RackJR

When christianity held power the way the islamic leaders still do, they would have executed the person who published this cartoon. they certainly executed untold numbers for far less (women as young as 2 years old executed for witchcraft). if you're going to argue that they wouldn't do that today, right afterward you should thank the secular contingent of society that fought against that power. the fact that your religion has force evolved through societal pressure doesn't mean you should be throwing stones at islam. BTW i believe extra frames were added to that danish cartoon, specifically the offensive one's. part of the reason the newspaper did not apologize. the extra frames were added by the islamic religious leaders to incite anger. wasn't there a thread recently about some christian bimbo invoking leviticus against homosexuals? you sure your religion isn't exactly the same as islam, just in different stages of your life cycle (and therefore different power positions)? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i didn't see any numbers at all, except those in the title. more people have CCW's, and there are fewer deaths from guns. no actual numbers really. the article actually states several times that no scientific study has been done that has received wide acceptance. drawing conclusions seems like a tough thing to do. so i'm curious if anyone has more related information. is gun production up or down? although more CCW's are being issued, have there been stricter laws enacted about purchasing a handgun? i'm not taking the piss, i really don't know. is there a waiting period that might be discouraging those who plan to use the gun for less than admirable purposes? typically the people who get CCW's are not the one's looking to rob a bank, IMO. have stiffer penalties been enacted regarding illegal handguns? i know in denver they have billboards advertising that illegal handguns will earn you quick ride to jail. does anyone have other data that might shed more light on the whole picture? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

