Is Christianity an aggressively recruiting religion by nature?

I see the Christian right becoming politically
powerful and I am soooo uncomfortable with
this. I don't go to church often but have a
deep spititual belief that I practice daily.
I don't believe that my beliefs are the only
truth and respect all religions that practice
peaceful philosophies. Why do so many Christians
believe it is their duty to convert others to
their belief? Now it seems to be taking over
the government and this is scary. How can this
ever be stopped as long as Christians believe
they have the only truth?

Why yes, I believe they do. :-)

you want to share it with others. It is just that simple.

I think it goes deeper than that. I think
they believe that the whole human race
should be Christian and for many that is
a goal.

and I don't think that is inconsistent with sentiment expressed in my original post.

when they destroyed the Incan and Mayan civilizations. They have always thought they had something better to offer as they have gone about setting societies and cultures back by millennia.

That "something good" you talk about exists in each and every person on this planet and is not the sole "property" of born-again Christians. This "great wonder" within man can be accessed by each and anyone who seeks to find it, without someone from another faith or culture declaring that they have sole claim to it and that they are the only ones who can bestow that blessed spirituality upon the rest of the salvation-deprived inhabitants of earth.

Jesus said himself that the "kingdom of heaven is within you"... and he didn't just mean Christians, and he didn't mean that only Christians can find it... and he especially did not mean that only Christians can reveal it to others. It is completely within the power and the capability of each and every human being to find his or her own way to divinity.

I have no problem with sincere Christians wanting to share their "good news", but history has shown that the mission has mostly been overrun by dogamtic and religiously insane zealots, thus doing more harm than good when all is said and done.

Unfortunately, Christian history does not promise the best for people in need. As when contemplating the pedominant "Christian leaders" in this country today, I am left trembling in fear at the vile idiologies that they adhere to and the harm that can come from them should they ever gain the absolute political powers that they covet.

"I am left trembling in fear at the vile idiologies that they adhere to and the harm that can come from them should they ever gain the absolute political powers that they covet."

Beautifully said, it is what I feel but you expressed
it much better than I could.

were acting as Christians or under Christian principles. Hitler, as you know, also claimed to lead in the name of Christianity. Anybody can say what they want. Actions tell the tale. True Christians believe they have something good to share. Those who murder and maim are not really Christians, just as the WTC bombers were not respresenting Islam, though they said they were.

...including the killing of people they considered to be less than human because of their non-Christian culture.

Ask the deeply religious American pioneers what they thought of the Indians they displaced and usually killed at every opportunity.

You're stating a personal opinion in terms of your own belief in Christianity, not what history has recorded. As you stated, "Actions tell the tale".

I don't see that those who destroyed the Mayans, etc.
... were acting as Christians or under Christian principles.

Then somehow they managed to talk themselves into thinking they were.

Those who murder and maim are not really Christians, just as the WTC bombers were not respresenting Islam, though they said they were.

"Christianity" is a pretty inclusive term. It seems to include every religious group from the charismatic, pentecostal, speaking in tongues groups to the "high" Episcopalians. Supposedly, the commonality is that all these groups follow the teachings of Christ. Sometimes I do wonder which ones though.

You are saying that by their actions those who murder and maim are proving that they are not really Christians, but there are certain Christians who support their fellow Christians if the reason they are murdering and maiming is to save fetal life ... or to defend the nation's oil supply.

If Christians believe that these certain individuals are not truly Christian, it is for Christians to disavow them, loud and clear. Saying that they aren't Christians on a message board is fine but where is Donohue and the Catholic League, for instance? Why isn't he on Good Morning America telling everyone that these folks aren't Christians? Why isn't the head of the Southern Baptists (or someone with some authority to speak for them) standing up on Meet the Press to say that the Southern Baptists solemnly condemn those who harrass or maim and mutilate people who are gay?

I think most people know what Christians are supposed to do, and we realize that no one is perfect, but at the same time Christians are very wishy-washy about officially distancing themselves from confirmed allegedly Christian maimers and murderers. That's really too bad.

If you were to listen to Christian talk radio, you'd hear exactly that. The disavowing of militant extremists of any creed. There are misguided people who are extremist Christian. Just as there are extremist muslims. They are misguided. But to reject those that are NOT extremist because of it is biggotry. We all know that the muslim extremists that attacked the WTC do not speak for the peaceful nation of Islam. They are radical murderers. Well there are certainly radical Christians too who need to be stopped. Christ taught peace and love. Christians follow Christ.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

For a lot of really aggressive "evangelists," it isn't about "sharing." It's about assimilating others into their tribe.

that they should witness to the entire world, yes. Forcible conversion of the entire world is a belief of Islam, as I read the Qu'ran.

Although it is true that in the past, when the ruler of country became Christian, he forcibly converted his subjects, it is not a requirement of the Bible, or Christianity to do so, as I read it, anyway.

...and if they don't want to share it with you, you force them to their knees and kill them.

Sorry, but this is absurd. Have you read anything during your stay here on earth?

Kasper

Not all Christians are right-wing assholes. But the ones that are will tell you that "the Bible tells them so."

but this has nothing to do with politics. Those that do seem to have zigged when they should have zagged.

How can they claim to believe if they don't think they have the only truth ? Its been made pretty clear to them in scripture that they ONLY way to heaven is through Jesus Christ.

n/t

and Europe is ripe for a new look.

That doesn't look too far off either.

Because they are coming to take over the Earth whether you believe in them or not. But if you worship and help their cause, they promise to eat you last :)

there are some who believe that and some that don't

the spreading the Gospel part or the going through Jesus part ? Or both ?

and please, Please, PLEASE don't lump all Christians in with the evangelical right

All religions, trends, etc. are self-perpetuating.

This one was not in my dictionary, but
I did find it on the net. Interesting.

the problem. I told my dad one day that all a christian is supposed to do with regard to others is to spread the word of christ to people who have not heard it. If the person you encounter has already heard the gospel, it's not up to you to convert that person. He just looked at me with his mouth open. He couldn't respond to that.

Islam has the same problem. The need to convert everyone.

Two religions that believe they have
the only truth can never embrace as
equals on any level.

Islam has been more aggressive in the past. Both have a bloody history of conversion under the fear of the sword.

Jews don't partcipate in or encourage proselytization. Conversion is a long process. They make really sure you want to convert. You get turned away. You have to go to see counselors and rabbis and classes and you still might not be allowed to convert.

I put Judaism up there with Buddhism because of this. These are both very beautiful, honorable, and enlightened faiths.

In fact, they are quite opposed to converting other faiths into Hinduism.

On the other hand, Hinduism is not really a religion, but a mixture of philosophies.

Jews don't partcipate in or encourage proselytization. Conversion is a long process. They make really sure you want to convert. You get turned away.

Three times, even!

You have to go to see counselors and rabbis and classes and you still might not be allowed to convert.

Well, that doesn't happen too often. They don't convert you just so you can marry a Jewish guy or gal in the synagogue though. The "intended" may have led you toward an interest in Judaism, but you are the one that has to personally commit to it.

The one thing that made me question what I was doing was when we were reminded that Jews had been persecuted throughout time, and while we might be willing to accept that possibility for ourselves, we needed to think that we were accepting it for any children we might have also. That's a lot to think about.

My three Jewish children are glad I decided as I did though.

I am proud to be a Jew, like Abraham, a convert.
I am proud to be raising my son as a strong Jewish man.
I hope that as he gets older, he will not feel left out or cheated by my and my husband's decision.
I hope that he is, as we say in our Shabbat prayers, a light unto the other nations.

Nor on my phone. Nor on the street. I have never been proselyted to by a Muslim. I have been approached a hundred times by "Christians".

I believe the Muslim extreme goes to encouraging people to read the Qur'an.

Organized religion and evangelism goes hand-in-hand.

Muslims are obliged to convert, by force if necessary, or subdue the whole world. It's in the Qur'an. It was an eye-opener to me when I read that book.

but think, why are there Muslims in America, but none in Saudi Arabia?

Muslims are obliged to convert, by force if necessary, or subdue the whole world. It's in the Qur'an.

There's a lot of force mentioned in the Bible also. Hopefully, we are past stoning adulterers. I'd imagine most Muslims are past any expectation of subduing the world also. But, there's always the fundamentalists in any religion that cause all the headaches, eh?

Find, in the NEw Testament where a Christian is obliged to convert. Witness, yes, but conversion is the task of the Holy spirit. Now, some later Christians got it wrong, let's admit that, but they are not commanded in their holy scripture to force others to convert.

