It seems to me that many of the atheists on here are just here because they hate Christianity.

[URAVIP2ME]

Would you consider handling poisonous snakes a rational thing to do?

Please keep in mind the gospel according to Mark ends at Mark 16:8
So, the KJV snake thing is an add on.
The style of writing changes after verse 8
There are No corresponding verses or passages after verse 8 as there is with the rest of Mark.
Jerome and Eusebius both believed Mark 16 ended at verse 8
So, such handling snakes is Not rational and Not biblical.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, when some religious lunatic eventually gets their hands on weapons of mass destruction so they can usher in the apocalypse for their invisible and equally insane god/ideology I'm sure that'll be great for everybody.
You do realize Pakistan has a substantial nuclear arsenal and is full of religious zealots right?
How about the religious right science deniers in America who deny climate change and want no regulations on polluting our environment?
How about religions that deny modern medicine to it's followers?
How many religions gods demand people have as many kids as possible when it's obvious the world is already overpopulated and resources are limited?
There are a lot of religions that screw with peoples sense of reality and interfere with their ability to make rational decisions. That's not an opinion, its a fact.

In ancient Israel when those Israelites became apostate, then God used the Babylonian forces against them.
In the year 70 God used the Roman forces against unfaithful Jerusalem.
We are forewarned there would be a great falling away according to Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30
The United Nations today sees a hauntingly dangerous religious climate brewing in today's world.
With backing the U.N. can be strengthened to become God's modern-day Arm of the Law to surprisingly go up against the world's troublesome religious groups.

Since unfaithful Christendom claims to have God's Word (Bible) then 'spiritual house cleaning' will begin or start with the religious ' house ' of God - 1 Peter 4:17

P.S. If ALL the American polluting businesses were brought back to America, how long would it take for the religious-right science deniers to want regulations ?

 

[Segev Moran]

Am I wrong? Can any of you atheists say anything good about Christianity at all?

I Can see why you ask that question, but
I have nothing against Christianity as I never experienced Christianity (and never will) (I grew up as a jew).
And still, I Think Both religions are nothing but an invention of human minds. I Think it is so for the entire concept of A god, gods, spirits or whatever supernatural concept one believes.

I Do hate the fact that some people take advantage of those tales, as a tool to manipulate minds, as a way to force a way of life and such.

But there are lovely religions like Jainism that even though they are the most peaceful religion one can think of, There is not a shred of evidence that it is nothing more than an invention of people's mind.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Since I am obviously agnostic, you may or may not care about my response. However, since almost everyone who calls himself/herself an "atheist" is actually agnostic, I think my response is valid. I enjoy studying the teachings of Jesus and think that he was a great man. I also believe that the teachings of Christianity: "loving your neighbor as yourself" and doing "unto others as you would have them do unto you" are good teachings of morality.

..... and keep in mind that Jesus gave his followers a NEW commandment at John 13:34-35 to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus had. That would mean love neighbor more than yourself.

 

[Shad]

I like the idea of not focusing on material gains as it is not a valid ambition from Christianity (this idea is not unique). I disagree with the afterlife goal. One of the reasons I like the idea is that the modern world is connected to consumerism that we have become wasteful even with something as simple as shopping or having a meal. People buy what they want rather than what they need. They cook more than they can consume so a lot of food is wasted.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Am I wrong? Can any of you atheists say anything good about Christianity at all?

It gave Michaelangelo the excuse to draw a bunch of penises on the roof of the Sistine Chapel I guess.

But in all seriousness I don't just "hate christianity". I have plenty of animosity towards any religion that claims truth despite being counter to observable reality. What good does Christianity provide that cannot be brought by secular means? Its a famous Hitchen's challenge that I haven't seen anyone answer yet. Is there a moral act that can be done in the name of religion that cannot be done by secular individuals?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It gave Michaelangelo the excuse to draw a bunch of penises on the roof of the Sistine Chapel I guess.
But in all seriousness I don't just "hate christianity". I have plenty of animosity towards any religion that claims truth despite being counter to observable reality. What good does Christianity provide that cannot be brought by secular means? Its a famous Hitchen's challenge that I haven't seen anyone answer yet. Is there a moral act that can be done in the name of religion that cannot be done by secular individuals?