it's long easy to see every day. easy to see in the bible. you remember when i said something to the effect of "if it ended with 'love others', i would go to great lengths to defend your right to preach it"? it doesn't end there. god wipes out races of people. people come from god. people wipe out races of people. an easy line of reasoning to follow. very frightening for those who find themselves on the wrong side of god, or god's people. i'm glad you have the integrity to admit it. you're right, i don't like the implication that those victims were collateral damage in a war. however, the logic you invoke here about acceptable losses in a war is another subject entirely. i don't think of the dark ages as a war between nations or a war between religions. if it can be viewed as a war, IMO it is only as a war waged by the religious against, well, anyone, whether they were "guilty" of anything or not. it was a war waged by the establishment to maintain the establishment. machiavelli couldn't have scripted it better himself. get in power and do anything you have to to keep power. they used the bible as their platform. others will use it again if they are allowed to. a different version is used now (the koran) for similar goals. where do you get this? you've made similar mention of it before. no one in the scientific world claims that we got something from nothing. that's what religious people claim, that god created everything from nothing. the conservation of mass dictates that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but simply transformed. likewise, no one claims that if life gets wiped out on earth, that it cannot start again on earth, or somewhere else. i absolutely do not claim that life came from nothing, or that having vanished, it will never come again. i will claim that we do not currently understand the exact mechanism that sparked life on this planet. the lack of that knowledge does not lead me to believe that there must be a god to fill that gap. interesting. i do believe that when i die, it's over. my energy will be recycled into the system as my body decays, but my consciousness will end. IYO, does a blade of grass get to carry on it's existence and go be with god after it's time here is done? a mosquito? a dolphin? a chimp that understands and can respond to spoken english (several of these exist)? i'm gonna guess your answer is no. why not? i think that actually the burden of proof rests with you, if you're going to claim that we are somehow different than every other living thing. the events after death are untestable. unknown. we'll know when we get there. if it's my way, we won't know anything. if it's your way, you'll know it carries on. you claim that there is a life after this one, with only the bible as evidence. your assertion here, if i'm getting it right, is that my rejection of that idea is costing me my innocence and my current existence. how, exactly? it would be my counter-assertion that i will not waste one moment that i have of my current existence pandering to a god, about whom there remains absolutely no objective proof of. if you are going to reply about the existence of objective proof, i look forward to it! let me hear it. i don't claim to know what happens when we die. i believe that my consciousness will end. most religious people do make the claim that they know, with absolute certainty, what happens when they die. it includes them going to spend time with their god. if i can quote one of my favorite movies, "how grand it must be, to be the chosen one".... -professor snape i'm sorry, but the fact that our brains have evolved to the point that we have more time to think about things other than basic survival does not also bestow upon us everlasting life. when we became self aware, we also developed a fear of losing the self. myths were created to assuage those fears. the myths have persisted and evolved, but they are essentially the same myths that have existed since the beginnings of self awareness. who do you claim created the world and molded us in his image? who set it up this way? you quoted me on it, i'll say it again. i just don't get it. if we were molded in the image of god, how could he not have foreseen that so many of his creations would have terrible difficulty accepting the truth you claim christ brought, on faith alone? why would that god set up a system that allowed for the suffering of so many of his sentient creations? if you had a huge ant farm at your house, and you spent time every day burning ants with a magnifying glass, how many days would go by before you stopped to consider that you might have a serious sociopathic disorder? why would you burn the ants? they are simply living according to the balance they've struck with their natural world. why make them suffer through a death filled with pain and fire? and that's just one life. why make them suffer for an eternity of fire? is there anything rational about this? i do neither. if there is no god, i think it's fair to expect that there will be roughly equal amounts of "good" and "bad" events. and actually i think that's exactly what we see in the world. i would go on to argue that absolutely none of these things are inherently good or bad, and it is only our subjective interpretation of those events that assigns some sort of significance to an otherwise inconsequential event. absolutely will not work for me. too much of this life is spent hearing about why i need to live in fear. any system relying on a god that needs to be feared is the embodiment of the attempt to control others. i will not waste what little time i have in fear of the benevolent being that supposedly created me. absolutely not what i claimed. i said nothing about the spirit of jesus working today, or then. it would be my claim that there is no such thing! what i'm clearly not doing a good job of conveying is my certainty that people of religion will always claim they are working in the spirit of the lord (whatever name you give the lord). the people of that time (the dark ages) claimed they were. the people of this time, whether they agree with their predecessors or not, make the same claim. what's worse, the bible gives all of them the ability to claim, with the exact same certainty, the exact same providence. everyone claims they are working within the spirit if god. you are claiming that now. other religious people would not agree with you, but also claim they are working withing the spirit of god. who is right? IMO you are all wrong. i'll keep talking to you because you don't seem to want to kill me for disagreeing. there are plenty of people today, and always have been, who are willing to kill me for simply questioning whether they are working in god's name or spirit. getting back to your quote. my claim was not that they were working in spirit of jesus. what i said was that they would claim, just as you do, to be working in the spirit of jesus. as does every single other person of faith. including those priests, right up to the moment they were expelled for abusing children. i'm sure that they will ask forgiveness, and then get right back to work. you say they're wrong, they say you're wrong. my only claim is that you are both wrong. not a bold statement. the inquisition was carried out by the religious leaders of the age. it's an historical fact. i understand that you see a difference between your belief system, and the way of religion. i also understand that you are in the minority in your interpretation of the bible, and i think you know that. saying that i'm not listening... honestly i could make the same claim to you. the fundamental lesson you speak of is apparently lost on a lot of religious minded people. in addition, we seem to keep missing each other on this topic. i'm not claiming that i know what the spirit of jesus is, or who might be following it. i'm claiming that everyone, everyone who is religious claims that they are following the spirit of jesus (or insert prophet here), no matter what their belief is, or how they act, or who they choose to kill in the name of their prophet. nope. your assertion is that jesus died for us all. i'm telling you that if someone, in the name of god, is going to kill another for disagreeing with their belief in whatever god that is, a volunteer will instead offer their life. one life is exchanged for one life. the non believer is allowed to continue to be a non believer. the volunteer's faith is so absolute that they will die instead. i believe that if i die, my existence comes to an end. a tiny part of me (very tiny) can look forward to this event. my life has been about experience, and that will be another experience, albeit the last one. but since i'll get there in any case, i don't feel the need to rush things. you believe you will carry on and be with your god. sounds great. you go in my stead. not for all mankind. just for me (or whoever becomes the target of this zealot). perhaps the crux of our difficulty. you all claim to be working within the lord. all of you. who is right? your answer is obvious. you are right. the others are wrong, if they disagree with your viewpoint. clearly they have not understood the gospel the way you have. the same way that you are wrong if you disagree with them. it will go on and on and on. factions. protestants. catholics. baptists. northern baptists. LDS. heretics to each other. the only sure fire enemy is someone like me, willing to admit that they don't believe in any of it. and you cannot deny that even if you don't call me an enemy for that reason, many do. all claiming authority from the same book. other religious people who do not agree with you can make the same claim about you. you could be acting as an agent of evil right now. if you told other religious people your views, undoubtedly some would claim exactly that. who is right? matthew Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30 Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14 Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7 mark Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11 Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49 luke Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15 Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5 Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47 acts Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23 Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10 my google search words were "killing new testament". the page i clicked on was the first one given http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html i left out john in the interest of brevity. they are all quite similar. and clearly, things have been paraphrased. but, are they all incorrect? is this what you asked for? i didn't bring a bible with me when i moved here. if you need exact quotes, i'll do some more digging. you were defending your position that the inquisition was part of god's plan, and therefore contained purpose. after that defense, you went on to say that the men of the world who you claim are atheists have wrought similar hardships upon mankind. i replied that everything was either part of god's plan, or it wasn't. now you go on to say that it is not god's plan, but rather the deceptive agenda of evil men. who created those men, and gave them evil agendas? is there purpose behind god's creation of the evil man? goes against what i was taught. father-son-holy ghost are all one and the same, slightly different embodiments of the same being. nothing to do with the subjective perception of him. a very very far cry from plain language. i don't know how the quote from john relates, since we are talking about a plain language passage rescinding the law that homosexuals must be killed. i cannot find the quote from matthew. i looked at several different sites, all of them list matthew 2:22 as something about the ruler of judea and withdrawing to galilee. nothing at all about a wineskin. i'll assume for the moment that the wineskin quotation is accurate, and that i can't find it because i don't know the bible very well. it is not plain language. it is open to interpretation. it is vague enough that you can apply it to anything you would like to change about anything. or, could just as easily be an accurate description of what will happen if you pour new wine into an old wineskin, since they did use those back then. but certainly not the same kind of plain language used to condemn homosexuals. avoids the statement/question completely. the facts must fit with your beliefs. every bit of information you process must be filtered in such a way that it will fit with what you already believe. what you believe will not change because of new information. my world does not work that way. my beliefs must fit the facts. if new facts arise that do not fit my beliefs, the belief system comes under scrutiny. facts are verified. the entire belief system is open to be completely discarded if it no longer fits the facts. i'll admit that i might find it difficult to accept a skeleton of a modern man that dates back before the dinosaurs. but if it was verified by independent scientific work, my belief system would have to change. yours will not. you will find some way to discount new facts that don't fit. actually, it is for me to decide, for me. it is for you to decide for you. it is not for you to decide what's right or wrong for me. so many religious minded people feel they have the right to tell others what's right and wrong, as you do here. it is arrogant and presumptuous. whatever revelations you've had can dictate how you live your life. no problem there. when you extend that into telling others what is right and wrong for their lives, it becomes arrogant. presumptuous because you feel that your answers work for everyone. they don't. if someone comes to you and tells you that they like how you live, and asks for some help getting sorted out, then great. i don't feel like you've been too preachy in your previous posts. hopefully you can recognize what you've said here for what it is. well, i did give it a chance, if you remember. i was indoctrinated into it until i actively rejected it. but what difference does it make to say that i didn't give it a chance? i'm saying it's been around for 2500 years and it is completely open for debate whether it has caused more harm than good. what about all the other people that have given it a chance? if it was such a great thing for the masses, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. and i don't assume that i'm not on the side of truth. please quote me when you state my opinion. truth is something i place high value on, and constantly strive to be on the side of truth. it's just that i rarely find it in the religious minded. too many hypocrites. :) something you can apply to anyone you choose, if they don't agree with your beliefs. since i suggested that we might have different definitions of free thinking, i posted one that i found which closely resembled mine. i'm not sure how you took that to resemble me trying to define love from a dictionary. you called yourself a free thinker. that didn't fit with my idea of free thinking, since while you were calling yourself a free thinker, you had admitted that you no longer question god. if anything gets to the point that it can no longer be questioned, IMO free thinking about that topic has ended. if i use a label, and the context in which i use my label contradicts your established idea of the label, we'll need to stop and clear that up, won't we? any conversation needs to have accepted definitions if we are to understand each other. using something from the dictionary is just an easy way to start. it's a generally accepted definition. i get it that you're using a different definition. but i get it because i stopped and asked, gave you what i thought, and had you explain why it was different for you. i would still say, having heard your definition, that you will either need to find another way to describe your kind of thinking, or perhaps follow up your use of "free thinking" with your explanation of it, every time you use it. otherwise those outside your belief system will probably be confused in a way similar to the way i was. interesting. freedom to search outside of borders is another way to say exactly what i said in my definition of free thinking. perhaps you don't see it that you have placed borders upon your thought. you no longer question god, and therefore you've established a border beyond which your questioning has stopped. does this mean that by your own definition, you're not a free thinker on this subject? not my statement, although in the context of what you were saying, perhaps that's not what you meant. in the definition i gave, clearly it narrowed the focus to specifically include rejection of religious dogma. i stand by that, because i think it is specifically this area that many people often abandon what is normally rational and free thought and exchange it for rigid conformity with established boundaries. i really want to clear this up, so i'll run the risk of being boring and redundant, and apologize to whoever reads this besides you ryno. i fully and absolutely understand that there is a difference between the spirit and letter of any written document. the spirit is something that can typically be taken in only as a whole, and with something as big as the bible, that will mean probably years of study. with any single author, i would argue that a study of other works might be necessary. both "sides" are guilty of a peculiar habit, taking a snippet out of context and using it to forward their argument... calling eistein a religious person, calling hitler an atheist, or taking small portions of the bible and quoting them when it fits. the spirit is usually not contained in something so small. i get it. however, the point we keep missing is that all religious people, of all time, claim that they are following the spirit in everything they do. you claim that now. the leaders of the inquisition claimed it then. you say they weren't. i'm not saying they were, dude i would never say that because i don't agree that anyone could be. i'm just saying that they claimed they were. you claim you are. the pope claims he is. white supremacists claim they are. the guy who kills an abortion doctor claims he is. GWB claims he is. Obama claims he is. the crusaders claimed they were. you can keep telling me that none of these people were actually working in the spirit of jesus, but you are, and that's fine. but it misses the point that all of you claim the same thing. please address that, and not who you think is actually right. in a couple places in your post, you talk about my inability to see, my pride blocking my path, my inability to hear, being judged, condemned. it's always struck me as a really interesting, odd behavior, which i've seen many times in the past from religious people. it can be summed up as "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong, and bad shit will happen to you". now, the first part i could be guilty of as well. if you don't agree with me, i'll talk to you, and decide if i think you're wrong, or i am. on religion, i think if you don't agree with me, you're wrong. but no matter what the subject is, i will not tell you that bad shit will happen to you because you don't agree with me. i might think that you are missing the wonderful possibilities of a life lived without fear, but i won't tell you that you're going to hell to have your skin burned off as you suffer for the rest of eternity. i also might think that you're deluding yourself (for reasons i can only guess at) but i generally will not state that, because most people will aptly take that as an affront to their intellectual capacity. however, if you don't come around to my way of thinking, that's fine... as long as you don't hurt other people, it doesn't matter much to me what you think. i'll engage in conversation with anyone, new ideas are always good, for both of us. so, again i'm curious if you see this how i do: you're listening to what i have to say, disagreeing, but then telling me about how it is a failing of mine which means i can't see it the way you do. it's my inability to see. it's my pride. it's my inability to hear. labels. i'm hoping you can see that it is within those labels and inabilities that you find the subtle condescension of the "righteous". by all means, present your ideas. outline the way that you see it. detail your reasons why. leave out the judgement about why i don't see it the same way. i think you'll continue to find that to be very difficult, because the basis of it is learned in the bible. the lessons in the bible are that if you don't agree with the bible, it is due to some failings within you. ok gonna call no joy now. we've got plenty to talk about, and everyone seems to be tiring of the long posts. not that i did any better :) Say what you mean. Do what you say.