On the other hand, read the Qu'ran. in IT, the Muslims ARE commanded to kill the unbeliever.

Muslims are obliged to convert, by force if necessary, or subdue the whole world. It's in the Qur'an.

There's a lot of force mentioned in the Bible also. Hopefully, we are past stoning adulterers. I'd imagine most Muslims are past any expectation of subduing the world also. But, there's always the fundamentalists in any religion that cause all the headaches, eh?

and I live in an overwhelmingly Islamic country. Our University even has its own mosque.

Not once have I ever been hit in the face with their religion. In fact I saw a local show (Dubai TV) where an imam was bemoaning the fact that Islam (today at least) doesn't do more to bring people aboard.

Christians are obliged to witness, only. The Holy Spirt does any conversion that takes place

"convert" anyone during the last 30 years (spiritually anyway-sexually is a WHOLE different story)

but you and I were both taught to. Evangalize that is...

That's why I like Episcops, we're not pushy..

50 years. The churchs that aggressively recruit, (They call it evangelize.)are growing greatly in membership and influence.

Churches here in NC. Folks seem to really like Contemporary Christian Music and less restrictive services. Even one of the new Episcopal Churches here is "experimenting" with the new "Casual" Religious Services.

The worrysome thing to me is that it become almost like "entertainment," rather than religious worship, but that's the way things are heading here and it does get the young kids involved because of the music and the entertainment value.

really are:

If somebody goes out of their way to inform you (and everyone) that they are a Christian (and particularly if "born again" is mentioned), you can be VERY sure they are sanctimonious, hypocritical pricks.

Watch what they DO, not what they SAY.

It really is that simple.

the watching what they do part is a dead giveaway but the rest is judgemental and biggoted.

I have known a few people from the religious
right and always felt that they thought I was
somehow lost and to be pitied. We could be
having a conversation and out of nowhere they
would say things like "praise God", or "Thank
you Jesus". I never knew how to respond and
it was startling, a real conversation stopper
and I felt like they were on another plane.
Anyway I never felt comfortable enough with
these persons to try to keep any kind of a
relationship going.

You don't really need to respond at all, its not actually for your benefit. The real intent is a bit of self realization on their part of another bit of Grace that they've spotted and are acknowledging.

One of the reasons he is a good friend is that he always remembers me and offers help when I'm in trouble and celebration when things are good.

I hate to see anyone miss a chance to have a good friend.

Why not accept them as they are. If they are anything like my friend they are going to accept you as you are.

Now if they whip out a Bible and thump you on the head then it OVER !

"Praise Loki"

"Hail Satan" will usually stop them dead in their tracks after they come out with a "Praise Jesus".

When I hear an "Amen" I respond with "So Mote it BE!"

because you don't believe the same things they believe in. Another one is "he must be living wrong" when something bad happens to someone.

I do hope we have grown some what smarter as the religion gets older and as we get older.

They all say "Believe in Me, your God, or I _________" where _______ = "shalleth turneth you into a pillar of salt" or "smite your firstborn male" or "have your pet dog eat your testicles", et cetera.

They think that THEIR religion is correct and all the others were created for worshipping false idols (that's another no-no according to all religions.)

Heck, all religions are similar in these ways, yet so different... maybe they're all nuts.

No they don't all say that. As a matter of fact, I've never heard anyone say that. The reason Christians feel they have the only truth is because we follow Christ and He TOLD us this is true. We believe that He ALWAYS told the truth so if He told us this, then it MUST be true. You see where I'm going? If we believe that there are other ways, then that makes Jesus either a liar or wrong. We cannot accept that He was either of those so what He said MUST be true. Its not about dominating or forcing our beliefs. Its about sharing the truth as WE believe as a means of HELPING those who don't have this truth. Earlier someone said that we should offer this belief but leave the conversion to the Holy Spirit. I agree with this. Its not MY job, as a Christian, to convert you. Its MY job to put the info out there for YOU to make YOUR own decision. Its MY job to help you and guide you SHOULD YOU DECIDE to pursue it.

Another mention was made about those who say "praise God" and "Thank you Jesus". This is not some form of psychobabble or brainwashing. Someone hit it correctly when they said that this is the believers way of giving The Lord proper credit and recognition when they see something that they feel is good news from God. It should not put you off, and you should not let it make you feel uncomfortable. Just continue on the way you normally do, they won't mind.

first you say "Its not about dominating or forcing our beliefs. Its about sharing the truth as WE believe as a means of HELPING those who don't have this truth.", but what you don't seem to understand is that many of us don't want to hear you're beliefs about what is or is not true.

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. would you not be bothered if I, as an atheist, started leaving tapes of sermons filled with my "good news" on your car in the parking lot of the grocery store. Or if you were constantly being told this "good news" from well-meaning atheists who just thought they were doing you a favor.

Or if the Atheist evangelical movement :silly: started placing stone markers in Judicial loudly proclaiming "THERE IS NO GOD". Or if we started printing "No God We Trust" on the money.

At first none of this may bother you, but give it a while. Eventually you'll get tired of the odd stares you get from unbelieving atheists when they hear that you believe in God. They'll look at you as though you just walked out of a space ship, and ask stupid questions like "How can you possibly believe in God?".

You'll be bothered by politicians pandering to the atheist vote. You'll soon be sickened by their false lack of piety, and you'll start to see the atheist agenda as something that must be stopped, because of it's intolerance. After all, all you want to do is worship your god in peace, but these atheists keep insisting that their way is the only correct one and your beliefs are just a fairy tale. You don't want to change the atheists, you just don't want to be bothered anymore, and you're tired of being a second class citizen.

If you were in those shoes you might understand why the idea of hearing your "good news" turns some of our stomachs. The problem is, I've heard it all before, and it's not for me. Why is it that your beliefs compel you to tell me about it? Why can't you allow me to believe whatever I want without hearing your "good news". It's not that you're forcing your beliefs, the problem is that you feel the need to tell people about it when they're not asking.

I like the way you think! What I really hate is that the people who try to convert me think I haven't already thought all this through, and they need to enlighten me. I think I have enough intelligence to come to my own conclusions on what I choose to believe, and am offended by those who think I don't.

That was well put. I can understand that would get frustrating.

Here's the only thing I can think of to reply.

Lets say there's an atheist and a Christian. They're friends. Lets also say the atheist has it right and there is no God. The christian spends his life telling people about a God that doesn't exist. What he says annoys the atheist but it doesn't hurt the atheist's eternity because there isn't one. When they die, they have the same fate. Nothingness. The only harm is the Christian wasted his time spreading a useless belief but in the end he was wrong.

Now lets say the Christian is right. When the Christian tells people of his belief, he's trying to save as many people as he can from an eternity away from God. If the atheist runs around saying there is no God, then he's hurting the chances of people who might WANT to know the truth. When they die, not only was the atheist hurt because of his belief but so was everyone he convinced of his false message.

The difference is, if the atheist is right, the Christian wasted a lot of time on a belief. If the Christian is right, the atheist's soul is in danger as well as people he influenced. I'd rather have wasted my time in the end.

that atheists go to hell. Believe it or not, there are many who don't believe that. In the end, it's not really about being annoyed, it's about respecting one another's beliefs and their personal space.

I also don't believe that people should go around preaching to people about their religious beliefs just on the outside chance that there might be someone who wants to know. It seems to me that if a person want's to know They'll simply ask. If they do, by all means preach away, but if they didn't ask, then it's awfully presumptuous to assume that it's something they should hear.

As an atheist, I don't go around telling people what they should or should not believe, but I don't buy your argument that I'd be hurting people by convincing them to believe a false message. In fact, from my perspective Christians are the ones preaching the false message. I could argue that preaching Christianity is harmful based on my belief that anyone who spends their lives following that antiquated moral system and worshiping a god who does not exist is wasting his or her time, and that because of that converting people to Christianity is wrong.

I could argue that most Christians tend to become closed minded because they aren't allowed by their religion to explore other possibilities in the world. Because of this, I could argue that Christianity is actually a detriment to society, as it prevents people from exploring the realm of possibilities that exist outside of Christian dogma.

Honestly, I don't take it that far. I tend to take more of the live and let live approach, but the point is, from a Christian perspective, the idea of atheists attempting to convert other people can seem harmful, but from the atheist perspective the opposite seems true. This is why I believe that each person should search for their own path individually without being preached at from either side. If they wish to walk the Christian path, I believe they will find their way to it without all the evangelical stuff.

