Ishamael

Note how militant you are in your assertion, that I already lost. If I already did, why do you keep on arguing? _________ Now, let`s take it for bona fide. You say - " I am not a good person." Then how you can demand to be judged by Jesus, which IS good person? How ironic it is, that you miss what I`ve said all along. My problem with christianity is not that Jesus is not good. It`s that christians are not good. Which you just admitted. So... What now? My problem is with christians and you specifically. You are not good persons. Simple as that. I have nothing against Jesus, I simply don`t agree with him completely. That does not prevents me from being friendly to him. Something you seem to be sorely lacking. _________ Of God and punishment... If all your sins are already rebated and forgiven, what Hell is for? If God forgave all sins, why would not everyone go to heaven? I don`t buy it. If all sins are forgiven, there would be no idea of Supreme Judgement at the end. How can you be judged over something you`re already pardoned for? Pick something. Let`s suppose that God exists... Either Jesus forgave everyone, and you and me both go to heaven in the end, either he did not... And the court awaits us all.

MMkay. I`ve read through the discussion, and I must say, that both opponents presented fallacious arguments. (On a side note, I think that argument was biased, and the fact, that atheist opponent is banned does not adds any glitter, either.) There is no such thing as absolute morals, nor there is such thing as evolutionary morals. Correct would be to examine morals from psychological way. Most of morals are social constructs based on the simple premise - "Don`t do onto others what you would not want to be done onto you." This is an explanation, why murder within a socium is usually considered a bad thing, for example. When criminal murders someone within own socium, other members of socium persecute the criminal out of fear, that they will be next victims. Thus, to prevent that, they punish the aggressor. Same thing applies for a rape. In all fairness, rape is not gender-defined crime. One can rape members of both genders, per wish. However, majority of socium members have no wish to be raped, and therefore, they persecute criminal to prevent possibly getting raped. Ditto with stealing. ______ However, I would like to note, that all those morals are applied strictly within sociums. Verily, different sociums often actively encourage murder, rape and theft from other sociums - the event called war. ______ Looking above, we see three most "universal" crimes. I`ll have to note, though, that murder and robbery were developed much earlier, then rape. Indeed, those both were mostly verboten even in prehistorical times, while rape had been practiced in one form or another until the modern days. Note, that Bible does not forbids rape, per ce. It forbids cheating - but is tactfully omits the issues of independant women taken by force. Also, take a note many issues of father being referred as the person in charge of daughter`s body. In modern day, that would be considered child neglect, parental abuse and accomplicement to rape. ______ Universal nature of such morals is disproved by the fact of war. Indeed, sociums encourage murder, rape and theft, and hail people committing it as heroes, when those are committed against other sociums. Biological nature of such morals is disproved by the fact, that they are socially-psychological constructs, not instincts. Animals have no such constructs, and their actions are closer tro survival, then morals would be (Upon examination, it can be seen, that different species of animals exhibit behavior similar to morals, but this is not consistent throughout whole mammal kingdom, let alone other creatures.). Verily, moral is an abstract concept - and animals do not possess abstract thinking, as far as it is known.

Here or there? If it`s a formal debate between them, I`d rather not intrude.

Sigh. I see that eloquence is wasted upon you. I`ll try to sum up what I say in curt and understandable manner, so there would be no disagreements on what did I suggested. ______________________ Judgement is not an act of accessing one`s worth. You are mixing it with praise. Judgement is an act of accessing, how dangerous you are to those in question, and what must be done to render the harm you might inflict to minimum. This is the staple of all human judgements - if you commit a crime, you are punished for it, to make sure you will not do that again. This is the staple of God`s judgement - if you commit a sin, you are punished for it. Why does God punishes? I would say, that he punishes to prevent sin in heaven. Everyone going to heaven must be disciplined harshly to break them from their sinful nature, and that is what God`s punishment is about. Now, note please, that you must rebate for ALL your sins, no matter how much good you`ve done. All good will be accounted for in heaven, and God praises you for it. All bad has to be rebated in Purgatory or Hell, by God`s judgement. ______________________ And thus, judgement must account for all the worst things you had done. This is not an accessment of your worth. It is an accessment of your evil. ______________________ I`ve seen many of evil things coming from christians. Dare I to assume each christian adheres to the word of Jesus, when I saw many of them step over those words, as if they were illegible scribbles? ..... That is the point of it all. That is the exact problem. Let me ask you a question. Ask yourself - do YOU have faith, that I am a good person? Would you act upon assumption, that I am good person, despite the fact that you don`t agree with atheists? No? Then why do you demand ME to have faith in YOUR good intentions? Why do you demand me to have it despite all the hostility I`ve already encountered here? Why? Why would I judge you as Jesus, while you judge me as beast? ______________________ Glory: I do not have to believe to discuss. I`m perfectly able of assuming hypotetically, that I might be wrong. That, by the way, is one of the key differences between christians and atheists. Atheists DO change their opinions in the face of irrefutable facts. Christians bend over backwards to explain the new facts into the old picture.

