John Lennon

It is only logical to take this stance. Truth cannot contradict truth. If one person's religious text or ideas contradicts anothers, then at least one of them is wrong. Hinduism and Christianity cannot both be right, for example. Islam and christianity cannot both be right either, beccause Islam contradicts the Bible. to believe in the true God is of necessity to the exclusion of all other notions of "god", and regardless of what form they may take. We Christians believe in the God of the Bible, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! His Word excludes all other gods (which in reality are not gods at all.) Terrorism is the result of man's rejection of the one true God, and his Christ, namely Jesus. Terrorism is the result of man's rejection of the ten commandments. Terrorism is the result of people like you who believe anything, anything but the truth, that is. Christians are children by adoption. Jesus was the only BEGOTTEN son of God, and indeed was and is God incarnate in the flesh. Huge difference.

We cannot save ourselves! We are only saved by faith in Christ, the One who took our punishment for our sin by dying a cruel, bloody death on a cross, and rose again on the third day so we can live forever. Religion is bad, yes, and God hates religion. This world is in the shape it is in becuase of sin and man thinking he knows it all and that he can save himself! Wrong!

I do not buy into this fire and brimestone punishment for all those who are not Christians or maybe of other faiths that differ from yours. How arrogant to claim all other religions are false teachings and that only followers of Christ have the moral high ground! And other religious groups who take that stance against you are just as arrogant. I firmly believe terrorism has resulted from just this kind of fanatical mindset! And Jesus was just a guy and no more the son of God than you are...Christians are always claiming to be children of God,..Right? What's the difference?

First of all Jesus Christ was not "just a guy", like Ghandi, or anyone else for that matter. He was the son of God, fully God and fully man, sent here in an attempt to unite mankind, not make us "Christians". Whether or not you choose to believe that will not change who and what He was JL. And yes, atheists do grasp the "concepts" you speak of (sarcasm), as clearly displayed in any number of violent scenarios raging across the globe. "No God...no peace" is what the result of not having faith in Christ brings to the world. Yeah...good luck with that one. In the end your "salvation" will amount to nothing and will sadly work against you. Eternity is a long time to have to pay a consequence for our ego and pride telling us we know how to live better than God has shown us. God is infallible...man is not !!! You judge God by man's actions and beliefs, this is not correct. You better be 100% sure you have the "right" answers here JL, because for every right answer there is definitely a wrong one. And if the one we choose is wrong.....??????????? I am absolutely confident in what I believe about Christ and His saving grace. Are you that confident in your stance??? Really?? Are you??? [/quoteI don't claim to be always right..I'm human and I try and look at things as objectively as I can in this complex world. Ghandi was a very similar figure to Jesus in my opinion..both of these men united people.

We cannot save ourselves! We are only saved by faith in Christ, the One who took our punishment for our sin by dying a cruel, bloody death on a cross, and rose again on the third day so we can live forever. Religion is bad, yes, and God hates religion. This world is in the shape it is in becuase of sin and man thinking he knows it all and that he can save himself! Wrong! Religion is only as bad as man makes it or as good.

Yes we have done such a great job of saving ourselves so far. There are no wars, no turmoil, nothing wrong in the world...oh wait, there is. Time to let God take over. Follow the Lord. We are called to reject the sins of the world and live our lives to please Him. If all of mankind lived in unity with God, wow! What an awesome place that would be. Beleivers have such a destination: heaven. You have faith in this imaginary place called heaven and because you're convinced you're saved, God will take care of you right to the end. It's a tender notion to believe in this afterlife with God and I can tell by your posting you have faith in this. If that brings you comfort-Great, But no one really knows what happens after we die despite all the controversy over it. I suppose it sounds like a dream to just take care of each other and try our best to make this world a better place! But consider that this world is all we have and we just get one shot at life..this one.

Oh, if only the world would do what you told it to. *sighs deeply* Well it's not doing what Jesus told it to do either!

Anyway how do you claim to predict the next thousand years? Oh I know..the bible tells you so!

Yeah well how about seeking a time of peace and replenishing in the here and now?!That is all humanity needs to do! What's with all the annihilation nonsense!!! With the terrible weapons we have, there will be nothing to rebuild Christian!!