Well said!

Atheist, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Wicca, what have you....

We all get pretty tired of being told we are going to hell.

We get pretty tired of that insincere look of pity you get when they finally understand that you don't care about their Jesus crap.

We get pretty tired of being molested by any person that thinks that being "born-again" is a good excuse for being an insufferable ass in the name of "The Lord".

We get tired of having your holidays shoved down our throats. (When the hell did someone decide that Christmas needed to start in October?)

If we "non-Christians" seem a little hypersensitive about this evangelical nonsense, it is because we are sick to death of being preached to. We are sick to death of people trying to convert us. We are sick to death of them trying to foist their invisible friend on us.

I never mentioned anyone going to hell. As far as Christmas is concerned, "our" holiday was taken over by corporate America a long time ago. Its now a season to reap in loads of cash rather than honor the birth of Jesus. But are you telling me you don't have Christmas in your home?

I guess you understand how the Pagans feel about holidays being taken over by others, huh.

Enjoy Eostar next spring, too.

I AM JEWISH!!!

I can tell you that some times it gets really hard to explain to my two year old son why all the stores are plugging this Santa fellow.

Entire stores are decked from floor to ceiling with Xmas gear. I am lucky, REALLY LUCKY, if I find one shelf of Chanukah decorations.

But everywhere I go, I am reminded that I am not a Christian and that Judiasm isn't important because I can't buy a few fricken Chanukah candles without schlepping to a specialty store, and I live in a large city with a decent sized Jewish population.

So the next time Christains complain about being opressed, they can try to find a Menorah in December.

Try explaining to a Christian that Hanukkah is NOT the Jewish Christmas.

Someone had the gall to ask me if I had a Hanukkah bush! Oy vey!

My plan is to highlight the coolness of Chanukkah for my son.
I'm already getting him psyched. He loves the candle part.
He is usually the most excited person in the house that we are lighting candles. He has become quite the little firebug where Shabbat is concerned.

but for clarification, I didn't argue that atheists hurt people by convincing them of false messages. I, hypothetically mind you, said lets assume Christians have it right in THAT particular scenario. In THAT scenario, it would, in fact, be harmful.

As far as your perspective being that Christians are doing wrong by wasting time, that is what I was attempting to say in the first scenario. Then I added my own opinion that I'd rather waste the time than gamble my eternity.

I never mentioned hell btw. I don't see it as cavernous rooms filled with fire and screaming souls. I believe it to be more like a total absence of God and goodness.

as a Christian I assume you believe that the Christians DO have it right so even though you gave me a hypothetical situation, it's based on what you really believe so I responded to it as such.

As far as hell, it doesn't sound like a nice place (state of being) either way. You did say that in your hypothetical situation that an atheists soul would be in "danger", I took that to mean in danger of going to hell.

as a Christian, I do believe I have the right answer. Someone has to. It boils down to is there a God or isn't there? Atheists believe there is not, Christians/Jews/Muslims believe there is. Only one side can be right. Right? I mean sure we can all live in harmony and let each other believe what they want, but in the end there'll be only one truth. I, personally, believe in God and His son Jesus Christ. However, I don't feel myself "above" others who do not. I believe that I am saved (in the words of Roger Waters) "by the Grace of God Almighty" and NOT for anything I deserve. I cannot boast because I do not deserve to be saved therefor I do not.

Atheists only believe in one less god than your do.

And if Christianity is correct, which version of Christianity is the one with the answer? They can't all be right.

Is it the Catholics, the Mormons, the Baptists, the Episcopalians, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, or who?

For that matter, what if the Asatru are the ones who are correct? Loki could be deceiving you right now when you should be paying homage to Odin and Thor.

If the Buddhists are correct, then none of this matters, really.

If the Satanists have the right answer, then they'll get the last laugh in the end.

Nobody has exclusive domain over the truth. In fact, I daresay not anybody has the answer, only the answer for themselves, which common courtesy dictates they should keep to themselves. Anything else just gets to be rude behavior.

We've been discussing Atheists and Christians. So I boiled THIS topic into the simplest form. Is there or isn't there? On the one hand there are ALL the religions that believe in A God of some sort. On the other hand are those folk who do NOT believe in a God of some sort.

As for Christianity, there is One. Those that follow Christ are Christians. The Catholics, baptists, and those other "organized" religions mean nothing to me. I believe in God the Father, and His son Jesus. And I believe God's word- The Bible. Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists (which I believe are mormons) and Jehova's Witnesses are not Christians. They believe in God but after that, they lost me. As for Norse mythology, I loved all the gods when I was deep into Thor's comic books back in the day. Same with the Greek/Roman gods. They were fun to read about. Don't know much about Buddhists but the satanists have half the answer, in my opinion, they're just following the wrong guy. Like I said, when its all over there will be one truth.

If the atheists are the ones who are correct, you'll never know it...

If the atheists are right, I'll never know it. But that will be ok for me cause it will never cause me pain.

You'll definitely know it when you spend a portion of eternity in Mormon school.

If the Seventh Day Adventists (who are NOT Mormons but grew out of the same movement that produced the Jehovah's Witnesses) are right, you'll be burning in Hell right alongside my Pagan ass.

If the Catholics are right, you may or may not be burning in Hell, but I won't because I was baptised as a Catholic after my birth, so the worst that can happen to me is I'll be spending a long time in purgatory, at least under Catholic Dogma. If you end up in Purgatory, my Pagan ass will be doing less time than you because I was baptised as a Catholic.

cause so was I. Grew up in the catholic faith, I just don't like it. Too much emphasis on Mary instead of Jesus. You're right, it was the Latter day saints that are mormons.

I've researched quite a lot and I've made my choice to have FAITH in Jesus. Only He fulfilled ALL of the prophesies of the coming messiah from the Old Testament. But this thread wasn't about preaching, it was about why Christians do what they do. Because they have to. Its what we're TOLD to do by Jesus Himself. Don't hold it against us, its our job.

of Christianity.

I relate more to the feminine divine than the masculine.

Before you start lumping in Christians/Jews/Muslims you need to stop a second. Most of the Christians I have met in my life mean "Jesus" when they say GOD. It seems that a huge number of them skip the boss and worship the middle man. I'm not saying all of them. Just the ones I've come across. (The ones that get up in my face about their boy Jesus. A Jew, by the way )

I cannot speak for Muslims, because I really haven't done enough study to make any assertions on their behalf, but I can say that when Jews say God, they mean GOD. The big boss. The head cheese. The MFIC. Ain't no middle man for us.

So don't lump Christians/Jews/Muslims. We are cousins at best on a good day.

Jesus and YHWH are one and the same.

It's a stretch, I know, but that is the belief. The Triune Deity is a basic tenet of the Christian Creed, Gnostics excepted.

For my part, I can understand various aspects of a divine being. My own Goddess is represented as Maiden, Mother and Crone.

In Judaism G-d has many names but is one being.
God is referred to as Adonai, Eloheinu and Ashem.
Each reference is meant to describe aspects of, for lack of a better description, God's personality.
There is a name that is used when referring to God in the capacity as creator of the universe (a nurturing creative parental role).
There is a name that is used when referring to God in the capacity as judge and punisher (a kicking on your butt for being a jerk role).
And there is one for just referring to God in a general sense.

It can get pretty confusing, but the main point is that the one God is in all things, the trees, the wind, the air, and the water. God is so large that it cannot be contained by one name or one thought.

It is why I get a little testy with the whole Jesus thing. God is too big to have ever have been a MAN. It is kind of silly to even try to label something that intangible and unimaginable. The best I can do is light my candles, eat my bread, drink my wine, and be thankful that the universe exists with me and the people I care for in it. Hopefully, whatever the truth is at the end, will be revealed. Even if it is nothing. All I can do is try to be a decent human being while I'm here and leave the place a better world than the one I found, because I can't count on what comes after (since nobody really knows and no one has ever come back to report on the AFTER).

I was referring to the difference between NOT believing in a God and believing in a God. I couldn't make my point if I were to stop and distinguish between every possibility. Christians/Jews/Muslims ALL BELIEVE IN A GOD. Get it?

I believe in a Goddess and a God. I can't break it down any more than that, being a human.

Hindus believe in many gods as well.

Atheists still only believe in one less god than you do.

Can you not just take the gist of what I'm trying to say instead of just working on tripping me up every step? So I forgot to add the (s) after God. Forgive me.

It does not just boil down to theists and atheists because the theists don't agree on anything. That's the point I'm making.

