Category: the Rant Board
Anti-gay hate church plans protest at Steve Jobs' funeral
Topeka, KS — Always looking for publicity, the haters of Westboro Baptist Church announced via iPhone that they'll protest late Apple founder Steve Jobs' funeral.
As the world remembers Jobs as a visionary who changed our world, members of Wesboro say they plan to protest his funeral because "he had a huge platform; gave God no glory & taught sin."
The Topeka-based hate church, which is infamous for protesting military funerals, made the announcment on Twitter.
Jobs passed away after a long battle against pancreatic cancer.
"The world rarely sees someone who has had the profound impact Steve has had, the effects of which will be felt for many generations to come," said former rival Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft.
Protesting at anyone's funeral is the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
And people wonder why I don't like religion.
First of all, I didn't even know Steve Jobbs passed away. Oh, my goodness. Bless his soul.
Secondly, the people who do these protests disgust me. It saddens me to read about these people or anyone who openly bashes and displays hatred for any group of people.
Everything has good and bad sides, and this is one of the bad sides to free speech.
I bet they do and say all this stuff knowing full well how people feel about it. I bet as long as people are angry at them, thinking about them, talking about them, blogging about them, posting their stuff in the news, they are satisfied for the attention. They are nothing but a bunch of lousy trolls.
Agreed! They are trolls. However, I wish they'd come and protest my funeral when it happens. You know you've made it when Westboro protests your funeral! I know, I'm sick!
me too! I mean I won't really care, cause I'm ah. dead!
Just as Silver Lightning said. And people wonder why I don't like religion.
They also protest the funerals of military veterans, as others have said, while benefitting from those who fought before and gave them a place to live.
Her post from an iPhone simply expresses fully the duality, privilege and foolishness of this group. I hope they get themselves into trouble before they start messing around with explosives.
It was said after 9/11, that Islam should as an organized group come out and condemn these terrorists who blew up the twin towers. I believe that would be correct, just as the Irish Republican Army took full responsibility for its nefarious activities.
So, likewise, what is good for the goose is good for the gander: let us see a public declaration by fundamentalists in America against these.
Were I king for a day, I'd deport the lot of them: doesn't matter what religion or persuasion they come from, this overweaning privileged mentality where they can benefit from people and then protest against their funerals is pretty low.
Her tweeting from an iPhone simply illustrates: "We're privileged, we'll use the resources, then we'll go complain against those who provided them."
I'll bet these folks would start squalling like little girls and wet their pants begging for emergency or military assistance if they needed it. Of course, we'd have to give it to them: duty calls, even if the recipients have no concept at all.
screw deporting them. I'll be kind and just send them to meet the god they love so much. That would be the nice thing to do wouldn't it? I mean, you want to serve him so much, go do it in heaven where you can't piss me off.
They are NOT what Christians are. It is not religion's fault. They pervert the teachings of Christ to serve their own twisted perceptions and ideals.
No, they just use the verses of the bible to support their beliefs, then go out and lives their lives according to that belief. which is... exactly what every other christian does. They don't twist the words, if you listen to their sermons, they take the words directly from the bible. It just happens that the bible is not a book full of nice fluffy clouds and pretty little elves who do nothing but pick flowers every day.
I don't know how many times I've said it on these boards and in several other places, the bible is not a good book. Its not nice, its not kind, its not moral, its not holy. It is full of wickedness and vile acts and teachings which can only be called cruel and inhumane. Maybe it takes people like those from westburo to make people see what the bible truly is.
...And they've done it again. But hey, on the bright side, in the end, they're only hurting themselves. They give the religion they claim to support a bad name. Let them continue to do so for long enough, and eventually someone will shut them down.
This group sounds like a bunch of hateful foolish idiots.
This isn't Christianity, you can't prove that any of their beliefs are taken from the bible. But as much as these people do have the right to freedom of speech, they can't liable/slander and cause harm. Eventually they will be sued. For those of you saying they should be deported, there is this nasty little thing called the constitution that protects them. We stop denying them their right to freedom of speech then so will our speech be curtailed when we are not stating the belief of the majority or of those in power. Remember as hateful as their speech is, freedom of speech isn't permissible, but is free only if allowed when you disagree. Do we wish to demean our fighting man by making light of their sacrifice by wishing to deny even this hateful people their right to exercise that freedom. We should condemn them at all opportunities, but let it end there.
Agree with the last post; it's not yet terror, but similar to the terror mentality. Zeal is what is dangerous, not the religion. The reason it is dangerous is it places ideas and ideals above the wellfare of others, society, and basic responsible behavior. In other words, to a zealot, otherwise inexcusable behavior becomes excusable because it is defending an ideal.
These aren't terrorists yet, I'm not claiming that they are. But when terrorists are profiled it isn't by their religion. It's by their zealous behavior.
They have been sued, repeatedly. Nearly every child of the leader, and he has several, is a lawyer; they won the lawsuit.
As for it not being christianity, considering how many different sects christianity has, I think its extremely conceited to say that one thing is christianity, and one thing isn't christianity. Assuming, of course, they you yourself are christian.
I would never say to someone who uses a cane, "your not a blind person, blind people use guide dogs". Who am I to say what does and does not dictate a blind person, and who are you to say what does and does not dictate a christian.
Please don't use the, "christianity is supposed to be loving" argument, I really don't feel like going through and naming the hundreds of thousands of evil and wicked things done by christians of all sects.
no one is saying that, but to say that zealousy is christianity doesn't make it anymore true than anything else. for you to say otherwise misses the point. You can't point to anything in the bible that supports directly their point of view. It is mere interpretation and as such makes it neither christian or not. As far as being sued, that is the remedy and they will go to far. You know it as well as I do. You don't throw out the constitution because somebody learns to manipulate it, you adapt and use the tools at hand.
Sure I can. "I am a vengeful god, quick to anger". Point supported. That's their entire point. God is pissed off, and he's going to get his revenge. He says he is vengeful and quick to get pissed off in the bible, I can see where they're coming from. Even if he hadn't come right out and said it, if you look at some of the things he orders done and does himself in the bible, we can see that he isn't MR. Rogers; he's a dick.
No. This is not Christianity. Not the Chrstianity which Jesus always taught during his ministry. Perhaps God is as vengeful as the old testament says, but that's irrelivant because we as his children are not meant to be. Whatever sort of God this particular sect believes in, it is a perversion of who God actually is. And even if that's not true, it is a prversion of the teachigns of Christ.
No, its just different from what you say he is, but they are using the same book and the exact same evidence to prove that he is what they think he is. Have you ever read their website?
Besides, who said that you have the ultimate claim on christianity? Maybe your the pervertion on the bible, and they're right. Show me one smidgen of evidence that says that you have the perfect knowledge of what christianity really is, and then you might be able to make that claim.
Just as a little food for thought though, did you know that the bible mentions the word blood more than it does the word love? I think that says a lot, don't you?
The problem with the bible is it is one part contextual, one part dependant on translation, and one part open to study. And don't even get me started on Constantine and the Nysean creed. How many times a word is mentioned (especially in the old testament, which while very important as a basis of prophecy is an ancient text which has been fulfilled in the coming of Christ) is irrelivant. it's easy to quote statistics. But it's more difficult to understand in context what each statistic refers to. People look for demons when there may not be any. They see what they want or expect. That includes you. And it includes me. From my experiences, my study of the Bible and other scriptures which my church considers just as important, I perceive Jesus Christ and our God as two beings who love us, and are trying to help us choose the right path that we may find our way home after this life is complete. What makes my path right? Well as much as I'd love to, I can't prove it's the right path. But it's never led me astray. it's never led me to abuse, hate, envy or seek for myself the things of the world. It teaches me to be kind to others, to love as I wish to be loved, to be slow to anger, and to avoid sex until I'm with someone who I actually love and am committed to. Do I follow all those things? Not all unfortunately. But I am human, with human weaknesses, some of which may take a lifetime or more to properly overcome. Am I wrong to consider this version of Christianity the true path? perhaps. But given all the evidence plain in the scriptures, taught by the man himself, I don't believe I am. I hear about all these other Christian churches. I see all the hate they portray, and all the hatred shown to them by people who see mostly the dark side of Christian history ... and it makes me very sad. Because it is so misguided. it's the people who taint it, and that taint forces many people away from the church due to terrible experiences which are, admitedly hard to ignore.
Christianity is a belief in love - the love we should each have for one another, and the love of a being who believed in us so much that he was willing to come here, to sacrifice himself to ensure as many of us who believed in him and followed his teachings would find the means to eternally progress. Maybe I and the millions of others of my church have it all wrong. But even if that turns out to be true, one thing I know 100% is that Neither God nor Jesus are beings of hatred. Was the old testament God a vengeful being? Yes. But his wrath was always a last resort after countless warnings by divine messengers and earthly prophets. Jesus came not to condemn the world, but so through him the world might be redeamed. You and others can scoff at this. I did for well over half my life. But I look around and I see so much darkness, so much depravity, so much hatred, cruelty and rediculousness. That isn't to say there aren't many great peple out there from a wide range of faiths, beliefs and cultures. We live in a world where many good things are considered evil, and many evil things are seen to be good. I'm not here to say Christianity is the only way out. I am here to say that people like the West Burrough Baptist Church who proclaim hatred and contempt are not what Christianity is meant to be. And it really frustrates me to see so many people equate so many bad examples with the whole of Jesus's teachings.
But that's just it, and your going to hate me for saying this, but please read to the end. That church does not preach hatred, they preach the anger of god. They don't say that they hate fags, they say God hates fags. They deliver a message from the bible, which they have interpretted. Every other christian, at least one who follows the teachings of the bible, does the exact same thing they do, just a little quieter.
If you believe all verses of the bible are true, then you have to agree with the westburro baptist church. They say that god hates gays because the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, and it does. If you can bread the bible, you can see that. The bible says its wrong, so for you to believe in the bible, you must believe its wrong too. The two go hand in hand.
Does this mean that I agree with that church, of course not, I have nothing but loathing for them, but I cannot claim that I disagree with their version of the bible, because their version is the same as your version, and every other version. Its all one book, and when I read it, yes it said a bit about being nice, but most of what it said was about killing, hatred, biggotry and fear. For every verse that says love your neighbor as thyself, you have ones saying you must hate your family and your self in order to follow jesus, and that you must follow jesus to enter into the kingdom of heaven. For every person healed, you have several people killed by god or on the order of god.
