Edward Rooney Dean of Students: No. It's the difference between being "saved" (just believing/accepting), and living a "spirit-filled life" (believing and living it). Accepting Jesus changes a person (or should, at least). It's a very personal thing, and is hard to explain over the internet. "And you will know them by their fruit." -Matthew 7:16. It does NOT make you perfect by any means, but it allows us the freedom to try.

no. it's a 'coping mechanism' for people who are frightened of the unknown and want to believe that their life is something more or has more meaning than the approximately 70 meager years they are allowed here on erf and what they do with those years. some of us accept the reality that we are a biological creature who happens to have a brain that allows us to think complex thoughts... we are born via biological process, we educate ourselves as much as possible, and we die... to be replaced by hordes of other biological creatures to consume resources. I see no requirement for 'faith' of any kind in any of that. unless you're afraid of some mythological 'after life'.

clyph: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: It does NOT make you perfect by any means, but it allows us the freedom to try.

Then explain why, of the volunteers at our local food bank virtually of them came from our 120-member UU congregation (and the remainder came from other secular groups), and NOT A SINGLE PERSON came from any of the 5 "Christian" megachurches that have to drive *past* the food bank to get to their Jesus theaters. They can fill up their 1000 space parking lots but not a single one of them can spare a couple hours to help the less fortunate. Typical.

ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS, and in my direct experience I see a lot of TALK and precious little ACTION from "Christian" churches.

You have just pin pointed the exact problem of the American church. I think we all agree on that. You won't hear any real believers object to your statement.

mcgreggers99

clyph: mcgreggers99: I didn't do a thing.
Now THAT I believe.
You migh....
....vers than I am of hypocritical Christians
who don't walk the walk like they talk the talk.
`
You don't know me, please don't presume to know how I spend my time, energy, finances, and resources. Other than Fark of course.
`
Well said.

dletter: darkyn: Not surprising given that virtually all of the anti-gay groups in North America are Christian-based.

Virtually? Can you name one North American group that is "anti-homosexual" as a main agenda that doesn't have "Christian Values" as a main platform? About the only thing I could think is probably some Islamic groups as well, but, honestly, and I'll admit it isn't like I'm aware of their platforms deeply, but, I've never gotten the feeling that being "anti-homosexual" was a major part of any North American Islamic groups plank, although, obviously Islam has in it's base strong anti-homosexual beliefs as well, especially in Islamic nations, where many of those organizations operations reside.

I guess a better question would be, are there any groups that try to promote an "anti-homosexual" agenda that don't lean almost exclusively on religion (whether Christian, Islamic, or otherwise) as their reasoning for doing so?

Any moral group has "anti-homo" as a policy. Morals are based on the laws of nature. The law of nature in this case is survival. Any species that supports gays damages the chance of survival by removing procreation.

If being gay was natural, it would have evolved away. Can't pass on gay DNA if you're actually gay.

Bullseyed: Any moral group has "anti-homo" as a policy. Morals are based on the laws of nature. The law of nature in this case is survival. Any species that supports gays damages the chance of survival by removing procreation.

If being gay was natural, it would have evolved away. Can't pass on gay DNA if you're actually gay.

I think we've found the Lincoln NE, blue coat lady's fark profile.
/take you meds dear and don't go to any more city council meetings.

Bullseyed: dletter: darkyn: Not surprising given that virtually all of the anti-gay groups in North America are Christian-based.

Virtually? Can you name one North American group that is "anti-homosexual" as a main agenda that doesn't have "Christian Values" as a main platform? About the only thing I could think is probably some Islamic groups as well, but, honestly, and I'll admit it isn't like I'm aware of their platforms deeply, but, I've never gotten the feeling that being "anti-homosexual" was a major part of any North American Islamic groups plank, although, obviously Islam has in it's base strong anti-homosexual beliefs as well, especially in Islamic nations, where many of those organizations operations reside.

I guess a better question would be, are there any groups that try to promote an "anti-homosexual" agenda that don't lean almost exclusively on religion (whether Christian, Islamic, or otherwise) as their reasoning for doing so?

