I'm Jewish so screw your 'New' Covenant gentile, and you should probably take a less hostile and haughty tone unless you want to incur the wrath of our Zionist banks.

Perhaps you could tell me where in the Bible it makes the distinction between murder and 'divinely-ordered execution'. From what I see, the only difference is semantic.

Throughout those Hebrews' attempts to clear their promised land from other tribes', Jehovah (as you know) ordered the decimation of their rivals. It is never suggested that this is morally or metaphysically improper. When they overstep their bounds, however, Jehovah had, on more than 1 occasion, introducted blight to the people.

And he couldn't have possibly brokered a peaceful resolution. Nope, it had to be genocide and nothing else.

I grow tired of religion. Every year, I become more and more annoyed with the premise of it. Its all nonsense. The concept of God is flawed, therefore God is flawed. Any God that would sit back and allow followers to decimate those with difference of opinion, isn't a God, but a politician.

I HATE politicians. They are liars. A God would have no need to lie or to kill for self gain. A God trifles not with these things.

In losing my sense of religion, I lament God's death, but I lament the death of my fellow man to a much greater extent.

So, you have a grasp on what it is to have the mindset of a god, do you? Look, I'm anti-religion, as big a skeptic as they come (lol deni's fat), but that's just fucking asinine.

I was a devoted member of Christianity for about 18 years of my life. No I cannot claim to know what it is to be a God, but through my experiences with the Church and the teachings which explain God's 'position' and 'viewpoints', I can infer a great deal about this particular "God" and also infer the same to be generally true of all Gods. It is comparitive in an equal sense because it exists in every manifestation of every bible, of every religion. The main theme of God, through most explanations, is a being which exerts force over mankinds potential to control himself. It becomes a question of manipulation.

The ideal of a monotheistic God is surprisingly unchanging from one religion to another. For the purposes of Christianity, it is a God who is vengeful, sadistic but also loving? God is in a perpetual contradictory phase. Perhaps IT is bi polar. I may be wrong with my assumptions, but I don't think any God would be flawed enough to require mankind to carry out HIS/HERS/THEIR work. That is what is asinine.

A true God couldn't be disproven. That is the point I was trying to make.

For someone who was a christian for 18 years, you should have picked up on the fact that God is always vengeful. New Testament has Jesus as a buffer between him and humanity, remember?

Also, really NOT remotely true about all religions being the same. Allah, God, Yaweh... sure, they're pretty much the same, as they're all based on the judeo-christian roots, but to clame that Amon-Ra and Zeus are in the same boat? Come on. How about Shiva? Odin? They don't really fit your little mold. I get it, you don't like Christianity. Stick to the one religion though, stop acting like you know some greater truth on a universal scale. You're being an ethnocentric prick, here.

No, what I am saying is that the God of Old Testament to New Testament were very nearly, different God's entirely.
That is, God seems to have had a change of heart to better reconcile his image with the changing of times. There was an uncut seam, so to speak. Yes, that annoys me. I am sorry that it seems to have touched a hairy spot with you. ...Does this make sense to you, or are you going to continue to encourage a sense of 'wrongness' within the scope of my viewpoint's?

I was referring to aspects of God which carry over from religion to religion. I am NOT saying all religions are the same. Sense of tradition is really what separates them. I know this because I have studied them. I don't feel that I am ethnocentric in any sense, religion included so bugger off! :) Granted I am no scholar but I especially love it when people put words in my mouth to prove your apparition of a point...which is? :rolleyes:

...and am accused of being a prick in the process. To be sure, I may be a prick, but I am an open minded prick.

I have seen consistencies from the "different" manifestations of God from religion to religion. I have studied God extensively, not only in the realm of Christian dogma. What about my understanding appears to be so unreasonable? I have done my work in religious examination. What I am saying is that my image of God from religion to religion is very similar. My image of God in the Christian manifestation is similar to the God's that appear in the Talmud and the Q'uran and in other religions as well. Do you want a list? Are you in fact just trying to get a rise out of me? :twitch:

As for Zeus, sorry I have to spell it out, but I refer primarily to God's represented in major religions of the monotheistic variety. In the end, its all mythology. IN MY EYES, of course.

I see that you are an anthropology student. I have taken some course work in anthropology. I think that was a crucial process in helping me define my sense of God, and religion.

Let me ask you this...what is your take on God?

Are...are you serious, magic? We're speaking of a period thousands of years before Jesus' birth. Archaeological digs and anthropological analysis had attributed child sacrifice, ritualistic orgies, and organized duels for kingship to some of the conquered civilizations. I don't think that a ancient Yalta was really an option, eh?