did you actually read this article? 6 spelling errors in a 1 page document. massive, unsubstantiated assumptions that the author admits will cast doubts on any conclusions. but you read the conclusion and think that makes it a relevant source for discussion? this isn't "finding out the facts". i guess if the bible seems credible, this guy must sound like ironclad certainty. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

uhh, did you actually read the article you linked? they're not sure why he died. i don't know about you, but hanging out at my mom's house while sick wouldn't be the place i'd be loading up. maybe wait till the toxicology report actually comes out before saying it was pills? just sayin. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

"... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." -adolf hitler, mein kampf "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." -adolf hitler, to general gerhart engel also according to a poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, 63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox, 6% of respondents considered themselves Muslim and less than 1% considered themselves either Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant or Jewish. Another 12% said they believe in God, but did not practice any religion, and 16% said they are non-believers. i'd love to hear your problem with soviet russia? our ww2 allies that we then vilified during the cold war but are now our allies again? enlighten me. The People's Republic of China was established in 1949. Its government is officially atheist, which viewed religion as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism. Religious belief or practice was banned because it was regarded as backward and superstitious by some of the communist leaders, from Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong, who had been critical of religious institutions. please, enlighten me again. Cuba is traditionally a Catholic country. The Roman Catholic Church estimates that 60 percent of the population is Catholic. But the Catholic Church is subject to government restrictions, and it is not allowed to have its own schools or media. willing to do it again? just curious why you listed these countries. i understand your "mistake" about hitler, it's one that christians have tried with fair success to spread, despite all evidence to the contrary. never let the truth stand in the way of a good story. but i'm actually curious what charges you're leveling against russia, china, and cuba. fine if you need to call me uneducated, but then briefly, educate me. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

please tell me the article you read. i mean exactly, like link it here so everyone can read the same article. i linked one, you either didn't bother to read it or dismissed it because it didn't support your position. i don't care which. but i'd like to read what you read that formed this opinion. sorry i just don't buy it that you'd be offended if someone called you a doctor or air traffic controller. confused maybe. don't get your panties in a wad about the word bigot. i'm gonna apply that to anyone who uses derogatory terms like nigger, spick, slant, spook, or queer. guess i don't do political correctness either. just like to call a spade a spade. queer adj 1.strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular: a queer notion of justice. 2.of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady: Something queer about the language of the prospectus kept investors away. 3.not feeling physically right or well; giddy, faint, or qualmish: to feel queer. 4.mentally unbalanced or deranged. 5.Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a.homosexual. b.effeminate; unmanly. 6.Slang. bad, worthless, or counterfeit. 10.Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a homosexual, esp. a male homosexual. i only added the emphasis. this is from dictionary.com, if you'd like to look for yourself, which i doubt, because it doesn't support your position. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

if i don't hear the rest of that joke, i might never recover.... Say what you mean. Do what you say.

can you give me some more details about this case? i'd like to do some research. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

