True but it will take a while to "flush out" the baby boomers who want to bring politics into church or leave churches that aren't politically extreme enough. In the meantime the question had to do with the imminent "popularity" decline of liberal denominations and your point confirms that it is.

Globalization scares people. The "them" is making it more difficult for "us" to thrive so people flock to groups that are more homogenous, where they are more alike than different. That is the nature of the conservative and reactionary rather than the liberal and progressive. The former exclude while the latter are more inclusive. And that is what this issue is all about, imo.

Are the inclusive churches losing members to the more segregationist ones? And the answer is clearly "Yes"... Americans are becoming more and more intolerant, bigotted and reactionary out of fear and insecurity at their declining world standing, economic power and prestige. We are no longer the "shining light up on the hill" but a greedy, selfish, jealous and back stabbing rabble who don't give a damn about those less fortunate than ourselves.... which, ironically, is one of the tenets of the Christ's teachings, which, again ironically, goes against "God's teachings" or "God's words".

Christianity is a religion at war with itself. Their Lord and Saviour's message is contrary to their God's and that is a deep contradiction.

Their attendance is in decline because people who make choices in favor of homosexual unions no longer have a reason to attend services. They have no reason to repent to a god whom they have already dismissed and whose archaic old testament laws are offensive. Those who find themselves in a biblically based moral dilemma no longer attend because they feel their preferences are dismissed by those in spiritual authority. Those who contend that church attendance will continue to decline have already observed the empty churches in Europe. Those same empty churches in Europe have turned to selling tickets to tourists.

People are simply waking up to organized religions and realize that they aren't the absolute truth bearers that they claim to be.

"Prophets have existed in all countries and at all times; but the gift becomes rare in the same proportion as people learn to read and write." - Winwood Reade

It's not surprising that this would occur faster among 'liberals' than 'conservatives'... These churches may find a temporary benefit in entrenching, but as attitudes shift over the next couple decades they will grow increasingly antiquated nonetheless (but hey, at least they will have stubbornly entrenched believers as well, because that's what really matters... right?).

Some of the posters here seem to imply that the value of these religions is contingent upon a membership numbers; not finding the truth and doing what's right at any expense.

Jesus was by no means a man who advocated the status-quo as being the right way to do things, so why should these churches advocate religious adherence to it?

Actually the reason these so called liberal churches are lowering in attendence is because they are teaching a false gospel. People can tell the difference. The minute you start changing the gospel to fit your own ideas, you will see people disillusioned. The real christians will go to other churches where the gospel is preached and the others will become more confused with their lifestyle and will just leave.

These preachers are trying to sugarcoat the gospel to make it more palatable to gays and other liberals. It doesn't work that way. Either you are for Christ or you aren't. That's what being called a christian is all about. Even atheists would serve God if they could still live they way they wanted.

The Liberals think that because of their progressiveness they can not only change religion as it has been known but also change the Bible!!!! We as Christians are supposed to love each other as we are all sinners - there is nothing in the Bible that says we are also knowingly to engage in the sins of others. Having Lesbian and Homosexual individuals in our churchs is a good thing. Accepting them as individuals that God loves is even better......but the church should not fall so far from the Biblical teachings to condone or accept marriages other than those between a man and a woman. I am very, very disappointed in the Episcopal church. They have strayed very far from Biblical teachings in this.

Mandie, being gay is NOT a sin. It is NOT a lifestyle. There is NOTHING to repent! I was BORN gay. God created me that way, I did not choose it. If you feel God made an error and you disagree with His handiwork, then take it up with him.

But DON'T lay your archaic pick-n-choose version of judgemental christianity on me unless you are ready to own slaves (as permitted in the Bible) or force marriage of a widow to her brother-in-law (as commanded in the Bible) or kill yourself for wearing makeup or cotton/polyester blend fabric (as commanded in the Bible). It's those who discriminate against LGBT people are the ones who need to repent.

Andrew,

Are the inclusive churches losing members to the more segregationist ones? And the answer is clearly "Yes"... Americans are becoming more and more intolerant, bigotted and reactionary out of fear and insecurity at their declining world standing, economic power and prestige. We are no longer the "shining light up on the hill" but a greedy, selfish, jealous and back stabbing rabble who don't give a damn about those less fortunate than ourselves.... which, ironically, is one of the tenets of the Christ's teachings, which, again ironically, goes against "God's teachings" or "God's words".

Christianity is a religion at war with itself. Their Lord and Saviour's message is contrary to their God's and that is a deep contradiction.

I totally disagree with this statement. As a Catholic, I see tolerance in the message of the Church. While they do regard homosexual behavior as wrong or un-natural, they do not preach hatred toward gays, rather reconciliation. Catholics are taught, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." They are also taught that the only one responsible for his or her choices in life are the individual and that when judgement comes you alone will answer for your life. With all the political hype, caused mostly by people outside of the church, the message gets lost and the church is shown in the worst possible light. Another teaching at the foundations of many faiths are that people are human, not divine and will make mistakes, because of this, Christ died for our sins and gave us through the apostles the gift of reconciliation which allows us to repent of our poor choices and misdeeds. It allows for the mistakes of human kind. When a denomination changes its' message and says now it is ok to do something that was considered sinful last month or last year, it is telling its members that society is making the rules, not God and it cheapens its message. While the orthodox or conservative faiths change extremely slowly, they do so because they wish to stay true to their message. People desire continuity in their lives to make them feel secure and stable. When that continuity is rocked by extreme reverses in the message of their faith, it makes them question it and takes away the security they felt they had. This is a fundamental situation based on drastic changes in message and has little to do with gays, contraception, or female clergy.

Please point out the exact passage of the gospel that these churches have changed.

Please point out how exactly they are teaching something false about the gospel.

Ushusky99: Read Mathew 19:4-6

⁴ "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,⁵ and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Now tell me which verses in the bible that confirm homosexuality. Where? This was said by Jesus himself and not another disciple or lesser being, so you can confirm it is from the word of God himself.

Frankly, I'm tired of liberals trying to make stuff up and then saying that God didn't say anything about it. This gives proof that he did say something about sexual relationships and that the only one confirmed is male and female.

Apparently these so called liberal churches didn't get the memo!

The minute you start changing the gospel to fit your own ideas, you will see people disillusioned

Oh give me a break, you religionists have been doing that since Nicea



This was said by Jesus himself and not another disciple or lesser being, so you can confirm it is from the word of God himself.

Do you know that taking scripture out of context in order to represent something it does not is deceit.... and essentially... lying?

Do you think it's OK to lie for the sake of your particular religious agenda?

Because that verse was dealing specifically with a question about DIVORCE. "becoming one flesh" is in reference to the birth of a child, and how that child represents a permenant union of two people.

Seriously, if you must take scripture out of its context - you really need to reevaluate your position. You sir have just proven yourself dishonest.

Trying to use God and the Bible to enforce anti-gay rules is sadly an immaterial argument. Unfortunately, religion is also, horrifyingly untrue. Allow me to share with you a truth I stubled upon that has frightened me deeply.

A rabbi once told me that the soul is a person's "core concsiousness and personality that live on after the death of the body". If that's true, then the soul is the mind, the mind is the soul. Think about it for a minute. If the soul does not possess the ability to think, feel, reason, observe, make decisions, have memories, have experiences, and so on then what's the point. The mind is the soul, the soul is the mind.

There are mountains of anatomical, neurological, and biochemical observations that suggest that the mind is generated by the body. Which is to say that the mind, the part of us that we consider to be "us", is a result of the extrememly complex biochemical, neurological, and cellular interactions that go on inside our bodies. If the mind is generated by the body, it logically follows that when the body dies, the processes that gave rise to the mind will cease and the energies and matter which enabled the mind to exist will dissociate from each other, causing the mind to cease to exist. Sure the energy and matter that we are made of will still exist, but who cares about the immortality of our atoms or radiation?

In effect this means that there is no afterlife. If there is no afterlife, there is no true religion. If there is no true religion then the persecution of homosexuals is meaningless.

Now if you have proof, PROOF, to demonstrate that what I have said is factually incorrect then I will gladly reconsider my position. However, arguments like "science doesn't know (yet) conclusively about what happens after death" or "there's a lot that science doesn't know about the universe, so you have to accept absolutely everything that (my) religion tells you as absolutely true" don't hold water. Proof. If there is an afterlife it will be evident in the reality around us. If something is real, it can be observed, if it can be observed, then it can be studied.

Now tell me which verses in the bible that confirm homosexuality

I never said it confirmed homosexual marriage. I said it did not condemn it. The passage you selected did not in any way condemn homosexuality.

Jesus never said one word either way about it, so no one is "changing" anything to say that he did not condemn it.

The passage you selected did not in any way condemn homosexuality.

It's in fact about divorce - and bigots like to take it out of context.

I'm not sure why they think taking something out of context to fallaciously support their agenda is a good idea. It just makes it painfully apparent that they are dishonest people with dishonest arguments.

I see people quoting Leviticus 18:22, man lay with man is an abomination.

Do you also believe in the following from Leviticus as well?

Lev 25:44 states you may possess slaves, both male and female, as long as you purchase them from neighboring nations.

Lev 15:19-24, you are not allowed contact with a woman during her cycle of Menstrual uncleanliness.

Lev 11:10, eating shellfish is an abomination.

Lev 19:19, do not plant two different crops in same field. Do not wear garments of two different cloths.

Lev 24:10-16, Blasphemy? Swearing? Time to get the whole town together and stone them.

This all according to holy law!

Don't worry Nate, the next step will be people saying that" Jesus fulfilled some covenant and we follow the New Testament laws" .... but they will be lost on their total hypocrisy regarding their tendency to quote OT law whenever it's convenient for them.

Jesus never said one word either way about it, so no one is "changing" anything to say that he did not condemn it.

Ushusky99: Christ did not confirm marriages between two males or two females.

For example, Christ never said anything about marriages between animals and humans, so therefore according to your logic, that is okay too? Afterall, he did nothing to condemn it, right?

This is why Jesus encourages us to read the scriptures. HINT.

Your logic is so screwed up that it is almost laughable.

I think that most liberals are too focused on the laws much like the Saduccees did, when Christ chastized them.

I know Jesus approved of male and female relationships, so therefore the burden of proof lies on you to confirm otherwise.

Christ never said anything about marriages between animals and humans, so therefore according to your logic, that is okay too?

Animals cannot consent. So no... that's a strawman. Try again.

Afterall, he did nothing to condemn it, right?

It means that YOUR condemnation is arbitrary, biblically AND logically. Even if biblical law WAS relevant in this country (which it's not) you would still be wrong.

Your logic is so screwed up that it is almost laughable.

He's not the one applying logical fallacies.



so therefore the burden of proof lies on you to state confirm otherwise.

The point is that he does not condemn nor approve of it... either way. So your assertion is thus, false.

Simply because he approved of male and female, doesn't mean he condemned same-sex. What a completely illogical assumption to make.

Mandie Grace Taylor

unrighteous judgment is not a good color for you.

Well said, Shuklack!

Unhappy, you said that liberals were "changing the Gospel." My point, which you refuse to understand even if not agree, is that we are not "changing" anything because Jesus never condemned it.

Jesus approved of wine as he drank it and turned water into it. Does that mean that he condemned all other forms of alcohol?

Jesus ate lamb, but never chicken. Does that mean he condemned eating it?

Jesus wore a robe, but never pants. Are we to assume that pants are condemned?

Jesus never rode in a motorized vehicle and only refered to people walking places and riding animals. Should we assume that cars and planes are condemned?

Of course-they did not exist at the time (probably why he didn't mention them.) Guess what-neither did the idea of gay marriage. The idea of 2 consenting adults getting married was never addressed in the bible-so your refusal to accept that there are other interpretations to the same words is the flawed logic.

Your logic is faulty because you are looking at Jesus' words and believing "when he didn't say anything-it meant he was against it." However, if you actually look at what he taught-everything suggests differently.

Regarding the decline, remember: What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.

The point is that he does not condemn nor approve of it... either way. So your assertion is thus, false.

Simply because he approved of male and female, doesn't mean he condemned same-sex. What a completely illogical assumption to make.

Shulack: Doesn't mean he allowed it either. And for the record, we are talking about marriages in accordance with the bible, so for you to reference the law of the land doesn't apply here.

Second, that is a straw-man argument that you have given. I have given you proof that Jesus has confirmed male and female relationships and you have given me none. Do you have any scriptures at all to support your way of thinking? I find it odd that there are so many verses on sexual relationships in the bible and not one confirms this. Perhaps it is what God had intended? Jesus didn't throw out all the old testament scripture. Why did he say to people to read it? Why throughout his life did he keep referring back to it?

Your logic is faulty because you are looking at Jesus' words and believing "when he didn't say anything-it meant he was against it." However, if you actually look at what he taught-everything suggests differently.

Ushusky99: Exactly my point. When you look at everything including how Jesus handled sin, including those men and women who were caught in the act of adultery, he told them to sin no more. See it isn't even male and female relationships, but rather those that were ordained in a marriage ceremony that he found right.

I have given you proof that Jesus has confirmed male and female relationships and you have given me none

.

If you want to use terms from argumentative logic, please find out what they mean first. A strawman argument is posing a distorted or imagined argument as the opposition, and then arguing against it.

I have given you proof that Jesus has confirmed male and female relationships and you have given me none.

None of what? If Jesus said nothing on same-sex relationships (a concept that didn't really even exist 2000 years ago) then it would be moot. He said nothing about it, and it's already been demonstrated why saying something about male and female relationships doesn't indicate or imply anything about same-sex relationships.

Jesus didn't throw out all the old testament scripture. Why did he say to people to read it? Why throughout his life did he keep referring back to it?

So why throw out most of Leviticus yet hang onto portions that only suit an anti-gay agenda?

It comes down to the fact that the Bible has changed, and has changed with the times - and will continue to change. Slavery, segregation, interracial marriage bans.... all were 'Bible supported' in much the same way that gay-marriage bans are "Bible supported" today.

It will go the way of other dogmatic assertions, kicking and screaming to an inevitable end.... and the world will again be that much better for it.

Astronomy,

Congratulations, you have professed what you believe and I do credit you for standing up for it. I happen to disagree but that is just my opinion and what I choose to believe. With that said, though I believe that your lifestyle is wrong, that is not how I would choose how to deal with you. Instead I would look at whether you were a loving, generous, and rational human being that treated everyone with the same tolerance and respect that you are seeking. What you do with your partner is your business, how you act toward me and others is mine.

All Christian beliefs should be declining in the US. Because you don't need a religious belief to thrive in the US. At one time the predominant belief in a town might be one or two religions, and as the population expanded in that community, more faiths would be represented. At one time the same held for political party affiliation. Now there is a decline in numbers of both Democrats and Republicans as Independent voters increase. The tolerance for old guys in robes telling you what to do has decreased when you can turn on the TV, or computer and find your own individual answers.

The population is changing in race orientation as well as more intermarriage occurs, and it's not uncommon to have interracial relationships among the gay community members either. So how do you put into Black and White, interracial gay couples who vote as independents. Many of them you might not even know in business transactions because the commerce transpires over the internet, or phone, let alone internationally.

Religious folks like to see things as simple, " a concept you can put in a box". Not only is there the question that Jesus existed as depicted in Bible stories to begin with, you're not sure if " Jesus loves you! " daily message isn't originated from a computer bank in India, where the workers are Hindu. That's why there is decline, or a good portion of decline. Who needs a person in a stripped shirt with a whistle telling a person how to conduct their sex lives? That's all a guy in a robe is, but without the whistle. Maybe some do, but more and more are finding that they don't.

Younger people who need Jesus can get on a computer. Younger people who need Buddha can get on a computer. Younger people who need to order a pizza can get on the computer. Where churches were once a community center for social interaction and thus communication, that is no longer the case. Even old people can get on line, find out about Buddha and order a pizza too. If you want to see a man in a robe, you can see one at a gay rights celebration just as easy as going to a church.

When these Liberal 'Christian' church members realize that the teachings of their 'leaders' directly conflicts with the Bible, their membership will continue to decline, and perhaps even disappear.

2 Peter 2: 1,2

Colossians 2: 8

jhoopy56

Nothing to do with being "liberal". Religion itself is doomed because it relies on deceit and fear to survive -- and people have found out

Well said Jhoopy. Best comment on here I believe. The people/sheeple are opening their eyes and seeing religion for the sham it is. When you have a pastors living in luxury of the sheeple's money/donations, and the people of the church are living in poverty, something os very wrong.

Church and religion are suppose to love all people, accept all sinners, and help pone another. Not suck the life pout of the poor they have instilled their fear into.

On the other hand, the twerp in this article knows his freeloading days are coming to an end, and the sheeple are opening their eyes and leaving all this religious bs behind them and are now beginning to take care of themselves for a change.

I firmly believe that a person should take care of themselves, their families, and their neighbors, if what leftover change is in your pocket, toss it into a piggy bank and save it.

Church and religion should not be allowed to accept any government money from those on welfare either. Church, religion, and politics hold hands. They are designed to keep the sheeple from achieving success, and that is why church and religions use your money to support certain political parties. They want to be like the Repubs that want control of you, your money, and your life.

TAX the mudderfuffer charlatans, and preachers and preachers wives should not be allowed to retire on SS while not paying any taxes into the system either.

Haha Steve, I like that last line.

The vast amount of information which is now available at our fingertips undoubtedly has a lot to do with the decline. People no longer depend on 'men in robes' as you put it. People can go out and get information, almost overloaded with it, from every angle.... People can learn about different religions, all sorts, and realize that they are not the only one's who stake a claim to "Absolute Truth" and that they stand on no better of a platform in declaring it.

This has served to free the minds of most, but also trap some - who become tangled in the jungles of apologetics and propagandists which litter the internet.

When these Liberal 'Christian' church members realize that the teachings of their 'leaders' directly conflicts with the Bible, their membership will continue to decline, and perhaps even disappear.

Are you saying that these churches should think membership dues and adherence to antiquated doctrine are STILL more important than doing what's right? Times haven't changed much since they were burning astronomers at the stake... eh?

uchusky99"I never said it confirmed homosexual marriage. I said it did not condemn it."

If you want some scriptures that condemn homosexuality, try these from the New International Version;

1 Corinthians 6:9 - "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God....Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts."

Romans 1:27 - "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

1 Timothy 1:10 - "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine "

'Churches' that disregard the clear message from the Bible in order to be more 'inclusive' are doomed to failure, and if they don't preach the teachings of Jesus, perhaps they should call themselves something other than Christians. I doubt very seriously that God has changed his mind about what's right and wrong, and I think He knows better than you or I do.

And for those who think that they know better than God, there is a scripture for them as well;

1 Corinthians 3:27 - "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" "

Shuklack "Are you saying that these churches should think membership dues and adherence to antiquated doctrine are STILL more important than doing what's right?"

If the 'church' is merely in it for the 'membership dues', they have already left Christ, and if they think the Bible is 'antiquated doctrine', then they should just recognize their hypocrisy and ignore religion completely. Nobody is forced to believe in Christ, like they are in Mohammad in many parts of the World. But I will tell you that I'd much rather live among people who try to live by the 'antiquated doctrines' of the Christian Bible than by the 'modern' teachings of 'If it feels good - go ahead and do it'.

Roy Wilson,

You do realize that all your quotes are all from Paul, a staunch Jew convert, who among other things opposed sex and marriage altogether. He only approved of marriage for those to weak to remain celibate. The Christian would have disappeared quite quickly under Paul's leadership as opposed to Peter's. Christ, on the other, never addressed sexuality in any terms, saying only that those who would judge needed to first stand in judgement themselves.

