• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you really think you are helping anyone?

blackout

Violet.
Oh please!.....I am a theist, I am a believer in the authority and message of the Christ.....but your "hard" "evidence" falls soft and limp in the very first sentance-

1/ He was not "named" 'Jesus Christ'...Christ is not his Surname it is his status, position, title and designation of authority.

2/ To call the existence of Jesus "fact" is one huge historical stretch...to claim this 'fact' "is not in dispute except by a few small radical fringe groups" is an absurd lie.

I didn't bother to read any further....I just went :facepalm:.

His name wasn't Jesus either.
just sayin'.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Yea...hang on...wait a sec waitasec....just because "the christian religious tradition >is< infused" with your culture does not mean that "religious tradition becomes part of the formal mechanisms of State."

You do not live in a Theocracy, partial Theocracy or anything like it.

Your Constitution has not "failed miserably" in this regard.



Ah...well...see...there ya go sunshine!...that aint a problem with your Constitution...that's just a direct result of being American! :p
hmmm,
what about same sex marriage...defense of marriage act?
teaching creationism in public schools
congress starting out their session with a christian prayer
the pledge, our money...blue laws or how about our US citizens oath
"...and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."


But we're talking about two different things, and two different levels of activity. An atheist billboard, for instance, is a different beast from a religious invocation at a public event. One says "here is my opinion that I would like to express to you", while the other says "here is the opinion that I expect all of us to share". One has an implicit message of inclusion, and therefore excludes people who don't agree with it. The other doesn't have this.

If someone wanted to start sporting events with a sing-along of "I'm so Happy We're all Atheists" instead of a prayer, I'd be opposed to that, too.

Also, while my preference would be for less in the way of public displays of religion, I also feel that as long as they exist, I should be able to respond in kind.

i'm not against the freedom of religion i am against the infusion of one religion with our culture which is deemed unconstitutional...

here's something to consider...
[youtube]4h7ekCD6uE4[/youtube]
YouTube - &#x202a;Activists Assaulted At Hawaii State Capitol (4/29/2010)&#x202c;&rlm;
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
So someone (or some people) actually came up to you and used the words "you should believe like me because I believe it", "you don't have a good reason for believing what you do", or "let me tell you how wrong you are and how right I am"?
:facepalm:
that's why they're there in the 1st place...

I guess it's possible, but it sounds more like you just don't like the idea of absolute truth,
well lookie here..you're one of 'em :biglaugh:
you know what absolute truth is...a tsunami, a tornado your house burning down...the earth revolving around the sun

specifically the kind that come from the Christian doctrines of accountability and eternal punishment.

well maybe you're the sort of person who makes decisions based on fear...
sorry not for me
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
I will leave it.
Especially if that apologetic tripe is the best you got.

Everybody has an agenda. An argument's merits are based on FACTS however. It's tough to respect people's positions when they reject something before even reading it.
 
Last edited:

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
Oh please!.....I am a theist, I am a believer in the authority and message of the Christ.....but your "hard" "evidence" falls soft and limp in the very first sentance-

1/ He was not "named" 'Jesus Christ'...Christ is not his Surname it is his status, position, title and designation of authority.

2/ To call the existence of Jesus "fact" is one huge historical stretch...to claim this 'fact' "is not in dispute except by a few small radical fringe groups" is an absurd lie.

I didn't bother to read any further....I just went :facepalm:.

You know don't know much the study of history is you dispute point #2
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
Everybody has an agenda. An argument's merits are based on FACTS however.
Your posted "quote" is severely lacking in facts.

In fact, it is nothing more than a bunch of unsubstantiable claims stating they are facts.

If you want to believe that it is fact, by all means do so.
Whatever helps you to sleep at night.

But I want real facts, not someones beliefs as to what the facts are.
 

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
To me, proselytizing isn't telling people of your faith or quoting scriptures of your faith, it is more that "You have follow my faith or you're wrong (or going to hell)" mentality. I have seen so many people do this, even to fellow people of their own faith! I have had Christians tell me I am not a true Christian for various reasons (Other faiths, like yours, don't do that very often or not at all).

You're welcome. I have found that most faiths have more in common that they have different.


Just to give you a little more information about myself.....

It's a LONG story, but I'll keep it super short. I was born and raised a Methodist and practiced Christianity for the first 18 years of my life, and have practiced Buddhism for the last 12, more than half of that time was serious, while the rest of easing in and exploring.... although I guess there is in a way only 'on or off' the bus so to speak :D .... this is where I find my most solid footing. I've done lots of religious study, exploration and participation during this time.

