. It seems to me that would be the place to discuss all the reasons why religion is wrong, not the religion and theology forum. Atheism isn't a religion. And its not a theology. So explain to me what business you have here?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

119. Actually I tend to believe that it is a type of theology,

or at least philosophy. I thin they have every right and I am enjoying good open debate about this subject. Atheism is a type of belief just as Christianity is.

[Orrex]

121. Atheism is not a belief

This can't be stressed often enough, because anyone who claims that "atheism is a belief" is constructing a strawman.

Atheism is not a belief in the same way that lack-of-measles is not a disease.

[Orrex]

122. Think about what you're saying

It's always funny to me how much time and engery atheists here put into the subject of religion and theology when they don't even believe in it.

It's always funny to me that Liberals would spend so much time and energy complaining about the GOP when they don't even support it.

Atheists discuss religion so much because religion permeates so much of our daily lives against our will.

[Finder]

131. Good analogy. n/t

[heidler1]

221. Both Religion and the GOP threaten lives because they

encourage others and often themselves to violently attack others who practice acts that call for stoning in their bibles. This effects the whole society adversely. Others who claim to be religious practice acts that have been accepted as slavery and outlawed like polygamy. Religion is used as a license to control others.

[Goblinmonger]

125. Yikes

Censor much?

Just so you know, the atheist place you speak of is a "group" and not a "forum." It is not open to those who have not donated. I see that you do not have a star. If you did, you would see that there are also "groups" for all the different religions to discuss among themselves without the mean, old, nasty atheists. If you wish, let me know and I will get you a star. I was going to donate on this drive but don't need to for my star.

This isn't a forum for just the religious. This is the only open, free place on DU to discuss ISSUES of religion and theology. And if you don't think that atheists in the United States aren't daily confronted with issues of religion and theology, then you need to open your eyes. If you don't think there isn't a vocal and ever more powerful group in the United States that would be orgasmically happy if the US was a theocracy, then you need to get out more. All of those things affect me. I have as much right to discuss theology and religion as you do.

But, again, if you want to test out the other groups (which I bet aren't nearly as active without the nasty atheists you don't want to hear from) PM me and I will get you a star.

[trotsky]

130. This forum is what you make it.

Why not start up a thread to discuss comparative religions, and see what happens? As long as no atheist bashing goes on, I'm willing to bet the mean old nasty atheists won't even chime in. Use your Ignore feature. Use the Ignore Thread feature. It is within your power to make this forum "better" from your point of view.

You don't have to ban opposing viewpoints for others.

[beam me up scottie]

147. You demand an explanation of why we're here? Who the hell are you?

We would be happier if people who don't know what they're talking about would quit telling us we don't belong here.

And this forum is what you make it, when you malign and falsely accuse atheists don't be surprised by what you get in return.

[Goblinmonger]

172. He wants to understand

but never took me up on, what I think was a pretty generous and Christian offer from an atheist, me donating in his name so he could get a star and go to the religious groups as well as use the search option so he could provide us with examples of nasty atheists bashing theists. Guess it is just easier to say that you can't search than really provide the evidence.

[Evoman]

151. WELL WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU START THREADS!

All I ever see is either posts

a)started by atheist and is confrontational, but gets people talking

b)started by atheist and is benign, in which atheist are subsequently attacked (I tried to start about a post on some stories of atheists to better foster understanding, and THEISTS started a flame war).

c)started by theists and confrontational, usually directed at atheists (fair enough).

d)started by an theist (in which NOBODY posts).

When people, including other theists post something that doesn't involve atheists in it, the legions of christians never respond. Why even pretend like you guys want to have legitimate religious discussions without atheists...if you did, there would be...I don't know...RELIGIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITHOUT ATHEISTS.

I'm sick of the bullshit. If it wasn't for us, this forum would DIE. PERIOD!

[madeline_con]

162. IMO....

and I know you certainly didn't ask for it...

It's hard to read posts that are actually meant to insult or are just really stupid, but claim to be harmless little professions of a poster's beliefs.

It's mean-spirited, and they're getting to you, I think. It's a shame threads like this turn into flame wars and lunacy. :(

edited cuz I can't spell.

[Evoman]

173. There are plenty of posts in which their is no mean-spiritidness

by neither Atheists or Theists...its just that nobody actually posts in them. Tell you what..start a new post, that has nothing to do with atheists, or conversions, and I promise you that you will get not meanspirited comments. If you do, I will defend you. How about it?

[SPKrazy]

202. R.I.P. Is My Opinion Of This R/T Forum

you are right in your assessment

it is useless to call it an R/T forum

[Random_Australian]

163. I CALL BULL SHIT, and I back myself up: See this thread started by

an atheist, and then look for a similar one by religious folk, and THEN you can tell me that atheists are the ones stifling discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=79553&mesg_id=79553

[Realityhack]

217. Darn Strait its important

But for some reason it seems to be terribly important to them that they argue, debate and fight with everyone who does for reasons that pass my understanding.