Any moral group has "anti-homo" as a policy. Morals are based on the laws of nature. The law of nature in this case is survival. Any species that supports gays damages the chance of survival by removing procreation.

If being gay was natural, it would have evolved away. Can't pass on gay DNA if you're actually gay.

Ha, I'm starting to think you are being serious. Sorry 'bout that.

mysticcat: I'm calling shenanigans on that number. I'd like to see if the question went something like, " Considering the fact that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination do you think the Church is anti-homosexual or pro-homosexual?" It's very difficult to get 91% of people to answer one way unless the question is biased or the sample is biased.


Got to agree with mysticcat here. Suspect bias in the question's phrasing. Most Christians I know could give a fark less about sexual orientation.

Then again, I tend to stay away from hate mongers. Keeps me from punching them in the face.

Ablejack: Bullseyed:
Real Christianity is Catholicism, the only religion that associates with the Vicar of Christ.
Not sure if serious. But Catholicism, by it's very definition, is incompatible with that idea. It was the Vicar of Christ himself that announced as dogma that all religions are to be fully respected.

Not to mention Pope John Paul in 2000 who said - publicly before a mass of people of all Christian faiths gathered in St. Peter's Square IIRC - (paraphrasing) that anyone who believes in Christ is his brother or sister. He did not limit that statement to Catholics only.

However, I suspect the original comment was a troll. At least I hope it was.

Ablejack
`
Bullseyed = 100% troll, waste of time but have fun if you want to play with it. ;=)

If a homosexual and an anti-homosexual come into contact, do they cancel each other out violently? I see a possibility of solving three problems at once.

JackieRabbit: If a homosexual and an anti-homosexual come into contact, do they cancel each other out violently? I see a possibility of solving three problems at once.

Fusion energy?

JackieRabbit: If a homosexual and an anti-homosexual come into contact, do they cancel each other out violently? I see a possibility of solving three problems at once.

I lol'ed

You could use the energy that's released to power almost anything. I think you've discovered a new inextinguishable source of clean burning hot air.

Theaetetus: DamnYankees: I really don't believe this poll. That's simply not a word people use.

Link to the original article from the pollsters
Some skepticism is warranted, but it should be noted that the Barma Group is a pro-Christian group that "conducts primary research, produces audio, visual and print media, and facilitates the healthy development of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries."

But yes, it appears that the phrase was prompted or a list of phrases they could pick from:
The study explored twenty specific images related to Christianity, including ten favorable and ten unfavorable perceptions. Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians. The most common favorable perceptions were that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions (82%), has good values and principles (76%), is friendly (71%), and is a faith they respect (55%).

That said: When young people were asked to identify their impressions of Christianity, one of the common themes was "Christianity is changed from what it used to be" and "Christianity in today's society no longer looks like Jesus." These comments were the most frequent unprompted images that young people called to mind, mentioned by one-quarter of both young non-Christians (23%) and born again Christians (22%).

I'm also amused that the most common favorable perception of Christianity was that it was basically the same as other religions.

Well this gives and entirely different message than the biased crap blog post linked on Fark.

Funny how evangelical and born again christian keep coming up, which are an extreme minority of Christianity. Not surprisingly most people associated evangelicals like the Westboro Baptist Church with crazy things.

mcgreggers99: You have just pin pointed the exact problem of the American church

In case you failed to notice, I also pinpointed one "church" that DOESN'T have that problem. Many UU groups prefer to call themselves "congregations" or "associations" instead of "churches".

Not coincidentally, it's also one of very few "churches" that DOESN'T claim to have The One And Only Holy Truth Handed Down From God To Us And Us Alone. It doesn't even claim to be Christian (although Christians are welcome, as are Jews, and Muslims, and Buddhists, and Wiccans, and atheists, and everyone else).

I'm a hard-core atheist and I have no problem being a member of a UU congregation. They're good people who do good things for good reasons (because it's decent and compassionate, not because SKY WIZARD SAID SO).