If you really want to hedge your bets, you have to accept all religions. That is antithetical to most religions, so you cannot hedge your bets.

And the worst part of it all, only one sect of the Christians can possibly be correct, so if you choose the wrong sect, you're as screwed as the rest of us.

You are wrong about the Christian part. If you are a Christian and you believe in Christ, it doesn't matter which church you spent your time in. Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, or whatever else is out there, the whole crux of Christianity is to believe in Him. He said "For whosoever believeth in Me, he will have eternal life."

And they can't prove their belief any more than we can prove ours. We have faith that ours is correct. Their lack of faith says theirs is.

that we keep our beliefs about the supernatural and any alleged gods or afterlife to ourselves.

Doing otherwise is rude and offensive.

Yours might be, so feel free to keep him/her/them to yourself if you wish. I will praise mine from wherever I wish.

If that offends you, so be it.

then trot him out.

The only way any god can not be alleged is to provide evidence to support the existance of said god.

Do so, or your god remains only alleged as is the case with all other gods.

It seems we've had this argument before when I proved that all gods are myths by definition.

If you do not see him, then you choose not to.

And, again, you might prove YOUR gods are myths. My God is not.

It's pretty simple. You are making the allegations. You are under the burden of proof.

No need. You are the one with doubts. I have none.

just as you have the right to do my friend.

usually isn't so easily defined. It's really nothing more than the absence of religion and deity. To be fair, I can't say that there is absolutely nothing out there beyond our current understanding of the universe. If our species survives long enough, I believe there will be many discoveries that will force us to change our ways of thinking.

The only thing I am completely convinced of is that there is/are no Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu god/gods. This makes me an Atheist by most people's standards, and I'm fine with that. Like you, I don't feel above anyone either, and I agree that in the end someone has to be right, but I don't think that's what's important.

To me what matters is right now and the legacy we leave for those who come after us, and for that reason, I believe tolerance should be a central goal of our society. We don't have to agree. That's the beauty of individualism, but we do have to live together, and sometimes that means one side will have to make accommodations for the other so that everyone's liberty is protected.

I am suprised you are using a new screen name.
In fact you do preach that people should think like you. You just did.

PS... the use of the term antiquated moral system isn't exactly neutral.

Paschal's Wager?

The difference is, if the atheist is right, the Christian wasted a lot of time on a belief.

And since you only go around once, why waste time?

And, as Walt Starr points out, the problem with Pascal's little roll o' the dice is this:

The layout on the cosmic craps table has more spots than christian and atheist. If you really want to cover your bets, you have to play all the propositions.

Tough job. What if you spend your whole life witnessing for Jesus, and when the dice stop bouncing, you find yourself reincarnated as a cockroach. Probly woulda been better to spend some time chanting the thousand names.

For that matter, if you feel like you're gambling on your eternal soul, why not go with the long-term winners--hinduism, say, or animism? Why take a flyer on some longshot upstart? Heck. The Jesus story's only been around for 2K years. Pick something with some legs.

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. "

george h.w. bush

While we could spend an eternity discussing the "nature" of Christianity, the fact that it and religion as a whole is an abstract and varies depending upon practitioners negates the entire conversation. What I think the infered focus here are the sects of Christianity who put evangelism at the forefront of their religious practices. In the interest of full disclosure I am an irrelegious atheist (and there are religious atheists, Buddhists for instance), and though I believe my personal stance on these matters has little to no bearing on my analysis, I could be wrong.

That being said, it is my firm belief that much of if not all of the American anti-secular movement's caterwalling about secular government and all its supposed ills has to do with their belief in unrestrainable evangelism. That and (I'm trying my best not to be insulting) a general sense of laziness in the right-wing evangelical community.

For the first part, evangelism does fall under the category of a religious practice and, that being said, such a right should not be abridged. However there are instances where what may be termed evangelism can constitute outright harrassment (from my own experience, I had to change my phone number twice in order to avoid quite a few not-to-polite calls at around six in the morning informing me of my destiny as "Satan's bitch"). Just as well, the growing attitude of tolerance towards traditionally outcast groups such as homosexuals makes it extremely difficult for Evangelicals to promulgate their "Saving Gays" agenda, as such an agenda relies heavily on the social, political, and economic stigmas long associated with homosexuals to be effective.

As for my comment on laziness, the resources of the state, being neutral in religious matters, can not be used to give a stronger voice to any sect in these matters. The use of public monies and institutions to evangelize does not fall under the rubric of "religious freedom". Nor are such resources even required by any sect of any religion to promulate their particular creeds and practices, and most have successfully done so throughout American history through volunteerism and donations. They simply make meeting those ends MUCH easier and provide an advantage to one religious sect over all others.

Your freedom to evangelize ends at my property line. Cross that line and you get what you deserve.

I've spent my entire life having so-called Christians violating my personal space when I've made it clear I have no interest in their sermon. Instead of taking the hint, that you don't want to be converted, they keep after you or worse, pity you loudly in front of others. "Poor thing is going stright to hell!"

I've lost friends because of it. They are relentless.

there are some christians who are not evangelical-types, but most are. They believe they're right about the whole God thing and it's their job to spread it. In the gospels, Jesus supposedly tells them to do it.

Personally I find it to be one of the most repugnant features of the the religion. You can believe in the Christian god if you want. For that matter you can believe that the moss growing on my bonsai trees is god if you want to, the problem is when you start telling me I should believe it too. Once you start believe you're the only one that's right, it's not a big leap to believing everyone else is inferior because they don't agree with you.

That's the real problem with most christians. They've got all the right answers, and there's something wrong with you because you don't accept their answers.

aggressive, coercive, violent

anything goes to convert new members of the cult.

i'm sure that there'd be groups that would aggresively recruit new atheists.

and as an atheist, i'm pretty confident that that would occur.

for one thing, we don't have any "holy charge" to spread the good word. I'm sure the anti-theists would use the bully pulpit if they had one, but most atheists that I know (myself included) are pretty content to live and let live.

...he's talking to the disciples after he's been resurrected (Matthew 28:18-20)

And Jesus came and said to them "All authority in heaven and on Earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the HOly Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Seems to unequivocally mandate prosletyzing. I like that last line - I think Jesus was the greatest hippie of all time.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

It doesn't look very optional. Words from the big guy himself. I'm not sure how even a good cafeteria-style believer gets around that.

I was dredging this up from the dark recesses of my hard-rock fundy upbringing, and thinking, "Creature?? That can't be right." But there it is, big as life.

So I guess that they're mandated to tell everybody in the world and dogs, cats, horses, sheep, elephants, cockroaches. I mean, this could keep all of 'em busy for a long, long time.

of course, nor should it be. The preaching I mean, not taking over the government.

We are in large part spiritual beings, and many, if not most, of us are in some quest for some spiritual meaning in our lives. All religions, even the crackpot ones, should have free and open expression. This does not mean they should have the right to bludgeon or control us against our wills. It is our individual choice what messages we will or will not listen to.

I don't really fear a fundie theocracy here. We're too diverse, and even most American Christians wouldn't put up with a lot of the crap they'd try to impose. Roman Catholics would undoubtedly be the first to rebel, as they aren't in "the club" and would be excluded. Mainline Protestants wouldn't be too happy, either. Nor would those of us pretty far out of the mainline.

I'm one of those American Christians who takes the Sermon on the Mount a lot more seriously than the Ten Commandments. And I am far from alone.

I wouldn't want the Beatitudes to be enshrined in a courthouse any more that the Commandments, but I notice no one has tried yet. Could it be that the Beatitudes are far more Christian than those phony "Christians" are?

Nobody's put "Render unto Caesar..." in a courthouse, either.

<<<I don't really fear a fundie theocracy here. We're too diverse, and even most American Christians wouldn't put up with a lot of the crap they'd try to impose. Roman Catholics would undoubtedly be the first to rebel, as they aren't in "the club" and would be excluded. Mainline Protestants wouldn't be too happy, either. Nor would those of us pretty far out of the mainline.>>>

If that is the case, WHY are the more mainline/liberal Christian groups NOT speaking out against the fundies? All you see and hear is f---ing Falwell and Robertson and Dobson and Reed and Bauer and all the other nutcases.

they are better at tending their own flocks than getting on TV.

Within the individual churches there is a lot of talk about these TV types, and they are not trusted. Most churches are fairly small, and they have little time left over after paying the bills, counselling the parishioners, having weddings and funerals, running the local charities, and doing other "church work."