is this the case you're talking about? cut and paste from a google search. Summer was starting and Robin Shahar had it made. She'd graduated sixth in her class at Emory Law School and was getting ready to start a new job as a staff attorney at the legal office where she'd worked as a law clerk the previous summer. And she was in love and preparing to solemnify her commitment in a Jewish ceremony that July. But Shahar's love was a woman, and when her new employer found out about her plans, he withdrew the job offer. He wrote that he was doing so specifically because of the "purported marriage between you and another woman," explaining that "inaction on my part would constitute tacit approval of this purported marriage and jeopardize the proper functioning of this office." Shahar wanted to fight, but she faced an uphill battle: She lived in Georgia, one of 30 states with no law protecting gays and lesbians from employment discrimination. Even more daunting, her prospective employer was Michael Bowers, Georgia's Attorney General at the time. here's the link, just in case you want to actually read about the cases you cite. maybe it's just me, but this actually does sound like she was discriminated against. if this is the case you're talking about, you're not being very honest. http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/sexordiscrim while i was looking for a case that might match what you were talking about, i found a couple other sites. these were all in relation to proposed legislation: The Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) * A Georgia woman was fired from her job as an award-winning cook when her company adopted a written policy against employing gay people. * A married, heterosexual Kansas man was refused a teaching job because a school employee suggested that he might be gay. * A Detroit postal worker was harassed and beaten at work because of his perceived sexual orientation and was told by a federal court that, although he had clearly suffered discrimination, "homosexuality is not an impermissible criteria (sic) on which to discriminate" under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Dillon v. Frank, 959 F2d 403 (6th Cir. 1992) yeah, sounds just like that... would you believe that your use of the word "queer" is what made me think your information might not be correct? are you the same guy who claimed to work with gay people one summer, but are angry cuz now you're being called a bigot? didn't learn much tolerance, huh? certainly you didn't develop any respect, if you're still ok using that term. if you have it in you to reply, could you also tell us who constitutes "traditional americans"? i think homosexuality has been around for quite a while, even gets quite a discussion in your favorite book. america was made up originally of a lot of outcasts from other places, and i'm guessing homosexuals have been in america since it was first called america. by "traditional", do you mean people from your church group? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i wasn't trying to define love. it was a definition of free thinking. since i had said that we perhaps had a different definition, and the one i posted closely resembled what i would have given mine as, i thought it might help to post it. i also asked for yours. but it wasn't about love right then. totally agree. but since we didn't seem to agree on what constitutes a free thinker, establishing a platform seemed in order. i tried to. you haven't yet. i really didn't answer, if you're asking the question again. my answer is, i don't know. again, i think it would depend on your definition of free thought. i would agree that children are typically more free in their thinking about religion, because they have not yet been indoctrinated into it. but neither of us are children. however, you have stated several times that uneducated does not mean unintelligent. agreed, but i would add that typically education and intelligence are closely correlated. i have to ask, since i can't remember a single time of questioning your intelligence, is this a defensive position you typically assume? i'm gonna guess you've encountered that accusation in the past (uneducated = unintelligent) so you're preemptively stating the contrary here. fair enough. but, i get it, and i'm not claiming otherwise. i'm not getting my panties in a twist, don't worry. the point i'm trying to make, apparently i'm not making it very well, is that we disagree, and making either position more contentious is probably counterproductive. if you can even say there is a productive way to go about this. i haven't seen you quote any of my posts as belittling to you personally, and i don't recall having done it. i have argued points without taking shots at you, whether i felt i could take a shot or not, because calling you names isn't getting anywhere, and i left the playground behind a long time ago. in this case, we were talking about whether the perpetrators of the inquisition were following the words of jesus. you claimed that they were not. i replied that it was simply your claim, and expressed my certitude that the perpetrators undoubtedly claimed that they absolutely were following the spirit and letter of the bible. you called my position naive. i could argue that it's equally naive to think that they weren't following the words of jesus, since the bible talks clearly about atrocities such as the inquisition, and things much worse. but naive or not, i think you are capable of arguing your position without the labels. if you choose to keep doing it, you might see me pointing it out. if it's that important for you to label me, don't be bothered if i find a funny way to poke at you for labeling me. is this actually what you think my goal is in talking to you? i'm not trying to keep you out of anything. the only reason i posted to you in the first place is because your posts seem to reflect your willingness to talk openly about religion. i love talking about religion. i found long ago, however, that despite most people's stated willingness to discuss it, they are anything but. as soon as questions surface that they don't have answers to, i get shouted at that i'm going to hell and the conversation ends. i don't feel like i'm judging you. i think that any religious person has some questions they'll have to answer when they engage in any conversation with the non believer. i think many of your answers have been inconsistent, reflecting the difficulty of balancing the incredible inconsistency of the bible. i know very well the questions we ask are not easy to answer. they are the questions which we all asked ourselves, and realized the answers were ridiculous, requiring a mental flexibility that i for one rejected. the simplicity of the other option for me (scientific inquiry) made so much logical sense by comparison, that the decision was very easy. to continue to ask questions is not judging. i don't know exactly how i would trick you, and typically i try to quote only very small sections of what you say so that it's easier to grasp what you're getting at when i reply. if it's contradictory, i'll probably be pointing that out. i'm not here for tricks. pick a topic. i hope at this point it's clear that i don't believe in god, any god. yours, zeus, poseidon, Ra, Osiris, Krishna, any of them. they are all the same to me. if i find someone who does believe in one of these gods, and if i feel they can handle it, i'll ask questions. honestly, most of the time people can't handle it. either they will get angry, or their answers will become so vague as to be pointless. i do believe in the power of scientific inquiry. i think it has elegance in it's simplicity, and i feel that i share in it's thirst to know more. there are very few things i will believe without evidence. i believe that even feelings of love are usually accompanied by "evidence", if you can call it that. you meet someone, you like them, they seem to like you, you develop trust, you get to know them, and then your feelings may develop into more. very rarely, if ever, do i think love simply strikes people. i would call that lust, which then may be replaced by love at some later time. we've spent most of the time talking about what you believe, and i guess i've been questioning how you can believe that, given these questions and inconsistencies. sometimes you've answered, honestly most of the time not very specifically. usually your answers are about the love contained in the gospel, how it spoke to you personally, and how the strength of the relationship you've made with god has changed your outlook on the world. not too often do i feel like you've actually addresses any one of the many points brought up. you have the same accusation of me (not answering questions), and i'm honestly not positive what you've asked me that hasn't been rhetorical in my eyes. since you said that i give you reasons i don't believe instead of saying what i do believe it, my reply is simply that what i do believe in doesn't require the same mental gymnastics, and therefore doesn't usually engender the same barrage of questions. if you have questions about scientific inquiry, evolution, or the natural world, feel free to ask. i won't claim to be an authority on any of them, but i'll try to answer them as well as i can. my suspicion is that you're not going to ask those kinds of questions, because you already feel you have the answers, and any answers i give that don't fit in will require more mental gymnastics to either dismiss them or "filter" them into your paradigm. and getting back to your quote, i don't think i've been giving you the reasons that i don't believe what you believe. at 13, i decided none of it made any sense to me, and my blossoming interest in the physical world seemed at odds with most of the bible teachings i had been listening to. i've been asking questions related to my inability to understand how a rational, thinking person might believe in things that seem blatantly untrue to me. all of these questions came well after my rejection of religion in general, and christianity specifically. in other words, i didn't believe, long before these questions ever occurred to me. it's just that the more i learn about the bible, the more i feel reinforced that my 13 year old decision was perfect for me. it allowed me to look at any information, scientific, religious, philosophical, whatever, without needing it to fit into any paradigm, and therefore i think i could look at it objectively. it's not that i don't care, i can't speak for anyone else. i have read all of your posts in their entirety. i will say that it seems that you talk about those revelations, regardless of how specific the original question was. me asking you about homosexuality being a sin is a great example. you did finally answer part of the question, but i've asked for a citation from you, similar to the one posted (from leviticus) where the words of jesus negate the law that leviticus invokes, and the topic just goes away. i've asked who's words they were, and you told me if it was slippery for me, to seek greater knowledge. so, you have answered some things when pressed. if the only thing you wish to discuss about religion is the revelation you've had, and the gospels, and avoid any other topics as distasteful, buddy i'm probably gonna get bored. just being honest. like i said before. if you want to preach the simple message of "love others", i'll be all for it. if the message stops there, you would never, ever hear a word of argument from me, and i would go to great lengths to defend your right to preach it. but your faith is based in the bible, and in the bible, it doesn't end there. inconsistencies. atrocities. myth. legend. directions for genocide. instructions for slavery. permission to keep captured virgins. it just goes on and on, and most of it has nothing at all to do with love, or goodness, or godliness. asking about those inconsistencies interests me. seems to interest a lot of people. you got into this freely, and were talking about homosexuality by your 2nd post, long before i waded in. you are equally free to stop talking to me, and that will be ok. but i promise you that if you keep questioning science, or specifically evolution (since it's been in this thread already) there won't be a point where i don't want to talk to you anymore, or evade your questions by talking about the gospel of subatomic particles when my answers run out. you can't violate my belief system, because it isn't a belief system. it's a body of knowledge, free for anyone to examine. if you're actually interested, ask away. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

freethinker n. One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in his religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. -The American Heritage Dictionary maybe you can give me your definition. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i don't know what to say. i just don't get it. i think it will always be a contradiction in my eyes that a benevolent god will reveal himself through something like hell. that an omniscient god could pen something so confusing as the bible. that an omnipotent god would choose such a convoluted path to understanding. that so many could pervert the thing you claim is a simple message of love. i guess if you admit that you no longer question the thing you believe in, i'm also gonna guess that no one outside your immediate belief system is gonna label you a free thinker. maybe we have a different definition of free thinking. it's been a couple thousand years. things aren't much different now than they were then, at least in regard to man's inhumanity to their fellow man. we still do things old testament style. several people in recent history have shown the old testament what's what. i'm hoping there's a reasonable time limit to the credibility of a book that promises an omnipotent, omniscient god, who doesn't seem to get to the point. if there's some grace we're supposed to be attaining, it doesn't take much looking around to see that we're not any closer now than we were then. i currently live in the middle east. there's a skirmish over here, maybe you've heard about it. there's another around isreal. i could pretty easily go on and on. when you say "perfect", what exactly do you mean? that these things are perfect? that you don't accept that people are dying? that there hasn't been any absolutely huge death toll recently, so it's becoming perfect? how recent? what constitutes huge? like, the earthquake in haiti wasn't recent or huge enough? or chile? actually i don't think i'm alone in being quite worried that someone with an outlook similar to yours will release some sort of supervirus, and through their worldwide genocide, bring us all to judgement. or start a nuclear war. or do something along those lines that kills lots of people. if it's all god's plan, then it can't be anything except correct for them to carry that out. hmm. i have never really thought about whether i could design a better world than god, probably because i don't believe he exists in the first place, let alone designed it. i do think the world would be better off without god. it won't mean that all the problems will go away. but a lot of them might. i think a lot of people would still find reasons to hate each other, and probably atrocities would still happen. but i do think it would take away the righteousness of a lot of people. we'd all simply be accountable for our own actions. we would all just have this life to work with. if we hurt someone we'd have to ask them for forgiveness. we'd all have only this world to work with. if we waste it, if we hurt each other, we've missed our only chance. maybe people would learn to think a bit more about their actions before they act, think about their words before they speak, and not ask for forgiveness later. we've had christianity for two and half thousand years. i'm ready to give it a go without it. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

