Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not exactly. First, Jesus didn't bring down the 10 commandments. Moses brought down the 10 commandments. Jesus' take on the 10 commandments is at Matthew 22:34-40, where basically he prioritizes them into "love God, love your neighbor." Honestly, people, if you don't have the first clue about the facts, you really shouldn't be opining in public.

Second, it has been explained to you before that there's a broad diversity among Christians as to what happens to murderers and non-Christian children. Probably the vast majority of Christians believe that non-Christian infants will go to heaven.

But you knew that. You've read that before. It just doesn't fit into your hate narrative, so you ignore it.

Wait a minute. So you are saying the 10 commandments are wrong and Jesus didn't believe in them?

People have different reasons for believing in religion, most of them pick and choose what to believe based how how convenient it is for them at the present moment. If one can pick and choose to believe the meaning and consequence of something as fundamental as original sin, then what truth is there in any text or authority on the Christian God? The concept of original sin is central to Christianity. Without original sin, Jesus's crucifixion was meaningless, and therefore there can be no salvation through him. It may be popular to believe that "we are cool with people who don't believe", but that view is contradictory to the very concept of Christianity. How can it ever be okay if everyone was born with original sin, and if the only path to redemption is accepting Jesus as the savior?

Yup. Jesus didn't believe in a lot of what's in the Old Testament: he got rid of dietary laws and eye-for-eye justice, just for starters. That's not picking and choosing, that's following Jesus' revolution to the letter.

Also, you don't get original sin. I'm not going to try to set you straight (because you probably won't bother to read it, and you'll be back here tomorrow saying incorrect things again). However, you should know that you've got it very wrong wrt original sin and non-Christian infants.

I think the respect for religious beliefs is highly overrated.

I can respect people despite their beliefs, if they are good people.

I can respect people's rights to hold various religious belief without any societal disapproval.

But I can't respect the beliefs themselves, that are so often weird, based on ancient, pre-scientific stories and often very individual -- i.e. people make up things that they feel comfortable about. It might be pretty common, but it is certainly not worthy of respect.

Getting back to the Pew survey, there is an interesting article in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/charles-blow-unaffiliated-and-underrepresented.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region. Pointing out how underrepresented non-affiliated voters are, the author, Charles Blow, quotes one of our few unaffiliated presidents. Abe Lincoln: "That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular."

I love Lincoln's lawyerly wording, he does not deny the truth of the Scriptures, but he does not claim to accept the truth. As an avowed atheist, I can quite comfortably make the same statement. So comfortably that my only question about Lincoln is whether he would, if he were around nowadays, consider himself am agnostic or an atheist.

In the same letter that the above quote came from, Lincoln said "I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me." I think some of my fellow atheists on these threads should take to heart the idea that one can respect believers even while not sharing their belief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and it's just a story. What do believers lose? Nothing, we are better off living our lives as Jesus wanted us to. We aren't missing anything. What do non believers lose if they are wrong? Eternity That's quite a gamble.

No, you lose your individual free thought. You would have lived a life as a slave to an artificial story, praying to a God that doesn't exist, expended time and money on a lie that was completely unnecessary. You would have placed your faith on rules other men invented for you, instead of thinking critically to make up your own mind on what a rich and rewarding life is.

Given that this is the only life anyone of us has, do you want to live as a free person, or a slave to a religion?

Wow. Did it ever occur to you that the "time and money" spent is not wasted. It goes to help people in need, which is exactly
what God asks us to do. Assuming there isn't a God (I 100% believe there is) is that money now wasted?

Churches are large and expensive to build, run, and maintain. Take a look at this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20

Based on this, the average church spends 82% of their income on personnel, admin, and facilities. Actual programs account for only 14%, and of those 5% are for worship/evangelism. So less than 10% of the Church's budget actually goes to "help people in need". If helping people in need is your goal, you can do a lot better than 10% efficiency.

Anonymous wrote:
Would you care to specify an "invented rule" that would be harmful if followed?

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)"

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesian)"

Anonymous wrote:
Believers are plenty capable of thinking freely. We choose to believe, not out of fear, but out of love and respect. I certainly do not feel like a slave. Have you ever read the bible?

That is clearly not true. It's a central argument of Christians that they get their morals from God. That is, without God, they would have no innate morals. How can you be a free thinker if someone else gave you your morals.

+1 with God,all things are possible -- that's what the bible teaches

Anonymous wrote:
Not exactly. First, Jesus didn't bring down the 10 commandments. Moses brought down the 10 commandments. Jesus' take on the 10 commandments is at Matthew 22:34-40, where basically he prioritizes them into "love God, love your neighbor." Honestly, people, if you don't have the first clue about the facts, you really shouldn't be opining in public.

Second, it has been explained to you before that there's a broad diversity among Christians as to what happens to murderers and non-Christian children. Probably the vast majority of Christians believe that non-Christian infants will go to heaven.