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

- The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
- Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
- Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
- The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

All good values, "Christian" values if you prefer to look at it that way... none of which require the acceptance in any theological doctrine or supernatural authority in order to live by them. And none of which contradicts the teachings of Jesus, if that's important to you.

Sofa King Smart: I see no requirement for 'faith' of any kind in any of that. unless you're afraid of some mythological 'after life'.

So the only requirement to (I'm going to say) "believe" in an afterlife is that you believe in an afterlife. I suppose that's ultimately true of the present life as well but only as meaningful as a tautology.
But to be fair, could you admit that the optimistic flip side to that fear is also just as much of a "requirement". Such as Faith "required" to console the bereaved. Such as.

djZorbof: Completely off topic question for the Christians: Say a guy or girl goes their entire life without hearing about Jesus and then dies. Is he/she farked?

What about children and infants?

Everyone who lived and died before the appearance of Christianity is out of luck.
Everyone who lived and died in places before Christianity reached them are out of luck.
Everyone who lives and dies in places where there isn't Christianity are out of luck.

Which is really God's fault, since he never did anything to show those people he existed.

Children and babies, it depends. Some denominations say that we're all born with the original sin contaminating our every fiber of being the moment we're created, so a baby or child who dies before finding out about God is out of luck. Other denominations say that babies are born pure and receive the stain of the original sin when they get older, so any child who dies after they receive the original sin but before they find out about God is out of luck.

/Sense make not this does

Ablejack: Sofa King Smart: I see no requirement for 'faith' of any kind in any of that. unless you're afraid of some mythological 'after life'.

So the only requirement to (I'm going to say) "believe" in an afterlife is that you believe in an afterlife. I suppose that's ultimately true of the present life as well but only as meaningful as a tautology.
But to be fair, could you admit that the optimistic flip side to that fear is also just as much of a "requirement". Such as Faith "required" to console the bereaved. Such as.

to the bereaved I simply offer a heartfelt "I'm sorry for your loss." regardless of the beliefs of the person who died or the person mourning their passing...someone they cared about is gone... I can't offer anything more than my sympathy for their loss.... other than that it is a natural act... we all die... some fear that more than others.

captcaveman: Gay people will couple themselves to extinction as they adopt children or have very few. This has happened since time start.

Since gay people are born from straight people, I doubt they'll be "going extinct" anytime soon.

clyph: mcgreggers99: You have just pin pointed the exact problem of the American church

In case you failed to notice, I also pinpointed one "church" that DOESN'T have that problem. Many UU groups prefer to call themselves "congregations" or "associations" instead of "churches".

Not coincidentally, it's also one of very few "churches" that DOESN'T claim to have The One And Only Holy Truth Handed Down From God To Us And Us Alone. It doesn't even claim to be Christian (although Christians are welcome, as are Jews, and Muslims, and Buddhists, and Wiccans, and atheists, and everyone else).

I'm a hard-core atheist and I have no problem being a member of a UU congregation. They're good people who do good things for good reasons (because it's decent and compassionate, not because SKY WIZARD SAID SO).

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

- The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
- Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
- Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
- The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

All good values, "Christian" values if you prefer to look at it that way... none of which require the acceptance in any theological doctrine or supernatural authority in order to live by them. And none of which contradicts the teachings of Jesus, if that's important to you.

Well, first of all I'm happy that you have found a group or organization that you yourself find fulfillment in. My personal belief is that we are all born with a God sized hole in our hearts and we seek to find fulfillment in this life through any variety of means. The only thing that I personally ever found that truly satisfies that intrinsic sense of fulfillment is my faith in Christ and the relationship contained therein. Most will disagree with me, and that's fine. That is their right since we all have free will. Through said relationship with Christ I also get to experience a large variety of points similar to the ones you listed. It really does just feel good to give back to those who are less fortunate. I think that's a good thing and I commend you for doing so.

I also congratulate your organization and I wish you well in continuing to make a difference in this world. I only wish that more faith based organizations would take part in similar initiatives.

roadmarks: The whole problem is that one has to believe that one requires salvation.

