Recent negative experience with a religious person

[FIPurpose]

I think your idea of mental gymnastics to get around what the Bible says truly speaks more to your background and understanding than it does the study of hermeneutics. I have personally gone through multiple understandings of scripture because how I read and understand has changed through time. Does that make my initial or additional readings more or less correct? The bible is not simply a series of "Thou shalt not's" and is not subject to strict adherence of particular commandments (there are a couple in the NT but only a handful). While many here who grew up in the US are used to being told about the fundamentalist view of scripture, I would submit that this is not the opinion of most Christians currently on this board.

I would submit that people who try and force fundamentalist dogma on scripture understand how to interpret it even less, Christian or atheist.

One chooses to interpret because we're trying to translate an ancient story to guide us in our modern life. There isn't some one way to interpret what scripture means to an individual. A story about the resurrection may be about needing redirect their life in a "rebirth" while to another they see it as a story of atonement that pays for sin. They are two different views to the same story, possibly even both true, but perhaps one chooses based on what they need or where they are in life.

I read this blog post recently: http://storylineblog.com/2014/02/05/why-i-dont-go-to-church-very-often-a-follow-up-blog/

The relevant part to this thread is that when he starts to talk about whether "feelings" are trustworthy, we never questioned if our "thoughts" were trustworthy. Because we all search for rationalizations that will fit our prejudices. We choose to see scripture differently when our baseline has changed.

[ooeei]

I think your idea of mental gymnastics to get around what the Bible says truly speaks more to your background and understanding than it does the study of hermeneutics. I have personally gone through multiple understandings of scripture because how I read and understand has changed through time. Does that make my initial or additional readings more or less correct? The bible is not simply a series of "Thou shalt not's" and is not subject to strict adherence of particular commandments (there are a couple in the NT but only a handful). While many here who grew up in the US are used to being told about the fundamentalist view of scripture, I would submit that this is not the opinion of most Christians currently on this board.

I would submit that people who try and force fundamentalist dogma on scripture understand how to interpret it even less, Christian or atheist.

One chooses to interpret because we're trying to translate an ancient story to guide us in our modern life. There isn't some one way to interpret what scripture means to an individual. A story about the resurrection may be about needing redirect their life in a "rebirth" while to another they see it as a story of atonement that pays for sin. They are two different views to the same story, possibly even both true, but perhaps one chooses based on what they need or where they are in life.

I read this blog post recently: http://storylineblog.com/2014/02/05/why-i-dont-go-to-church-very-often-a-follow-up-blog/

The relevant part to this thread is that when he starts to talk about whether "feelings" are trustworthy, we never questioned if our "thoughts" were trustworthy. Because we all search for rationalizations that will fit our prejudices. We choose to see scripture differently when our baseline has changed.

Interesting points, but I'm not really interested in discussing whose interpretation is "right."  I get that people dedicate their lives to it and have very nuanced views on what to a casual observer seem pretty clear statements. 

My original point was, I don't understand the point of view that my mom has where she thinks poorly of someone who believes everyone else is going to hell.  That's what the person believes, and not necessarily what they wish were true.  The lady she's talking about is sweet as can be, and if she could flip a switch and save everyone I'm certain she would.  She just doesn't think that's how the world works, so she tries to help out her friends by encouraging them to do what she thinks will save their souls. 

Stupid belief?  Yes. 
Uneducated belief?  Likely.
Stupider than other religious beliefs?  Meh, debatable. 
She's so nasty for believing that?  Nah, it's just what she believes, not what she wishes were true. 

I see it similarly when people describe "what I believe heaven is" and then talk about something that sounds really cool.  Okay, I get it, that's what you WANT heaven to be like, but do you have any reason to believe that other than it sounds nice?  To me, want and belief are different things, for quite a few Christians they appear to be one and the same.  It goes back to my original observation that there's a not small subset of Christians who seem to believe that if they claim they believe something, it's more likely to be true.  Like if enough people say heaven is rainbows and marshmallows, it will be that.  They get pissed when someone says something different, as if that person is stopping their heaven from existing, or is selfish for believing it's something less kind. 

[GuitarStv]

Seriously, God is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less of a dick in the New Testament, a lot of the messy historical crap that was kept for OldReligionCompatibility in the Old Testament gets cleaned up, and things are generally a lot more consistent and on message.

So what?  He's the same God, isn't He?   He commits genocide, orders His followers to commit genocide, and is cool with rape so long as you buy her afterwards.   He gets some sort of pass because He somehow becomes less of a dick between the Old and New Testaments?  He's far more sinful than the vast majority of people.

That is true.  I wish I could smite my enemies and then when someone tries to call me on it, I could shrug my shoulders and say "Well, I'm a vengeful god."

The new testament and old testament God aren't the same God at all.  They behave in completely different ways.  It makes as much sense as saying that Abraham Lincoln was immortal, and you currently know him as Donald Trump.

If you go back and read my post, I was trying to explain this discrepancy via C++ overloading, which apparently didn't come out as funny as was hoped.  The gist of what I was trying to get across though, is that for an awful lot of Christians the New Testament version of God is the one that they believe.  They get that the Old Testament was an amalgamation of older stories and ideas, and view it as being superseded by the NT for that reason.

[FIPurpose]

I see more of what you're talking about. I think that it's a very natural progression that seems to follow the rise of education in a society. The less educated and less diverse they are, the more valuable black and white rules help them. I think we can see a lot of what is going in Africa now is what Western society saw about 100-200 years ago. Namely that we see a lot of fundamentalists that create a society of strict rules. Those strict rules keep everyone focused and on task to the jobs that best push their society forward.

The churches that I've known started in rural Africa, the people there have a hard time knowing how to deal with and apply large nebulous morals. Sometimes the setting of strict rules and allowing people to focus instead of having to deal metaphysical and existential crises all the time is an easier path to improving a society. (I think you can see that in the spread of Islam and Hinduism as well. A strict set of rules quickly focused and direct millions of people into working together and improving society. But eventually the benefits of focus and strict guidelines begin to distract from societies improvement, and the values of personal freedom begin to bring about more value to society)

As education, diversity, and the economy improve, those rules become less useful; hurtful even. You then have to start dealing with how your rules are harmful or extremely foreign to other cultures. You have to integrate your rules into a new economy that may work against you now instead of help. Education improves, and the scripture (or oral tradition) that was the baseline for the rule set suddenly is no longer the obvious set of rules that it once was. Life has changed and the words don't match your life 1:1. You have to start discerning, "what was the purpose of this rule?". Perhaps it's not the literal rule itself that was important but the meaning behind it; or perhaps the reason for the rule in the first place no longer exists, and then the culture has to struggle with what that actually means and entails for them.

And of course you have a big awkward period in the middle that I think many in the US still deal with and many other countries that are still in their transition of higher education and reconciling their traditions. People like you've described have a feeling and a path, but don't know how to reconcile the two. Either she isn't taught enough to know how to reconcile the two, or she has very strong emotional ties that she doesn't know how to find closure for. While I don't like the progress of society being slowed down to wait for people to catch-up, I do highly sympathize with their backgrounds. Where they have an intense feeling of knowing what is right, but don't have the language or support to work through it.