Actualy its vitaly important for us to make those arguments. While it may not be you doing it there are an auful lot of people in the world trying to cram religion down our collective throats. There are people trying to dictate our laws based on their religious nonsense, people who want to kill over their religious beleifs, people who want to destroy science education not to mention science research destroying our ability to compete in the world market, all because of religion. So YES it IS terribly important that we argue and debate with people who disagree with us.

Just as many religious people try to covert us because they think we are doomed... we beleive our society is greviously injured by religious BS. And the BIGEST peice of religious bullshit is the notion that anything labeled as religious should be off limits for us to call silly, stupid, ignorant, etc.

THATS what buisness we have here.

[Exiled in America]

115. Idiocy, yes. Falsehood, yes. Myth? NO.

Sorry, but I can agree with you that people calling beliefs idiocies are out of line. I can agree that people calling them falshoods are even out of line. But people who say they believe religious teachings are myths are not out of line. They simply don't find any evidence of a religious teaching's literal truth. And they certainly have the right to say so, as long as they do it respectfully.

[Finder]

127. Challenging each other's beliefs, ideologies and philosophies is...

what makes politics and life itself interesting.IMO I would not be an atheist today if someone hadn't challenged me years ago. Feeling offended or counter-attacking with insults is irrational and immature whether one is a theist or an atheist.

Neither side is what they say they are if they are not willing to challenge and/or defend certain beliefs...otherwise, why self-identify if it doesn't matter?

The Enlightenment Era never would have come to be if there were no challenges to religious or popular belief.

It comes down to this, if one believes everything is directed by a deity-- there is no need for us(humans)to do anything. I doubt there are any DUers who believe that or they wouldn't be here in the first place.

All religion is myth and fiction otherwise there would not be so many denominations and sects of said religion. If one believes otherwise, they should be challenged. Thanks to education and the ease of spreading information, religion has become mere philosophy which is benign and personal. Even the majority of those who say they are religious are freethinkers for the most part. Churches have adapted(or watered down their doctrines/theology)out of necessity otherwise they would not profit. There are many blind contributors but only a small minority of believers in the absurd.

I think it is useless(and somewhat cruel) to try to convince someone they will not see their deceased loved ones someday since that is a personal psychological need to believe something and not something that affects me or others personally.

I do think that if someone believes it their religious duty to persecute homosexuals or demand females be submissive to males or kill in the name of their god/gods/theology they need to be challenged and yes, even ridiculed. I may even feel they should be erradicated.

That said, most theists on DU are philosophical types or deists, not doctrinal types.

[Random_Australian]

153. Suggestion: Call them on it in the thread. Half at least of these stupid

arguments get resolved when someone says "I think you are saying this, which I find offensive" then the person says "No - that is not what I meant, you see, this means this" and then they can work it out.

That is the effective thing.

[Zhade]

214. Here's my take - hate the belief, not the believer.

You deserve respect as a human being, and you are entitled to your beliefs.

I don't have to respect them. In fact, if I despise them, I have the inherent right to say so. But I would never be justified in treating you badly just because you have beliefs, no matter how I might feel about those beliefs.

[Realityhack]

215. Well as you note a lot of people DO say the same to us.

Here's the thing. If someone says space aliens control Bush... I am going to call Bullshit. I am going to call the 'theory' nonsense, stupid, etc.

And I apply the same to religion which IMO is on the same level. And most importantly religion heavily affects me. I have to live in a world where people try to force what I view as equivilent to the alien example down my throught, where I am viewed as evil because I don't buy it.

So yes I am going to call bullshit on religion. Same as I might for some republican crap. I would not have respect for myself if I didn't and I would hope you would not have repect for me if I didn't.

It should also be noted that I think religion is stupid. Many otherwise intelgent people beleive it, just like many otherwise intelegent people beleive in all kinds of other crap. Sure lots of idiots beleive it too. But its the beleif I think is inherently stupid.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

218. I am sure

that you are a very intelligent person, but...

you wrote:
It should also be noted that I think religion is stupid. Many otherwise intelgent people beleive it, just like many otherwise intelegent people beleive in all kinds of other crap. Sure lots of idiots beleive it too. But its the beleif I think is inherently stupid.


And the spellings just knock me out. Is it too late to edit? But don't worry, I teach gifted kids and a lot of them can't spell worth a damn either. I've never commented upon a poster's spelling before, but this one is too close to "moran" for comfort and it is going to find its way onto some freeper site, I'm' sure!

[Realityhack]

220. good point.

too late though.