Why I Defend Christians....

Christians are the greatest threat to freedom in the United States.

A ridiculous statement which has absolutely no basis in fact.

Here is the threat fact in video form:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viHcNGfBixE&feature=related

On the Senate floor, the opening prayer on 2/9/2012 is protested by Christians, I quote: "Lord Jesus forgive us father for allowing the prayer of the wicked, an abomination in your site.... we shall have no other Gods before you....

What is your defense for these Christians in our public house, Socrates?

1.) The title is the making of the Youtube poster, it is only relevant in that regard. As an opinion of the poster who uploaded it to Youtube. So what's your point?

The video is a clip of the opening prayer. I could have used the C-Span version of this typical untitled daily proceeding in the Senate Chamber, but I didn't feel like looking for it. Many faiths are invited to provide the opening prayer, this it is not unusual nor extraordinary. The recorded protest by Christians is what makes it so.

2.) Is the implication here that the others that did the inviting or restored order were Christians?

3.) I'll give you that.

But the evidence of the threat of increasing attempts to insert Christian domination into the culture is becoming increasingly prevalent, especially as the culture becomes increasingly diverse. The Christians feel their dominate control slipping and so this gives rise to the heightened Christian persecution complex we read or hear about now on an almost daily basis. "Greatest," is a stretch but maybe not by much.

One must not be vested in the dogma to care to notice the disconnect between belief and reality.

4.) That's your defense? First Amendment speech?

You don't think that it's not a threat to condemn a man of faith who is offering prayers for the nation simply because the faith is not based in Christianity?

Really? Suppose it was Christians being protested and condemned at opening prayers, would it be a threat then?

I see it as a pretty extreme threat and I'd see it as an extreme threat if it were a Christian that was giving the prayer and being called a wicked abomination by an other person of differing faith too.

That's another problem with a believer, they often can not walk in another's shoes or even put the shoe on the other foot for a little while.

5.) Thank you. As an non believer I can see the problem logically from more than one point of view. If you are inclined to believe that is a personal detriment that I should be ashamed of, I'll view it as your personal problem and be happy that I can think a little more broadly than some others do.

The people's house is provided for representation of every citizen and each state. Those with faith and those without are equally afforded a voice there. This video clearly expresses the threat to our way of life in the United States of America and to think it's not a problem is an additional threat also. Condemning others simply because one does not share the same religious belief as another is wrong. Heck, even Jesus did not do that.

The danger falls on ALL persons of faith when this behavior becomes the norm. And on the rest of us who get caught up in the never ending fight over whose righteousness is the better. When will humans learn to live with each other in peace?

Atheism is the absence of belief. This video provides an excellent example of the problems that arise among those that are theistic. About who is righteous and what is considered proper worship of the chosen deity. If one can not comprehend the logical viewpoints being made by non-believers it is because they are too blinded by their religious beliefs.

A non-believer may think we'd all be better off without any religious belief, but many also recognize that some people are not capable of living without a faith in something. And so most non-believers are willing to tolerate others beliefs for the sake of peace. Even if what non-believers see as others faith is little more than a a religious crutch at best or abject stupidity at worst, depending upon the various beliefs being held by the faithful.

It's when that faith in something starts to step over or upon others that the Atheistic tolerance completely abates and for good reason.

Atheism is the absence of belief

I see it as a belief that there is no God

A belief that science has all the answers.

I could continue, but I see atheism as a belief.

I see atheism as a belief.

seconded

Everything is a belief.

Now being a little less philosophical, both atheism and theism represent beliefs for the very simple fact that neither can claim certainty (truth) because neither can prove their assertions.

I wish both sides would acknowledge this to each other.

Socrates

My real point was that there are those who claim that atheism does not suggest anything other than how one relates to the question of whether or not a Deity exists.

I missed that. I can break atheism down into hard (gnostic) and soft (agnostic) atheism. Beyond the idea of not believing in a deity what other attributes are you considering to define atheism?

rd2 -

I see it as a belief that there is no God

Yes, but that is a failure of yours to ignore what has been explained to you. As I know I've told you (and others, too) that atheism simply states there is no evidence for a god, therefore there is no reason to believe in one. It is the same as not believing in an invisible, pink unicorn with no evidence. Sure, there could be such a beast, but without evidence of such there is no rational reason to believe it is so.

So now, consider it explained to you. If you still maintain your previously stated position, then it should be considered a matter of wilful ignorance.

A belief that science has all the answers.

This too, is erroneous thinking on your part. Science doesn't even come into play. Once more, atheism states there is no evidence for a god, therefore there is no reason to believe in one (at least, anymore than there is to beleive in an invisible, pink unicorn). This can be asserted without consideration of science. It is simply rational thought and argument.

I could continue, but I see atheism as a belief.

Much like not collecting bottle caps is a hobby!

2.3...I wish I could vote this up 100 times!!

JackOL

2.11 I see as rude and condescending. I believe this is exactly what this article is about, and you have proven Socrates point.

rd62 -

2.11 I see as rude and condescending. Just my view.

• I see it as a belief that there is no God

Sorry you see it that way. What it is is actually being tired of going over the same thing numerous times. I see it as rude by you to continually belittle rational or scientific thought as tantamount to belief in an unsupported belief system. They are not in the same category. Now imagine my frustration, if you will.

A belief that science has all the answers.

Rude of you again. Completely opposite of rational, scientific practice. Science DOES NOT have all the answers. That is why all scientific theories must be falsifiable. That is the very heart of science, yet you work in that snide comment to those who accept valid science. Religion IS NOT falsifiable.

I could continue, but I see atheism as a belief.

Again, denigrating atheism despite the fact that you have been told numerous times how it is not a belief. Lowering the rejection of unsupported stories to the level OF a belief system. Do you see the lack of collecting bottle caps as a hobby? I would think not. So why would the lack of acceptability for religious stories be a belief system?

Perhaps you do not realize how you offend others?

rd62 -

On the other hand, I'm glad to see "things" appeared to have gone well and you are back again.

Science DOES NOT have all the answers.

True.

That is why all scientific theories must be falsifiable.

The reason theories of empirical science must be falsifiable is to help ensure objectivity - to preserve the integrity of the scientific method. To be objective, empirical science must (and does) recognize that its theories are the best explanation to-date of what we have observed but a theory could be found to be incorrect (in part or whole) by future contradictory evidence.

Those who claim certainty (i.e. gnostic atheists and gnostic theists) and thus ridicule|comdemn others could learn something from the scientific method. Nobody has proof of the cause of our existence. The best we can do is observe, consider and -ultimately- form a personal belief.

That is, nobody holds the truth on this matter; none of us 'know'. If everyone recognized that simple fact then we would have only agnostic atheists and agnostic theists ...

• agnostic atheist - I do not believe in a deity but I might change my mind given future compelling evidence
• agnostic theist - I do believe in a deity but I realize that my belief is based upon faith, not fact, and may be wrong.

... and likely more civil (and productive) discussions with less talk of flying spaghetti monsters and eternal damnation.

(IMHO most people are already agnostic atheist|theist.)

JackOL

On the other hand, I'm glad to see "things" appeared to have gone well and you are back again.

If you mean my heart surgery, thank you, it's good to be back.

I'd tell you there were a lot of people praying, including some on the Vine, but you'd just scoff so I won't mention it :)

rd62 -

If you mean my heart surgery,

Yes. I wasn't sure how public that information was.

thank you, it's good to be back.

Good to have you back.

I'd tell you there were a lot of people praying, including some on the Vine, but you'd just scoff so I won't mention it :)

No, quite the contrary. I didn't pray but I was wishing you well. I do not have issues with those having religious beliefs. I have "issues" when religious beliefs interfere with secular aspects of life or when religious people beleive they have some moralhigh ground and denigrate atheists.

If you notice, I do not get involved in religious seeds or articles. I only get involved when they attack atheism and science.

I see, as another Soc1 hate seed against atheism.

I had to rush above, time was running out, so please ignore the typos I couldn't fix.

What I was trying to say is I make it a habit of leaving religious folk to their beliefs without interference from me. However, if one uses one's religious beliefs to attack atheism or science (with seeded/authored articles), be prepared for frank talk from me that you may think otherwise deserves special religious deference.

*cough*

...That in and of itself is enough to dissuade any thinking person away from following any religious doctrine.

Care to explain why a thinking person would not want to subscribe to the following precepts?

* You area to labor six days a week, then rest on the seventh day.