Most churches actually do believe in the absolute separation of church and state, as they have no interest in the state telling them what they can or can't do. There are also those pesky laws stopping them from politicking or they'll lose their nonprofit status. It still amazes me how some of the fundie churches get away with it, but they do.

It's a lot of work and expense setting up a separate organization that can talk politics. Friends Committee on National Legislation was set up as just such a lobbying organization, but there aren't too many others out there, and FCNL just doesn't have the resources, or interest, to get on TV and lambast the wingnuts.

And, they don't really have a unified, simple, message like the TV preachers do. What they believe can't be put into sound bites.

And those who have the truth don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. That's precisely why there's a separation of church and state in this country: without it, there's a privileged group and all others are second-class citizens.

Of course it's a huge generalization, and there are many Christians who are private and retiring with their beliefs, but the idea of conversion is so deeply imbedded within the system that it is rarely in remission. It's so justified that the act of doing so is often not considered an intrusion, and if one rejects the approach, it's taken as a deliberate and unprovoked offense. Once again, this is why the more certain strains of belief are so dangerous: most prostelytizers would never tolerate the kind of invasiveness that they expect by right, and are offended at any lack of toleration of theirs.

! Why should I speak out against someone because their interpretation of Christs words are different than mine. How would that be any different than me being intolerant of Jews or Muslims? I fight in the political arena. I am not going to attack people for their religion. When someone tries to convince me their way is right, I am capable of saying I disagree. I assume you are capable of the same, so I wonder why it is you feel I must attack other Christians for you. I respect their freedom of religion just as I respect yours.

If you think you know the truth and others are confused, you naturally want to inform them. Look at the atheist I jump all over on DU, I realise that all they are doing is trying to share their version of "the truth".

Who is right? No one really knows. What we do know is that many of us think we have it figured out, or at least have a pretty good idea.

It's just human nature to try to share something that you find to be good.

because they have the ability to spread. The ones that last are the ones that have principles and methods that strongly encourage conversion of new members. Otherwise they disappear. Not very different from species. It's a definition.

Between the ability to spread and a mandate to do so. All religions, by nature of being creeds, have the ability to spread. But of the major world faiths few if any of them have as a central tenet the evangelistic credo that Christianity does.

And age has nothing to do with it. Hinduism, arguably the world's oldest major religion, is not in any way based on an evangelistic belief or methodology. Nor are Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, etc. Were it not for Islam, Christianity would be singular in this regard.

right now, the Christian is losing more and more freedom to express themselves. As a Christian, I can say that I also respect all religions that practice peaceful philosophies. I don't believe they are correct but I have quite a lot of respect for them. Christians believe it is their duty to SHARE the truth of Jesus. Not to convert. It is not my job (I put this in another answer as well) to convert you, only to share what I believe is the truth so that You can make an informed decision on what YOU believe. The rest is between you and God. As far as it taking over the government you have nothing to worry about. We have a Christian president. That doesn't mean the government is being taken over. Just the opposite. Even WITH a Christian pres, the Christians are STILL losing rights as to freedom of religion. More and more, Christians are being told what they CANNOT do or say in public while other religions are free to do as they wish. So relax friend. Don't feel it as an attack but accept it in the nature in which it is given. A true Christian is not trying to force you. He's offering what help. If you're not interested, then thank him for his kindness and move on.

Get over yourselves christians!
Christians ARE NOT persecuted faith in this country.Individual christians might be asked to put a sock in it.Big deal,time to grow up.

As a pagan I was chased by christians with knives one day.I escaped by hiding up in a tree..
Until christians live like a pagan does they can't claim crap. until you are scapegoated by alot of people you can't be persecuted by them..Until everyone assumes you are evil,covertly influencing thier kids, than you might long for the days when you had it so good..I have had to remove my religious symbols many times,at the behest of christians in positions of authority.And of course I never got to wax sentimental in public over the glory of my godess Sekhmet and how she guides my life..
I have been beaten up by christians for being the devil girl in highschool.Why Because of my religion.Christian teachers looked the other way,why because of my religion.I have been threatenerd,hurt and blackballed I have had my stuff vandalized.
This is persecution.


Now if you are gay or transgender then you might have to live your life in danger. Every month at least one transgender person somewhere is killed by a rabid bigot just for being themself.
I am a non- christian transgender person and I have felt scared for my life,scorned and have faced real life persecution before..ironically it's mostly from christians.

Christians as far as I can see at least in America are upset and crying wolf because they know they are not the DOMINANT religion anymore like it was just a few years ago.And this pains them,to have to consider others needs ,beliefs and wishes,and be considerate of them.They don't like losing the social privleges that come with being the 1,000 pound gorrilla.They don't want to be just one religion among many religions.It hurts thier pride to lose the status.

So Christians will cry "persecution" if they no longer can just assume they can dominate a gathering of people with thier religion,or proseletize to people who don't want to hear another damn salesperson.Oh no they want to be THE dominant belief,They want a Christian nation,A christian world.They want thier religious hegemony dominating over all other faiths ,assumed to priveleges by everyone and they want thier will to control go unquestioned.

According to a Gallup poll conducted a few years ago (1999, I believe), only 49% of Americans would vote for a well-qualified candidate for President who is an atheist. This same poll found that 59% would vote for a well-qualified candidate who is a homosexual. Jewish and Black canidates for the Presidency scored in the low 90s, just below women and Catholics.

Along with this, atheists have to constantly battle the stigmas that we are, simply put, evil. I've been called everything from a rapist to a devil-worshipper by people who, surprise surprise, only knew me for less than five minutes. Were there people with more polite methods of witnessing? Sure. Did I indulge them even if, for whatever reason, their advances made me a little uncomfortable? Yes, and I do find that a virtual stranger putting their hand on my shoulder or my *head* prior to witnessing, without first gaining my permission, is rude and improper. But I'm a nice, non-evil sort of guy, so I never make a big deal about it.

However, as with all abstract creeds and beliefs, religion and a person's perception of it has largely to do with the behavior of its practitioners. Torquemada felt that he was doing the Lord's work when he was sticking hot pokers up a heretic's rear-end, as does your friendly evangelist who just wants to see everyone get into Heaven. Just because you may not think the former was a *true* Christian is irrelevant, at least to me.

Religion is the foundation for many people's moral choices. Moral choices are the foundation of who we are. Politicians who lack that grounding would naturally be suspect by those who do have that grounding.

Or, perhaps they simply encountered some of the atheist types who inhabit the threads here.

Religions are the arbiters of morality.

Therefore atheists have no morals!

Eureka! How could I have been so dumb.

Screw this for a laugh then I'm off to rape and murder some people.

I'd modify the statemment to read

Religion dictates many people's moral choices. This inflexible code makes for intolerant governance and persecution of differences. People would do well to be suspicious of those who define their morality by using ancient texts.

And you know it of course.

Religions are the arbiters of morality FOR MANY PEOPLE.

Therefore those same people naturally hold the morals of atheists suspect in some cases because their belief system is so different.

Ultimately, I have every right to vote as I wish and if morality is part of how I vote, that is my choice as well. If atheists wish to get non-atheists to vote for them, perhaps they should try some tolerance on their own and stop using such anti-religion statements as are prevalent here. (Maybe atheists elsewhere are much more tolerant, I can't say.)

I have seen atheist posters here proclaim they won't vote for people who are religious. Based on their comments alone, I would investigate heavily before I ever voted for a proclaimed atheist candidate.

We don't believe people are going to be tortured for all eternity for subscribing to a belief system different from ours. This puts us already at a distinct advantage over many religions/religious people.

I believe people are dealt with in the after life based on their actions and choices.

That's why I said "many", not "all".

Hard-line evangelical christians think different. You may think quoting Jack Chick is a tad extreme, but every evengelical christian I've met tried to push their particular brand of religion on me based on "no matter how much good you do, if you do not believe our dogma you are toast". I assure you from personal experience they ARE like that.

I don't. Many Christians do not.

I'm not an atheist but I assume they have the same morals that I have. Namely "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

And I never said atheists don't have morals. I said, "Religion is the foundation for many people's moral choices. Moral choices are the foundation of who we are. Politicians who lack that grounding would naturally be suspect by those who do have that grounding."

I don't assume different people think the same.

if a person did not believe in religion then his morals would be different than a person who does. That somehow, his morals were suspectm because he's an atheist.

Sorry if you didn't mean that, but that's what it looks like.

But it is natural for people with different moral foundations to suspect the foundations of one another. Since most of the U.S. is religious, someone with another moral foundation would have to explain themselves more clearly.

haha! :D

No prejudice here, no sirre, no way. Some of my best friends are black jews gay atheists.