But you knew that. You've read that before. It just doesn't fit into your hate narrative, so you ignore it.

Wait a minute. So you are saying the 10 commandments are wrong and Jesus didn't believe in them?

People have different reasons for believing in religion, most of them pick and choose what to believe based how how convenient it is for them at the present moment. If one can pick and choose to believe the meaning and consequence of something as fundamental as original sin, then what truth is there in any text or authority on the Christian God? The concept of original sin is central to Christianity. Without original sin, Jesus's crucifixion was meaningless, and therefore there can be no salvation through him. It may be popular to believe that "we are cool with people who don't believe", but that view is contradictory to the very concept of Christianity. How can it ever be okay if everyone was born with original sin, and if the only path to redemption is accepting Jesus as the savior?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually people who can choose whether or not to believe? That seems to me to be like deciding that salt will taste sweet to me from now on. I can respect that God is very real to some, but those who profess belief in case there really is such a thing a heaven strike me as profoundly dishonest.

Good way of putting it. And it de-emphasizes the loving, protective part of god and emphasizes his dictatorial, power hungry, need-to-be-worshipped-and-feared side

Spend some time with the 10 commandments to see what's important to the Christian God. The first 4 of those 10 commandments are exactly that: dictatorial, power hungry, and need to be worshipped. Believe in Jesus, accept him as a savior, and a murderer will be accepted into Heaven. Reject him, and an innocent child will go to hell.

Innocent people don't go to hell. We all sin, but accepting the FREE gift of salvation, cleanses us of those sins. Do you really
think God would send a child to hell? A child is innocent and can not sin against God.

I thought the only "sin" that gets you sent to "hell" is not believing in "god".

You choose to be out of heaven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and it's just a story. What do believers lose? Nothing, we are better off living our lives as Jesus wanted us to. We aren't missing anything. What do non believers lose if they are wrong? Eternity That's quite a gamble.

No, you lose your individual free thought. You would have lived a life as a slave to an artificial story, praying to a God that doesn't exist, expended time and money on a lie that was completely unnecessary. You would have placed your faith on rules other men invented for you, instead of thinking critically to make up your own mind on what a rich and rewarding life is.

Given that this is the only life anyone of us has, do you want to live as a free person, or a slave to a religion?

Wow. Did it ever occur to you that the "time and money" spent is not wasted. It goes to help people in need, which is exactly
what God asks us to do. Assuming there isn't a God (I 100% believe there is) is that money now wasted?

Churches are large and expensive to build, run, and maintain. Take a look at this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20

Based on this, the average church spends 82% of their income on personnel, admin, and facilities. Actual programs account for only 14%, and of those 5% are for worship/evangelism. So less than 10% of the Church's budget actually goes to "help people in need". If helping people in need is your goal, you can do a lot better than 10% efficiency.

Anonymous wrote:
Would you care to specify an "invented rule" that would be harmful if followed?

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)"

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesian)"

Anonymous wrote:
Believers are plenty capable of thinking freely. We choose to believe, not out of fear, but out of love and respect. I certainly do not feel like a slave. Have you ever read the bible?

That is clearly not true. It's a central argument of Christians that they get their morals from God. That is, without God, they would have no innate morals. How can you be a free thinker if someone else gave you your morals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually people who can choose whether or not to believe? That seems to me to be like deciding that salt will taste sweet to me from now on. I can respect that God is very real to some, but those who profess belief in case there really is such a thing a heaven strike me as profoundly dishonest.

Good way of putting it. And it de-emphasizes the loving, protective part of god and emphasizes his dictatorial, power hungry, need-to-be-worshipped-and-feared side

Spend some time with the 10 commandments to see what's important to the Christian God. The first 4 of those 10 commandments are exactly that: dictatorial, power hungry, and need to be worshipped. Believe in Jesus, accept him as a savior, and a murderer will be accepted into Heaven. Reject him, and an innocent child will go to hell.

Innocent people don't go to hell. We all sin, but accepting the FREE gift of salvation, cleanses us of those sins. Do you really
think God would send a child to hell? A child is innocent and can not sin against God.

I thought the only "sin" that gets you sent to "hell" is not believing in "god".

Nope, this is totally untrue. Get a new hobby instead of trolling. Or get an eduation about things you're trashing. Or simply get a grip.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually people who can choose whether or not to believe? That seems to me to be like deciding that salt will taste sweet to me from now on. I can respect that God is very real to some, but those who profess belief in case there really is such a thing a heaven strike me as profoundly dishonest.

Good way of putting it. And it de-emphasizes the loving, protective part of god and emphasizes his dictatorial, power hungry, need-to-be-worshipped-and-feared side

Spend some time with the 10 commandments to see what's important to the Christian God. The first 4 of those 10 commandments are exactly that: dictatorial, power hungry, and need to be worshipped. Believe in Jesus, accept him as a savior, and a murderer will be accepted into Heaven. Reject him, and an innocent child will go to hell.