to be honest, you need to say that purpose is something you must see in everything, in order to keep your belief systems valid. which is why you would say that this atrocity contains purpose, and why i must reiterate that your idea of purpose would earn you great enmity from those who fall victim to said purpose. how about, as a group, you start volunteering. instead of shooting abortion doctors, you offer yourself as a sacrifice. instead of killing gay college students, zealot christians will find you, standing in their stead. if they must kill, let them take the name at the top of the list of volunteers, and kill them. you will die for your purpose. your group of christians can kill each other, instead of enforcing your idea of law on the rest of us, who don't share your sense of purpose. if you think there's purpose to all of it, let your death speak for your conviction. save the lives of others. make a stand, to prove that christianity is not about harming those who don't believe. show the world that the old testament is the old way, and a new way, and purpose, is here. that's not what they claimed. that's simply what you are claiming now, so that it continues to fit into your belief system. without that belief system, it is much easier to see those acts for what they were. i'm sorry, but your own line of reasoning is failing here. i don't think it's consistent of you to claim a purpose for the inquisition, carried out by the church, and claim these men were completely influenced by their own evil and deceptive agendas. either these atrocities are the work of god, or they're not. the same way that the atrocities in the bible are either the work of god, or not. since you'll undoubtedly say they are the work of men, i'll amend that to read, either they are the purpose of god, or not. jesus and god are the same. you say that when it fits your purpose. say it when it doesn't as well. the things we're talking about are shameful atrocities. the fact that the bible changes it's tune (somewhat) in the new testament doesn't mean you can discard the rest. if you're going to claim that jesus fulfilled the law with his sacrifice, please also tell me the chapter and verse where he negated the previous laws in the same plain language he used to invoke them. "i said, 'with all due respect' ".-Ricky Bobby, Talledega nights. you previously labeled me as limited. today it's naive and argumentative. but you did it with respect. i'll answer that i think religious people are blithe simpletons who's fear about the realities of life are strong enough that they set aside their rationality, and replace it with strong irrational belief in an imaginary superpower residing in the sky and a 2000 year old book that makes little, if any, sense. respectfully. have i treated you with respect? we are diametrically opposed on this issue. obviously, it is simply the desire to debate which fuels us, since neither of us is in any danger of converting. i don't think in my previous posts that i've labeled you in the way you seem to be ok with labeling me. in fact i try hard to stay away from it. tacking on "respectively" at the end does not negate what you said. or make it respectful. diametric opposition means that the conversation may occasionally be argumentative. it does not have to be insulting. there may be things i am naive about. do you live with the humbleness you aspire to, by calling me so? or by pointing those things out? let's admit that we don't agree. i will freely admit that i'm not an authority on the bible. however, having been brought up christian, and having spent a large part of my adult life reading all kinds of book (atheist as well as christian), i guess i don't consider myself naive on this subject. if my thoughts don't agree with yours, which they probably won't, maybe we can do without the labels? the atrocities of the old testament were 2300 years ago or more. the spanish inquisition (just the spanish one) was roughly 1540-1700 ad, or 160 years of torture and murder. the dark ages, depending on how you calculate it, maybe 600 years long? 6 million jews in ww2, 65 years ago. it wouldn't be very hard to fill in a lot more examples of repulsive acts throughout history, all of which you must label as part of god's purpose in order to keep your belief system intact. seems like an awful lot of suffering was in his perfect plan, over an awful long period of time. seems like it just keeps happening. warring tribes in africa. genocide in boznia. seems to fit right into the biblical plan. seems just like the god of the bible. but it also seems disgustingly easy for every person in your position to say that there's a purpose to it all. i'm sure the religious minded of these periods did, in their own time. pretty easy to say "if only you believed more you'd see it, and it's all being played out now." i have no doubt there will be people like you for the rest of time, arguing that their beliefs are the way, his plan is being revealed right now, if only everyone could see what you see. so, this is how the modern day religious person explains the crap the religious of the past did? how will the next generation of religious minded explain the zealots of today? i'm sure in exactly the same way. however, you were responding to me saying that the religious of the inquisitorial period were not there to help stem the tide, rather, they were leading the charge. you didn't offer anything meaningful as a rebuttal, you simply labeled them. not much of a response. more like a deflection. off to your next post. :) Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Ryno come on man. you're sitting in a pretty cushy spot to be saying there's a purpose of greater good behind the brutal torture and murder of thousands of people. i can't believe you're actually defending that period as a good thing because it served a higher purpose. do you really not see how repulsive that line of reasoning is? how dangerously close it is to the reasoning that brought it about in the first place? the people who perpetrated those crimes were the absolute authority on the very book you're claiming to have a deep understanding of. if there was a purpose to the inquisition, it should be that future generations see what happens when religious power is allowed to run wild. yes, the entire history of man has been brutal. for a group that you claim is all about love, christianity has had at least it's share of brutality. do you really think that those people who found themselves on the torture table would have been interested in what you're getting at here? a metal box with no bottom is placed on their abdomen. rats are placed in the box and the lid closed. the box is heated with flame until the rats, desperate to escape, burrow into the abdomen of the "sinner". or they're burned alive. or (the one's who receive the lords mercy) are garroted, then burned. do you really think they would give a shit about your idea of a greater good? how can you be seriously defending the god that you claim made this happen for the greater good? by "greater good" do you mean the financial gain of the inquisitors? and all at the hands of people who, just like you, claim to have knowledge about this book that the rest of us don't have. i have such a hard time believing that you can't see basis for the claim that you will discard any evidence that doesn't fit into your belief system. you work backwards from your belief that you have the truth. you label this atrocity as "purposeful" so that it can fit into your truth that god is always good, always correct, made all this happen, and this is all his plan for a better world. i don't see a purpose to the inquisition either, at least, not the way you mean. to me, it is a grim reminder of what the world will be like if we allow people of faith to have that kind of power again. the dark ages were many centuries of fear, repression, torture, rape (and of course completely stifled scientific inquiry). all by divine providence. if christians had been the one's during these times who had sheltered people from harm, or argued for the end of the inquisition, decried the use of torture, or denounced the confiscation of property, maybe you'd have some ground to stand on. they weren't. they were leading the whole thing! since you said it, try to share with all of us what the greater good might have been please. i know, i know, the lord works in mysterious ways. a mere mortal like me can't see the whole picture. his plan will be revealed. but you're in touch with the gospels, you love to say it. tens of thousands of people had to be tortured, and thousands burned alive because......??? here's your chance. detail the purpose for me. for us. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i'm guessing Galileo heard something similar. i don't think any scientist would claim this. it might be better phrased "although the exact mechanism of the origins of life are currently unknown, we're incredibly curious about how it actually happened, so we will continue to formulate hypotheses. through our testing of these hypotheses, we may better understand an event that occurred roughly 3.5 billion years ago. We will continue to examine and test our ideas, and if they do not fit with the observed data, we will discard or modify them. If they do fit with the observed data, we will continue to test them. Others will also test our ideas independently, and if they cannot replicate our results, the veracity of our claim will be diminished significantly. If the idea survives enough testing, it may eventually be classed as a theory. However, if at any point in the future, a new piece of evidence contradicts the theory, the theory may be modified, or discarded in favor of a new better idea that more closely fits with the observed data." the religious person, on the other hand: "i know, with absolute certainty, how life originated. i base that knowing on a single book, written over the course of hundreds of years, filled with nearly innumerable contradictions. the origin outlined in this book cannot be tested in any way, instead emanating from a creator, who's origin does not need any such explanation. the earth is filled with similar books, but my book has exclusive rights to absolute certainty. No further testing needs to be done. any perceived contradictions between observed data and this book are not actually contradictions, and may be explained as a lack of understanding or inability to comprehend the book. only further reading of the book in question can provide any answers. if at any point in the future any data can be shown to be in contradiction to the book, it will be ignored, misconstrued, or deliberately misrepresented. anyone who questions the book is clearly limited in their ability to comprehend the book, and needs to be vilified, or killed if possible, before their words can reach anyone else. the book is now, always has been, and always will be absolutely correct." because we cannot currently explain something fully does not mean there must be an explanation within god, although the religious minded will seize any gaps in our explanations to spin their story up. this has, in fact, been their strategy for anything that cannot be currently explained, throughout history. thankfully science will continue to search for greater understanding and thereby expand the boundaries of what we can explain. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