*smacks forehead* Actually, don't respond. I'm going to abandon this topic and merely urge those in it to gain a bit of theological understanding before accepting or rejecting any religion.

I'd wager I know more about Christian theology than you do, seeing as I spent my entire primary/secondary education in a Christian private school.

But, really, no matter how much I "know" about the pretext of Christianity, it doesn't change the fact that it's not entirely independently verifiable or the fact that it's basically circular logic or self-referential. In fact, a lot of many "good" Christians will point out the fact that the Bible doesn't reference anything, and that they "feel" it doesn't need to.

Additional Spam:

Uhhh... since when were Amon-Ra, Zeus, Shiva and Odin part of a monotheistic belief system?

And the Jews were so much better than that with their genocide and their 'kill everyone, even the women and children' policies. Also, while some of the religions of the time were into that freaky shit, do you seriously believe that every single other religion was that fucked up?

And regarding child sacrifice, didn't God once order someone to sacrifice their son to him in order to make a ham-fisted metaphor?

Amon-Ra was the name given to the sun god after the pantheons were destroyed. He stood as a lone god for decades.

As for the others, He didn't seem to be talking monotheistic, he seemed to be making blanket statements.

Additional Spam:
My take on God? He doesn't exist. At least not in the sense people want him to. I think God as creator is a cop out. It's a new take on an old concept: Can't explain it, so it must be divine. Why did the volcano erupt? Why, it was an angry volcano god. Give him a virgin. Now the question is how do you get something from nothing? Don't know, must be a massive eternal--which is hilarious, given how IDers talk about how matter can't come from nothing, but they buy the concept of an entity existing at all points without end--entity controlling everything.

The judeo-christian god has no more sway for me than does, say, the germanic pantheon, or the Loa of Africa. When asked for my religious beliefs, I just say skeptic. People like Rat try so hard to make a point, but they always come back to the magic man in the sky, and claim it MUST be supernatural because we haven't been able to explain it yet. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence argument. Just because we haven't found Jesus' body means he MUST have risen from the dead. Because we can't explain what came before the Big Bang, it MUST be god. As if every theory must be all-encompassing to be valid. Pah. What's my view on god? No different than my view on, say, eco-friendly movements. A great idea, too bad so many retarded assholes have to blindly believe it, though.

A belief resists change. Thus why there are people who picket dead children's funerals and scream AIDS CURES FAGS at the grieving parents under the guise of good christian morals. God has caused too many fucking problems. That's what I think of god.

Because I have noticed that your religion-->http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm is bankrupt of hope and those that are devout to it have demonstrated that they are bent on taking hope from others.
My belief system encourages me to give hope and I dont see how it would do any good to provide it when all you have done so far is try to undermine my statements for the purpose of leaving people with nothing at all. Consider the questions at the bottom of this post and answer them if you can.


See what I mean? No hope and frankly a true lived out testimony of the core of atheism. My book at least warns me that this sort of thing would happen and I am fine with this sort of thing cause Jesus put up with it and taught believers how to get stronger from it.
My prayer for you is that when the day comes, you will see the face of God in the person that makes the effort to help you understand.

I'm just curious why the atheists here havent stated how their belief system makes their life a "good" one. How has atheism and its attendant philosophies encouraged you to be a "good" person? How has your system helped you to be a productive member of society?
I would like to know the atheist standard of what is good & bad and how they strive to measure up.

It's very simple. I know what harms someone else, and I don't do it. No doubt you will choose to overcomplicate this, but it really is that simple. I don't need a religion to tell me what will cause harm to someone.

You also can't talk around this by questioning the meaning of the word "harm". It's pretty clear cut in practice. There are three main kinds of harm that can come to a person.

Please note that this is an ideal, and one which I may not live up to.

1) Physical harm: I don't go around doing things that will cause physical harm, such as hitting people, or using weapons on them. I also don't poison people, or encourage them to do things which might cause physical harm to befall them. I also won't allow someone to come to physical harm in front of my face if I can do anything to prevent it.

2) Material harm: I don't deprive others of the material things which belong to them by taking them. In short, I don't steal. I also don't damage the material things which belong to others, and I don't look the other way while it happens in front of me.

3) Emotional harm: This one is rather more difficult, but I strive to neither say or do things which would be likely to cause emotional trauma to another person. That does not mean that I must always be polite, or that I must never criticise. Instead it means that I must not say or do things with serious and lasting consequences for the emotional well-being of another. A good example would be that I will be faithful to the person with whom I am in a romantic relationship.