Church doctrine is an evolutionary product. It is now clear from very early church writings and from archeology, that the early church not only welcomed participation of women at virtually all levels, but often depended upon the support and patronage of those women. A large factor in Constantine's conversion was not his vision at the bridge, but the influence of his mother - a wealthy and influential Christian convert. Had Constantine's conversion not taken place, there likely would have been no western church and a fragmented Orthodox church.

As an Episcopalian, I study the words of Christ. I also study the other texts of the New Testament, in context, for guidance. But it should be noted that those texts are ones chosen by a collection of old men summoned under imperial orders to promogulate a religious doctrine, within the confines of a state church. What we study today reflects not only Christ's view for the world, but also that of Constantine for his empire.

Unhappy: I know Jesus approved of male and female relationships, so therefore the burden of proof lies on you to confirm otherwise.

No it isn't. YOU people are choosing to disapprove of gay relationships -- something your jesus-myth never verbalized or taught to ANY degree. So, it's up to YOU to confirm otherwise, since you have decided to represent the jesus-myth as being anti-gay.

As well, you frauds also refuse to uphold his clear prohibition against divorce. At least three times, the jesus-myth condemns divorce in the NT -- but millions of your christian brothers and sisters divorce every year. Where are all your protests about that? Where are all your tens of millions of dollars to spend to make divorce illegal? WHERE?? (crickets) -- Because you are goddam frauds. Pretending that the souls of gays are more important to you than the souls of MILLIONS more of your christian brothers and sisters?? You people will do NOTHING significant to enforce the words of the jesus-myth, if it would ever make any of your own lives inconvenient. How about making pre-marital or extra-marital heterosexual activity illegal? Again -- words of the jesus-myth that you are all too cowardly to support and enforce.

You're all a bunch of cowards and frauds. Unhappy -- you are one of the wost of the bunch. Hatred makes you a lowlife. There's no other way around it.

The drop in church membership has little to do with liberal values. Churches for the most part have held liberal values in one sort or another for as long as America has existed. Who do you think was behind the abolition of slavery? Who do you think was behind much of the civil rights battles of the 1960s 1970s? The big problem is talking the talk but not walking the walk. Priests molesting kids. Evangelical preachers like Haggard, Swaggert and Baker. Most churches are becoming increasingly out of touch with most people's lives, morals, values and experiences.

Bill Marvell "Roy Wilson, You do realize that all your quotes are all from Paul, a staunch Jew convert, who among other things opposed sex and marriage altogether."

Nonsense. Paul only said that it is good for those who wished to serve God more fully to remain single if they are able, but to go ahead and marry if they choose (1 Corinthians 7:8,9), but his 'Letters' are full of good advice for those who chose to marry - in fact, he has more advice for married people than any of the other Bible writers.

But since when do you select which scriptures of the Bible are worth following and which are not?

I do, however, agree that Constantine's main reason for promoting Christianity was over concern for peace in his empire, as well as the Christian teaching to be 'submissive' to the superior authorities - a convenient 'peacekeeper'. He worshiped Pagan idols right up to his death.

Without "liberal" churches, there would be none that follow the actual teachings of Jesus Christ.

No matter how many tracts you pull out to justify your bigotry, Roy, you or any other faux-Christian will never be able to prove that those words came from Jesus.

Those of us that have studied the history of the world with open minds and intelligence know that the bible was written by men that came long after 0 AD. These were imperfect men to say the least because we all are supposed to know that only God is perfect.

When Jesus said to love your neighbor, I'm sure that he didn't mean love only those that live near you. He meant that neighbors are the citizens of the world regardless of race, color or creed. Any religion that do not respect other religions by calling them false, is the false religion. Any preacher that teaches hate is the devil personified.

When Jesus chased the money changers from the temple, the lesson was to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God which is His. That lesson alone should move a true Christian to ask why there are ministers that are multi-millionaires.

Preachers that teach that it is ok to seek riches at the expense of their flocks are hypocrites, liars and thieves that use false doctrine to enrich themselves. That teaching is their ploy to justify their own greed which is one of the 7 deadly sins. Those that operate their churches for profit should be taxed like any other business just as Arieus has said. Most of those operating the super churches are the bane of society, especially when they interfere with the political process.

Eventually, even the dumbest of Americans will figure out that these crooks are in it for themselves. On the other hand, if any of these churches spend the majority of their income for programs that help the least fortunate among their flock and/or community and can prove it, they deserve the glory of God blessings for doing his work. If God has his way, those churches that cheat will die.l

All of you poor, misguided folks who deny the words written in the Bible, deny Jesus Christ's divinity AND humnanity, then still try to call yourselves Christian, are in for a rude, sad awakening at Judgement.

All Scripture is given by God's inspiration, whether the direct quotes of Jesus, or the writings or Peter or Paul. To the one who referred to Paul as a staunch Jew convert, if you would read Paul's letters to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians, just for starters, as well as his opposition to the Judaizers recorded in Acts 15, you might see that not only was Paul not a 'staunch Jew convert' in regards to the old Jewish law, but adamantly opposed forcing the Jewish law on believers, even going so far as to suggest that those who wanted to enforce circumcision should go ahead and remove the whole thing. Not a very Jewish suggestion.

There is quite a bit of truth even in what the non-believers say, particularly in regards to the fact that we Christians have not always lived up to the standards we proclaim. That does not mean the standards are wrong, or unnecessary, or useless. That means that all of us need to understand that it is not our own righteousness that saves us, it is God's grace, and our faith in that grace. The fact is, the only sin that condemns us before God is a lack of faith, which is evidenced by the lifestyles we live and the choices we make.

All Scripture is given by God's inspiration

Rubbish. You dont have one shred of proof to support that.

Your cult and its claims are no more provable than the next one -- and not a single cult on the planet, including christianity and any of the other BuyBull cults, has ever been able to prove that their god exists, or any god for that matter.

Grow up and stop sucking your thumb!

Bernitch, I'm sorry that my post apparently offended you so terribly. I was only presenting my viewpoint, while avoiding all the insulting and demeaning language that many choose to engage in. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. That's the wonderful thing about this country God has blessed us with. However, I would suggest that before you tell someone else to 'grow up,' perhaps you should be mature enough to respect another's opinion without name-calling.

In regards to proving the existence of God, I make no effort to do so. If God's revelation of Himself in His Word and His creation is not sufficient to convince you, then nothing I say will be any more effective.

If you want to use terms from argumentative logic, please find out what they mean first. A strawman argument is posing a distorted or imagined argument as the opposition, and then arguing against it.

Shulack: That is exactly what you are doing, isn't it. You are posted an imagined argument about Jesus saying nothing about relationships other than male and female and then arguing against the fact when I have given you the verses.

None of what? If Jesus said nothing on same-sex relationships (a concept that didn't really even exist 2000 years ago) then it would be moot. He said nothing about it, and it's already been demonstrated why saying something about male and female relationships doesn't indicate or imply anything about same-sex relationships.

Jesus didn't say anything about bestiality either, or sex with children or sex with your brother/sister, but according to your logic if Jesus didn't say anything about it, then it must be okay?

So why throw out most of Leviticus yet hang onto portions that only suit an anti-gay agenda?

Who gave you that impression? Are you familiar with the bible and the book of Hebrews 10:8-10?

It comes down to the fact that the Bible has changed, and has changed with the times - and will continue to change. Slavery, segregation, interracial marriage bans.... all were 'Bible supported' in much the same way that gay-marriage bans are "Bible supported" today.

Actually, slavery was recognized but it was never condoned in the bible, so you are reading to much into what you think it says. Read Collossians 3:11 for reference.

Second, you are assuming that interracial marriages was forbidden in the bible, it wasn't. King Solomon married someone with dark skin. But rather the idea of race referred to a set of ideas given by a specific group. The context is completely different from today's idea of race.

Actually gay marriages is one the thing the bible won't compromise on. And true believers won't either.

It will go the way of other dogmatic assertions, kicking and screaming to an inevitable end.... and the world will again be that much better for it.

Is that why the liberal churches are on the decline? You make me laugh.

KY Preacher "All Scripture is given by God's inspiration, whether the direct quotes of Jesus, or the writings or Peter or Paul............... The fact is, the only sin that condemns us before God is a lack of faith, which is evidenced by the lifestyles we live and the choices we make."

Good points. Nobody is perfect today, but all that God asks is that we do our best to live by the standards that He gave us - and they are not ambiguous and subject to 'change with the times'. In fact, there have been people throughout history that have tried to 'reinterpret' the Bible to suit their particular lifestyle - all wither away because they are not in agreement with the Word of God.

As for the comment about 'Paul being a Jewish convert', well every one of the Apostles was a 'Jewish convert', and if we didn't use Paul's letters, most of the Books of the New Testament would be excluded, since he wrote more than half of them.

Here's a 'trick question' - Who actually wrote the Book of Romans?

After you answer, take a look at Romans 16:22.

Bernitch " 'All Scripture is given by God's inspiration' .......Rubbish. You dont have one shred of proof to support that."

And you do not 'have one shred of proof' that God did not begin all life - certainly science has not been able to prove otherwise. But I suspect that you think that science will someday 'prove' that life came into existence 'spontaneously' through some chemical reaction.

Your belief would be based on your own 'faith' in science, which is no different than the 'faith' of those who believe in God.

Roy-not one of your quotes is from the Gospel, no changes the fact that Jesus did not ever mention homosexuality.

We cannot limit right and wrong to what Jesus said. It should be neither assumed that it is ok to do anything he did not mention or sinful.

What we need to do is look to his teachings to find the overall way in which we should deal with these topics he did not mention specifically. This is where interpretation comes in.

You and other conservatives on here seem to mistake a different interpretation of what Jesus would have said or done in these situations based on what he said as changing the bible-and my point is that this is not true.

No one has rewritten what Jesus said-they believe based on the other things that he said that he would have approved. You believe based on the other things that he said that he would not have approved. No one has changed a thing!

Based on what Jesus said, I believe bestiality, child molestation and the other things you mentioned would be wrong as it involves victimizing someone. The other references to homosexual behavior from Paul (who never actually met Jesus) were mostly in response to pedophilia in Greek culture-and certainly did not refer to loving relationships where people wished to be married. There is nothing in the bible anywhere that addresses such relationships-so it is all interpretation.

uchusky99 "Roy-not one of your quotes is from the Gospel"

They are all in the Bible - I quoted the Book, Chapter and Verses. You can ignore the Bible all you wish under the guise of "Jesus didn't 'specifically' address a certain issue", but that does not change what the Bible clearly says. Jesus didn't specifically address rape, child abuse or bestiality either, but that does not mean that it's OK. If you want to disregard the Bible, you are free to do so.

Roy-

Of course we want to disregard the "teachings" and "lessons" within the bible. Sure, leviticus mentions that a man lying with mankind is an "abomination", but it also says eating shellfish is an "abomination". Leviticus has all kinds of terrible lessons, irrelevant lessons, and now illegal lessons. So, why would you take one part of Leviticus as acceptable, and disregard all the other lessons? So, it is wrong to be gay, and it is not wrong to kill someone who works on Sabbath? The bible is absolutely senseless and absurd, especially for modern application. For example, the letter asks question merely to reveal how absurd the bible is: "I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?" The letter clarifies that many aspects and "teachings" found within the bible are not only illegal, but also incredibly ridiculous. For example, Leviticus teaches that men can not cut their hair, eating shellfish is an abomination, a farmer can not plant more than one crop in a field, and you can own slaves if they are taken from neighboring nations. Exodus also teaches that it is okay to sell your daughter to slavery. These examples, among others, are reasons why the bible is not applicable nor can its lessons be heeded; it is a poorly written book of fiction that tried to lay down rules of life (which were acceptable during the time it was written) however today it is a glaringly outdated. If most of what is in Leviticus is unacceptable and does not relate to modern society, then why would you take one lesson from Leviticus, and ignore the other lessons? The feelings towards same sex relations expressed in Leviticus are just as unacceptable as Leviticus's acceptance of slavery or its mandate that those who work on Sabbath must be put to death.

Sorry, forgot to post the letter.

Check this letter out. It is a response to a Bible thumping ignoramus who used the fictional book (the Bible) in a modern sense to determine modern ways of living. Turns out, the Bible has no correspondence with modern ways of thinking or life. As you can see below, the lessons the bible teaches have no place in modern society. Perhaps it was fitting a primitive society that had no way of understanding their surroundings, nor a comprehensive set of rules. However, today the bible and its "lessons" are now little more than an ill-fitting set of out-dated morals.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

"Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan."

Please tell me where in the Bible did God created homosexuals. God created Adam and Eve and all mankind came from them, Where did the homosexuals and the transgenders come from? As for these liberal so called churches they had better read Matthew 7:21-23, I believe they better check on thier salvation. As far as the homesexual hating christanity Jesus said in John 15:18 "If the world hate you, you know that it hated me before it hated you. You see it is not the christians that the homosexuals hate it is Jesus they hate.

Nantucket if you really wanted people to reply to your diatribe you would have started your own post string rather than post under somebody else. So I hope you find this. It's called faith and it does a body good. It's free for the taking. It you want the assurance and comfort of God then you take it. Otherwise it's your free will choice.

Magic man you're not funny. I guess you never heard of the new covenant in the new testament. Twist it to your way and be happy.

Magic man you're not funny.

Good. Wasn't trying to be.

All the atheists talking in circles about logic, it's all good, but at the end of it all, you still cannot prove that there is not a higher power.... Your own belief is no more valid than a person of faith.

Your own belief is no more valid than a person of faith.

That's actually the point - they are on par with each other therefore nothing in any belief system, whether it be Atheist, Christian, or anything else - none of it has one shred of foundation for shaping how our nation operates or how our nation ensures its people treat each other. Reactionaries try to assert that because their own personal belief cannot be disproved that they therefore have the right to force others to comply with their preferences. That is false. The act of insinuating one's personal religious values onto society's laws is a sin - the sin of hubris.

you still cannot prove that there is not a higher power

And that statement is particularly foolish, as it is a logical fallacy. It is impossible to prove something does not exist. The burden of proof is yours to carry, as you are the one that asserts supernatural beings and events to exist. However, this assertion is not supported or substantiated by any human knowledge, evidence, observation, scientific proof, or empirical data. Therefore, atheists reject such claims and beliefs, just as we reject claims of zombies, vampires, and Easter bunnies.

Walt + Ponderthis-

Atheism is not a belief system. Rather, it is a rejection of any belief system. It is an absence of a belief system. Atheists do not accept that any of the above imaginary creatures, powers, or deities exist as no scientific evidence supports those propositions. This is not a belief, it is simply the rejection of propositions that lack evidence or support. The religious have a "belief" that ignorance is superior to empirical knowledge. Atheist see no credible empirical or scientific evidence for the super-natural and therefore reject the notion as one originating from ignorance. This is not a belief, and requires no faith. Suppose someone walked up to you and said that invisible zombies were following you. You would reject this notion as nonsense from a madman, but would you call your rejection a belief? Sure, you could say you believe they are not there. However, this is not a "belief" in the sense that religion is, so it is ridiculous to make such a statement.

In Mathew 19:4-6

⁴ "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,⁵ and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

If Jesus was just speaking of divorce (and remarriage, by the way), then why if Jesus believed marriage should also be between a man and a man or woman and woman did this scripture not talk about the divorcement of man from man and woman from woman?

If a man who "puts his wife away except it be for fornication" and marries another commits adultery, then shouldn't Jesus have also stated that a man who "puts his husband away except it be for fornication" and marries another commits adultery, or are we to assume that because it wasn't spoken of specifically by Jesus in this text, then men who marry men are not adulterers when they divorce their husbands and marry others?

If you continue reading the scripture, Matthew 19:10-12 reads:

10 His disciples said unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Putting this in context with everything else, first it seems that Jesus believes that all men except the eunuchs specifically should receive this saying, so marriage and divorcement and adultery are for man and woman, to exclude eunuchs, perhaps because eunuchs should not marry women (and procreate with them, if as someone stated earlier the two becoming one flesh is about men and women and divorce and the birth of children). There are some who consider eunuchs to be homosexuals, who are trusted with the women because they have no interest in women. If this is the case, and the eunuchs were actually homosexuals that were meant to marry each other and not women, why didn't Jesus (or for that matter anyone in the bible) discuss homosexual marriage as a rite?

There are several places in the bible where it talks of men lying with men as an abomination, including in the new testament, though Jesus never spoke specifically to homosexuality in those terms. Jesus also never spoke of slavery as good or bad. Jesus did however state in Mark 7: 18-23:

18 And he saith unto them, "Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into man, it cannot defile him;

19 "Because it eneterth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?"

20 And he said, "That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fonications, murders,

22 "Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things com from within, and defile the man.

So we get a good list of evils from the mouth of Jesus, and on that list are both adultery and fornication. Fornication is sexual relation between partners who are not married. This does not speak of fornication being only between a man and a woman, but of fornication in general, meaning it can include man and man and woman and woman. If Eunuchs are unmarried, then their fornication is just as "sinful" the fornication committed by unmarried men and women (if eunuchs are those who are homosexuals as opposed to those who are sexless). If Eunuchs are not supposed to marry, as it seems in Matthew 19, then any sexual activity between them is fornication by nature, and considered evil.

Sorry. Just thoughts.

Magicman: Atheism is a belief system. It is a belief in the absence of deity. It is a rejection of the existence of a godhead. You admitted that proving a negative is impossible; Therefore you cannot prove the non-existence of a godhead; and Therefore your perspective is a belief. A legitimate belief, as worthy as those of Christians, Jews and Muslims, and deserving as much deference by society, but still a belief.

Don't defile what you're promulgating by trying to present your perspective as any more assured than it actually is, especially since you already admitted that assurance was impossible.

Walt-

You seem to have quite a distorted and patently incorrect view of what atheism is. Atheism is not a belief, worldview, belief system, ideology, religion, or any other similar descriptor. The denial of propositions that lack any substantiation or base on fact, reality, or scientific thought can not be described as a belief system. Correct, you can not prove that something does not exist. However, rejecting the existence of everything that does not exist is not a belief, nor is it a belief system. You seem to be implying that the fact that the existence of deities can not be proven or dis-proven necessitates that those who reject their existence on logical and scientific grounds must be defined as engaging in a belief system. This is patently false, and I will go into greater depth in the next paragraph. It is not a belief system to reject the existence of Bigfoot, nor is it a belief system to reject the existence of elves or Easter bunnies. Atheism rejects theism, faith, and belief systems on logical and scientific grounds. This process does not require faith.

The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary definition of belief:

1. that which is believed; an accepted opinion.
2. conviction of the truth or reality of a thing, based upon grounds insufficient to afford positive knowledge

In essence, these definitions are saying that "belief" is not something that is formed or based upon critical scientific examination, but rather by feelings, emotions, and unsubstantiated opinion. Atheism rejects these "beliefs" that are based on feelings, emotions, and unsubstantiated opinion as a result of their inherent qualification as belief systems, reliance on faith, and the fact that they have no scientific substantiation whatsoever. This is a logical and scientific decision, to reject deities and faith-based belief systems. This decision is not based on faith, so it can not qualify as a belief or a belief system, and certainly not in the same sense that religions are defined, as you are so illogically trying to assert.

Don't try to denigrate your own argument by using logical fallacies and illogical assertions to force a definition that is patently incongruous. By your own argument, you can imply that it is a belief system (equivalent to a religious belief system) to deny that there is an invisible mouse crawling on your keyboard at this very moment. By your argument, it is a belief system to deny the existence of an invisible flying elephant over my house in the same sense that the person who has faith and believes in the existence of the invisible flying elephant. By your argument, everything can be defined as a belief system, no matter if the position is based on reason, logic scientific examination or on faith, unsubstantiated opinion, and "gut-feeling".