This is completely absured man. Morality is not relative. Truth does not change with time or place. Right and wrong do not change with time or place. 1+1 = 2 anywhere you go. Muder is WRONG regardless of what man says. stealing is WRONG regardless of what man says. and so on. Adultery is WRONG, as is homosexuality, and it doesn't matter who says otherwise. -------------------------------------------------- consequences of moral relativity: If morality were relative, then nobody would have any right to pass any laws whatsoever. someone could break into your house, rob you, and rape your wife, and you would have no right to complain. After all their "morals" permit them to do that. To them, there is nothing wrong with stealing and rape, and because your "morals" say morality isn't the same for different people, then you have no moral right to do anything about it, after all, they are simply doing what they believe. Moral relativity therefore leads to absolute anarchy in which there is no common law. Moral law is an interesting problem. As I've explained in another thread recently, I believe humans have come by the concept of morality because we evolved big brains, which led to intelligence, which led to imagination and then to empathy, which, when combined in a creature who by instinct lives in both societal and familial groups, generated the idea of cultural norms and, over time, of morality. Some morals are more universal than others, like injunctions against murder or theft, because regardless of the individual beliefs which arise in a given society with regard to sexuality, women, or personal property (for example), nobody wants to be stolen from or murdered. Other morals are less universal, like injunctions against or acceptance of homosexuality, because different groups of people, way back in time, thought different things about it. But this is just a brief background on my position so people know where I'm coming from. Who So Blind, your main problem with the athiestic position seems to be that, if morals are just human constructs, and no one law is better than another, people have no right to impose their code of beliefs on anyone else, which would, in the long term, lead to anarchy. As far as I can see it, there are three problems with position, and they are: 1. You assume that, because this option is abhorrent to you, it cannot be possible. Other than your personal dislike, you offer no reasons for why this can't be the case, only why it shouldn't. 2. You seem to assume that human beings tend naturally towards living in an anarchistic state, and would do so in the absence of outside inflences. 3. You seem to assume that a society is impossible in which human beings openly determine what is moral and decide, of their own volition, to abide by this. Without divine, absolute morality, you are saying, humans would not choose morality for themselves. Let's expand on this last and most important point. As I've said above, I believe morality is the end result of the evolution in humans of intelligence, imagination and empathy, and an inbuilt tendency - similiar to that found in other animals - to live in social groups made up of multiple families. For me, this explains quite adequately why we have morals: partly because they are behaviourally learned from parents and society, but also because, as herd animals, we understand the need (even if we do not always share the desire) for order in a society (note: this does not mean we all want the same type of order). Let's say this is true. It also follows, then, that we understand the need for laws, and why they should be obeyed. Primarily, then, the reason for a given law must be made obvious to us, or at least seem reasonable - ditto for the corresponding punishment. If a law makes no sense, it is common that many people will either resent it, disobey it, or openly defy it. Enter the concept of moral law. Morality implies that a certain kind of behaviour is, intrinsically, right, and that another kind (presumably the oposite) is wrong - not because it makes sense to us, but because either god or the universe just wants us to live in that way. Moral law can, at times, seem obvious to us - not killing, for example, or not stealing. Laws against wearing a certain type of clothing do not have obvious reasons. They require divine commandments for them to make sense. Some behaviours, like homosexuality, exist in a grey area: to some, it seems harmless, while others fear it because it seems unnatural, and others still embrace it openly. So. Imagine for a minute that god doesn't exist, that all laws are human constructs - but constructs for a purpose - and that "moral" is a term applied to certain laws which make less sense (or for which the reason is debateable) without an injunction from a higher power (which, in this world, doesn't exist). Now imagine the same world, in which the veneer of morality is removed. Laws either make sense on their own, or they don't - and because we are social creatures by and large, these laws are accepted, because there are good reasons for them, or they are discarded, because there isn't. Some, the ones in the grey area, are debated - let us assume that, so long as they harm no other person, they are deemed acceptable. What is so anarchistic about this world? There are good reasons why theft, murder, rape and genocide are bad things; they are ruled against. Charity still exists, because - as charitable athiests can attests to - religion is not a prerequisite for kindness to others. Social order is maintained on the basis that people know why the laws do and should exist. So - and I don't want an answer about godlessness, because this is (for you) a hypothetical world in which evolution and athiesm are true - what is so wrong, and so terrible, about this kind of society? How is it anarchistic, and how does it suffer from an absence of divinely-inspired laws? Agreed! I loved V for Vendetta. The best movie of 2006, in my opinion. Religion should come down to individual choice and not be mandated by law..like prayer in the schools should never be required, but the option to pray open to all who care to do so. It's simple and it's fair.

One of the songs that inspired me growing up was Imagine by John Lennon..it was a song that crystalized his vision for the world. Imagine no heaven...no hell below us..above us only sky. I think of the song as a benign view that he developed as a result of things he had read and derived from comparative religion theories of Joseph Campbell and the Beatles' visits with the Maharishi. The dream Lennon had of people living in peace and simply sharing the world is what the song implies as if religion had never existed in the first place. A common goal that I would hope most people generally seek. Religion has driven people apart and caused division and intolerance in the world and the search for God and truth seems to have been lost in the confusion. Imagine a world that got it right and never invented religion but lived in virtual harmony! Is'nt that was Jesus would have wanted for the world anyway?-He was just a guy like Ghandi who spoke of brotherhood and loving one and other. Those are concepts even an atheist can grasp! This whole idea of being "saved" is up to us..we can save ourselves!