My basic point is that in order to say that the bible is good, and that god loves everyone, you have to agree that killing them is loving them. You can claim that he is a loving god all you want to, but in order for that to be true, you must agree that drowning everyone who disagrees with you, and doesn't believe in you, is a loving act, or that sending your son to be tortured and killed in the most inhumane way possible is a loving act. We can all agree that those things are in the bible, along with dozens of other examples, and in order for us to believe god is loving, we must then believe that those acts are loving.
Yes, there is hatred in the world, but that should lead you away from god, not toward him. God is supposed to be all powerful, yet he either cannot or will not remove all the suffering from the earth, which he caused in the first place. Please explain to me how in the world that is loving.
I being a use to be homosexual now turned christian by the grace of God even think this is disgraceful. How rude and thoughtless. Trust me those people are not speaking truth as Jesus would want it spoken.
You know, I've been following the activities of the assholes for a few years now. Not in person, of course. But I'm surprised noone's attempted to kill them yet. I'll be laughing my ass off when old man Fred finally dies. I hope lots and lots of people picket his funeral, cause he fucking deserves it.
The church was bombed once. They took it as a message from god that they weren't doing enough.
Awww, bless their twisted little hearts.
Sons of bitches. I mean, people have the right to protest whatever they want but at a fucking funeral? What is wrong with the world?
The fact that people put all their beliefs into a two thousand year old book, made up of stories and traditions set down by iliterate peasants in the middle of the desert, with little to no basis in fact or human ability. and the fact that they refuse to accept the idea that something other than the idiotic and antiquated dogma in which they have placed so much faith might possibly have any creedance whatsoever, and thus wish to crush out any opposition to their chosen belief system. In short, what is wrong with the world in this context is religion.
But, somehow I think you were asking a rhetorical question.
Wow. Words can not even express all the ignorance in that post, lightning. I'm sorry, but there is so much more to religion then "a two thousand year old book" which, by the way is both older and younger than that. As for the peasants who wrote it? Do you even know who wrote each story in the bible? Do you even know why they wrote them? Heck, have you even read them? Even if you had, I think it's a little sad you choose to equate all religion to Christianity. Maybe you don't, but that's certainly how you're coming off. Did you know that your fare country was founded on a great many principles set forth in the very bible you so revile?
People need to stop blaming religion for the misguided actions of, what is in all honest a minority of its practitioners. Religion isn't the problem. No one has ever gone down a dark path by abiding by the teachings of Jesus Christ, or Buddha, or yes, even Allah. And if they have, it is due to their own colored perceptions of those teachings. Those who have their oppinions so scued about religion will never understand it. They'll use it as a scapegoat - most of the time without even bothering to research and understand the very religion they're bad-mouthing....Just like how those so steaped in the idea of their religion refuse to acknowledge the world around them. Without balance, and an open mind, any debate like the one this has turned into is over before it began.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. Christianity is not about perpetuating hate crimes. Homosexuality may indeed be considered a sin according to the Bible, but that does not give anyone the rite to hate, to belittle or to judge those who practice it. This church has centered their sights on a few passages of the bible, twisted them to their own ideals and done....this travesty. I don't blame anyone for being angry with them. They deserve it. But they are not what Christianity is about. Christianity is a solid foundation for love, community, family and eternal life. Just like the government is not meant to oppress, but to lead and guide. Unfortunately, we humans are not perfect. We have our own agendas, or own ambitions and our own desires. It takes a lifetime to control our "natural man". Unfortunately the West Burrough Baptist Church is tainting Christianity, just as the Fundimentalist Mormons are putting a stain on what My branch of Christianity ACTUALLY believes.
Wow, your reading comprehention skills really need some work. You missed entire phrases in that post, the most important of which was, "in this context". Now, in case your too busy salivating over the fact that I insulted your precious religion to realize what that means, it means in regards to the subject at hand. The subject at hand is the protests by christians based on their beliefs, which are supported by the bible. the bible says that if a man lay with a man, their blood shall be upon them. That is the message of those christians who are hosting the protest.
Now, since you seem to have never read any post I've ever written on the subject, I shall rehash my religious pedigree for you once more. I was raised weslyn, which is a form of baptist for those who don't know. I then converted to greek orthodox, which is like the catholic church, only in greek and there's no pope. I then began to do this thing called read, and yes I did read the bible in multiple forms. For a holy book, there certainly is a lot of trouble to agree on what is actually in it.
Next, you say that there is so much more to christianity than the bible. Ok, well lets see, they're christians, the first six letters of that is the word christ. Now christ, in case your unaware, is a name for jesus. Jesus was this profit, sent down by god, or the incarnation of god, depending on who you ask, who taught all about being nice while stoning your children to death and putting to death anyone who broke the 613 different laws of the culture he happened to inhabit. (really, for a god, he picked some blood thirsty people to try and make his love your neighbor message with.) Where do we get all the teachings of christ from? I'll give you a hint, its not the TV guide or playboy, in case you were going to guess those. We get them from the bible, and that's it, there is no other definitive work for christianity. Everything else is just follow up material. The bible is inspired by god, and that makes it the be all and end all of christianity. Really, its not a hard concept here.
Lets see, you say the bible is both older and younger than 2000 years. Well your right in that regards, most of the bible was written after jesus's death. Most of it was written in the time of the first and second hebrew rebellions, which was in the first century, so yes, it is younger. Older, of course its bloody older, it goes back all the way to the beginnings of the earth. Good work on guessing that there are older parts sherlock.
Next, lets just see how loving this book really is. You've got love your neighbor and love god, all nice and good. But then, we have the whole stoning disobedient children thing, it supports slavery, its fine to sell your daughter into slavery, its perfectly fine to rape virginal girls as long as you don't stick your penis into the ass of an angel or a travelling priest, sacrificing your first born son is just fine because god will just switch him with a lamb in the end, and its holiness is based soully on human sacrifice and symbollic canibalism; yeah, we're talking about a bowl full of cherries here. Lets not even mention the over one million people killed by god, or the over three hundred thousand people he ordered killed. I mean hell, stalin did more than that right, how bad can God be.
You know, I seem to remember seeing your claim that no one but you can understand christianity. so please, teach us, shed your light on us so that we might see the true path of righteousness. I mean your obviously much smarter than the rest of us. You can read, well sorta, you did kinda miss the entire point of my post, so your reading skills are a bit questionable, but still, you must have some secret knowledge. I bet it was delivered by God, he used to do that stuff didn't he? So lets here it, what is this secret decoder ring you have that allows you to say that no one besides you understand the mysteries of christianity.
Just a few more points here. yes, I focused it all on christianity. But by jove, wouldn't you know it, there aren't any jews, muslims, hindus or bhudists doing a protest at steve jobs funeral. Its amazing what happens when you use that little thing called logical subject coherance isn't it?
And lastly, and pay attention cuz this is some deep shit right here. It was bloody sarcasm. Did you not see the entire last sentence? "but I bet you were asking a rhetorical question". That means that what I just said is meant to make people smile, chuckle, shake there heads and go to another page. Its not meant to be taken seriously. If you want something to be taken seriously, you don't make it into a joke at the end. that's comedy, comedy is not taken seriously.
Now go take an aspirin, I'm sure that hurt your brain.
LOL good one. I tend to agree with you. Because religion is indeed part of what's wrong with the world since they often don't practice what they preatch, the whole live and let live spiel. Religion divides us more than it unites.
Okay, I deserved that. Yes, I was somewhat pretentious with that last post. Sorry, Lightning. I think I did miss the point, and the sarcasm. I guess I'm not quite used to the zone's brand of humor yet. It's what happens when you read something right after getting up. I forget while I have a belief in a version of Christianity which clears up many of the misconceptions of what the Bible teaches, it's not a branch of Christianity for everybody. In fact I think it's safe to say many Christians would not consider me a Christian. We believe in continuing revelation from a living Prophet and ordained apostles. We believe in additional scripture which does not displace the bible, but compliments it, and our church was founded by divine revelation in responce to someone who was completely befuttled by which church was the "true" Christian church. Most of that raises red flags among Christians who don't take the time to investigate and understand it. (And that's not a dig at you or anyone else). I was raised in a non-religious home. I grew up figuring "God might be real, but I don't know him. If he's real and all about love as the bible teaches, why does he allow so much suffering." Before I joined this church, I would have been right there agreeing with most things you say, Lightning. But I believe my church is true. I believe it because everything I've learned is in harmony with what I always considered Christianity to be. And I believe it because I have recieved (what I consider to be) confirmation. And if I believe falsely, I'll still have lived a peaceful life devoted to providing service, growing in faith and understanding, striving to live cleanly, and maintaining a healthy relationship with others. I don't have any divine knowledge imparted to me by God, Jesus or the Holy Ghost. I don't have some magic decoder ring, and I don't have any powers of deduction. Nothing I've learned is secret. If I came across sounding better than you or anyone else, it was not my intention, and I'm sorry. Unfortunately I'm human, with human imperfections. But it frustrates me to hear people say things like Religion is what's wrong with the world when I see all the good my church (and others) do when our lives are in harmony with the teachings of the gospel. And it frustrates me that some churches like this one we're discussing perpetuate the sort of hatred that ensures people will have so much anti-religious material to work with.
Religion "has" been responsible for many harsh things in the past. There's no denying that. Some of it is written in the very Bible I follow. Honestly that is something I've always struggled with. Human sacrifice? Calamoties? Vengence from a loving god? Don't even get me started on some of the things Paul says about women. Lots of that always bothered me. But I think people get hung up on a lot of the terrible things in the Bible. They either misunderstand the writings, or They forget that the Bible was written by different people in a different time, with different references and symbols which might be lost on 21st century humanity. It's all about context, not to mention the translation. My church works hard to clear up many of these niggling issues, and to me, they usually make way more sense.
In any case, I spoke out of turn. I came off rude and confrontational, which was not my intent. It's not healthy debate when such things happen.
And yes, many people really don't practice what they preach. But a lot of people do. That isn't the fault of the teachings, but that of the practitioners. We're all free to live our lives. Kids don't always follow rules, and practitioners sometimes disregard or misunderstand the things they preach. It's an unfortunate truth.
I won't deny that there are some good passages in the bible. Certainly the whole love your neighbor thing is good, (though there is some debate as to whether that is in reference to only fellow jews or not. I tend to think it is.) However, that does not negate the fact that there are some incredibly evil things perpetrated by god and on the order of god. Granted, many of them are outlined in the old testament, but you can't claim the old testament isn't part of the bible. If it weren't, it would not be included in the book, which it is.