Only two religions preach that one's BELIEF is more important than one's ACTIONS.

The difficult thing is believing in a God that is so petty he condemns people to suffer for all eternity because they got his name wrong, rather than actually living a good life.

That is the foundation of historical Universalism -- rejection of the doctrine of universal damnation (along with original sin and a bunch of other theological nonsense). Unitarianism started as a rejection of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ (and a similar bunch of theological angels-dancing-on-pinheads navel-gazing nonsense). The two groups merged because they realized they had reached the same destination by different paths.

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: 1) for the person that never hears, they cannot enter heaven. The caveat is, that's the Christian's fault for not reaching them. That's the whole point behind the Great Commission.

Also, I THINK that's why Catholics have the doctrine of Purgatory. Not sure, as I'm a Protestant, so...

According to my Catholic mother, yes. No one's ever going to be perfect enough to jump straight into Heaven, except saints, so Purgatory is like a boot camp.

/Also, the ME generation? We might swear a lot, but it's articles like this that make me proud to be part of it.

Bullseyed: If being gay was natural, it would have evolved away. Can't pass on gay DNA if you're actually gay.

If being gay wasn't natural, where did it come from?

There are tons of ways for a gay individual to have a child. We have this stuff called technology...
And you can still be a benefit to society without procreating. Even if a gay man has no kids, he can do right by his community and neighbors and be a good citizen, bring pride and status to other member's of his family allowing them evolutionary success.

Ow! That was my feelings!: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: djZorbof: I don't know. I would find it hard to worship someone who would send to hell someone who lived a good charitable life and happened to be raised and devoted to another religion or no religion at all.

That's one of the tenants of Christianity, though. It's not about how you live your life, or all the good things you do. It's about grace, mercy, and belief. You CANNOT earn your salvation. All it requires is belief. There's a YOOOOGE difference between being "saved" and living "a spirit filled life". But that's a discussion for another time.

Christians don;t want ANYONE to go to hell, and it's up to us to make sure they hear the message. Unfortunately, we're human, and we do a piss-poor job of getting the message out (the RIGHT message, that is).

Where in the bible does it say people will go to hell if they fail at Christianity? I've asked that question to dozens(hundreds?) of Christians and never have gotten a bible verse in response. Makes me think 'hell' is a made up boogieman.

Because it is. Catholics created both Satan and Hell in the Middle Ages as scare tactics to make people convert.

clyph: mcgreggers99: You have just pin pointed the exact problem of the American church

In case you failed to notice, I also pinpointed one "church" that DOESN'T have that problem. Many UU groups prefer to call themselves "congregations" or "associations" instead of "churches".

Not coincidentally, it's also one of very few "churches" that DOESN'T claim to have The One And Only Holy Truth Handed Down From God To Us And Us Alone. It doesn't even claim to be Christian (although Christians are welcome, as are Jews, and Muslims, and Buddhists, and Wiccans, and atheists, and everyone else).

I'm a hard-core atheist and I have no problem being a member of a UU congregation. They're good people who do good things for good reasons (because it's decent and compassionate, not because SKY WIZARD SAID SO).

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

- The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
- Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
- Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
- The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

All good values, "Christian" values if you prefer to look at it that way... none of which require the acceptance in any theological doctrine or supernatural authority in order to live by them. And none of which contradicts the teachings of Jesus, if that's important to you.

The last bit about "May the Force be with You" is quasi-supernatural. As is simply stating the existence of a goal for the world community.
But basically this is all included in the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, including the business of having no exclusivity or God's preference for it's members. You can probably (with a good deal of searching) find the basis for all seven principles in Vatican II.
/There had been (until the middle of Reagan's tenure) also among Catholics the Liberation Theology of Fr. Gustavo Guitiérrez which involves only helping the needy and no mention to anyone of why you feel compelled to do so.
I think the global devastation of the world's economy ushered in with Thatcher's and Reagan's promotion of the Chicago brand of economics led to the admonishment of this sect.

mcgreggers99: clyph: mcgreggers99: The fact that I choose accept the gift

Saying "I believe" is A LOT easier than *NOT* being greedy, selfish, and hateful. Generosity, altruism, and tolerance actually take EFFORT.