It's not religion's fault. It's a lot of what brought us this far. But I think it will be more valuable if we figure out how to create a transition to the modern world that we can model to other countries rather than destroy it. (Alright I veered off a bit on topic there, but it's what came to mind)

[Daley]

The new testament and old testament God aren't the same God at all.  They behave in completely different ways.  It makes as much sense as saying that Abraham Lincoln was immortal, and you currently know him as Donald Trump.

I've already addressed this line of thinking once in this thread, but apparently I need to do so once more.

Stv, you know I respect you, but your argument and your understanding lacks basic common sense. The synoptic gospels detailing Yeshua/Jesus' ministry and sacrifice as well as the epistle letters of Rav Sh'aul/Paul the Apostle weren't even immediately available the first few decades of the movement, let alone during Yeshua's own time of ministry! The only Bible available at the time was the Tanakh, the Old Testament, and it was used within both the Jewish and Gentile communities to show the presence of HaShem, the fulfillment of prophecy through Yeshua and the salvation plan, and to teach His way from. This would be impossible to do if the G-d of the OT and the G-d of the NT actually are two different G-ds as you assert.

The very narritive you share, in fact, is (not so) subtly anti-semitic. How can the Jewish Messiah sent by the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses not have come from a loving G-d, if the Jewish G-d of the Old Testament as you claim is actually this barbaric and cruel G-d that has no resemblance to the G-d that Yeshua pointed people toward? How can Yeshua show so much love to the world if He was sinless and fulfilled all the mitzvot (commandments) of Torah as is claimed, if Torah depicts and teaches a barbaric and cruel G-d? If the Jewish G-d of the Old Testament is such a cruel and barbaric G-d, how can there be such a pronounced and consistent theme of a fundamental respect of all life in Judaism?

The teachings and claims you make are deeply rooted from the European church, which itself was (and still frequently can be) deeply anti-semitic and taught for centuries that G-d's chosen people of Israel are no longer G-d's chosen people, and that European Christians are G-d's new chosen people. These are the teachings and legacies of Supersessionism in Christian theology. That is straight up deception, and perhaps it demonstrates that Christians and theologians who might take and defend your position might be worshiping and teaching a G-d they created, and not the actual G-d described in the very Bible they point at, which is a behavior itself that goes into some stripes of idolatry... which is probably why it's so easy for atheists to dismiss the most common Christian narratives.

I'm not the only person in the faith who can and does see this, by the way. In fact, it's a great litmus test to gauge understanding of the teachings themselves in their entirety. Not everyone can see this, however. You certainly can't reconcile or see it, though I hope that you may actually be able to someday. Until that day, however, it will remain as nonsense to you and many others given your frame of perception and inability to witness and perceive I AM, the one and only Living G-d of creation. In the mean time, I would encourage you to perhaps reconsider maintaining this position and passing it around as you have.

[scrubbyfish]

If there's a religion out there that literally doesn't ever try to impose its views or rules on non-followers, I'm probably okay with it.  I haven't heard of one yet.

Similarly to what others noted, I find this to be specific not to a religion but to an expression of a given orientation. Some Muslims will try to impose their views or rules on non-followers, as will some atheists, some Christians, some Jews, some Buddhists. And some won't. I'm not anything, but hang with people of each of these orientations as well as other ones and, like me, none. We get together (often with many of the above in one place) and hang, be together, share experiences, etc, all without one telling another what to think, believe, feel, or do. This is quite common in my own circles.

[DoubleDown]

Why do some here keep saying, in essence, "All the Christians I see are the loudmouthed, intolerant kind that insist on forcing their views on everyone else." What about the thousands you cross paths with who quietly carry their faith and therefore you have no idea about them?

Do you see the illogic in this? Think of it like people who carry guns: For every "I'm carrying my rifle in Walmart on Sunday and you can have it when you pry it from my cold dead hands" guy you come across, you might have crossed paths with 999 others who were quietly, safely, and inconspicuously carrying a concealed weapon. By definition, you didn't even know they were carrying guns and are regular people not pushing their views in your face. Instead, you wrongly conclude, "Everyone I've seen carrying a gun is an in-your-face idiot who makes me feel uncomfortable."

[Kris]

The new testament and old testament God aren't the same God at all.  They behave in completely different ways.  It makes as much sense as saying that Abraham Lincoln was immortal, and you currently know him as Donald Trump.

I've already addressed this line of thinking once in this thread, but apparently I need to do so once more.

Stv, you know I respect you, but your argument and your understanding lacks basic common sense. The synoptic gospels detailing Yeshua/Jesus' ministry and sacrifice as well as the epistle letters of Rav Sh'aul/Paul the Apostle weren't even immediately available the first few decades of the movement, let alone during Yeshua's own time of ministry! The only Bible available at the time was the Tanakh, the Old Testament, and it was used within both the Jewish and Gentile communities to show the presence of HaShem, the fulfillment of prophecy through Yeshua and the salvation plan, and to teach His way from. This would be impossible to do if the G-d of the OT and the G-d of the NT actually are two different G-ds as you assert.

The very narritive you share, in fact, is (not so) subtly anti-semitic. How can the Jewish Messiah sent by the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses not have come from a loving G-d, if the Jewish G-d of the Old Testament as you claim is actually this barbaric and cruel G-d that has no resemblance to the G-d that Yeshua pointed people toward? How can Yeshua show so much love to the world if He was sinless and fulfilled all the mitzvot (commandments) of Torah as is claimed, if Torah depicts and teaches a barbaric and cruel G-d? If the Jewish G-d of the Old Testament is such a cruel and barbaric G-d, how can there be such a pronounced and consistent theme of a fundamental respect of all life in Judaism?

The teachings and claims you make are deeply rooted from the European church, which itself was (and still frequently can be) deeply anti-semitic and taught for centuries that G-d's chosen people of Israel are no longer G-d's chosen people, and that European Christians are G-d's new chosen people. These are the teachings and legacies of Supersessionism in Christian theology. That is straight up deception, and perhaps it demonstrates that Christians and theologians who might take and defend your position might be worshiping and teaching a G-d they created, and not the actual G-d described in the very Bible they point at, which is a behavior itself that goes into some stripes of idolatry... which is probably why it's so easy for atheists to dismiss the most common Christian narratives.

I'm not the only person in the faith who can and does see this, by the way. In fact, it's a great litmus test to gauge understanding of the teachings themselves in their entirety. Not everyone can see this, however. You certainly can't reconcile or see it, though I hope that you may actually be able to someday. Until that day, however, it will remain as nonsense to you and many others given your frame of perception and inability to witness and perceive I AM, the one and only Living G-d of creation. In the mean time, I would encourage you to perhaps reconsider maintaining this position and passing it around as you have.

This was pretty interesting and illuminating. I'm an atheist, but I appreciate being able to understand the underpinnings of people's faith. Thanks, I.P.

[Petunia 100]

The new testament and old testament God aren't the same God at all.  They behave in completely different ways.  It makes as much sense as saying that Abraham Lincoln was immortal, and you currently know him as Donald Trump.

I've already addressed this line of thinking once in this thread, but apparently I need to do so once more.

Stv, you know I respect you, but your argument and your understanding lacks basic common sense. The synoptic gospels detailing Yeshua/Jesus' ministry and sacrifice as well as the epistle letters of Rav Sh'aul/Paul the Apostle weren't even immediately available the first few decades of the movement, let alone during Yeshua's own time of ministry! The only Bible available at the time was the Tanakh, the Old Testament, and it was used within both the Jewish and Gentile communities to show the presence of HaShem, the fulfillment of prophecy through Yeshua and the salvation plan, and to teach His way from. This would be impossible to do if the G-d of the OT and the G-d of the NT actually are two different G-ds as you assert.