God orders the jews to do unspeakable things. Put cities to the torch, women and children to the sword, rape virgins and take them as wives. The punishment in the bible for a girl being raped is to have to marry the man who raped her. Women are treated as vermin or chattle in the bible, you cannot deny that. It isn't a matter of translation, its a matter of reading the words as they're written down. A few words off is a matter of translation.
If you look at just two stories, the flood and the flight from Egypt, you can see acts committed by god that would cause countries to rise up in revolution against any leader who did it. yet christians respond by saying that God works in mysterious ways. It makes no sense to me, and in my opinion to claim that a god who does such things is a good god, is foolish at best and insanely cruel at worst.
Now, I'm not going to insult your sect of religion, because I don't know what it is. But I have to wonder, when you were told that this figure had a revelation, what questions did you ask?
I'll take an example. In the morman church, the profit was told of golden plates which held the story of a tribe of hebrews who inhabited north america. he found the plates, and with the help of two seeing stones, he read them. Then, because he was mostly eliterate, he dictated them, first to his wife, then to his neighbor. However, he told them that if they ever looked at him while he was dictating, they would be struck dead. He strung a blanket across his kitchen so that he could sit on one side, and they could sit on the other.
Now, one person was smart enough to test him. The wife of the neighbor who was helping him said that if he were truly inspired by god, and reading gold plates, that he should be able to read them a second time. So she took some of the pages away.
Instead of repeating them again, the profit said that the plate in question had already been taken away, and could easily have been corrupted by the devil by this time. However, he said there was another plate which had the same story on it. However, when that story was compared with the other story already written down, it didn't match at all.
now, what does this tell you? It tells me that the man was a con artist. He'd already been arrested, charged and convicted of fraud before this time. He made up this story, and people bought it.
He lived in an area where there are several indian barial grounds, so the claim that something had been found was not uncommon. He simply used that to his advantage, and made the rest of it up.
I fail to understand how you can follow this as gospil truth. Why doesn't something click in your head to tell you that something here smells fishy? That is my point.
The same could be said for the bible. Jesus, this all powerful man, heals the sick, but only the sick he happens to run into. He teaches one thing, then teaches another. if you'd like an example, look at what jesus teaches is required for getting into heaven. First you must sell everything you own. He says this twice in the bible, so it must be important. Then he says, in the first sermon on the subject, that you must love your family. In the second he says you must hate your family, and even yourself, before you can follow him. Those are polar opposites.
my one questions is, why doesn't someone stand up and say, "this does not make sense"?
Wow. So much hate even on this board. Hmmm. What a shock.
To what hate are you referring? The only hatred I see on here is that directed at the disrespect of the protesters, which is perfectly legitamate, I think we can all agree. So, what hate do you mean? And why doesn't this hatred surprise you?
No I'm sorry, religion is everything wrong with the world. Look at what it does.
like it or not, blind guardian, religion is everything wrong with the world. and, as unhappy/frustrated as you may become when hearing that, grow a thicker skin and realize that this thing called freedom of speech means everyone is entitled to voice their opinions.
I don't agree with what you're saying, and am saddened by the fact you're under the impression I/others having this view means we don't understand the bible or haven't read it.
although you'll never grasp our perspective, and we'll never agree with yours, I'm glad to see my fellow atheists not backing down. I think that's important.
oh, and while I'm at it, blind guardian, I'd like to add that your statement about Cody/the rest of us hating christianity couldn't be farther from the truth. it's religion as a whole we're against, which seems to be an incredibly difficult concept for most people who're religious to grasp.
Yes, I don't get why people can't seem to understand such a simple concept.
The concept is not difficult to grasp. What happens is that the particular religion being discussed is Christianity, and since mud is slung at the religion at hand and not other religions, then some people take it that the opposition hates Christianity. Of course, to sling mud at other religions would be going off topic a bit, but not sinfully so.
I don't sling mud personally, I just turn up my nose and walk away. When challenged I will fight but that is it.
I would like to go on record by disagreeing with a few things. First, I'd like to get myself away from this idea of being an atheist. I know I've called myself one before, but I prefer the term antitheist. Atheist is a negative which is not specific enough to determine and define a system of disbelief. That, and there are many atheists who say, "I wish there was a god". I am an antitheist, I am completely and utterly against the idea that there is or was or ever will be a god. Even if there were absolute proof of god's existence, I would still be an antitheist, because I would fight against god until my dying breath. I do not want, nor should anyone else want, a single being who wields absolute power, and is enthroned permanently without the possibility of usurpation. There needs to be a threat of usurpation to keep the dictator in line.
That leads me into my next point. i am going to say this flat out, so there can be no mistaking. Feel free to copy and paste this following sentence anywhere you wish; you have my permission. "I hate christianity".
My morals do not allow me to have anything but hatred and contempt for a system so vile and evil, and one which has perpetrated so many unspeakably wicked acts upon its followers and its fellow members, including but certainly not limited to women, children, and minorities. I can't do it. I am compelled by my moral fiber to hate christianity.
Now, i do not hate christians, because there is no such thing as a true christian. No one can or does follow all the laws of the bible, its humanly impossible. First, because it would require you to restructure your own brain and your biochemical make-up, which you can't do, and second because there are so many contradictions in the law, that in order to follow them, you would have both to do and not do many things. I think we can all agree that is an impossible act.
Thus, I do not hate christians. There are christians I hate, but I hate them based upon their actions. This would include the subject of this post who are protesting the funerals of fallen heroes, and celebrating the fact that they have been killed serving their country. I hate them, and fight against them in any way I can.
There, now let there be no mistake on where I stand please.
Wow, standing ovation!
I echo Cody's last post completely. very well said; I couldn't agree more.
Okay, my wife is going to kill me! I mean kill me flat out but here goes. Cody "if I screwed up your name sorry" I have a wife who is a LDS member, was raised in the church and when I try to get her to think outside of the box it seems to hit a brick wall. Now, I have sense left the LDS church because "I have a problem" believing in a book that has no original copy to speak of at all. I am sorry, tried, even join the church but something nagged at me and nagged at me until I just flat out left. Sense then I have had time to think why and it’s what I said earlier in this statement. Show me the plates that Josef Smith translated with someone who can actually read them with out divine help and I will believe what the book of morman says. Sense this is not going to happen, scientifically I can not truly trust it’s an actual factual book at all.
I believe in the bible, however, so many of the books are missing that it makes me wonder how much was left out after the roman cathlic church finished choosing what was supposed to go in the bible and what was left out. If its any ones intrest "google" is putting the dead sea scrolls online for people to read.
It wasn't the roman catholic church, the roman catholic didn't exist when the counsel decided what books would be in the bible.
As a strong member of the LDS church I have two things to say.
First, SilverLightning. I am pleased you made your outlook as clear as you did. While I disagree, I also respect your beliefs, or lack there of. I can also understand your outlook too. The idea of an absolute being wielding absolute power is certainly disturbing, especially taking into account all your aformentioned reasons. Because of my own experiences with God, and with Christianity, I can't bring myself to agree. Sure I've seen members of my religion be judgemental, or be abusive. I've dealt with preechy hollier-than-thou missionaries who essentially say if I don't follow the word, I will be damned. I've seen oeple who should be models of righteousness lie, cheat and harm others. But I've also seen astranged families brought together through common faith. I've seen my church come together to provide relief to afflicted people in the aftermath of natural disasters. I've seen what I can only consider miraculous recoveries of a couple people whose conditions should have left them very near death, if not dead. I myself should be dead after an X-girlfirend lured me half way across the country under false pretences, only to try and murder me. Are there terrible Christians out there? Sadly yes, there are. And the atrocities they've committed are unquestionable and worth the hatred directed at them. But science, politics, personal ambition, greed, lust and power have all caused some pretty massive atrocities. It's not Science, Religion, or Politics which are responsible. it is us as individuals, as groups. I think we need God. But I'll leave it at that.
Second. Reguarding the Book of Mormon. It's very easy to question it. A young illiterate boy suddenly says he's been given a vision that none of the Christian churches are true. Furthermore he has proof that there are additional scriptures, but nobody but him can read them? Yep. I can certainly understand why that might raise some suspition when considered in that context. But the Book of Mormon is referenced a number of times in the Bible, as are the circumstances of its coming, and many of the doctrines the LDS church teaches. The thing is, the LDS scriptures aren't meant to supplant the Bible, but merely to clarify truths that were lost or mis-translated. It doesn't change what Christian values are. The whole basis of the LDS church is a young boy who was so confused by so many differing oppinions of what Christianity was that he decided to ask God himself with a sincere heart, and "real" intent which church was true. He was given the answer to his prayer. And that answer was "while my followers draw near me with their words, they are far from me in their hearts." This is Joseph Smith. And we do not worship him, we worship and God thorugh Jesus Christ.
Anyway, either you believe Joseph Smith had a true visitation from Jesus Christ in which he was guided to restore Christianity to its true form after all the problems of the dark ages when the Bible was "compiled" ... or you don't. But I look at it this way. If Joseph Smith lied to everyone, it is the most elaborate, compelling and well-thought-out hoax I've ever heard of. The amount of research, writing, comparing and contrasting that would have gone into creating a culture, history and scriptural language would have been phinominal. To say nothing of dredging up so many biblical doctrines which Christians of the time failed to practice. SO if this illiterate farm boy lied, made up these writings, found witnesses to testify of their own spiritual experiences, suffered persicution and inevitably chose to die for that lie.....then why in the world would he have done it? What would have been the purpose. He sure didn't get anything out of it except an early death.
I don't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Prophet of the LDS Church blindly. I follow them because their teachings mirror one another. They support family, community and eternity. They do NOT support hatred towards gays or anyone else. They do not condone violence against women and children, or abuse of any kind. In fact they speak out against it. Families are extremely important, marriage is sacred and beautiful. Helping our fellow man, loving our neighbor (which refers to anyone and everyone) and striving (a very important word) to keep God's commandments to the very best of our abilities. We are not meant to hate, to abuse, to lie to or to be cruel to one another. We are all free to choose our own paths. Unfortunately our beliefs are not in harmony with the world, and because of that, they are considered false.
I tend to agree with those who say that religion is what's wrong with the world seeing as how te major established religions seem incapable of practicing the part about live and let live. Christians can't respect those who believe differently from them, then the others don't respect te Christians. About the only ones I haven't heard get involved in the war, although I realize it could have happened and I just don't know about it, are the Wiccans.
Okay, I didn't read all of the posts, so if anyone mentioned this, I didn't notice,
But has anyone noticed any bit of hyppocrisy? The church anounced the protest via Iphone, created by (Steve Jobs), on twitter, also created by (Steve Jobs). So they believe he "didn't give glory to god, and taught sin", but at the same time, they use his products?