Quick quiz: which minority group was explicitly declared "not citizens and not patriots" by a sitting US president in late 20th century? And how much flak did that president get for that, compared to politicians who, for example, spew prejudice toward gays (another despicable lot of politicians, by the way)?

Atheists

President who said it was George H. W. Bush.

He got exactly zero flak for the comment too.

Mr. Walt Starr gets the prize: :yourock:

Link, link, link...

I wish some reporter would ask Dubya, "Do you agree with what your Dad said about atheist?"

Correction: He wasn't prez yet, it was 1987 and he was campaigning.

And you failed to defend yourselves? pffft. You'll get no sympathy from me.

I'm sorry to tell you this but when a politician makes fun of hispanics, black groups don't spearhead the attack against him. Hispanics do.

The President go tno flak for it becaus the Atheists failed to defend themselves. Don't whine at me for not jumping in the fight for you, I'm Catholic champ in case you haven't noticed we haven't exactly been having a easy time of it lately ourselves.

They were attacked even worse byt the so-called "Christians".

See, atheists are the only minority it is okay to deride and put down any more.

And I've never met a Christin IRL who didn't take a joyful glee in putting down atheists. That's why I stand up for them.

just like every other group has been forced to do. Sorry but compared to the shit other groups have gone thru inclduing myself I just don't feel sorry for them.

How many times do atheists get arrested while walking back from soccer practice? How many child molester jokes do they get hurled at them all day long on every TV channel?

pffft.

I don't find it joyful or gleeful.

nor is it likely I will ever meet you, IRL.

http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbeliever/page51.html

Chilly (pun intended), ain't it?

It is my honor to chime in on behalf of anyone who is opressed for their beliefs, sexual orientation, skin color, you name it.

I figure if we, the opressed minorities, all stick together we can beat those who screw with us.

If every black, Jew, gay, handicapped person, woman, etc. all got together and made one big "We are tired of being screwed with" party, "THE MAN" wouldn't stand a chance.

I'm sure there's a saying that had the words

"because I wasn't a Jew" in it.

History has lessons.

Lesson number one - Organize and fight back.

Hispanics learned this a long time ago, and we don't complain when other groups don't fight our fight for us.

You also fight when the rights of others are violated or you get fucked one by one.

Or are you just selfish?

I know that most Atheists aren't like that but I can't get behind a group who's members generally attack me.

If I saw any real discrimination I would oppose it, but I won't toss my self in the line of fire because some GOP bastard that said something mean to about atheists that is no worse then what atheist say about me.

You are often one of the first to hurl insults and call names.

Pot, meet kettle.

where was I first to call names. Keep in mind that I have a history of these debates with many DUers.

Why don't you try to stay on topic or stick to what you know eh? I'm not the one demanding help from those I attack all day.

And in the USA, http://www.infidels.org/

Not much but it's a start.

By the way, I'm neither black nor gay nor Muslim nor Jewish and nevertheless I bitch a lot when I see injustice against any of these groups.

You may help a little but the groups themselves have to lead the fight. It's always been that way.

Go out of their way to be abusive even when discussing the most tangental religious issue. Since you have apparently not been on the receiving end of that, then you might want to give those of us who have some slack.

Actually, it seems to me that any time someone dares to post anything about christianity that isn't loaded down with disclaimers, limitations, and exceptions gets attacked as anti-religion and anti-spiritual.

This thread started out on a perfectly valid point, that preaching and converting is an inherent part of christianity as the vast majority of people, sects, cults and organizations practice it. This has turned into yet another opportunity for christians to complain that we don't all judge christianity according to a few exceptional, probably mytholical ideal examples.

Even some of the christians here
1. Keep insisting that christianity can only be judged on christianity's own terms.
2. Can only be judged by the good examples. The bad examples can't be considered because somehow they aren't representative of christianity.
3. Attack atheists.

Amazing.

I get this impression from some of the christian posters also. Not all :) but some

Actually, it seems to me that any time someone dares to post anything about christianity that isn't loaded down with disclaimers, limitations, and exceptions gets attacked as anti-religion and anti-spiritual.


First off you can debate a topic without hurling insults. If you doubt christianity, think it's bunk, or hate fundies you can say that without insulting all of us. It's a sensative issue being that many of us are christians, you'd think liberals would understand that.

Here's how it works, you want to lob some insults and broad brush attacks then don't complain when they come back at you. Can't stand the heat.....

This thread started out on a perfectly valid point, that preaching and converting is an inherent part of christianity as the vast majority of people, sects, cults and organizations practice it. This has turned into yet another opportunity for christians to complain that we don't all judge christianity according to a few exceptional, probably mytholical ideal examples.

Why don't you take off your atheist can do no wrong glasses and look at the posts made by us mean ol' christians. We didn't make it ugly we RESPONDED. Don't like that? Too damn bad.

Speaking as an Atheist, I would say that the tone of the response up to this point has been for the most part respectful.

That is not always the case with religious debates, after all.

Others do their best to use as many offensive terms or to paint religious people as negatively as possible. Having been on the receiving end of those attacks several times, my attitude toward atheists is, at best, caution.

feel the same way about christians, but I've learned to hold back judgment and wait to see what they have to say.

At the same time I try not to insult and to be diplomatic in my responses to Christians. I hope I've managed to do that in my posts in this thread. Religion is probably the most touchy topic out there, and IMO it has so much potential to divide that it has to be handled with care. A flame war over religion always does more harm than good.

I think it has stayed incredibly calm for the topic. I don't see a lot of attacks going on for any side of the debate.

If not then why expect fundies to vote for atheists?

The reality of it is, that in a two party system people are going to vote for whomever - A) Agrees with there views B) is most similar to themselves.

If you actually ran a atheist Dem against a GOP theist, I don't think the Dem would lose much if any of his/her base. However the way the question frames it "would you vote for a qualified atheist" it leaves the other canidates positions unmentiond. So given the choice between a Atheist and a Catholic that both supported the exact same things I would vote for a Catholic, and why the hell not? Saynig I shouldn't is like asking me to hte myself, all things equal I go with those most like myself.

It is entirely concievable that I would vote for someone who described him/herself as a fundamentalist Christian, so long as I agree with the bulk of their policy platform and find within them the requisite itelligence and leadership qualities. Religion doesn't ever enter into the question for me after someone says "I thik the seperation of Church and State is a good idea." And yes, while the majority of Christian fundamentalists may not believe in such a concept, there are always exceptions.

And your implication of it being a loaded question is incorrect, as it doesn't need to take into account the political philosophy of any possible opposing candidate. Based on the Atheist affiliation ALONE, 51% of American voters WOULD NOT cast their ballot for the candidate.

http://gnn.tv/cyclone/

Watch the movie. Towards the end you will have your answer. Xianity is the forward observer or the point man for capitalism. They move into a society and convert the people to pave way for Supply Side Jesus.

Christians in this nation are the ones taking away freedoms. Christians expect me to pay welfare money to churches in order to spread what I consider a vile and evil religion. They expect my tax dollars to go for spreading this vile and evil teaching.

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

You have absolutely no freedom to express your religious beliefs on my private property. Doing so will result in you being ridiculed. You have no right to expect my tax dollars to prop up your churches. In fact, the Constitution of the United States explicitly prohibits it, although every time this clause of the constitution is enforced, Christians scream, "You're taking away our freedoms!!" This was precisely the case in Alabama.

you wrote: The Constitution of the United States explicitly prohibits it... This was precisely the case in Alabama.

The ruling in Alabama was unconstitutional. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The first line says it all. Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof...

Lets break that down. The monument of the 10 Commandments were not only religiously based but they are also HISTORICALLY based. Our laws, defended in our courts are derived from these principals. But this is irrelevant. The Congress shall make no law.. These big huge stones are not a law, they're a monument. The line doesn't say "Congress shall allow no monument of religion to exist, it says they cannot make a LAW to establish a religion. As far as establishing a religion goes, Christianity was established 1776 years before America earned its independance. Now lets see the second part of the sentence... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... Ok Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Well the monument was paid for by the guy who placed them. He wasn't charging anyone to look at them. But now the courts have set a precedant, thereby basically creating a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof. It was an unconstitutional ruling that unfortunately will not be overturned.

I agree that you should not be accosted on your own property when its unwanted. I'm sorry that you feel that Christians are intolerant. The intolerance seems to be coming from you, however.