The very narritive you share, in fact, is (not so) subtly anti-semitic. How can the Jewish Messiah sent by the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses not have come from a loving G-d, if the Jewish G-d of the Old Testament as you claim is actually this barbaric and cruel G-d that has no resemblance to the G-d that Yeshua pointed people toward? How can Yeshua show so much love to the world if He was sinless and fulfilled all the mitzvot (commandments) of Torah as is claimed, if Torah depicts and teaches a barbaric and cruel G-d? If the Jewish G-d of the Old Testament is such a cruel and barbaric G-d, how can there be such a pronounced and consistent theme of a fundamental respect of all life in Judaism?

The teachings and claims you make are deeply rooted from the European church, which itself was (and still frequently can be) deeply anti-semitic and taught for centuries that G-d's chosen people of Israel are no longer G-d's chosen people, and that European Christians are G-d's new chosen people. These are the teachings and legacies of Supersessionism in Christian theology. That is straight up deception, and perhaps it demonstrates that Christians and theologians who might take and defend your position might be worshiping and teaching a G-d they created, and not the actual G-d described in the very Bible they point at, which is a behavior itself that goes into some stripes of idolatry... which is probably why it's so easy for atheists to dismiss the most common Christian narratives.

I'm not the only person in the faith who can and does see this, by the way. In fact, it's a great litmus test to gauge understanding of the teachings themselves in their entirety. Not everyone can see this, however. You certainly can't reconcile or see it, though I hope that you may actually be able to someday. Until that day, however, it will remain as nonsense to you and many others given your frame of perception and inability to witness and perceive I AM, the one and only Living G-d of creation. In the mean time, I would encourage you to perhaps reconsider maintaining this position and passing it around as you have.

If God is a loving god, why is there a "chosen people" in the first place?  Why are some born to the chosen people while others are not? Clearly being not chosen is a huge disadvantage.  Why doesn't God love them enough to choose them too?

[GuitarStv]

The new testament and old testament God aren't the same God at all.  They behave in completely different ways.  It makes as much sense as saying that Abraham Lincoln was immortal, and you currently know him as Donald Trump.

I've already addressed this line of thinking once in this thread, but apparently I need to do so once more.

Stv, you know I respect you, but your argument and your understanding lacks basic common sense. The synoptic gospels detailing Yeshua/Jesus' ministry and sacrifice as well as the epistle letters of Rav Sh'aul/Paul the Apostle weren't even immediately available the first few decades of the movement, let alone during Yeshua's own time of ministry! The only Bible available at the time was the Tanakh, the Old Testament, and it was used within both the Jewish and Gentile communities to show the presence of HaShem, the fulfillment of prophecy through Yeshua and the salvation plan, and to teach His way from. This would be impossible to do if the G-d of the OT and the G-d of the NT actually are two different G-ds as you assert.

The very narritive you share, in fact, is (not so) subtly anti-semitic. How can the Jewish Messiah sent by the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses not have come from a loving G-d, if the Jewish G-d of the Old Testament as you claim is actually this barbaric and cruel G-d that has no resemblance to the G-d that Yeshua pointed people toward? How can Yeshua show so much love to the world if He was sinless and fulfilled all the mitzvot (commandments) of Torah as is claimed, if Torah depicts and teaches a barbaric and cruel G-d? If the Jewish G-d of the Old Testament is such a cruel and barbaric G-d, how can there be such a pronounced and consistent theme of a fundamental respect of all life in Judaism?

The teachings and claims you make are deeply rooted from the European church, which itself was (and still frequently can be) deeply anti-semitic and taught for centuries that G-d's chosen people of Israel are no longer G-d's chosen people, and that European Christians are G-d's new chosen people. These are the teachings and legacies of Supersessionism in Christian theology. That is straight up deception, and perhaps it demonstrates that Christians and theologians who might take and defend your position might be worshiping and teaching a G-d they created, and not the actual G-d described in the very Bible they point at, which is a behavior itself that goes into some stripes of idolatry... which is probably why it's so easy for atheists to dismiss the most common Christian narratives.

I'm not the only person in the faith who can and does see this, by the way. In fact, it's a great litmus test to gauge understanding of the teachings themselves in their entirety. Not everyone can see this, however. You certainly can't reconcile or see it, though I hope that you may actually be able to someday. Until that day, however, it will remain as nonsense to you and many others given your frame of perception and inability to witness and perceive I AM, the one and only Living G-d of creation. In the mean time, I would encourage you to perhaps reconsider maintaining this position and passing it around as you have.

This was pretty interesting and illuminating. I'm an atheist, but I appreciate being able to understand the underpinnings of people's faith. Thanks, I.P.

The beauty of religious belief is that you're free to hold whatever belief you hold.  When we're discussing the impossible and unprovable, one person's interpretation of text is as valid as another’s.

IP, my own personal observations reading the bible are that God is pretty harsh and capricious in the Old Testament.  God is less so in the New Testament.  That doesn't mean that I believe that Jewish people are bad or wrong in any way.  That doesn't mean that I believe Christians are in any way superior to anybody else.

Religious manuals can be read in such a way to support nearly any agenda.  If a person wants a religion of peace badly enough, they can find it in Taoism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Satanism, Norse mythology, Scientology or the holy words of Tolkien.  That doesn't change the actual content of the manual they're using to find peace.

[ooeei]

If there's a religion out there that literally doesn't ever try to impose its views or rules on non-followers, I'm probably okay with it.  I haven't heard of one yet.

Similarly to what others noted, I find this to be specific not to a religion but to an expression of a given orientation. Some Muslims will try to impose their views or rules on non-followers, as will some atheists, some Christians, some Jews, some Buddhists. And some won't. I'm not anything, but hang with people of each of these orientations as well as other ones and, like me, none. We get together (often with many of the above in one place) and hang, be together, share experiences, etc, all without one telling another what to think, believe, feel, or do. This is quite common in my own circles.

And I don't provoke arguments with people  about religion either.  I'm sure you can find good people in just about any group.  That doesn't change the fact that I don't like Christianity, because a not small number of them regularly try to legislate and push their beliefs on others.  If everyone was as cool as you and your group we wouldn't be having this conversation now because there wouldn't be any problem.  I think encouraging belief  without evidence is dangerous and easily corruptible, and it is encouraged in many mainstream Christian teachings (as well as other religions and groups).

[scrubbyfish]

...regularly try to legislate and push their beliefs on others.

I hear ya...

I'm totally okay with Christianity (and most other ideas) but, like you, am totally not okay with humans who push ideas that I find yucky. That gets more into a matter of politics (anarchism, libertarianism, statism, etc). I'm not an anarchist, so I'm okay with some ideas being legislated and pushed by any given group. i.e., It's not the who in the pushing/legislating that makes me happy or sad about the push, but the idea being pushed.

But lobbying, legislation, pushing isn't limited to Christian groups, fundamentalist Christians, etc. There are heaps of groups pushing stuff that turns my stomach. I don't dislike pharmaceutical companies, the dairy industry, investment companies, etc, just because some of them lobby for some things I disagree with. I can disagree with some things they lobby for while accepting them, appreciating their contributions, etc...and lobby or vote opposite to a given proposition.