I do believe in god, but organisations and instances like these have made me think twice about joining a church again...
It has been mentioned....and you're absolutely right.
Forgive me for going off tipic a little, but I've heard claims like this before from every sect of christianity. Can you actually point out a few verses that mention the book of morman in the bible? I've read the thing, and I don't remember them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. So, can you please point me to them?
It's all a hot load if you ask me.
If we have no belief in anything beyond ourselves (in this case a higher being) it certainly would seem like a hot load. Why would people put themselves through it if it didn't exist? Some churches really do ask their members to change their lives a bit. Why not just live your life the way you want? If there is no God, eat, drink, screw and do whatever you want, for eventually you'll die and it will be all over. But what if there's even a remote bit of truth to a higher power? Then what?
It's true almost every church likes to believe it's the only true way back to God (or whatever the equivalent is for a particular religion). The issue is to truly follow any religion you need one part faith to believe in that which is not seen, a willingness to live your life in harmony with its teachings, and the willingness to study, ponder and yes, even question. We are not meant to follow blindly. We are asked to have faith, to study the word, and to study further when we really don't understand that word. Yes, that sometimes means running into some pretty messed-up passages in the Bible in this case. Lightning, I don't know where you come up with the whole raping vergins and other atrocities you've mentioned, but I'd really like to know which passages you're getting such things from. I don't know much about the Old Testament (though I'm slowly learning about it). There really are some disturbing images in it. And I definately have questions about such passages which I really would like to get answered. Obviously you've read the bible and so know what you're talking about. The question is, if they're there, why are they there. That's where study and understanding need to be implimented. So, please share.
As for the Book of Mormon, you've given me quite a task. But it is a task I accept gladly. I don't have all the answers, or all the references right now. Heck, I wish I knew half as much as everyone else seems to. But if you're truly interested and not just trying to trip me up or catch me with my foot in my mouth, I'll be happy to find more. This is probably going to be an info-dump. The actual answer to your question Lightning will be at the end.
Joseph Smith has said that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct" of the books of scriptures, and that a man will get closer to god by aiding by its precepts than by any other book. This does not mean the book of Mormon is the only scripture. It does not mean the bible is wrong. Heck, it does not mean other religions are completely wrong. It simpley means it is untained by translation. The Book of Mormon reiterates many concepts not practiced by much of mainstream Christianity. We believe these practices were set forth by Jesus himself during his ministry, and in some cases during the old testament times. Unfortunately many of these practices were either lost or altered beyond recognition. This is somewhat supported by the simple fact so many Christian churches can't agree on which direction the sun shines (so to speak).
Just a few examples are:
Baptism. There is a great deal of Christianity which has thrown away the idea of baptism by immersion in water, and the laying on of hands to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ himself was baptised by John the Baptist. And has said "Unless a man be baptised by water (immersion in water) fire (the laying on of hands to be given the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost) he can not enter the kingdom of God. Unfortunately I don't have the actual bible passage for that at the moment, but I believe it's in one or more of the four gospels.
The Trinity - The idea that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one entity. In fact they are three distinct beings, separate in identity, but one in purpose. Unfortunately there are passages in the Bible where Jesus refers to himself as the "father", and that's where people get hung up on that concept. The book of Mormon reiterates the distinction by spending half the time referencing ancient prophecies of Jesus Christ from the Bible, and recording prophecies of the prophets among the people who left Jerusalem.
The three degrees of Glory (the idea of Heaven) Much of Christianity has a pretty simple, straightforward idea of the afterlife. If you're good, you rest in heaven with God (though nobody really agrees on what that means) and if you're bad (and there are sooooo many ways this can happen to you according to much of the Christian world) you burn forever in a lake of fire which has no end. In the Book of Mormon, the afterlife is more clearly defined in a few stages. Upon the completion of the Melleneum (when Jesus reigns on earth for a thousand years which will happen .... eventually) we are all judged. Traditionally, good people will go to heaven, bad will go to hell. The book of Mormon and the Revelations given to the prophets in the Latter-Days have outlined a more comprehensive outcome. Three differing degrees of glory, a Tellestial, terrestrial and celestial. These pertain to three "kingdoms" prepared for us depending on our judgement. The Celestial is the highest, and it is where God the father dwells. This is supported in 1st Corinthians 15, 39-49. I won't write it all down, because it's long. I obtained this from the New King James Bible, which is the translation which while not easy to read, is what we consider the closest translation. Feel free to look it up. If you want footnotes which are really useful for understanding it, I really recommend checking
http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/15?lang=eng
This is our website, and the particular passage of scripture. I offer this link so people can get the background information of the footnotes. But feel free to use your own if you wish.
Baptism for the dead: In Christianity (according to Jesus himself) all must be baptised to be saved. That's all well and good. But what about those who never heard of Jesus, or were otherwise unable to believe in him? Are they going to be automatically damned? No. Baptism for the dead is a way by which those who have gone before us may be baptised by proxy. They stil have their own agency however (freedom to choose). Just because we baptise them doesn't mean they are forced into anything.
The verse I recall for this one is Malachi 4, verces 6-7.
http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/mal/4.6?lang=eng#5
We believe Elijah has indeed set forth this declaration to Joseph Smith before Smiths murder in the eighteen thirties. It refers to the baptism of the dead. Isaiah also makes reference to this in a few verses I'll have to research.
Now to actually partially answer your question. Because of course much of this is based on personal witness of its truth, and faith that the Book of Mormon is actually true. Convenient right? As for hard evidence, there is some, but it might not make much sense at first.
First, in John 19, 14-17, Jesus speaks of the "other Sheep, the one fold and one Shepherd. He is that good Shepherd, and all of us are the lost sheep. Upon leaving the people of Israel, Jesus visited what is now North and South America where he ministered to the people there (who were descendants of the families who fled the distruction of Jarusalem in the Book of Mormon. What's interesting is In the Book of Mormon, Jesus has a very large presence in the book of 3rd Nephi. He says the same thing to the people there, which makes me wonder who else he visited after he left.
Anyway, the reference is here http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/10?lang=eng
Again, footnotes help.
Finally, in Essekial 37, 15.22 speaks of the two sticks, one of Judah and one of Joseph. This is a very heavy scripture, but modern-day revelation clarifies that this refers to two distinct peoples, which distinct scriptures. In this case the Bible (Stick of Judah) and Book of Mormon (Stick of Joseph). They are meant to be one, studies together as a solid foundation that Jesus Christ is our salvation in the world of Man.
There are many other references I merely don't have right now. Again, convenient, right. For anyone who is actually interested in any of this and is willing to spend some time with it, www.mormon.org and www.lds.org are our two official websites. The former answers frequently asked questions and has many profiles of different members of our Church. The latter has clarifying talks by our Prophet (yes, we believe in continuing revelation like in ancient times) and the apostles who truly understand the scriptures better than I do at the moment, all the scriptures complete with footnotes and clarifications), and manuals which really truly get in-depth. I can't possibly explain things in this manner. I'm just one man none of you know. A man who probably isn't coming across the inspiring way he'd like. But I testify that my church has never led me to do anything to be embarrassed or regretful of. Since joining it I've become a nicer, more compassionate and more responsible person. I've gotten married to a woman who has honestly made my life better. I have hope for the future, and that hope is founded in faith, and study. The LDS church teaches that we are to love and be good to one another, to believe in Jesus Christ, and to strive to keep his commandments. And that is what I'm doing my best to do. Am I imperfect? Absolutely. I've got a long way to go. But darned if I'm not trying.
Five years ago I'd have been attacking religion just like all of you. But I have faith that this is all true. I have faith due to both the feelings of truth it brings me, and by my own study of its words. And if it turns out I am wrong, I'll have led an uplifting life and won't even realize I was wrong. I have met some amazing people and encountered many things science just hasn't been able to explain yet. But if I'm right, and I don't at least attempt to spread the message of Jesus Christ, I'm going to be very sad for all those who despised or misunderstood what was always meant to be a message of peace, forgiveness and eternal life. Thankfully we also believe everyone will be given a chance to hear the gospel in its entirety upon their departure from this world. But I also know while they still have a chance, it will be so much harder for them than if they'd learned and believed in this life. And I know many won't accept it even then.
I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm not trying to continue a debate where I can't possibly win. The only reason I continued this debate was in the hopes that even one person who saw this business with the West Burrough Baptist Church and felt it defined Christianity, or embodied everything wrong with religion would have their heart softened to the idea that maybe religion isn't a bad thing. Maybe some people within it are not really understanding it.
Your really not going to like this next sentence, but hear me out please. you are doing the same thing that the baptists are doing. You are saying that your version is the right one, and theirs is the wrong one.
Now first, let me address once again the idea that you need God or religion to be moral. What you are saying is that if you did not have God, or his laws or guidance, you would rape, steal, murder, pillege and plunder your way through life without a care in the world for anyone but yourself. You are saying that if you didn't have the bible, you'd be the most diabolical person we've ever seen; you'd make hitler go, "ok man, you need to calm the fuck down". But that simply isn't true.
I don't believe in god, and even if it were proven that he exists I would hate him, yet I've never stolen, raped or murdered in my life. I never would, its just cruel; not from a religious standpoint, but from a humanitarian standpoint. Not only that but humans are social creatures, we couldn't be cruel, unless we were psychopathic. We are genetically designed to further our genes, and we can't do that if we're cruel assholes. There is an experiment where monkeys are put into a room full of watermellons, and they all end up sharing. its how primates are designed, and we are primates; like it or not.
ask yourself, why do you not steal things from the store? Is it because the camera is watching you and you know you'd get caught, or because god is watching you and you know you'd get caught, or because you know that you shouldn't harm others like that?
certainly there are cruel people, but those people are A. usually mentally disturbed, and B. statistically religious. If you look at the prison systems across the world, most people in them are religious, and if they go in, they usually come out religious. If you look at the return rates, most of those are religious. So you can't really make the claim that atheism is a path to immorality. You'd be more accurate in saying that religion is one.
Next, just a few thoughts. First, of course joseph Smith said that the book of morman was the most accurate, he wrote the bloody thing. He can't write a book, claim to be a profit, wield cult power, then go, "well you guys know this is all just bullshit right." He'd lose his status as profit, and would probably have been murdered a lot sooner than he was.
Next, you can't say that in order to find the answers we seek, we should go to the morman website. In research, you need something called independent sources. The morman church isn't going to say, "well here's our claim, and here's some evidence that completely refutes it". They're going to say, "here's our claim, and here's all the evidence supporting it. We promise, there's nothing to refute it whatsoever".
that is why, in science, if a scientist akes a discovery, they ask another scientist to do the research again, and see if they get the same result. They do that again, and again, and again, until they finally have enough people to say, "alright, we can call this accepted theory now".