You admitted that proving a negative is impossible

Simply since I can not disprove the existence of a magic flying elephant does not mean that it requires faith to reject its existence, as you appear to imply. Based on current gathered data and evidence, I can reach a purely logical and scientific conclusion that negates such a being. This is not faith. This is not a belief system.

You seem to have quite a distorted and patently incorrect view of what atheism is. Atheism is not a belief, worldview, belief system, ideology, religion, or any other similar descriptor.

Your vacuous denials and puerile insults are irrelevant. Stop dodging.

The denial of propositions that lack any substantiation or base on fact, reality, or scientific thought can not be described as a belief system.

Of course they can. Now I have to wonder why you are working so hard to prevaricate.

However, rejecting the existence of everything that does not exist is not a belief, nor is it a belief system.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't add credence to it.

You seem to be implying that the fact that the existence of deities can not be proven or dis-proven necessitates that those who reject their existence on logical and scientific grounds must be defined as engaging in a belief system.

Correct. The 'not a believe system' label is reserved for those who care not about the matter.

It is not a belief system to reject the existence of Bigfoot, nor is it a belief system to reject the existence of elves or Easter bunnies.

Because (1) those are individual beliefs, not systems of belief; and (2) there is effective evidence of non-existence for at least the Easter Bunny (i.e., proof of its fabrication).

Atheism rejects theism, faith, and belief systems on logical and scientific grounds. This process does not require faith.

But it requires belief. Stop trying to avoid reality. All your ridiculously self-involved diatribe does is provide firm foundation for the arguments you object to.

Your vacuous denials and puerile insults are irrelevant. Stop dodging.

Asserting my position on the subject at the start of my post is not a denial. It is merely reaffirming my position, after which I continue to support my position throughout the post. The fact that you feel this is a vacuous denial, and then later an insult suggests you realize you are losing ground in this decision. It is not I who is dodging, it is you.

Of course they can.

You must support your statement. Otherwise your "vacuous" statement must be summarily dismissed. Vacant claims, lacking substantiation, hold no significance in a discussion. I stated why it can not be considered a belief system, and that is the point you must refute with a valid argument. Stop dodging.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't add credence to it.

Once again, you must form an argument that describes why it is a falsehood in the first place. Otherwise, your empty statement is completely irrelevant as a response to my post. Once again, stop dodging and start forming a valid argument I can respond to.

The 'not a believe system' label is reserved for those who care not about the matter.

You are saying that the only thing that matters in qualifying as a belief system is if people care about an issue? Frankly, I do not care about religion or any other superstitious cult as far as an explanation, for it has no relation on fact, observation, or logical principles. I have no belief whatsoever, for superstitions and manufactured propositions are completely irrelevant to my life and the way I understand my surroundings.

Because (1) those are individual beliefs, not systems of belief; and (2) there is effective evidence of non-existence for at least the Easter Bunny (i.e., proof of its fabrication).

My rejection of god(s) and deity(ies) are not rejections of systems of belief. They are just as "individual" as rejection of Bigfoot. I am simply rejecting the existence of all things that lack substantiation or adequate evidence for their existence. I reiterate, it does not require faith or belief to reject the existence of all things that do not exist. It does not matter if these things that do not exist are believed in a cult, or a belief system has been manufactured in order worship these things that do not exist. It still requires as little faith an belief as the rejection of the Easter bunny. There is no "proof of its fabrication" for Bigfoot. However, I will not accept its existence until sufficient proof is discovered to support its existence. Furthermore, It does not require faith or a belief system to reject the existence of an entity in the same fashion that it requires an actual "belief" necessitating faith for the person who invented the entity in the first place to believe its existence.

But it requires belief.

No, not in the sense that it is a belief to trust in the existence of a god, or have faith in a religion. You are twisting the definition of this word in two different ways. Sure, to have a position on any topic whatsoever means that you believe in said position. However, the definition of "belief" used to define the worship and faith in a religion, deity, or any other entity that lacks substantiation has a very different meaning. You can say that "Atheists do not believe that there are god(s)" however this non-belief does not necessitate belief or a belief system, nor does it rely on faith. Belief as it applies to believing in unsubstantiated entities requires faith. Rejecting the existence of these entities does not require faith, thus you can not imply that atheists have a belief in the same sense or meaning as the religious have a belief.

All your ridiculously self-involved diatribe does is provide firm foundation for the arguments you object to.

It is apparent that you are beginning to resort to fatuous insults in order to reject my argument. However, the fact that I am responding thoroughly to a false claim is not proof to the negative. Rather, it is simply an effort to clarify a topic that you are distorting out of context.

Asserting my position on the subject at the start of my post is not a denial.

It is a denial of truth. You seem intent on avoiding truth at all costs. It's sad, because your denials only hurt the cause you pretend to support. You comments demonstrate the kind of inflexible intransigence that is the hallmark of the very worst of the self-righteous religionists. You ratify their behavior with your own. I can only wonder if you're not one of them, simply posing as an Atheist to try to make Atheism look hypocritical or otherwise offensive.

Good day.

It is a denial of truth.

I do not know how you can be so persistent to claim something so preposterous. Your claim that it is a belief system to not believe, or a belief of unbelief simply is invalid and irrational. I have no belief, belief system, or faith. Nor are such things necessary to reject the existence of preposterous and unsubstantiated beings. The things I choose not to believe in have no substantiation or proof to lend credence to their claims of existence. So, it does not require faith or belief not to believe in Harry Potter, deities, or Bigfoot. Your comments show an unfortunate obstinance in favor of maintaining your own illogical view, in spite of the many flaws and inconsistencies of your reasoning. Your own insistence on such an absurd proposition is misdirected and intellectually dishonest. However, perhaps you truly are unable to see the farcicality of your argument.

Nay, I certainly am an atheist, of that there is no question. My dad is an atheist, and he is raising me as such, with logical and analytical reasoning skills, as opposed to blind faith. By the way, my dad feels the same way about atheism not being a belief system, or a belief. I might add that he has gone through 13 years of school after High School, so I trust his judgement.

I do not know how you feel that the fact that atheism is not a belief system is in some way "offensive". Atheism simply can not be lumped in with actual belief systems such as religion, for it is not a belief system in any sense of the word, and certainly not in the sense that pertains to religion. Your efforts to define it as such will not meet with success.

Good day.

I wonder what "Gordy" thinks about this topic..

I do not know how you can be so persistent to claim something so preposterous.

I'm persistent because what I'm telling you is not "preposterous" but rather is true. It totally undercuts your perspective, and that's why you're trying so hard to make it sound like you have a point, but it's a lame gesture on your part because you're railing against the truth.

I have no belief, belief system, or faith.

Stop lying to yourself. If you hold to principles that you cannot prove the foundation for, then you are engaging in belief. Get over it - it doesn't actually hurt.

because you're railing against the truth.

Apparently that is up for debate. I can say the same thing about your position. I suggest you google "Atheism is a belief system?" and you will find some interesting articles for why it is not. There is an "About.com" article that might interest you.

If you hold to principles that you cannot prove the foundation for, then you are engaging in belief.

Correct. However, atheism is not a belief or a belief system precisely because it does have a foundation, and a legitimate one, for its non-belief. Our foundation is that there is no credible basis of evidence, or logical thought process that supports the existence of god(s) or supernatural beings. Thus, in order to avoid engaging in unfounded faith and a belief system, such propositions must be summarily dismissed, until further evidence may be discovered to lend credence to their existence. That, Walt, is the reason atheism is not classified as a belief or a belief system. It is merely the stance based on logic, and relying on the presence of empirical data to accept the existence of certain beings. God(s) lack any empirical evidence or data for their existence, therefore logic and scientific process necessitates that their existence be dismissed, at least until any data is collected in favor of their existence. This is not faith. This does not engage a belief or a belief system.

Stop lying to yourself.

I believe you are quite unique in your position that atheism is a belief system. It is quite apparent that it is you, not I, who is rallying against the truth, and against logic. Atheism is not the act of holding a position, a faith, or a belief. It is the act of accepting things that are supported by evidence and empirical data, and dismissing those that lack such support. Especially those that lack any substantiation whatsoever. However, we do not hold a belief system, precisely because if data is discovered in favor of their existence, we will not continue to reject their existence. Our position is based on logic and scientific process.

I took the liberty of googling what I suggested above. I came across this yahoo answer, which I feel rather eloquently expresses my position on this topic.

A worldview that leads one to conclude there is no God or god will lead one to become an atheist. Simply someone who fits the definition, atheist.

But there is no belief system that is atheism.

Do not believe the definitions that opponents try to impose on atheism. A mainstream atheist is someone who has concluded there is no credible basis of evidence or system of thought to conclude that a god exists. Says philosophically that of course there is no way to prove a negative (or many negatives). So a mainstream atheist does not positively maintain there is no god, but maintains the chance of the existence of a god, or the Christian God, is so infinitesimally remote as to be effectively zero. (as for the infinitely small chance being the basis of Pascal's Wager - use the search function for a thousand repetitions of why that is not valid.)

Did you really think I was saying that there weren't people who were as wrong about this as you are? Stop with such silliness. You can engage in such mental masturbation elsewhere.

However, atheism is not a belief or a belief system precisely because it does have a foundation, and a legitimate one, for its non-belief. Our foundation is that there is no credible basis of evidence, or logical thought process that supports the existence of god(s) or supernatural beings.

Which proves only that there is no "credible basis of evidence .. of supernatural beings" - not that there isn't something beyond your understanding of what God is. I don't believe in supernatural beings (period), but I believe in God. Furthermore, there is objective evidence of that-God-which-I-believe-in (by definition, actually). Your dogged insistence on dictating your view onto everyone else is as wrong as, and as offensive as that of evangelical Christians. Your perspective is a belief; no different from that of the folks you so cavalierly condemn. Get over it.

It is irrational and ridiculous for you to claim that it is a belief to reject the existence of all the things that do not exist. By your reasoning I am engaging in a belief system to reject the existence of a flying llama that lives on Pluto. The fact that I can not prove it does not exist, just as I can not prove a god or gods do not exist does not imply that it is a belief or a belief system to reject such unsubstantiated propositions. Nor does this change if the llama has been written about in an old book, which lacks any credibility whatsoever.

I don't believe in supernatural beings (period), but I believe in God.

So, your god is not supernatural? How so? It seems like you are contradicting yourself here.

Furthermore, there is objective evidence of that-God-which-I-believe-in

Please substantiate your claim, otherwise it must be summarily dismissed.

Your dogged insistence on dictating your view onto everyone else is as wrong as, and as offensive as that of evangelical Christians.

Luckily, this is not the case. However, this statement would apply to you. We both have dogged insistence with our discussions, however the difference between yours and mine is that mine is rational and well supported, while yours falls short of this aim. Thus, your dogged insistence could be classified as offensive, if that is what you insist upon classifying this discussion as.

Your perspective is a belief; no different from that of the folks you so cavalierly condemn.

Reiterating a false statement, no matter how many times, does not make it a valid statement. You seem to be convinced that repetition will make your view correct, however your claim is still irrational and false as ever. Get over it.

It is irrational and ridiculous for you to claim that it is a belief to reject the existence of all the things that do not exist.

Good thing that that is not what I'm doing. The fact that you need to mischaracterize what I'm telling you demonstrates that you know you're wrong, but you're unwilling to admit it.

By your reasoning I am engaging in a belief system to reject the existence of a flying llama that lives on Pluto.

No, that's not "by my reasoning". That's "by your corruption of rhetoric, for the purposes of trying to distract attention away from your inane insistence that Atheism does not rely on belief for part of its foundation." You're pulling out all the stops to use every one of the scurrilously illegitimate rhetorical tactics of the evangelical Christians and other extreme theists, proving even more strongly that you're simply one of them, just with a different set of beliefs from them.

The fact that I can not prove it does not exist, just as I can not prove a god or gods do not exist does not imply that it is a belief or a belief system to reject such unsubstantiated propositions.

First, you can prove that it does not exist. We have enough factual evidence to belie your idiotic scenario, which is why your putting forward that scenario was so unskillful on your part.

Second, placing your statement in a legitimate context (i.e. the existence of "God", as conceived by someone other than you, and therefore not subjugated to your deliberately obtuse narrowing of what God could be), your statement here clearly shows the parallel between your perspective and that of the most right-wing religious conservatives... substituting in their perspective: "The fact that [they] can not prove [their God] ... exist[s] ... does not imply that it is a belief or a belief system to [accept] such unsubstantiated propositions." Acceptance and rejection are both qualitative determinations, equal in all aspects except direction. They are flip-sides of the same coin, despite your attempts to venerate rejection as something more legitimate than acceptance. Again, you're doing the exact same thing they do, just favoring your belief system instead of theirs.

So, your god is not supernatural? How so?

This is the first question you should have asked, way back at the beginning of our interchange. At this point, you've proven so strongly that you have little or no capacity to respectfully consider the beliefs of others that there is no point in trusting that you've suddenly developed that capacity at this point. Your unskillful comments have ruined whatever credibility you could have had to be trusted to engage in a sensitive and substantively illuminating discussion of my religious beliefs.

It seems like you are contradicting yourself here.

Not at all. You're simply demonstrating your inability to be open-minded about matters of belief.

Please substantiate your claim, otherwise it must be summarily dismissed.

What a bunch of bull... As I already mentioned, you have made it clear that you have no intention of honorably and respectfully considering such substantiation, and have made it clear that you will summarily dismiss any perspectives on this that don't fit within your narrow worldview - just like the right-wing religious reactionaries that you claim to be so different from. If you won't be honest in the thread about your unwillingness to open your mind to perspectives other than your own, please at least be honest with yourself about that.

Luckily, this is not the case. However, this statement would apply to you.

Is this you way of saying, "I know you are but what am I?" It isn't any less puerile reworded as you have reworded it.

We both have dogged insistence with our discussions, however the difference between yours and mine is that mine is rational and well supported, while yours falls short of this aim.

You're saying, "No one can be correct other than me," is not "rational and well supported". You cavalierly dismiss concepts out of hand. It took you half the thread to even think to ask the most critical question. This indicates that nothing you've put forth can truly be considered "rational".

Good thing that that is not what I'm doing.

No, that is precisely what you are doing. You are saying that it is a belief system to reject the existence of things that are not substantiated, hold no proof to their existence, and do not exist as far as science is concerned. However, perhaps you are only applying this to god(s). God or gods are unsubstantiated, and do not exist as far as science is concerned, just as the Yeti is and an invisible flying llama above my house. So, your own reasoning that you are only applying to god(s) can be and must be applied to all other beings that possess the same amount of credibility and proof to their existence. You can't pick and choose which non-existent being to say it it requires a belief system not to believe, while ignoring the Yeti or some such being.

use every one of the scurrilously illegitimate rhetorical tactics of the evangelical Christians and other extreme theists, proving even more strongly that you're simply one of them,

Get over the name-calling. I really couldn't care less what absurd group you try to compare my arguments with. For the sake of a response, your own arguments are extremely similar to all the other religious people I have discussed with, who depend on illogical and unsubstantiated arguments to promote their flawed view. I just ask that you respond with a legitimate and reasonable argument for me to destroy once again.

First, you can prove that it does not exist.

Wrong. You can not definitely prove something does not exist. That is a logical fallacy. However, by the lack of data and evidence collected (none whatsoever) in support god(s), these propositions do not exist in the eyes of science. It can not be proven, however the lack of evidence for the positive necessitates that these claims to their existence be summarily dismissed an ignored.

We have enough factual evidence to belie your idiotic scenario, which is why your putting forward that scenario was so unskillful on your part.

Once again, it appears that you are beginning to descend into an unfortunate display of puerile name-calling. Perhaps you are becoming overwhelmed in the discussion, and fall back on name-calling as a last resort? However, you must know that name-calling will not promote your argument, but rather the opposite.

They are flip-sides of the same coin, despite your attempts to venerate rejection as something more legitimate than acceptance.

Ahh, this section of your post is rather interesting, however it is completely illogical and easily refuted. It does require belief or a belief system to "accept" such propositions because of the fact that these propositions are completely unsubstantiated, lack any base of evidence, and are effectively non-existent in the eyes of science. Therefore, it requires faith, and thus belief, in order to accept such propositions. However, to reject such propositions does not require faith or belief, for the reasons I have already detailed throughout several posts. Thus, your flip, or rewording of my post is illogical, and a poor attempt to refute my point, because rejection certainly is "something more legitimate than acceptance". Rejection is logical, legitimate, based, and scientific, while acceptance is simply illogical faith. Thus, rejection is, in every sense, more legitimate than acceptance. Your attempt to classify rejection as not legitimate is preposterous, and quite delusional.

you've proven so strongly that you have little or no capacity to respectfully consider the beliefs of others that there is no point in trusting that you've suddenly developed that capacity at this point.

Interesting. And you feel that you can be excluded from this description you try to apply to me? You have displayed complete devotion to your own illogical assertions, and have not shown any signs that you have respectfully considered the beliefs of others. So, this description bounces right back to you. However, I assure you that I have "respectfully" considered the beliefs of others, and for sake of this discussion I have dissected them and responded to them.

Your unskillful comments have ruined whatever credibility you could have had to be trusted to engage in a sensitive and substantively illuminating discussion of my religious beliefs.

This seems like a last attempt to attack the well constructed and analytical comments which have so "skillfully" destroyed your own. At the same time, you are managing to avoid responding to my point which highlights and illogical assertion within your own comment. But, if you truly feel that is a sensitive topic, I won't ask you again what places your version of god apart from other versions.

You're simply demonstrating your inability to be open-minded about matters of belief.

No. I have a legitimate question which you refused to answer. Thus, I can not be defined as close-minded on this topic.

What a bunch of bull... As I already mentioned, you have made it clear that you have no intention of honorably and respectfully considering such substantiation, and have made it clear that you will summarily dismiss any perspectives on this that don't fit within your narrow worldview

You claimed that there is "objective evidence" for the god in which you believe. Therefore, the burden of proof is yours. If you can not substantiate your claim, it must be summarily dismissed. The fact that there is no objective evidence for god(s) is the reason why it is not a belief system to reject their existence. This is precisely the reason why god(s) can be lumped in with all the other beings that lack objective evidence to their existence such as the Yeti and the flying llama on Pluto, which also can be rejected without engaging any faith or belief.

like the right-wing religious reactionaries

You sure like this irrelevant and poor discussion tactic. You've repeated this rhetoric three times so far in your comment.

Is this you way of saying, "I know you are but what am I?" It isn't any less puerile reworded as you have reworded it.

It was puerile of you to make such a statement in the first place, when it so obviously applies to you as well. Many of the descriptions you try to apply to me easily apply to you, so you should expect a response that highlights this fact. If you did not, then this is quite short-sighted of you.

It took you half the thread to even think to ask the most critical question.

To ask about your personal beliefs on why your god is not supernatural? Perhaps if this is so vital, you shouldn't have skirted around the subject for so long. Why should I have been concerned about your personal beliefs, or whether they are in some way superior to those held by others. Furthermore, for most of this discussion, I thought you might have been an atheist as well, until you said you believed in a god. Stop dodging.

You cavalierly dismiss concepts out of hand.

No, I only reject those that are illogical or irrational. When this is the case, I outline why they are irrational in my response, thus directly and analytically furthering my position and revealing the flaws in yours.

No, that is precisely what you are doing.

Ah yes, trotting out the old, "I know you are but what am I?" again. Don't you have any other diversionary tactics to employ? I have an idea: Stop trying to distract and turn your attention back to the actuality and opening your mind to the fact that your perspective is only that: your perspective, your belief.

You are saying that it is a belief system to reject the existence of things that are not substantiated, hold no proof to their existence, and do not exist as far as science is concerned.