* Honor your mother and father...(Respect your mother and father)

* Do not murder

* Do not commit adultery.

* Do not steal

* Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.

* Do no covet.

How would you improve on them?

Hmm, labor unions IMPROVED on the first, getting us a FOURTY HOUR WORK WEEK, and TWO DAYS off a week - of course christian union bashing and busting republicans are destroying that.

Mom and dad - EVERY religion, and Confucious, believe that.

NOBODY believes in murder, again ANY belief or ethical system.

Adultery - in this context it has more to do with women and children as property in a patriarchal society than being committed.

Same as murder.

Same as stealing.

Covet is the second cousin of greed - a sin APPLAUDED in many evangelical and republican circles as a positive good, a sign of god's blessing.

So, how would I improve on them?

Vote out labor bashing christian republicans who mouth piety and practice vice.

Here's part of the problem... any given religion doesn't hold a monopoly on those tenets, nor did those tenets originate with Christianity. Thus, subscribing to any one religion and being, generally speaking, a "good person," which includes following most of those, are not necessarily dependent on each other. One can, and does, exist without the other.

So I guess the question is not how to improve on them; the question is why do some think identifying with an organized religion is required to follow those?

'Strength in numbers' comes to mind.

save me Jesus,,,

Steve do you know what it means to take something out of context? Take a deep breath go back and read the entire short paragraph I wrote with the entire thought and statement.

Now put together the idea of religions, seem, encourage, hypocrisy, on a grand scale. Then add the rest of what I wrote and you cherry picked and try to get a clue.

History is replete with examples of my statement. No go back to watching Fox News and your comfort zone of ign.....

ryoushi12

Indeed the labor unions did fight for and got a 40 hour week. And they built on a precept given at Mount Sinai. Oh by the way I am a big labor union fan. When it comes to adultery, it is the worst betrayal anyone person can inflict on their spouse, children or family. The pain that it cause spills out into the neighborhood and work place.

Covet / greed a sin applauded by many Evangelical and Republican circles.

Certainly will not get any argument from me on that one. Problem is they cannot see that because of the two x four planks in their own eyes.

"Bashing christians" =being tired of christian @!$%#.

If thats the definition of bashing, count me in.

Works for a lot of us who aren't atheists.

jesus christ, socrates, do you even read what you comment on???

and then are you capable of comprehending?

socrates, too funny,

Roushyat #3.2

NOBODY believes in murder, again ANY belief or ethical system.

On the contrary, as the great Abrahamic religions (Judiasm and its offshoots, Christianity and Islam) began to blossom in the ancient world, other religions were throwing live babies into pits to burn before Baal. The rational world you inhabit has much to do with the flowering of these religions -- and especially Christianity, due to its sphere of influence. Right wing Christianity is the greatest threat to Christianity -- and also to the freedoms of our nation -- because it is pseudo-Christianity.

a lot of people feel the bitterness and hatred of christianity, it has been a common theme of the religion for centuries

was it kindness behind the conversion efforts done throughout the centuries

was it kindness that supported the vicious suppression of judaism throughout the centuries

was it kindness when the Klan would hang strange fruit from trees, and the next day go to their church of choice, or bombed the church in Birmingham that killed 4 little girls, or ....

it is the idea of hiding behind the guise of being a "Christian" when so much of the behaviour would curdle the blood that Jesus supposedly spilled for humanity....

it is the same for people that support conservatism because it is part of their milieu...when it has done more harm than good...

Wow indeed

Hatred comes from the atheist side.

This sort of sweeping generalization is exactly why this country is becoming so polarized. How sad that you would add to it so blatantly.

But I see sweeping generalizations made against Christians all the time.

And two wrongs make a right how, exactly...?

Yes, when one defends Christians it's why the country is becoming so polarized....lol

Nah, I'm starting to think you're just trying to bait people. I've read things from you before. You're intelligent enough to know that it's not just defending Christians that is making the country polarized. Why would you even say something so silly?

I don't think Socrates is baiting any one. He's calling it like it is and sometimes people don't like hearing the truth. If those that are guilty of adopting that attitude, they certainly don't want to admit to it. The reaction on this thread is proving it to be true. There's a lot of hostility here.

Gee, Becky, I wonder why there is a lot of hostility here.
Socrates does nothing but denigrate a whole group of people based on the very paranoid view that they are all out to get him.

No he didn't. He's speaking of certain people within a group. Ya'll already know that there are Christians that have the same issue with hate. (Westborough) He's pointed out that it's also a problem amongst Atheists as well. There seems to be some pretty severe denial that that is so. Well........it's pretty obvious that Atheists aren't immune either. :)

I have the answer and the answer is love? bahahahahaha! Nope, I didn't see you there but glad to know you checked it out. :)

And Christians do have the right to force their belief system on others,right?
Where are you finding all these demon atheists who are trying to force their beliefs down your throat?
Most atheists just want you to leave them alone.

Tina

Most atheists just want you to leave them alone.

As do most theists. Trouble is there are those (a minority) who take pleasure in ridiculing | chastising the 'other' side. How many times have we seen an atheist mock the beliefs of a theist with the flying spaghetti monster stream of ridicule or the intolerant theist who considers an atheist to be a lost soul at best and evil at worst?

Yes, and let's not forget all those "atheists" bashing and killing Jews for centuries b/c they "killed our god". Oh brother.

Ya know, as a Wiccan witch I believe in the magic in our world...yet some Christians say they have a book that says I should not be "suffered to live". But those atheists...they're always coming up to me, saying things like "Hello". Sneaky bastards. /s

Oh not with the "Christian Country" thing again. And Iran is a Theocracy. I'll pass.

So, Iran's NOT a theocracy?

Sorry HD...but that's because you're in a Christian country

Why would a majority need someone to defend them, exactly?

Iran IS a theocracy...we are NOTHING close to that, HD.

Ya, that was my (sarcastic) point, vol. Iran's a theocracy; the US is a republic with freedom of, and from, religion. NOT a "Christian Country". The founding fathers were Deists.

Some were and some weren't ..can't say 'all' were one way or the other:

To plainly say they were "Christians" is a bit misleading. Some of them were, but others were deitists, or believed in one spirtual being (God if you will) which had very little to do with governing their lives on earth.
However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society. Benjamin Franklin probably explains it best when he, to paraphrase, said that although he is unsure of whether God exists or not, he felt it was better to believe in Christianity and the Christian God than not to, for the Christian teachings prevented moral anarchy. Thus, our nation was founded on Christian principles because the Founding Generation recognized the value in them to create a moral, virtuous society.

Yeah. Christian principles. Like hanging witches. You know, if you need "Christian" "Muslim" "Pagan" etc. principles in order to be a good person, then you aren't really a good person to begin with. Just harm none. Not other people, not the environment, not yourself, etc. Pretty simple. The US is not a "Christian" country. If it were, it would be a theocracy. It is a republic, filled with people of all races, religions, and creeds. For all our sakes, let's keep it that way.
HD

I think people often tend to misinterpret what is supposed to be meant by a "Christian Nation."

The Government...is not a Christian nation, and is forbidden to "establish" (enact or promote a particular belief).

However, ..."We, the people" were founded on the principles of Christianity and secured by the 1st Amendment, to be a Christian nation of the people (and to choose how to believe or not to believe) CAN "establish." Christianity respects all sects, even atheism.

1. Unless you want government (and the Supreme Court keeps refusing to
do so) to define what constitutes "religion", yeah, freedom "from" religion is included. Nobody has to have a statue of Odin in their house, or a crucifix, or a shrine to Hecate.
2. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Someone famous said that, but I forget who. I do not claim to have come up with it.
HD

Freedom of religion = choice

Freedom from religion = religion is being ousted

Some people want nothing to do with religion. They are free to oust it all they want. I mean, do I have the right to tell you you MUST have SOME kind of religious paraphernalia in your house? Really?
HD

You are confusing the two statements, it appears.

Freedom of religion...is what protects to believe in whatever you want (or not to believe in anything).

Atheists that claim they want 'freedom from religion' are usually the orgs that are trying to force any and all symbolism of any kind of Faith from being displayed, as I understand it.

That's the difference between the two statements.

I belong to an atheist group, and have for years. They all know I'm a legally ordained Wiccan Priestess; how we met is a long story. But I've never heard them say "no displays of faith"...many of them have celebrated Samhain, Yule, Lammas, etc. in my house and were never offended by my altar nor my decor...

Atheists that claim they want 'freedom from religion' are usually the orgs that are trying to force any and all symbolism of any kind of Faith from being displayed, as I understand it.