Alright, let`s address the things one by one. Cobalt: To answer you... What I am is pretty much incompatible with christianity, as it is presented now. While I do admit, that Jesus had a lot of sound ideas, I firmly disagree with "If you are struck on one cheek, turn forth another.", for example. Instead - "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." To put it simply, if I were to try and convert to christianity, AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME, I would have to betray all that I stand for. Such dishonor is not acceptable. If I were asked by Jesus, why don`t I accept him as god... I`d ask - "Why did you do that, at Shalazi pass? Why did you have to do that?" Undone: Question is a bit more complicated, then you imagine it to be. Namely, I myself can offer some valid reasons for christianity. That does not absolves christianity from all the contradictions I`ve seen and read about. As I said, I would gladly discuss, but there is much more then simple "Why believe?", that I would ask, and I would need much more answers then "Because Jesus loves you." I need logical reasons for everything. Logical and valid reasons, why it has to be SO, and not other way. And I need someone with really open mind, if you want a discussion. Many a time I would suggest cynical and "ungodly" reasons for bible lore and christian actions - unless it can be handled without personal umbrage, I`d rather not even start. Glory: I was born in USSR. Aka, brought up and lived in atheistic country. For me, christianity began to be pervasive only in last years. And frankly, I do NOT like people, who deem it right to lecture me in my OWN home about how sinful I am, when I did not invited them in in the first place. Oh... By the way, under pervasiveness, I mean personal annoyment factor. I used to live all my childhood across the street from the church, and it never bothered me. But when I have people barge in on me, and taking offence, when I say I do NOT want them to yell at me in my own home, I have to bodily toss them out.

Then you lied, when you said you want to be judged by Bible. You wanted to be judged solely by New Testament, were you not? I will not apologise for YOUR mistake. ______ Now, let me address your assertion. NO. You do NOT deserve to be judged by Jesus. Not a single one of you measures up, and you admit that yourself. With the same right I could demand to be judged by the God, in which image I`m ostencibly created by your faith. I will praise Jesus on what he`s done - he deserves that. And I will praise those of you, who does adhere to the ways of Jesus. But I will not judge you by Jesus. Judgement comes by the worst crime, not by the best achievement. This is the way your God judged - it`s ought to be good enough for you. For thou art all sinners. Yet some of you take pride in that, and tout that as their shield. Hide thy sins and renounce them, if you do not want to be judged by them. Do not judge, lest you be judged. Thou hast judged me, by my worst sins you know - so thus will be done by me onto you.

Just what is fair and objective standard for you, then? If you think I judge basing on unfair assumptions, go ahead and offer me a better base for my judgement. We`ll see, if it comes close to facts. _________ Answering the "what denominations" question. You are obviously fishing for an answer "none", are you? Alright, let`s take this for a fact. Now, we have a fact, that Bible offers suggestions, which are NOT fullfulled by christians. So.. How do I judge someone by Bible, if you do not even fullfill all of what it says? How about writing down a list of what you all actually believe out of Bible, if some portions of it are not suitable anymore? Wanna write Bible Lite? Toss out all the bunk, and see, what remains. My assertions are dead-on, so far. Bible does contains what I said, does it not? Once again, if you really need, I will quote passages. Lastly - yes, the question of Jesus is philosophical. I suggest to reread the definition of philosophy, and what it entails. You`ll see, that teology does belongs to philosophy.