apparently, there's a couple christians out there who don't either. including bimbo's on tv talking about gays needing to be put to death. you guys talk about this enlightenment that you've had as if it's the new law of christianity, and are astounded that the atheists (or non believes) in this forum don't share your excitement. the fact is that those of you who feel this enlightenment are sadly a tiny minority. most of the religious are still operating in the dark ages. its sad and frustrating. look around. we're not just looking at you. we don't block it out when it doesn't fit into our paradigm. you don't need to convince us. you need to go out and convince the people who's beliefs are mostly like yours. if you don't think the draconian laws of the OT are in effect anymore, i think that would make a lot of atheists pretty happy. stop wasting your time with us. go clean up your own house. or is it too difficult to stand up to the hordes of religious who would cast you out with your new ideas, so you preach to us in an online forum? edited to add: i'm a little disheartened today, reading that someone is advocating the killing of gay people. honestly i applaud the revelation you've had. i wish it was a bit more widespread. i almost deleted my entire post, but i'll leave it and you can shred it if you like. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

the report wasn't that she was claiming that god wants gays killed. she said exactly what it says in leviticus. it's totally black and white. no ambiguity whatsoever. god says, gays must be killed. maybe you remember a couple years back, in wyoming, a couple guys dragged a gay man (i believe a college student) behind their truck for a while, then tied him to a fence post, where he died. they targeted him because he was gay. churchgoers picketed his funeral with signs reading "matthew shepard burns in hell". one church group went so far as to apply for (was denied) permission to put up a bronze statue in cheyenne, near where he was killed, with a plaque reading "matthew sheperd entered hell oct 12, 1998 in defiance of gods warning" and then quoted leviticus. if you're going to go so far as to say that we're angry because we've been shown that this law is incorrect, please cite the chapter and verse. don't give me a bunch of bullshit about a collective revelation that you had. i will call it bullshit because that's exactly what it sounds like if you respond that it's from years of study and meditation, and a deeply personal understanding of the gospel. leviticus spells out what needs to happen according to god in absolutely no uncertain terms. please tell me the chapter and verse where the new testament reverses that earlier position, in the same plain language that it used to invoke it. maybe just stick to one topic as well, since global warming is a scientific fact (no surprise that scientific facts mean nothing to you). and for those of you who are bitching that athiests are cramming their shit down your throats, or attacking the religious, let's try to pull our heads out of our asses. this f-in trollop just advocated the murder of 10% of our society. she should be jailed. if one person is killed, she should be tried for complicity. the religious should once again be embarrassed at the absolute backward ways you still cling to. but instead you're here playing possum. "poor us, look how these athiests keep attacking us". if you've had some sort of revelation that caught you up to the rest of us who KNOW homosexuality is not a crime or a moral wrong or anything else, then collectively you should be apologizing for this bible belt reject who's still living in the dark ages. which BTW are called the dark ages because the CHURCH ADVOCATED THIS KIND OF SHIT THEN TOO. there is absolutely nothing funny about this. think about your words more before you post them. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

ryno, not frustrated, just confused. i think i can see some similarity between your biblical references, and potential answers for a couple of the questions i asked. otherwise, i'm not sure what you're responding to. i think i did reference ron somewhere, but only as the guy who went to lengths to proclaim that some religions were cults. great that the gospel gives you freedom. i'm just asking your opinion on a previously discussed topic. are you saying the gospel gives you freedom to avoid answering my questions? that's fine if it does, i'll stop asking. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i haven't really noticed a lot of agreement, so it seemed interesting that you would say we agree on our definition of religion. i'll ask again, because i'm a little confused. i think the bible does mandate/include these things, i'll sum up--way of life, way to treat others, threaten death & eternal suffering, rights to land, and killing in the name of god. are you saying that it's your opinion that the bible does not contain these things? i feel atheist books do not contain these things. is it your contention that they do? i'm guessing most jews would consider this an enlightened (and uncommon) POV for a christian. unfortunately, i don't think a majority of christians would echo this sentiment. i think to this day, jews are vilified for this ancient accusation. well, again, i think if you actually are condescending, i'm gonna say i think so. to say someone is limited because they don't agree with your beliefs is, IMO, condescending. while it's not a big thing, and something i don't see you doing much in your previous posts, i think it's typical for the religious person. to me it is the subtle glimpse of the righteousness of the religious, and a sometimes frustrating stance. by the nature of your belief, all those who don't agree with you are "limited", and any real or meaningful points discussed with anyone who does not agree can be dismissed (if needs be) on the premise that "you haven't had the enlightenment that i've had". while i will agree that the experiences of your life that have led you to the place you currently occupy are unknown to me, i cannot agree that somehow the difference between two people who actually have no idea what's right or wrong in the world for anyone other than themselves will dictate that one is "limited" and the other "enlightened". i'd love to move on. please just see this as a request that you do not assume that your position is unlimited, or that mine is limited, simply on the basis of the fact that it's yours. i have my prejudices as well, but to label someone such is to dismiss what they have to say. it isn't slippery for me in the least. the bible says very clearly what it means. it's telling people to kill homosexuals for no other reason than because they're homosexual. period. it isn't slippery for a lot of christians, either. it is only slippery for those who have thankfully decided that homosexuality isn't worthy of a death sentence, and have to reconcile that feeling with the absolute clarity of the bible on this point. it becomes slippery when a caring, compassionate person who believes in god, and wants to believe in the bible, reads this passage, doesn't agree that homosexuals need to be murdered but, that doesn't fit with the bible being the infallible word of god, but they feel a duty to obey the word of god, and then try to make this mix come together somehow. i think you have answered the question of, how did you come to this position? it leaves out the answering of several other questions. whose words are they? what you answered was that, from your perspective, it appears to me that they are the words of jesus. is it different for you? i mean, are you saying that it actually wasn't jesus who said this? you're also telling me that if i don't see it the way you do, i need to seek greater understanding. would you agree that there are many christians who feel that i understand it perfectly, because they also understand it perfectly, because in a book that makes regular work out of being vague, this passage is remarkably clear? what you're really saying is that since this passage is very clear and unambiguous, my inability to understand your point of view is that i don't understand the revelation you've had, but if i had then your dismissal of this perfectly clear law would make more sense? i'm sorry but it seems to me that you're attempting to move around an inability to explain this inconsistency by telling me that "you just don't understand". that's what i admitted in the first place. if it's a deeply personal feeling that you really can't convey, say that. but please don't try to lay it off on me, that i haven't read enough of this or that, or i lack some ability, i'm "limited" in some way. i'm asking for your perspective on things that seem inconsistent to me. responding by telling me to seek more knowledge... welll, i'm here, now, seeking it. tell me, without dancing around it. i also have to point out that this is exactly what i meant about taking the bible as a buffet. you have chosen to you are choosing to not obey the unambiguous law stated in leviticus. you have left that part behind because it is undesirable. if you don't see it as sin, i think that's great. i have actually never seen it as sin. if you can teach others who believe in god/jesus/bible that it's not sin, i'd be all for it. i honestly don't feel, at least on the subject of homosexuality, that i need to read romans, or seek greater understanding. if it took reading those for you to get there, i'm glad you did. it seems ironic that the very book that told you homosexuals need to be murdered is where you place your credit for the enlightenment that they don't. again, i'm asking you to explain that freedom. explain it in a way that makes sense of what seems like inconsistent information. explain it in a way that i might understand your position. explain it in a way that it might make sense to others who still hold the position that homosexuals need to be killed because they are homosexual. HOW did you get to that feeling of freedom? what logic/reasoning/math/science/philosophy/fairy tale/combination did you discover that helped you reach your current position? i'm seriously hoping you're not going to revert to something so vague as "the gospels" again. even if it's that, can you be just a little more specific about what exactly you read that freed you from the constraints of a life bound to the literal word of gods law? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