Someone told me that Michaelangelo was tied up to paint the ceiling and would Not be given food if he wouldn't.
If true, such an act is un-Christian.

What good does Christianity provide that cannot be brought about by secular means:
First, unless damaged, everyone comes equipped with an in-born conscience.
That conscience gives innate knowledge of right and wrong. Moral acts can be done by anyone.
We can all choose to listen or violate one's conscience.
Worldly attitudes promote fleshly desires producing fleshly works such as anger, drunkenness, sexual immorality, etc. Whereas the ' Christianity of the first century ' promotes the works of a spiritual nature -> Galatians 5:22-23
So, as Romans 2:14-15 says that because of conscience the nations will do the works of the Law (Not murder, steal, etc.) thus everyone's thoughts can choose to either ' accuse ' or ' excuse ' one's actions, secular or otherwise.
A hardened conscience can become calloused to the point of having No more feeling - 1 Timothy 4:2

What cannot be brought about by 'secular' means is: lasting ' hope '.
People can find meaning and purpose in life, but the ' hope of everlasting life ' can only be found in the 'spiritual'.
People have been taught to ignore that Jesus promised everlasting life on: Earth.
Jesus promised that humble people will inherit or live on Earth forever - Matthew 5:5
So, the secular can Not add one minute to one's life, but the teachings of Christ adds everlasting life to one's life.
The secular can Not resurrect anyone, but Jesus promised the day (thousand-year day) will come when the dead will be brought back to physically healthy breathing life. Most people to live on a beautiful paradisical Earth forever.
So, what would Hitchen's challenge have to do with the hope of gaining future everlasting life forever on Earth ?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.... I disagree with the afterlife goal. One of the reasons I like the idea is that the modern world is connected to consumerism that we have become wasteful even with something as simple as shopping or having a meal. People buy what they want rather than what they need. They cook more than they can consume so a lot of food is wasted.

To what ' afterlife ' goal are you referring ?
1) In Scripture, some are to be resurrected to heavenly life forever - Revelation 20:6; Luke 22:28-30
2) The majority of mankind are to have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection back to life on Earth - John 3:13
Consumerism is connected to the works of the flesh - Galatians 5:19-21 - which is unscriptural.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Someone told me that Michaelangelo was tied up to paint the ceiling and would Not be given food if he wouldn't.
If true, such an act is un-Christian.

Tell that to the golden age of the Church. Not me.

What good does Christianity provide that cannot be brought about by secular means:
First, unless damaged, everyone comes equipped with an in-born conscience.
That conscience gives innate knowledge of right and wrong. Moral acts can be done by anyone.
We can all choose to listen or violate one's conscience.
Worldly attitudes promote fleshly desires producing fleshly works such as anger, drunkenness, sexual immorality, etc. Whereas the ' Christianity of the first century ' promotes the works of a spiritual nature -> Galatians 5:22-23
So, as Romans 2:14-15 says that because of conscience the nations will do the works of the Law (Not murder, steal, etc.) thus everyone's thoughts can choose to either ' accuse ' or ' excuse ' one's actions, secular or otherwise.
A hardened conscience can become calloused to the point of having No more feeling - 1 Timothy 4:2

What cannot be brought about by 'secular' means is: lasting ' hope '.
People can find meaning and purpose in life, but the ' hope of everlasting life ' can only be found in the 'spiritual'.
People have been taught to ignore that Jesus promised everlasting life on: Earth.
Jesus promised that humble people will inherit or live on Earth forever - Matthew 5:5
So, the secular can Not add one minute to one's life, but the teachings of Christ adds everlasting life to one's life.
The secular can Not resurrect anyone, but Jesus promised the day (thousand-year day) will come when the dead will be brought back to physically healthy breathing life. Most people to live on a beautiful paradisical Earth forever.
So, what would Hitchen's challenge have to do with the hope of gaining future everlasting life forever on Earth ?