So what you're saying is that actually acting like decent human beings is too difficult for Christians. That explains a lot.

I agree with you, they do take effort, A LOT of effort, is there any person in the history of the world that is harder to emulate that Christ? The guy was perfect. That's a tall order for a short guy like me.

Loving others and promoting equality for all is really that difficult for you?

Keizer_Ghidorah: mcgreggers99: clyph: mcgreggers99: The fact that I choose accept the gift

Saying "I believe" is A LOT easier than *NOT* being greedy, selfish, and hateful. Generosity, altruism, and tolerance actually take EFFORT.

So what you're saying is that actually acting like decent human beings is too difficult for Christians. That explains a lot.

I agree with you, they do take effort, A LOT of effort, is there any person in the history of the world that is harder to emulate that Christ? The guy was perfect. That's a tall order for a short guy like me.

Loving others and promoting equality for all is really that difficult for you?

If that's all there was to it there would be a lot more perfect people running around. JC did have a few other recommendations than just those 2 factors. But I digress...

mcgreggers99: I also congratulate your organization and I wish you well in continuing to make a difference in this world. I only wish that more faith based organizations would take part in similar initiatives.

The same to you. I apologize for any insult I may have offered to you personally. I know that there are Christians who aren't preachy hypocritical self-serving bastards, but I haven't met many. Those few I've met I've generally found to be decent people are so in SPITE of their religion, not BECAUSE of it. The Pat Robertsons and Jack Van Impes and Jack Chicks and Fred Phelpses of the world have irrevocably tainted the word "Christian" for me (and MANY others). If you don't want to be associated with the hatemongers, you should consider distancing yourself from them.

In all seriousness, you may find a UU congregation to be better suited to your temperament than your current church.

Sofa King Smart: Ablejack: Sofa King Smart: I see no requirement for 'faith' of any kind in any of that. unless you're afraid of some mythological 'after life'.

So the only requirement to (I'm going to say) "believe" in an afterlife is that you believe in an afterlife. I suppose that's ultimately true of the present life as well but only as meaningful as a tautology.
But to be fair, could you admit that the optimistic flip side to that fear is also just as much of a "requirement". Such as Faith "required" to console the bereaved. Such as.

to the bereaved I simply offer a heartfelt "I'm sorry for your loss." regardless of the beliefs of the person who died or the person mourning their passing...someone they cared about is gone... I can't offer anything more than my sympathy for their loss.... other than that it is a natural act... we all die... some fear that more than others.

No. I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this to be a compelling reason for you to perhaps believe or even feign belief in some sky wizard business. I'm just saying it may offer consolation for the believers themselves. So that you might admit that fear is not the only reason someone might (sensibly?) be a believer.

Ablejack: The last bit about "May the Force be with You" is quasi-supernatural

There's nothing supernatural about saying that all life on Earth is inter-dependent. That's a scientific fact.

DamnYankees: Theaetetus: But yes, it appears that the phrase was prompted or a list of phrases they could pick from:

Ah, I didn't read that. If the word was listed among a list of choices, then sure. I thought it was just a free-association thing, not a multiple choice thing.

The blog intentionally misled you to that position due to the agenda of the blog.

CheekyMonkey: DamnYankees: ringersol: One might even go so far as to say that it's far more difficult to be a devoted and faithful Christian if you're supporting such hate and judgement.

One might say that, but the evidence of history would be against you.

After looking at what passes for "Christian" these days, Jesus is spinning in his grave so fast that he has his own magnetic field.

You're telling me. There's people who vote Democrat and think they're still Christian in spite of it.

Bullseyed: unlikely: Babwa Wawa: I dunno. The bible calls many other things abominations, and also calls for many other positive actions. The argument is that Christianity is now being defined by and primarily associated with anti-homosexual stances. As opposed to, say, charity, loving thy brother, and all that shiat.