Stop trying so hard to avoid the truth. It is a belief system to deny the existence of something categorically with the faulty and inadequate proof you have tried to present as accurate and worthy proof. The big problem with your corrupted reasoning is that you're trying to project your understanding of the supernatural onto God, again as a reflection of some innate lack of respect for anything that doesn't fit your belief system. To understand the truth you're going to have to first learn to respect the beliefs and values of others, and then turn your attention toward learning about those beliefs and values.

God or gods are unsubstantiated, and do not exist as far as science is concerned

You venerate science. Good. Me too. So sit back, stop yapping for a second, and listen to some of the most respected scientists in history:

Albert Einstein: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

Carl Sagan: “The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God.”

Stephen Hawking: “the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics…”

These brilliant scientists understand the nature of science, reason, and the nature of reality than you do. Learn from them if you will not learn from me.

Get over the name-calling.

Stop equating what you believe with your self - that misconception will never serve you well.

I really couldn't care less what absurd group you try to compare my arguments with.

My point is that you should, since you are doing precisely what you condemn in others.

For the sake of a response, your own arguments are extremely similar to all the other religious people I have discussed with, who depend on illogical and unsubstantiated arguments to promote their flawed view.

Now you're just lying to yourself, because my arguments are so completely the antithesis of what all dogmatic people, evangelical Christians and dogged Atheists like yourself, believe.

I just ask that you respond with a legitimate and reasonable argument for me to destroy once again.

Thank you for being honest enough to admit what I suspected earlier, that you have no honorable intention to engage in a constructive discussion about things other than your own personal dogmatic beliefs.

Ah yes, trotting out the old, "I know you are but what am I?" again.

Nope. That doesn't apply at all, so I don't know what your line of thought is.

the fact that your perspective is only that: your perspective, your belief.

Very poor tactic to use in this discussion. You are using the word "belief" however with completely different meanings, in an effort to promote your position. You can say, "I believe you are misunderstanding the topic" or "I believe we will go to the gym today" however the meaning of the word is completely different when you say "I believe in god" or "I believe the world was created in 7 days". Don't use the word in two different meanings, and then try to imply it is the same thing. One is just used as an observation or stating a position, the other meaning is used in the sense of being a belief system or faith-based belief.

It is a belief system to deny the existence of something categorically with the faulty and inadequate proof you have tried to present as accurate and worthy proof.

Preposterous. This is completely irrelevant. You do not need to have proof of something in order to reject its existence. Otherwise, everything that does not exist, and which we do not have proof for would not be able to be rejected, or at least not without a belief system as you imply. Rather, the lack of any proof whatsoever is sufficient and legitimate grounds to logically reject the existence of something. This does not require belief, a belief system, or faith. In fact, it is strictly necessary to reject the existence of such unsubstantiated propositions in order to avoid engaging in a belief or a belief system.

trying to project your understanding of the supernatural onto God

Whether I am or not is irrelevant. There is no proof or substantiation for a supernatural god, a non-supernatural god, or any god whatsoever. Therefore, whether you hold some different view of your god, it still requires a belief and a belief system for you to "believe" in its existence, while it requires none of these things for me to reject your version.

turn your attention toward learning about those beliefs and values.

Once again, you are deviating from the topic of the discussion. This is irrelevant to the fact that it does not require belief, a belief system, or faith to reject the existence of propositions that lack any substantiation, evidence, or proof to their existence whatsoever.

listen to some of the most respected scientists in history:

Perhaps some scientists and thinkers accept the possibility of such a power existing in some form. However, this is merely speculation, as there is no evidence or proof whatsoever that supports the existence of such a power. Thus, scientifically, its existence may be possible, however the chance of the existence of such a power or god is so infinitesimally small as to be "effectively zero".

“the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics…”

Here, Stephen Hawking is relating that creation or any such religious story does not fit with any known body of knowledge, nor is it possible within the laws of physics. This is precisely why it is pure faith and belief to believe in such a story. He certainly is not hinting that such an event is possible or may have occurred, nor is he relating personal beliefs.

My point is that you should, since you are doing precisely what you condemn in others.

What do I condemn in others? My point is that I am not.

my arguments are so completely the antithesis of what all dogmatic people, evangelical Christians and dogged Atheists like yourself, believe.

That's up for debate. However, you can clump yourself in with those who hold an unfounded belief or belief system, while I can not.

that you have no honorable intention to engage in a constructive discussion about things other than your own personal dogmatic beliefs.

Correct, I have no intention of discussing any beliefs I may have. However, I am interested in discussing the topic of this discussion, which is atheism and why it is not a belief system. I am interested in discussing why you hold a dogmatic belief, while atheism is the act of avoiding in engaging in a belief system by directly rejecting propositions which lack evidence, substantiation, or proof to their existence.

Alright guys, I've read enough and... Enough is enough. I'm declaring "Magicman in the Sky" the winner of this argument. I'm sorry "WaltUU" all you did was run around in circles over and over again, being obtuse, and refusing to actually answer any questions with any substantial information that makes your case.

"MagicMan in the Sky"...?

Congratulations on your verbal sparring match with "WaltUU". It's not easy discussing reality with people completely divorced from reality. You did an awesome job, and we have some fabulous prizes waiting for you backstage (we really don't, but it's the thought that counts). Good luck on all your endeavors and Keep up the Good Fight.

We need people like you with logic, insight, reason, and calm diligence to help peel back the layers of our archaic superstitious beliefs that need to be eradicated in order for our civilization to advance. Let's just hope we inspire more people to be like us rather than "WaltUU".

Again, good job Magicman!

that you have no honorable intention to engage in a constructive discussion about things other than your own personal dogmatic beliefs.

Correct

Thanks for being honest.

I'm waiting for your reply to this:

You venerate science. Good. Me too. So sit back, stop yapping for a second, and listen to some of the most respected scientists in history:

Albert Einstein: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

Carl Sagan: “The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God.”

Stephen Hawking: “the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics…”

These brilliant scientists understand the nature of science, reason, and the nature of reality than you do. Learn from them if you will not learn from me.

Alright guys, I've read enough and... Enough is enough. I'm declaring "Magicman in the Sky" the winner of this argument. I'm sorry "WaltUU" all you did was run around in circles over and over again, being obtuse, and refusing to actually answer any questions with any substantial information that makes your case.

That's ridiculous. Did you enjoy engaging in what is figuratively public masturbation? How about addressing the issue instead of engaging in such self-serving nonsense? If you, too, won't acknowledge the points I've made, then respond to Einstein, Sagan and Hawking.

Why are you both working so hard to avoid reality?

That's ridiculous? C'mon. You're trying to say that Atheism is a belief system. It's not. What I believe in is science, discovery, exploration, and empiricism. Because I believe in these 4 things, I don't believe in the existence of any magical man in the sky with a flowing gray beard who keeping an eye out for all of us. Because all of science and current knowledge contains no evidence of our "buddy in the sky", then I choose to not believe in him. At all.

It can't be a belief system with any kind of value, ethics, or code of conduct if there's a complete lack of thought involved at all.

Stephen Hawking: “the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics…”

True. Outside the scope of presently known laws of physics, but someday we'll get it figured out and then you guys will have to come up with even more reasons why there is a God and we're all wrong. Stephen Hawking went on to say:

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.

Were you trying to suggest that Stephen Hawking has some belief in God? That's rather disingenuous of you. Are most religious people of your ilk this pathological?

“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God.”

You know... Carl Sagan was being a little facetious here. Do you realize this? He basically was saying, to him, Physics are the only God he recognizes:

Again, taking quotes out of context in an attempt to suggest that they mean something else is a shyster's game. Carl just said the whole concept of the Judeo-Christian God was ridiculous, yet somehow are you trying to suggest he meant otherwise? Amazing really.

Einstein, was also something else. He lived in a time when people had to keep their lack of religious values closely guarded. However, like you we too have quotes from Einstein:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

So really, WaltUU... Who's working so hard to avoid reality? What reality are you speaking of? You're in an infinity loop of "what came first, the chicken or the egg"?

Here's the problem with your belief system: It falls apart under systemic evaluation and analysis by the sciences of Archaeology, Anthropology, Botany, Biology, Micro-Biology, Cosmology, and so on. It makes so many claims which can not be substantiated. It's a belief system built on lies.

So, you turn to us people of science and say: Your Atheism is a belief system, and it has JUST AS MANY HOLES AS MY RELIGION. Wrong. We follow science which is the accumulation of facts and data which we use to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. We're seekers of truth. We demand that theories be tested and vetted in a lab or in the field or with repeated observations until we're fairly certain that the theory has been proven. A process that is anathema to the blindly religious.

Where your religion has holes, you fill those holes with fiction. Where our science has holes, we fill those holes with new studies, theories, tests, experiments, and evaluations until the hole no longer exists. That's not belief, that's just completing the picture that science can provide to us. I can see why you religious types are scared.

Just out of curiosity. No religion in the world describes primitive man. What does your religion tell you about Austraolpithecus Robustus who lived on this planet 2-3 Million years ago? How does this early Hominid fit into your belief system?

Sorry guys, I have no time to respond today. Had to do Track practice, and now my parents want me to turn in the computer for the night. Thanks Anjisan, I'm glad someone else was watching this debate as well. I enjoy engaging in these debates, and discussing topics like these. Well spoken members such as Walt make the challenge all the better.

Bravo on your response. I think this discussion is wrapped up quite well now. Great points, Anjisan, and I am sure I could not have put it better.

Okay, must go. Goodnight. Later mates.

C'mon. You're trying to say that Atheism is a belief system. It's not.

Yes it is, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

What I believe in is science, discovery, exploration, and empiricism.

Me too, so clearly what you've written there doesn't have any impact on the discussion.

I don't believe in the existence of any magical man in the sky with a flowing gray beard who keeping an eye out for all of us.

Me neither, so clearly what you've written there doesn't have any impact on the discussion.

As I mentioned to magicman earlier, what he, and you, object to is the supernatural. Repudiation of the supernatural is not a belief system. Atheism is.

It can't be a belief system with any kind of value, ethics, or code of conduct if there's a complete lack of thought involved at all.

You are implying that all Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief systems require thought underlying their values, ethics and codes of conduct. There is no such requirement.

Were you trying to suggest that Stephen Hawking has some belief in God? That's rather disingenuous of you. ... You know... Carl Sagan was being a little facetious here. Do you realize this? ... Einstein, was also something else.

What an arrogant bit of self-serving nonsense you've put down there, trying to inject your faulty perspectives on top of what these three great scientists actually said.

I'm glad that you included Hawking's statement, "This doesn't prove that there is no God" - that firmly establishes what I said, that believing that God does not exist is a belief system, since it is belief without proof.

He basically was saying, to him, Physics are the only God he recognizes

That is not what he was saying, but nice attempt to impose your corrupted view onto Dr. Sagan. If you have read Dr. Sagan's entire body of work, you'll know him to be a very spirtual man, and a realist - something which you have clearly prevented yourself from being capable of comprehending. He is the perfect example of someone who melded both together.

Again, taking quotes out of context in an attempt to suggest that they mean something else is a shyster's game.

Then why do you engage in that?

So really, WaltUU... Who's working so hard to avoid reality?

That would be you and magicman.

Here's the problem with your belief system: It falls apart under systemic evaluation and analysis by the sciences of Archaeology, Anthropology, Botany, Biology, Micro-Biology, Cosmology, and so on. It makes so many claims which can not be substantiated. It's a belief system built on lies.

You don't know what you're talking about. My belief system is supported by the systemic evaluation and analysis by the sciences of Archaeology, Anthropology, Botany, Biology, Micro-Biology, Cosmology, and so on. You're so clueless about the true nature of God that you cannot fathom such a thing, so all you can do is assume it cannot exist. That's a great example of you allowing your Atheist belief system to blind you to the actual realities.

We follow science which is the accumulation of facts and data which we use to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. We're seekers of truth.

No. You're deniers of truth. The veneration of the seeking for truth and meaning is one of the fundamental tenets of my religion. You obviously know nothing about this, and like magicman you seem to have allowed your blindly religious Atheism to make you unwilling to consider such a perspective in an honorable and respectful manner.

We demand that theories be tested and vetted in a lab or in the field or with repeated observations until we're fairly certain that the theory has been proven.

As does my religion. Again, you obviously know nothing about, and are unwilling to accept, this.

A process that is anathema to the blindly religious.

NOW you start adding qualifications... "blindly" religious. I oppose the "blindly" religious, yet you're posting your arrogant tirade at me as if I were one of them - as if my religion was one of those "blindly" religious religions. Again, you obviously know nothing about this, and you seem utterly unwilling to treat the topic with respect and consideration for others.

Where your religion has holes, you fill those holes with fiction.

A lie. My religion prohibits the filling of holes with fiction. The unknown and unknowable are fundamental facets of our belief system. It seems clear though that all you have to defend your attacks are such lies.

What does your religion tell you about Austraolpithecus Robustus who lived on this planet 2-3 Million years ago? How does this early Hominid fit into your belief system?

EXACTLY the same as your Atheist belief system does.

Yes it is, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever. Your earlier points on why it "is" have been responded to and thwarted by me earlier. (By the way, you have failed to respond to my previous comment). So, you are quite lacking in substantiation for your point. So far, it has been established that your arguments for why atheism is a belief or belief system do not hold water. You must come up with some new ones I have not disproven in order to continue making your irrational claim. Thus, your statement above must be summarily dismissed.

Me too, so clearly what you've written there doesn't have any impact on the discussion.

His point is that is all he believes in, and those things do not point to a creator, undiscovered being, or supernatural being. You continue on to have a belief system in some undiscovered, unsubstantiated god of some type, while his belief ends right there. That establishes why atheism is not a belief system, because of science, observation, and other modes of research do not point to such a being, thus it would take a leap of faith to believe in its existence, while it requires no such thing to reject that unsubstantiated proposition.

what he, and you, object to is the supernatural. Repudiation of the supernatural is not a belief system. Atheism is.

No, rather, I reject to any and all baseless propositions that lack any substantiation, base of evidence, or proof to support its validity. Any and every god, even the one you believe in and profess not to be supernatural, lacks any substantiation or proof for its existence. Thus these gods must logically be dismissed just as every other baseless proposition must be dismissed. I reiterate, this does not require faith, belief, or a belief system of any kind.

You are implying that all Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief systems require thought underlying their values, ethics and codes of conduct.

These religions come with values, ethics, and codes of conduct along with certain stories believers must believe in. For these reasons, religions are classified as belief systems, in every sense of the word.

I'm glad that you included Hawking's statement, "This doesn't prove that there is no God" - that firmly establishes what I said, that believing that God does not exist is a belief system, since it is belief without proof.

No, this doesn't support your argument in the slightest. It is a logical fallacy to prove something does not exist. It is impossible to prove something does not exist. Rather, the complete lack of proof or substantiation of any kind is grounds to logically and scientifically reject the existence of such a being. We do not have proof that a flying llama is not flying around Pluto at this very moment, however since this being lacks any proof to its existence, such a proposition must logically be summarily dismissed. This does not require faith, belief, or a belief system. You are really reaching now..

Then why do you engage in that?

The statement was directed to you. You have clearly misrepresented the thoughts of Einstein and Hawking to inject some credibility and strength into your senseless argument. You were trying to force your own opinion and belief into the mouths of those intellectually far greater than yourself. However, the fact that you were caught in such an effort merely strips the credibility and impact of your argument.

That would be you and magicman.

Try again mate.

My belief system is supported by the systemic evaluation and analysis by the sciences of Archaeology, Anthropology, Botany, Biology, Micro-Biology, Cosmology, and so on. You're so clueless about the true nature of God that you cannot fathom such a thing

Nope. Sorry, no undiscovered being, god, or supernatural entity is supported by any of these sciences. To make such a statement is intellectually dishonest. Frankly, we couldn't care less about the "true nature of God". No matter what nature you try to apply to it, such a being still lacks any proof to its existence and must be summarily dismissed.

allowing your Atheist belief system to blind you to the actual realities.

Continuing on from my previous paragraph, it is safe to say "That's a great example of you allowing your religious belief system to blind you to the actual realities." However, I am not surprised, for one must be deluded to believe in such a being, especially if they believe such a being is supported or substantiated by science.

make you unwilling to consider such a perspective in an honorable and respectful manner.

We've considered it, and we've responded to the flaws and illogical propositions therein, showing that your perspective does not hold water.

My religion prohibits the filling of holes with fiction.

Religion is a way of making up stories to fill the unknowns of human knowledge. Your idea of a creator and some type of god is a way of forming a belief to serve as an easy answer for things we do not and can not understand currently.

believing that God does not exist is a belief system, since it is belief without proof.

I'm going to end this argument once and for all.

You suggest that I am a believer in the "Lack of a God". Completely wrong, and if you continue to argue the point, there is obviously something miswired in you that's incapable of understanding the following:

I believe in science, the advancement of knowledge through empiricism, experimentation and discovery. I believe in the accumulated knowledge of mankind. All of this knowledge, from all of the sciences (Anthropology, Archaeology, Biology, etc...), demonstrate the complete opposite of everything spoken of in all religions of the world.

I am not an active believer in Atheism. Atheism is a direct result of my belief in the data accumulated by science. I believe in science. Lack of a belief in any type of supernatural being is a direct result of my other beliefs.

By your argument, because I do not believe in the ancient Nord gods, I therefore have a belief regarding their non-existence. It suggests some sort of value on my part (one that is either positive [belief] or negative [nonbelief]); however, in reality, it's a complete lack of any thoughts about the matter. It is more an assumption that the "Hammer of Thor" didn't pelt me upside my head today, so he's more than likely not real. Period.

To me, there are three states (and I'll use a political analogy): Republican (I Believe in God); Democratic (There absolutely, positively is no God and I have proof about his non-existence [by the way... How do you prove the non-existence of anything? It DOESN'T EXIST, so what proof of its non-existence could there possibly be? It's impossible]; and Independent (God is a non-issue, next order of business).

You insist that there can only be two states: Belief or Non-Belief. I think there's a third state: Who gives a crap? No proof means this whole conversation is really quite pointless. There is no God, and no reason to spend even another moment in time debating the value of the philosophical stance of Belief vs Non-Belief. You either believe in something or you don't.

BUT... In order to typically believe in a religion, you need to get indoctrinated into one of these cults, read their user manual (Bible, Quran, Torah, whatever), attend their rave parties (sermons), and drink their magical kool-aid in order to qualify as a believer. Do people need to perform the same functions to be a non-believer? Couldn't I just stand on the sidewalk looking in, puffing on a smoke, and say, "Goddam they're a bunch of lunatics", before I continue on my way to the bar?

What does your religion tell you about Austraolpithecus Robustus who lived on this planet

2-3 Million years ago? How does this early Hominid fit into your belief system?

EXACTLY the same as your Atheist belief system does.

Okay... You've peaked my curiosity...

There is ample evidence that early Hominid's existed. There is also ample evidence that later humans (Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon), once they developed the skills to paint images on the interior walls of caves, created images of everything they saw and believed in (dating back 30,000 years ago of horses, bears, cave lions, and even cave hyenas [European hyenas extinct now for 12,000 years] - Reference: Chauvet Cave - Southern France; Cave of El Castillo in Northern Spain).

The one thing early man did not depict in their drawings is any image of our current collection of Gods (Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc...).

Frankly, it is my humble opinion that the closer mankind was to their point of creation, the closer to their creator mankind should have been. However, there are no depictions of any known God drawn within any of the caves of ancient. What does that tell you about the concept of a Supreme Being?