It's very simple. It shares some characteristics in common with the Christian moral code, but is not derived from it. Instead it is derived very simply from how I would wish others to treat me. Each person has their own interpretation of where the line is drawn for these things, and their moral guidelines are not relative to mine.

If you go back and read the posts of the other atheists here are not big on your view of respect. If I was a weaker person my feelings would have been hurt by their comments, which it seems to me quite intentional.
I understand that there is no basis for uniformity in conduct for atheists but I have seen posted several times the message that an atheist does pursue good aims in living. Answer for me please the basis for pursing the path of being a productive member of society. As I stated before I grew up with atheists that just didnt care about much and I see in some of the representatives here the same attributes (negative outlook, excessive pride, low opinion of other views, violent reactions) that I was accustomed to as a child. You at least have some mechanism for restraint. Be a witness for me and tell me your story.

What do you mean 'bankrupt of hope'. My life is full of hope, but tempered with realism. This is like saying that mathematicians take hope from others when they show how unlikely it is that they will win the lottery.

Maybe if you answered my question I wouldn't have had to go and ask the guy for advice.

Atheism has nothing to do with morality, it is simply a term used to describe people who don't believe in a 'god'. If atheism is my belief system then my hobby is not playing WoW. If you want to discuss morality I would describe myself as utilitarian crossed with moral absolutism. I don't need anything other than common sense to know what is right and wrong.

Empathy.

If someone espouses and belief, and then constantly ducks or evades my questions and gives no good reasons for their belief I tend to lose respect for them.

I suppose your parents didn't play the sousaphone either. Does that mean that all non-sousaphone players are arseholes?

It's simple: I do whatever best furthers the advancement and furthering the development and achievement of humanity. Generally, things like stealing and killing don't advance those things, whereas things like helping out other people do. No God required.

That about sums up my thoughts on Catholicism.

So if people dont measure up to your standards they don't deserve respect?
My bible says everyone deserves respect, so I do my best to honor that command in an effort to be what God intended for me to be. If you are serious with your questions, please take a moment and lay down your own standards and be considerate of the person you are asking.

Last time I checked atheists depend on the data available to make their conclusions. If I am treated with disrespect by the majority of the atheists I meet my conclusion will reflect the experience. Besides without God I have no written information available that says you should behave any differently.

No, if they cant explain their own religion or beliefs when they spit garbage out of their mouths, they dont deserve respect. I have met people that claim they are devout Christians, but when we debate, they cant make valid arguments, then they have the gall to get angry. They pout and call you a heathen(most dont know what a heathen is so they say something else that is even less attractive). That deserves no respect.

So, if they cant measure up to any good standard they deserve no respect.

Its this very reason why I love my bible. The book has tried and tested methods for dealing with people that are not nice and turning such bad situations into a good ones.
When you live the book and take the worst the world has on the chin without acting the way the world does, then you are in the position for making change. My man MLK jr. did it. Its called taking the moral high ground. When you just fight with people you are no better than the feces throwing monkeys atheists believe they descended from. My books says I am a divine creation and that what I strive to live up to.

Not so, conflict sometimes brings people to create solutions for their problems. It's better than saying "Well I'm too adult to argue" and walk away. Nothing has been solved.

I wonder how a "divine creation" is supposed to behave anyway. It seems like such a lofty term for human being or am I mistaken?

I choose to depend on history to avoid making the same mistakes from previous generations.

Being created in the image of a perfect being is lofty. The point I get from the concept is to shoot for a standard in conduct & aspirations that requires continual growth on my part. Others know if I am successful in Christian living when they can consistently see a reflection of the biblical ideals in me.

As an agnostic (since I feel atheism, the denial of a god, is just as presumptuous as any sort of strong religious belief) I feel I live along a similar code of ethics to Soulzar. I just try not to be a dick to anyone I meet. It's pretty much just the golden rule which has been pretty popular for, what I imagine, is just about forever).

Again, see my point about contradictions in the Bible. One minute it's saying 'love thy neighbor', and the next it's saying that homosexuality, an sexual preference that harms nobody, is an abomination.

I was perfectly considerate when I first asked, but you've yet to give me a decent answer. Maybe next time I'll finally get a straight forward answer, as I found your orignial response to be insulting.

Again, atheism has NOTHING to say about morality, just about the existence of a god; much like sousaphone playing has nothing to do with morality but everything to do which looking like a fool while playing annoying music.