[Closed] I'm a Christian, unless you're gay

Yes TJ, because in your day job, as well as on here, you come over as a very careing person, you just dont do religion, which is what others cant accept.

What bin to use for recycling a Christian Adam, hopefully one with a heavy lid on it.

Only ones that try to tell me how to live my life or how evil I am*. The rest I'm happy to have a beer with.

* - key being set in concrete and thrown into Mariana Trench

Well i guess if there is no God and we are all just the same as bacteria then nothing really matters, anything goes then must be the conclusion. Murder, rape, incest etc etc. Why buy anything when you could just take it.

Have you read the Bible? Murder? How about God killing the firstborn of Egypt? Rape? How about Lot offering up his two virgin daughters to a bunch of angry gay angel rapists? Incest? Most of the patriarchs, including Lot, the good and just man that God spared from the destruction of Sodom? Who shagged his daughters?

Always slightly alarming to hear that people think that religion is the only thing keeping them civilised. :/

Well i guess if there is no God and we are all just the same as bacteria then nothing really matters,

I'd argue it makes it all the more important to be decent to others as there is no wonderful afterlife to make it all better. Just the now and the only one responsible for your actions is YOU, no god, no devil tempting you, just the knowledge that we are all animals and all trying to eke out some happiness in this brief existence before the big sleep.
therefore if we are in the all same boat, skin colour means nothing,a persons sexuality? who cares, no religion to make it ok to hate another who doesn't seem like you 'cos it says so in a book.

Chapeau, sir.

Wow what a thread,good to see religion bring out the best in people

Stevewhite morality like easter predates Christianity . I don't dislike Christians per se but I do wish they would stop claiming things that are not theirs.

In the irregular event that JWs actually manage to stumble across my abode I'm not adverse to offering them a cuppa and having a chat about how the lion will turn into an herbivore and ignore all the tasty lambs frivolously leaping all over perfect meadows and how everyone will stop growing at the age of thirtysomething and live in limbo forever after.

They always play their trump card and tell me their god can achieve anything, to which I promptly tell them I'm out of milk and it'll be black from here on in...

Didnt the lion also eat christians.

Lots of justified criticism of how badly "Christians" behaved when in power throughout history.Interesting to see how when atheists were in power how religous groups were treated.A lot more recently too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#The_Soviet_Union
Judging by some of the attitudes and opinions expressed on here it's easy to see why.How many times do posters have to remind others that the thread is about intolerance?

Show me [b]anyone[/b] without intolerance and I'll eat my bike without ketchup.

nick1962 - why did you put "Christians" (sic) in quotes?

EDIT: and atheists without?

Sounds like intolerance to me.... 😀

Why is it not okay to be intolerant of intolerant people anyway? I've had enough of the "special deference" given to peoples religious beliefs especially when they often continually ridicule others, if I ridicule them is that intolerance?

Greater minds than I have summed up my personal feelings:

"We are only seeking Man. We have no need of other worlds. We need mirrors. We don't know what to do with other worlds. A single world, our own, suffices us; but we can't accept it for what it is. We are seaching for an ideal image of our own world: we go in quest of a planet, of a civilisation superior to our own but developed on the basis of a prototype of our primeval past. At the same time, there is something inside us which we don't like to face up to, from which we try to protect ourselves, but which nevertheless remains, since we don't leave Earth in a state of primal innocence. We arrive here as we are in reality, and when the page is turned and that reality is revealed to us — that part of our reality which we would prefer to pass over in silence — then we don't like it any more." - Solaris - By Stanislaw Lem

... and not atheists.

The inference one could draw there is that "Christians" being horrible were only so-called Christians, but the atheists being horrible don't get afforded that same luxury. Hopefully that's just me being pedantic and not what Nick meant.

Either way, I think the conclusion there is that people can be horrible for their own ends and agendas irrespective of a belief, or lack thereof, in any gods. Which we sorta knew anyway. When any large group of people tries to assert control over another, it's rarely pleasant.

Lots of justified criticism of how badly "Christians" behaved when in power throughout history.Interesting to see how when atheists were in power how religous groups were treated.A lot more recently too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#The_Soviet_Union
Judging by some of the attitudes and opinions expressed on here it's easy to see why.How many times do posters have to remind others that the thread is about intolerance?

Nick.....You my friend are totally and utterly wrong. I love batting Christians down when they bring this one up.

http://lehmann.typepad.com/in_lehmanns_terms/2007/09/hitchens-on-sta.html

"Until 1917, millions of Russians had been told for…hundreds of years that the czar is the head of the church – which he was, the Russian Orthodox Church. That the leader of the country should be something a little more than human. Not a god, but a little more. He’s not divine, but a holy father."

"If you’re Josef Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you don’t know how to exploit an inheritance like that: millions of credulous, servile people."

Which countries in Europe have historically been more prone to Dictatorships anyway? Oh yes, Catholic countries.

Either way, I think the conclusion there is that people can be horrible for their own ends and agendas irrespective of a belief, or lack thereof, in any gods. Which we sorta knew anyway. When any large group of people tries to assert control over another, it's rarely pleasant.