I've never seen this. What, have I been in the woods too long?
??? HD

I'm sorry, I failed to mention on public grounds.

It's late; thanks for the discussion. Nite!

You have a good night too, CL. Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, I know about the public grounds issue. But I kinda side with the atheists.
HD

HD...the thing is...if they did insist, as you suggest, on freedom from religion, those items would have to be removed, or hidden.

Not hidden, removed.

Yeah, I know about the public grounds issue.

I will follow the Wiccan Priestess on this one.

Thank you CL1. I have hardly been around a computer all day...You answered the question for me...much appreciated.

Hi vol fan, I'm not getting consistent trackings!! ..errrrr!

Whatever I did, I'm glad I did it! :).. Thanks!

Here's the honest truth. I believe in God and I believe that God is love. I believe in seeking love and wish nothing but for others to find happiness and peace.

Yep.....I'm a real threat. If I believed like the atheists accused me of believing then I wouldn't believe it either. They're impression of "bad" and "evil" Christians are basically people who really don't understand the concept of love and tolerance yet. They're immature or flat out just not very bright. That's ok. I'm learning to be more patient and teach them instead of embarrassing them but my sinful nature slips through the cracks some times.

Why is it so hard for an atheist to just say that they don't believe in God because God doesn't make sense to them. Christians aren't smarter or more "special" because they believe, they just are believers. No two minds think alike so the key......I believe is......learning love and kindness. Yep.....I'm a BIG threat! Watch out folks!!!!!! I might influence you to look for love in your heart and not hate. OWWWWWWCHHHHH!

Why is it so hard for an atheist to just say that they don't believe in God because God doesn't make sense to them.

Why is that so hard for believers to accept? I hear atheists make that point all of the time, but believers won't accept it.

Accept what? That god doesn't make sense?

I have no problem with those who don't believe as I do. I believe differently then a lot of people I'm close to that also believe in God and Jesus and the Bible. I try not to show contempt for the grace God has shown me by judging what others believe in or don't believe in. I don't believe that Christianity is the only path to God. It is my path.

More sweeping generalizations about atheists. So much for intellectual debate. *Sighs*

In other words, it's not an issue, until an atheist brings it up.

How can you say that when you are the one who wrote the article?

I've had this conversation many many many times:

Atheist, "Do you believe in God?"

Me, "Yes, I do."

Atheist, "WHY do you believe is such fantasy? So what, are you going to tell me that leprechauns are real too? The Bible is a bunch of guys that wrote the book to manipulate people. The Bible is evil and I KNOW the Bible because I used to believe in it but then I grew up."

Me, "No, I don't believe in that. I believe that God is love and if we find love in our heart then we've found our path to God."

Atheist, "Don't go preaching to me!!!!! You're so sure there is a God then PROVE it and the burden of proof is on YOU because YOU'RE the one claiming God is real!!!"

Does that ring any bells with any one? Ya'll can be frustrating but.......so can the sloppy judgmental lady at Church that's mean to all the kids. (don't pretend ya'll don't know that lady I'm speaking of) lol

I know Soc.....where have we met before? lol and......you said I might regret it. No sir. It trips me out how much we're on the same page. Peace :)

Socrates, why are you making sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people? You know better than that.

Becky
Exaggerate much just to make your point?

Why would a person just come up to you and ask if you believe in god?
Atheists don't care if you believe in god or not.
They simply want those who would try to convert them to leave them alone.

I wish that was an exaggeration Tina :(

I was speaking of when the conversation comes up. Most of my in depth conversations with Atheists have been on NV. Some in the work place. I worked for Clear Channel Radio for several years and talk about diversity. I loved it. I sat next to an Atheist that HATED Christians and man did he sing that song all day long. He had a Jesus figurine along with some miniature Care Bears in his office. He'd say, "This is my little circle of fictitious characters in my imaginary world." He would bash on Christians all the time. I'd sneak in his office while he was on air and place the Jesus figurine in front of his keyboard, facing his chair as if He's praying for him. lol He would come back and get SO pissed! lol He'd throw the BIGGEST fit and yell, "I wanna know who the Mother f#@!@eris in this office who thinks they have the right to touch my personal belongings! I will find out who you are!" I said one time, "Maybe some prayer would do ya' some good PJ....don't think it couldn't hurt." All I got was a glare of death coming him. He'd stomp back and slam his door. Just ridiculous. Now.....who's got it all figured out? I kept doing it because of how silly he behaved. No self control and completely foolish. He quit throwing a fit in time and he also quit with all his bashing and nasty attitude. He learned to show a little more respect for others. He never knew it was me and we didn't have a problem in the office because I didn't preach to him. He knew I was a Christian though. I've been around the block with many atheists and I really dig most of ya'. I don't like admitting it but I find a lot of atheists to have kinder dispositions than many Christians but then I run into the haters who straight out hate on me. There's usually one in the bunch. If I'm with many friends that know me well who are Atheist, they'll stick up for me and bring another "hater" into the "fold". Peace :)

That dude obviously had problems.
Most atheists would say he is a jackass.

Yeah.....he was but he was an Atheist. I don't believe that all atheists are that way just because he is. That's the same for Christians. Just because some of us are jackasses, doesn't mean we all are. lol

well said, Becky...

Becky, you are not the kind of Christian that most atheists have problems with.

If all Christians (and yes, all atheists) had your "live and let live" attitude, there would be very little "Christian bashing".

Thanks Tina....that's really sweet of you to say. I like Atheists because they seem to be honest people. They don't pretend to buy into stuff they don't feel right about. I can't knock that. I'm the same way.....I just feel right about God and the Bible too. lol

I love ya'll. We're all just people. We're the same inside. We hurt the same, we love the same, we all have different experiences but we need each other. I think we're just encased in our individual bodies right now on earth and when we leave our earthly bodies, we will gel into one unit that is pure. We have to rid the impurity though which is our body as I see it. I could be wrong but.....I strongly believe that I'm right. lol Peace

I think the "evil" in this world are our bodies so to speak. If we buy into any form of hate, that comes from the evil within us that involves our bodies. Meaning our physical "senses" that we perceive is the maximum depth of our reality. So many people get consumed with their physical appearance so much that it's the only thing they worship. Vanity which is fleeting.

Those who don't seek love melt in with their bodies and die right along with it. Earthly death. They get exactly what they believe is true which means....they're right. Those who believe in love, gel with God and continue existence after their earthly death. Now, all religions that believe in One Creator say that God says it only takes the faith of a mustard seed to be included (meaning a tinsy bit of love in their heart) so that puts me at ease knowing that we're not held accountable for the things we can not help and that would be......our level of understanding. That's why each is personal. Only God knows our hearts.

Becky,

I think it is safe to say, we take no issue with atheists being jackasses, that is just who they are. It is when the "Christian" is a jackass that atheists go on the offensive. This occurs because "Christians" carry themselves around wit ha better than you attitude because they have some higher moral ground by believing in Jesus.

When they turn out to be just like everyone else with hate and disrespect in their hearts, Atheists call them out as hypocrites and it just adds to the fact that there is no god and wasting time preaching to the invisible fairy and reading out of a 2,000 year old book is going to change human nature.

We need to understand we are all human and we all have to live together and accept each other for who we are, imperfect beings that get in bad moods and do stupid stuff.

Purposely causing distress to someone and doing things you know make them upset for your own amusement is about the most UN-christian thing you could do, yet you say it as a something good you did while the whole time telling us your a good little christian girl.....hypocrisy.

Here we go......this is why Christians will most likely be persecuted in our future.

This occurs because "Christians" carry themselves around wit ha better than you attitude because they have some higher moral ground by believing in Jesus.

Every single one of us is trapped with our individual bodies so none of us are immune to our sinful or wicked nature as long as we're alive. I don't believe I'm better, I just believe in God and that God is love. That doesn't mean I always emulate "love" all the time because I'm imperfect. I can't just the same as you and becoming a believer doesn't make me Super Girl!

We need to understand we are all human and we all have to live together and accept each other for who we are, imperfect beings that get in bad moods and do stupid stuff.

Absolutely agree with that. That's why I'm grateful God excuses all my stupid stuff because I'm humble about it. I try to see it and try to care and sometimes try to change it.