In point of fact there's only a very small number of places in the bible that say anything at all about homosexuality, and none of them are in the "Christ said" part. Leviticus and then Paul quoting Leviticus are pretty much all there is.

On the other hand, Christ himself said over and over that if you want to really follow him (that's what Christianity is, right?) you need to sell everything you own and use the money to help the poor.

For the most part, "Christians" are not followers of Christ.

Quite hard to "really follow Him" when He isn't here anymore.

I expected your post to include the usual derp about "love your neighbor" Biblical references. Loving your neighbor would include stopping them from sinning (aka being gay).

If your neighbor is a serial killer, does loving your neighbor include helping him hide the bodies?

Why is homosexuality a sin? What harm does it do to anyone? And why is that the only "sin" people keep obsessing over from a book that labels eating shrimp, wearing mixed fabrics, raising two types of crops in one field, and menstruating as sins worthy of death?

Keizer_Ghidorah: mcgreggers99: clyph: mcgreggers99: The fact that I choose accept the gift

Saying "I believe" is A LOT easier than *NOT* being greedy, selfish, and hateful. Generosity, altruism, and tolerance actually take EFFORT.

So what you're saying is that actually acting like decent human beings is too difficult for Christians. That explains a lot.

I agree with you, they do take effort, A LOT of effort, is there any person in the history of the world that is harder to emulate that Christ? The guy was perfect. That's a tall order for a short guy like me.

Loving others and promoting equality for all is really that difficult for you?

To the extent that one may try to emulate Christ? Yeah, I'd say that's difficult for us all. I don't think Dr. King, Mother Theresa, or Gandhi were just taking the easy route.

clyph: mcgreggers99: I also congratulate your organization and I wish you well in continuing to make a difference in this world. I only wish that more faith based organizations would take part in similar initiatives.

The same to you. I apologize for any insult I may have offered to you personally. I know that there are Christians who aren't preachy hypocritical self-serving bastards, but I haven't met many. Those few I've met I've generally found to be decent people are so in SPITE of their religion, not BECAUSE of it. The Pat Robertsons and Jack Van Impes and Jack Chicks and Fred Phelpses of the world have irrevocably tainted the word "Christian" for me (and MANY others). If you don't want to be associated with the hatemongers, you should consider distancing yourself from them.

In all seriousness, you may find a UU congregation to be better suited to your temperament than your current church.

Respect to you as well. Thankfully not all churches are as polarized and bent as the ones led by the names you mentioned. They may mean well, but their methods no longer resonate in the culture in a healthy manner. I really do feel like younger believers in their 20's and 30's are far closer to the middle than the far edge when it comes to hot button issues. It really is about reaching people and not viewing them with a scarlet "G" if you will.

Meet the people where they are at. That's what Christ did.

djZorbof: Completely off topic question for the Christians: Say a guy or girl goes their entire life without hearing about Jesus and then dies. Is he/she farked?

What about children and infants?

Saying "question for the Christians" is like saying "do all Asians like General Tso's Chicken"?

Different churches would have different opinions.


The primary (ie most followed) Christian church is the Catholic Church. The Catholic position is that anyone who isn't given the chance to accept Jesus is given the opportunity to at death. The Bible directly alludes to this I think.

Ablejack: To the extent that one may try to emulate Christ? Yeah, I'd say that's difficult for us all.

Going back to my previous example:
It wasn't too difficult for 20% of our 120 person UU congregation to help out at the local food bank when they needed volunteers.

It WAS too difficult for 100% of the 10,000+ members of "Christian" churches in the immediate vicinity.

Beginning to see a pattern?

Even if 1% of the local "Christians" who *HAD TO DRIVE PAST* the "volunteers needed" sign at the food bank on their way to church, they would have dwarfed the UU contingent by 5 to 1 or more. Their actions (or more accurately, inaction) speaks volumes as to what they REALLY believe.

mcgreggers99: Keizer_Ghidorah: mcgreggers99: clyph: mcgreggers99: The fact that I choose accept the gift

Saying "I believe" is A LOT easier than *NOT* being greedy, selfish, and hateful. Generosity, altruism, and tolerance actually take EFFORT.