Maybe you should do some research into the constitution. Where does the constitution even demand seperation of church and state? the amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Yet the constitution and Declaration are dated, "In the Year of Our Lord.."(by Implication, Jesus of Nazareth), as are military documents dating back to the time of the Revolution. Liberties? The very Declaration of Independance is founded on the notion that men are created by God! That God is the one who gives man his rights(liberties), and not man made laws or kingships. Darn right. Moral relativism is wrong and ridiculous. Politics and religion must of necessity be mixed. To seperate politics from religion is to be a hypocrite. After all, truth is truth and lie is lie. If you believe something (in this case religion), then you must of necessity support laws that support your beliefs. I am suspiscuous of the Anti Christian Luciferian Union, which has no problem killing unborn children, but pushes for a law making it a crime to transport a pregnant lobster lest the babies be killed. Better is a totalitarian government ruled by christians who merely want to see you live for God, than a democracy ruled by neo-paganistic liberals who couldn't care less if you go to hell. The NAZI party can trace its root philosophy directly to Darwinian Evolution. The practice of Nazi Genocide is the direct result of Eugenics, which is simply applied darwinism. Which not-so-coincidentally, Darwinism is one of the ACLU's pet dogmas as well. You should make sure you know what you're talking about before you start to speak, because its the ACLU that is turning America into a Neo-Nazi nation, and not the church. Only non-christians have the right to speak out in modern America, unless the christian owns the place where they are speaking. Else the christians mic(s) are pulled at public events, etc. The christians land marks are ruled "unconstitutional" and torn down. The Christians are fired from their jobs for sharing their beliefs or questioning the darwinian/atheistic brainwashing of our youth. It is the ACLU which censors anything they disagree with. It is the ACLU which persecutes Christians and moral decency, and forces their beliefs upon everyone by banning any opposition from public venues. It is the ACLU which is the modern NAZI party. I cannot believe you condone a totalitarian rule by Christians! Let us hope you do not get your way. That is scary my friend..I hope you classify as a moral Minority!!!

This is completely absured man. Morality is not relative. Truth does not change with time or place. Right and wrong do not change with time or place. 1+1 = 2 anywhere you go. Muder is WRONG regardless of what man says. stealing is WRONG regardless of what man says. and so on. Adultery is WRONG, as is homosexuality, and it doesn't matter who says otherwise. --------------------------------------------------- consequences of moral relativity: If morality were relative, then nobody would have any right to pass any laws whatsoever. someone could break into your house, rob you, and rape your wife, and you would have no right to complain. After all their "morals" permit them to do that. To them, there is nothing wrong with stealing and rape, and because your "morals" say morality isn't the same for different people, then you have no moral right to do anything about it, after all, they are simply doing what they believe. Moral relativity therefore leads to absolute anarchy in which there is no common law. Man are you twisting things to fit your self-righteous moral code. Homosexuals are people who choose a lifestyle you don't agree with and are entitled to the same rights as you. Live and let live..Man!

This is completely absured man. Morality is not relative. Truth does not change with time or place. Right and wrong do not change with time or place. 1+1 = 2 anywhere you go. Muder is WRONG regardless of what man says. stealing is WRONG regardless of what man says. and so on. Adultery is WRONG, as is homosexuality, and it doesn't matter who says otherwise. --------------------------------------------------- consequences of moral relativity: If morality were relative, then nobody would have any right to pass any laws whatsoever. someone could break into your house, rob you, and rape your wife, and you would have no right to complain. After all their "morals" permit them to do that. To them, there is nothing wrong with stealing and rape, and because your "morals" say morality isn't the same for different people, then you have no moral right to do anything about it, after all, they are simply doing what they believe. Moral relativity therefore leads to absolute anarchy in which there is no common law.

This is completely absured man. Morality is not relative. Truth does not change with time or place. Right and wrong do not change with time or place. 1+1 = 2 anywhere you go. Muder is WRONG regardless of what man says. stealing is WRONG regardless of what man says. and so on. Adultery is WRONG, as is homosexuality, and it doesn't matter who says otherwise. --------------------------------------------------- consequences of moral relativity: If morality were relative, then nobody would have any right to pass any laws whatsoever. someone could break into your house, rob you, and rape your wife, and you would have no right to complain. After all their "morals" permit them to do that. To them, there is nothing wrong with stealing and rape, and because your "morals" say morality isn't the same for different people, then you have no moral right to do anything about it, after all, they are simply doing what they believe. Moral relativity therefore leads to absolute anarchy in which there is no common law.