While I did step away from reading the Bible daily for a year or two, upon hearing a Buddhist monk once speak on some hopeful converts being told to go back to their birth religion as it contained all they needed to know, I had picked the Bible back up as part of my reading study-devotion-meditation. And through a vast network of reasons and experiences I was able to start to see 'myself' in the Gospel stories again. I took 'birth faith' to mean 'How we Knew when we were children', just like Jesus said, and for me that meant that descriptions of 'other' religion's "God/Ground of Being" resonated with me.... and over time I felt I was able to get to the 'Heart' of the matter when reading a particular text.

But what really changed for me was when I started volunteering at a Christian run Drop in Centre as a Spiritual Counselor, although I think of it as more of a 'spiritual friend (the meaning of my user title) and was for ALL people on the streets that needed a warm place to sit inside, a cup of coffee, some games or a talk.

I was 'Christian' enough for them, since I was baptized and 'believed' in the Trinity (although for me it's more a working metaphor/explanation, but I can meet people where they are at for sure in the frame work), and read the Bible regularly.

The Mission for us was 'To be a Christ like example'... heck! that's how I've practiced Christianity my whole life... and I could REALLY get on board with this part.

It was a Catholic Centre, open to all Christians as volunteers but to all people who needed it, and I was able to find some reading about Mysticism while at the Diocesan retreat-centre library and I have to say, this was a missing link I needed for a long time.

I often looked at Sufism as a great idea I wish Christianity had.... well..... it DOES it would seem.... and this also lead to Kabbalah reading, but that is another rant ;)...... Most of all what it gave me was a authentic language to speak to people about how I experience Jesus' message.

So what the monk said about 'It all being there' was true after all, more than I thought!!!!

It was amazing for me to be able to put my processing of the Bible through dharma language into use more actively in Bible study with myself, BUT also to have those words resonate and help people with their own Christian struggle.

One major thing that happened often was after helping relate a Biblical idea, lesson or advice to another via Dharma-ese people would tell me ''You're a good Christian'', which for a while I thought was perhaps Ironic.... but after a while I decided that maybe trying to be a good Buddhist made me a good Christian?.... and then after longer I decided there wasn't really any difference as they are both a tool and expression for me to get to know my True Path.

The other major thing that happened and the point I wanted to bring up is that for the last year I have attended an Anglican Church, in two cities since I moved across the country, and have found it quite to my liking. There was a retired Anglican Priest that would invite me weekly, when we volunteered together, to come to church with him.... Peter was a vegetarian, went on retreats, knew about Eastern words associated with meditation styles, so we could talk easily, since he himself meditated in the Christian tradition and had even smoked a little grass in his day... so I thought "This is a guy I really like and respect so maybe I'll do it 'for him'. I trust Peter... if he can be a Priest and be who he is... maybe there is room for me?

Well the first week felt good and socially it was good too... out reach, acceptance of same sex couples/marriage and the like... there was even a striking of the singing bowl and 5 mins of silence after the Gospel.... not to mention that "Via Media" is their theology, which means 'Middle Way', a synonym for Buddhism, which made me LoL a little bit at that funny over lap :D

I liked it, I didn't understand exactly why, but it felt 'right' ... so for the last year I've been going to Anglican Masses. I also attend a regular Buddhist meeting, a Abrahamic Scriptural reasoning group (where I'm not sure what 'side' to read from) and to further confuse what 'side' I read from I've also been attending a Mosque sometimes and have made several Muslim friends that I talk regularly with about Islam. However... further confusion... in Scriptural study group I meet with very often the Jewish folks are the once shaking their heads in agreement with what I say when I speak up to give my take on a verse!!!!

Funny stuff.... So Honestly... I don't know what to call myself Label wise... this is why I chose Dharma, as it means Truth. I dare not even say it just Buddha-dharma as I also am deeply moved by Hindu-Sikh-Tao scripture as well.... Znc I feel that I practice the Abrahamic Dharmas.... even though this isn't how they are usually addressed.

Yes... it's funny to me :D Most people I know call me a Buddhist, even though they know I go to Church regularly, but I just HAD to tell you this whole story... sorry it wasn't very short at all, but ACTUALLY I left out SOOOOO many details of the journey I've been on in the last 12 years since stepping outside of 'just christianity' and while it's at sometimes confusing, I feel I'm doing an okay job of creating order from the chaos :D

OK... I'm red carding myself for talking too long :D

:namaste
SageTree

This one is for me :D

[youtube]IZqAnIp5dMQ[/youtube]
YouTube - &#x202a;Poetry by RUMI -- Only Breath&#x202c;&rlm;
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
so if i were to walk into your church with a t-shirt that says, 'god is not real'
it would be tolerated?

I believe that would be an act of gross disrespect from you. Why would you want to walk into a CHURCH with that shirt on?

That being said, I can't speak for others, but as for myself, I'd treat you with tolerance and respect. I might think to myself, "That's pretty inappropriate considering the setting," but I wouldn't be rude to you.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
US tax dollars do not support any state or federally sponsored religious programs.
Baloney.

