BorderGirl
Acrobat
double post-sorry.
I think perhaps a couple people (not necessarily you; I'm just running with your phrasing here) misconstrued what I meant, so I'll attempt to clarify.BorderGirl said:
Conversation/observations/ about a "Mighty God" (unless this was supposed to be taken sarcastically) was what the original post asked.
Believers of all faiths will be inclined to post/share/teach/inspire, etc.
But if this post becomes about defending aetheism (a belief in no God), then carry on.
Believers, Aetheists or Agnostics respectfully exploring questions regarding Faith or lack of it, God, Jesus, etc. and others respectfully responding?
ok then!
Questions are opportunities for all of us to learn.
anitram said:
Therefore I no longer believe it's possible to discuss "God" here - maybe the Christian God, yes, but anything else? Good night and good luck, cuz it ain't gonna happen.
dazzlingamy said:
I do the wrong things all the time, but i dont think they are "sins" or that I'm doing them beause some divine being made me not perfect so i can be humble or something. So when you call it 'sins' i feel like you are taking MY mistakes out of my hands and putting them into the 'this is how you're made, jesus died for your sins yada yada' and that makes me feel uncomfortable.
A_Wanderer said:They are not, perhaps you miscontrue intent since I am not making claim to victimhood - I am more than capable of defending my position and I revel in doing so.
AussieU2fanman said:
No Chrisitian typically intransigent by nature could possibly respect the view or opinion of anyone from any other faith (with reagards to their God more specifically) because they 'know' everything the non-Christians are saying about their God is completely and utterly wrong.
anitram said:I think yolland said it best in his post.
All these God threads in FYM end up being about Christians who come in and offer their beliefs as it if were facts.
Those who have been here a long time know that when there have been attempts to discuss other faiths or concepts, like for example karma or reincarnation, it only resulted in the same thing - Christians coming in to try and dispel them with their concept of grace. You see it in the atheist/agnostic threads too, it's always the Christians who need to come in and present their views on sin, salvation, Jesus and whatever else. You tell me how many times we've seen in here a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, etc come in and behave in the same manner? Never? Yeah, pretty much.
Therefore I no longer believe it's possible to discuss "God" here - maybe the Christian God, yes, but anything else? Good night and good luck, cuz it ain't gonna happen.
coemgen said:
If it feels like I'm forcing my beliefs on you anitram, I appoligize. However, I don't see Christ as a "belief," I know him as fact. Therefore, I'm going to speak like that. I would expect everyone else to do the same with what they know to be facts. Just because it doesn't jive with what you believe or see as fact, doesn't mean I can't speak about it and respond from with that perspective. That's why were all here in FYM — for the debate and the discussion.
anitram said:What bothers me is that I have many friend who are not Christians, and in fact probably most of them aren't. I've spent more of my time with those of Jewish faith than anything lately, at my job. One of my best friends is Hindu, and another is Sikh. Many are agnostics.
And on occasion when I've spoken about religion with them, nobody and I mean nobody is adamant or pushy or staunchly evangelical or condescending. Nobody. This is a phenomenon I've come to associate with Christians exclusively, for better or worse and truth be told, I want no part of it. If Christians are to espouse the teachings of Christ and spread the good word, I don't understand how many of them don't see that they are turning away more people than they can imagine. And I guess that's easy too, chalk it up to somebody not accepting Christ as a saviour (as Irvine was accused of) instead of looking inward and asking themselves what it is about them and the way they are spreading their faith that has people screaming and running in the opposite direction.
The respect afforded to me in discussions with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs has astounded me. I only wish Christians by and large would be this way. Instead, I find most of them condescending and creepy, and that's a sad statement, but it has become my experience like it or not.
anitram said:
The respect afforded to me in discussions with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs has astounded me. I only wish Christians by and large would be this way. Instead, I find most of them condescending and creepy, and that's a sad statement, but it has become my experience like it or not.
80sU2isBest said:
Anitram, it goes both ways. There are many times my beliefs have been treated condescendingly or without respect by athiests and others.
anitram said:
What offends me are Christians who I feel have perverted and politicized the faith to further their own ends......