It tells me that God, or whatever, is a pretty recent development that occurred during the formation of early human civilization as a tool to control the hunter-gatherers who were slowly being incorporated into these newly formed societies.

So. I guess you're right. I guess I do believe in God. But I only believe in the concept of a human designed entity manufactured and designed to help control the masses of lower intellectual capacity.

You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever.

Good thing that that isn't what I did. As I wrote in the sentence you were replying to I gave the reasons earlier. Go find them and read them. You know where they are, and you probably even know what they are because you read them before and simply chose to ignore them because they repudiated what you were trying to assert yourself.

Your earlier points on why it "is" have been responded to and thwarted by me earlier.

"You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever." I'll show your comments as much respect as you show mine.

(By the way, you have failed to respond to my previous comment).

No I haven't. Stop trying to evade responsibility for what you wrote.

So, you are quite lacking in substantiation for your point.

"You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever."

So far, it has been established that your arguments for why atheism is a belief or belief system do not hold water.

"You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever."

You must come up with some new ones I have not disproven in order to continue making your irrational claim.

No I don't. My original reasons were not disproven and are all that is necessary to defend my very rational assertion. I can tell that that upsets you, but get over it.

Thus, your statement above must be summarily dismissed.

"You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever."

His point is that is all he believes in

Thus, a belief system.

You continue on to have a belief system in some undiscovered, unsubstantiated god of some type, while his belief ends right there.

Actually, his belief system relies more on belief than mine. My belief system relies heavily on facts, such as "no one knows what else there might be", while his relies on foolishly presumptive assertions like "there must not be anything else".

That establishes why atheism is not a belief system, because of science, observation, and other modes of research do not point to such a being, thus it would take a leap of faith to believe in its existence, while it requires no such thing to reject that unsubstantiated proposition.

And again, it takes as much of a "leap of faith" to believe in the absolute lack of existence. As much as. The same. The dogged Atheist is no "better" in this regard than the evangelical Christian.

No, rather, I reject to any and all baseless propositions that lack any substantiation, base of evidence, or proof to support its validity.

Do you reject that 1 + 1 = 2? Some things are axioms, which are no better in terms of substantiation than "baseless propositions". You are lying to yourself if you claim that you reject everything which lacks substantiation.

Any and every god, even the one you believe in and profess not to be supernatural, lacks any substantiation or proof for its existence.

By definition, that's false. You're speaking from ignorance that you forcefully insist on retaining, and so you cannot even come close to presenting something true in this regard. Why you are working so hard to be wrong is bewildering.

Thus these gods must logically be dismissed just as every other baseless proposition must be dismissed.

The fact that you make such pronouncements without even knowing what the proposition is shows that you aren't really interested in honest inquiry and consideration. As I alluded to far back up there in the thread, you make it very clear that you refuse to respect any thoughts that don't match your own exactly, that antithesis of honest inquiry. Every scientist in history should be quite disgusted by your contributions.

I reiterate, this does not require faith, belief, or a belief system of any kind.

"You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever."

These religions come with values, ethics, and codes of conduct along with certain stories believers must believe in.

You are replying so carelessly and thoughtlessly that you completely misread what you're replying to. It's painful watching you try to make your case.

No, this doesn't support your argument in the slightest.

"You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever."

It is a logical fallacy to prove something does not exist. It is impossible to prove something does not exist.

Finally, you've written one true statement. Congratulations.

Rather, the complete lack of proof or substantiation of any kind is grounds to logically and scientifically reject the existence of such a being.

Wrong! It's such a shame.... you were doing so well for two full sentences.

We do not have proof that a flying llama is not flying around Pluto at this very moment, however since this being lacks any proof to its existence, such a proposition must logically be summarily dismissed.

We have far more evidence about llamas and Pluto then you're willing to admit.

You are really reaching now..

What I'm reaching is an end to patience with your expressions of ignorance about the actual nature of faith in a realist's world.

You have clearly misrepresented the thoughts of Einstein and Hawking to inject some credibility and strength into your senseless argument.

Actually I represented their thoughts accurately to show that they acknowledged limits that you're unwilling to acknowledge. They practiced the righteous skepticism of scientists, while you project evangelical Atheism.

Nope.

You don't even know what my belief system is, and yet you say, "Nope," proving that you have no inkling of what honest inquiry actually is.

Frankly, we couldn't care less about the "true nature of God".

That's a ridiculous claim. If you didn't care, you wouldn't try so hard to project your antipathy for faith. You care; you simply have no respect for it. Big difference. And your lack of respect is based on a desire to have only your own thoughts considered of value - a rejection of anything that shakes your absolutist world view.

However, I am not surprised, for one must be deluded to believe in such a being, especially if they believe such a being is supported or substantiated by science.

Being? What are you talking about? Oh right - you don't know what you're talking about - Again!

We've considered it

Bull.

and we've responded to the flaws and illogical propositions therein, showing that your perspective does not hold water.

"You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever."

Your idea of a creator

Creator? What are you talking about? Oh right - you don't know what you're talking about - Again!

to serve as an easy answer for things

Easy answer? What are you talking about? Oh right - you don't know what you're talking about - Again!

Lack of a belief in any type of supernatural being is a direct result of my other beliefs.

And remember, I agree with you about "supernatural beings". That's not relevant to our discussion.

You insist that there can only be two states

No I don't. If you cannot make your case without lying about mine, then that should tell you that your own case is faulty.

Who gives a crap? No proof means this whole conversation is really quite pointless. There is no God

So within three sentences you contradict yourself, since if it was truly "pointless" then there would be no point in taking a stand one way or another about God, specifically. Not giving a crap would prompt you to not address this issue at all, not make a black or white contention. At most, you would be prompted to make one of the middle states (which you foolishly claimed I don't recognize), i.e., (3) not taking a stand at all, and (4) not knowing.

Do people need to perform the same functions to be a non-believer?

Of course they do. Taking either of the two extreme positions - (1) There is a God; and (2) There is no God - involves those things you listed.

A key indicator of not being dogmatic is that you wouldn't actually take a stand against either of the two extreme groups - again, (1) There is a God; and (2) There is no God - living their lives according to their beliefs. Taking a stand belies your claim to any middle ground on the issue.

And remember, I agree with you about "supernatural beings". That's not relevant to our discussion.

Wrong. Any god or unsubstantiated being that is not supported in any way by human knowledge or by science is supernatural. Yes, therefore your god is supernatural.

As I wrote in the sentence you were replying to I gave the reasons earlier.

Correct, which we responded to, and refuted. Thus, you must come back with a response to our arguments, or make a new one. You can not continue to stand on a point or an argument that has already been responded to and refuted.

you aren't really interested in honest inquiry and consideration. As I alluded to far back up there in the thread, you make it very clear that you refuse to respect any thoughts that don't match your own exactly, that antithesis of honest inquiry.

Correct, I am not interested in inquiring about your personal belief system or whether you believe your god is supernatural or not. The only reason I am not interested in such inquiry is because it is irrelevant to the current discussion, and is of no consequence to the fact that refuting unsubstantiated and baseless propositions is not a belief system or faith. Wrong, I do respect other thoughts, however I do not respect thought that are illogical, irrational, or just plain silly. My father has raised me to have a very sensitive "Bull Sh*t O-Meter" so I have no patience for silly arguments or absurd claims. Nor am I interested if someone tells me that magnets can heal sickness or that cancer is caused by bad thoughts.

Other than that, there's not too much more to say. You have failed to contribute to this discussion with your barrage of snide comments and redundant nonsense. You try to label my actions or make silly claims about the root cause of my position, for example, "your lack of respect is based on a desire to have only your own thoughts considered of value". These comments are of little or no value to the discussion, thus I must conclude you have nothing more to say in support of your irrational viewpoint. Your position is simply your irrational belief, and must remain as such because it is unable to be logically or effectively supported.

Wrong.

What inane arrogance! I'm telling you that we do NOT disagree about the supernatural, but you are so far-gone into your indefensible dogma that you cannot accept that, and insist on disagreeing EVEN on things we agree about. That's so pitiful.

Yes, therefore your god is supernatural.

You're just digging yourself deeper into a pit of arrogant ignorance.

Correct, which we responded to, and refuted.

No you didn't refute it: You simply disagreed with it. Don't forget: "You can not simply state the opposite without supporting your claim in any way whatsoever." You stated your opposition but did not prove anything related to what I've actually said. And that goes back to your unwillingness, and now it is clear inability, to have a mature discussion about a non-supernatural God.

Correct, I am not interested in inquiring about your personal belief system or whether you believe your god is supernatural or not.

Indeed, you're apparently just interested in bullying your perspective to the loudest position in the dogmatosphere.

The only reason I am not interested in such inquiry is because it is irrelevant to the current discussion,

That much is true, so why was it brought up? I surely didn't bring it up, making it clear that I didn't even trust that the pro-Atheist elements in this thread would be able to traffic in a discussion about it honorably. So again: Why was it brought up? Seemingly to distract attention away from the vacuous claims that Atheism is not a belief system.

Wrong, I do respect other thoughts

Your comments in this thread have belied that assertion.

however I do not respect thought that are illogical, irrational, or just plain silly.

Determined by yourself, so effectively you don't respect anything other than your own thoughts. That's offensively arrogant in precisely the same way as evangelical Christians are in asserting their own thoughts are the only that are valid. Same-same. You've proven my point - AGAIN.

My father has raised me to have a very sensitive "Bull Sh*t O-Meter"

Your consideration of matters is anything but "sensitive". Your consideration of this issue in this thread has been cavalier and un-nuanced.

Other than that, there's not too much more to say.

I'm glad we can agree on at least one more thing.

I'm telling you that we do NOT disagree about the supernatural,

You are clearly misunderstanding the point I am trying to convey in this paragraph. You state that your god is not supernatural, however I am clarifying why it is supernatural no matter how you try to state otherwise.

You're just digging yourself deeper into a pit of arrogant ignorance.

I think not, and I care little about your insubstantial and puerile critique of my attitude. However, from your own insistence on these frivolous critiques, I feel that your selected adjective can be applied to you.

No you didn't refute it: You simply disagreed with it.

Nay, we refuted your points. For example, we refuted your quotes from the greatest intellectual minds, from Einstein and others. I also refuted your other points such as claiming that atheism requires belief or a belief system through methods including Reductio ad Absurdum. You have not stated or refuted why rejecting the existence of a llama on Pluto requires no belief system, while rejecting the existence of an equally unsubstantiated god requires one.

about a non-supernatural God

No such thing. However, feel free to convince me otherwise.

dogmatosphere

Interesting word. However, I engage in no such thing. Dogma is a word that is relevant to believers and the faithful, however.

That much is true, so why was it brought up? I surely didn't bring it up

You did bring it up. Perhaps your memory is failing you on this one, or you decided to neglect reviewing the comments above. However, you first insinuated that your god was not supernatural. This topic was introduced by you and no one else.

Determined by yourself, so effectively you don't respect anything other than your own thoughts.

Nay, determined by reason and logic. The propositions that can not be summarily dismissed by logic, and I am "undecided" about are the propositions I am willing to investigate further. That is precisely why it is merely a logical frame of mind, and not arrogant in any sense of the word. I would appreciate it if you would cease to make such vacuous appraisals of my constitution and inserting your uninformed and irrelevant opinion into this discussion.

Your consideration of matters is anything but "sensitive".

You are misunderstanding the way I am using the word "sensitive". By sensitive, I mean that my BS O-meter is finely tuned and ready to refute any illogical or irrational proposition that comes my way without undue hesitation.

I am currently on vacation, and have had a rather busy summer in preparation for my upcoming black belt test. Thus, I have taken far to long to respond to your previous comment.

I'm telling you that we do NOT disagree about the supernatural,

You are clearly misunderstanding the point I am trying to convey in this paragraph.

Thanks for crafting a perfect non-sequitur.

You state that your god is not supernatural, however I am clarifying why it is supernatural no matter how you try to state otherwise.

In other words, you're telling me what I think, and forcing your corrupted thoughts on me. Yup, you're advocacy is just like that of evangelical Christians. You clearly don't grant anyone other than yourself the right to speak for themselves, think for themselves, express the true nature of themselves for themselves.

Let's be very clear: You Are Wrong. I'm telling you that God is not supernatural. Precisely the opposite as a matter of fact. I disbelieve the supernatural more than you - I say "more" because evidently you have to have some belief in fairies to think that you have one iota of standing to tell anyone what their belief is.

Nay, we refuted your points.

No, you actually didn't. Your inanely self-involved diatribe above shows that you don't actually even try to refute these contentions but rather, just like evangelical Christians do, you simply declare your belief true and expect everyone to bend over and kowtow to your will - and then you call that refuting the points. How incredibly ridiculous.

For example, we refuted your quotes from the greatest intellectual minds, from Einstein and others.

No you didn't. They said what they said, and they lived their lived in accordance with the beliefs of theirs that I outlined for you. I suppose that you need to think that you refuted the points because otherwise your uber-dogmatic view of the world would be shattered.

I also refuted your other points such as claiming that atheism requires belief or a belief system through methods including Reductio ad Absurdum.

There was absurdity in the manner you tried to dodge the reality I presented to you, that Atheism is itself a belief system. However, even just in this one reply of yours you have demonstrated yourself just how much you are engaging in a belief system, and in your case, evidently a dogmatic one very similar to that of evangelical Christians. You want what you want to be the only truth, just because you want it to be. It's just sad to watch you try to defend your indefensible perspective.

You have not stated or refuted why rejecting the existence of a llama on Pluto requires no belief system

Yes I did, but because it discredits what you said you refuse to acknoweledge it.

No such thing.

You do realize that every time you repeat your domgma you prove yet-again how much your perspective is a belief system, and one that itself relies so heavily on dogma instead of truth and reality.

However, feel free to convince me otherwise.

You've shown absolutely no inclinations to learn about the world if it differs with what your belief system dictates.

However, I engage in no such thing. Dogma is a word that is relevant to believers and the faithful, however.

Which is what your comments have proven you to be... you are a believer in Atheism, and so much so that you refuse to acknowledge anything that would expose the falsehood that underlies your belief system.

You did bring it up.

No, I didn't. I mentioned that I didn't believe in supernatural beings, but I believe in God, to discredit your contention that God meant a supernatural being. I never brought up my own religion, and I told you why: Because you have demonstrated an unwillingness to discuss the thoughts of others with respect, due to your dogmatic belief system.

Nay, determined by reason and logic.

You simply declaring things you want to be taken as true isn't "reason and logic". It's self-serving dogmatic claptrap.

The propositions that can not be summarily dismissed by logic, and I am "undecided" about are the propositions I am willing to investigate further.

You have shown not one iota of receptiveness to investigate anything in this realm further. You have demonstrated a dogmatic perspective with regard to these matters.

That is precisely why it is merely a logical frame of mind, and not arrogant in any sense of the word.

Telling me that I believe in the supernatural when I have told you explicitly that I do not is the ultimate demonstration of arrogance.

I would appreciate it if you would cease to make such vacuous appraisals of my constitution and inserting your uninformed and irrelevant opinion into this discussion.

Turn over a new leaf and demonstrate a truly open mind on the matter and I'll recognize that and acknowledge it. I call things as they are and so as long as you traffic in the dogma of your belief system, I cannot refer to it in any other way.

By sensitive, I mean that my BS O-meter is finely tuned

Except you're not detecting BS - you're detecting anything that rattles your dogmatic belief system and labeling that BS because you are doggedly trying to defend your perspective without regard to the reality of the situation.

No one else is interested in this discussion any longer. All that's happening now is you trying to tell me what I think and me telling you that you are wrong in your characterization of my beliefs. How much longer do you want to engage in such a pointless back-and-forth?

Wow... Just read a couple of week's worth of comments between you two guys. I've never seen so much said with so little information conveyed. That's quite the mental/word masturbation daisy chain you guys are playing at.

You fellas need a tissue or two?

Hey mates. Well, I have some news for you guys. I have quite a difficult time trying to type currently, for reasons I shall outline. Approximately 2 weeks ago, I was quite foolish and attempted to jump over a railing on a deck.. I hit my knee on the way up, causing me to fall about 7 or 8 feet to the ground directly on my shoulder.. I don't know why I did it, but there was a girl there and my cousins, and I was also interested to see how high I could jump. Well, I completely separated my AC and several ligaments in my shoulder. Got surgery a couple days ago, and I have to wear an immobilizer for 6 weeks.

Anjisan, I must say I agree with you completely. This discussion thread has degraded into a senseless and pointless exercise in name-calling.

Walt, you have failed to present anything of substance and any valid points in nearly all of your last comments. These comments are of little or no value to the discussion, thus I must conclude you have nothing more to say in support of your irrational viewpoint. Your position is simply your irrational belief, and must remain as such because it is unable to be logically or effectively supported.

I am not surprised this is how your comments have devolved to. The bare fact of the matter is that it is irrational to claim that a scientific point of view is dogmatic. Such a claim is directly contradictory, and can not be substantiated. For this reason, you are unable to add anymore to this discussion, and must resort to vacuous claims, and appraisals of my constitution. It requires no faith, dogma, belief, or belief system of any kind to scientifically and logically reject the existence of everything that does not exist, and everything that lacks any substantiation or evidence to its existence whatsoever. You have failed to present any fact or logical argument that refutes this truth.

With that said, I see no reason to continue this pointless back and forth. You have strayed from the topic, and presented points and statements that are completely irrelevant to the topic. So, yes, I feel this discussion can be closed. You clearly have showed that you are unwilling to discuss the actual topic of this discussion without straying to some irrelevant and unsubstantiated observation of your own. I feel this discussion has sufficiently displayed the extent of your arguments on this matter, and there is no point in pursuing any further topics. Thank you for engaging me in this debate, and I hope your viewpoints have been expanded and clarified through this exchange.

More self-serving drivel. It doesn't even warrant any more substantive reply than that.

Indeed.

I think it is a little humorous considering Jesus preach tolerance.

Yes, you read that right. Tolerance will destroy the Church.

And it is true, if only because most churches are built on a foundation of hatred, fear, and blind devotion... all things needed by those in power to control the masses.

People don't go to church because of Faith or out of a desire to do good things for others. They go to Church because they fear being cast into their religion's version of Hell. They go to Church only because the church offers a reward for doing it.

Once people realize they don't need to go to Church to be a good person and maintain their personal faith, they stop going.

Once people realize they don't need to go to Church to be a good person and maintain their personal faith, they stop going.

Stephen: That is a very good way to look at it, but for the wrong reasons. The real christians will continue to go to church, but the others will fall away. Why? Because their belief in God wasn't real. They only wanted what would give them pleasure. They wanted to be able to do their own thing and still think they are following God. It is the lie.

And those preachers are no better. Why? Because those preachers built their house on a false gospel. In other words," their house is built on sinking sand". Their foundations are worthless. (Mathew 7:24-27)

²⁴ “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. ²⁵ The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. ( gospel of Jesus) ²⁶ But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. ( gospel of liberals) ²⁷ The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

Ironic isn't it that to promote their intolerance christians ignore the words of their Lord and Saviour but quote the words of "God". Talk about a fundamental contradiction. People choose to ignore the "Son of God's" teachings but resort instead to what was apparently said by God to lesser beings.

Fundamentalists seem to believe the lesser beings' claim of what God wants and said rather than their Christ's. Talk about false idols.

We can do it wrote:

"Did I read this right? Some are afraid that tolerance will destroy the church?"

Yes, that's exactly what they are afraid of. There has always been a tension between the Christian wanting to reach out to new persons but not wanting to include those who are different from themselves. The ancient Jews of Jesus' time had that tension in their religion hence the story of the Good Samaritan. As the pastor of several churches I've often seen those churches want to find ways to bring in new people but then get upset when those intentional efforts result in the influx of persons of differring economic or social backgrounds, different racial or ethnic histories, or cultural differences (boomers vs millenials). I've even had members say about new persons, "Wouldn't they be more happy going to a church more suited for them," which interpreted meant, "Wouldn't we like it better if they didn't come here."