[Metric Mouse]

...regularly try to legislate and push their beliefs on others.

I hear ya...

I'm totally okay with Christianity (and most other ideas) but, like you, am totally not okay with humans who push ideas that I find yucky. That gets more into a matter of politics (anarchism, libertarianism, statism, etc). I'm not an anarchist, so I'm okay with some ideas being legislated and pushed by any given group. i.e., It's not the who in the pushing/legislating that makes me happy or sad about the push, but the idea being pushed.

But lobbying, legislation, pushing isn't limited to Christian groups, fundamentalist Christians, etc. There are heaps of groups pushing stuff that turns my stomach. I don't dislike pharmaceutical companies, the dairy industry, investment companies, etc, just because some of them lobby for some things I disagree with. I can disagree with some things they lobby for while accepting them, appreciating their contributions, etc...and lobby or vote opposite to a given proposition.

This is truly a great attitude, and I don't see it expressed very often.

[drp]

Why do some here keep saying, in essence, "All the Christians I see are the loudmouthed, intolerant kind that insist on forcing their views on everyone else." What about the thousands you cross paths with who quietly carry their faith and therefore you have no idea about them?

The people who are in essence saying that are either only coming into contact with crass impostors (visible church vs. invisible church), or perhaps even baby Christians who don't know any better yet. Or, maybe, they are coming into contact with true believers, who take the word of God literally and simply don't like what it says. (see comic linked below for a cartoonish, yet realistic example - P.S. I believe in speaking the truth in love. Anyone can communicate their beliefs, but it needs to be done in a respectable way)

When you are so intolerant towards another's beliefs, it is very easy to see someone as "forcing their views on you" simply because you strongly disagree with their view. To say I believe homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean I'm imposing my view on YOU. It merely means I am stating my beliefs and that we have different beliefs.

Tolerance is the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. Some of the most intolerant people I've come across are atheists - myself included when I was an angry, Dawkins lovin', Christian mocking atheist a couple years back (I was really, really mean. Seriously.)

Here's a comic to illustrate the intolerance point (what it means to be a "bigot"). I'm hoping people can see this double standard? (gay marriage can be interchangeable with whatever else you want...abortion, prayer in school...whatever...I didn't write the comic.)
http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ 

To address the OP - I am sorry your friend/family was a total jerk to you. That's always a disappointment. My family said plenty of extremely unhelpful things to me about God when I was an atheist and it not only pissed me off but made me incredibly sad. I totally get it. And I like that you said what angered you most is that your wife and kids were being insulted! Way to be focused on what matters most.

I disagree with another poster who seems to think you asked for it by speaking up. The topic was already out in the open and you were present. There's absolutely nothing wrong with you stating your opinion, just as he stated his, and it sounds like you handled yourself very well.

As an atheist I had higher morals than most Christians I knew (yeah, I was a *very* humble atheist, lol!). That's just moralism and anyone can be a moral, upstanding citizen, whether gay or straight, atheist or Christian (or buddhist, or purple...or whatever). I'm not sure how people pretending to pray in school will help America be a better place? Not that I think you SHOULDN'T be allowed to pray in school - individuals should always be able to pray where ever with others of the same beliefs - but teacher led prayer in a class full of kids who aren't even Christian? What's the point of that?

Perhaps later on you can confront him - maybe with some of the scripture that a previous poster shared (don't recall the name, sorry!). I honestly can't think of something much more humbling and convicting that a non-believer coming at me with God's word *in context* (that's KEY. If it's not in context, then I could care less!).

[Goldielocks]

If you really want a happy, welcoming response, wish a Muslim coworker a happy Eid. Seriously, I have never seen any group so thrilled to just be recognized.

I don't even know what the proper greeting is.

Eid mubarak:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_Mubarak

I'm totally fascinated every time I stumble upon one of these threads. In Scandinavia, the "normal" is to be atheist or agnostic. If you are religious, the polite thing is to keep it for yourself and not bother other people with it. The only people I have met who have openly questioned me or my family about my beliefs, were foreigners. One was a very friendly American, who shut up and turned bright red after a long while when his wife got through to him about how uncomfortable he was making us.

Praying in school was stopped here many years ago, but there is still a big and loud debate on whether the kids should be invited to attend church on the last day of school before the Yule holiday. I'm trying to wrap my head around how it can be considered impolite to debate the division between religion and state, and I'm very happy I don't have to follow those rules in my everyday life.

And yet 75%* of scandanavians mark themselves as Lutheran on a census form, and the state has an official religion, and helps fund the church, does it not?

Interesting mash up...  I do think that people say they are agnostic, but sign off as Lutheran...

*I made this up instead of looking it up, but I recall seeing a very high number of people state Lutheran, but non-practicing.  I may also be out of date, as this comes from what I learned when living in Norway in the 1990s.

[former player]

Here's a comic to illustrate the intolerance point (what it means to be a "bigot"). I'm hoping people can see this double standard? (gay marriage can be interchangeable with whatever else you want...abortion, prayer in school...whatever...I didn't write the comic.)
http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ 

This "comic" (it's a cartoon, nothing "comic" about it) is trying to make the point that someone who says "gay couples should not be able to get married" is not a bigot, presumably because of their religious beliefs."

Unfortunately it falls into a basic trap, that of imposing one's personal beliefs ("I believe marriage is between a man and a woman") with what other people are allowed to do -ie get married.   If the respondent to the question "I believe gay couples should be able to get married, don't you" had said "I don't, but although I believe gay couples should not be able to get married I don't believe in imposing my religious views on others and don't oppose it being redefined for others" then that respondent would not be a bigot.

It's the respondent's opposition to the redefinition of marriage because of their personal religious beliefs, something which would limit the rights of others without having any effect on the respondent's own beliefs and practices, which makes them a bigot.

[ooeei]

...regularly try to legislate and push their beliefs on others.

I hear ya...

I'm totally okay with Christianity (and most other ideas) but, like you, am totally not okay with humans who push ideas that I find yucky. That gets more into a matter of politics (anarchism, libertarianism, statism, etc). I'm not an anarchist, so I'm okay with some ideas being legislated and pushed by any given group. i.e., It's not the who in the pushing/legislating that makes me happy or sad about the push, but the idea being pushed.

But lobbying, legislation, pushing isn't limited to Christian groups, fundamentalist Christians, etc. There are heaps of groups pushing stuff that turns my stomach. I don't dislike pharmaceutical companies, the dairy industry, investment companies, etc, just because some of them lobby for some things I disagree with. I can disagree with some things they lobby for while accepting them, appreciating their contributions, etc...and lobby or vote opposite to a given proposition.

This is true, and I know plenty of Christians who are great, and I'm friends with.  Hell my mom is Christian.  I have zero problems with them.  With that being said, people trying to legislate their beliefs is not even close to a fringe part of Christianity (or Islam), it is a sizable portion, perhaps even a majority.  I also dislike the religion itself, as I said above I think belief without evidence is dangerous, and can easily corrupt good people into bad.  It can and is regularly used to make good people do bad things.  Occasionally it makes bad people do good things, but that appears to be much rarer in my experience.  I dislike plenty of other groups that do the same thing, Christianity happens to be one where it is often encouraged in my neck of the woods.