not butting in. i'm half a day ahead of most of you guys. this goes slow without multiple inputs. here goes. i just went to dictionary.com, and here's what i got: cult  /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt] Show IPA –noun 1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 3.the object of such devotion. 4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. 6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. 7.the members of such a religion or sect. 8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. i think #6 is the only one that bears resemblance to your post. not belonging to any dogma, IMO, make me a little more impartial. to me, your definition (the longer one, second one) is only a cult when it violates the teachings of your church. it takes something that you believe, and changes it a little bit, and you call that a cult. this next bit is long, and i apologize, but what the heck. if people get bored, they can always stop reading. from the perspective of a worshiper of mithra, can christianity be called a cult?? Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus: Identical Life Experiences (1) Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15). (2) He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles. (3) Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb. (4) The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part." (5) Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts." (6) Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191). (7) Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240). (8) In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts. (9) He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year. (10) McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra"). (11) Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper." (12) The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5). The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). so, does that make christianity a cult? the suggestion is probably unpalatable for most christians. does your definition of a cult matter to those people you're labeling? to me, it's one pot calling another pot black, and the debate about the validity of your god, or theirs, or the bylaws you use, or however else you choose to define yourself so you can marginalize someone else doesn't matter to me in the least. if your faith is so pure, and your relationship is so strong, and your beliefs so unshakable, what does it matter what these other people believe? aren't there already innumerable sects within christianity that believe different things? can i assume that they are similar enough to your beliefs that you won't label them a cult, but these other guys are different enough versions of your belief that you will? do you realize how infantile this name calling sounds? moving on to your numbers 2-9 2. please give me the place in the bible it says that jesus took away the death sentence on homosexuals by dying on the cross. chapter and verse please. please don't tell me this is just that jesus died for sinners, homosexuals are sinners because they're homosexual, so jesus took away the need to kill them, but it's implied, not actually stated, the way that in no uncertain terms it is stated that they must be killed. because that would seem to me that jesus said explicitly to kill them, but then vaguely that they had been forgiven (as long as they were no longer homosexual?) and then left the implication that they no longer had to be killed open for interpretation?? 3. don't know how this relates, but you can expand on what you meant here. 4. sure, homosexuals can be forgiven of sin. but clarify please. are they sinning by being homosexual, or are they sinning because we are all sinners? is homosexuality a sin? no dodging. 5. murder is the same as working on the sabbath? lords name in vain same as murder? beating a slave so badly that he's bedridden, but that after a couple days he can get up and move around? 6. jesus is the bridge? isn't he the same as god? legal requirements? is this a court of law suddenly? you can expand on this if you want. 7. no comment, dunno how it relates. 8. hmm. don't think i agree with this definition of sin. 9. i don't think i agree with this definition of repentance. just changing your mind is enough?? while working on the east coast during the summer between college years, i sold books door to door. i met a lot of moonies out there. they were really nice people. i talked to them about religion, when i could. several nights they invited me to dinner with them, instead of eating whatever i could afford at home. they didn't try to convert me, or capture me into their cult. they offered me dinner, and didn't talk about religion until i asked them about it (as is my tendency). they were nice to me because..... i don't know exactly, they didn't say. i think they were just nice people. if it was their religion, does it make a difference? their actions were those of nice people, treating others with respect and generosity. i work in the indoor skydiving industry. a friend of mine, another tunnel instructor, is mormon. he and his wife are great, such nice people. the prejudice they have experienced, and talked to me about, is unbelievable, until i hear things like this. you don't know you're right, you can't, any more than anyone else can know. what i know is right for me. what they know is right for them. they treat people with respect. they worship their god quietly. my buddy spent 15k of his own money to go work in the phillipines. it probably included talking to people about god. he rebuilt homes. he helped feed people. their mormon mission isn't a job. he saved his ass off through high school so he could spend it helping others. do i agree with his religious beliefs, any more than yours? absolutely not. do i agree with his actions? 100%. action, not belief, makes a difference to me. is your house really so clean that you want to throw these ridiculous stones? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

i don't think a definition this vague will work. a religion could be defined as my dog, under this criteria, since he gets pretty excited for walks, and typically i follow him. i would argue that a religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs, typically based upon an inflexible written document, which mandates a way of life. while i've heard the argument that atheism is a religion, i just don't buy it. we don't all read from the same book, although i'm sure i've read many of the same books as other atheists. however, no one book sums it all up for me. none of the books mandate my way of life, or the way that i will treat others. those decisions are mine to make. none of those books threaten me, or anyone else, with potential death, and eternal suffering, should i not believe what's in the book. none of them give me rights to land that is not mine. none of them allow me to kill others in the name of atheism. however, as an aside, it is interesting that your definition here would fully accept latter day saints as a religion, something another religious person went to lengths (earlier in this thread) to label a cult. slippery. since you brought up the zeal of the jews. don't you find it ironic that the jews have been condemned for deicide, when it was all part of the mandate from god? his death was a necessary part of the plan all along. i don't think i missed your point earlier, but i'll go ahead with this line instead of going back. i'm not sure if this is directed at me individually, or the "you" generally, but this kind of thing is typically what gets people blood pressure up. when we don't agree on something, which we don't, and one of your responses is to tell me that i'm "limited" because i don't see it the way you do, that's condescension. although i have strong feelings about the standard intellectual level of your typical atheist vs. religious person, i am loathe to detail that, because you (individually ryno) are unknown to me. even simpletons typically understand condescension, so i'll humbly request consideration on that front. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death. Leviticus 20:13 whose words are these? jesus and god are extensions of the same being, in my understanding. while i'm not fond of quoting the bible, since i'm certain that for every quote like this one, you'll find another to contest it, you kinda stepped into this one. is this where it gets slippery? i'm not positive this is what those boys in wyoming were following, but it seems likely. did they misunderstand? is there something unclear about this citation? did i take it out of context? is there fallibility to this statement? if so, does the following not clear it up? The law of the lord is perfect. psalm 19:7 perfection. killing homosexuals, simply because of their homosexuality. not for the content of their character, but because their sexuality is detestable to the god that supposedly made them. i'm not sure what you meant by "deal breaker". is this it? as far as atheists finding a middle ground already occupied, i wasn't trying to say anything about the amount of truth that has been revealed about the bible, or jesus. rather, it seems that every single position on the spectrum of religious fervor has been occupied, and when the definition is that vague, it's difficult for anyone to get a handle on where people stand. slippery. getting a handle on where an individual stands? maybe, with a long dialogue. with a sect, tougher. who speaks for them? does the pope speak for you? or do you simply speak for you? who do i talk to, to dispel the idea that killing homosexuals (or abortion doctors, or muslims, or witches, or whoever) is wrong? no argument here. but i don't think that's where it ends for the religious. as an atheist, and a non believer in the afterlife, THIS life is special, sacred in a way i have trouble putting into words. it is this reverence for my time here, that gives me tremendous respect for the life of others, and (hopefully) the presence of mind to tread lightly on their time and space. to harm another person, to impede their journey (or end it) IS sin for me. those are moments they will never get back, memory aside. for me, there is no afterlife, and no relief in my mind that even if i harm someone, they still have the glory of god to look forward to. no belief that if i kill someone, they will still get to go to heaven. no peace from the certainty that god will grant me forgiveness for the sins i've committed against living beings in this life. THIS is the only life we get. i have to ask forgiveness from THEM. i have wronged THEM. i find it arrogant and presumptive to think that if someone injures me, god will forgive them without me forgiving them. they have not made atonement with ME, the person they've wronged. my life is sacred as well, not just theirs, and when your belief allows you to disregard my belief, we've come to an impasse. honestly? statements like this kinda scare me. martyrdom doesn't usually go well for those who don't share the revelation you've had. a strict definition of martyr will only include you as the sufferer, for unwillingness to renounce your faith. i think the word has evolved to mean that you take others with you. not putting words into your mouth, or saying that this is what you mean. i'm hoping it isn't. i think there are a lot of undesirable parts, the quote from leviticus above is one of them, but there are a host of others. the advocating of slavery? the submission of women? again, i don't want to fill this with quotes, but i have to repeat my feeling that either the bible is the unalterable word of god, or an interesting work of fiction. if some parts of it have been altered by the narrow minded to serve their narrow purposes, the rest can only be seen as potentially having fallen victim to the same alterations, additions, or deletions. the very fact that the parts (old and new) were written hundreds of years apart makes a serious dent, IMO, about the veracity of any statements. stories of events grow and change in a period of minutes in today's world, where information is typically readily available. back then, how could it not have grown and changed over hundreds of years? i think your larger point is that the message behind the scripture is what you are following, not always the strict letter. how did you come to that position? how can you not see the danger of those who have not arrived there, and still apply their lives according to the literal interpretation of the bible as a mandate for their behavior? i don't think i've seen, in any book i've read that discussed atheism, use of the word "righteous" to describe a state of being that comes from atheism. it's usage immediately calls to my mind religion, and the feeling of superiority i believe grows in the religious during their journey, until that sense of superiority allows them to do awful, unforgivable things to others in the name of their god. perhaps we are then in agreement here, as i feel that no more learning will actually happen, no more understanding or empathy about the life of another human (or anything else living) will occur once a person feels they have attained the status of "righteous". i can't help but refer back to leviticus. again, please help all of us understand how this can make sense. who wrote those words? is this text the true and inspired word of god, or has this been altered? how did you come to the position you hold, whichever that is? do others of faith agree with you? why, or why not? are they right, or are you? as a non believer, who do i listen to? am i right to be frightened of someone taking this to be the absolute law, reigning over any law of man, and their sacred duty to uphold? i think my youngest nephew might be gay. he's still a young boy, so i don't know really, but i suspect, as does his mother. what person's religious fervor would make sense to you, if it involved killing your wonderful nephew (niece, child, or other person in your life)? hopefully i'm correct, that for you specifically, no amount of fervor would include taking another's life for something like homosexuality. but that's just not the case for everyone who's beliefs are similar to yours, and i honestly find it frightening that this absolutely awesome kid could suffer that kind of death at the hands of "the righteous". absolutely i'm not kidding. that isn't the only message in the bible, or in the words of jesus. sometimes it says love others. sometimes it mandates the murder of others. "love others" is not the only message jesus brought. if it was, i would agree and support anyone who wanted to preach it, not caring if they got that message from jesus or thor or mithra. if that was where the message stopped, none of us would be having this conversation. 1500 years of the dark ages would not have happened. on and on and on. and in your estimation, how many followers of christianity don't fit into this quote? if this is the case, do you have a stance on abortion? do the worldly things no longer concern you? or do "worldly things" mean power, money, material objects, etc.? where is the border of your concerns? i'm gonna try to end, for this post, with this question. would you agree with the previously stated (elsewhere in this thread) that the religious of the world are not content to let others simply live, if those others do not agree with the religion? can you see the frustration that builds in the non believers to have a law enacted (take your pick), where the thrust of the law comes from a book they absolutely do not agree with, and are astounded that anyone could? as another way to say it, would you want the laws of the US to be based on the koran, a book which i doubt you agree with in the same was as the bible? would you want to be forced to live by those laws? do you understand, by your rejection of that book (or any other besides the bible) how someone like me can reject yours, and on the very same grounds? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