You misunderstand me. You are telling me a bunch of things as if we had a choice between Christianity being true vs it not being true. But what does it palpably give us? What thing has it actually brought to us? People can claim hard as the day is long about everlasting life but we don't see it. What moral good has it actually done in the world? It has been used as an excuse to harm a whole lot of people but it hasn't measeruably made the world any better in return.

On hope I have two totally different issues with the usage here in the argument. First it is not a moral act to hope. It is simply a desierable one. Secondly atheists have hope. I can just as easily have hope in humanity and the goodness of people as any Christian can have in their god.

I give your answer a 0/10.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Tell that to the golden age of the Church. Not me.

You misunderstand me. You are telling me a bunch of things as if we had a choice between Christianity being true vs it not being true. But what does it palpably give us? What thing has it actually brought to us? People can claim hard as the day is long about everlasting life but we don't see it. What moral good has it actually done in the world? It has been used as an excuse to harm a whole lot of people but it hasn't measeruably made the world any better in return.
On hope I have two totally different issues with the usage here in the argument. First it is not a moral act to hope. It is simply a desierable one. Secondly atheists have hope. I can just as easily have hope in humanity and the goodness of people as any Christian can have in their god.
I give your answer a 0/10.

Right, I never intended to imply atheist have No hope. ' Hope of living forever ' on Earth is specifically the kind of hope I meant. How would hope in humanity give hope of living forever on Earth. The latest report I heard was that researchers have concluded that the most a human can ever hope to live is about 125 years.

The so-called ' golden age of the Church ' is far from golden but tarnished apostate - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30
Of course we do Not see everlasting life on Earth because that breathing forever life on Earth is a future promise.
That is why the ' future tense ' is used at Acts of the Apostles 24:15 that there ' is going to be ' a resurrection.......
The ' hour ' is coming - John 5:28 - Not that the resurrection time is already here.
Or, as biblical Martha said: rise again in the resurrection at the last day (thousand-year day) - John 11:24

One does Not need Scripture to do moral good because people generally have a conscience to guide them.
A conscience trained to do bad can become hardened as flesh seared by a branding iron.

What teaching of Jesus has been used as an excuse to harm a whole lot of people ?
How can Jesus' command to have self-sacrificing love for others harm people - John 13:34-35
Didn't Jesus teach it was Now time to lay down the sword (weapons) - Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10
So, corrupted clergy promote their own agenda instead of Jesus' new agenda. It is the clergy, Not Jesus, who use the pulpit as a recruiting station so parents will sacrifice their young on the Altar of War.
The weapons of Christian warfare are Not carnal, Not fleshly weapons but spiritual - 2 Corinthians 10:4
So, yes, we have a choice believing between the teachings of Jesus as true v/s Not being true.
Christendom's corrupted clergy do Not teach the teachings of Jesus, but often follow a political agenda.
Falsely teaching: die for country as being equated to Not really being dead but being alive in another realm.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Right, I never intended to imply atheist have No hope. ' Hope of living forever ' on Earth is specifically the kind of hope I meant. How would hope in humanity give hope of living forever on Earth. The latest report I heard was that researchers have concluded that the most a human can ever hope to live is about 125 years.

Which isn't an inherently good or moral thing. Especially if it turns out to be false.

The so-called ' golden age of the Church ' is far from golden but tarnished apostate - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30
Of course we do Not see everlasting life on Earth because that breathing forever life on Earth is a future promise.
That is why the ' future tense ' is used at Acts of the Apostles 24:15 that there ' is going to be ' a resurrection.......
The ' hour ' is coming - John 5:28 - Not that the resurrection time is already here.
Or, as biblical Martha said: rise again in the resurrection at the last day (thousand-year day) - John 11:24

This assumes that it is true. That is an awfully high assumption.