I believe those were the words of Christ.

And even Christ confirmed the teachings of the Scriptures( those given by" lesser beings"). Really, I don't know where you get your logic from.

"I still believe there is a broad and silent middle [within the Episcopal Church], I just don't know what it would take for them to stand up with moral courage and say, 'We don't believe this,'" Bishop Lawrence said.

I believe there are MANY reasons for Church decline, with the gay marriage/equality being only one. Having said that, I think Bishop Lawrence hit the nail on the head. There are MANY of us in the middle on that issue. I don't HATE gays but I do believe it's a sin, and I'm just not sure what to do about it. It seems like there are only two ways to be, either all pro-gay marriage or Fred Phelps, and I'm really neither. Interestingly, most Mainline Protestant Churches also believe divorce is a sin, condemned by Jesus himself; yet most will accommodate divorced people, and even hold ceremonies for those that re-marry. I don't know why Churches can't do that with gays -- and believe me, I'm NOT a liberal!

Intolerance, fear, coercion, peer pressure, bigotry, misinformation, egoism, exclusiveness..... these are the foundations, the supports, the bricks and the mortar of organized religion.

Love, that's just a poorly written sign they slap on the door every Sunday to make themselves feel better about the house that they enter.

Not tolerance but straying away for God's Word to please society. God's word is never changes and those who make it change will answer for it in the end. Sad but true.

Andrew....right on! There are many ironies in religion and many self contradictions. Fundamentalist cannot simply wrap their brain around a Paul of the N.T. who in the letter to the Romans praises women, even calls one a great teacher and "Apostle," yet in letter to Timothy, contradicts himself by admonishing women to be quiet and submissive. These are people who make ancient writings an idol. I call it Bibliolotry! Making an idol out of human made documents! That, in itself, is a contradiction to their supposed beliefs. They parrot the bible and say the bible is true because the bible says so! It is a circular argument that has no room for intelligent and rational conversation.

God's word is never changes

It doesn't?

God's word was used for centuries to justify slavery... do you have a problem with those that strayed from God's word there?

God's word was used to justify segregation and bans on interracial marriage... are you upset people have strayed from those teachings?

God's word didn't mention 7 deadly sins, transubstantiation, the rapture, demons, levels of hell, Christmas, Easter, Halloween, the trinity.... what about those?

God's word is what men make of it, because it was made by men.

Stephen/Unhappy

I just don't think we should define people in such absolutes. Not everyone goes or stops going to church for the same reason, to include the ones you listed.

Stephen- I certainly don't go to church out of fear and I don't know anyone that does. I'm sure it is like that for some people, but lets acknowledge it isn't like that for everyone.

Unhappy - people can go to church religiously but that doesn't mean they are real christians. Someone could go to church every day of their life and still not "make it thru the gate."

I certainly don't go as often as I probably should and sometimes I do feel guilty, but it is not out of fear or some other fanatical ideal that the anti-religious imagine, it is more like how I feel guilty if I skip a workout - I know what's good for me. A pastor at one of my favorite churches once said, "if you're not going to church because you don't need any blessings, go anyway and be a blessing to others." Good advice.

Shuklack - you got it. So clearly the problem isn't God, it is Man.

No Brad, you are definetly not the scholar when it comes to the bible. The reason why Paul told the women to be quiet is because they did not have the biblical background when it came to asking questions. Those questions a child who would have studied, would know.

Before Christ, women were not taught the scriptures. After Christ, they were, so their education was behind.

So save your lies for someone else.

Jesus loves us all, but He doesn't condone all of our actions. He doesn't approve of gay marraige or homesexuality, as well as all other sins. It's one thing to say we should be loving to all people, quite another to say we should accept/approve of immoral behavior as defined by Jesus. Big difference.

Bigots begat bigots...LOL.

Pointing out facts about religious doctrine that encourages intolerance and bigotry is not bigotry itself.

That sort of logic would be like calling someone a bigot for being intolerant of Nazis. It's just transparently stupid.





He doesn't approve of gay marraige or homesexuality, as well as all other sins.

I didn't know Jesus told you about this.... you didn't happen to write down his exact words, did you?



The reason why Paul told the women to be quiet is because they did not have the biblical background when it came to asking questions.

Got a source for this total speculation based on a rather ambiguous assertion?

@Shuklack - Old Testament and New Testament. You're referencing OT stuff that Jesus abolished when introduced the NT. God's word never changed. He did create a new agreement though between man and Him.

@Shuklack - It's in the bible. I'm only referring to what Jesus said Himself. Matthew 19:1-8

It's in the bible. I'm only referring to what Jesus said Himself.

Chapter and verse please showing that "He doesn't approve of gay marraige or homesexuality, as well as all other sins."

If you take out of context and quote the verse on divorce, you do realize that doing such is dishonest and deceptive.... right?

Shuklack - The bible is full of references to Jesus disapproving of sin. He regularly instructed His followers to repent and turn away from sin. In His Sermon on the Mount, he spoke of those engaging in fornication, adultery, lust... etc I already included Matthew 19:1-8 as a reference to what Jesus defined as marraige, between man and woman. Do you have any verses to show me that Jesus did approve of sin? That he approved of homosexuality?

Keep in mind, I believe Jesus taught to love all people. I'm not hating on anyone, just saying there's a big difference between accepting someone for who they are and loving them... compared to saying "it's ok" to be gay. We are supposed to turn away from all sins, and that includes being gay.

Ironic you would suggest I'm taking something out of context... you asked for a chapter and verse, I gave one to you. If you think that's out of context, then I suggest you read the entire book of Matthew, His words will still be the same.

Eph, that verse in Matthew is in reference to divorce - and how once a child is born (two becoming one flesh) divorce was spiritually impossible. I mean seriously, right before that passage a disciple asks him about divorce.... why leave that part out?

Why do apologists feel the need to routinely take things out of context? Even after i warn them ahead of time I'm onto their ruse.





he spoke of those engaging in fornication, adultery, lust...

But not of marriage. If anything, gay marriage would mitigate such sins as adultery, lust, promiscuity....

Driving homosexuality underground and refusing them an institution which encourages monogamy and mutual respect is entirely counterproductive to what the aims of the church should be....

The verse has nothing to do with a "child"... care to explain how you reached that conclusion?

Please share your chapter/verses that show Jesus approved of sin and approved of homosexuality.

I'm not an apologist. I do see that you like to use namecalling and sarcasm when you don't like the truth someone shares.

Shuklack - In Matthew 5:31-32 he specifically talks about divorce and uses the words "wife". Yet another chapter/verse where Jesus made it clear that marriage is between husband and wife, man and woman.

Shuklack - Your comment about driving gays underground, well, that's not something I'm doing. I think churches should welcome gays with open arms, I sincerely do. However, once in the church the gays should be taught that what they're doing is wrong and they need to stop. The same goes for non-gays who are engaged in sinful acts like greed, arrogance, lust, lying, etc. All I'm saying is the church should not teach something unless Jesus taught it... Jesus did not approve of being gay. You can love someone but yet still not approve of their behaviors. Gays deserve to be treated with honor and respect just like anyone else. Gay is still wrong.

3Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" 4He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

"Two becoming one flesh" has long been accepted as meaning the creation of a child from the mother and father. It's an obvious allegory. It has been used historically to nullify marriages through the church when a child is not conceived, or to finalize a marriage between two houses.

Andrew, shuklack, and Brad

I see by your arguments that none of you are religous people because your comments show a lack of tolerance and understanding of religion.

Brad,

In your chosen example of the letters written by Paul, could not they have had segments taken out of context to show a contradiction? It is possible for a woman to be a great teacher, and apostle, and even a great leader yet be quiet and submissive. A person can be an effective and great leader yet be quiet and submissive, two examples I can think of in particular are Jesus Christ and Gandhi. Two others who were women are Mary Magdalene and Mother Teresa. So it is possible that context could have been the case. As to your comment on the bible, "They parrot the bible and say the bible is true because the bible says so! It is a circular argument that has no room for intelligent and rational conversation, ' I'll offer this for rational and intelligent conversation. The teachings of the bible have stood for over 2000 years, the Three main religions in the world, Muslims, Christians, and Jews actually share the same bible although they are expressed as different view points of the same time frames and histories. In fact, the differences are explained as just that, differing view points of a pair of brothers, one which continued the tribal Jewish beliefs that eventually gave rise to Christianity and the other which over time morphed into what the Muslims now believe. If you study the Bible, Koran, and the Torah you will find many of the same stories, time frames, and names. Where the differences come in are in the emphasis of the main players and the ideologies expressed. In a broader view you could also say that some of the ideologies reflect the regional beliefs of the people at the time. The Koran and the Torah confined to different areas in the middle east and the Christian Bible with it's heavy European influences. The point of all this is to say that if it has stood relatively unchanged for 2000 years, it must have some basis in fact and given that science has found tons of evidence to support all three of these texts, they must be based in truth. Beliefs differ from Man to Man and Woman to Woman, it varies in its strength and calling, that is why it is called faith!

Shuklack,

Just because an individual, or a group believes differently from you or anyone else does not make them intolerant. I believe that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, and a sin against God and Nature, that doesn't mean that I hate Gays or Lesbians, I have friends that are both and I hold them no ill will. it is their choice! I do not fear their choice, for it is not I that will have to defend it at the time of judgement. I and the great majority of the people I associate with are not coerced into our beliefs and believe me there is a wide range of beliefs to choose from in our group. And for the most part there is very little bigotry in the group as well because we generally tend to associate with people of like mind and attitude. That said, I judge people by who they are and how they act in regard to myself and others, not on what they do with their sex lives or how they happen to vote politically, nor the color of their skin or their ancestry or their religion! Yet I am a Catholic, born, baptized, and raised in the Catholic church! While I will allow that some of what you say does exist, I have yet to see it or experience it in the Church.

Shuklack - "two becoming one flesh" has nothing to do with a child. It's about the man and woman, once in marriage, they are united as one flesh. In fact, there is scripture saying that a husband will be saved due to the wife's salvation and vice-versa. I'm sorry, but someone has misled you on the true meaning of "one flesh". I've never heard anyone in my entire life suggest it has to do with a child and if you read the verse, what precedes it, what comes after it... it has nothing to do with a child.

Just because an individual, or a group believes differently from you or anyone else does not make them intolerant

Sure, unless their different belief is a bigoted one.

I believe that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, and a sin against God and Nature, that doesn't mean that I hate Gays or Lesbians,

I believe being black is wrong, unnatural, and a sin against God and Nature, that doesn't mean that I hate black people.

See how stupid that sounds now? Hate the skin not the skinned....

I judge people by who they are and how they act in regard to myself and others, not on what they do with their sex lives or how they happen to vote politically, nor the color of their skin or their ancestry or their religion!

Except you've already above stated you judge them as wrong, sinful, and a crime against nature. Homosexuality is a part of them, just like heterosexuality is a part of you. You can't identify yourself as anything else. Your sexual orientation is a major part of what makes you.... you. It can't be changed. You are what God made you to be.

This whole hate the sin, not the sinner line of nonsense is tiresome.

Yaknow, the inquisitors hated the sin and loved the sinners - and showed their love by torturing the sin out of them. That kind of backwards mentality is really a special quality found only in dogmatic religion.



It's about the man and woman, once in marriage, they are united as one flesh.

Dude, the allegory is obvious - it's been obvious to Biblical scholars, priests, popes, historians, kings, queens, laymen.... for Centuries. This isn't something I just made up off the top of my head.

What do you think "becoming one flesh" means?

@arch-angel - Sad to say, but I've seen bigotry in the church, quite a bit honestly. I'm thankful you haven't seen it in your church, but I would consider your church the exception. Genuine Christians should not be bigots and treat gays wrongly, they should treat the same as anyone else. Sadly, the majority of Chrisitans are not genuine, either by choice or lack of understand to what Jesus taught.

Shuklack - It must be a Catholic thing, your reference to a child and one flesh. I've never heard that line of reasoning in my entire life. In fact, I've been taught my multiple pastors that it has to do with the uniting of the man and woman - nothing to do with a child! I can read those scriptures a million times and never be convinced it has anything to do with a child. Honestly, that makes no sense at all. I wonder if the people who are saying it's about a child were simply motivated by the need for a divorce or something else man made. That's not the truth. It's not about a child at all.

. Honestly, that makes no sense at all.

If that painfully clear allegory doesn't make sense - the Bible must be incredibly difficult for you to read and comprehend. It's filled with it. Half the stuff you must be well studied in history of the region to even understand what they are referencing.

2 become 1 flesh. Marriage leads to 2 people, mother and father, creating 1 person... a child. A child is the combination of the mother and father. Even ancient people understood this. What Jesus was saying is that in the eyes of God that there is no 'turning back' once the two flesh become one... that forever the two are tied (quite literally)..

How much more direct can it get? Obviously it does not mean the two people become literally one flesh by melting together or something, lol. It's clearly meant as a metaphor for something. What other, better, explanation is there?

@arch-angel, I think you're stretching the truth when you say that Muslims, Jews and Christians share the same bible. How many of those three religions acknowledge that Jesus is Son of God, Jesus was born of a virgin birth, that Jesus died and was raised from the dead, that Jesus is the only way. From what I understand, Muslims and Jews don't subscribe to those teachings at all. Even amongst "Christians" there are different bibles... doesn't the Catholic church contains books in their bibles that aren't contained in Protestant bibles?

Shaklack - why do you resort to attacking my comprehension abilities because we disagree? Given your logic, isn't it possible you're having comprehension problems? I'm not suggesting you can't comprehend, but using your logic if someone sees something differently than another person, then one of those people has comprehension problems. That's not the way I think about things.

I stand by my belief it has nothing to do with a child. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I'm still waiting for your chapter/verse examples where Jesus approves of sin and approves of homosexuality.

why do you resort to attacking my comprehension abilities because we disagree?

Not attacking, just pointing out that basic allegories such as the one I cited are commonplace throughout the Bible, not to mention more difficult ones. The inability to make sense of what is and what has been a very well documented, discussed, and elaborated upon allegory in Biblical literature when it is clearly spelled out would be objectively indicative of a lack of comprehension regarding similar items in the Bible.

Given your logic, isn't it possible you're having comprehension problems?

It's possible. But, if you want to reference my logic as being faulty, please give an example why.

I stand by my belief it has nothing to do with a child.

That's fine. But you have made no case against it other than personal incredulity. I hope you are aware, that an 'argument from personal incredulity' is a defined logical fallacy.

I'm still waiting for your chapter/verse examples where Jesus approves of sin and approves of homosexuality

I've never said he approved of either. But a lack of approval does not mean disapproval. He didn't approve or mention cars - but does that mean cars are condemned? Of course, cars didn't exist during his time (and neither did the concept of homosexuality, and especially not homosexual marriage).

Argumentum ad ignoratum, arguing that because we don't know if he did or did not approve - that means he did (or did not) approve. It means, in reality, neither. He did not approve, nor did he disapprove. Meaning, that ultimately such moral considerations are not addressed by Jesus - thus making it irrelevant.

eph521

Religious scholars will tell you that the Koran, Torah, and Christian bible are all very similar in composition, names, stories etc. The differences which drive the religions in different directions are on the emphasis of the main characters in each of them. The Jews and Muslims both acknowledge Christ, but as a prophet and holy man, where Christians believe he is the Son of God. There are differences to be sure, and most theorize that they stem mainly from ideology and geographical locations, but the similarities are startling. And I am talking about generalities not religious ideologies here. After all all three religions have the same basis, a pair of Jewish brothers that disagreed about Gods teachings.

Shucklack,

Disagreeing with a person's choice is not tantamount to hate as you would spin my comments. Each individual is free to do as they will, just because I believe they are wrong, does not mean that I hate them or intolerant of their life. I disagree with their choice that is all. I ask you this, how is disagreeing with anyone show bigotry? I think you need to look up the definition of Bigot! If you persecute the person, or slander them because you disagree with their choice then yes you are a bigot, but if you treat them with the respect due another human being than it is simple disagreement. As for tolerance issues, why are you so instant, so intolerant of anyone who is in disagreement with your point of view? Is it because I said that I believed you were not religious and that you did not take the time to understand? If it was than you proved my point for me, if I was wrong and you are religious, your pointing out your own failings for not observing the tolerance you wish religion to have!

Whether or not homosexual behavior is learned or biological is not an issue, all must answer for their own lives. It is up to God to judge not me. My beliefs are based on what I have learned and observed and yes what I choose to believe, are you now trying to tell me what I should believe? There is that nasty intolerance you spoke of again rearing its ugly head! My point is that because I disagree or anyone that chooses to disagree, doesn't necessarily make us intolerant or bigots. It means we have different opinions and it is how we act on those opinions that indicates whether or not we are bigots. The world is not clear cut nor black and white, it is full of many colors and infinite shades of grey. There is room for more than just one opinion or perspective and accepting that is tolerance!

Disagreeing with a person's choice is not tantamount to hate as you would spin my comments.

Correct. Only acting on that disagreement to the disadvantage of that other person would constitute hate.

I think you need to look up the definition of Bigot!

A bigot is one who is obstinately and intolerantly devoted to one's own opinions and values.

Obstinance is a stubborn and irrational mindset, mixed with intolerance - it creates bigotry.

When a person's value system demands no gay marriage, yet they are unable to quantify that value system with any sort of rational reasoning. It is, essentially - irrational intolerance, aka bigotry.

For example, it's possible to rationalize a value system against pedophelia, murder, or other things which infringe upon the rights of other people. The infringement, alone, is enough to rationalize a requirement to not be tolerant of such things. It's perfectly reasonable to be intolerant of certain things - like murder, pedophelia, bigotry, cheating, etc.

Being against gay marriage on the other hand, is woefully lacking a rationalized requirement for intolerance against it. The absence of which indicates, quite loudly, that it's based in bigotry - not reason. The fact that it's religion based, does not make it less bigoted - it only makes it religious bigotry. Even religious concepts require rational reasons to justify their application upon those who do not belong to that particular religious doctrine.

I

Again, disagreement by choice and fighting against something are two different things. If and when the law says that it is ok for gays and lesbians to marry, I will still honor the law though I may not agree with its intent. Though I choose to believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, does not mean that I am right! The arguments your using are purely based on semantics of language. You feel it is necessary to argue that I am a bigot or intolerant because I do not share your view point, who is showing bigotry or intolerance you or I? I accept your view point as an opinion it is you who seem unable to accept mine.

No arch, I'm not arguing that you are a bigot or intolerant because you do not share my point of view.

I was arguing that supporting and advocating in favor of legislation which would ban gay marriage would make you a bigot, and that bigoted opinions make one a bigot. I was under the impression that is what you support. If not, I apologize.

I hope you people on here do realize that Jesus was made up by man, and man wrote the bible. Your invisible man in the sky didn't say squat.

Wake up and smell the bs you are fed and feeding to one another thru organized religion.

We Can Do It,

The search for hard and fast rules in the guise of doctrine is not new. Since at least the time of the Pharoahs, man has sought the formula for a happy afterlife. The ancient Egyptians believed that this was a combination of living a honorable life and following a proscribed initiation into the afterlife, thus the Book of the Dead and the tomb paintings representing that process to the dead.

