"Some would rather be
content with ignorance
than uncomfortable
with the truth."
"If an Atheist has belief or faith in
anything, it's that believers of religion
accept propositions as evidence, and
possibility as fact."
"Just as religions can take a simple man
and make him godly, it can also take a good man and make him evil."
"You will not have the opportunity to
make a difference after death, so be
someone's guardian angel now."
"Some people feel they need religion
because they can't control themselves;but it shouldn't be forced
upon those of us that can."
upon those of us that can."
"Just as funerals are for the living, not
the dead; religions are for the
people,not the gods."
people,not the gods."
"If we truly had one creator speaking to
prophets, it would do so consistently;
not contradictory as thousands of
"Sometimes we need to change our
perception, to check the
validity of our reality. "
validity of our reality. "
"If the Christian god created humans as
sinners, how could it rightfully expect us
to believe its corrupt messengers?"
"Let us find our own answers
and make an educated decision,
rather than remaining uneducated
and making a fearful one."
"If the holy books were truly
such, and inspired by omniscient
beings, they would not be limited to
the knowledge and era of
those that wrote them."
"It is a complete contradiction
that a righteous god would purposely
create you imperfectly, and then expect
you to begin an impossible race to
perfection before death."
"We have the capacity to make
decisions based on value and
reason instead of hope and fear."
"If it is impossible for you
to choose the same sex against your
will, don't you think it's impossible
for homosexuals to choose the opposite?"
"I was a believer too; and I must
tell you, my urgency of life is now
ten-fold that I no longer
believe in heaven."
12 comments:
Some of these quotes are cool and some don't make sense.
The Christian God didn't create people as sinners.
That came latter with the whole free will thing.
The Christian God doesn't expect you to be perfect or punish anyone for not being perfect. Jesus makes the point that it's impossible to be perfect and that we should just show grace to each other and do that best that we can.
As for 'corrupt messengers', sometimes God uses bad people to do good things (which is pretty cool) and it's hard to know if God is trying to say something of if someone if just full of bs, that's why he had to come to Earth incarnate. Also, since Jesus made it possible for the God's spirit to live inside us there is no need for a prophet or priest (but some people need a buddy to look out for them so that they don't come up with weird ideas and say that 'God told them so'
Holy books, I usually wouldn't care to defend this but whatever. Most of the books of the Bible were not written with the idea 'this is holy' (maybe some of the prophetic writers had that idea), it's just a bunch of stuff (the most frequently used) that was collected into one volume for convenience. Canonization came later. As for limited knowledge, if God was inspiring the writers while they jotted down some poem, or letter, or bit of history why would he distract the writer to correct his worldview if it had nothing to do with the point of the writing? When I read this stuff I keep in mind that the writers probably thought the world was flat and that they were racists, and I try not to let it prevent me from getting whatever it is that the writer is talking about.
I like the thing about homosexuals, I support gay marriage and gay armies.
I have urgency in life because I want to help people.
Some people have no urgency in life because they are selfish and lazy and it has nothing to do with afterlife beliefs.
I don't mean to be Mr. Crit, most of your quotes are right on.
Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."
According to the contradictory scriptures, we could have this battle all day. Some of the bible says we inherit sin, some portions say we do not. But the Christian fact remains, that humans are 'fallen' because of Adam and Eve's transgressions. How is that not inheritance?
The Christian god doesn't expect us to become perfect; but that's not what I said. My quote was about the "impossible race to perfection." Matthew 7:21 says "Not everyone that says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." You can't live a life filled with imperfections and still do the "father's will" at the same time. There is an impossible race before you.
Does anyone know what that "will" actually is? The "Father" was the star of the Old Testament, and apparently his will involved all of that uncomfortable Jewish business of killing armies, innocent babies, homosexuals, misbehaving children, and adulterers, that Christians are constantly trying to defend with Jesus. But whose will is important? According to Matthew, it's the Father's, not Jesus'.
Hey, that other post was me, for some reason my ID got booted when I posted.
Bible scholars agonize over interpreting Romans, they say it’s because of the mystery of God, I think it’s just poorly written. I think that the passage in Romans is suggesting that Adam and Eve established a pattern that all humanity follow, everybody sins. Romans says a lot of things in a figurative and confusing way, but Jesus says very plainly that the son is not responsible for the sins of the father. There is an OT passage that suggests that we pass on our values to our children, and they sort of learn our moral failures. I think it’s in Ezekiel but I’m not sure.
My apologies for misunderstanding the perfection thing, let me give it another shot. I think that Matt 7 is talking about the false belief that deeds would earn you a seat in the Kingdom of heaven. I think that you can absolutely be filled with imperfection and still do the will of the Father. That is what grace is all about. Every one of the patriarchs are filled with imperfection. There’s not a single Christian worth their salt that wouldn’t claim to be filled with imperfection. I suppose that depends on understanding God’s will more as mission than morality.