- Taxpayers receive a credit for donations to religious organizations.
- Religious organizations themselves receive valuable government services at no charge.
- In many cases, religious organizations receive taxpayer grants to provide certain government programs.
- In many states, vouchers allow tax dollars to directly pay for religious schools.

Frankly, I'm not overly concerned about Japan's laws, or the religious practices of the Japanese. I'm an American, discussing the practice of religion (or the lack thereof) in the US.
You brought up Japan; I responded to your point. It's too late for you to declare it irrelevant.

Simultaneously, I have my own philosophical ideas about freedom and respect for others - which all meshes together to form my own personal opinion.

So I am being perfectly consistent. When I lived in Japan, I was the religious minority. It honestly never occurred to me to be offended by state sponsored religious activities. From a personal standpoint, I figure it's respectful to let others freely practice their religion - whether I'm a member of the religious majority OR minority. No one was forcing me to worship in any way. The polite thing to do is be gracious and generous.

I realize of course that those qualities are in pretty short supply.
Is Japan an officially secular country?

Is the United States?

No. See above statement. People tend to be too easily offended these days, I guess.
Hmm. I'm confused. If you're okay with people expressing offense at religious imposition, then why are you complaining about it so much?

Nope. I'm being consistent. I just refuse to be pidgeon holed as some sort of rabid, closed minded religious bigot insensitive to the feelings of others. Respect goes both ways.
You do seem to be dodging that implication quite a bit, but you still didn't actually say what you're arguing for.

Personally I dont' care what a politician's religious views are. I don't EVER vote for a candidate based on his or her religious affiliation. I really don't think that most politicians believe that they only represent Catholics, or Mormons, or Episcopalians, or agnostics, or any other sub group. Seems a stretch to me.

George H. W. Bush said:
No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.… I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Yes, apparently my mid size East Texas town is superior to Katy, Texas. As a matter of fact, I can assure you it is. Katy, Texas is a wasteland of suburban sprawl, foreclosures, illegal immigration, an influx of poverty stricken displaced persons from the beleaguered Gulf Coast - it's a terrible mess. I was there just a few weeks ago visiting my brother who lives there (hating every minute of it, but he can't sell his house because of depreciated home prices and a formerly upscale neighborhood now falling into disrepair), and it's a pretty despicable place.
Okay... so then we shouldn't necessarily take your little oasis of tolerance as representative of the state or country as a whole, then, should we?

Ask a flat-earther how obvious and straightforward the matter of earth's sphericity is, my guess is that their answer will not be the same as yours.
At the outset, that's quite posssible. However, since the sphericity (or at least the non-flatness) of the Earth can be demonstrated with simple experiments that can be conducted at by anyone without special equipment, I don't think he would keep that mistaken attitude very long. Not honestly, anyhow.

No, I am not the one who demonstrates the truth of my religion. That has no bearing on whether or not it is factual though.
But it does have a bearing on whether your position is arrogant. If you chalk our difference of opinion up to some idea that I'm incapable of understanding your position, then yes, this is probably arrogance.

When it comes to the flat-earther, I suppose that my opinion of his beliefs might be considered arrogant as well, but I'm okay with that. And if any flat-earther has a problem with my position, I'd be happy to explain it to him and show him the evidence on which it's based.

Your thoughts are wrong, and that is a matter of fact.
Great. Show me why I'm wrong.

Religion is a large part of why any civilization was left in western Europe at all in the "dark ages".
 

WordSpeaks

Member
Wow. This is one of the problems with this type of forums. I want to be dilligent to read what's been said before entering the conversation, but 54 pages worth? Can't do that right now.

Is showing somebody the truth a bad thing?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If a chaplain feels it necessary to deliver an invocation to Jesus or in his name... it's kind of like insisting on serving me a cheeseburger, when he could just as easily grill a burger without cheese and it wouldn't damage his freedom one little bit. And you can't imagine how incredibly rude it would be to suggest that I simply not eat or go away altogether.
Especially if you've paid for your "meal" just like everyone else.

When people approach others in the way you're describing, I absolutely don't think it helps anyone. On the other hand, I know that there are roughly 800-900 convert baptisms into my church every day, so evidently somebody was glad that the Mormon missionaries approached them. ;)
A similar argument could be made for spam: we get those spam emails selling Viagra because they work on some people... enough to make it worth the effort of spamming, anyhow. Does this mean that spam is respectful in general?

The evidence that I have is as "hard" as it's going to get in a matter like this
... which might get you to "Christianity has at least as much going for it as other religions", but it doesn't get you to "Christianity's better than no religion at all."