not baiting, just wondering where the baseline is. one of my problems with talking to any religious person, is how slippery the conversation can get without a basic understanding of their platform. however, hearing that the entire bible is not the unalterable word of god makes your position, IMO, untenable. a debate with you about anything biblical leaves you the inevitable (and very annoying) out that "well, i don't subscribe to that interpretation". the post, and your response, about homosexuality, is an excellent example. how can you reconcile your position with the church's position? how can non-believers (atheists, agnostics, whatever you call them) find a reasonable middle ground, when the entire spectrum is already occupied? if we allow that your position is more moderate, and therefore should be accepted, don't we also HAVE to accept the radicals, on the basis of "freedom of religion"? and if the radicals are allowed to exist, what do we do when they drag a homosexual boy in wyoming behind their truck, tie him to a fence and leave him to die, all in the name of god? how do you tell yourself that you don't share in the blame for this crime? your god is the same god as theirs. they might have serious problems with you as well, since you treat the bible as a buffet, taking what you like and leaving the undesired parts. how long can religion continue to be tolerated, while it allows so many interpretations, many of which give a divine mandate to inflict harm on others? ryno, if the only message was "love others", as you like to repeat about the gospels, who would disagree with you? as a staunch atheist, i would get in line to clap for the religious leader who preached that. but that isn't the bible, at least, that's not a majority of the bible. or the koran. or the (insert religious text here). i don't think you can pick and choose the parts you like. if one part has been changed to serve the interests of a select few, the rest becomes, at best, suspect. i can only hope that future printings of the bible will do away with the old testament entirely, leave only the gospels, and remove most of the new testament as well. i think the likelihood of that is slim. which leaves me the goal of talking to as many religious people as i can, as often as i can, to try to point out the devastating possibilities the bible mandates. too often, people surround themselves with other people who believe exactly what they believe. it then becomes easy to marginalize anyone different, and suddenly burning them at the stake, or blowing up a bus, somehow becomes reasonable. maybe you can understand the venom that comes with some of these posts. for myself, it's very easy to get frustrated, exasperated, or seriously fucking angry when talking to religious people, because depending on who you talk to, you're getting an unbelievable smorgasbord of opinions and possibilities. i believe strongly that you should be able to have faith in whatever you want, be it god, your wife, your family, or yourself, or the flying spaghetti monster. but when that faith allows you to infringe on the rights of anyone else, my tolerance moves to zero, and i think that sentiment is reflected in many of these posts. even more so from the few that had it crammed down their throats, and then revolted. since you seem to enjoy the chatting, please take my questions as anything except rhetorical. while i enjoy the conversation, some of your answers have been vague (although i will thank you for an honest response to my first question), and i tend to prefer more spartan retorts. to each their own, certainly. but i wouldn't mind an answer to these questions. and since this thread so far off the original topic anyway, i don't mind asking here. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

such a long thread. ryno, you really like to talk about the gospels. as a start, is the entire bible, IYO, the unalterable word of god? please don't cloud it up with a lot of flowery talk. is the entire bible the unalterable word of god? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Average coached jump=$75 per jump. 30 coached jumps=$2250 average time per coached jump=45 seconds minutes of coached time in 30 jumps=22.5 cost per minute coached jump=$100 average coached tunnel hour=$750 3 hours=$2250 minutes coached time in 3 hours=180 cost per minute coached tunnel time=$12.50 # of coached jumps jumps needed to get 180 minutes of coached time=240 cost of 240 coached jumps(at $75/per)=$18,000.00 # of coached tunnel hours purchased to spend $18,000 (at $750/hr).=24 (1440 minutes) each coached jump separated from the next coached jump by the amount of time to pack, manifest, ride to altitude, and canopy ride. 45 seconds of coaching, 20-30 minutes down time, 45 seconds of coaching, etc. maybe 5-10 jumps per day? 3.75-7.5 minutes coached per day. tunnel time is 2.5 minutes coached, rest 2.5-7.5 minutes, another 2.5 minutes coached, etc. get out for a break and watch video. 30 minutes to 1 hour coached time a day? add to that the benefit of instant communication, significantly lower stress level, and nearly flawless video coverage. if you're not getting what your coach is telling you, you step into the antechamber, he/she explains it, and you step back into the wind. can't just stop a skydive in the middle if you're not getting it. the camera records everything except the top of the tube. no wear/tear on your rig. if your goal is to improve quickly and economically, as well as safely, the tunnel is a hands down winner. i personally feel that everyone needs to train both in the tunnel and in the sky. but it is a no brainer on cost and effectiveness to use the tunnel as a training tool. play with the numbers. see just how expensive the tunnel time has to be, before it matches skydiving. not sure what kind of coach you can get for $750/hour? Mike Wittenburg is hosting a tunnel camp in (i believe) march at Ifly Utah. coached hours are $750. Mike's a pretty solid coach happy flying Edited to add: the math is: for tunnel time and skydiving to be equivalent on a cost basis per minute, tunnel time would be $6000.00 per hour. and i would still argue that you could learn faster in the tunnel, so it might still be a better deal for flight training. of course, then you'd have to weigh in the benefit of the canopy ride. which is fun.