Also, I have to wonder, and I've asked this several times and never gotten an answer, how can you accept something, completely mold your life to it, and claim it as the absolute gospil truth, without having read it? If I'm going to accept something as my doctrine, I want to know all about it. That is why we don't let middle school science students claim to be experts on gravity, they haven't read all the work yet. So how can you, and other christians, say that god is all powerful, and his word is law, when you haven't read all of it? At the very least you should admit that there is a possibility that the one verse you haven't read is the one that says, "I was kidding". Its like those tests in school where they give you pages of instructions, and the last couple sentences are to just sit there and not take the test. How do you know those sentences aren't in there?
I recently read, and I will try to find the article again, that over ninety percent of interviewed televangelists have not read the entirety of the bible. These are people that go out and preach, and make large amounts of money off of it, and tell others how to live there lives, all based on a book they haven't read. When your english teacher made you read the great gatsby or whatever, you assumed the teacher had read the book, right? Well would you have been upset at all if the teacher said, "I've never read this book, but we're going to analyze it". Of course you would be, so why aren't you when the book is the bible?
My basic point is, and Im really not trying to be contraversial or anything, I'm simply boggled by this, how can you claim all these things, when there are cleary so many gaps in your knowledge? You haven't read the old testament? That's where the ten commandments are, that's the basis for all of christianity, its more than half the bible. How can you say, "I'm a christian", if you haven't even read that?
as for the verses on raping virgins and all that, I'll give you a challenge. If you go to www.landoverbaptist.com you will find a link called bible quizzes, take a few and see how much you actually know about the bible. I give you my word, and their's, that all the quizzes are taken from the bible. They will give you the answers, and the verses, at the end, directly quoted. Perhaps that will illustrate it better than me just pasting verses here.
In closing, I beg of you to do more reading, and not just religious works. Read christopher hitchens, read richard dawkins, read thomas jefferson. You will learn so much, and perhaps with that knowledge, your llife, and the way you view the world and its religions will change drastically.
Lastly, I will say no more on this topic, I have a mother in-law who was nice when she heard I joined the church, but now that I have left, probly will never go back, I am mud in her book and can do know right in her mind. All do to her morbid religious mind. I am sorry but this grades on my nurves, knowing she is telling muy wife to leave me over religious matters. Probly other matters as well but religious matters are a part of this pile of crap.
Blind guardian:
I often hear people who say what you just did. "but what if there is a god?" Well I urge you to sit and think. Now look around you and ask yourself how a god touch your life.
Cody, as a person who has not read the entire Bible, I'll first ask this: if there is any verse in the Bible that says anything relative to "I'm just kidding about all these commandments, and this eternal life stuff, and all the stuff about love, hate, and obedience," then don't you think it would have been edited out by now?
Anyhow, what many people don't understand or think about when they read the Bible is that this book was written at a different time during the existence of cultures and societies that were extremely different from those existing today. There are some laws in the Bible that were laws for the societies at that time, but are no longer in effect. For instance, think of how people had to give all sorts of offerings to God, and then Christ came along and man could obtain salvation through Him.
Also, there are many acts that were acceptable in earlier societies such as raping women, killing children, and incest. Those things are not okay or acceptable in the combined society of the United States.
So how do we know which laws to apply to our lives in our current culture and society? Well, think of several things while reading the Bible: who's speaking or telling the story, who's the audience or intended audience, what are the events that lead up to the speech, story, or laws being given, and what is the purpose or intended purpose of the story or laws? I realize the answers to these questions are subjective, but the interpretation of any written or spoken work is subjective.
What I'm trying to say is that I believe everything the Bible says. While some laws are meant to be followed today, and some stories are meant to set examples of how and how not to act as a Christian, some other laws are simply a part of history and were ordered for that society at that time for a number of reasons specific to the people and time period.
Thank you Intensity! That was along the lines of what I wanted to express. Sadly I'm not gifted in this sort of thing.
Lightning, I’m not sure if you merely misunderstand my words, or are twisting them to perpetuate an argument. I suppose it doesn’t really matter. Why this debate is even continuing when I seem to be one of the few participants who isn’t against religion is beyond me. I have my views, and based on past experience with my church – everything I’ve read, everything I’ve felt, everything I’ve witnessed - I can not be swayed. Based on your experiences Lightning, It is clear you too are in a similar position. I am not here to make an enemy of you. I will not try to convince you. But I feel I must clear up some misconceptions.
First and foremost, no. I am not saying one needs the bible or any other scripture to be moral. I know plenty of very moral people who are not religious, just as I’m sad to say I know some really immoral people who are. I agree raping, stealing, plundering and killing are immoral acts. I believed this well before I ever joined a church which taught the way I already think. My belief in the scriptures only reinforces my belief that it is wrong. Thus it is not a trial I need to go through in life. Do I know god is watching? Sure. But even if he wasn’t I wouldn’t do it because as you say, it’s wrong. But to someone else it might not feel wrong. I’m not going to get into the philosophy of one’s own personal reality, because it makes my head hurt ever so much. Let me reiterate my point. My particular church teaches morality very heavily. But its members are people. Some of them will choose immorality. Just like people who don’t believe can still be very moral creatures. I’m sad to say you’re right about religion spawning a great deal of immorality. Even my own church has its fair share of zealots. But what I’ve tried to drive home over and over again is that it isn’t the fault of the religion, but the people in it. To my knowledge there is nothing my church teaches which is contrary to basic morality. Thus, even if I’m wrong and the church were to be fake, I’ll have followed a very peaceful, humane template during my life. One more thing. I don’t know if you do or not, but please do not confuse the LDS church with the Fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy and other contrary practices.
In my last post I directed you to the LDS (Mormon is a miss-representative nick-name by the way) website because it is the source of what we believe. If you want to learn about a person, do you not ask them first? If you want to learn about a piece of technology, do you not read the manual? Even if you inevitably find information elsewhere which does not support what you’ve learned from that person or from that manual, it’s worth having a basis from the source. If you want to know something, go to the source and study for yourself. You’ll recall I also said if you did not wish to do so, use your own bible. It’s one thing to look for research, it’s another to ignore the source entirely and fixate on hostile or misunderstanding sources. The manuals I referenced were written by members of our church, yes. But members who have been studying the scriptures all their lives. I’ve read a lot of anti LDS literature, so believe it or not I have sought opinions elsewhere. The problem with all the literature I’ve read is while it does its best to draw up compelling evidence as to why the Book of Mormon is wrong, it seems unable to actually prove anything beyond hearsay. Or it ignores certain elements of truth to make a compelling argument. But it doesn’t matter to me if someone is a member of my church, or not. The LDS church works for me because its moral teachings mesh with my own belief in humanistic morality. There’s very little in its teachings I don’t agree with. But that’s me. It’s not you, or anyone else on this board. And that’s fine. My mission was not to convert, but to shed some light. One of our articles of faith states “We believe in worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and extend this same privilege to all. Let them worship how and where they may.”
As for the question you keep asking, I’ll try to finally answer. I have not read the entire old testament it is true. I’m in the process of rectifying that. But I have read the entire new testament, some of the non-canonical gospels, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and several other LDS scriptures which support and clarify some of the old and new testament. So while I haven’t read everything yet, I’ve read enough to have the faith required to believe it is true. But I DO ask questions. If there is something that makes me cringe, I make sure to understand it. Because you’re right. There are some disturbing things in there. And that very research you keep talking about is how we come to understand the truth behind them. As for your statistic about televangelists, it’s probably true. But I’m not one. Nor do I ever plan to become one. That’s not how my church operates, and I don’t personally agree with making a living based on your power to preach to and wheedle money out of people. Nearly the whole of my church is run and maintained by volunteers who have real jobs in the secular world. Some of them are even prominent scientists. Don’t even get me started on the science versus religion debate. That’s a whole other can of worms. I’m not trying to say my church is perfect because we do everything voluntarily. But it should at least give us a little weight knowing that nobody makes money off our beliefs.
I took a look at the Landover Baptist Church to take up your challenge. What I found was that this is a church which, while it does quote directly from the Bible has a really anti-humanist sentiment when it comes to others not of its faith. How can we spread the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to people who don’t believe if we don’t speak to and spend time with them? Jesus Christ himself spent tons of time with “sinners” and unbelievers. It is not the righteous who need salvation, but the unbelievers. So why shun those unbelievers? Sheesh. This church seems to preach intolerance of other religions, which is something my own church does not. The problem with taking this quiz is it is perpetuated by a church who appears to dabble on the surface of the bible. It’s akin to ancient Jews who followed the law to the letter, rather than following the spirit of the law. I have no doubt they’d have shown me all kinds of intolerant passages (their front page alone quoted several amidst its holier-than-thou proclamations. Had I read their edicts without already being a member of the LDS church I’d have been running for the hills. No wonder you hate religion lightning. If you chose a church like this to use against me.
I’m sorry about your mom, Starfly. That is cruel and very unmotherly of her. We are told to love one another, and to not judge…..sadly, not all of us can or do take that seriously. It would have been better for you both if she’d tried to understand you, and why you left.
Margorp … I understand why you would like me to sit and think. I was an unreligious agnostic all my life. I thought there must be something out there, but I didn’t know what it was, or what to call it. I have sat and thought. I’ve pondered the question most of my life. I look around our amazing world and I see the beauty and complexity in it. The human body alone is a marvel of intricacies which we ourselves don’t yet fully understand. I see the beauty of a sun-set (maybe not to the degree sighted people can, but I still see it) and I marvel at it. I’ve watched documentaries about nature, science, the earth … I see the complexities rot by the hand of … something. I didn’t know what. Then I joined the LDS Church, a church which does not shy away from science as an explanation, but embraces it. Do I believe an act of chaotic unplanned expansion created the complexities of the universe? No. I believe Jesus Christ did, under the direction of a vastly intelligent being who wanted his children to experience mortality. We call that being God, the Heavenly Father. Do I believe he snapped his fingers and brought it all into being? No. Matter was unorganized. I have no doubt at all that there was a lot of science which went into its creation. Now, here we are. In the flesh. Our spirits housed in bodies so complex, so biologically and chemically fascinating that we’re still trying to figure them out. So Margorp, even if in the end it turns out that Christianity and other religions are wrong, I have absolute faith and certainty that everything we see, and everything we are were created intelligently and with a purpose, not formed out of chaotic circumstance.