Yes but religion has a tendency to allow people to rationalize and compartmentalise atrocities that they may have not done before. It's a system of beliefs that is often entirely inflexible, it allows people to hide behind a book or morality, allowing them to dehumanize those who don't follow their book and justify totally bat shit insane views and actions. How many terrorist atheists have you heard about?

Why is it not okay to be intolerant of intolerant people anyway?

It's perfectly fine to denounce intolerance - get on with it.

Although I would suggest that you do it with without inciting hatred. Partly because it can be illegal, and partly because it can kind of defeat the objective.

But other than that, you can get on your soapbox, hand out leaflets, hold meetings, argue with people at work, do whatever you want to do, in pursuit of what you think is "right".

I just like annoying people Ernie so don't worry about hate speech. I don't really hate anyone, I just want to go out having pissed off as many people on this planet as I can.

[img] [/img]

Whilst I don't disagree with your premise, your conclusion appears to be broken. Terrorism isn't solely undertaken in the name of religion.

I just want to go out having pissed off as many people on this planet as I can.

A noble cause indeed.

JC had a fair crack at that - have you heard ? Apparently he went with a bang before the final encore a couple of days later. The event is still celebrated two thousand years later..........now [b][i]that's[/i][/b] what I call show business.

Yes but religion has a tendency to allow people to rationalize and compartmentalise atrocities that they may have not done before. It's a system of beliefs that is often entirely inflexible, it allows people to hide behind a book or morality, allowing them to dehumanize those who don't follow their book and justify totally bat shit insane views and actions.

INR this whole thread, but that's not very astute. People will use anything to justify anything they want to. Plenty of violence committed in the name of nationalism, racism or idealism; I'd wager more than religion.

Don't forget, religion often correlates to ethnicity or even politics, so it's hard to separate the two. The Troubles in NI are a good example.

Whilst I don't disagree with your premise, your conclusion appears to be broken. Terrorism isn't solely undertaken in the name of religion.

Purely racially motivated organized terrorism isn't all that widespread though is it? Low level hate crime yes, can the EDL be compared to AQ or the IRA however? No. Anders Breivik? Identified himself as Christian.

Intolerance purely based on racism is frowned upon far more by society, but when religion does it, it seems to be able to hide behind a "oh but it's our beliefs". Basically my own feeling is that religious based intolerance is more of a "hiding in the bushes" type of intolerance that is there and bubbling under the surface and less noticed by society.

.....and bubbling under the surface and less noticed by society.

They're hiding their intolerance eh ? Crafty buggers 😐

bwaarp
[img] [/img]

Always slightly alarming to hear that people think that religion is the only thing keeping them civilised. :/

I'd argue it makes it all the more important to be decent to others as there is no wonderful afterlife to make it all better.

The thing about religious crackpot leaders vs vanilla crackpot leaders*, yes you don't need religion to be really nasty to people, anyone can manage it but saying "god says I'm right in doing this bad thing" does kinda grate. Yes I know atheist crackpot leaders can come up with all sorts of spurious reasons why they are doing what they do but they aren't invoking a higher power whose will we mere mortals are not savvi enough to understand.

*or fundamentalist nutters vs just nutty nutters

Don't forget, religion often correlates to ethnicity or even politics, so it's hard to separate the two. The Troubles in NI are a good example.

I really don't buy that people would so easily be led to war without Western-Islamic type religious influence encouraging devotion to a central strong leadership. The Bible and Koran are simply propaganda tools of staggering genius that have been used by politicos to unite nations against one another.

With the increasing secularism of British society is an increasing aversion to war and to me that's the nail in the coffin unless someone would like to enlighten me.

I once bemoaned rampant individualism, I now think that it and libertarianism is essential to humanities long term survival and that religion discourages this. But hey, that's just opinion (that I havn't entirely developed in my head yet) talking.

With the increasing secularism of British society [b]is an increasing aversion to war[/b] .....

I genuinely laughed out loud at that

.........[i]"increasing aversion to war"[/i] LOL ! 😀

Laugh if you want Ernie but were the British public so happy to see their soldiers march off during 2001 and 2003 as they were in 1914? Were white flowers being handed out to men because they weren't off fighting?

Life was cheaper and although I think some of this may have been due to life expectancy I do get the feeling (however I can't prove this and don't entirely believe it) that religion plays a part in justifying the state.

In 2005 they gave a huge majority to a proven warmonger.

But did you see millions protesting during World War 1 or the Boer War? No. A lot of people truly hate Blair for what he did and unfortunately those types often just didn't vote. Did people hate the government that dragged us into world war one for what was essentially, really daft reasons? It helped kick start pacificism but I've never read about raging indignation by the public over that war.

Guess one of Blair's reasons for going into Iraq? I'm sure you know. God.

The Bible and Koran are simply propaganda tools of staggering genius

I'm sure they didn't Nick but the whole premise of having to answer to a celestial North Korea certainly helped Bush.

"I just like annoying people Ernie so don't worry about hate speech. I don't really hate anyone, I just want to go out having pissed off as many people on this planet as I can".