One of the problems with only disliking the part of religion that proselytizes is that in order to argue against those people, I pretty much have to offend the nice ones.  If I have to tiptoe around the good ones' feelings, my ability to criticize the crazy ones is significantly handicapped.  If someone wants to legislate a ban on gay marriage, I can't say "Well we shouldn't be blindly passing laws based on a 2000 year old book written in another language that talks about magic, that's FUCKING CRAZY, and I can't believe it's even considered an argument in the year 2016" without offending the "good" Christians.  The only difference in this instance between the good and bad ones is an interpretation, and that's a point that can only be argued so far.

[DoubleDown]

people trying to legislate their beliefs is not even close to a fringe part of Christianity (or Islam), it is a sizable portion, perhaps even a majority.

I hear you, but why wouldn't a Christian or Muslim or atheist or vegan or bicycle enthusiast or [insert group here] try to "legislate" their beliefs?  I mean, if I'm in favor of dedicated bike lanes, wouldn't I vote or canvass or protest or petition my local legislators accordingly? If I'm in favor of Sharia (Islam) law, wouldn't I do the same? If I'm pro-life because of my religious beliefs, wouldn't I do the same? What makes your non-religious belief system superior to my religious belief system? One person's "forcing their views upon me" is just another person's "I vote and act according to my beliefs."

I don't like proselytizing either, I'd prefer Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons not knock on my door, and of course I'd vehemently fight someone trying to impose Sharia, but I don't begrudge a person believing what they believe and living their life according to their beliefs. If they want to push an agenda that's offensive to me, let the chips fall where they may.

[Gin1984]

people trying to legislate their beliefs is not even close to a fringe part of Christianity (or Islam), it is a sizable portion, perhaps even a majority.

I hear you, but why wouldn't a Christian or Muslim or atheist or vegan or bicycle enthusiast or [insert group here] try to "legislate" their beliefs?  I mean, if I'm in favor of dedicated bike lanes, wouldn't I vote or canvass or protest or petition my local legislators accordingly? If I'm in favor of Sharia (Islam) law, wouldn't I do the same? If I'm pro-life because of my religious beliefs, wouldn't I do the same? What makes your non-religious belief system superior to my religious belief system? One person's "forcing their views upon me" is just another person's "I vote and act according to my beliefs."

I don't like proselytizing either, I'd prefer Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons not knock on my door, and of course I'd vehemently fight someone trying to impose Sharia, but I don't begrudge a person believing what they believe and living their life according to their beliefs. If they want to push an agenda that's offensive to me, let the chips fall where they may.

Because the USA was founded on the ideal of separation of church and state. 

[scrubbyfish]

Because the USA was founded on the ideal of separation of church and state.

In curiousity/interest: If a vegan were lobbying for legislated veganism because of the vegan's Christian beliefs—pointing to scriptures about lion will lie with the lamb, man being responsible for animals, etc—or a cyclist were lobbying for bike lanes because of her Wiccan beliefs—pointing to her community's beliefs about the sacredness of earth—then the lobbying would be problematic? But if they hid the beliefs that inspire their personal decision to lobby for legislation, the lobbying would be a-okay? Or, if an atheist lobbied for [anything under the sun], that would be alright, because the atheist doesn't hold a belief that falls within the churchy realm?

It doesn't bother me why someone is lobbying for what I think is a good idea. I'll lobby or vote for/against according to the idea, not according to the spiritual or aspiritual beliefs of others lobbying.

[gaja]

I think politics should be founded in logic and reasoning, because otherwise it is impossible to have a decent debate. If you argue for bike lanes because of statistics and facts, I can look at your information and decide if I agree with you. if you argue that bike lanes are good because the blue man in the wall told you so, there is nothing I can say to that. I don't want to disrespect your faith in the blue man, but there is no way I'm going to debate bike lanes based on interpretations of what he said to you last Monday.

There are always differences in ethics and values involved, but those are also possible for people to debate logically (like the value of life vs the right to bodily autonomy). As soon as you include religion, the debates stops for anyone outside the religious group.

[scrubbyfish]

If you argue for bike lanes because of statistics and facts, I can look at your information and decide if I agree with you. if you argue that bike lanes are good because the blue man in the wall told you so, there is nothing I can say to that.

I agree fully that a pitch of "I want bike lanes because blue man in the wall wants me to want them" holds little substance in the context of a debate relying on logic. But, I think a person has room to say it. I imagine plenty of people will ignore that statement, simply filter it out. But if person that believes in Blue Man says, "I believe in Blue Man, and I'd like to see bike lanes," I'm totally fine and will still vote for the lanes. I can debate the value of lanes without concern for any Blue Man Beliefs also presented. Even if a person is using Blue Man as his reason for lanes, my brain allows me to filter dude's personal reason and consider the idea's value.

Sort of circling back to the thread's original topic, I think politics are easier than personal jerkiness. In politics, we can allow our brains to filter out another's personal reason to focus on an idea. But a person being a jerk to us—making horrible declarations because we eat this food, or wear these clothes, or use this vehicle—can hit our sense of self, and our sense of inclusion and safety. We can develop boundaries/filters there, too, but we have the extra layers of "self" to overcome to do so. Hard work.

[acroy]

Because the USA was founded on the ideal of separation of church and state.

With the assumption everyone was a Christian ;) Many have forgotten this - review the history.
The early states were mostly founded by various denominations. Individual states often required adherence to the state religion to serve office, etc. For instance: from wikipedia 'Until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required members of the State legislature to be of the Protestant religion.'

[ooeei]

people trying to legislate their beliefs is not even close to a fringe part of Christianity (or Islam), it is a sizable portion, perhaps even a majority.

I hear you, but why wouldn't a Christian or Muslim or atheist or vegan or bicycle enthusiast or [insert group here] try to "legislate" their beliefs?  I mean, if I'm in favor of dedicated bike lanes, wouldn't I vote or canvass or protest or petition my local legislators accordingly? If I'm in favor of Sharia (Islam) law, wouldn't I do the same? If I'm pro-life because of my religious beliefs, wouldn't I do the same? What makes your non-religious belief system superior to my religious belief system? One person's "forcing their views upon me" is just another person's "I vote and act according to my beliefs."

I don't like proselytizing either, I'd prefer Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons not knock on my door, and of course I'd vehemently fight someone trying to impose Sharia, but I don't begrudge a person believing what they believe and living their life according to their beliefs. If they want to push an agenda that's offensive to me, let the chips fall where they may.

I didn't say it doesn't make sense for them to do it, or that I don't understand why they do it.  I said I don't like them because they do it.  Religion is one of few times where you can make arguments without evidence (or with very poor evidence), and for some reason society is supposed to take you seriously.

If I want to put bike lanes in the city, I'd be required to provide evidence to convince people of why we should do this.  Someone else could bring up counterpoints as to why we shouldn't.  If a religious person wants gay marriage gone, they can just say "because god said so" (generally in a more eloquent way) and are done with the debate.  When you take "faith" as a reasonable argument, there's nothing you can use to argue against it.  It's a conversation stopper.

[FIPurpose]

Because the USA was founded on the ideal of separation of church and state.

With the assumption everyone was a Christian ;) Many have forgotten this - review the history.
The early states were mostly founded by various denominations. Individual states often required adherence to the state religion to serve office, etc. For instance: from wikipedia 'Until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required members of the State legislature to be of the Protestant religion.'