So what you're saying is that actually acting like decent human beings is too difficult for Christians. That explains a lot.

I agree with you, they do take effort, A LOT of effort, is there any person in the history of the world that is harder to emulate that Christ? The guy was perfect. That's a tall order for a short guy like me.

Loving others and promoting equality for all is really that difficult for you?

If that's all there was to it there would be a lot more perfect people running around. JC did have a few other recommendations than just those 2 factors. But I digress...

He did say that "love thy neighbor as thyself" was what all the law and the prophets were hung upon.

Ablejack: Keizer_Ghidorah: mcgreggers99: clyph: mcgreggers99: The fact that I choose accept the gift

Saying "I believe" is A LOT easier than *NOT* being greedy, selfish, and hateful. Generosity, altruism, and tolerance actually take EFFORT.

So what you're saying is that actually acting like decent human beings is too difficult for Christians. That explains a lot.

I agree with you, they do take effort, A LOT of effort, is there any person in the history of the world that is harder to emulate that Christ? The guy was perfect. That's a tall order for a short guy like me.

Loving others and promoting equality for all is really that difficult for you?

To the extent that one may try to emulate Christ? Yeah, I'd say that's difficult for us all. I don't think Dr. King, Mother Theresa, or Gandhi were just taking the easy route.

If "love each other, mind your own business, and don't be a dick" are really that hard for Christians, no wonder most of them fail spectacularly at it.

clyph: Ablejack: The last bit about "May the Force be with You" is quasi-supernatural

There's nothing supernatural about saying that all life on Earth is inter-dependent. That's a scientific fact.

OK (although I don't fully buy into that either), but having "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence" goes beyond that and is either meaningless or spiritual.
/and I imagine you simply concede that prescribing a global community goal is a metaphysical narrative, of course. Which I don't have a problem with, it's fine, but it is not un-spiritual.

roadmarks: JDAT:
No I fully understand the problems with States having different laws regarding same sex marriages and I understand the frustration that it causes when the status is taken away just because State lines are crossed. It's criminal in many ways.

Keep in mind though that marriage itself is not a right.

You will have to take that argument up with the Supreme Court, who has declared that marriage is a right.

And again, Health Care Power of Attorney is not marriage, yet because of the wording of that amendment, BECAUSE we are in a same sex relationship, the hospital is required to ignore my directions.

Again, how do I have equal rights?

If we didn't have illegal laws forcing the hospitals to act that way, it wouldn't matter.

Deregulation is the answer.

clyph: Ablejack: To the extent that one may try to emulate Christ? Yeah, I'd say that's difficult for us all.

Going back to my previous example:
It wasn't too difficult for 20% of our 120 person UU congregation to help out at the local food bank when they needed volunteers.

It WAS too difficult for 100% of the 10,000+ members of "Christian" churches in the immediate vicinity.

Beginning to see a pattern?

Even if 1% of the local "Christians" who *HAD TO DRIVE PAST* the "volunteers needed" sign at the food bank on their way to church, they would have dwarfed the UU contingent by 5 to 1 or more. Their actions (or more accurately, inaction) speaks volumes as to what they REALLY believe.

You do not want to compare the charitable works of these two groups to decide which is doing more good. As they both seem to be doing good things, let's respect them both.

JDAT: Keep in mind though that marriage itself is not a right.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you: Loving v. Virginia

So, you're not too keen on Freedom of Association as a general concept, I take it?

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: clyph: Then why was the central premise of your post:

"of all the church members in the US, only 2.8% of them tithe"

Why bring tithing up at all if fleecing the flock wasn't the real issue?

Tithing has NOTHING to do with being a christian and EVERYTHING to do with greed (a subject about which, unlike kneecaps, the Bible has some pretty specific things to say)

It wasn't the "central premise" of my post, it was an illustration of a problem. I couldn't care less how much money a church receives, but tithing IS an important part of being a Christian. It doesn't even have to go to an actual church. Give it to a charity, a missionary, something that advances the work of God. Jesus simply asked that we tithe, and giving to whatever church you happen to be a member of (if you're a Christian), is the simplest solution. Tithing is NOT required (and should not be expected) of non-believers. It's not their responsibility.