That's a well adjusted approach to life you've got there, but I suppose a chap needs goals. 🙄

But did you see millions protesting? No.

Well I must admit it was a bit difficult for me see. But that's because being amongst the crowd restricted my vision somewhat.

Britain is now permanently at war. And has been for over 10 years now. That fact does not appear to be costing politicians much in the way of votes, despite apparently "an increasing aversion to war".

I take it you don't know about the post WW2 period which preceded the one with the current bunch of warmongers.

I guess it's probably not Mitch, I see everything through absurdity tinted glasses and have fun doing so. I don't really even believe anything I say either, I just like toying with ideas and they change very rapidly.

I take it you don't know about the post WW2 period which preceded the one with the current bunch of warmongers.

Yeah we were still coming down from our god given empire were we not...... post world war 2? We have spent post-ww2 bitching and crying when we had to give land back to godless heathen.

The problem currently is imo..... in normal everyday life people are not bothered by things going on a million miles away. This is why politicians can get away with carrying out low intensity conflict. I don't think people feel politicians ever change so they carry on voting for the same old. I'd wager that if you carried out two studies and measured levels of pacifism now and in 1914 they'd be much lower in 1914.

I think western-islamic religion has historically made it harder for people to break away from being co-opted by the state and that the effects of this are still being felt now as a kind of remnant.

Yeah we were still coming down from our god given empire were we not, post world war 2? We have spent post-ww2 bitching and crying when we had to give land back to godless heathen.

Oh so that's what the sixties was all about then.

The problem is, in normal everyday life people are not bothered by things going on a million miles away.

Well that's a funny "problem" to have. I thought there was "an increasing aversion to war" no ?

What I think you're trying to say, is that there is an increasing aversion to us getting our heads kicked in. But [i]other people[/i] getting their heads kicked in isn't too much of a problem.

And according to you it's all down to [i]"increasing secularism of British society"[/i]. Perfect........ you made excellent case of showing how bad religion can be.

BTW, I think you might describe it as something other than [i]"low intensity conflict"[/i] if it was your family and friends who were dying. Just saying like.

Ernie your not following me, glass half empty kind of person? No what I'm saying is more people are anti-war but feel as if they have no other options to vote for. They feel powerless, it's almost like learned helplessness. Totally different kettle of fish.

And yes would be upset if my friends and family were killed but by World War Ones standards it is a low intensity conflict and the outrage caused by those being killed seems to be magnified to a greater extent than than during the great war.

I've already said it's my own opinion repeatedly but don't you think that perhaps life is less cheap now? Why do you think that might be, no more belief in the afterlife, better living standards, longer life expectancy or a mixture of all of them?

I'm enjoying talking with you because it's making me toy with my ideas in my head and think about them, no need to get angry mate. Just bear in mind my posts are more "thoughts" as opposed to beliefs and they are transient. I don't believe anything that cannot be verified in a material way.

I can just imagine Matthew,Mark Luke and John et al sat around deciding how best to pull it all together

Well, no. But the synoptic gospels didn't 'invent' Christianity. They didn't sit down over a pint one day and go "you know, our mate Jesus is a froody bloke, let's write a book about him." It was all put together after the fact; in some cases, a long time after the fact.

Well, no. But the synoptic gospels didn't 'invent' Christianity. They didn't sit down over a pint one day and go "you know, our mate Jesus is a froody bloke, let's write a book about him." It was all put together after the fact; in some cases, a long time after the fact.

You know I even quite like some of the Bible, I just think it was spoiled by the Old Testament and a despotic God. I'd also genuinely love to know the history of how the current bible came into fruition (authorship, dates etc) but I don't have the time to get my head round it.

no need to get angry mate

ME ? 😀

Why would I be angry ?

[img] [/img]

Cool, I like this thread. I'll make an effort to be courteous and polite in it as well and I'll leave my hot head at the door so we don't get it locked. Always good to find people that can argue at a good level instead of the usual "rent-an-insult" trolls.

I don't think religion in itself is bad, I just think that current western religion has inherited dogmatic flaws that it needs to move away from. It needs to become more flexible. Overall I think my stance is that religion has to change and become more flexible in it's beliefs if it is to survive the 21st century, it needs to basically cut and paste the good bad bits and stop worrying about "sticking to the word of god" in it's entirety but hey. Maybe a bit of "our father", adam and eve, hellfire + brimstone and a little more teaching about how to love one another. Again opinions.

[img] [/img]

The problem is, it's a bit of a catch-22. It's hard to 'update your ideas' when you're trading in belief systems. To make change betrays belief.

There is a market, I'm sure, for Christianity 2.0. One that embraces the modern world, teaches people to be nice, preaches acceptance irrespective of race, gender, orientation or belief, and so on.

The stumbling block there is that the upper echelons of Xianity have been going THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD YOU WILL COMPLY since the year dot, so suddenly backtracking and going "well, hang on, we think there might have been a translation error, here's what we think now" is going to take some accepting.

Fundamentally, you can't change a religion, you can only schism away from it (Catholics, JWs, Baptists, Protestants, Anglicans, etc etc).