Today, many people of all ages want a simple do-don't list for salvation. These lists offer many self-assurance, but are seldom actually founded in Scripture, but in current societal norms. Primarily seen in the Evangelical churches and portions of the Roman Catholic church, the preaching of anti-gay and women's subjection are representative of bygone eras. The same kind of bygone eras that preached that slavery was a tool to redeem the black heathen. One wonders how much conversion to Christianity took place at the end of a whip, on the auction block as families were broken, or at the end of a 100lb bag of cotton.

But none the less, these proscribed lists will be presented as the only means of salvation. Fostering groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, or Ted Haggard's church. And when a Haggard falls short of his own list, other evangelicals will huddle around him, pray, and then declare him clean and ready to preach the same list again. Even the Roman Church is now retrenching from positions that have been in place for the past 30 years.

The answer is education, not only in simple reading, but in philosophy - the study of thought. We need to teach not only to read, but to read with a discerning heart - a basic tenet of Episcopal faith.

Eph521,

You will not find Christ affirm or condemn homosexuality, or any sexuality, as no such references exist in the Gospels. I believe that this is due to His, and his Father's disregard for our sexual behavior.

Christ had one, and only one message, Love God and Love thy neighbor. When one loves another, they are concerned with the feelings, cares and needs of that person. Likewise, loving God means frequent prayer, thanksgiving, and sacrifice in a way that brings the Lord to others. Grand churches, great rites and rituals, impassioned sermons reflect glory to God only when they include people outside "the club". Preaching to the choir only puts the faithful to sleep. A sign in our church office reads "We do not lose sheep by sheparding, but when a sheep wanders off on its own."

Unhappy-1583758: And even Christ confirmed the teachings of the Scriptures( those given by" lesser beings"). Really, I don't know where you get your logic from.

Apparently, you get yours from one book only: they BuyBull, an unprovable, mythical cult book. And you've picked the anger and hatred out of that book to live by. Congratulations.

For every person who follows that goddam book, you have a different interpretation. There are over a thousand different denominations in the christian cult who follow it, and each one worships and believes differently. Of course, you feel that YOURS is the only way, the only correct interpretation. Well, go have a jacket made, "unhappy" -- because every other lowlife BuyBull thumper thinks exactly the same thing. "I'm right, y'all are wrong!! Eat it!"

Whatever... you're all full of crap, and all you care about is trying to prove that your cult-god hates all the same people you do.

Bernitch: Apparently your hate shows throughout your post about what a miserable life you have. No wonder you have to spew venom on people who think they know better than you.

Jealousy doesn't become you.

Your life is so full of crap and you want everyone to be like you. If that is the case, then why argue on this site? It's obvious that no matter what I say, you will never recognize the different life you could have if you followed Christ.

I feel bad for you.

Shuklack, Holy Sh*t man! (Pun intended.) I see you on these forums CONSTANTLY arguing with everyone. Why don't you turn off the computer and get a real life. Why do you care so much if someone (especially some disembodied words on a computer screen) are intolerant in their private, personal, religious beliefs? Why have you chosen to make it your holy war to rid the world of intolerance, especially by expressing similar intolerant, bigoted attitudes yourself? Are you contemplating changing teams or becoming a "catcher" and that's why it bothers you so much? Catch your breath, man, go get a beer and relax. Leave the bigots to themselves and associate with bigots who feel the same as you do, and maybe you'll feel better.

FACT is, we should all have freedom of association in this country to gather with people of like mind. Disagreeing with homosexual sex isn't illegal, shouldn't be illegal, and not wanting to associate with them shouldn't be a crime. When someone does something like assault, housing discrimination, job discrimination, or any other statutory crimes against them, then prosecute them. But QUIT trying to legislate people's thoughts.

I can't wait for the day that some heterosexual "christian" sues some nuevo-intellectual, atheistic, science-is-infallible rainbow coalition group of some kind and demands that their hetero "christian" lifestyle be totally accepted, never criticized, equally recognized as a legitimate and emotionally fulfilling lifestyle, openly promoted at every forum, and if you disagree with heterosexual "christian" lifestyles you're just bigoted and there's no room for your opinion. I predict you'd be the first to cry about losing your freedom of association.

Just my opinion. Now, flame away. I don't argue with people on the internet. It never solves anything, never changes anyone's minds, and never ends. It is fruitless. I do so love the comic relief, though, which is why I keep coming back to this forum.

One other thing... for the "christians" here, remember what was said about pearls and swine? You should obey that one, too. Arguing your faith demeans you and your faith.

I don't know, I kind of liked reading this debate. I think shuklack is manifestly wrong, but those are his opinions. I particularly liked his claim that everyone knows that when two flesh join to make one it can only mean a child, yet I find nothing to really back up his claim, and everything to back up the opposite claim, that man and wife become one because they choose to be one, not because they have a child.

Anyhow, I suppose that as an atheist I should leave this debate, but there is something about the story that began it worth considering. I'm not sure any of these religious "leaders" within the so-called mainline denominations have any training in economics, but it should still be a fairly easy thing to comprehend that if fewer people are coming in your door that what you are offering isn't what they want. So what do they do? Double down. So, yes, liberal Christianity IS a non-sequiter and will over time fail.

Why would anyone want to belong to a church, save the simple fellowship aspects of it, if there is virtually no behavior which it can condemn? Does the bible specifically say one guy can't hose another guy? No, not exactly, but several versus come close. Still, shuklack says something of value, though I am sure he didn't intend for it to be taken this way, when he continues his argument about Matthew and marriage, and points out that marriage, said Jesus, is between a man and a woman.

He could have said between two adults. Or between any number of unrelated adults. Or between a man and a woman if the only purpose is for making babies. But he, Jesus that is, didn't, he instead said marriage is between a man and a woman, and is a union created by God Himself. Certainly any marriage between any partners other than a man and a woman then isn't a union created by God, and so it can't have the same status as one of a man and woman.

Which, of course, means nothing as to whether or not a secular state government should allow homosexual marriage. But that wasn't what the underlying article was about. It is about liberal Christianity killing itself. And in this one small, but important, example we see why. Logic and reason have been replaced by emotion. If you want homosexual to be sanctioned within your church, fine by me. But when you pretend that God or Jesus is down with it, you are just mentally masturbating.

hgh -- your personal childhood stories are uninteresting.

...as you and your ilk are also uninteresting, Bernitch. Seriously, why do you not do something with your uninteresting life and get a woman or, better yet, play in traffic? I have seven words to say to each and every one of you that are in here and those words are "All your base are belong to us."

The point behind faith is that what you believe is to be a rock or anchor as times, attitudes, and society spins around you. There will always be Faith and for that matter there will always be Christianity regardless of whatever name is placed upon it by society.

@archangel 3:16

"There will always be Faith ..."

Tell that to the priests of Ra, or worshippers of Odin. Christianity is dying, and not fast enough although I am glad I lived in a time to see it.

It's time humans stop following imaginary rules from imaginary beings written by people two steps from being cavemen.

I find it amazing that people today can even be so gullible as to believe this utter nonsense. If you want to understand where I am coming from, go watch a video of another religion you do not prescribe to and see if it makes sense to you.

Yours is no different.

Ghost,

Yet isn't it interesting that while no longer believing, we continue the study of Ra and Odin and the societies associated with them. Perhaps because we know that, in part, those societies are where we came from.

Falling away from church, and then returning are very age-related things. Most teenagers and those in their twenties and thirties question the same mythology to which you allude. But generally when they have children, or reach an age where they have questions that only faith can answer they return. Not neccessarily to the faith of their parents, but that which best meets their needs and beliefs.

Regarding watching other faith paths or religions, I find little ritual or contextual difference between various religions, just their focus. They all share a sense of power greater than man's reach, an inherent ethos in creation, and an embodiment of that power and ethos. As Christ said, "There are many mansions in my Father's house."

Bill - I have to disagree. As people get older and hopefully wiser we get more comfortable with the idea that there are questions we don't have answers for and that is okay. A return to church often seems to be related to a desire to interact with more people, expand the social circle as it were, and find some inner peace. Some people do this in association with a church and some people do other things like meditate. Returning to a religion also seems to be related to a real awareness of our impending death - because people may need that mythology to cope with fear.

Most older people I know who "come back" to the "faith" do so because they are afraid of death. That "question they can't answer" ALWAYS revolves around death and the after life. Young people don't think they can die so they don't worry about it. When you get older, when your gears don't turn like they used to, you start to realize you really are mortal. Then boom, back to church you go.

Which is a shame, because as that FEAR of death increases, so does the willingness to adhere to whatever the preacher tells them. If they tell them homosexuality is evil, then whaddya know? We got lots of old people running around telling us we're evil.

I'm transgender myself. I'm facing down homelessness. I won't be using the church's services though. They don't let you in unless they can proselytize to you while you're there.

From my experience, a good number of older people look forward to death, and though I can't prove it, sort of will themselves to die. You see this in people who are in nursing homes and realize that they can never return to their old address, and open their own refrigerator. You see this in couples who have been together for decades. One passes away, and the other for no apparent illness, passes away too within hours. There are people who go out on golf courses, or national parks and commit suicide, or "kind of suicide" where they know they will get into difficulty too far from the help needed to resuscitate them.

They have come to terms with what they were going to accomplish in life, or do with or for their children and friends and communities. Many of them are just plain bored with the Jello salad they feed every Thursday night at the nursing care unit, and the roommate who was once a cosmetic salesperson who tells the same lipstick story over and over. Why in the hell go visit with Jesus and lipstick sales lady for eternity? What's wrong with just turning out the lights.

There are a multitude of reasons for living a productive life without religion and without the " faith BS ". Have you ever met someone who just liked going to work because they liked their job, and felt personally accomplished for doing it well? People who are proud of their tomatoes, or their hunting dog, or their sewing, or their apple pie? They gather to talk tomatoes, or about puppies, or cloth, or half green fruit. That's not in the Bible, the story of Jesus teaching a labrador puppy to swim. Some people just don't get a gold medallion and a throne. Some people with gold medallions on thrones never got to hunt with one damn fine dog, either.

A return to church often seems to be related to a desire to interact with more people, expand the social circle as it were, and find some inner peace.

And for those people NOT interested in mindless, brainwashing nonsense, they join a Bowling League instead.

Bitter, Bitter, Bitter.

Poor Bernitch. Always angry. Life is full of crap. Doesn't have hope.

Pretty much sums up your way of thinking, doesn't it?

Cirnobyl, for one who preaches about tolerance, you sure can't live what you preach now, can you? That's okay because people who are stupid are usually the first ones to weed themselves out anyway. Thanks for adhering to the nightmarish policies of the Zero Growth Population movement which can be found in Georgia, USA, on the Georgia Guidestones.

Ghost

Tell that to the priests of Ra, or worshippers of Odin. Christianity is dying, and not fast enough although I am glad I lived in a time to see it.

It's time humans stop following imaginary rules from imaginary beings written by people two steps from being cavemen.

I find it amazing that people today can even be so gullible as to believe this utter nonsense. If you want to understand where I am coming from, go watch a video of another religion you do not prescribe to and see if it makes sense to you.

Yours is no different.

Each person's faith is different. Each has a different depth or trust in one's beliefs. You say Christianity is dying, but you as others in the past would be wrong. Over the last 2000 plus years, Christianity has diminished and then recovered again. People have a basic need for faith, whether it is in religion, government, themselves, or anything else they choose to cherish. There will always be faith! If it weren't for religion, most of the world would still be ignorant, because it was the religious that spread the quest for knowledge and brought missionary teachers to the world. It was the religious who were the scholars that studied while kings killed and raped their subjects. It was religious people who first sought to educate women so that they weren't merely slaves in a patriarchal world ruled only by strength and lust. It was organized religion that made it possible for Di Vinci, Galileo, and Newton along with many others to lay the ground work of modern science. While religions may not be perfect, they are after all a reflection of man's understanding of the teachings of God, and as such can be corrupted. However the basic tenants of religious beliefs always seem to resurface as the basis for morality, law, and domestic order.

Truthteller? Hm, I'm very tolerant of Christians. I don't LIKE them, but my I'd be insane to hate them. My mother was a devout baptist, and my closest aunt and best friend are also christian.

However, thanks for the wonderful serving of nihilistic cynicism. Good to see there are still people who just go around attacking other posters without offering anything useful to the conversation.

Yes, because we all know the Bible teaches to hate your fellow man, treat the poor like something to scrape off your shoe and never, ever forgive. We sure don't want those Liberals, like Jesus, not following the Father's word. Jesus said "What you do unto the least of my brethren you do unto me." So, when you spew your hate for others, you are are also spewing your hate of Jesus.

I'm also going out and buying some slaves. The bible says thats okay, too. Your argument is invalid.

they are receiving the approval of OUR (?) heavenly father: Sorry park-I do not recognize YOUR heavenly father (does not compute)-so please respect MY right to the God of MY understanding ( and it certainly isnt yours)

Yeah, it's much better for you and for so many churches that want to dictate not only what happens inside their churches, but what is allowed in cities, states, and the whole country. Sorry, but not everyone believes the same thing, even inside any one religion, so deciding laws should be passed according to what you, or one church full of believers, happen to believe just isn't okay.

You pick and choose what to practice out of the Bible...all Christians do, just as Muslims often practice some of what their book says and the same goes for every other religion. Humans aren't identicals who think identically, so this is all perspective and opinion. Personal religious beliefs don't define the group beliefs, so just keep them out of the legal realm and basically no one else will care as long as your practices don't harm others or break laws.

The bible is constructed of two sections, old testament and new testament. I love it how liberals only like to use the old testament to say christians pick and choose and then doesn't take into account the reason why we are called CHRISTIANS( New testament).

It is not the same with Islam or other religions, which shows your fallacy. Really you have to give a better argument than that.

Unhappy

But it Christians who are using arguments from the Old Testament to justify their stance against homosexuality. Simply give us one line in the New Testament where Jesus himself condems homosexuality. Just one.

Enma3-you and others who talk like you need to really study the Bible and find out what it means before you talk about it. You have no clue.

MDRN: Read Mathew 19:4-6.

In a nutshell, JESUS says God Created male and female; Jesus said Man must leave father and mother to be joined to wife, the two shall become one.

Now where does JESUS say that about male and male relationships or female and female relationships?

Don't have one? Then don't make up arguments from the bible that confirm your views.

Unhappy, taking a verse about divorce out of its proper context and erroneously applying it to fit your particular bigoted agenda is deceptive.... and, if you are a true believer, a sin.

Jesus would not approve of you quote-mining him.

Then look at the verse it originally came from which is the book of Genesis 1: 26-28 and Genesis 2:24

I know the verses. What's your point?

Refer to 2.19

Cwater-I'm fairly sure I have forgotten more about the Bible than you have ever learned. I had in beat into me from birth-literally, beat into me. You need to get a clue, read Leviticus that appears to be the favorite book of the right wing pseudo-Christians. The rules in Leviticus are pretty nasty, there is no one could or would follow all of them. Yet, the Religious right just love using Leviticus as justification of their hate. Since you call yourselves Christians, why would you continually quote from parts of the Bible written before his time? Ah, but the New Testament doesn't have much to justify hate, does it?

Ever read the New Testament? You know the parts where Jesus tells his disciples to get sell of all their personal possessions and give the money to the poor. The parts where Jesus talks of tolerance and love for your fellow man? Ooops! that's not about hate, so why would you read that? My bad!

Enma, let me jump in and enlighten you somehow in The Bible, because I think you and your "knowledge" don't make sense.

To try to explain the true meaning of The Bible, let me explain first what the military does with the new recruits and please don't get lost. The T.I.'s job is to teach the new recruits all that is expected, from then on, from them. They show you how to stand at ease, how to salute, how to address each other and superiors and once they, the T.I.s think that the recruit is or became a G.I., they go on their own to serve their country.

Something like that happens with The Bible. The old testament is like the learning process where you are shown how God expects His followers to behave and this fase is based, a la military basic training, mopre with shaping them to love God over every thing else. The first commandment says: "Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me." And to make sure His chosen people understood how much He meant it, he showed them that killing thousands to preserve His people from worshipping idols was not a big deal. God had to show them what He meant by "Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me."

Once his chosen people learned with times and tribulations, it came graduation time and that second stage, fase was given to Christ. God the unforgiven changed into Forgiver, but not w/o repentance. What I'm trying to explain is that the New Testament shows the world what the Son of God was sent to this world to teach and He went beyond words, He showed us what the new stage was supposed to be. Did the commandments change? No, ergo, homosexuality is, was and still is a sin. Sodom and Gomorrah didn't go away, they just took a more merciful way. I don't want the sinner to die, but to repent and live and by living God meant eternal life. I hope it helps!

I know the verses. What's your point?

Shulak: Jesus didn't say anything about bestiality or have sexual relationships with your brother or sister. Does that mean he is in favor of those too?

Don't put your own ideas into the gospel. How do we know its wrong? Read the scriptures. Jesus encouraged everyone to read them.

As for the verses in genesis, it shows he wasn't talking about divorce only.

I guess that means, if you are gay, you are SOL if you want to attend Christian churches?

Sounds like a big-tent religion to me. (sarc)

Nothing prevents you from attending church, just respect the tenets of faith. It is not the gay person that is condemned it is those rejoicing in sin that are. Every person who accepts Christ must also accept that fact that they are sinners. They should not boast about their sinful lifestyle. This is what this liberalization of the scriptures is attempting to do.

Thanks to the "loving" spirit of Christianity, my wonderful gay friend killed himself when his church told him he was not allowed to worship "their" god.

linda - The trouble with your argument is that the church doesn't keep its ideas within the walls of the church. It pushes them on gov't and those who do not practice it's religion! The only reason why gay marriage is not mainstream is because of religion. There is no non-religious argument for denying gays to marry. Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a civil right. When two straight people get married, they don't have to do it in a church. They can go to anyone who has been granted the right by the gov't to perform marriages. My husband is an ordained minister, licensed through the gov't and does not belong to any religion. He would gladly perform marriages on gay couples, because he is a loving, inclusive, kind man who realizes that a gay person can't choose to be straight any more than a straight person can choose to be gay. Sadly it is not legal (yet) in our state. Why?

I'm sorry for your loss, En, and it's too bad that "church" didn't appreciate what a wonderful person your friend was.

You rely on the bible too much. The parts of the bible that condemn homosexuality also condone slavery.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

Jesus said that to enter heaven one need to keep the commandments and follow his teachings.

"Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” " (Matthew 19:16-21)

@proudamericanvetran - agree completely. People on here are all mad because the "church" tells you what to believe when the opposite is true; a church is a gathering of people who believe certain tenants so they get together to discuss or worship together.

If you don't pbelieve the tenants, don't go - freedom of choice.

@Emma - sorry about your friend, but you are wrong. They told him that, according to their faith/beliefs, he was sinning and had to stop or find another place to worship.... That he was incapable of accepting that is his failing, not the curches.

I can't believe how many people are bashing the churches for being "haters bigots" etc. Do you have any idea how bigoted YOU sound!?!? Why do you care what I choose to believe?!? If you think I am gullible, foolish, whatever; why do you feel the need to spew hatred all over me? I don't go around calling YOU an idiot for FAILING to believe... please offer me the same curtesy...

Enma3. Frankly I don't believe your story. No Christian church would turn away someone who is gay. It is NOT the person that Christian teaching is against it is the sin that they are opposed to. It is no different than a straight person that commits adultery, or participates in promiscuous behaviour. We are all sinners in one way or another. We go to a church because we are sinners, not because we are perfect. Any church that would turn away a sinner is NOT a Christian church.

Christianity teaches repentance and forgiveness NOT hatred and intolerance. However any church that decides that it can just cherry pick the words of the Bible and decide to "accept" a sin as normal is also not a true Christian church. So for the Episcopal church to just decide to accept and condone any sexual union other than between one man and one woman, is contrary to Christian teaching. Most Bible reading Christians will no longer attend that church and rightly so.