Even if the evidence for Jesus was as good as could reasonably expected (which I think is a pretty low bar anyhow, since it'd be entirely reasonable for a figure like Jesus, if he actually existed as a historical figure, to leave no surviving evidence at all), this still doesn't mean that we should personally invest ourselves in the truth of this claim to the point where we would call ourselves "Christians".
 

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
Wow. This is one of the problems with this type of forums. I want to be dilligent to read what's been said before entering the conversation, but 54 pages worth? Can't do that right now.

Is showing somebody the truth a bad thing?

And what truth is that?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Wow. This is one of the problems with this type of forums. I want to be dilligent to read what's been said before entering the conversation, but 54 pages worth? Can't do that right now.

Is showing somebody the truth a bad thing?
Showing someone what you think is the truth is a bad thing if you don't have sufficient support for it, yes.

To use an analogy I gave in another thread, imagine that you're convinced that a ship is sinking. You come alongside in your own boat and shout to the passengers on board, telling them to jump overside into the cold water so you can fish them out. Is this a good act on your part?

IMO, it could only be considered good if you've got good support for your view that the ship is sinking. Otherwise, you're risking people's lives for no good reason.

I think that's a lot like evangelism: if you don't have good reason to believe that what you're preaching is true (which, IMO, comes down to reason, logic and evidence), then your evangelism is a bad thing.
 

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
Showing someone what you think is the truth is a bad thing if you don't have sufficient support for it, yes.

To use an analogy I gave in another thread, imagine that you're convinced that a ship is sinking. You come alongside in your own boat and shout to the passengers on board, telling them to jump overside into the cold water so you can fish them out. Is this a good act on your part?

IMO, it could only be considered good if you've got good support for your view that the ship is sinking. Otherwise, you're risking people's lives for no good reason.

I think that's a lot like evangelism: if you don't have good reason to believe that what you're preaching is true (which, IMO, comes down to reason, logic and evidence), then your evangelism is a bad thing.

Good analogy. Especially since there are many religionist today telling us our boat is sinking and we need to jump ship.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
At the outset, that's quite posssible. However, since the sphericity (or at least the non-flatness) of the Earth can be demonstrated with simple experiments that can be conducted at by anyone without special equipment, I don't think he would keep that mistaken attitude very long. Not honestly, anyhow.
You think a Flat-earther doesn't already know about these experiments you claim make it apparent the earth isn't flat? The arrogance! :sarcastic

But it does have a bearing on whether your position is arrogant. If you chalk our difference of opinion up to some idea that I'm incapable of understanding your position, then yes, this is probably arrogance.
You can't assume that I so chalk up however.

When it comes to the flat-earther, I suppose that my opinion of his beliefs might be considered arrogant as well, but I'm okay with that.
I disagree... it isn't arrogant to believe you have knowledge of a universal truth. Arrogance is a state of mind, one which has no necessity to follow the aforementioned belief.

Great. Show me why I'm wrong.
Some religions might agree with you, and in that sense you are partially correct.

But Christianity for example makes claims of a factual nature. Either a single supreme deity exists or such does not. Either Jesus is part of a triune deity or He is not. Either hell exists(in whatever way) or not. These are not questions of taste or aesthetics, but of the fundamental nature of our existence.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You think a Flat-earther doesn't already know about these experiments you claim make it apparent the earth isn't flat? The arrogance! :sarcastic
Like I said, I'm okay with a flat-earther thinking that I'm arrogant because I think he's wrong.

You can't assume that I so chalk up however.

I can't? What did you mean when you said this, then?

How is it at all arrogant to think you have an answer, perhaps if you believe others cannot understand it, but just the thought of having an answer in and of itself? Is it arrogant to tell a flat-earther that the world is an oblate spheroid?

I disagree... it isn't arrogant to believe you have knowledge of a universal truth. Arrogance is a state of mind, one which has no necessity to follow the aforementioned belief.
I think the circumstances of that belief have great deal of bearing on whether the belief is arrogant. Most Chrisitan belief that I've encountered fits the bill.

Some religions might agree with you, and in that sense you are partially correct.
I'm confused by this - it reads to me like you're saying that religious ideas are necessarily correct, but I can't imagine this is what you'd intend to say.

But Christianity for example makes claims of a factual nature. Either a single supreme deity exists or such does not. Either Jesus is part of a triune deity or He is not. Either hell exists(in whatever way) or not. These are not questions of taste or aesthetics, but of the fundamental nature of our existence.
But you don't have access to actual factual evidence for any of the claims of Christianity. While there may be some objective factual truth out there somewhere beyond our ken that would be evidence for or against each of those points, I don't believe that objective truth informs a Christian's decision to be a Christian (or any religious person's decision to adopt their religion). IMO, it comes down more to what "feels right"... IOW, aesthetics.

Edit: it only ceases to be an aesthetic choice if the reason for your belief is the truth of your beliefs. And if that's the case, then like I said: show me.
 
Last edited:
Top