Let me put it this way. I will debate gladly, but I have my own ideas and conclusions, and I will not surrender them without a fight. Not to mention, that I consider "rigid" christianity to be very dangerous psychological delision, since marginal christians tend to outright deny facts. Frankly, line like - "Devil made this rock look million years old to fool you." scares me silly, because this is not just a belief. It`s fanatical conviction - which is a surefire recepy for potential bloodshed of epic proportions. As for reading... I don`t mind, but I will NOT spend money on procuring those, and I WILL do my best to find contradiction in them as well. _____ Don`t get me wrong. I don`t have a specific agenda against christianity, as a religion. Frankly, I would not care much, what people believe, as long as it does not puts me or them in direct danger. However, with the pervasiveness inherent to christianity in last few years, I feel the need to protect my own domains and my own conclusions from what is not proven to me. Taking into account my specific traits, my problem with modern christianity goes further, then simple "I think you preache a load of bull.". It`s more of - "What you say is very dangerous... And I would like to know more - so I could stop you, if it comes to blows." Honestly, I do not know, how any of you would address that. ______ To Steven: I`ve decided to wait out until I`ll settle my unbeliever rank. I was iron-clad sure, that I would land it sooner then later, and decided not to fill out what could be very well diked out. Like, for example, private messaging, which nonbelievers are not privvy to, it seems. Once I`ll establish, what stays and what goes, I might fill out more in profile. ______ To Jevelz: Not really. I`m not Ishmael. I`m IshAmael. It`s different name, and it has no relation to Bible, per ce. As for being angry or empty... Angry at whom? Empty of what? There is more to those words, then you think. Just because you need a god in your life does not means I do. In fact, I would find the idea pretty unpleasant. I`m not a fan of slavery - be it physical or spiritual.

I`m pretty sure, that side observer would suggest I`m the one being harassed by you, actually. Let`s try once again, alright? I`ll use simple words this time. 1) You said - "judge us by Bible". I can quote bible passages, which describe all that I`ve mentioned. If that`s not how you want to be judged, you should be more careful with what you ask for. 2) Isn`t claiming "you`re weak, you`re weak" a first sign of lost argument? So far, all what you say equates to - "Don`t judge us badly." and a load of semi-personal spam. Please, try better.... Or lurk more. 3) I won`t discuss my agenda here. Make out of it what you wish. If you want to believe I`m here specifically to attack your beliefs, good luck. Don`t let your fingers get stuck between buttons, as you write your replies. ________________________________________ As for Jesus, and his teachings... I`m sorry, but I can not discuss them with you anymore. This is philosophical question, and it could not be discussed without recognising this fact. Since you prefer to treat what I say as personal attack on your convictions, I believe I will take my debate to elseone. Though, I have to mention, that I really appreciate the irony. Atheist preaching Jesus-prescribed tolerance to christian. And getting accused of hypocrisy is just icing on the cake.

I`ve read through entire bible. In Russian and English translations. As for contradictions.. I believe Epicurus summed the most glaring one better, then I can: There`s also an issue of Jesus promising to return and predicting end of the world: Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. As far as I am aware, all of Israel cities had seen the followers of Jesus, and gospel had been preached world-wide. Yet, Jesus`s Second coming had not occured yet, nor did Armageddon.

I don`t think my parents can complain about me being ungrateful. Everything coming at me, I return in spades, be it good or bad. I guess you can say I`m loanophobic, if you want to.

No, I`m not a parent. If you`d please, I`d prefer to limit that particular topic with previous statement. It`s not the one I am willing to discuss. As for God... I do not think he exists, pure and simple. At least, not how the Bible portrays him. It`s logically-unevitable, if you examine the content. Too many contradictions. And so, even if he exists somehow, I do not think it`s a right thing to do - to offload my problems on him, even if he would not mind. I would be dishonored, if I were to piggyback my way for free. It`s my road, and I will walk it by myself. Call it pride and arrogance, if you will - but I won`t dishonor myself by taking what I`ve not earned.

Per my philosophy, yes. So, I`m not going to work for Jesus` forgiveness, since I don`t think he is there to five one. However, the question was to imagine hypotetical situation, that I would end up at the Last Judgement. Thus, I`ve given my accessment of what I would do, if my working hypotesis would turn out to be wrong after all, and yours - correct.

In a way, Wayne, yes. But whom would I be, if I were to dump my problems on God? If he exists, I think he has more important things to do, then clean up my mess. And I have more important things to do, then ask for his forgiveness. Glory... Did not Bible said, that God made humankind in his own image? If God exists, then every single person is a God in making. How do you know, that whole creation is not just a school for future gods? Existance is preschool, purgatory is mid-school. Heaven is high school. Hell is detention. Maybe the whole point of this creation was to prepare future gods to build up the universe more and more? Maybe at the beginning of creation nothing but a garden of Eden existed, and ever since graduated gods had build up the universe all around us that scientists see now? Wild theory? Farfetched fiction? Most likely. But then again, if God exists, then we would not know, what we exist for, until we become gods ourselves.

If that is so.... So I will. I would not be a person, if I were not able to stand up for what I deem just to everyone. He may forgive me as much as he wishes. It`s MY forgiveness, that matters to me. And I will forgive myself, as I`ll set right all that I`ve screwed up. Or die in process.

