Spanish rice you sound like an annihilist (sp).

Ive kind come to the same conclusion in that total existence...whatever it maybe, doesnt matter because there isnt a hard definitive truth. In other words, everything is purely subjective and objectivitiy only exists in "subjective" terms...correct me if im wrong but Ayn Rand speaks mostly on the theory of objectivism in case you were wondering.

sorry dont mean to sound pretentious,...i find this interesting.

Please explain, in your own words, what the holocaust was and how it was an act committed by religious people or in accordance with religious principles. I think you are 120% cracked out of your head on this, but if you've got an explanation I'm certainly curious to hear it.

thrash;279964 wrote:
Wait, the holocaust was because of religion?

Child abuse is somehow unique to religious people?

War is only fought for religious reasons?

The holocaust was perpetrated by people who were eugenecists, and who had no religious inclination whatsoever. And their chosen victims weren't singled out based on their religion, but on their group identity. Being Jewish at that time was considered an ethnicity. You'll note that homosexuals also got the Auschwitz treatment, and that certainly wasn't for religious.

Finally -- the bit about child abuse doesn't even make sense.

Maybe im not a very good reader, but I don't recall where I said that wars were only fought over religion, or that child abuse was unique to religion. I doubt that I would respect any organization or group that had such widespread abuse (that doesn't make sense to you??) I also was only mentioning that all of those things were affected/caused in a negative way by religion, and yes, much of the holocaust and other racist acts/movements are at least partly to do with religion.

That was only one part of the reason I don't respect organized religion in response to the post above. I could care less if people are religious/faithful/or anything else. You don't know my beliefs, all I said is that I don't respect most organized religion because of what I have seen from it.

Child abuse is somehow unique to religious people?

War is only fought for religious reasons?

The majority of wars in the last 200 years -- and all of the most deadly ones -- have not had anything to do with religion.

The holocaust was perpetrated by people who were eugenecists, and who had no religious inclination whatsoever. And their chosen victims weren't singled out based on their religion, but on their group identity. Being Jewish at that time was considered an ethnicity. You'll note that homosexuals also got the Auschwitz treatment, and that certainly wasn't for religious.

Finally -- the bit about child abuse doesn't even make sense.

Some people are able to present lucid arguments for why they are atheists, that make sense, appear to be factual, and reflect careful consideration of the subject.

That's not what you have done here, however

Cura86;279851 wrote:
Even if you don't believe in God religion it does make the world a better place.

Yeah, the holocust, crusades, child abuse, not allowing birth control, all the other religious wars definately made the world a better place.....

I agree that having beliefs and morals is obviously a good thing (which does not necessarily have anything to do with religion), and religion is probably the most major way of spreading these, but organized religion has done so many bad things that I refuse to respect it.

Cura86;279851 wrote:
Even if you don't believe in God religion it does make the world a better place. What would the world be like if the only thing stopping people from committing crimes was the local law?

Being Atheist was one of the main reasons why the Soviet Union didn't nuke us during the Cold War...Because they knew if they attacked us, we would absolutely demolish them, thus ending the only life they have.

Even if you don't believe in God religion it does make the world a better place. What would the world be like if the only thing stopping people from committing crimes was the local law?

torbs;279841 wrote:
If time travel was possible, then why haven't we been visited by our future?

Who says we haven't? That could be the "UFOs" everyone sees???

amicheze;279787 wrote:
But it theoretically is possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X02WMNoHSm8

If time travel was possible, then why haven't we been visited by our future?

Also, I think religion and evolution can co-exist. There's proof that many animals have evolved over time via fossils, etc. In addition, in Genesis, during the days of creation, who's to say one day to God isn't 1 trillion years in our time?

You may think that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all beleive in the God of Abraham, and so everyone is all good, but that's not the standard.

As I read it, the Bible says (most) Jews and Muslims are going to hell. The Jews still have some special standing as the chosen people, and much of revelation talks about what happens to the Jewish nation and (some of) the Jewish people. The design is for as many Jews to come to Christ prior to revelation as possible, and the Jewish people are spoken of specifically when other non-Christian groups are not.

But in any case, the new testmant is pretty clear: if you think there is any way to God besides the singular beleif in Jesus Christ, as 1 leg of the trinity, you're wrong, and the price of being wrong is eternal separation from God.

What are the ramifications for Muslims? Hindus? People that are deaf and have never heard the story of Jesus? I donno. It seems like they'll be set apart from God for eternity.

Rather than worry about how unfair that all seems, and "where do all those people go?", if you beleive anything about the Christian God, you beleive that he is just. Not just "he usually does what is right", but that what he does is the definition of justice. So the short answer is: I don't have to justify what happens to those other people -- God will do the right thing.

Incidentally, it is God's demand for justice which informs and creates the Levitical code.

"Justice is the opposite of charity".
Ironically, the first (and only?) place I have read this is Ayn Rand, who most definitely does not like Christianity.

Yet the Christian God has uniquly solved this paradox. No man since the time of Adam, with the exception of the earthly Jesus, has been righteous of his own accords in the eyes of God. God sets a high standard -- he even told Moses to call it the law -- and justice demands punishment when the law is not met.

Properly, the justice of God demands that all are punished.
Yet, the charity (loving those who are not deserving of being loved) of God desires that none of us are punished, and all are able to share communion with God.

The answer to the paradox of justice and charity is Jesus.