Purposely causing distress to someone and doing things you know make them upset for your own amusement is about the most UN-christian thing you could do

Is it wrong for him to be mean to Christians? To go around insulting them all the time? Would it have been better if I confronted him directly? I don't think things would have turned out very well. Oh........I bet you're gonna tell me to eat it and turn the other cheek.....just like the Bible tells me to. Hmmmmm.....maybe the Bible IS true and we're ALL sinners. You and me both! Who's really the hypocrite?

I am not the hypocrite because i understand the human condition to be just that and I judge everyone on their actions as it pertains to how they interact with others and the facade they are trying to perpetuate.

This man is a jerk, yet unless he tried to put forth the persona of anything but a jerk then there is no hypocracy.

If "You" do not preach the teachings of the bible or do not try to minister its words as something everyone should follow on a daily basis, nor judge others based on their actions or beliefs then I have no problems with what you did. But if you did do those things as most "Christians" do then i do take notice and point out as most would the flawed logic of your religion, as even you who spout its greatness, cannot follow its simplest rules. Hence forth the only hypocrite is that of a person spreading rules of a higher being to the masses in which they do not even follow.

So does that mean Drhunk that we should lower our standards because we're all bad inside? Maybe you're right. It would be better if we were ALL jerks to each other because at least we'd all be real. I don't think he was a jerk all the time. I think he was just a hater of God those who aren't. He loved his daughter and was kind to her. He saw the value in love so he wasn't consistently a jerk. Guess he was a hypocrite after all.

I think it's heathy to shoot higher then what we expect to actually acheive. We might surprise ourselves and reach higher then we originally expected. I don't expect to ever come close to walk as straight of a line as Jesus did but I am trying. I will continue to try and continue to tell people that I'm trying whether you like it or not. I am free to talk about it if I want to. If it's a topic of discussion that you don't like.....you're welcome to excuse yourself.

People like you are nice some times because you point out where I'm weak. You've made me stronger by knowing where to punch and make it hurt. I've been building up my armor and building up the love in my heart so.....you don't intimidate me as much as would have a few years ago. You sure you don't wanna go attack a weaker Christian? hehehehe

devil inside...devil inside.....every single one of us the devil inside....(INXS) lol

Lower your standards ..not at all... Stop trying to push your standards on everyone else when even you cannot follow them...yes..

Just be yourself and do what you know is right. You don't need the bible or some mystical being to hold his love for you over your head in order for that to happen. I believe that is main presuppose behind the atheist movement. People should be kind and love one another and try their best to help those in need out of compassion for your fellow man not because any religious doctrine.

"If it's a topic of discussion that you don't like.....you're welcome to excuse yourself."

I have never expressed that, but if you find it hard to defend yourself or your actions... it is understandable.

You're saying that I don't deserve to believe or I'm wrong to believe because I've demonstrated that I'm not perfect? That makes no sense. I recognize my sinful nature because I'm convicted. Christians do not believe we're better or above another because we want others to be happy and at peace and fulfilled.

I'm not expecting anyone to follow my standards. All I'm saying is that love for ourselves and each other is a good thing. It should be universal. Are you saying that love isn't good?

Becky,

I at no time said you could not or deserved not to believe anything you want. Nor have I made reference to any opinion about Love not being good? could you specify what you are referring to?

People are happy, at peace and fulfilled without god and without Christians or any other religious figures telling them otherwise..i think that's the whole point.

Yes....and I am happy for those people who are happy, at peace and fulfilled. I like learning how they've found it too and the only way to do that is to talk about it. I'm finding that ALL those people who are happy are loving too. They speak the universal language of love and are not hostile to any ones way of finding it. Surprise, surprise. I'm sorry you don't like my way of finding love. I don't believe that only Christians are going to heaven. I don't know any other way so it's the only way I can claim. I don't think I should owe you an apology for that. If you feel you need one though.....sorry.

Oh wait.....are you saying that there's nothing wrong with believing what I believe as long as I don't vocalize my belief or you'll call my out on how bad of a witness I am? That makes sense. I can see why you wouldn't have any objection as long as I kept my mouth shut. That would make life very easy for you. We have to be nice but that's not required or expected of every one else? We are told and I must admit that the reason for obedience is so we're believable. So people like you can't do that crap to us. Once again, I opened the door for ya'. I'm still forgiven and if I believed I wasn't, I wouldn't be able to gain the strength to perservere and continue to stand up for what's right and good.

Becky,

You confuse me. I at no time said anything negative about you nor the way you "Find love", and...i don't get where you would assume someone needs an apology.

Did i miss the debate class that teaches you to play the victim if you find yourself in a corner? Is it to de-rail the topic? Shift the momentum? Hey look over here, while something else is occurring over there?

Enjoy the rest of your day. I believe I am finished here.

You confuse me

I've heard that one before. lol. I don't mean to be confusing. I wasn't dancing around anything or playing the victim. I was trying to get to point of the debate. You're the one that said I shouldn't behave the way I was behaving. It's all good. I hope you enjoy your day too.

I am not the hypocrite because i understand the human condition to be just that and I judge everyone on their actions as it pertains to how they interact with others and the facade they are trying to perpetuate

Dr. Hunkarooski......I just caught this statement of yours. I can't believe it. I see why you're confused a bit. Do you realize that you just said that you just judge people on their appearance? I don't know how good lookin' you are but your user name is Dr. Hunk and you just professed to judging people according to the image they portray. Or how well mannered they are. Ya' know....their upbringin'. Not too concerned about what's inside. I don't know how deep the vanity issue is be it ugly people or fat people. I'm not judging you for judging others. I just think that might be an area that might be clouding your judgement. Now, is that skirting or can we come together? Peoples bodies do help tell their story but peoples bodies are not who they are inside. I am not trying to be hurtful. I am pointing out that you are equally hypocritical as the next person. None of us are any better.

equally hypocritical as the next person. None of us are any better.

As pointed as that statement is the understanding of ones own hypocrisy. So look at Socrates' article again with that in mind, that through hypocrisy of others we can better see it in ourselves if we look closely.

E.G. 'the log in the eye' is the search for the hypocrisy in others (the splinter in your brother's eye) instead of seeing your own. Often we can't see well enough around the log to be of any real assistance.

This article and its associated comments is a tautology. It turns hypocrisy on itself and could have been written from a position of atheism or religion with equal effect.

This article and its associated comments is a tautology. It turns hypocrisy on itself and could have been written from a position of atheism or religion with equal effect.

An excellent statement, BD, that is "truth," as well as a well-deserved recognition for Socrates's article and comments that those with "logs in their eyes" will never see or understand.

You remember Freewill?

It's his advice I'm following. I miss that guy.

I can't quote him, but he said something like, be persistent, don't worry about whether or not you're getting through, just keep repeating the message.

BD

I miss that guy.

Freewill is still around.

Yeah
I just don't hear from him much.

Yes. He just commented the other day that his time here is forced to be in spurts.

He appears to be a very insightful gentleman (and "gentleman" is a title he is very worthy of. Btw, I don't hand out complements as a sycophant; if I say something--no matter what it is--I mean it. In other words, I stand behind my words:).

I was making a point of stating that I'm not immune from the hypocrisy any more than the next person. In my opinion, it's an argument that's a waist of time because if we didn't let any hypocrites talk then........the sound of silence would be deafening. lol

Becky,

Again I am confused, the comment you quoted from me had nothing to do with how one looks on the outside, it is how one carries themselves through life and interacts with fellow man.

(Example) Congress man fights every bill about Homosexuals getting equal rights and stands on the pulpit and says what a sin Homosexuality is...Then turns out to have a Gay lover and is a homosexual himself.

(Example) The christian girl who preaches love and forgiveness only to show hate and disdain for those that do not believe as her.

You set the standards that you will be held accountable for in life.

DRHunk

(Example) The christian girl who preaches love and forgiveness only to show hate and disdain for those that do not believe as her.

If you are referring to Becky specifically, which it sounds as if you are, I have never see her post hateful comments.

If your referring to me, I'm farrrrrrr from perfect, but I attempt not to be hateful.

Thanks rescue dog. :)

I can't deny those people exist. It saddens me that Dr. Hunk seems to think that only those people exist.

once again it was an example, perhaps you take the comments to personally because they do have a ring of truth in them? I do not know if that is the case, I only spoke in a generalized nature. It was not directed at any one person.

You seem to generalize my statements in an effort to defend you position.

"It saddens me that Dr. Hunk seems to think that only those people exist."

If you cannot point out where i said only these people exist, i would thank you to stop putting words into my mouth or trying to perpetuate dis-information in an effort to make your own conclusions more valid.

The fact is those type of people do exist and therefor will be judged as such. Which was the point of the conversation.