You want to be judged by Bible? Fine. You are abominations. You promote slavery, stone for minitae transgressions against nonsensical rules, and cultivate xenophobic intolerance towards anyone not belonging to your circle - which intolerance comes as far as genocide. Better now? This is ALL shown in Bible. Advices on how to sell own daughter to slavery, commandment to stone for anything resembling work on Saturday, description of slaying whole cities - women and children included, by DIRECT command of God. -------- Yet, being a reasonable person, I recognise, that Bible is in equal parts historical account and allegory, and I chose to overlook the glaring crimes promoted in Bible for the sake of convention. Folowing that, I completely omit Inquisition`s crimes against humanity - the staple of atheist accusations, as you all must remember by now. It`s history, it`s passed over, it`s been a mistake. Instead, I turn my attention to most modern developments. And WHAT do we see? Same xenophoby, bigotry and intolerance? And you DARE to say I should judge you by Jesus? Jesus is a great philosopher, I agree with a lot of what he says. And I do recognise him as a prominent historical figure, which I give due to. He, in a big way, shaped world into what it is now. _______________ My beef is not with Jesus. My beef is with followers, who claim to follow the words of Jesus. Yet... The voice is of Jesus, but hand is pillow-cased claw of Ku-Klux-Klan. If you ARE christians, show it, for crying out loud. You all do nothing but judge others, secure in your own delusion of righteousness, but when someone judges you, you get bent all out of shape. Is it not your saying - "What would Jesus do?" I don`t know.... Renounce his allegiance to modern Christianity, maybe? _____________ I would love to talk to Jesus. I would have much to ask him about. Sadly, he is dead, and I can not ask him anymore for a clarification of his teachings. But even so, I`m quite sure, that "Love for everyone." does not means - "Love for everyone christian, and hate towards everything else." ... I really wish he was alive, so we could all just go and ask. It`s hard to ask Jesus in someone`s heart, when it`s occupied by devil.

Excuse me? A. I was presenting a case of religion used politically. Obviously, there would be also cases of same religion not used politically. Religion, which is used exclusively as political tool is called theocracy. B. Don`t you? Sure feels so. C. Now that assertion is simply ridiculous. Since then average of all bad does not equals bad? To reiterate - I`ve not experienced a society of christians, which would not exude xenophoby, hostility and bigotry. By the law of averages, all christian societies should be such, so far. If you were to show that you are NOT such or point out other society which is not such, by the law of averages, my overall generalisation of christian societies would`ve improved as well. Not the other way.

OK, that`s better. First of all, I disagree with accessment, that religion is not political today. Just take a look at Bush`s administration, and how it conducts the affairs of USA. That, by the way, jointly answers the questions about denomination and murders in the name of Christianity. Denomination - I believe that Bush subscribes to conservative protestantism. Murders - every yankee and arab dying in Middle East. (Note, that I am not specifically against the middle east problem being solved forcibly. What I`m pointing out is mere religious allegiance. Which, in turn, is just a cover-up for simple conflict over resources.) _____ As for judging Christians by their worst... Well, my apologies to all christians who does not subscribes to the idiocity of those I mentioned. But you know how it goes - herd is judged by loudest cow. I`m judging Christians by what I see. And I see much more filth, lies, and dishonesty from christians, then reason, kindness or truth. And while I would like to believe there are christians, who are not dishonorable creatures, I`ve yet to see a society of such. I`ve met both saints and abominations among those who identifies as christian, individually. But I`ve not seen a SOCIUM of christians which is not xenophobic, bigoted and hostile. If you can show me, that you are not such, I would be more then glad to admit, that I was wrong in my generalisation. I always give due. _____ Now, about moral system... That is a bit more complicated, then you want to break it up to be. While the words about love to Jesus are a fine sentiment, that does not changes the outcome. Whatever your reasons would be, you all do claim to uphold the ten commandments universally, no matter what denomination. Similarly, most denominations an mass claim to follow the moral guidelines of Bible, no matter what their reasons for doing so might be. Now, considering the fact, that I`ve witnessed people from numerous denominations casually break the rules they claim to be devoted to (out of love to Jesus, or fear of hell - no matter), I think you can understand, why I would be wary. My experience with christians is NOT a pleasant one, and while I would like to treat you friendly, I have to put up some defences in case you will uphold my stereotype of christian yet again. Nothing personal against you, or Jesus. To quote Ghandi - "I like your Christ. I don`t like your Christians. They are so unlike Christ."