A just being requires that Justice is served; to not exact a penalty for crimes committed would be unjust. Yet punishing all of us for all of time wouldn't be compassionate, and wouldn't let any of us understand how much we are loved. God is not a masochist -- he did not make us to throw us away or to put us in prison.

Only Jesus led an earthly life that met the justice of God. Of all of the people who have ever and who shall ever live, only Jesus has the right to to be found worthy in God's eyes.

So it is Jesus and Jesus alone that is in the position to do what he did: He met the demand of justice for all of the sin that had and will happen in the world. He worked out a deal with the prosecutor. That deal is the new covenant, documented in the New Testament, and it's the easiest deal in the world for you and me.

It's real simple to understand: Jesus satisfies your share of the burden for being found to have broken the law. Justice says you ought to be punshed -- with eternal death, but he says he'll take care of it.

And what do you have to do in return? What is your end of the deal?

Say "thank you". And mean it.

Muhummed had a 9 year old wife. The early spread of islam happened under the sword. There is an islamic model for world government (the caliphate), and there IS a mandate to engage in violent warfare with non-Islamic people. the best case for non-muslims in a muslim-ruled nation is to be 2nd class citizens who are tolerated but do not have full legal rights.

While many people are fond of playing the "moral equivalence card", it's usually done poorly. There is no plan for a Christian world government. The Bible was translated (by hand) into more languages faster and wider than any other text in the history of human writing. Christianity, the written bible, and the early church all sprang up in secret, in occupied Roman territory. Not only did Christianity not require the coercive power of the Roman Military to spread far and wide; it did so inspite of this.

Certainly there have been all kinds of killings and conquests done nominally in the name of Christianity, but you'll note that there is no biblical plan for conqest, for empire, and there is no description of how Jesus will rule the earthly kingdom (other than "it will be awesome"), and there is no record of Jesus killing anyone or demanding a conversion.

So the point i am making is that to the extent that Islam spreads via violence and state sponsorship, it is doctrinal. To the extent that Christianity has done so, it is heretical or at best non-doctrinal.

Many of us are no farther than 2-3 generations away from a family that had 7+ kids. But 99% of us are much richer at our age than our great grandparents were at their wealthiest. We're stastically going to have very small families.

To the extent that socioeconomic position is not stratified in America (and it isn't... we crush every other society on earth in terms of upward mobility potential), the machine of the American economy will tend to get rid of the birth-size advantage of poor immigrant populations, be they "ethnic Muslim" or be they mexicans.

In much of europe there is extremely poor economic mobility for individuals and organizations. I think the extent to which a refugee group remains in the same socioeconomic tranche in France is much more pronounced than it is in the US, primarily due to the repressive work environment in France and the very strong nationalist/monocoltural slant of the native French population.

Neither situation exsts in the US to a comparable degree.

Now, I expect both of those to get worse -- the tightening economic controls int he US are going to end up hurting the newest immigrants. And as native-borns see this influx of new different-looking people, in a down economy excaberated by stupid economic decisions that make it worse in a vicious cycle, nationalist and exclusionary sentiment will probably intensify.

Trafik Jamz;279770 wrote:
I know of a number of "islamic" people in Fargo who are much whiter than me.....

just for the record, you dont have to be black to be african.

Zing

D S ohM;279781 wrote:
as logical as believing that people can actually travel back in time.

But it theoretically is possible.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X02WMNoHSm8[/ame]

SmitEvo;279736 wrote:
Yep...old testament stuff. Better follow that to a T. Then the new testament came around and does not state all of those things. The new way for Christians is through Jesus.

While I don't disagree with you that this is old testament, isn't it safe to say then the if the other "abominations" are to be thrown out and irrelevant then the homosexuality one should be as well?

I believe in intelligent design and a being that "I" refer to as God. I don't, however, believe that the bible is the literal word of God but rather a collection of stories/morals in which to live your life by. Most of my beliefs on that fly in the face of conventional Christianity....and while I may not believe every story of the Bible, I will say this....something spectacular happened about 2009 years ago that changed the world. The Christians see that time in history as the day our Savior gave his life for our sins....the Jews and Muslims see it as a time that a great prophet walked the Earth. I'm in the camp of the Christians on this one as there were many great prophets before Jesus, but ironically none really after.

Aside from intelligent design, I do believe that life is constantly evolving. It is well documented that the pinky finger has been slowly shrinking over the past few centuries...why? Because we don't need it as much any more as we used to and we are evolving in such a manner that (theoretically) some day we will no longer have a pinky.

I'd also theorize that skin color is a result of evolution. Darker skinned people have origins closer to the equator whereas lighter skinned people tend to be from cooler climates.

To discount evolution is as foolish as discounting intelligent design. In my opinion the two work together not against each other....heck even Pope John Paul II agreed that evolution is beyond theory.

I don't necessarily think that we all evolved from a single organism however.

Cliff Notes on what Chuck believes:
There is a "God"
The bible is a great reference manual on how to live your life, but the stories should not necessarily be taken literally
Evolution co-exists with God
We didn't come from monkeys

zbrown;279776 wrote:
And I LOL at those who say "prove it"

You obviously don't realize that the definition of "faith" is believing in something without proof

And I LOL at those who follow an imaginary being in the sky without asking any questions.

You obviously don't realize that the definition of "faith" is believing in something without proof

Reading the replies in this thread makes me realize why our society's morals are disappearing in the way that they are....

and yes i am a faithful protestant