Jesus wants 10%. Obama wants 45%.

Ablejack: I imagine you simply concede that prescribing a global community goal is a metaphysical narrative, of course. Which I don't have a problem with, it's fine, but it is not un-spiritual.

No, I believe that "Liberty and Justice for All" is something that EVERYONE -- every single human being on the planet -- is entitled to, not just All Americans. (Especially when "All" is often interpreted to mean "Conservative White Anglo-Saxon Protestants")

I gotta jump ship here guys work is over for me...Good chatting with you all. I appreciate a good discussion without things devolving into a flame war...

Next time a good religious thread gets going I'll hop back on in.



Jesus loves ya!

(Seriously though why is he ALWAYS portrayed as a white guy? The dude was jewish.) Anyway. L8ter.

clyph: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: clyph: because as long as you kiss Sky Daddy's ass for an hour a week he'll still let you come to the big party in the sky when you die.

Actually, you don't even have to do that. Madder, now?

Nope, that just proves the point that Christianity is inherently hypocritical and morally bankrupt, and that "Christians" couldn't give half a shiat about Jesus's (alleged) teachings.

[Considering that the earliest written record of those teachings doesn't appear until after 100CE, it's pretty doubtful that he actually existed, but that's another topic]

Completely false. There are plenty of records from the Romans killing Him, for example.

rocketpants: Theaetetus: Link to the original article from the pollsters

That study was published in 2007. I imagine that popular perception of Christianity has only gotten worse since then.

Oh so an ancient study, convineintly done prior to the last election year is being drudged up and presented as new in the next election year?

You'd almost think there was some bias or motive at play here...

FarkinHostile: No one can choose to believe anything. You either believe....or you don't. You don't choose so much as admit that you believe in something.

i choose to believe that this statement is full of cow manure

or am i compelled to believe?

/tough call

though i would agree that this evaluation is true for many people, because some are still unsure enough not to step on anyone's toes (especially friends and family members) regardless of what they actually believe, and possibly even a handful of them that are quite sure what they believe (secretly), however do not wish to risk hurting other's feelings

FarkinHostile: Type 1 faith: "intransigent faith". By this is meant faith that will not be affected by any sort of contrary evidence, no matter how strong. Also known as "Blind Faith".

Type 2 faith: "the will to believe." As defined by Professor Kurtz it is "willful belief...where there is insufficient or no evidence either way to make a rational choice." It really involves making a decision to believe, even though the reasons for doing so are not compelling.

Type 3 faith: "hypotheses based upon evidence." Also known as rational thinking.

type 1 sounds like type 2 which sound like strawmen to built to create the false dichotomy of there being only 2 choices either "rational" or "irrational", which through equivocation will prove that any religious beliefs lack evidence therefore are automatically irrational

if you are attempting some sort of guiness record for the most fallacies within a single post, i'd say that you are well on your way

cue the "IDW is TEH TROLL!!!1!!!!1", ranting...

/be sure to use lots of hemroid rage
//it has a nice ring to it

Ablejack: Bullseyed:
Real Christianity is Catholicism, the only religion that associates with the Vicar of Christ.
Not sure if serious. But Catholicism, by it's very definition, is incompatible with that idea. It was the Vicar of Christ himself that announced as dogma that all religions are to be fully respected.

Fully respected doesn't make them right.

Your post is utterly lacking in fact.



Note that all protestants, evangelicals, baptists, calvinists, etc are splinter sects from Catholicism, the true Christianity.

Ablejack: You do not want to compare the charitable works of these two groups to decide which is doing more good. As they both seem to be doing good things, let's respect them both.

The only "good" I see the local megachurches doing is leaving literature on my doorstep telling me how I'm going to burn in hell, putting up 100 foot crosses with $15,000 lighting systems on the side of the interstate, and paying for their preachers' million-dollar McMansions and luxury cars.