Not exactly. First, Jesus didn't bring down the 10 commandments. Moses brought down the 10 commandments. Jesus' take on the 10 commandments is at Matthew 22:34-40, where basically he prioritizes them into "love God, love your neighbor." Honestly, people, if you don't have the first clue about the facts, you really shouldn't be opining in public.

Second, it has been explained to you before that there's a broad diversity among Christians as to what happens to murderers and non-Christian children. Probably the vast majority of Christians believe that non-Christian infants will go to heaven.

But you knew that. You've read that before. It just doesn't fit into your hate narrative, so you ignore it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually people who can choose whether or not to believe? That seems to me to be like deciding that salt will taste sweet to me from now on. I can respect that God is very real to some, but those who profess belief in case there really is such a thing a heaven strike me as profoundly dishonest.

Good way of putting it. And it de-emphasizes the loving, protective part of god and emphasizes his dictatorial, power hungry, need-to-be-worshipped-and-feared side

Spend some time with the 10 commandments to see what's important to the Christian God. The first 4 of those 10 commandments are exactly that: dictatorial, power hungry, and need to be worshipped. Believe in Jesus, accept him as a savior, and a murderer will be accepted into Heaven. Reject him, and an innocent child will go to hell.

Innocent people don't go to hell. We all sin, but accepting the FREE gift of salvation, cleanses us of those sins. Do you really
think God would send a child to hell? A child is innocent and can not sin against God.

I thought the only "sin" that gets you sent to "hell" is not believing in "god".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually people who can choose whether or not to believe? That seems to me to be like deciding that salt will taste sweet to me from now on. I can respect that God is very real to some, but those who profess belief in case there really is such a thing a heaven strike me as profoundly dishonest.

Good way of putting it. And it de-emphasizes the loving, protective part of god and emphasizes his dictatorial, power hungry, need-to-be-worshipped-and-feared side

Spend some time with the 10 commandments to see what's important to the Christian God. The first 4 of those 10 commandments are exactly that: dictatorial, power hungry, and need to be worshipped. Believe in Jesus, accept him as a savior, and a murderer will be accepted into Heaven. Reject him, and an innocent child will go to hell.

Innocent people don't go to hell. We all sin, but accepting the FREE gift of salvation, cleanses us of those sins. Do you really
think God would send a child to hell? A child is innocent and can not sin against God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and it's just a story. What do believers lose? Nothing, we are better off living our lives as Jesus wanted us to. We aren't missing anything. What do non believers lose if they are wrong? Eternity That's quite a gamble.

No, you lose your individual free thought. You would have lived a life as a slave to an artificial story, praying to a God that doesn't exist, expended time and money on a lie that was completely unnecessary. You would have placed your faith on rules other men invented for you, instead of thinking critically to make up your own mind on what a rich and rewarding life is.

Given that this is the only life anyone of us has, do you want to live as a free person, or a slave to a religion?

Wow. Did it ever occur to you that the "time and money" spent is not wasted. It goes to help people in need, which is exactly
what God asks us to do. Assuming there isn't a God (I 100% believe there is) is that money now wasted?

Would you care to specify an "invented rule" that would be harmful if followed?

Believers are plenty capable of thinking freely. We choose to believe, not out of fear, but out of love and respect. I certainly do not feel like a slave. Have you ever read the bible?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually people who can choose whether or not to believe? That seems to me to be like deciding that salt will taste sweet to me from now on. I can respect that God is very real to some, but those who profess belief in case there really is such a thing a heaven strike me as profoundly dishonest.

Good way of putting it. And it de-emphasizes the loving, protective part of god and emphasizes his dictatorial, power hungry, need-to-be-worshipped-and-feared side

Spend some time with the 10 commandments to see what's important to the Christian God. The first 4 of those 10 commandments are exactly that: dictatorial, power hungry, and need to be worshipped. Believe in Jesus, accept him as a savior, and a murderer will be accepted into Heaven. Reject him, and an innocent child will go to hell.

Anonymous wrote:Just for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and it's just a story. What do believers lose? Nothing, we are better off living our lives as Jesus wanted us to. We aren't missing anything. What do non believers lose if they are wrong? Eternity That's quite a gamble.

No, you lose your individual free thought. You would have lived a life as a slave to an artificial story, praying to a God that doesn't exist, expended time and money on a lie that was completely unnecessary. You would have placed your faith on rules other men invented for you, instead of thinking critically to make up your own mind on what a rich and rewarding life is.

Given that this is the only life anyone of us has, do you want to live as a free person, or a slave to a religion?

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually people who can choose whether or not to believe? That seems to me to be like deciding that salt will taste sweet to me from now on. I can respect that God is very real to some, but those who profess belief in case there really is such a thing a heaven strike me as profoundly dishonest.

Good way of putting it. And it de-emphasizes the loving, protective part of god and emphasizes his dictatorial, power hungry, need-to-be-worshipped-and-feared side