The monument in Alabama established an offical state religion. Moore explictly stated that his purpose in erecting the monument was religious in nature, ergo, violation of the establishment clause.

The prohibition on Congress not establishing an official religion is extended to all levels of governemnt by virtue of the fourteenth amendment

What a cockimamie analysis of the ten commandment monument issue. I can tell you as a lawyer that there's more praying going on in the courthouse than in the church. Removing a damn rock doesn't change that. Another example of christians trying to force their religion where it doesn't belong. It's the stupidest thing I've seen, this "controversy".

Well thanks for making your bias known.

I consider Christianity vile and evil.

The entire premise that a human sacrifice is necessary to appease a god who admits to creating evil is vile and evil, in my opinion.

Ritual cannabalism is vile and evil, in my opinion.

Deific rape of virgin women is vile and evil, in my opinion.

Mass murdering deities are vile and evil, in my opinion.

A deity which requires absolute obedience in order to keep oneself from being tortured for eternity after death is a vile and evil deity, in my opinion.

Yes, I consider every basis of the Christian religion to be vile and evil on its face.

I was just thanking you for being so open with your bias. Oh and that last post of yours pretty much gave me a get out of jail free card if I ever go after naked circle dancers in the future.

Go after 'em all you want.

At least I'm open enough to admit that every god or goddess ever espoused to exist by humans are myths by definition.

But you have very little grasp of tone and implied meaning.

I tell it like I see it and don't pull any punches.

Proselytizers have been rude enough to me in the past. I'm one person who fights back and won't take the shit any more.

I feel the same way but you see I have to pull my punches because my people get banned while others are allowed to get away with murder.

People get banned for violating the rules here, not over religious affiliation.

But it's ok to as long as your target is christianity. Open your eyes man it's obvious. If I start a "why are all atheists mean bastards" thread I would be banned. If someone replaces "atheist" with "Christian" the thread stays open for half a day and they rarely even get a warning.

I understand why there is more grey area allowed but I don't have to like it or agree with it. I do however get ticked off when people think that having a little tact is asking too much.

Proselytizers were never tactful with me, so I refuse to be tactful with them.

If I could not freely speak my mind on this subject here, I would not be a member.

Happens every time an androcentric death cult meets up with a gynocentric sex cult.

;)

Christians expect me to pay welfare money to churches in order to spread what I consider a vile and evil religion.

It ought to clear that chronic historical myopia you suffer under right up.

otherwise referred to as Bush's Faith Based Intiative

I've studied religions quite extensively.

When was the last time you picked up the Bhagavad Gita?

I've studied religions quite extensively.

Either that's untrue, or you're quite aware of the role religion has had in furthering the progress of mankind as well as the downsides, thus making the statement that Christianity is 'vile and evil' patently absurd. It's been a mixed bag all the way around, and even the most miniscule amount of intellectual honesty would lead one to that conclusion.

Glad we could clear that up.

and it is those beliefs I consider vile and evil.

Read my posts on the subject.

And yes, I have studied religions quite extensively, which is why I consider Christianity vile and evil.

My problem with Christianity is in the actual belief system and it is those beliefs I consider vile and evil.

That's like a chef coming out to a table after a meal has been consumed and asking how the food was.

"Oh, it was exquisite, except for the part we had to eat."

And yes, I have studied religions quite extensively, which is why I consider Christianity vile and evil.

Suffice it to say that I consider your study of the subject woefully inadequate.

I've said these before, but I guess you require me to repeat myself:

I find ritual cannabalism vile and evil. Ritual cannabalism is a part of Christian dogma.

I find human sacrifice to appease an angry god vile and evil. Human sacrifice is an integral part of Christian belief structures. Without human sacrifice, Christianity would not exist.

I find vengeful gods which commit mass murder to be vile and evil. YHWH committed an act of mass murder in the myths which form the basis Christianity.

I find the rape of young women by deities to be vile and evil. Without deific rape in the Christian mythos, there would have been no Christ.

Enough explanation yet?

I've said these before, but I guess you require me to repeat myself:

You were transparently wrong then, you remain so now.

I find ritual cannabalism vile and evil. Ritual cannabalism is a part of Christian dogma.

It's representative, Professor. There isn't actually flesh and/or blood up there near the altar to be consumed. Beyond that, you're speaking of dogma, and, in this case, that of Catholicism. It doesn't apply to all of Christianity.

I find human sacrifice to appease an angry god vile and evil. Human sacrifice is an integral part of Christian belief structures. Without human sacrifice, Christianity would not exist.

I see, like fundamentalist Christians, you have been dazzled by the deonation of the text and utterly missed the connotations.

I find vengeful gods which commit mass murder to be vile and evil. YHWH committed an act of mass murder in the myths which form the basis Christianity.

Yawn. Old Testament, and utterly irrelevant to the message of the New Testament. To believe otherwise is, again, to buy into the same prophetic crapola that the fundamentalists subscribe to.

I find the rape of young women by deities to be vile and evil. Without deific rape in the Christian mythos, there would have been no Christ.

Meaningless and hyperbolic.

A: Nothing in that particular myth indicates rape.
B: It is not necessary to believe in that to be a Christian.

Enough explanation yet?

More than enough, thanks.

Enjoy your androcentric death cult and I will continue with my gynocentric sex cult.

But by all means, please continue to enjoy the one you're in.

I'll try not to make that mistake again.

woefully inade"

Or course you do. She disagrees with you. Anyone who disagrees with your opinion on religion and christianity is wrong. Right?

A whole lot of very well educated people (including one former Catholic nun I'm related to) have studied religion and agree that christianity, as practiced by most christians, is vile and evil. And many of them would further agree that inherent parts of christianity are vile and evil.

My opinion is that this is equally true of most, if not all religions, just like it is with most philosophies. I don't consider that a reason to discount them, but it certainly should be a big warning sign for all the people with rose colored glasses on.

Or course you do. She disagrees with you. Anyone who disagrees with your opinion on religion and christianity is wrong. Right?

Quite incorrect, but thanks for asking.

A whole lot of very well educated people (including one former Catholic nun I'm related to) have studied religion and agree that christianity, as practiced by most christians, is vile and evil.

Ah, but that's not what the poster who I responded to actually said, now is it?

And many of them would further agree that inherent parts of christianity are vile and evil.

See above.

My opinion is that this is equally true of most, if not all religions, just like it is with most philosophies. I don't consider that a reason to discount them, but it certainly should be a big warning sign for all the people with rose colored glasses on.

Did you actually bother to read what I wrote? I said it's a mixed bag, all the way around. IOW, there is both good and bad, but to insist that a religion, in and of itself, is 'vile and evil', flies in the face of reason, the historical record and common sense.

If you use criteria that strict for judging everything and everyone then I have no disagreement with what you are saying. Your statement that no religion is vile and evil is true if you take a look at the good and bad from some distance away.

However, that seems a lot like saying that a mass murderer isn't evil because he often fed the homeless. And somehow I doubt you are as charitable with everyone as you are with your own religion.

Hell, I'm not that charitable with anyone or anything and I'm definitely more charitable than most. Looking at the balance of good and bad is fine and dandy. But look at the raw quantity of bad on it's own too.

And, yes, I did read what you wrote. I've read what a bit of what you wrote. Have you?

However, that seems a lot like saying that a mass murderer isn't evil because he often fed the homeless.

No, actually it's nothing like that. You are comparing the acts of an individual to the aggregate effect of a religion, something adhered to, in this case, by an almost immeasurable variety of sects and movements.

And somehow I doubt you are as charitable with everyone as you are with your own religion.

I subscribe to no particular religion. Perhaps you missed that bit.

There really isn't any difference between a person or a group in this regard. If members of the group are doing both good and bad stuff in the group's name, and if certain aspects of the group are encouraging both the good and the bad stuff, then the group is certainly responsible.

Sorry for assuming your religion. That seemed like a likely assumption to make given your posts. But it was still just an assumption.

One one hand, there is, for example, the group, Christianity.

One singular subset of that population is Albert Schweitzer. Another one is Torquemada.

Or, perhaps more accurately, there is Bishop Shelby Spong, the liberal Espiscopalian, and the lunatic Christian revolutionaries in Uganda. Is he somehow responsible for their atrocities? Or is the Pope, a Catholic, responsible for what Spong teaches?

If so, how do you figure?

and last time I checked, the faith Based Initiative was still a major policy issue for the dominant political party in the US.

Let's be honest here, they aren't hoping that Mosques and Covens will be getting that money. They intend to funnel all of that money through christian churches.