No, Jenn, but the name-calling goes both ways. You said it...that the friend was unable to stop being gay was HIS FAILING and he was incapable of accepting that, not the church's fault. Interesting...you made a point, but not the one you thought. I personally don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to make your personal beliefs law, and frankly, if I were gay I wouldn't want to be part of most churches. Why go to a place where nastiness and exclusion are celebrated, and where Jesus wouldn't have been welcome?

Just Shaking - my brother in law is a preacher in TX. His oldest daughter is gay and had to move away from the area, because she was too damaging to her father's reputation. When his youngest son's hispanic girlfriend got pregnant, that was the last straw and my brother in law was asked to leave his church (and yes, both the fact that they were unmarried and that she was hispanic played a roll). He and my sister had to find a new congregation and move to a new city. Just because the church didn't approve of his children's lifestyles. Does this sound like what Jesus would have preached? Sounds a lot like hatred and intolerance to me.

Jenn, the problem is, these were "Christians", who are supposed to uphold the tenets that Jesus Christ laid down. Jesus specifically said to follow his teachings, and those of the Ten Commandments. Nothing more. and no where in any of his teachings did he say anything for or against homosexuality.

The Book of Leviticus is irrelevant to Christ's teachings, therefor any Christian who uses passages from Leviticus to justify their hatred is inherently not following the teachings of Christ.

Jesus specifically said to follow his teachings, and those of the Ten Commandments. Nothing more. and no where in any of his teachings did he say anything for or against homosexuality.

Stephen: No, but Christ did confirm the teachings of a relationship between a male and a female( Mathew 19:5).

Nothing more. So I guess this means your argument fails.

proudamericanveteran

They should not boast about their sinful lifestyle. This is what this liberalization of the scriptures is attempting to do.

Does this also apply to heterosexuals that boast about their sinful lifestyles?

Yup. There are all kinds of sexual sins, homosexuality is just one of them.

Sally Lu

On the contrary Sally, Marriage is a Religious concept, not a civil right. A union between two people is a civil right, choosing the partner you desire is a civil right, living your life the way you choose in accordance with governing laws is your civil right. But marriage is a religious concept of a union between man and woman. In our society, law rules, and laws are created by those chosen to represent us by majority consensus. In effect the will of the majority becomes the governing law of the land, unless it conflicts with the basic principles of law we all agreed to, our Constitution. When the majority of the nation is ready to except marriage as a civil right for gays and lesbians, than the law will end up reflecting that change, but right now the majority rules and the majority is not ready to grant same sex marriage as the law of the land. That aside, I do believe this is more a question for the individual states than on a federal level. Traditionally change for the nation has come as each region has decided for themselves which is the wisest course to follow.

ItsAboutTime,

Yes it most certainly does apply!

It's not just about getting up and dressing up, but you are right that it is the big deal it used to be.

What is going on with the Catholic church? I'm not Catholic, but the evangelical protestant churches are growing. Maybe the church you attend focuses in too much on the rituals rather than the relationship with Christ?

Church is not about dressing up and going to the building on Sunday mornings. It's about living your life (everyday) the way God spells it out in the Bible. Nothing less, nothing more. And if you will look in Romans, Timothy and Titus to name a few, there are scriptures condeming homosexuality and a host of other sexual sin (some us heterosexual people commit!!)

You can't twist the scriptures to support your lifestyle. You either believe what the Bible says or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

CWater, that's not what I was saying, and your nasty, that may be another reason why people stopped going to church. Unhappy it does focus on a relationship with Christ.

UnHappy,

What is going on in the Catholic Church is what has been going on for centuries. Some become apathetic of their faith, some loose faith when they lose focus on the message. Others are disgruntled over the handling of Pedophiles by the Church or by the fact that the Church refuses to budge on married priests or female priests. Henry the VIII had a problem with the Church when it refused to annul a marriage at his request. He left the Church and started the Anglican Church so he could follow the faith by his own rules. At the same time there are many returning to the Catholic Church and converting from protestant faiths to Catholicism. In the US we are much more liberal than in Europe or Central and South America this is due in part to our secular society and its influence.

There are a lot of reasons why people are leaving churches behind....

Some of those reasons are posting in this thread.

You can't twist the scriptures to support your lifestyle. You either believe what the Bible says or you don't.

It's more like, you either literally believe what the Bible says, or you use the brains God gave you to make up your own damn mind instead of spewing hateful rhetoric and trying to justify it.

I have talked to many people, and they said it's easier to just stay home and pray. Sarah, you are sooo right!At my church there are alot of older people, they love to get out and socialize. My daughter loves Sunday school. What I liked about our pastor is he said " It's ok to doubt weather there is anything after we die"It's a shame people use religion to be hateful, that's not what it's all about.

There is a tolerant, open mind....

Actually it's the other way around. Nobody should use religion to hate someone. Most christians do not hate gays, they hate what they do, much like a parent who dislikes a bad child.

The trouble is most gays won't be happy until everyone accepts their lifestyle as being normal and uses that justification to hate others.

It is very much like a criminal who hates the justice system, after the trial is over and is being punished. We all know that criminal is crazy for behaving in that way. While gays don't think of this as being as bad as a criminal, it is rather the same level of disgust that most people feel about their gay lifestyle. We all know gays could have a better life, but they still try to justify that one.

"Christ was a feared radical for goodness sake. He fought the power structure of the day demanding tolerance, care of the sick, poor, needy and outcast."

If he showed up on the doorstep of one of god-is-a-Republican, gun-totin', corporations-are-people and greed-is-good evangelical churches today talking like that today they wouldn't let him in the door.

It could be an opportunity, but it isn't seen as one very often. As hartvig pointed out, he wouldn't be allowed to be part of many churches now.

No Enna, I follow as best I can the Gospels, the hardest thing in this world is being a true Christian. Don't go to church anymore because of the hatred, and bigotry espoused by some of these "Real Evangelical" hucksters. If Jesus came today he'd be vilified as a one of those that doesn't believe the way "We" believe and hounded with verbal and physical attacks, evidenced by the current political climate. Jesus is not a Republican conservative.

I could not agree with AZLiberal more.

Also, as an Episcopalian, lapsed many years, I came "back to the fold" and have found it an answer to the decay we see around us - greed, avarice, stridency, hate, etc." Little did I ever see myself trying to go weekly, but I see this as a time from quiet reflection from the madness we live in.

Several of the things I like:

1. It is open and accepting - if you a Baptized in any sect, you are welcome to Communion.

2. It is not the Church of England which was an Established (state religion) - it changed its character when it came to America with the colonies. The people had enough of blind authority and therefore involved the laity in the decision-making process.

3. It is, for the most part, equal-opportunity. The Presiding Bishop is a woman (from NV and a pilot at that).

4. It is thoughtful - there are of course, many contradictions in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament that was written and multiplicity translated over 1000s of years. Essential to being an Episcopal is the process of "discernment" the thoughtful judging of what you see and here - it is not fed to you on a spoon. If you end up after a lesson with more questions than you started with, or see things in a new way, you understand why Jesus was a vexation to rabbis, money changers, etc.

5. It is loving. One thing that I find most what wonderful that I do not recall from years ago is "The Peace". It is a break in the liturgy that people lovingly greet others with "Peace".

6. It does not try to explain the Universe - what before the "Big Bang". Not for us to know but for God to know. And we know now with change. After all, to think that Earth revolved around the Sun was heresy.

If you need Fire and Brimstone, a direct commandments without question, casts of thousands, a besuited orator on a stage with Kleig lights ablaze, TV cameras on, and 800 lines open, the Episcopal Church is probably not for you.

Jesus did not condone sin of any kind. Do you let your children interpret your rules anyway they want to or do you enforce them as you laid them out? God's rules are exactly the same way. They are not open to interpretation.

ni dieu, ni maître

If there is a god, which is unlikely, he has not demonstrated himself to be worthy of my adherence.

Pick and choose? As most Christians do? Do you follow all the rules in Leviticus? Like not touching the skin of a pig? -oops! no football!, do you wear clothing made of more than one kind of thread?; do you cut your hair?; do you have perfect vision? No? --oops! can't approach the altar of God!;

Hey - drag your butt out of bed sometime at sunrise and look at what's in the clear sky - Mercury, Saturn, Tarus, etc. - and reconsider!!

Hey - drag your butt out of bed sometime at sunrise and look at what's in the clear sky - Mercury, Saturn, Tarus, etc. - and reconsider!!

i fail to see your point

Proud: Whose God and what teachings? Your God? The God of my understanding is not the same God of your understanding. The teachings of my God are not the same teachings of your God.......My percepetion of God and your perception of God are like night & day.....

Enma: You probably haven't read through all of Leviticus, but is only going by what others have said. CHRISTians are found in the NEW TESTAMENT. Get that! The old laws do not apply to us they way they would have if we didn't have Christ. It is people like you who fail to incorporate the new thinking of "being born again".

Your attitudes are very much like the Sadduccees whom Jesus spoke of, who only think of keeping the law(politics) and nothing else. We all know that Jesus didn't agree with the Saduccees either.

There is only one true God. However, people tend to make their own god and their own rules to fit their lives.

CWater- "There is only one true God."

Right. The Flying Spaghetti GOD! He is the ONE true god, and is capable of saving your soul and granting you eternal life in heaven. But, only if you have faith in his HOLINESS and devote yourself to worship. If you do not believe in him, he will condemn you to eternal torture in a boiling pot of spaghetti sauce. Sorry mate

CWater: "There is only one true God" LOL-let me guess.....that would be YOUR god- Right? Cause I can tell you right now your God and your beliefs are NOT my God and my beliefs-so I'm wrong-Right? Hey CWater-Do conservative christians ever take a fearless & moral inventory of themselves or are they afraid of that too?

So Unhappy if I should ignore the teachings of the Old Testament, as it is irrelevant, why do Christians use so much of it to justify their hate?

By the way, I've read it all, or had it read to me, over and over and over. And if one did not pay attention, whack! One learns real fast to pay attention. So, again, I've probably forgotten more than a lot of people ever knew.

Enma3: Christ referred to the teachings of the Old testament as a basis. While he did undo some of the laws of the old testament, there were others that he didn't touch. I wish you could tell the difference.

If you can't, then you really shouldn't speak on this site.

I rarely ever see a Christian refer to the OT (including Leviticus) to back up his beliefs. Leviticus is the basic tool of the nonbeliever to try to muddy the waters of Christianity. They all use the same scriptures and the same lame unBiblical arguments to justify their bigotry, which shows they have no understanding of the Bible they try to discredit. I can understand why Enma got whacked so much, he (or she) obviously didn't pay attention. And Shuklack is just clueless, spouting senseless ridiculous banalities. Magicman says the same thing everytime he posts, never anything new, like he has memorized his little anti-God spiel from a manual. Not a one of them has anything intelligent to say, just the same old worn out undefendable arguments. Oh, well, I guess it makes them feel so smart.

I don't have "beliefs" thats the point. People "believe" in the tooth fairy, santa claus and god... I accept reality and evidence, and there is no evidence for god. And why can't I share the truth with people?

And how funny you call me judgmental then say this:

What a hypocrit

Hypocrisy is saying one thing then doing another, I never said not to judge, judge away, I do.

You ever hear the phrase " an atheist says there's no God, but with their lives they prove that there is one"?

Think about that statement for a minute and get back to me.

You ever hear the phrase " an atheist says there's no God, but with their lives they prove that there is one"?

Nope, our life proves that we evolved and are still evolving...I know it doesn't make you all worm and fuzzy, but we live just like billions of other organism on this planet, there is nothing special about humans, sorry. But just like someone told you there was no santa, no tooth fairy and no easter bunny, someone had to tell you there is no god, life is harsh.

Hey Kayner! No one on this planet is more judgemental then the Bible Thumpers-

No evidence of God??? That is because you stop somewhere along the way and say "Oh a missing link, it is around here somewhere, give me a second I will find it". If you continue all the way to the begining you will find the answer. There is no begining because you have to start with something to get something. You know, the BIG BANG THEORY, tell me Einstein, what went BANG?

"Oh a missing link, it is around here somewhere, give me a second I will find it"

This is something I find amusing about thumpers...they have such a lack of understanding of reality, nature and science no wonder they don't accept it. There is no "missing link" evolution is an ongoing slow process, we are ALL transitional species...not understanding that isn't proof of god, its proof you're in over your head and don't understand the basics of evolution, nature, or science.

what went BANG?

Good question...two possibilities, 1) we don't really know yet, or 2) god did it. But then what created god?

This is something I find amusing about thumpers...they have such a lack of understanding of reality, nature and science no wonder they don't accept it. There is no "missing link" evolution is an ongoing slow process, we are ALL transitional species...

Wish I could get the youtube link right now, but there is an excellent video (well, one of the 'more' excellent ones) displaying exactly this.

It's Dawkins on some thumper's television show... and the dude... seriously thought evolution was like - empty human husks, and the individual organs... developing... inside the husks... over time. It was weird, and confusing.. especially for Dawkins. Because the guy opened up with this dumbfounding question, "So, Mr. Dawkins... as a believer in evolution, how do you explain how we lived without organs?"

It's mind blowing.

Veritas... NOTHING WENT BANG. Zero, zilch, NaDa. That's because at Zero there is no time, and without time there is no measurement. That is because the speed of light has a measurement. As you approach the speed of light length and mass are altered. A yardstick is meaningless, a pound is meaningless, a quart is meaningless, etc. So God could start from nothing, or what we know could start from nothing, but it all starts with Nothing. Since division by zero is undefined in math. Science explains what we know now of our universe better than religion explains what we know of the universe, and you don't need a God or a miracle in the middle of the equation to get to answers. Go to any decent library and look at a copy of an Encyclopedia of Mathematics and remember that a lll started with the concept of 2=1+1, and not 2=1+0. This is the beginning of conceptualization.

Nope, our life proves that we evolved and are still evolving...I know it doesn't make you all worm and fuzzy, but we live just like billions of other organism on this planet, there is nothing special about humans, sorry. But just like someone told you there was no santa, no tooth fairy and no easter bunny, someone had to tell you there is no god, life is harsh

We the corporation: Your post means nothing. I hate to tell you this, but if you consider yourself an animal( like the other billions of organisms on this planet), you would not have the ability to reason as you are trying to do right now. If you were evolving as you say you were, why are your thoughts so out of touch with reality? Scientists cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. It would be illogical to conclude that he doesn't exist, simply because you can't see him. For many years, scientists could not fathom anything bigger than a one celled organism, yet we are now aware of the atom, etc.

Unhappy,

It's hilarious when religious types such as yourself attempt to twist science and logic to support your religious views, and then fall flat on your faces.

"I hate to tell you this, but if you consider yourself an animal( like the other billions of organisms on this planet), you would not have the ability to reason as you are trying to do right now."

Actually, it has been demonstrated (i.e. PROVEN) that there are many other animals, in addition to humans, that have the ability to reason. For example, birds, dolphins, dogs, cats, and non-human primates. If we're not animals, please explain the PROVEN FACT that we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps. Whether you want to accept it or not, we are animals.

Scientists cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

That isn't their job; however, all of the scientific information that we have gathered contradicts all the claims in the Bible. For example, if you follow the order in which things were "created" in Genesis, it would've meant that plants and trees existed before the sun. Oops. It's a scientific fact that plants and trees cannot survive with sunlight.

It would be illogical to conclude that he doesn't exist

There is no proof, none, of god's existence. Sittiing there and pointing at a tree, or saying, "just look around," does not prove anything other than life exists. It does NOT prove that a god exists. Therefore, in the absence of proof, it is perfectly logical to conclude that no god exists.

If you were evolving as you say you were, why are your thoughts so out of touch with reality?

You're the one who has chosen to follow religion. If anyone is out of touch with reality, it's the religious followers.

For many years, scientists could not fathom anything bigger than a one celled organism, yet we are now aware of the atom, etc.

Your point is? That's what science is about. It's about continually learning about the Universe. Science and scientists are comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer. Scientists are also comfortable when they make a mistake and their conclusions are shown to be wrong. It just means they have to go back and review their findings. On the other hand it's religion and the religious who have the problem with saying "I don't know."

If anything, it is YOU who is out of touch with reality, and YOUR post means nothing. You've demonstrated your arrogance on other replies, including the one I am replying to. That's not very Christian like in terms of behavior is it? I thought you were supposed to be humble. In addition, you have demonstrated what you know about science, nothing.

That should read, WITHOUT sunlight.

I didn't see the typo until it was too late to edit my comment.

Scientists cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. It would be illogical to conclude that he doesn't exist,

Too funny, you just said it is illogical for god to exist, hilarious.

Look in logic there is a thing called the null, in this case the null is there is no god. Now the burden is on you to prove that there is evidence that the null is wrong...so go ahead, prove god exists, even though you just said you can't.

It is a bit more nuanced than that. While it may be true that the existence of God cannot be disproven, it is easy to show how the chances of Unhappy's specific understanding of what God is and what God expects being the correct understanding has a probability so close to zero as to be effectively zero.

It is a bit more nuanced than that. While it may be true that the existence of God cannot be disproven, it is easy to show how the chances of Unhappy's specific understanding of what God is and what God expects being the correct understanding has a probability so close to zero as to be effectively zero.

Prove evolution to me. A simple concept if one accepts evolution as an on-going process in which one species evolves into another. Where are all the in-between things that can't be classified into one species or another because they are in the process of evolving? And don't give me the "slowness" BS, show me the unclassifiable in-betweens.

Lunacy,

EVERYTHING you see is an "in between" species, there evolution proved.

Man, no wonder people don't "believe" in evolution, they don't understand it...

Wtc? hit the nail on the head regarding the manner of evolution, but missed the mark with the rest: The vast majority of those promoting literal or reactionary Christianity do understand evolution but suppress that understanding because they realize that it undercuts what they want to be true. The nature of Christian dogmatists seems to be one of insistence that they have omniscience (a corruption of their mythos, which says only God has omniscience); a general unwillingness to accept that knowledge of certain aspects of reality is beyond their station in the universe. If you think this sounds like the sin of hubris, then you'd be correct. Note how little conservative Christians talk about the fact that, even within their own mythos, humans aren't supposed to understand the nature of God. They are, in general, resistant to acceptance of living with the unknown, and incapable of acceptance of living with the unknowable. Respect for others often eludes them because they practice this hubris.

Steve Herbert

started with the concept of 2=1+1, and not 2=1+0. This is the beginning of conceptualization.

In the same book you will find the equation that 0 = 0+0 and not 1=0+0. You completely missed my point, there was never 0. All Evolutionists deny the obvious, that which science knows but refuses to apply to this equation … the existence of Infinity. The obvious scientific fact that there was never a beginning and there will never be an end.

Steve 2353581

Your point is? That's what science is about. It's about continually learning about the Universe. Science and scientists are comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer

Really Steve … do you really believe that? You and all the other Evolutionists out there who are so Anti-Christ cannot prove that He doesn’t exist but you won’t even leave it as an option. What are you so afraid of that you don’t even consider the possibility. There is no scientific proof and yet you all have a conclution. Are you willing to consider it, even in theory?

… and then you quote the Bible and argue its scientific possibility. Listen Steve, you can’t quote the Bible without bringing the Creator into the formula. If you read you will also find that the sun was created after light. You can argue that point as well but if you are quoting the Bible than you have to factor in the God of the Bible who spoke it into existence. He created everything you use in science to understand the existance of creation itself. He spoke into existence a fully grown man, fully grown trees, fully grown animals, a mature Earth with mountains and oceans. Try and date an earth that is seconds old yet is completely formed. Are any of you willing to set your Anti-Christ theories aside for just a second and consider the thought?