Uhh no. New Hampshire's protestant requirement was nullified before its removal by the 14th amendment. And just because it's in a constitution does not mean that opinion was even held by a majority since many of those laws were written during a time when women, young, natives, and non-European descents couldn't vote.

Alabama still has school segregation as part of its constitution. That does not give it power or even represent what a majority of people believe in the State.

But using 'Separation of Church and State' to decry certain opinions merely religious and others supporting from logical ethical codes is dubious. At least using an old book is a reference to tradition or precedent. We all hold morals that just are. Whether that is supported by a "Blue Man" or some vague "natural law" it's going to be difficult to completely rationalize government simply as a function of logic.

[scrubbyfish]

Religion is one of few times where you can make arguments without evidence (or with very poor evidence), and for some reason society is supposed to take you seriously.

I think this isn't limited to religion, though. I think the "for some reason" part is Western culture's appreciation for individuality. So, here a person gets to believe, lobby, and vote according to their religion OR according to their conscience OR according to the scientific study results they read yesterday OR according to the women's studies course they took in 1967 OR their personal preference for cycling vs driving OR whatever else they want. We don't limit what a person uses as inspiration for where they're landing currently. We allow people to express (speak, lobby, vote) according to their belief, regardless of what inspired the belief.

This is something I really appreciate.

It, of course, leaves me hoping that more people are inspired by any given source to be kind and inclusive according to my definitions of kind and inclusive. But then we've circled right back to me hoping 50% +1 want the same things I do. Should I even want that? When I do want that, I'm still assuming my idea is best, even if it's "rational", "based in the current scientific understanding", etc.

When you take "faith" as a reasonable argument, there's nothing you can use to argue against it.  It's a conversation stopper.

For me (nonreligious), pointing at "the latest study to come out of Cornell" has the same effect. This is because I give no more weight to the results of an extraordinarily limited study funded by one group through one lens than I do to a religious idea. Yes, I can respond with limited results from other sources but, to me it's still only that.

[scrubbyfish]

We all hold morals that just are. Whether that is supported by a "Blue Man" or some vague "natural law" it's going to be difficult to completely rationalize government simply as a function of logic.

+1. This reflects well some of what I was aiming to get at immediately above.

[DoubleDown]

If you argue for bike lanes because of statistics and facts, I can look at your information and decide if I agree with you. if you argue that bike lanes are good because the blue man in the wall told you so, there is nothing I can say to that.

I agree fully that a pitch of "I want bike lanes because blue man in the wall wants me to want them" holds little substance in the context of a debate relying on logic. But, I think a person has room to say it. I imagine plenty of people will ignore that statement, simply filter it out. But if person that believes in Blue Man says, "I believe in Blue Man, and I'd like to see bike lanes," I'm totally fine and will still vote for the lanes. I can debate the value of lanes without concern for any Blue Man Beliefs also presented. Even if a person is using Blue Man as his reason for lanes, my brain allows me to filter dude's personal reason and consider the idea's value.

Exactly @scrubbyfish, and what I was alluding to when I said the person should feel free to pitch their beliefs and reasons  and let the chips fall where they may. If a hardcore Islamist wants to try to get Sharia law adopted in the USA, go for it. We can all lobby for and against it according to our own belief systems whether they are based in religion, fantasy, supposed logic, MMM-told-me-so, or any other reason.

You've done an excellent job pointing out that an obnoxious religious person is no different than an obnoxious bicyclist, vegan, tea partier, gun rights supporter, or any other group we often despise when they become "in your face" about it.

[DoubleDown]

people trying to legislate their beliefs is not even close to a fringe part of Christianity (or Islam), it is a sizable portion, perhaps even a majority.

I hear you, but why wouldn't a Christian or Muslim or atheist or vegan or bicycle enthusiast or [insert group here] try to "legislate" their beliefs?  I mean, if I'm in favor of dedicated bike lanes, wouldn't I vote or canvass or protest or petition my local legislators accordingly? If I'm in favor of Sharia (Islam) law, wouldn't I do the same? If I'm pro-life because of my religious beliefs, wouldn't I do the same? What makes your non-religious belief system superior to my religious belief system? One person's "forcing their views upon me" is just another person's "I vote and act according to my beliefs."

I don't like proselytizing either, I'd prefer Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons not knock on my door, and of course I'd vehemently fight someone trying to impose Sharia, but I don't begrudge a person believing what they believe and living their life according to their beliefs. If they want to push an agenda that's offensive to me, let the chips fall where they may.

Because the USA was founded on the ideal of separation of church and state.

I disagree, at least in the way I think you've presented it to mean you must exclude religious beliefs from public/legislative discourse. I would argue it was founded on this ideal, the only one I'm aware of that deals with religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the intent of the First Amendment was to exclude religious thought from all debate, or that the framers of the Constitution did not consider their own religious beliefs when they established it and other laws. The Amendment says only that Congress will not make laws establishing a religion as the "proper" religion or prohibiting people from practicing their own religion.

[Le Poisson]

people trying to legislate their beliefs is not even close to a fringe part of Christianity (or Islam), it is a sizable portion, perhaps even a majority.

I hear you, but why wouldn't a Christian or Muslim or atheist or vegan or bicycle enthusiast or [insert group here] try to "legislate" their beliefs?  I mean, if I'm in favor of dedicated bike lanes, wouldn't I vote or canvass or protest or petition my local legislators accordingly? If I'm in favor of Sharia (Islam) law, wouldn't I do the same? If I'm pro-life because of my religious beliefs, wouldn't I do the same? What makes your non-religious belief system superior to my religious belief system? One person's "forcing their views upon me" is just another person's "I vote and act according to my beliefs."

I don't like proselytizing either, I'd prefer Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons not knock on my door, and of course I'd vehemently fight someone trying to impose Sharia, but I don't begrudge a person believing what they believe and living their life according to their beliefs. If they want to push an agenda that's offensive to me, let the chips fall where they may.

Because the USA was founded on the ideal of separation of church and state.

I disagree, at least in the way I think you've presented it to mean you must exclude religious beliefs from public/legislative discourse. I would argue it was founded on this ideal, the only one I'm aware of that deals with religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the intent of the First Amendment was to exclude religious thought from all debate, or that the framers of the Constitution did not consider their own religious beliefs when they established it and other laws. The Amendment says only that Congress will not make laws establishing a religion as the "proper" religion or prohibiting people from practicing their own religion.

Except in Utah, where the predominant religion (Mormonism) had to give up one of its practices (polygamy) in order to get statehood. But I am sure that apart from that one time, religion has had little to do with it.

[FIPurpose]

people trying to legislate their beliefs is not even close to a fringe part of Christianity (or Islam), it is a sizable portion, perhaps even a majority.

I hear you, but why wouldn't a Christian or Muslim or atheist or vegan or bicycle enthusiast or [insert group here] try to "legislate" their beliefs?  I mean, if I'm in favor of dedicated bike lanes, wouldn't I vote or canvass or protest or petition my local legislators accordingly? If I'm in favor of Sharia (Islam) law, wouldn't I do the same? If I'm pro-life because of my religious beliefs, wouldn't I do the same? What makes your non-religious belief system superior to my religious belief system? One person's "forcing their views upon me" is just another person's "I vote and act according to my beliefs."