If you cannot point out where i said only these people exist, i would thank you to stop putting words into my mouth or trying to perpetuate dis-information in an effort to make your own conclusions more valid.

I didn't say that you said that. I said that it seems, meaning......that's the impression I got from what you said. Of course I'm attempting to validate what I claim is true. Why wouldn't I do that? Isn't this a debate or discussion? I question, ask, investigate etc. That's usually how people grow and learn. So.....your problem is?

Yes, I am a little tender because some times the way people phrase their statements they seem to exclude pointing out that the opposite people exist in every group as well which are loving people that try to show it.

Hey.....I have an idea!!!!!! Why don't we shift gears and talk about all the super cool awesome Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Agnostics that we genuinely admire? Those that assisted us to believe as we believe today! Let's start talkin' about the love in life and not the hate. Don't we have enough hate to go around? Peace :)

Its not a group thing, its not a us vs them thing.

It is a we are all the same people and we need to all practice what we preach and be judged on our merits not the color of or skin, our religious affiliation, or lack thereof, our sexual preferences..none of that matters except that if you talk the talk then walk the walk. If you talk the talk yet walk a different path, be prepared to get called out on it.

I agree that we should practice what we preach. Jesus was the last person I know of that actually was capable of doing that without error though. I do try and that's the best I can do.

Maybe we should try not judging people by their merits either. That's really hard not to do also. I guess the simple way for me to keep it straight and feel good about myself is to try to be blameless. I try. Everyone has flaws in their character so.........to actually make that feat attainable is impossible. So then, how about just judging those who are promoters of hate? I'm against and I judge promoters of hatefulness or hatred. I am accepting and tolerant of promoters of love and kindness and tolerance as they are.

Not to start another conversation, but... If you believe yourself to be a follower of Christ then you should not judge anybody as all will be judged in the eyes of the lord.

I don't disagree with that. Like I said, I'm not Jesus but I try to follow His teachings. Jesus also spoke out against hate in our hearts. Jesus spoke of love and many people hated him for it.

You are probably correct, i am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination.

Has anyone seen the movies Eat, Pray, Love or the movie Stone?

I can't help but think if you haven't and your in total disagreement with everything I've said then, I recommend watching one or both. I'm not kidding people......we're all the same and love is the answer for balance in our world. Balance in our individual hearts equals balance in our world. Peace :)

Enoch, you said a mouthful. I support whoever happens to be under attack. I have been accused of being pro-Muslim, because I defended Muslims. There are many comments on Newsvine which are over-generalizations, stereotypes, and outright bigotry.

It seems that those under attack in this article are atheists. Socrates, why do you feel it is necessary to attack atheists with statements like this:

Do atheists need God? One would have to think so from the behavior we see so many exhibit

That is unkind. I don't think it's fair, either.

People like to discuss facts, and I don't see anything wrong with citations to examples of persecution by people of various religions if those things happened. If it's factual, it seems to be a valid exhibit to use as evidence. But I'm looking for facts in you article, or instances or examples of what it is you're alluding to, and I find it lacking. Can you give any examples, or cite any facts to support the contentions you make in your article? If you can, fine.

I don't hate Christians. I have seen beauty in the pious Christians I have known whose hearts are full of love. I have also known so-called Christians who wouldn't recognize Jesus if he personally came to their door and delivered the sermon on the mount, and who live their lives in the antithesis of Jesus's teachings. I have seen on this very page people who profess to be Christian, and yet make cruel comments and innuendo about those with different views. This seems no differenct than the somewhat condescending allusion to god as a sky fairie or spaghetti monster, wherever that came from. I just don't see the difference, so why are you taking sides?

Dear Friend Socrates1: I join you, and support your in your defense of Christians here and elsewhere.

How is this article a defense of Christianity? There are 4 paragraphs and not one offers any defense - merely attacks on athiesm. The whole article could easily be a defense of any position, for example:

Do atheists Christians need God? One would have to think so from the behavior we see so many exhibit. Certainly I don't mean to suggest that there are no thinking caring atheists Christians out there, but their voices seem to be increasingly drowned out by the shrillness of their more ignorant and illogical brethren.

Please let's be real. There is no defense offered, merely repeated attacks of an opposing viewpoint (I am a Christian BTW).

The article is about why I defend Christians

But you offer no defense in your article. What am I missing here?

The entire article?

Thank you for the clarification. Had you noted those points in the article maybe the title would have made sense in the first place.

True as an atheist, not as a Christian.

And what is the distinction that makes your statement true and mine not?

I did note you didn't participate on the Christian bashing articles...

I try to respect another's right to believe differently especially where religion is concerned. I will pitch in when I think a position is blatantly false or dis-ingenious. I don't bash just for the hell of it.

All humans are given their foundation by those who raise them. We come into the world a blank slate.

A Christian believes that all humans are God's Children and are thus equal in the eyes of God

No, history shows us that they think all Christians are Gods children and are thus equal. Do you not acknowledge the periods in the past where Christianity has deemed others of differing beliefs as heathens, barbarians or somehow of less standing in the eyes of God? I believe the Native American experience was noted earlier in the article.

The article is about why I defend Christians, not why Christians deserve to be defended.

Soc are you defending Christians or are you defending Christianity? There can be a big difference.

Christians:

http://pwtenny.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/12/10389516-washington-times-mr-obama-is-an-anti-christian-anti-religious-bigot

http://pwtenny.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/12/10389904-fox-news-commenters-respond-to-whitney-houstons-death-with-deluge-of-hatred-and-racism

http://redsfan.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/12/10391628-top-ten-catholic-teachings-santorum-rejects-while-obsessing-about-birth-control

http://onesearch4-2.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/12/10391283-one-towns-war-on-gay-teens

Christianity:

http://www.tamilucc.com/images/christianity.jpg

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Christianity&view=detail&id=7964B6E27BA09454565BE242FA3C265105659AE3&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR

http://www.bible-knowledge.com/basic-tenants-of-christian-faith/

http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/a/basicdoctrines.htm

You might be defending the wrong one.

Then I take it you don't want the news covered. You would rather have platitudes said and the bad stuff glossed over. Funny I never see this when talking about Obama not being a Muslim or he's anti-religion.

I don't think you really know what you are talking about Soc. And here I thought you were a highly intelligent man.

Christians abolished slavery...

That argument makes no sense, since Christians are also the ones who instituted slavery in the first place.

Don,

I'm glad you cited those links, because I'm a Christian, and I seeded that article to point out that terrible things are done in the name of Christianity. I deplore the action of "some to profess to do things in the name of Christ."

http://onesearch4-2.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/12/10391283-one-towns-war-on-gay-teens

(Socrates, I know it's a CoH to seed our own links I'm only doing to to copy from above)

I hear all the time that Christians don't speak out for the wrong done, whether it's bombing an abortion clinic, or picketing a funeral, and that's incorrect. Many of us speak out, without making an issues that we're Christians.

Soc the first to abolish slavery were Jains from India in the 5th century.

Some Christians helped write the Constitution others were not.

Christians base their entire theology of equality on God, and the right of each individual to pursue his own path to finding God. The rights of the individual are predicated on the Christian God

Here this might help you Soc because what you've indicated above is not close.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm

While you are at it read this also:

http://www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/christ_islam.html

"Atheists support killing babies...Attempt to Force Government To Submit To Their Agenda...."

Since you make up a strawman there I see no reason to respond to it. But then I think you have invented a large strawman in this article Soc.

ScienceGuy-356641

Your words in #9 are well taken. I have often found myself at a loss for words trying to say what you've said. Thanks.

If you happen to be a believer, wonderful. If you are an atheist or agnostic, that is equally wonderful. Both points of view should be respected, and neither should be so insecure that they feel the need to convert or condemn the other.

I realize the intent with the above statement, but I believe it is misguided. These "beliefs" continue and propagate because they are not challenged. There is no reason in this day and age one cannot challenge beliefs based of stories from Bronze Age man. Stories of supernatural beings described well before we had the understanding and technology we have now.

The reality is there are no religious beliefs which stand up to rational or scientifc scrutiny. There is no reason to believe in any of the purported gods handed down through the ages. There is no more evidence for the Christian god than there is for the Pastafarian god. They are both on equal ground - credibility-wise. It's just that the one story has been around much longer.

Yes, we can continue to defer and say aren't your god beliefs wonderful. However, show any evidence for such a god? Nah, we wouldn't want to trouble you. In the meantime, continue to interfere in are secular government and push your creation stories as a legitiamte competing scientific theory.

Why should the religious be banned from political activity?

Nonsense. that is equivalent to saying why should alchoholic drinks be banned from a school dance. Shouldn't non-alcoholic drinks be banned.

You know the answer. This is simply the same old argument you rehash over and over and over - expecting a different response. It's still the same answer - separation of church and state. The intent was not to outlaw the practice of anyone's religion, but not to incorporate religious beleifs or tenets in our secular government. If you do not believe this is so, you must insist on the incorporation of Sharia Law into our legal system.

Dear Friend Science Guy: The issues you so perceptibly set forth are ones which my community has struggled with for millennia.

Maimonides, the Rambam (Moses Ben Maimon) wrote in his seminal work, Moreh Ha Nebuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) to address the problem as it faced the community of his day.

Then, there were those who wanted the benefits and advances of secular learning, but didn't want to lose the good gifts of religion. In my book, Duties of the Mind, I devoted a chapter updated for the community of my day. I titled it, "Moreh Ha Tshuvah" The Guide for the Repentant". Today many in my community want to find the peace, meaning and values of the religious life. They are concerned about abandoning the benefits of the life made possible by secular values.

We constantly struggle with these great questions. If we are honest, we have more questions than answers about matters that are of greatest impact on our lives. An important part of faith is doubt.

All I can contribute here, due to space and time limitations is that although they are all sports, we play football by the rules of football, and baseball by the rules of baseball. Similarly, for the physical world, we look to science and technology. For things beyond the world of physical matter (metaphysics) we look to the humanities (religion, philosophy, literature, etc.) for values, meaning, appropriate wisdom and perspective.

In the great spirit of American pragmatism. we choose what works best for us in any given context. Consistency is consistently using rules for each sport, acknowledging that games do vary, as must our approach to playing them.

In the spirit of morality, we wish all who agree and disagree with us the best in their quest to find what best works for them.

Peace and Blessings to you and yours. Enoch.

JackOL,

Why should the religious be banned from political activity

The question was religious, not religion. Are you suggesting that only agnostics and atheists should be involved in political activity?

Why should the religious be banned from political activity?

Because history has proven repeatedly that theocracies are largely intolerant. Non-believers face ridicule, exile, and even death.

But golly, I cannot imagine why we atheists would be against religion mixing with government. *Eyeroll*

Hmmm. That was weird. Hopefully everyone realized the first line in #9.4 should have been blockquoted. The rest not.

rescue dog62 -

From Soc1's post #9.2:

Why should the religious be banned from political activity?

From rescue dog 62 -

The question was religious, not religion. Are you suggesting that only agnostics and atheists should be involved in political activity?

No, of course not. Just check your religion at the door, same thing one should do when entering a science class. Religious proselytizing is not needed at these activities. It sometimes seems that religious people have difficulty understanding appropriate time and place.

Just check your religion at the door,

Why should I check my religious beliefs at the door? Do you check your atheism at the door, no?

We are all a part of our belief system. I make decisions, both political and personal within what I believe. You do the same thing. None of us is neutral; we all carry our own bias.

Having said that, I believe in the separation of church and state

Religious proselytizing is not needed at these activities.

I have difficulty with that. I don't proselytize whether at political events or otherwise, however it sounds as if you are wanting the First Amendment to only include you., do those that have other convictions not have the same rights?

rd62 -

Why should I check my religious beliefs at the door? Do you check your atheism at the door, no?

Again, my alcohol analogy. Why should I check my bottle of booze at the door? Shouldn't you check your bottle of cola at the door?

As I stated earlier, some religious folk have difficulty distinguishing when something is or is not appropriate. Bringing up YOUR PARTICULAR religious beliefs during a science class are not appropriate to the discussion. Science is areligious. Atheists do not bring up any "beliefs" during a science class.

Similarly, bringing up YOUR RELIGIOUS beliefs during a government function is not appropriate. You are representing all people, those of same, differing, or no beliefs. Your particular religious beliefs should not be represented into official government decisions. That is what is meant be separation. Government laws and decisions should be areligious, they should be secular.

Again, this is the same bull@!$%# Soc1 brings up every time. His last several seeds that I recall were the same thing, over and over and over again.

prefer a Christian society over an atheistic one.

Why not a Jewish society?, or a Buddhist society, how about a Hindu society? Which Christian society do you want? Protestant or Catholic? If it's protestant which of 30,000 in the U.S. do you want? You want multiracial or segregated protestant churches? Do you want to allow women, how about gays? If it's Catholic do you want Eastern orthodox, Greek orthodox, Roman? How about Quaker, Amish, Seventh Day Adventists.

Soc I'm not trying to undermine what you are saying but if you really think about it the separation of church and state is the only way this great country can work.

Actually......Don,

I want all of the above and none of the above. I want each and every single one of those "groups" need to learn the universal language of love. A loving society is what I would prefer. That's utopia though and not possible here but I'll keep on tryin' because I know it's right. :)

Socrates1

I just want the Christian God protecting my right to believe what I wish to believe.

I thought you were an atheist?
I believe in God, with all my being, but man makes laws. Where was any God when the Jews were slaughtered in Germany?
When it comes to laws, I'll take a good person.

.for the simple reason that all the above are tolerated in a Christian society

No they are not Soc. Christians, not Christianity, vilify many of those groups and you know it.

I just want the Christian God protecting my right to believe what I wish to believe.

He doesn't protect your right to anything, that's why he gave you "free choice".

I think your entire premise is falling apart now.

I want each and every single one of those "groups" need to learn the universal language of love.

Each of those "groups" is all about "love", in their own way. What is the universal language of love? How do you describe that?

With all the talk about the principles our country was founded on. We are a God fearing Nation. That is mistaken as "Christian" Yes, we have Christian principles but it was carefully planned and thought of by our founding fathers the importance of Freedom of Religion because they didn't want us to go down the same road they had gone down in the past. They wanted to protect citizens from religious persecution. The Christian God gives ALL people freedom to choose and the message is love, respect, kindness and tolerance of others. Now, if a Christian doesn't display those principles, that doesn't mean they don't exist. It means the person is disobeying them. So yes, in a sense, they're referring to the Christian God when saying "In God We Trust" but that is not limited to Christianity. God is the Creator of all things....not just Christians. I don't see myself as different from a Wiccan. A Wiccan believes in God and believes in Love, acceptance, tolerance and kindness. We believe in the same God but have a different idea of what is the best way to get and connect with God. Neither one is wrong in my opinion. We're both believers and I think it's beautiful. I wouldn't doubt that there's a lot of positive things that I could learn from Wiccans. Peace :)

Very nicely said Becky

Why should the religious be banned from political activity?

Nonsense. that is equivalent to saying why should alchoholic drinks be banned from a school dance. Shouldn't non-alcoholic drinks be banned.

You know the answer. This is simply the same old argument you rehash over and over and over - expecting a different response. It's still the same answer - separation of church and state. The intent was not to outlaw the practice of anyone's religion, but not to incorporate religious beleifs or tenets in our secular government. If you do not believe this is so, you must insist on the incorporation of Sharia Law into our legal system.

This is the constant nonsense we hear from atheists and others who want religion removed from politics.

Rick Santorum has every right to say people who are Christian should be against abortion, or for or against any other issue depending on religious teaching. He has every right to ask people to vote for him because he is a Christian. He can advocate law that conforms with Christian belief.

What we cannot have is a government that answers to Christian authority.

The atheists here would suggest that Newt Gingrich, or whoever, as a politician, has no right to say "we need to return the nation to biblical principles". This is simply not true. Any politician can advocate for religious perspective in law and in government. If you don't like it, don't vote for them.

What Gingrich cannot do is institute a government that is under religious authority.

Very nicely said Becky

Thank you Don. My mother was a history buff and made me into one too. I love it and can't understand people who have no interest in it. I argue with my daughter about why she wants to know what she's being taught and to remember it......and not just for her test. She roles her eyes at me all the time but I can't help it. It's important!!!! lol I was paying attention and am still paying attention. I make her talk about it with me and we sometimes discuss what the history books leave out. They don't have time to teach it all with everything else. My husband always laughs at me because I know the town history of Wichita, KS in depth. Well duh....I grew up here. I should know it and know why the town is designed the way it is. The cultures in the city and how they migrated etc. I know.......I'm a nerd deep deep down inside. lol

No misunderstanding Soc. The fault lies, if there is a fault, in your lack of understanding of what you are attempting.

Love the way you put words in peoples mouths. I never said "God" is powerless. In fact Soc I've never mentioned God in any context with this article.

The fact that you've been shown how your comments lack any logic or any reasoning should help you figure out how to look at your article.

If you can't keep track, well I feel for you.

Socrates, please re-read what you wrote. Yours is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The difference is that atheists generally do not have the audacity to go around telling Christians that they are doomed to burn in eternal fire because of what they believe.

I agree, nor do I think atheists have the audacity to tell us we believe in the fairy in the sky, and those are more of the polite phrases I've heard.

Look around you. I see atheists dismissing religious beliefs all the time.

And why wouldn't they since they don't believe in them?

Atheists have are generally much more hateful and intrusive in their public discourse.

Please provide evidence that atheists are generally much more hateful in public discourse. "Because I say so" doesn't count.

There is a big difference between "dismissing religious beliefs" and telling people they are going to hell.

I usually follow what I'm convicted by. I try to make my choices according to my own personal standards and not have the same expectations of others. Where I get fed up is a non-believer who doesn't study it and doesn't attempt to hold themselves to it, LOVES to hold a believer to it so they can shut them up. That tells me right there that the Bible is Divinely Inspired because we all know that the teachings in it are right and good and true. Peace :)

I don't think I really have to point out articles that continue to be produced bashing Christianity. Suggesting otherwise is simply another disgusting tactic often used by natheists.

You said, atheists are much more hateful in public discourse.

Articles bashing Christians are not all written by atheists, for one.

For two, the existence of such articles is not evidence that atheists are much more hateful.

Yep...starting to think you're not even serious about this, you're just baiting people. You're intelligent enough to know that A) sweeping generalizations are logical fallacies, and B) you can't make claims such as the above without evidence to back it up.

Ah, well. To each their own. *Shrug*

I don't think I really have to point out articles that continue to be produced bashing Christianity.

Soc I want you to link an article that bashes Christianity. Now before you respond think about what I just said.

I'll wait: Well actually I'll go to bed, it's an hour past my bed time.

Again, Soc, you are talking about Christians not Christianity. I am sure you are not seeing here. There is a difference between the two.

Good point, Don Overton.

It isn't Christianity that people object to, it's usually the people who claim to practice it.

Let's get real. Newsvine has become a pit of atheist advocacy and anti religious hysteria, anti-Catholic hysteria in particular.

Gifflenet,

anti-Catholic hysteria in particular.

I think you're wrong on that one....I think evangelical Christians have the Catholics hands down for hysteria criticism.

Sorry Socrates,

I meant that as sort of a joke...I don't think I've had any interaction with Giffenet unless my political response was up above....I will try to behave, I didn't realize I was out of line. That wasn't meant sarcastically by the way, I truly mean that.

If I thought you understood the difference I would have never written the comment. I still don't believe you do.

According to some polls, we are primarily some form of it..

CL1

Which means about nothing as Ireland and England are probably 90 percent Christian and look at the fighting there. Is this to imply that Christianity is a religion of strife and dissension? There is probably more infighting between Christians than there is between Christians and atheists.

Socrates- disgusted why?

newsblog, as to your point on "infighting," I would agree; no matter what the venue (not necessarily religion--could be families or industries), we are always more critical of our 'own,' so to speak. However, the point to the article is not about "infighting" or lack of agreement from within, (the intra)---rather, it's about the "inter"-- the irony, hypocrisy, as well as the lack of acknowledgement of where the values and freedoms that the left enjoys come from.

So now you are saying that the left is the exclusive domain of atheists? This makes no sense. The freedoms and values we enjoy now came not from religion but from the Constitution and our form of governemnt that says we can believe what we want but that we are also to be free of domination of what others believe. And don't tell me Jesus had anyting to do with it becasue he did not.

Also, I think atheists may resent the implication that because of what they think that they are valueless, bad, stupid, ignorant people. I have found the opposite to be true. Most I know are thoughtful, intelligent, kind, and have open and inquisitive minds.

1.) And What is the Christian value system based upon?

2.) And they have.

3.) Look in the mirror and examine ones own image and beliefs. It is far easier to blame others for the failures one sees in the world rather than to see their own role in it. Being less tolerant and finding others hard to take is a two way street.

4.) What kind of logic is that? Bending words to say that a belief in a deity is the only way one can have values or be valuable. Whatever pleases innate prejudices works as easily for a Socrates1, as it does for an atheist, but doesn't make either position valid.

newsblog.....I don't like quoting journalists as "fact," ..so I won't. I will just say that many sources, text and online, agree that the Constitution was written in the the spirit, context and with values of the times in mind, which includes "insight" from Christian values and principles; these moralities were incorporated to aid determinations in forming laws...Christianity is 'very much' a part of our Constitution and 'government.' It's the "establishment" both in enacting and in promoting specific mandates that favor one belief over another, that is unconstitutional.

Personally, I do not think that all Atheists are "valueless, bad, stupid and ignorant people." ..Just as all people on the Left are not Atheists. I'm sorry to have stereotyped and to have gone against what I actually believe; however, there are different versions of the Left---just as there are different versions of the Right. So, to clarify, I am referring to those that hold to the belief that our nation was not founded on Christian principles, and to those that think their freedoms are held in check by a Government that does not include Christian oversight.

Atheists, by their own definitions, are valueless.

Nope. Atheists have values, they are simply based on society rather than ancient texts.

So, to clarify, I am referring to those that hold to the belief that our nation was not founded on Christian principles, and to those that think their freedoms are held in check by a Government that does not include Christian oversight.

There are those that believe that our Constitution was not founded on Christian values who are not atheists. None-the-less, Christians assume they are the righteous and by default anyone who is not Christan is wrong. Therefore in a very underhanded way you are saying atheists and non-Christians are wrong. This mumbo- jumbo sounds like Christian propaganda to me. I could come up with an entire host of reasons why the Constitution is not based on Christian principles but you would probably discount them. So it goes...

Besides this artilcle is not about the Constitution. It is about how agrrieved Socrates is by atheists- what they say and what they believe. He may have a point but he just lost credibility when he said the same derogatory things in the same manner that he is blaming them for saying.

newsblog...I only discussed the Constitution because you brought it up; yet, it is relevant in that Christianity was an influence on the document, with which many atheists disagree.

I agree, the point of the article (as I interpreted) is to aggrieve atheism for the reasons that I pointed to previously:

it's about the "inter"-- the irony, hypocrisy, as well as the lack of acknowledgement of where the values and freedoms that the left enjoys come from.

I could come up with an entire host of reasons why the Constitution is not based on Christian principles but you would probably discount them.

The main point is to propose point - counterpoint. We don't all have the best delivery, but the message content is more important.

On a more positive note, although we borderline, the personal attacks are almost non-existent in this discussion. Please proceed.

newsblog...I only discussed the Constitution because you brought it up; yet, it is relevant in that Christianity was an influence on the document, with which many atheists disagree

Old Rome was an influence on the Constitution, English law was a huge influence on the Constitution. What is your point?

In addition to those... *Christianity as defined 'in those times'* of setting up a *new* Western Civilization, was also an influence...is my point.

Sorry, I don't see the point.

2. The country has always been primarily Christian.

Ask the Native Americans about that.

3. Yes, the far Left is heavily weighted against religion. When God left the building the Left became much less tolerant and much more hard to take.

I keep reading this comment and can't make sense of it. I guess I'm one of "their more ignorant and illogical brethren".

4. Atheists, by their own definitions, are valueless.

Completely baseless. What definitions are you referring to? I know atheists who's ethics are beyond reproach.

I can't count the number of times I've been told that atheist means nothing more than a lack of belief in a Deity.

It doesn't matter how many times you are told a thing, what matters is: Are the people telling you things credible?

Sure, after you indicate an ability to understand the difference between a "country" and a geographical location.

Are you saying that the Native Americans lived on "a geographical location" as opposed to a "country"?

3. I'll leave it at that.

This is what I don't understand about your #3 comment :

When God left the building the Left became much less tolerant and much more hard to take.

I hate to be so dense but please explain.

As the Left became increasingly anti-religious, they also became increasingly intolerant.

Sorry, Socrates1, but that is another baseless comment.

#11.7 is so full of errors and false assumptions that you can't be serious. You are more intelligent than that.

#11.7 is so full of errors and false assumptions that you can't be serious.

Yes, but that is still his favorite broken record. He feels better about railing against atheism and railing for his make-believe Christian nation every few seeds.

You are more intelligent than that.

I believe it is fair to say he actually believes the nonsense stated in that post.

Except for the fact your facts are not really facts.

Except for the fact your facts are not really facts.

Exactly. All those statements have been refuted before. I've seen them refuted on differents seeds.

Atheists, by their own definitions, are valueless.

• but they at least have the integrity to accept a fact for a fact.

Shows your absolute lack of knowledge and your highly bigoted point of view, i.e. Christian arrogance/sanctimoniousness. After nonsense such as this, why should you be considered seriously?

None of them have been refuted..except in the mind of a natheist.

Denialism, on your part.

I seriously think it has something to do with the educational process.

...or your lack thereof.

As to why I should be taken seriously?

Based on some of your ridiculous statements, that IS the $10,000 question!

I find that most people declare victory, and walk away, rather than seriously examing their foundational premises.

Yes you do!

In this case, you will suggest there is no longer anything to talk about because I do not agree with you.....intolerance?

In this case, you will suggest there is no longer anything to talk about because I do not agree with you..... appear intolerantce? Yes.

BTW - what's up with a nathieist?

BTW - what's up with a nathieist?

new atheist .... you will self-identify

Soc1 -

Unfortunately, your discussions go nowhere with lots of people. With some of the nonsensical statements you've made, which I have pointed out earlier, indicate you have no credibility.

And all all I see from atheists in this forum is further evidence of ignorance of the facts,

Atheists, by their own definitions, are valueless.

• but they at least have the integrity to accept a fact for a fact.

All nonsensical posts by you. I have no further desire to participate in this seed. It is typical you - atheists are wrong and Christians should be able to interfere where it is not appropriate (politics, science, etc.)

Been there and done that with you before.

Well, like you, I see bad actors among Atheists (new or not) but they typically are no more at odds with their own credo than Christians whose arguments or actions run directly counter to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ideologues are social pests, no matter what their perspective.

"non-existent attacks by Christians"?
I cannot count the attacks by Christians on the Vine.
Christians love to threaten non-Christians by saying things like "I wouldn't want to be in your shoes on Judgment Day."

That story came from India.
What relevance does that have to the subject at hand?

So why should someone criticizing your religious beliefs have any bearing on you, and according to our constitution, they have the right to feel THAT way.
What the hell?!
You make no sense at all.

generally while complaining about non-existent attacks by Christians.

Ask Dr Tiller about that one. How about the religious rights attacks on women - their WAR on women and their ability to control their own bodies?

Many people are disgusted with organized religion but that doesn't mean they don't have their own spirituality. I'm not an atheist but I don't like organized religion. And my observation is that many Christians are diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Bible and Jesus. I wish all religions would just stay the @!$%# out of politics and government.

Dr. Tiller isn't here to ask. I went to the same school as his kids. I don't understand how he could do what he did professionally but I vote pro-choice because I don't think prosecuting women who have one is the solution so it's a better choice for it to be legal. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it's good to get drunk every night. Do you know that Dr. Tiller was at his church when he was shot and killed? He didn't even believe that evil people who say they're Christians are really Christians. He claimed to be one and was killed by one. I don't know if either of them were. They both are guilty of terminating life deliberately and I'm not their judge.

Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it's good to get drunk every night.

Please cite link. :)

Balance Jack balance. lmao

Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it's good to get drunk every night.

Well said, I can think of a lot better reasons...

You may disagree Socrates, but as a woman I can tell you that is what many if not most of us see. And it isn't just one thing. Personally I think you are making a mistake in trying to minimize the way so many of us feel. Need examples? The forced vaginal sonograms in Texas, the constant attacks on Planned Parenthood, an organization that has given millions of women healthcare over decades. The attempts to restrict contraception, trying to force women to accept less than full medical coverage to exempt not only churches, but their businesses. I'm offended that you called it hysterical. Republicans and the rest of the religious right patronize and minimize at their own risk.

Would you call this hysterical? I guess I would.

http://cornhusker4palin.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/11/10382583-lapierre-obama-out-to-erase-second-amendment#c62472194

How about the "he's a marxist/socialist/muslim/kenyan/wants to destroy the country/" yammering? Hysterical? Definitely, especially since Obama is to the right of Reagan.

It's all a matter of perspective.

lib50

But you don't understand...I'm a Christian, probably one of those dreaded evangelicals,and I'm also appalled at the forced sonograms....I'm totally against the attack on Planned Parenthood, and I believe that women have a right to contraceptives...we can be Christians and not have to be hanging off the extreme right. Please don't lump us all together....in fact as I remember Becky said she was pro choice....Becky if I'm wrong please correct me.

...I don't know what I would choose if I were in that situation, and fortunately I'm past that stage, and I would hope that I would choose abortion, but for any number of reasons and situations, I believe that decision lies in the hands of the person who is going to carry.

I meant to say, I would hope I wouldn't choose abortion.

....in fact as I remember Becky said she was pro choice

Yes, I am pro choice.

I am not against Christians at all. It has more to do with the church part - organized religions and some of their pushy members. I just don't like what is going on today with many churches and their people. I want spirituality, but I don't like the push to force all of us into whatever church dictates the hierarchy wants at any given moment. I've never had an abortion and never would have had one (barring some medical problem). My kids were gifts, and having lost one at 21, I know how precious they are and how important it is to treasure the moments you have. I don't see a moral problem with freedom of choice though. If I sounded like I was against all Christians I'm sorry. But I still think a certain (loud) segment of organized religions (mostly Christian) are waging a war on women. And it's always good to hear Christians that disagree with what is going on, I wish more would stand up and be counted.

Thanks for sharing that lib. The way I look at it is Christians are not demonstrating love by voting for abortions to be illegal. I am not all for women to go and get one because I care about her heart as well as the babies. I think it is a horrible decision to have to make and strongly sympathize with any woman who is in such a difficult position or is so lost that she's contemplating having one. I am pro woman. I think the personal consequence of the choice is monumental enough and she doesn't need to be paraded around the town paper about her conviction of unlawful abortion. So, I vote pro-choice. I understand how those who vote for it to be illegal think they're pro-woman thinking that's the way to "protect" women. Well, it's not the way to protect them. Where was the protection prior to her winding up on the abortion clinics doorstep? I'm not just talking about contraception......I'm talking about emotional abuse that cases some girls to have low self worth as well as boys and they don't know the difference between lust and love.

I wish more would stand up and be counted.

Me too!!!!! It gets lonely out here some times. hahaha That's tricky though because we're pacifists. We're getting louder though. :)

Sorry, Socrates, but I am concerned enough at the attempts to limit women to call it a war. That is how bad I think it is. I wouldn't have said that a few years ago, but things have changed and now it seems like our rights and freedoms are a little less safe and I refuse to let it degenerate further without a fight. If it sounds emotional that is because it IS, for many of us. I don't think you get it.

They say they're waging a war on murderers but they don't consider the position of the woman in that position and her lack of understanding of the act she's considering committing. Some understand but think it's a "wiser" or more "grown up" decision to make. Not make those who didn't get themselves pay for the mess they're responsible for without the knowledge that babies are not a mess. Ok....maybe a little messy. lol Some don't grieve or realize what they did until they have children later in life and then find out what it really was. Not only are all her hormones out of whack but she's absolutely terrified and pressures around some of them are telling her that abortion is a selfless choice. They're told that if they keep their baby that it would be selfish of her if she didn't plan for it. I'm not saying that's in every single case. Some women don't have any emotional trauma over having one but I honestly think that's because they don't fully understand it for what it is. We as Christians need to get rid of the "hate the sin and not the sinner" saying. We should love people through their shame regardless of where they are in their life. If they want and accept Gods love then He'll work on their heart and in every case I've seen, change them and clean them up himself. He doesn't need us making it harder for them to recover. I do not judge any woman who's ever had one or considered it. I KNOW how badly they're hurting and wish the "haters" of it being legal should contemplate another persons perspective before they decide where they're going to plant their feet.

Ok Socrates, but here is another one for you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/virginia-ultrasound-bill-senate-vote_n_1248080.html

http://dcist.com/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_measure_closer.php

It's clear these things don't mean much to you, but they do to women. What would YOU call these restrictions on womens ability to control their own bodies?

'o' is two keys to the right of 'u' accessible via the right 'ring finger'

This is not to mention the lying, the cheating and hypocracy blantnly practiced by a majority of Christiana

Your data for this, or is this just your supposition.

izzy...due to the misunderstanding of freewill and tolerance?

Sorry, