Dear Jesus: A letter to Jesus from a nonbeliever

[ImAlwaysRight]

Quote by: Captain Chaos This is not the right way to view it. In order to make a responsible decision, I must first have all the facts.

If this was true, then only omniscient people are capable of making responsible decisions. I submit that none of us is omniscient. Which is why I started my last post with the question "how does that make Christians different from anybody else?" The fact is that we all have limited knowledge, but we must make decisions based on the information we have.

If I do not believe that Jesus is the savior, then I am not rejecting God when I choose not to worship Jesus. Disbelief is not a form of rejection.

You have a point. However, it assumes that God has not provided ample evidence of his existence. I don't want to get into an "intelligent design" argument, but I ask you to suspend your disbelief and indulge me for moment. If it turns out that God is real, and that life is a miracle that cannot be fully accounted for by the workings of nature, and that our conscousness, souls, spirit (whatever you want to call it) is a preternatural phenomenon created by God, then it seems to me that God would be perfectly justified in regarding our existence as making His own existence self-evident.

Life itself has always been fraught with mysteries that have led people and societies toward religious belief as a means of understanding these unanswerable mysteries of life and death. The ubiquitiousness of religous belief is testament to the fact that people throughout history have regarded these mysteries as evidence of a reality beyond the material. It is post-modern materialism that really popularized the notion that we should reject this awe we experience when we ponder the mysteries of life and instead accept that all of reality can be understood by scientific study of the material world. That there are no real mysteries, just limited scientific knowledge. Many go as far as to insinuate that Science has "proven" that life and nature are self-existent.

I bring this up, not to say that religious belief throughout history is proof that God exists, but to suggest that mankind has throughout history shown an almost universal innate sense that the mysteries of life portend something beyond nature - something like god. Therefore, if indeed God turns out to be the creator of life, then the rejection(or suppression) of this innate sense of God in favor of a godless materialism/naturalism could certainly be regarded as a rejection of God himself for which one has no excuse.

EDIT: Upon rereading your comments, I realize I missed the point and you were distinguishing between belief in Jesus and belief in God. Therefore, my response is somewhat irrelevant to your comment - but in a way, the logic of may still hold.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: AlwaysRight If this was true, then only omniscient people are capable of making responsible decisions. I submit that none of us is omniscient. Which is why I started my last post with the question "how does that make Christians different from anybody else?" The fact is that we all have limited knowledge, but we must make decisions based on the information we have.

No.

It is not the same thing. I do not believe in the Jesus Myth, you do. We possess different knowledge states from which to make decisions. Possessing a convincing argument in favor of the Jesus Myth would be sufficient. That is not the same thing as omniscience. However, we do not even have that. All the apologetic arguments I have seen just scream with logical holes, circular reasoning, and vast assumptions.

I am not rejecting God. For reasons that I consider logical, I do not believe the Jesus Myth.

You have a point. However, it assumes that God has not provided ample evidence of his existence.

I believe God probably exists. Xyzer wanted to attack my beliefs, so I created a thread about my beliefs for him - but then he never got around to it. My beliefs are briefly explained there, if you want to read them.


My point is that, in order to be given a reasonable choice of accepting or rejecting God in Jesus' form, I first must be given sufficient information to actually believe in that paradigm. The information and analyses that I have been exposed to thus far (including my own) strongly lead me away from Jesus myth.


If the Jesus story is true, then I would rather accept him, than face an eternity of suffering. That seems like a very reasonable choice, to me. That is in part why I created this thread, to make the distinction between disbelief and rejection.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Jakob Too bad that isn't true. There are more sources in agrement for the Gospels than for any other collection of works in history. There are sources spread farther and in more agreement than in any work in history. I'm looking for the specific cite of this information, and as soon as I find it, I'll post it.

Rubbish.

A fantasy repeated a thousand times in perfect harmony is still a fantasy. Also, let's not forget that for CENTURIES, the church was in the habit of persecuting, torturing and MURDERING individuals who had the audacity to suggest the fantasy be altered. One can only imagine what depravity someone claiming the truth (that it was all false) would have endured.

The truth is that there are absolute NO copies or originals of the gospels dating from before the second century. None. Nothing. Nada. The closest apologists have is a "document" the size of a postage stamp with a half-dozen recognizable words.

For 200 years, a minority of scholars have understood the Jesus myth to be just that: a falsehood.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ImAlwaysRight Just because others may have an antagonistic preoccupation with "disproving" Christianity, it doesn't necessarily follow that Christians should or would become equally consumed addressing every objection raised by these skeptics.

1) As an atheist, I would never knock on someone's door and challenge their beliefs. It's too bad Christians don't share this courtesy.

2) To you, Christianity is a way of life and something that you've devoted your (alleged) "immortal soul" to. To me, it's a very obvious propaganda. Between those two views, there's absolutely no room for you to claim "I haven't really looked into all the objections" and escape with any intellectual honesty. I'm disturbed, disapointed, but not surprised that you would get behind something you haven't taken the time to fully investigate.

There is a time and a place for apologetics, and Christians should not be unfamiliar with the arguments, but the fact that most Christians don't walk around with line by line rebuttals to all the popular "factoid" based skeptic's arguments that are bandied about among armchair historians and philosophers on the internet does not, in my estimation, mean they are being "irresponsible". It just means, like everyone, they have limited time and abilities to devote to the different aspects of their interests.

How convenient? If I were going to start a propaganda, I would encourage my followers to hold to faith and discount rational objections (as "armchair philosophers"), too.

Skeptics are merely appealing to intellectual vanity(possibly a form of bullying) when they insinuate that unless Christians are armed with ready made rebuttals to any arguments a skeptic may throw at them, the only intellectually respectable alternative response is to be cowed into abandoning their belief.

Please. Stop trying to re-invent the wheel. This isn't nearly so complicated.

You, as a Christian, hold to specific claims which are demonstrably false. When confronted with this, you can hold to blind faith (as you're memetically inclined to do) or you can argue honestly and acknowledge that Jesus is a myth.

There's nothing intellectual or logical about abandoning one's beliefs because someone with a "doctrinal axe to grind" tells you some spurrious fact for the purpose of casting doubt on your belief.

Please explain how I have a "doctrinal axe to grind". Please explain what money I gain or influence I exert over individuals who have accepted what I say as valid.

For the most part, the people throwing out these popular arguments are just as lacking in their depth of knowlege and training and are therefore no more equipped to prove the factuality of their regurgitated factoids than most Christians are to refute them.

If that were the case, then it wouldn't be a problem for you to debate us into a corner. Instead, all you've done for the last page is come up with excuses as to why it's "all right" to not know about something you've devoted your life to.

And I'm STILL waiting for your participation in the unraveling the Jesus myth thread.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric I'm disturbed, disapointed, but not surprised that you would get behind something you haven't taken the time to fully investigate.

You worded this quite well.

Personally, I see the emphasis on the idea of defending something that one hasn't fully investigated.

Because I know this has come up before with me and you, Zhavric, let me ask you this.

What if a Christian on this board said they were Christian but admitted that they can't really debate it because it is based on their own feelings. Would they be spared your particular type of challenge; because they know that arguing religion in any logical and universal context is foolish?

Quote by: Zhavric When confronted with this, you can hold to blind faith (as you're memetically inclined to do) or you can argue honestly and acknowledge that Jesus is a myth.

Again, the same question applies.

What if the Christian acknowledges that your evidence is contradictory to Christian doctrine but still has very personal reasons for believing. Does that make them any less of an intellectual?

Quote by: Zhavric And I'm STILL waiting for your participation in the unraveling the Jesus myth thread.

Also, you might want to try easing up. The reason you don't get much response is because you aren't approachable. If you just want to fight, the most intelligent Christian won't bother even responding. If you are curious as to how a Christian can still believe even when they are aware of the contradictions, then alter your approach.

You and I both know that I believe in God and the divinity of Jesus. I am fully aware of and even agree with the contradictions you cite. But I don't preach my belief because it is based completely on my experience. I share my belief, and nothing more, because I don't think anyone can win a debate about religion; only participate in a good discussion.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai What if a Christian on this board said they were Christian but admitted that they can't really debate it because it is based on their own feelings. Would they be spared your particular type of challenge; because they know that arguing religion in any logical and universal context is foolish?

It depends on what they state. I just got done saying in another thread, there's no way for me to refute the statement "I feel X". However, "X actually happened" can be debated. So, "Reading the bible (NT) makes me feel better about myself" isn't really something I can debate. No one can. However, stating "I can feel Jesus so I know he actually existed" can be proven false. Since this is a debate site, I see no reason to not do so.

What if the Christian acknowledges that your evidence is contradictory to Christian doctrine but still has very personal reasons for believing. Does that make them any less of an intellectual?

Christianity is a bit of an exception amongst religions. It posits that the claims made in the NT actually happened... that if we had a camera and a time machine we could go back about 2000 years and see a man named Jesus rising into heaven / raising the dead / etc. Most importantly, they believe they'd see him dying on a cross... but the truth is this didn't happen. It's a fiction which I've demonstrated in other threads.

I highly doubt that most Christians would be Christian if they acknowledged the story to be a myth.

Also, you might want to try easing up. The reason you don't get much response is because you aren't approachable. If you just want to fight, the most intelligent Christian won't bother even responding. If you are curious as to how a Christian can still believe even when they are aware of the contradictions, then alter your approach.

I hear what you're saying, but I also know why Christians believe the way they do. It has to do with memes. Have you read Dawkins' new book?

You and I both know that I believe in God and the divinity of Jesus. I am fully aware of and even agree with the contradictions you cite. But I don't preach my belief because it is based completely on my experience. I share my belief, and nothing more, because I don't think anyone can win a debate about religion; only participate in a good discussion.

I can't debate your experience. I can only ask you why you consider your experience to be evidence.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric "I can feel Jesus so I know he actually existed" can be proven false.

"I can feel Jesus so I believe he actually existed" is true, then?

Quote by: Zhavric I highly doubt that most Christians would be Christian if they acknowledged the story to be a myth.

With this comes a small exception.

What if someone is a Christian because they believe in the overall idea behind the messages behind the mythology? Don't you think that is possible?

Quote by: Zhavric I hear what you're saying, but I also know why Christians believe the way they do. It has to do with memes. Have you read Dawkins' new book?

Not all Christians. The larger the generalization, the larger the number of exceptions.

I understand the meme thing, and while it is applicable to religion it tends to cheapen the subject when you relate it to a one-worded overlying concept.

Quote by: Zhavric I can only ask you why you consider your experience to be evidence.

Evidence for everyone or evidence for just me?

Because if it's evidence for everyone, I would say it's wrong every time.

If it's evidence for just me, there is no possible way to refute it.

---

Then again, I'm probably a very unique exception to the generalization.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Between those two views, there's absolutely no room for you to claim "I haven't really looked into all the objections" and escape with any intellectual honesty. I'm disturbed, disapointed, but not surprised that you would get behind something you haven't taken the time to fully investigate.

Well, if you want to maintain your intellectual honesty, you really need to drop this pretense of omniscience. You are correct that I haven't fully investigated all objections. There's really nothing disturbing or intellectually dishonest about the fact that I admit to not knowing everything there is to know about the pro/con arguments of Christianity. Perhaps you possess umlimited knowledge about all matters that you believe, but I suspect that that's just a standard you set for others and not yourself.

How convenient? If I were going to start a propaganda, I would encourage my followers to hold to faith and discount rational objections (as "armchair philosophers"), too.

I disagree. You're more likely to take the approach of laying down the ground rules that anything said in favor of the other side is inherently irrational and therefore inadmissible in the discussion and anytime someone says something you disagree with you would start acting "disturbed" or calling them "Intellectually dishonest" simply because they admit to not living up to your standard of omniscience.

You, as a Christian, hold to specific claims which are demonstrably false. When confronted with this, you can hold to blind faith (as you're memetically inclined to do) or you can argue honestly and acknowledge that Jesus is a myth.

See, there you go. You have laid down the ground rules at the outset to preclude, from the beginning, the possibility that any conclusion different from your own could ever be arrived at honestly. Either I'm deluded, am dishonest or I agree with you.

Please explain how I have a "doctrinal axe to grind". Please explain what money I gain or influence I exert over individuals who have accepted what I say as valid.

I use the term "doctrinal axe to grind" becuase it was uses earlier by someone to impute disingenuine or selfish motives to religious leaders - thereby establishing a plausible motive for spreading the web of religious lies and myths that we have today.

You make the common charge that religion is about exerting power and influence over other people. Ostensibly, your interest in "debunking" other people's religious beliefs stems from either an altruistic desire to prevent this exploitation from happening to your culture or a selfish desire to prevent it from happening to you. As such, at least from your point of view, you have as much to gain(or not lose) by undermining the influence of religion in society as you believe religious leaders have to gain by promoting their religious myths. Given that nobody in our society is being compelled pledge their allegiance to any religion whatsoever, this contrast you attempt to draw between you as the pure truth seeker, and religious leaders as corrupt power seekers, falls a bit flat. You have as much of an "axe to grind" in this question as they supposedly do and don't pretend you don't.

If that were the case, then it wouldn't be a problem for you to debate us into a corner. Instead, all you've done for the last page is come up with excuses as to why it's "all right" to not know about something you've devoted your life to.

Actually, if what I said was the case, then neither of us could debate either into a corner - because neither of us posess the knowledge to have conclusive discussion. Now, I could indulge you in discussion, but I would be forced to establish similar ground rules that you would establish. Including, but not limited to the following:

1. No secular/non-christian sources are admissible as evidence only biblically based sources are allowed.
2. Peremptory restatements of conclusions in favor of God will be sufficient evidence of the validity of that conclusion.
3. We both must acknowledge from the beginning that it has already been established that disbelief in God is inherently irrational and ideas to that effect have no place in a rational discussion.

Of course, nobody would ever agree to debate on those terms. But I haven't even engaged in debate and you have already shown your tendency to preempt debate by starting from the conclusion that the claims of Christianity are "demonstrably false" and that no matter what I say to support my belief in it are either based on blind faith(memes) or dishonesty. Therefore, even if I had a PhD in Biblical history and was fluent in all relevant languages, debating you into a corner would be impossible since you merely have to declare your evidence to be fact and mine mere memes.

[Captain Chaos]

So...

Getting back on track.

Now that I have accepted Jesus into my heart, even though I do not believe he is the one true son of God, even though I consider the Bible to be a disturbing book written by misguided men, am I saved?

[Heehoos]

What do you mean by "saved", CC? Do you believe in hell? If so, what is hell?

I think that even among Christians, the rules for being saved is different.

Is it just "accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior"? If so, what does it mean to accept Jesus? Is there any personal accountability in it?
Is it living a just life and following the teachings of Jesus?

It's a pretty hazy thing. Some people demand that nothing that humankind ever did or could ever do could possibly redeem them from our original sin. Only Christ could do this. That being said, Jesus alone can save, meaning that Jesus' actions, not our own, save us.

Others say that in order to "qualify" for salvation, we must repent, change our behavior, live according to Godly laws and accept Jesus. That would take all the onus off of Jesus and place it all upon us again, which was contrary to the New Covenant Jesus established.

It's all very confusing.

[xyzer]

I suggest that belief systems have evolved not just because we don't know the why of life, its observable events, and why universe we live in exists?. As humans we can rationalize and create all sorts of reasons for our existence. Some of these belief systems conflict with other societal and national groups and thus there are the Captains and others who conjure up their own explanations for the mysteries of life. No problem as long as it doesn't directly impact those who don't believe?

That aside I think the other(and probably prime) value and reason for most religions is to erect societal controls...keep the people inline and prevent the chaos that can and still does erupt..Are not most societal laws the product of a religion that predominates in each culture? In Iran we see the sharia police(religious police) that keep track of human behavior and punish those who violate sharia laws. In Iran sex outside of marriage can get one whipped or even killed! The western Christian countries have somewhat evolved from that barbaric interpretation. The laws have become secular but they reflect the moral constraints originally laid down by the dominant religion.

[agustine]

To Captain Chaos. Interesting comments. You appear to have an underlying animus toward Christians. Understandable... As the Lord said

"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you." John 15:18-20

With respect to your comment

"The Bible makes claims about.....punishing unborn children for the sins of their fathers and ancestors."

Please provide citations for your assertion. With respect to your comment

"I find the source of this claim (the Bible) a bit hard to swallow."

I find that the Bible is a remarkable work of history. The most scrutinized book in existence, and thus given this inordinate degree of scrutiny it has fared extrordinarily well.

Augustine

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai "I can feel Jesus so I believe he actually existed" is true, then?

Of course not. I already covered this. "However, "X actually happened" can be debated. " If you're stating for ANY reason that Jesus existed as a person, then it can be debated. I can't argue that you FEEL that way. I can argue that your feeling is no basis for truth claims about the real world.

What if someone is a Christian because they believe in the overall idea behind the messages behind the mythology? Don't you think that is possible?

Yes, I do and I actually have very little patience for such individuals for several reasons.

First, the message behind the story is pretty common to a lot of philosophers from the axial age. Confuscious was telling people to treat others as you'd like to be treated long before it was written in the NT.

Second, on a more social level, I feel these "moderates" pave the way for zealotry. They allow for people like Brother Jed to exist because they're willing to allow whatever interpretation is desired from the text. What I'd prefer to see is for moderates to grow more of a spine and confront their more lunatic bretheren and say, "Look, you're taking this too seriously. Here's why.... (explanation). Kindly calm down because you're alienating people."