I don't like proselytizing either, I'd prefer Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons not knock on my door, and of course I'd vehemently fight someone trying to impose Sharia, but I don't begrudge a person believing what they believe and living their life according to their beliefs. If they want to push an agenda that's offensive to me, let the chips fall where they may.

Because the USA was founded on the ideal of separation of church and state.

I disagree, at least in the way I think you've presented it to mean you must exclude religious beliefs from public/legislative discourse. I would argue it was founded on this ideal, the only one I'm aware of that deals with religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the intent of the First Amendment was to exclude religious thought from all debate, or that the framers of the Constitution did not consider their own religious beliefs when they established it and other laws. The Amendment says only that Congress will not make laws establishing a religion as the "proper" religion or prohibiting people from practicing their own religion.

Except in Utah, where the predominant religion (Mormonism) had to give up one of its practices (polygamy) in order to get statehood. But I am sure that apart from that one time, religion has had little to do with it.

Meh we have plenty of examples where particular "religious" practices are found lacking and terrible. Polygamy being one, but we also don't allow temple prostitution. I think the main reason you see the 5 major religions of Christian, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism is that they mostly intersect about 95% in how to conduct government. You have small sects that want an exception here or there, and our country is typically very accommodating (e.g. Amish being exempt from Social Security), but I don't think the abusive practices of Sharia, Christian, Caste, etc. should be accepted. With the Republic that we have built, we tend to d a pretty good job of parsing societal requirements and protections and religious rights.

[Le Poisson]

I agree - if anything, the example I gave is one of the changeability of a sect to meet its goals outside its own rules.If the church wants something bad enough, God seems to be willing to change the rules to make it happen. Right from Paul's vision to allow gentiles into Christianity to Brigham Young's revelation to closet up polygamy.

[FIPurpose]

I agree - if anything, the example I gave is one of the changeability of a sect to meet its goals outside its own rules.If the church wants something bad enough, God seems to be willing to change the rules to make it happen. Right from Paul's vision to allow gentiles into Christianity to Brigham Young's revelation to closet up polygamy.

Small point but: Peter's vision.

[englishteacheralex]

I agree - if anything, the example I gave is one of the changeability of a sect to meet its goals outside its own rules.If the church wants something bad enough, God seems to be willing to change the rules to make it happen. Right from Paul's vision to allow gentiles into Christianity to Brigham Young's revelation to closet up polygamy.

Small point but: Peter's vision.

Wow, cool--I just read Acts 10 this morning.

[gaja]

If you argue for bike lanes because of statistics and facts, I can look at your information and decide if I agree with you. if you argue that bike lanes are good because the blue man in the wall told you so, there is nothing I can say to that.

I agree fully that a pitch of "I want bike lanes because blue man in the wall wants me to want them" holds little substance in the context of a debate relying on logic. But, I think a person has room to say it. I imagine plenty of people will ignore that statement, simply filter it out. But if person that believes in Blue Man says, "I believe in Blue Man, and I'd like to see bike lanes," I'm totally fine and will still vote for the lanes. I can debate the value of lanes without concern for any Blue Man Beliefs also presented. Even if a person is using Blue Man as his reason for lanes, my brain allows me to filter dude's personal reason and consider the idea's value.

Exactly @scrubbyfish, and what I was alluding to when I said the person should feel free to pitch their beliefs and reasons  and let the chips fall where they may. If a hardcore Islamist wants to try to get Sharia law adopted in the USA, go for it. We can all lobby for and against it according to our own belief systems whether they are based in religion, fantasy, supposed logic, MMM-told-me-so, or any other reason.

You've done an excellent job pointing out that an obnoxious religious person is no different than an obnoxious bicyclist, vegan, tea partier, gun rights supporter, or any other group we often despise when they become "in your face" about it.

In your world it sounds like everyone is standing on different hills shouting into a void (or at politicians). In my world, debate and policy making means talking with each other and trying to find common ground and compromises. I struggle doing that with in-your-face people like you describe, since I can't understand their reasoning.

[frugalnacho]

Full no-contact is fine, but I'd have just gone with what you said above.

Being a good, hard-working, moral, helpful human being does not require believing in any particular deity.

Ethics do not require god.

I try not to engage, though.  Only when someone REALLY knows me well will I admit to atheism.  Because then, they usually have judged me "worthy", or whatever.  Which means (hopefully), they change their attitude about what an atheist IS.

I would take that a step further and say not only do ethics not require god, but god absolutely CANNOT be the basis of ethics.  If god/religion is the basics of your ethics they are most likely terrible, and if they aren't it's purely accidental/coincidental.  All of the good ethics and morality can be reasoned and arrived at completely independent of god.  I have seen far too much hatred perpetrated in the name of god, with no reasoning of any kind to back it up other than "because god says so!".

It blows my mind whenever anyone says an atheist must be amoral and/or unethical. If the only reason you abstain from any unethical or amoral behavior is because of god, and not independent reasoning, then you are a terrible person.

[Spork]

Full no-contact is fine, but I'd have just gone with what you said above.

Being a good, hard-working, moral, helpful human being does not require believing in any particular deity.

Ethics do not require god.

I try not to engage, though.  Only when someone REALLY knows me well will I admit to atheism.  Because then, they usually have judged me "worthy", or whatever.  Which means (hopefully), they change their attitude about what an atheist IS.

I would take that a step further and say not only do ethics not require god, but god absolutely CANNOT be the basis of ethics.  If god/religion is the basics of your ethics they are most likely terrible, and if they aren't it's purely accidental/coincidental.  All of the good ethics and morality can be reasoned and arrived at completely independent of god.  I have seen far too much hatred perpetrated in the name of god, with no reasoning of any kind to back it up other than "because god says so!".

It blows my mind whenever anyone says an atheist must be amoral and/or unethical. If the only reason you abstain from any unethical or amoral behavior is because of god, and not independent reasoning, then you are a terrible person.

Penn Jillette commonly tells the story of how someone argued that "without God and the threat of Hell, you would have people raping and murdering people as much as they want to."  To which he replied, "I already rape and murder as many people as I want to.  That number is ZERO."

[Papa Mustache]

Until that day, however, it will remain as nonsense to you and many others given your frame of perception and inability to witness and perceive I AM, the one and only Living G-d of creation. In the mean time, I would encourage you to perhaps reconsider maintaining this position and passing it around as you have.

Why do you spell God as G-d? Just curious.

[FIPurpose]

Until that day, however, it will remain as nonsense to you and many others given your frame of perception and inability to witness and perceive I AM, the one and only Living G-d of creation. In the mean time, I would encourage you to perhaps reconsider maintaining this position and passing it around as you have.

Why do you spell God as G-d? Just curious.

Likely out of reverence: http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Why-Do-Some-Jews-Spell-God-G-D.htm

[Daley]

This was pretty interesting and illuminating. I'm an atheist, but I appreciate being able to understand the underpinnings of people's faith. Thanks, I.P.

Glad you found it interesting.

The beauty of religious belief is that you're free to hold whatever belief you hold.  When we're discussing the impossible and unprovable, one person's interpretation of text is as valid as another’s.

Agreed, when you're basically talking idolatry (worshiping and praying to nothing) and chasing after what is simply not there. Absolutely. But where do we draw the line so we can say with certainty that a teaching or faith is following something non-existent? When those teachings run contrary to the provable, knowable, and understandable by hard science, right? When those beliefs potentially churn out hostile and angry people, right?