To the blind guardian,
I cannot fault you. You have or are doing your research, you have read and questioned, and have come to a conclusion to which you are sticking. I applaud that, though I disagree with your standpoint. I am glad that you have chosen to lead a moral life, no matter the reasoning; and if you find some solace in God, then that is your life, not mine.
To raven,
Raven, the fact that you accept the idea that God's word, his law, his message, can be edited at all, should make you question your faith a little. If you can admit that the wording of the bible can be edited, you have to admit that it can be wrong.
Also, you missed the point of me mentioning the raping and killing in the bible. The point is not the command, but the commander. I accept that the commands were given to a people to whom that kind of act was not uncommon, but you can't then claim that the person who gave the order is kind and loving of everyone. You might claim he was favored of one people, but you can't claim he loves everyone. If he loved everyone, he wouldn't have ordered one people to slaughter another; that's not love.
Finally, the landover baptist church isn't real. That entire website is created and run by people who want to show that churches can have hateful messages too. The message is that you should question, because though it may sound all nice and good, religion, and in this case christianity, has a dark side that can be exploited for your own benefits. If you'd like to see one that is actually real, go to godhatessinners.com.
But blind guardian:
If you never heard of any church you wouldn't think the way you do? Is it safe to say you were sucked in, dare I say, brainwashed, by dogma? Not picking on you just asking.
it was my muthering law not my mom, sorry if that was not made clear.
If it can be edited, it can be wrong. I don't believe it is wrong, but I will say that it can be because there are those who believe it is wrong.
If one question caused me to question my faith, then I would believe that what I have is not really faith. I believe in God because of combined and multiple experiences and occurences that I have witnessed. Knowing that God's word can be edited by man does not take away or weaken my faith in Christ.
Why not have faith in Horus and Osiris instead? They were the basis for the story of your 'christ'.
Christ is not mine; but I am Christ's.
Margorp, the simple answer is "yes". Before I became a member of this church, my beliefs were still there, but merely unorganized. I wasn't a big fan of Christianity for some of the very reasons illustrated in this topic. But I definately believed in something grander than myself. Joining the church merely focused my belief because it was the only Christian church I've come across which was A, founded on fixing some of the very confusions I'd always had about which Christian church was ACTUALLY correct, and B: bothered to answer all the niggling questions I had about God, the afterlife, the creation and the world at large. Was I brainwashed by Dogma? The problem with that term is it is highly negative. What is brainwashing exactly? I always considered it having ideas planted in your head which you were unable to refuse. The other short answer is no, I wasn't brainwashed. I wasn't because I am still free to choose to believe, to follow certain precepts of my faith. Some of those precepts I am having a hard time following right now. It takes a great effort to reshape your life after living a certain way for 23 years. I am not perfect. But I make the effort because I sincerely see the benifits reshaping my life can have. I can honestly tell you my life has greatly improved since joining the church. Everyone I know has said how I've changed for the better. There is freedom and peace to be gained from throwing away certain aspects, even if sometimes it does seem constricting at first. The long-term benifits are worth the sacrifice. I feel it, I was not taught it. Take the no sex before marriage commandment. Sure it sounds horrible. I absolutely love sex. I'm sad to say that's one my wife and I did not keep. But there are so many benifits to waiting - so much security in exchange for delaying what is supposed to be a sacred and beautiful thing. After people in our church are married, we can have as much sex as we want, and I'm sure many of us do. The sharing of that intimacy not only contains the power of procreation, but is meant to be a bond strengthening men and women. This is a hugely unpopular idea in the secular world where marriage, family and chastity are becoming like curse words to some people.
Lightning, the biggest issue I can see with the bible is that while it was absolutely inspired of God, while it contains many of his dealings with man ... it was also left in the hands of men. Not only just men, but after a while, only the "elite" priests who were permitted to read it. Because of this, and because of translation issues, and some scriptures being lost or at least not set up as cannon, much of God's words are either misunderstood, or very unclear. This is why we believe that the Book of Mormon is true. It is not "a different testament of Jesus Christ meant to overshadow the Bible." It is Another testament of Jesus Christ" meant to be its companion. The reason we believe it is the most correct book is that it brings to light many contentions of doctrine which were either lost, or only hinted at in the bible.
I still have no idea where in the old Testament God specifically commands people to rape vergins. If I ever find it it will certainly be a point I'll be trying to figure out. But I do know this:
God's wrath is very nearly always a last resort, Think of that horrible flood which wiped out most of the world. During that time, the people were in such a gull of wickedness that there was simply no hope for them. God told Noah, if you can find me a hundred righteous people, I will not cause a flood. When Noah couldn't, God lowered it to ten ... and so on. The whole point of God's plan for us is for us to gain a body, gain experience, and eventually return home to him. The reason he smites, the reason he allows one society to slaughter another, the reason he sometimes orders a death is because the alternative would hurt so many more. If my church is true, then those who died during the flood were so wicked that it was the only way to ensure some of them might be saved. We believe when we die, we go to one of two states. Call them spirit prison, or spirit paradise if you will. Spirit prison is hell - a place where we are braught to a complete knowledge of everything we are, and everything we've done. It's prison because we are tormented by our own guilt. But those in spirit paradise are given a time of restfulness, also having a perfect knowledge of everything they are, and everything they've done. In this state they may help those in spirit prison learn, and grow. I don't know all that happens, but I do know that our individual identities, characteristics, habbits, and personalities are fully intact, but without a physical form. (Which is why we are asked to avoid developing addictions of the body for instance). We will always be free to choose. But we will all be judged. But God knows all our hearts, and the Atonement and mediation on our behalf by Jesus Christ will help make up for our shortcomings. Because it takes an eternity to achieve true perfection.
Now yes, I certainly would have a problem if some self-righteous branch of Christianity rose up and started slaughtering people in the name of "saving people" as happens sometimes. We are taught that human lives are precious, and not to be wasted, and it's true. That's one thing I'm sure we can all agree on here. I think that's where people forget that times have changed. as intensity pointed out, the writings of the bible were written for different people in a different time. This is one of the reasons members of my church follow the words of the prophet and his apostles. Their inspired words are meant to be a guideline for life in our day. If you ever read a talk given by our prophet (Currently Thomas S. Monson) you will see he is not a hate or fear-mongering zealot. All I can say to you with regards to this board topic is this. As a member of the LDS church, I do not condone the murder, rape, torture or persicution of any people in the name of my God. It may have happened in the bible, and be inspired by the bible. But while God may sometimes stretch forth his hand to smite, he is usually not in the habbit of ordering such hanous acts, especially in this day and age. The ten commandments are a guideline for us to live by. And while my own church believes in additional guidelines, the basic ten commandments laid down by Moses were not made void by the coming of Christ. he too gave us additional laws by which we may be paeceful and righteous. And righteous simply means humanistically good, and in the case of religion, adhering to the commandments. Why do I tell you this? Because jesus said "By their fruits shall yee know them". Which means by the things people do, the way they act, and the way they treat one another can you know if they are truly Christian. Can non Christians be moral, upstanding people. You better believe they can! And if they are unwilling or unable to accept the gospel in this life, I can only hope they will be willing to in the next life. All I know is I'd hate to encounter someone like that in the hereafter only to have them say "you knew, and you never told me."
In closing, I leave you with this. I said the West Burrough Baptist church does not represent Christian values. And I say it because of how they treat others around them. "God" does not "hate" "Fags". God condemns the practice of homosexuality because marriage, procreation and parenthood are meant to be between a man and a woman. He still loves all those who practice homosexuality. And he wants them to find their way home. Maybe some of these soldiers were gay. Maybe that is bad in the sight of God. But why were they gay? What made them that way? And why do the deeds they performed for this country not count for something in the judgmental eyes of a religion whose core beliefs lie in peace, long-suffering, humility, meakness, charity and love for one's neighbor?
Explain to me how personality, memory, and consciousness can survive the death and decay of the physical brain. Can't do it, can you? No, you can't. Because we all know that such things depend on chemistry in the physical brain. Now, some will probably say, "the soul is like the data on a computer, and the brain/mind is the hard drive and memory." But think about it: When the brain dies, the storage medium for the data is destroyed, is it not?
Somebody once brought up that the bible tells us about what we shouldn't do and the other stuff is what we can do. So, what can we do? Isn't it harmful to say we are sinning. Isn't it wrong to point the finger?
To the previous poster, viewing the Bible as a book that says what should and should not be done is an error.
Second, your questions are unbelievably vague.
That's a very good question Laviathan, and one I've often wondered about. I think however this is one aspect where my beliefs and popular culture actually somewhat agree. First, let me preface this by the following explanation. I won't give you all the details, but if you are curious, I direct you to the basic beliefs of our church at www.lds.org and www.mormon.org. Because they can explain it way better and in greater detail. Nevertheless I will try.
We believe that before we were given life in flesh, we existed with God as a soul or spirit, Essentially a consciousness without physical form, but with personalities developing over time. We were all given the oppertunity to obtain a body in mortality. This is essential to our eternal progression, and why this world was created. Our spirits and bodies are seperate. Our spirit is who we are, and our bodies are the temple in which we dwell. But when we are given a body, when we are born into this world, much of our lives as spiritual beings is forgotten. We still have flashes of it sometimes I think, such as meeting someone and being sure you've met them before. This veil is put over us to give us the freedom to choose for ourselves what to believe and how to live. I've heard of and seen some evidence of the thinning of the veil in children, and in those who are very near death. Perhaps they are hilucinations of an undeveloped or fading mind - certainly hilucinations are a reality. But if not, then they are what they appear, which is then a testament to what I've been saying.
Anyway, while on earth we are free to live according to the dictates of our own conscience. While in our bodies we are subject to all the physical infirmities and limitations of an unperfected body. Of course our brain plays a large part in that.
This next is not church doctrine as far as I'm aware, but my own idea. Maybe it's true, or maybe it's more complex. I honestly believe our natures (that which makes up our personality, memory, and intelligence is seperate from our bodies. It is spiritual. But the brain plays a part in that. It influences much of how we think, feel and act. There are certainly worldly causes for such illnesses. I'm not sure why each of us has certain limitations on our bodies, but I can only assume they are trials we must face.
Mental illness for instance is perhaps a specific trial we as individuals must face. Likewise my blindness is in itself a trial. Does it define me as a person? at this point it contributes, but it does not define me. It's near impossible to argue against the chemical and biological nature of what our bodies are and what they can do. But We believe that upon the death of our bodies, our spirits travel to those spiritual plains I mentioned above. There we are no longer confined by our bodies' limitations, but we retain a perfect knowledge of all we've learned, all we are and all we've done.