One does Not need Scripture to do moral good because people generally have a conscience to guide them.
A conscience trained to do bad can become hardened as flesh seared by a branding iron.

I can agree to this. I also believe that dogmatic ways of thinking breed such hardenred consciences.

What teaching of Jesus has been used as an excuse to harm a whole lot of people ?

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
This verse or teaching of Jesus validates all of the previous horrific things described in the bible. Like this little gem in Deuteronomey 22:20-21
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Or countless others. Most recently affecting us since the age of enlightenment is its passages on homosexuality.

 

[Shad]

To what ' afterlife ' goal are you referring ?

The view that wealth can deceive people thus they put their trust in material things rather than Jesus and salvation. This is what I mean by the goal of an afterlife.

 

[james bond]

Yes, the secular law makers do make the law - Romans 13, but when a secular law is out of harmony with Scripture - Exodus 21:22-25 - then Christians are to obey God rather then men - Acts of the Apostles 5:29
In other words, the secular authority stands in a relative position to God's absolute position.
When there is conflict between the two, then the Christian chooses God's authority as the final say.
Abortion for selfish reasons will always be wrong in God's eyes.

Then one should strive to change the law. Jesus never said He was the final authority.

 

[james bond]

I Can see why you ask that question, but
I have nothing against Christianity as I never experienced Christianity (and never will) (I grew up as a jew).
And still, I Think Both religions are nothing but an invention of human minds. I Think it is so for the entire concept of A god, gods, spirits or whatever supernatural concept one believes.

I Do hate the fact that some people take advantage of those tales, as a tool to manipulate minds, as a way to force a way of life and such.

But there are lovely religions like Jainism that even though they are the most peaceful religion one can think of, There is not a shred of evidence that it is nothing more than an invention of people's mind.

This is just opinion, so you're entitled to it, e.g. second sentence. Then you follow it up with "I think," which is okay, but then use god in the lower case. Everyone agrees that a god in the lower case is mythology. People who understand what they are arguing against, such as Richard Dawkins, use God in the upper case. Then one is addressing the Abrahamic religions and one has educated themselves as to what the other side believes. To just make it lower case because you happen to not believe isn't much of an argument.

 

[McBell]

To just make it lower case because you happen to not believe isn't much of an argument.

Nor is whining about it an argument....

 

[james bond]

Nor is whining about it an argument....

Ha ha. You're back to whining again.

(For those who are interested the capitalized God is part of philosophy education and defined as:
" capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind"

lower case god:
"- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

- a person or thing of supreme value

- a powerful ruler")

 

[URAVIP2ME]

[QUOTE="Monk Of Reason, post: 4970952, member: 44586"
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
This verse or teaching of Jesus validates all of the previous horrific things described in the bible. Like this little gem in Deuteronomey 22:20-21
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
[/QUOTE]

and continuing at Deuteronomy 22:23-24 if she did Not scream out.....
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 man forced her ( rape )..... and in verse 27 she cried out...
When the woman cried out because of being raped she was considered as: Not guilty.

Verses 16-21 is dealing with fornicators/adulterers . Both fornication and adultery carried with it the death penalty.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Then one should strive to change the law. Jesus never said He was the final authority.

Didn't Jesus say he was the way, the truth and the life ? ______
So, if one wants to gain 'everlasting life '(in Heaven, or forever on Earth) then one would be willing to obey Jesus.

 

[McBell]

Ha ha. You're back to whining again.

(For those who are interested the capitalized God is part of philosophy education and defined as:
" capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind"

lower case god:
"- a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

- a person or thing of supreme value

- a powerful ruler")

STILL whining about...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Am I wrong? Can any of you atheists say anything good about Christianity at all?

As long as Christianity is imposed on me - or anyone else who doesn't want it - I'll say what I want about it.