But this presupposes that it's impossible for there to be any higher power. Let's talk hypothetically, here, and run a scenario in our minds. What happens if science potentially reveals enough that the factual and knowable begins to show the presence of a higher power? What happens if this... thing... revealed dovetails perfectly into one of these ancient religions and those teachings reflects what we know of it and how our universe works? What if that religion taught that this thing had a name and laid out rules for people to live by in this creation? What if those rules reinforce what we know to be the foundations and methods for a decent, honest, and ethical living?

What if quantum mechanics and cosmology have already revealed the mechanics of how our Universe could come into existence in the first place, and the very concept and nature of that description of the forces that acted upon and brought our Universe into existence from literal nothing fits the exact same description given for a specific "god" at the point of creation in the beginning of a book that has evidence of having some parts authored as far back as 3500 years ago?

Again, hypotheticals here. Think about these questions and entertain the possibility. What would you do if the possibility of an architect and power higher than our own becomes undeniable scientifically, and ancient teachings are found that corroborates this evidence and includes other teachings that are scientifically verifiable as accurate in how certain choices and actions impact life?

If God is a loving god, why is there a "chosen people" in the first place?  Why are some born to the chosen people while others are not? Clearly being not chosen is a huge disadvantage.  Why doesn't God love them enough to choose them too?

Don't think of it as a haves-or-have-nots situation. After all, HaShem accepts and has a redemption policy in place for all willing to actually believe, trust and follow. Remember, there was no Israel in the time of Noah, and the Exodus itself from Egypt were not all decedents of Abraham. Many Egyptians saw the power of HaShem and fled for freedom from Egypt with the sons and daughters of Abraham with Moses and Aaron into the desert and were present at Sinai.

Instead, think of it in more scientific terms. Are you familiar with a control group with a study? The Hebrews (and all His true followers throughout the nations) are intended to be kodesh, holy, set apart people - just as HaShem is Kodesh. If you created a universe and you know how it works, you're going to want people to operate within it safely and give them rules to do so, right? How do you prove which god is the correct G-d? How do you prove that the instruction set is valid and works for the sake of raising decent, honest, loving people? You have a control group.

Of all the people, all the civilizations over time... why is Israel as a people and nation still so distinct? How is it that these people as a nation can become united, torn apart, conquered, scattered, only to return to their land to retake it? And it keeps happening. This last time around over the past 2000 years, they've been scattered to the four corners of the earth after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, hunted and slaughtered by a madman to near extinction throughout Europe within the living recollection of time of some people still alive today, and then after surviving that, they retake their homeland after nearly two millennia of exile! And not only did they do so, writings from their own books that predated these events by several centuries to millennia said these events would happen.

Torah lays out the wages of missing the mark in this life (sinning), but also the rewards of striving to hit the mark and how to best do so. The teachings of the entirety of the Torah and the prophets are literally built upon living by the Golden Rule, but extended to not just the self and one another, but the creator of our entire universe as well - and because it recognizes that we are flawed and imperfect and will miss the mark, it lays out a plan of redemption and salvation to cover those failings for the sake of preserving covenant relationship with HaShem. This teaches and communicates the value and power of a non-idolatrous, ethical monotheistic faith focused not just on any "god", but a G-d with a very specific name and His precepts of how to live at peace with Him and His creation. After all, look what happens to His people? They follow His Torah, his teachings, they are a nation at peace, strong, vibrant and successful within the world, and they do so without needing to wield physical power and might as other nations. They abandon HaShem, and they suffer the same strife as everyone else.

The purpose of a chosen people is to point others to G-d so that as many people can see His presence and still come to Him in the right, proper, and safest way one possibly could with something of that immense power, glory and perfection despite our own condition.

Why do you spell God as G-d? Just curious.

Out of reverence and respect for Him and His name(s).


I got drawn back in, but I'm bowing back out. I addressed specifics brought up, but I don't feel moved to belabor the point anymore. There's not much original left to the discussion at this point from this side, and there's already been quite a bit of rehashing as it is. Be well all.

[GuitarStv]

The beauty of religious belief is that you're free to hold whatever belief you hold.  When we're discussing the impossible and unprovable, one person's interpretation of text is as valid as another’s.

Agreed, when you're basically talking idolatry (worshiping and praying to nothing) and chasing after what is simply not there. Absolutely. But where do we draw the line so we can say with certainty that a teaching or faith is following something non-existent?

You're misconstruing what I wrote.  I didn't claim that there is no God, simply that discussion of religion is by it's nature, discussion of the impossible and unprovable.  Nobody (and anybody) can be an expert on the unverifiable.

When those teachings run contrary to the provable, knowable, and understandable by hard science, right?

No.  I could have faith in beautiful teapot orbiting Saturn . . . but it's too small to see with a telescope, and too far away to check up on.  That doesn't run contrary to the provable, knowable, or understandable.  It's still an unsupportable claim . . . my idea of what the teapot looks like (blue and white) might be totally different from your idea of what the teapot looks like (red and black).  Both our views on the matter are equally valid . . . even if you've spent a lifetime researching historical hypothesis of the shape and colour of the teapot, and I've only just heard about it last week.

When those beliefs potentially churn out hostile and angry people, right?

No.  Anger is just a part of being human.  You name any label for a group of people, and I'll find you somebody in that group who's angry.  There's just a certain percentage of the population who is always hostile.  You can't blame religion for it.

But this presupposes that it's impossible for there to be any higher power.  Let's talk hypothetically, here, and run a scenario in our minds. What happens if science potentially reveals enough that the factual and knowable begins to show the presence of a higher power? What happens if this... thing... revealed dovetails perfectly into one of these ancient religions and those teachings reflects what we know of it and how our universe works? What if that religion taught that this thing had a name and laid out rules for people to live by in this creation?

Then it would be possible to be an expert on God.

What if those rules reinforce what we know to be the foundations and methods for a decent, honest, and ethical living?

Humanity hasn't come to a conclusion on what the foundations and methods for a 'decent, honest, and ethical living' are.  After thousands of years of philosophers pondering the question, we can't agree on that.  Yet, you're presupposing this agreement, and then presupposing the existence of a hypothetical religion with all the answers to it?  I'm sorry, but that's one step too far into imaginary town for me to follow.  You go on for another two paragraphs in this vein.

What would you do if incontrovertible proof was found that the God you worship was an asshole?  That he came down tomorrow, revealed himself to you, and then explained that he killed little children and gave people painful and terminal illnesses because he thought it was funny (like a kid with a magnifying glass frying ants)?  That he could stop all the atrocities on Earth, but was so pissed off by your misunderstanding of His will and your incessant prayers and worship that he refused to do so?  If He revealed that the books and tomes that people had been copying and passing on from generation to generation completely missed the entire point.  Would you still have faith and practice what you do . . . or is this getting too far into crazy imaginary town for you to follow?  :P

[Papa Mustache]

Until that day, however, it will remain as nonsense to you and many others given your frame of perception and inability to witness and perceive I AM, the one and only Living G-d of creation. In the mean time, I would encourage you to perhaps reconsider maintaining this position and passing it around as you have.

Why do you spell God as G-d? Just curious.

Likely out of reverence: http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Why-Do-Some-Jews-Spell-God-G-D.htm

Thanks!