Think of any ghost story you've ever heard. Whether or not you beleive ghosts are real or not doesn't matter. There are many different intperpretations of ghosts and what they are. But one thing most people agree on is they are essences of some kind of people who have passed from this world. ALmost always these ghosts manifest characteristics they possessed during the times in which they lived.
Again, if you're curious and willing to look, I urge you to read about this for yourself, because I have no gift for explanation. To my knowledge this is not a belief held by much of the Christian world, but it is what we believe, and to me personally , it makes a fair bit of sense.
Margorp, you've gotten to the crux of the matter. It is indeed wrong to point fingers. According to scripture it is not our place to judge the actions of others. Of course there are certain times where practical judgement is necessary. You wouldn't fir instance leave your child home alone being babysat by a convicted child molester. There is a balance between practical, and obedient. That's what is meant by the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law.
Another example. In my church, we are asked not to work or conduct business on Sundays. But sometimes it can't be helped. We are asked to do everything we can to prevent it, but sometimes (if you're a doctor or other civil servant), or if you're stuck taking any dead-end job you can get, it might happen. If you're driving and your car gets stuck in a ditch on a sunday, you aren't just going to leave it there until monday. Does that make sense?
The bible does tell us many things we shouldn't do. But it also tells us many things we should. We should love, be charitable, give of our substance to those in need, be benevolent, chased, long-suffering, kind ... the list goes on and on. Are these specifics? not really. But they are a guideline by which we may live to serve our fellow humans. Unfortunately not all of us follow these guidelines as well as we should. But in the eyes of God, what we've done in the past doesn't matter. It's what we do to right the wrongs, to repent, to make restitution, to improve and progress which matters most. Some sins are easy to be forgiven of. others take much more work to repent of. But all sins will be forgiven if we repent of them. That is the beauty of the Gospel, and something some churches are quick to forget. The church isn't about fire and brimstone and condemning and judging sinners. It's about helping those very sinners repent, and change their lives. Not by condemning words. Not by the sword. Not by protesting. But by way of compassion, righteous councelling, and understanding.
Well, since I have no memory of being a broken off piece of a god, I guess I have nothing to fear when I'm dead.
right on.
Here here.
Let's raise our glasses. To common sense. *clink*
Whether condescention or understanding, I agree. TO common sense!
To agree with common sense you would first have to discard your silly beliefs.
oh boy jerry springer would love this website. I may not agree with those beliefes, but the blind guardian seems to at least be reasonable and not go on like some crazy conservative who wants to take us all to church. A wise man once said something about not always sharing beliefes but defending the right of the person to believe. Wasn't that voltair?
There is a fine line between sharing one's beliefs and nudging (or shoving in some cases) one's beliefs at someone. I would like to hope people realize I was attempting to do the former. If you believe otherwise, know that it was not my intention to come off preachy. While there are always people who can't help but pick apart someone's words and find ill-intent, I'd like to believe we're all above that.
Imprecator, you speak of common sense and the silliness of my beliefs. To me, the humanistic and compassionate teachings of my church and the origins of our species do, in fact make a great deal of logical sense. Indeed, the idea that we and our universe were systematically created in an organized manner for a purpose makes more logical sense to me then the idea that it all just happened chaotically, without method or purpose. Obviously you disagree with this, and that's fine. I do not condemn you for your differing beliefs, but I do think perhaps you are swift to condemn or dismiss the beleifs of others.
The argument from design: Which then raises the question of who designed the designer, and the designer of the designer, and so on.
@imprecator, you make a good point, but you must also understand that whether or not the point is silly, you need to let a person hold that belief. Disagree if you will, but if you don't like anybody attempting to force their befliefs on you, you and others like you need not to continuously attempt to engage in the same thing. I can't remember who said it originally but I agree with the statement, "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it". Debate is natural and construction, but we do need to remember that fine line between expressing our beliefs and forcing them on others.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't forcing anything on anyone. I never said, become an atheist, or I will kill you. And yes, people do have the right to believe what they want, but there is no law against criticizing the beliefs of others. Suppose a person's religion dictated that they must sacrifice small children and animals. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't want a practitioner of such things jailed,. or perhaps executed. Oh but it's part of their religion, respect it. gotta respect everybody.
That's a bit of an extreme example, don't you think? Were I on here saying such things I would certainly expect it to be criticized.
Nevertheless you bring up a good question. But it almost seems like you automatically expect there to be no answer to it.
I most certainly did expect an answer. That's kinda the point of asking a question in the first place.
Extreme example you say? Are you then going to tell me that the murder, slavery, rape, robbery, which was ordered by god and carried out by the people of the old testament were not also extreme acts? Certainly not a very loving merciful god. In fact, I would venture to say that he's a genocidal maniac and an egomaniac, since he demands worship. And if you don't worship him and kiss his ass, he'll get really really angry and throw you into a lake of fire where you will forever be consumed by fire, and yet somehow will never be consumed at the same time.
maybe, but the comunist dictatorships in many eastern European and Asian countries have commited the same acts. Because most of these dictators were also athist, would you think it fair to label all athists as murderers, or would you just label those who committed the acts as such. In fact, you and others of your belief trot out the old testiment to support your beliefs but if you truly knew anything about Christianity, you would know that emphasis is on the new testament and not the old except to be held in context with historical reference and where the teachings of Jesus either complement or contradict and in doing so superceed. Religions tend to evolve along with the environmentthat it exists in. A harsh environment breeds a harsh religion. As the society becomes more enlightened and the living conditions become less harsh, religion metamorphosis itself along those lines too. Your extreme example is just that an extreme example and should be condemned. The trouble with many on both sides, they take a minor example and blow it way out of proportion. I see it as identical when the athists demand god be stripped out of the public discourse and when certain Christians demand prayer in school. They are two sides of the same coin.
They didn't kill in the name of atheism, though.
True, and it does seem that religion wants to "make" you a believer. Look at the crusades.
I agree with the statement about religious people killing over religion, but there is no way you can support the statement that athists didn't kill in the name of athism. Since you said it never happened, you will have to support that argument. In fact it did happen under comunist rule. Since they claimed to be antigod, you must assume that in part it could be attributed to athism and not just pure toltalitarian control.
They killed those whom they deemed a threat to communism. Simple as that.
Here here.
Now, do I think that was a good thing? Of course not. It's insane. But one can't make the claim that atheism in and of itself is some sort of ideology/belief system that causes people to commit atrocities.
Neither do Christian values condone such atrocities. Those who hate - those who kill in the name of God do so out of a misunderstood or misguided belief in the God they claim to serve. The teachings of Jesus Christ have always been those of peace. Human imperfections are what bend those teachings to dark designs. For we who can't help but judge, judge the people, not the religion. When we are blinded by our own beliefs we can not see beyond them. Athists are no different than agnaustics or religious believers. They still have their own beliefs. Beliefs they consider irrefutable as a result of science, "evidence", hear-say and "common sense", whatever that's actually supposed to mean. The problem is, Atheism requires its own kind of faith. I speak against no one here, because I do not know you. But many people there are who read an article, watch a doccumentary or learn a subject and automatically consider it truth. Science, like religion is constantly shifting. Science can no more agree on the origins of this universe than can religion. So what makes you Athiests any more correct than we who believe in something greater than ourselves? After all, our beliefs are based in part on historical doccumentation, just like yours. What makes your beliefs any less silly? We humans might not be the center of the universe.
No human is perfect. There are still terrible, greedy, lustful, spiteful and dangerous zealots among you athiests, as there are among we who believe in a religion. There are spiritual, sociological and biological reasons for al that. I won't get into the spiritual ones because much of what I say seems to be water off a duck's back. The only difference between evil athiests and evil religious practitioners is Athiests have less prescribed guidelines to guide them.
I don't condemn an abscense of religious belief. After all, with everything that's happened throughout history, and with how the world appears to many of us, it's easy to say there's no God. But I do condemn the hatred, belittling and idle criticizing of other's beliefs - especially beliefs which do no harm to anyone - when one is only looking for reasons to criticize.
Atheism is not a faith, it is a lack of faith.
The word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos (Godless). It comprises two words, without God. Athism is not a lack of faith. You have faith that there is no God. Faith is not reserved for religion alone. While the meaning of religious faith is more expansive than secular faith, they are both a confident belief in something or someone. If you believe for instance that scientists have determined that the universe was created by an expantion of matter, you still have no complete proof because you were not there. Those scientists might have come to that conclusion, but unless you're a scientist, how would you know? Furthermore, if science has proved it, why are there still so many doubters among the scientific community? Religion is no different. We have a strong belief that God created the universe. There's debate as to how. We might not know or remember how, but we have faith that it happened. The stronger our understanding of something or someone, the greater our faith in it becomes. This is why education is so important.
Fair enough. So, I'll just say then that I'm as sure as I can be that there is no "god."
Fair enough.
And I am absolutely possitive that there is none.
Wouldn't even Atheism be considered a religion? Sure, you don't believe that there's a God, but you still have faith in yourselves. And by the way, I'm a Christian, but I'm against what that Baptist church did to protest Jobs's funeral. They are sinners just as he was a sinner. What he wanted to believe was up to hm.
No, Atheism is not a religion. Yes, you have faith in something, but you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that doesn't make you a sun worshipper.
The type of faith christians have, and the type of faith Atheists have is completely different. Religious based faith is a faith without evidence. The religious person is proud of the fact that they have faith in something that they do not have evidence for. You have no evidence that there is a god, but you believe it anyway. Even your faith in the bible's infalibility is completely baseless. That is the claim to fame of the religious, faith is belief without sight.
Atheism on the other hand does not have faith in something without evidence for it first. We don't say, "the sun will rise tomorrow because we believe it will". Rather we say, "the sun will rise tomorrow because the earth revolves, bringing different faces into direct line with the sun, and thus creating the effect of rising and setting". We base our belief on observation, not on blind rationale.
Basically, to put it incredibly crassly, we don't make stuff up, religions do.
Actually, as crazy as this may sound, we do have evidence. I could give you several examples.
But I won't waste my time talking about those examples because I'm sure you'll throw them away.
Particularly in view of the fact that there are probably much more logical explanations for them.
No, it is not. Atheism has no dogma to follow, no rituals, no stuffy building where we meet every sunday to sing songs, etc. It is simply a lack of belief in a deity. And, just because you have faith in something doesn't make it a religion. I can have faith that my apartment building will still be here tomorrow, that doesn't mean I worship or pray to it.
I apologize, Cody. Didn't see your above post there.