If report is from 5-10%, we write it off as placebo. If report is from 85-100%, we write it on as success. Simple, eh?

OOkay, that`s enough. Cut the condescending tone, please. My point is, once again, that noone in their right mind would even think to use atheism to justify arson or murder. Yet, Christianity WAS used to justify all of the crimes it denounces. I think it would be entirely fair, that I`d treat every Christian with caution - I have no wish to be burned at stake, stoned, sold to slavery or conquered. And once again - ALL of your denomiations claim to follow Jesus to the letter. If you want your particular brand of Christianity to be treated differently, offer different reasons to do so. ALL of you claim you live by the Bible, yet I am informed of numerous things (none of which I would like to happen to me) done by people, who also claim to follow Bible to the letter. The only way for you NOT to be lumped with them would be to show the difference. Something sorely lacking right now, with all the condescending and hostile tone. Are you defending your faith or doing your best to repel as many people from it, as you can? There is one problem with your objection to generalisation. Atheists are NOT united by one common moral system. All of them have their own opinion on morals. Only uniting point between them all is a conviction, that there is no supernatural God in existance. Christians, on other hand, ALL claim to be following quite rigid set of morals layed down in Bible. That gives more reason to lump them together, then you`d have to lump together atheists. If two people have same hair color, same facial features, same height, and same look, it`s more or less fair to wonder, if they are related. That`s how Christians could be lumped together. But suggesting people might be related, because they are all brunettes, for example, is potently ridiculous. That`s why Atheists can`t be lumped together without looking silly. __________________ Muslims give credit to Allah for every day they live on. Your point?

Now, I do not agree with the accession that radical muslims are not true muslims. In my opinion, anyone, who uses the guidelines represented in the specific book - Bible/Qu`ran/Torah/Vedah/Confucius Memoirs/etc., and openly claims to belong to religion basing on this book belongs to said religion, no questions asked. And yes, I agree that there are nutjobs in every socium. Point is, that not all nutjobs announce their allegiance to religion so openly as both WBs and Muslim radicals. I`ve yet to hear about atheists committing hatecrime in the name of atheism, frankly. _____________________________ This is getting out of topic, though. Let`s get back to discussion of personal testimonies, everyone. My opinion, as I already stated, that those testimonies show the placebo effect, as I`ve seen similar things occur with other religions/beliefs/superstitions. If someone has conclusive proof, that christianity has significantly higher percent of such epiphanies, it would be an interesting topic to research. I`m sceptical of this assertion, though.

shiloh357 - If you identify as Christian, you are one, no? That`s the exact problem here, see. Westboro Baptists also claim, that they preach true God`s word by bible. For all I know, you and Phelps have equal chance of being right. So, who do I pick? Who is true christian? You or him? That is what my question was about. How do I know, that YOU, and YOUR following posesses the mainline to God? How do I know you are not impostors, who use Bible to further your ends? THAT is what`s scary about all who worships Christ (or claims to do so, anyway). You have so many divisions, and only one is true - and every one claims THEY are real McCoys. How does one finds the true Christians? Are they Catholics? Baptists? Protestants? Anglicans? Orthodoxes? Or maybe they are just good people, who don`t particularly care, what you believe in, as long as you coexist with them peacefully? MeCajunboy - statistics of what? Of epiphanies? As far as I know, only christianity ever did centralised polls on how many people had found Christ to be a life-changer. Other religions are not that particularly interested, I suppose. There were polls on to what religion people subscribe in, as far as I remember, but to get statistics on other religion epiphanies, one will have to do them manually, or trust potentially-biased sources. Thus, my suggestion, that one needs to know the primary language of religion, to be able to scoop up larger amount of mass-media, that would have semi-veritable statistics or material for such.

Primarily, this verse was used as a renouncement of non-christian movements. Late Jerry Falwall quoted this verse in relation to atheistic movement, in particular. Secondarily, this verse had been used by anglican church officials as one of the explanations for separation from catholicism. I trust your Google-Fu is of sufficient level to examine this assertion. Additionally, this verse had been spotted being quoted by several marginal christian sects, including infamous Westboro Baptists and their leader Fred Phelps, to renounce every spiritual leader, that did not subscribed to his blatant homophobia and hate propaganda.

Each particular brand of Christianism uses this verse to renounce all others. Yet, you all preach same Bible. How would one know, that thou art not a false prophet?

I like this one quite more: Shows, that Jesus could make a practical decision, when the times called for it. On topic, though... Thou should not drag people into Christ. If he is false, you mislead. If he is true - he will turn people to himself sooner or later. Let the God do his work, and you - do yours.