Jesus said to the disciples to prepare their hearts for the arrival of the kingdom of heaven, not to go around legislating rules about homosexual rights, women's uteruses, cussing on TV, Janet Jackson's breasts, rap music, Harry Potter's witchcraft, pharmacists refusing to issue out medications and so on.
BorderGirl said:
I would like to know how "further their own ends" compares with doing the work asked of us as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
I might remind you that most religions object to some of the behavior stated above.
anitram said:
If Christian groups would cease and desist from attempting to push their religious beliefs on the general secular populace, many of us would have nothing to complain about.
BorderGirl said:
It seems ego centric to think that when the head of a group, (religious or otherwise) that you do not belong to speaks, they are speaking to you, a non-member.
If you are a practicing (insert your religion here) and yer man/woman is addressing you, you should listen. For those outside the group, listen too if you want, but don't criticize the head of an organization for validly addressing it's members.
BorderGirl said:
It seems ego centric to think that when the head of a group, (religious or otherwise) that you do not belong to speaks, they are speaking to you, a non-member.
If you are a practicing (insert your religion here) and yer man/woman is addressing you, you should listen. For those outside the group, listen too if you want, but don't criticize the head of an organization for validly addressing it's members.
80sU2isBest said:(2)The left has long screamed and hollered that morality should be taught at home, not in the schools. But consider the distribution of condoms in the school. Many parents' morality is to tell their children "do not have sex unless you're married". Parents have a right to instill this morality in their children. However, the school, when it distributes condoms are instilling their own particular morality; the morality: "well, we believe you're going to be weak and have sex anyway, so here's some condoms." Why should the school be able to instill a morality that clashes with the morality of the parents, especially when the parents' morality of abstainance is more effective in fighting disease and unwanted pregnancy than so-called "safe sex"? It's ridiculous. Some people don't want the government telling them how to run their own lives, but have no problem with the schools instilling a contradictory set of moral values than what their neighbors teach their own kids at home.
80sU2isBest said:
(1) The evolution of mankind is taught in our school systems, despite the wishes of a large portion of our population. If evolution were an undeniable fact, that would be one thing. But it is called a theory because it is not undeniable fact. Is it right to force this theory upon the children of those whom do not subscribe to the theory?
80sU2isBest said:
(2)The left has long screamed and hollered that morality should be taught at home, not in the schools. But consider the distribution of condoms in the school. Many parents' morality is to tell their children "do not have sex unless you're married". Parents have a right to instill this morality in their children. However, the school, when it distributes condoms are instilling their own particular morality; the morality: "well, we believe you're going to be weak and have sex anyway, so here's some condoms." Why should the school be able to instill a morality that clashes with the morality of the parents, especially when the parents' morality of abstainance is more effective in fighting disease and unwanted pregnancy than so-called "safe sex"? It's ridiculous. Some people don't want the government telling them how to run their own lives, but have no problem with the schools instilling a contradictory set of moral values than what their neighbors teach their own kids at home.
anitram said:
I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights, control access to birth control, pass through bigoted marriage amendments and so on. These are not people speaking to YOU, they are people who are trying to politicize their religion to restrict the rights of the rest of us who don't follow their beliefs in the first place. So yes, I'll criticize all I want.
nathan1977 said:
But isn't this more the fault of a democratic, representative government? "I may not agree with what you say," goes the old quote, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Criticizing those whose beliefs run counter to yours is one thing -- criticizing them for putting their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas (when those with complete opposing views have the same right, and make use of it every day) is another.
But this is all quite off topic from the original thread.
80sU2isBest said:With all the accusations of "legislating morality" flying around, I think that people should keep these 2 things in mind:
(1) The evolution of mankind is taught in our school systems, despite the wishes of a large portion of our population. If evolution were an undeniable fact, that would be one thing. But it is called a theory because it is not undeniable fact. Is it right to force this theory upon the children of those whom do not subscribe to the theory?
nathan1977 said:
But isn't this more the fault of a democratic, representative government? "I may not agree with what you say," goes the old quote, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Criticizing those whose beliefs run counter to yours is one thing -- criticizing them for putting their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas (when those with complete opposing views have the same right, and make use of it every day) is another.
anitram said:
I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights
80sU2isBest said:
If human life begins at conception, as is the general consensus amongst embryologists,