Lets assume for a moment that Atheism is a religion. You are a christian. I will again make the assumption that you do not believe in the Muslim god, or the hindu gods, or the greek polytheistic gods, or the egyptian polytheistic gods. You don't believe in the norse gods, nor any of the other thousands of gods. This means that you do not belong to one religion, you belong to thousands. You don't worship one god, you worship thousands of them, one by believing he exists, the others by not believing he exists or she exists.
So, in order to make your argument that Atheism is a religion, you'd have to accept that fact. You'd have to admit that you worship thousands of gods, and you do it equally. Are you prepared to anger your god that much?
Oh, and please, present your evidence. I'm really hoping its not some existential poetic nonsense about how its prove that god exists because flowers are pretty and fish have scales. Or worse, you could use that idiotic banana argument. But, since you made it sound like good evidence, I'm going to assume it was some study, or observation. Maybe you have the video where the hubble telescope peeks into heaven. Maybe you have seismic readings from the rumbling of the fires in hell.
We're atheists, we always seek knowledge and evidence, so lets here yours.
Nothing new at all. The stale old argument from design, which is flawed, since it begs the question of who designed the designer, and the designer of the designer, etc.
Agreed. The question does bear asking.
First, let me give a little example by teling a story. (hey, jesus did it, so bear with me here). Lets say your walking along in the woods one fine automn afternoon. the trees are lovely, the leaves are coated in gorgeous colors and a light breeze wafts through the branches to brush your face. Its a lovely day. Now, at one point in your journey, you look down and notice a leaf slowly fluttering to the ground until it comes to rest in a patch of moss. That is seemingly simple, right, its a leaf, it falls, that's what leaves do. Now, lets think about this.
In order for you to observe that leaf landing on that spot at that exact moment in time, it has to hit that spot at the exact second that your looking, in the exact spot that your looking. Now, since I happen to know approximately what the chances of that happening are, I'll tell you. The chance of a leaf landing, without outside force, on a single spot on a particular second in the automn season is approximately 20 trillion to one. that's not taking into account the force of the wind, whether the leaf was designed to float away from the tree it was attached too, a number of different factors that increase the improbability of that leaf landing on that spot at that exact moment in time.
So, what is the point I'm trying to impress upon you? Its this, everything is incredible improbable. Creationists argue that things are so improbable that they could never have happened. They quote some huge number, and you accept it because you don't realize just how improbable something as simple as the falling of a leaf actually is.
Next, let me explain something about evolution. If you are ever reading or listening to someone who is talking about evolution, and they use the word random, they don't know what they're talking about. Evolutionary scientists do not think it was random. They don't think that some force blew a bunch of atoms together and bam you had life; that's not how evolution works. You had a bunch of atoms, and a few of them made molecules, those molecules forms compounds. Billions of those compounds did absolutely nothing, but some of them formed life. Granted, we're not quite sure how, but experiments have actually created simple bacteria without an explainable means. Now, those life forms have one purpose, to reproduce. If they are successful, they continue to exist, and they change to fit the environment. If they don't, they can no longer reproduce, and they no longer exist. its a process, its not random chance, its the opposite of random chance.
Its like, if you wanted to guess someone's phone number by pulling numbered balls out of a bucket. The video you showed would want you to believe that you pulled out seven balls and got the number exactly, and that's incredibly improbable. that's true, it is incredibly improbable, its also not evolution. Evolution would be you pulled out seven balls, discarded the ones that didn't have the right numbers on them, and then picked again, and again, and again, and again and again, until you had the phone number. If you did that, it probably wouldn't take you all that long to get the number.
I can even give you a real world example of evolution, one that you can see happening in our world today. Elephants in africa have shorter and shorter tusks than they used to. Rarely do you see elephants with huge, expansive tusks, as you once did in Africa, you now see them with smaller, shorter tusks. Why is this? Did god decide that elephants no longer need big tusks? Did he create new elephants? What did he do with the old elephants? Are they even still elephants if they no longer adhere to the plan god laid out for them?
Well, evolution has a simple answer, we did it. We killed the elephants who had huge, expansive tusks. We wanted the ivory, so we shot the elphant and took the tusk. Now, elephants are amazing creatures, but I don't think they can reproduce when they're dead. So the ones who didn't get shot, those with shorter tusks, got to reproduce. That means that the gene for shorter tusks continued, while the gene for long, expansive tusks didn't. Its simple evolution in action.
I knew that evidence was going to be thrown away. lol But you guys have your beliefs and I have mine.
It hardly qualifies as evidence at all.
We didn't throw it away. If we'd thrown it away we would have said, "You don't know what your talking about", or, "that's just a funny video, what are you trying to get at". We didn't say that. We did what's called disproving your evidence. You presented what you thought was evidence, and we did what is called proving it wrong. Well, to be fair, we just presented evidence that points to the fact that your evidence is wrong. None of us really presented sources or anything of that nature, but still, its wrong.
And I hate this whole, "You have your opinion, and I have mine" thing. Please, tell me what your opinion is for if all you do is just sit there and do nothing with it? What good are you if you don't A. try to strengthen your opinion by seeking knowledge, and B. test your opinion against that of others to see if it holds up under fire? If you have an opinion, and all you do is keep silent about it, you have made yourself worthless.
We can only truly possess three things in this world, our principles, our knowledge, and our opinions. If we do not question all three, and use all three, than we serve no purpose, and we have become stagnant and useless, and we are wasting our existence.
So don't say, "you have your opinion and I have mine". Defend your opinion, find where the cracks are and try to fill them. If you can't fix it, then discard it and get a new one that you can defend. Don't just sit idly because its easier. Doing that makes you entirely pointless.
Yes, we do have logic and reason on our side. When someone tells me such and such happened, I first research it rather than following like a lost lamb (to coin a phrase from the Bible)
If you want my honest opinion, evolution is another religion. It's based on faith. Evolution is not a fact, it is simply a theory. Humans could not have just been randomly formed. That's just totally impossible.
And I think the only reason people believe in evolution is just because they want nothing to do with God.
Evolutionists. Do. Not. Say. That. It. Was. Random. How many fucking times does that have to be repeated for you boneheads to get it?
With regard to the shorter tusks, I can accept that because things can change over time. But evolution was not what brought this earth to existence. Do any of you know how long it takes to dig a canyon that is 150 feet deep, 15 miles long, and a quarter mile wide?
First, let me point out to you one thing. You remember all those years ago, you were sitting in elementary science class, and you learned that the reason you don't float off into space is because of gravity? Do you believe that to be true? Of course you do, no one is stupid enough to believe gravity doesn't exist, right?
Guess what, gravity is just a theory. the idea that the planets orbit the sun, theory. Humans made of carbon, theory. Water pressure, ocean currents, the rain cycle, the existence of a vacuum, airplanes using lift to fly, all of these are theories.
Let me explain. the word theory does not mean idea in a scientific sense. An idea is called a hypothesis, or even a thesis if its being written down. Then they create experiments, those experiments are tested again and again and again and again by as many scientists as possible, and eventually it is called a theory. the word most people forget to include in there is accepted. Gravity is an accepted theory of science. It is entirely possible that one day someone will come along and totally disprove the theory of gravity.
Thus, you saying that evolution is just a theory, is not really an argument at all. Besides, since so many creationists want to claim that their beliefs are based in science, then the creationists version is just a theory too. So what are you really trying to prove?
I really don't see the reason your asking how long it takes to dig a canyon of a certain proportion. What does that have to do with anything? I could dig it in a few days, or even a few seconds if I have the right materials. Or it could take hundreds of thousands of years to be carved out by a river. Again, what's your point?
Please tell me your not going to make the absolutely stupid claim that the grand canyon was carved by the outpouring of water after the great flood. Seriously, I'm begging you, don't be such a moron, or if you are, shut up and don't prove it to us. Every single law of fluid dynamics and basic physics goes against that theory. Plus, we can watch as the colorado river digs more and more out of the grand canyon. Its still being made. So please, if you are that stupid, keep it to yourself.
Finally, no evolution is not what brought this world to existence. That would be the big bang theory, not the theory of evolution. The big bang is about how the universe was created, and in a smaller way our planet. The theory of evolution is about how life began and evolved on our planet. They are completely separate issues.
Basicly your entire argument there was, the theory of evolution does not explain why I had eggs for breakfast. Well no shit sherlock, its not supposed to. It explains how that egg and how you came to exist. That's it.
Oh god the whole creation crap again?
Creationism fails, it fails as both a Scientific theory and as a hypothesis.
It fails as a Scientific theory because it's non-falsifiable, and it fails as a hypothesis because it's non-testable.
Funny how all credible Universities teach evolution in their biology courses. This "debate" between science and religion is only in the high schools.
Maybe that's why it's against the law to teach it in schools LOL. I actually heard an interview with a blind guy who was trying to run for president as a write-in candidate during the last election. And I distinctly recall him saying that not only did he intend to see the tyranical Federal Marriage Amendment passed but he basically also said he intended to do away with the separation of church and state.
It does not take hundreds of thousands of years to form a canyon. It can take hours. The same goes for petrified wood. You can make it rok solid within 60 minutes. The canyon I was talking about was caused by the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980. No, it was not carved out by a river, just an eruption.
Wait, you mean a volcanic eruption, which blasts thousands of tons of soil and ashe into the atmosphere, leaves a canyon? Um... again the words, "no shit", leap to mind. Its an explosion, of course it leaves a canyon, did you think all that soil that was blown into the atmosphere just fell right back into place?
As for petrified wood, I'd love to see someone take wood, completely saturate it with dissolved minerals, then evaporate all the water while maintaining enormous amounts of pressure, leaving behind only the minerals, and all in under sixty minutes. Do you have a video of someone doing this?
Either way though, what does any of that have to do with anything we've been discussing? So a volcano erupted and it left a mark. That's kinda what volcanoes do. Are you surprised it left a mark? Does the fact that an enormous explosion actually created some sort of fissure in the ground shock you? That doesn't seem like the logical conclusion to you?
In short, I'm confused, what is your point here?
I looked it up. A washington laboratory did make artificial petrified wood. However, it was ceramic, not actually petrified. Petrified wood isn't made of ceramic. Basically, they took minerals and fused them together in the shape of wood, they did not turn a log into a rock, just made really hard clay from soaking a log, (or pine blocks as it were), in a solution. Not the same thing, and besides it took days, not an hour.
Wood...uhhuhhuhhuhhuhhuhhuhh.
Now now, did we laugh at the word wood?
Lol.
I'd just finished watching Beavis and Butthead. LOL.
Yes that'll do it. Lol.