...are going to be able to discriminate against US citizens simply because they are gay or lesbian.

:puke:

I personally don't see any loss of Christian "freedom to express." Rather, I see an adjustment to a more even-handed approach that recognizes the wealth of religious diversity in this country.

That said, you say "A true Christian is not trying to force you. He's offering what help..."

Well, it might be a prideful act to think that help might at all be required.

As a Buddhist, I endeavor to try to help all beings get past the eternal omnipresent suffering, and try to help transmute greed, hatred and ignorance into wisdom, generosity and compassion.

I can't say you need my help, or "wisdom" or insight. Damned if I know whether you do or not. What I do know is that it's necessary to make real effort, to do some real work to in fact help. I don't have Dharma tracts to hand out (though you can learn all about Buddhism on the 'net). I don't have a magic formula for you to claim to believe to wipe away all your troubles. I might bring you some new ones in fact!

I do know this: my actions don't mean anything, but that's all I can offer you. You can say you have something more, but like alot of folks, I've heard that line. Better to be damned by a punishing gangster-god for being in the wrong religion, than to miss an opportunity to actually help where I can, with the abilities I have, as f*cked up as I am. At least if damned by such a god, I can help people in hell.

Alot of Americans opt for the easy, trite and superficial: they want a "Christian" nation (which is an oxymoron), they want their sins "wiped away," rather than using their sins for bettering the world, they want to be smug as they are simultaneously appalled and enthralled by the culture of sex and consumerism.

They get what they want, and want and want and want and want. And get and get and get. And so on to sublimate the desire, eradicate the guilt and on to consume and consume and consume. Vote Republican. Tax cuts. No abortions. Easy morality. Consume!

There's a better way, but it's a little more difficult. I lied, it's alot more difficult.

wipes the rug right from under you. That's precisely why some of us are having problems with "christians". Sanctimonious hypocrits.

Christ didn't say "striketh them first less they should striketh you one day" did he?

and this is true "because it says so in the Bible."

very convenient for Matthew to write it down that way--that really gave the disciples fiat to begin the 2,000-year crusade. The bible was written by disgruntled men who lived in caves. It was written so long ago and has been through so many translations--not to mention how much all languages have gradually changed over the last 2,000 years--how can anyone take any of it literally? or not see it as a legend?

Tom Robbins said it somewhere in one of his books: "Jesus was a greasy little Jew" whose words have been blown up into "The Word" of God "Himself"--as though God could even have a gender, a will, a written/spoken language, "jealousy," etc. etc.--all attributes of HUMANS.

Marx said it best: Religion is the opiate of the masses.

christianity.

Anything that makes christians look bad suddenly isn't christianity, even if it is done by self-professed christians who are members of christian organizations, in the name of christianity.

If truth be told, there don't seem to be very many christians, just people claiming to be, and I was always led to believe that christianity is one of the world's major religions.

though Islam is the fastest growing.

What I am curious about though is your need to make christians look bad and frustration at what you seem to see as evasion tactics against your aggenda.

Xians and Muslims (a large part of them anyway) believe everybody who doesn't convert to their religion will be savagely tortured for an infinite amount of time. Any otherwise sane person who believes this SHOULD try to convert as many people as possible.

You don't see many Buddhists knocking door-to-door insisting you go to their church, do you? That's because, according to THEIR beliefs, you're NOT damned forever by failing to subscribe to THEIR mythology before you die.

Just because a simple mechanical effect.

If God has spoken to you... He couldn't have spoken with another for telling something different; A god can't be a liar ! The Truth is the Truth, your Truth of course and everyone must know and understand that.

Remember Roman, Greek, Egyptian antique people... They didn't have any troubles with their gods. They shared them each other, they visited the foreign temples together, they had gentle, violent, charming or awful gods, one for each daily question...
The troubles came with a very little sect which said to be online with an unique god, terrific but who promised the eternity. A condition, to suffer very much on the earth and to spread His Word... The unavoidable mess

that is in ghost world. When ghosts start taking hold of our world (like God says to do this and that to achieve eternal life), then the result can only be negative because different people have different ghosts. My ghosts tell me to behave in a certain way, the RIGHT way, and therefore everybody else must be wrong. It is simpler to try to convert them, otherwise I have to be faced every day with the possibility that my ghost may be wrong and I may not be that special after all...
Concretely, I would have a hard time voting for anybody who is really into any religion that has intolerance and a "conversion" component in it.

to some degree.

Most everyone knows what "Are you saved?" means.

"Why do so many Christians believe it is their duty to convert others to their belief?"

Because they are of the mind that there is Only One Right Way to Live. Their view of human history only spans a few thousand years.

Suppose you figured out a way to get your life in order and be happy and take care of others and ensure that your soul would be preserved as well. Wouldn't you want to share that information with others?

before you can lay claim to a mthodology for salvation of that soul.

If you believe this to be true, you will wish to share it with others.

with Christians sharing their religion if it's brought up. It's when people come up to you and start saying that this is the only right way to live, that you get problems. Most of the discussion around proselytizing, I think, revolves around the methods Christians use.

And I call every shit blower on the shit they are blowing out of their mouths.

Proselytizing is rude obnoxious behavior, and I tell every proselytizer this during my ridiculing session.

It is evil, and I let them know about it. When I ridicule them and call their behavior rude, obnoxious, and evil, I give the bastards back some of what they are dishing out.

I knew someone who was giving away huge amounts of cash to anyone who will simply come up and ask for it? Say I found the guy and he gave me more money than I could spend. I don't need anymore so I go out and tell people about him. Say I come to you and say, "Hey, have you gotten your free cash yet?". "I know this guy who just WANTS to give away more cash than you'll ever need. All you gotta do is go ask him for it."

Would that be rude obnoxious behavior? Would you ridicule me for that? Would it be evil?

Its the same principal. I know of a guy (Jesus) that WANTS to give out eternal peace in heaven and all you gotta do is go ask Him for it. Its that simple. That's the message. I'm not gonna say you can't do this and you can't do that. Or if you sin you'll go to hell. That's really old baptist talk. Christ didn't come down to save the elitists and the sanctimonious. He came to save the sinner (that's all of us). That doesn't mean you're not gonna sin anymore. It means you'll be forgiven if you do. All ya gotta do is ask.

Now that is what Christians believe. Not that we are better. We are NOT better. Nothing about US is special. I see nothing rude in sharing this simple truth. I won't knock on your door to tell you and I wont' follow you around to tell you. If I see you and feel you are down and out I might mention it because sometimes hope really can help.

Please forgive me for sounding like a preacher. This is meant to show that the violence and obnoxious behaviour everyone is talking about has NOTHING to do with the belief of true Christians. That's all I mean by it.

Money is a tangible object which can be demonstrated to exist.

Prove a soul exists then your analogy holds true. Until then, you're blowing shit out of your mouth.

Just go kiss Hank's ass by yourself. I'll eat my weiners with kraut and mustard, thankyouverymuch.

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

I can't prove a soul exists. I can't prove tomorrow exists. I can't really prove history exists. Can you? Do you only believe in what's tangible and can be demonstrated? My point of the last post was, if you found that abusive or obnoxious or evil, then you're looking for it to be. I would understand if I called you at home and told you about it. I would understand if I stopped you as you were leaving your driveway. Those I can see as obnoxious (I wouldn't call it evil. You may be a bit sensitive here). However, for example this thread, its about Christianity. I'm stating my belief in a thread ABOUT Christianity. Do you find the shit blowing out of my mouth abusive, obnoxious, or evil here? I'm not telling you to kiss anyone's ass am I? Nor am I calling your opinion shit out of your mouth. I'm trying to discuss this. That is all I'm doing. I'm not trying to "convert you" nor even sway you to Christianity. I'm just making a point as to what Christians are up to and why.

I cannot demonstrate a soul exists.

I call it evil because it is evil. It is evil to attempt putting somebody under emotional durress in order to convince them to kiss Hank's ass.

If you want to be Christian, fine, just don't expect me to join your vile and disgusting religion.

:silly: absolutely hilarious!

No way am I going to kiss Hank's ass. I'll kick the shit out of him first!

what if...

I knew someone who was giving away huge amounts of cash to anyone who will simply come up and ask for it?


Well, I'd say that it's better to give the cash away to other people.

Greed is pretty distractive and destructive.


WANTS to give out eternal peace in heaven ...

Same deal. The trick, I've found is to be comfortable with discomfort. Then eternal peace in heaven's a piece of cake.