May I ask why are you here? We are all here for the same reason are'nt we? A forum is a place for talking right? I apologize for being a little too cheeky and kidding around about John Lennon but it's a joke. In all seriousness I believe there may be a God even though this forum has labeled me nonbeliver. Did you ever think that all this infighting and judgement in religion is what ruins it for people? If there is a God..He could not have wanted the world to turn out this way. Imagine how the world would be without religion but in brotherhood and cooperation. God was there all along looking down upon a planet in peace. But if he is up there, all he looks down on is destruction. That is sad is'nt it?

There is no right to privacy written into the Constitution but I think it should have been. I really do, it's not perfect but it's all we have to preserve our eroding freedoms before it's too late.

1st amendment of the constitution of the united states of America End of story right? Not exactly... Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter that seemed to be the igniting factor for the doctrin of seperation of church and state. Here it is. The funny thing is that this where the doctrine originates. Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. Also it prevents people from excersising ANY religous activity within a government institution. This misinterperitation of Mr. Thomas Jeffersons` letter has lead to one of the most unconstitutional underpinnings of American society. Exactly..prevent religious activity within government. Look at the power the Taliban had over it's people in Afganistan and see the danger it poses.

1st amendment of the constitution of the united states of America End of story right? Not exactly... Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter that seemed to be the igniting factor for the doctrin of seperation of church and state. Here it is. The funny thing is that this where the doctrine originates. Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. Also it prevents people from excersising ANY religous activity within a government institution. This misinterperitation of Mr. Thomas Jeffersons` letter has lead to one of the most unconstitutional underpinnings of American society. Exactly..prevent religious activity within government. Look at the power the Taliban had over it's people in Afganistan and see the danger it poses.

1st amendment of the constitution of the united states of America End of story right? Not exactly... Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter that seemed to be the igniting factor for the doctrin of seperation of church and state. Here it is. The funny thing is that this where the doctrine originates. Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. Also it prevents people from excersising ANY religous activity within a government institution. This misinterperitation of Mr. Thomas Jeffersons` letter has lead to one of the most unconstitutional underpinnings of American society.

Darwin was not an atheist by the way..just for the record. But we evolved into the beautiful little monkeys we are today just like he said.

I am not a fan of the ACLU believe me..they seem to be trying to force Atheism! You see that is no better than trying to impose Religion. Both extremes are dangerous in a truly free society and there's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides! Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..Dead Right! Religion is not the (edit) law just because Christians say it is! Or prohibiting the "FREE' excercise thereof...People like you have a right to worship freely and preach it to other people in a church where religion belongs. Am I missing something? Whats so hard to understand that these man-made religions are just fine as long as fanatics don't push it down peoples' throats! What is morally right in one culture may not be in another..it's a small world after all is'nt it Christian? And idiots like Osama Bin Laden can't stand it! How long are we going to watch the endless bloodshed and madness until we realize religion can go too far?

Maybe you should do some research into the constitution. Where does the constitution even demand seperation of church and state? the amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Yet the constitution and Declaration are dated, "In the Year of Our Lord.."(by Implication, Jesus of Nazareth), as are military documents dating back to the time of the Revolution. Liberties? The very Declaration of Independance is founded on the notion that men are created by God! That God is the one who gives man his rights(liberties), and not man made laws or kingships. Darn right. Moral relativism is wrong and ridiculous. Politics and religion must of necessity be mixed. To seperate politics from religion is to be a hypocrite. After all, truth is truth and lie is lie. If you believe something (in this case religion), then you must of necessity support laws that support your beliefs. I am suspiscuous of the Anti Christian Luciferian Union, which has no problem killing unborn children, but pushes for a law making it a crime to transport a pregnant lobster lest the babies be killed. Better is a totalitarian government ruled by christians who merely want to see you live for God, than a democracy ruled by neo-paganistic liberals who couldn't care less if you go to hell. The NAZI party can trace its root philosophy directly to Darwinian Evolution. The practice of Nazi Genocide is the direct result of Eugenics, which is simply applied darwinism. Which not-so-coincidentally, Darwinism is one of the ACLU's pet dogmas as well. You should make sure you know what you're talking about before you start to speak, because its the ACLU that is turning America into a Neo-Nazi nation, and not the church. Only non-christians have the right to speak out in modern America, unless the christian owns the place where they are speaking. Else the christians mic(s) are pulled at public events, etc. The christians land marks are ruled "unconstitutional" and torn down. The Christians are fired from their jobs for sharing their beliefs or questioning the darwinian/atheistic brainwashing of our youth. It is the ACLU which censors anything they disagree with. It is the ACLU which persecutes Christians and moral decency, and forces their beliefs upon everyone by banning any opposition from public venues. It is the ACLU which is the modern NAZI party.

If I said nothing...there would be no post to read. If you wish not to read them, then don't.

I could pen my own "scripture" right now and state that it was the inspired word of the almighty God...And so could you! What's the freakin' difference? We could write a whole new bible if we want!! The book of John Lennon???? Why they'd crucify me!!!!! NOT.