The difference between the God of the Old Testament and Jesus… whew, that’s a huge one. Geez, I could catch so much hell from my Jewish friends for this. I think the Christian explanation is that God was so severely misunderstood that he had to come to Earth in person. Shalom.
So Yahweh created the earth--and humans to inhabit that earth, and gave them intellect to have dominion over all the animals. But the humans he created with intellect, did not have the intellectual ability to fully understand their creator. Maybe he was low on intellect juice during creation.
These people misunderstood their creator so much, that he had to impregnate a woman with himself so that he could be born, and then die, to sacrifice himself--to himself, to somehow make the point that everyone needed to follow him.
Two thousand years later, with Bible Scholars, PhD's in theology, and ministers converting to atheism, we still have no physical proof that the Christian system of beliefs is true.
You really buy this?
Hmm, well, no I guess I don't buy it, mainly because I don't really summarize my beliefs in that way.
Intellect Juice, If I don't understand you then does that mean that you are wrong? I don't understand the mind of God, does that mean he's wrong. Should God be judged for whatever intellectual capacity that humans have? I asked my dad why he had kids and his answer was selfish, should I judge him for that?
I suppose God could have chosen his method of incarnation in any number of ways, he could have been farted out of a camel if he wanted and given Isaiah the heads up. I don't think it had to be any one way.
Sacrifice himself to himself... perhaps I'm a bit thick. You might need to elaborate.
Everyone needs to follow him... I wouldn't have said it that way. This makes it sound like Jesus needs our approval to feel secure about himself. I think the idea was to make it possible for people to get what they need and go on to help others get what they need. Others being the widows, orphans, the sick, those who would hurt us, etc.
I'm sympathetic in your need for proof to trust something. I think that you and I just need different kinds of proof. My feeling is that proving that God exists would not making any difference, in terms of translating that belief into something that produced a positive life transformation. The Israelites followed a pillar of fire and still turned to a golden calf. I needed proof that I was loved and that Jesus' ideas on how to live were good ideas. I don't know if it's proof, but I'm satisfied by the lives of people that had healed from being raped, losing their children... and lived to show compassion to the people that hurt them because of the influence of Jesus.
Two thousand years of scholars and ministers have not produced any proof, I don't think the majority of them were laboring to that end. The ones I remember were great at teaching others how to be less selfish and more loving.
Intellect Juice: If I don't understand you then does that mean that you are wrong? -- If I created you, then yes! I should have created you with the capacity to understand my existence and reasons for approaching life in ways of horrible death and destruction so that you don't turn away from me. I wouldn't create you, and then present you with something that I didn't give you the capacity to understand. That's counterproductive.
If Jesus would have been farted out of a camel, I would SO be a Christian! That's awesome. It's convenient that out of the millions of ways he could have 'appeared,' he just so happened to be 'born' like every other mammal on the planet! What are the odds?
Sacrifice himself to himself: In the Christian worldview, Jesus is God. God is the Father. God sent Jesus (himself) to die, as a blood sacrifice to the Father (also himself) to atone for the sins of man. He sacrificed himself to himself to save you from the sin he also created.
I cannot for the life of me understand how logical people actually believe this.
We do require different proof. You're right.
David Koresh convinced people he was the Messiah. You thought he was crazy.
Charles Manson convinced people he was the Messiah. You think he is crazy.
Jim Jones convinced people that he was the Messiah. You think he was crazy.
Thousands of cults have a leader that claims to be the Messiah, and have followers, and you think they are all crazy.
Mohommad wrote an entire book called the Qu'ran, and said a god named Allah spoke to him as the last prophet. You think he was crazy.
Joseph Smith claimed to be approached by an angel in the woods and translated ancient texts in a language he didn't know, and then wrote the Book of Mormon which now has millions of followers. You think he was crazy.
Oh but Jesus, yea, he had it right! You have no more proof of Jesus than you do any of these other claims of divinity--it's word of mouth, passed down stories that were finally written into parables, myths, and translations, yet you believe it over the others. Why?
The Juice: well, we are somewhere between 'fully understand' and 'capacity to understand'. I think we have sufficient intelligence to understand what is necessary.
camel farts: I'll put in a good word for you, maybe the second coming will play out this way.
himself/himself: yes, when you put it that way it is very: Volcano God needs virgin sacrifice for good harvest. I can see why you might have that perception. Here's how I would say it:
Jesus is the Father (don't fully understand)
The Father is the Spirit (no capacity to understand)
Let's just call it the trinity (maybe Smalley had a good point)
God sent Jesus (himself) to switch us out for Jesus (himself) to take the natural consequences (separation from God) of our sin (selfishness) which we created through choices of our freewill.
I don't know if that's logical, if I read it in a sci-fi book I would at least understand what was playing out.
Ah, the who's who list of crazy people.