Not all Christians. The larger the generalization, the larger the number of exceptions. I understand the meme thing, and while it is applicable to religion it tends to cheapen the subject when you relate it to a one-worded overlying concept.

I've never agreed with the theistic inclination to reject an explanation because it's not sufficently romanticized. The emotional draw of memes explains EXACTLY why intelligent Christians will completely re-define their notions of logic and rationality when it comes to their religion. The concept explains far too much to be discarded simply because it makes you uncomfortable.

Evidence for everyone or evidence for just me? Because if it's evidence for everyone, I would say it's wrong every time. If it's evidence for just me, there is no possible way to refute it. --- Then again, I'm probably a very unique exception to the generalization.

Honestly, I have little doubt that each and every Christian shares a similar sentiment. However, labeling a strong positive feeling as "the work of god" or "the holy ghost acting through you" isn't evidence nor are positive coincidences "miraculous". Aside from being vulgar, I've noticed a fortune cookie aspect to that which theists label as "miracles" in their modern lives. Like the vague words on the little strip of paper, theists will attempt to attribute any positive coincidence to some aspect of their religion.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ImAlwaysRight Well, if you want to maintain your intellectual honesty, you really need to drop this pretense of omniscience. You are correct that I haven't fully investigated all objections. There's really nothing disturbing or intellectually dishonest about the fact that I admit to not knowing everything there is to know about the pro/con arguments of Christianity. Perhaps you possess umlimited knowledge about all matters that you believe, but I suspect that that's just a standard you set for others and not yourself.

I've explained MULTIPLE times that, through the "miracle" of logic, we don't need to know everything to know specific things. Please stop arguing as though you've never heard this or as though it's not the case. Do you need to know the inner working of every David Copperfield trick to know that he doesn't have Harry Potter-esque magic?

That being said, I strongly recommend you look into Christianity. It really is a type of propaganda perpetuated by the church and (unknowingly) by its followers. The facts are out there.

I disagree. You're more likely to take the approach of laying down the ground rules that anything said in favor of the other side is inherently irrational and therefore inadmissible in the discussion and anytime someone says something you disagree with you would start acting "disturbed" or calling them "Intellectually dishonest" simply because they admit to not living up to your standard of omniscience.

Clearly, you've never studied Joseph Goebbels or how propaganda works.See above regarding your dishonest arguemt about "omniscience".

See, there you go. You have laid down the ground rules at the outset to preclude, from the beginning, the possibility that any conclusion different from your own could ever be arrived at honestly. Either I'm deluded, am dishonest or I agree with you.

You made that bed for yourself, my friend. You get to lay in it. The other option would be to provide evidence that the gospels are true. The problem is that no evidence of the sort exists.

I use the term "doctrinal axe to grind" becuase it was uses earlier by someone to impute disingenuine or selfish motives to religious leaders - thereby establishing a plausible motive for spreading the web of religious lies and myths that we have today.

Ah, so you just misunderstood the term. No problem. I'm glad we can both agree that it doesn't apply to me.

You make the common charge that religion is about exerting power and influence over other people. Ostensibly, your interest in "debunking" other people's religious beliefs stems from either an altruistic desire to prevent this exploitation from happening to your culture or a selfish desire to prevent it from happening to you. As such, at least from your point of view, you have as much to gain(or not lose) by undermining the influence of religion in society as you believe religious leaders have to gain by promoting their religious myths.

Please explain how I will be able to have people tithe to me / control who they marry / influence who they vote for / etc.

The car-knowledgeable buddy who goes with you to the used lot to explain why buying the crappy used car is a bad idea isn't the same as the used car salesman.

Given that nobody in our society is being compelled pledge their allegiance to any religion whatsoever, this contrast you attempt to draw between you as the pure truth seeker, and religious leaders as corrupt power seekers, falls a bit flat. You have as much of an "axe to grind" in this question as they supposedly do and don't pretend you don't.

You seem to have some funny ideas of what Christianity is actually doing.

Actually, if what I said was the case, then neither of us could debate either into a corner - because neither of us posess the knowledge to have conclusive discussion. Now, I could indulge you in discussion, but I would be forced to establish similar ground rules that you would establish. Including, but not limited to the following: 1. No secular/non-christian sources are admissible as evidence only biblically based sources are allowed. 2. Peremptory restatements of conclusions in favor of God will be sufficient evidence of the validity of that conclusion. 3. We both must acknowledge from the beginning that it has already been established that disbelief in God is inherently irrational and ideas to that effect have no place in a rational discussion.

This is laughable. I haven't exluded any source a priori as you've attempted to. I've proven that Christian "sources" are false. I have logic, reason & evidence on my side. You have blind faith and propaganda on yours. Which do you think is the better argument?

Of course, nobody would ever agree to debate on those terms. But I haven't even engaged in debate and you have already shown your tendency to preempt debate by starting from the conclusion that the claims of Christianity are "demonstrably false" and that no matter what I say to support my belief in it are either based on blind faith(memes) or dishonesty. Therefore, even if I had a PhD in Biblical history and was fluent in all relevant languages, debating you into a corner would be impossible since you merely have to declare your evidence to be fact and mine mere memes.

You misunderstand. I have made a claim which I am prepared to back up with evidence. Rather than challenging my stance and providing your own evidence, you've attempted to mischaracterize my intentions and come up with excuses as to why you shouldn't be responsible for debate.

All the while, you haven't gone near the thread in question...

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Dear Jesus: I do not actually believe that you are the one true son of God. This is not to say that I am certain that you are not such an entity, it is just that I find the source of this claim (the Bible) a bit hard to swallow. The Bible makes claims about things like eternal torture, and punishing unborn children for the sins of their fathers and ancestors. This is just crazy talk, and thus rather difficult to believe. I also would be more inclined to believe the Bible if Biblical prophecies didn't always fall into one form of scam or another. Imagine, for example, a prophet actually made a prophecy like "Roughly 2000 years from now, a great tidal wave will devastate coastlines in the Indian Ocean." Then, after it happened, I would be rather impressed. The lack of prophecies that are hard to explain by either scams or natural means is a big problem, if the Bible is supposed to be divinely inspired. So, that said, I find myself unconvinced of your divinity. However, I would like to cover my bets, on the off chance that you are, in fact, the one true son of God, and on the off chance that your pop punishes nonbelievers like me with an eternity of torture. So... Even though I lack belief in your divinity, I happily accept you into my heart, if you are a being of love and kindness (which I admit is a bit hard to rectify with the whole eternally burning in a lake of fire thing). Yours with hope, Captain Chaos (JDL) P.S. Sorry about all the disturbingly offensive jokes I have made at your expense. Nothing personal, just trying to shock a few folks out of their religious stupors.

Chuckle.

Isn't it interesting how a letter to Jesus sounds a lot like a letter to Santa?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zhavric I can argue that your feeling is no basis for truth claims about the real world.

Ahhh, but I wrote: "I can feel Jesus so I believe he actually existed"
And not: "I can feel Jesus so therefore he actually existed"

Do you acknowledge the difference between making a belief universal as opposed to keeping it personal?

Quote by: Zhavric What I'd prefer to see is for moderates to grow more of a spine and confront their more lunatic bretheren and say, "Look, you're taking this too seriously. Here's why.... (explanation). Kindly calm down because you're alienating people."

But see the problem in that? Someone trying to make their personal belief a universal truth. It contradicts what makes that kind of person that way in the first place.

Quote by: Zhavric However, labeling a strong positive feeling as "the work of god" or "the holy ghost acting through you" isn't evidence nor are positive coincidences "miraculous". Aside from being vulgar, I've noticed a fortune cookie aspect to that which theists label as "miracles" in their modern lives. Like the vague words on the little strip of paper, theists will attempt to attribute any positive coincidence to some aspect of their religion.

That's over-generalizing again.

There are some religions that specifically don't do that, but they are still religions.

You've locked yourself into grouping 84% of the world into one gigantic pigeon-hole.

Are you truly denying that there are exceptions to your rules?

[Ken Carman]

Given that nobody in our society is being compelled pledge their allegiance to any religion whatsoever,

Wow, am I living in a different country, or is the poster?


Try...

...running for office.

...telling the boss you won't participate in a company prayer. (I know, I tried... once. They "laid me off" real fast.)


...not standing up and saying the pledge of allegiance in school. Yes, that is "religion" as the similarity of the phraseology indicates. We've just replaced the cross with the flag.

Sometimes the ways in which we are "compelled" are subtle.

Sometimes... not.

My guess is that an avowed atheist or "cult" member handing out literature on a street corner would be harassed by the authorities a lot more and a standard, mainline, church member, a lot less... if at all. I am using the term "cult" only in the sense that we tend to spread out its usage a little too liberally sometimes. That's why the quotation marks. Although who are we to limit the free speech of almost any "cult?"

We claim to be the "land of the free," but we sure as hell don't act like it sometimes.