Atheists don't need divine intervention to know right and wrong. Jones, Manson, Koresh... these guys were bad news. It doesn't take a lot to identify a false messiah, it's harder to identify a true messiah.
"You will not have the opportunity to
make a difference after death, so be
someone's guardian angel now."
Angel - do you believe in angels?....Those were created by God? They are in the heavenlies.....There are fallen angels to who serve Satan.......
I can't decide it that's rude or if you just really missed the point. He's encouraging something positive.
I'm not on ether side, I'm somewhere in the middle. You don't understand how someone could be dense enough to believe in Christianity. So you spend you time obsessing over it. Writing news letters and posting blogs.
You do understand that you are a fundamentalist Atheist?
You spend all this time trying to convert people to your belief. But my question is, should you?
When people walk in a court house and see a Christmas tree, 99% of them instantly think Christmas gifts and a flying fat man. It makes them feel good. Some oppose it for religious reasons, but understand it is a tradition.
Then there is the fundamentalist atheist. He is immediately angered by the tree. How dare someone put a Christmas tree in a court house! Cell phone call to his lawyer and next year there is no tree.
Who is the bad guy here? Was the tree forcing it's underlying meaning on him? Was the tree trying to convert him?
How about the fact that Christian churches are the largest charity on earth? That doesn't count the gifts given between parishioners. The boxes of food, a baby bed, repairing someones car, a place to stay till someone gets back on their feet.
It's not just a place to sing and read the bible for an hour. It is a community of people coming together to care for each other and try to be the best person they can be.
These things are Noble.
This response is for Anonymous 070110.
You close with “These things are Noble.” You allude to Paul’s letter to the Philippians, where he advises them to think on “whatsoever things are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy.” Can’t argue with that sentiment. Note that “true” comes first. This is ironic in your case, as you begin with five false assertions in a row.
(1) You claim that you’re “not on either side”, but “somewhere in the middle.” In context, you seem to assert that you are neither believer nor nonbeliever, but midway between. I don’t know what that means, but I do know that you heavily favor believers in your response; i.e., you are indeed taking sides.
(2) You assert that David doesn’t “understand how someone could be dense enough to believe in Christianity.” This is false, as you’d know if you read through these threads. David understands perfectly well how intelligent young people are indoctrinated into and persist in their elders’ various and contradictory religions.
(3) You accuse David of “obsessing over it,” which is false as well. Again as you should know, he is a full-time husband and father, a full-time employee, and a full-time graduate student. He also edits a prestigious magazine and engages in social activism. It’s a wonder that he has any time left to respond to you Anonymoi on this site. He does not write “news letters.”
(4) You assert that David is a “fundamentalist Atheist.” If you know the history of the Christian fundamentalist movement, then you know that the epithet is patently inapplicable to Atheists. If you intended some other meaning for the word here, you should have explained yourself. But no, you just use the term as a bludgeon to attack him.
(5) Another false assertion: “You spend all this time trying to convert people to your belief.” Given the considerations in (3) above, David can’t possibly spend “all this time” on converting people. Nor is his task here to “convert” anyone to “his belief.” He instructs, argues, enlightens, and tries to deal reasonably with a host of irrational Anonymoi. If he wants to “convert” anyone, it’s from irrational superstitious thinking to reasonable discourse about religious dogma.
Next, you take your straw Atheist and fantasize about him. Christmas trees are controversial in Canade, but in the US, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the tree alone is unobjectionable. You ask “Who’s the bad guy here?” but your meaning is clear: your imaginary Atheist is the “bad guy,” intent on spoiling things for Christians.
I don’t know where you got your alleged fact that “Christian churches are the largest charity on earth.” “Christian churches” are not, by definition, “a charity” at all. By sheer numbers, of course Christian-sponsored charities are larger than secular-sponsored charities in America. So what?
Finally, your definition of “church” applies to any number of social organizations, religious and secular. Yes, it’s wonderful to see “people coming together to care for each other,” but that characterization doesn’t define “churches” anywhere. Secular folks also “come together to help each other and try to be the best people they can be.”
You conclude with your saccharine Pauline sentiment. After your series of false assertions and hostile rhetoric, I am unmoved. Certainly, church people do noble things. But, as one of my city’s local heroes (Fred Rodgers) put it: “The very same people who are good sometimes are the very same people who are bad sometimes.” Or, as David Smalley says more aptly in the quotes that head this thread: “Just as religions can take a simple man and make him godly, [they] can also take a good man and make him evil.” The truth of that is confirmed by every news medium, in every place on Earth, every day of every year. This unhappy truth is what motivates David, not any sort of “fundamentalism” on his part.
Mr. Smalley,
Please advise if you wrote the following quote:
"The fittest are those endowed with the qualifications for adaptation, the ability to accept the inevitable and conform to the unavoidable, to harmonize with existing or changing conditions."
Thank you.
Keri
Post a Comment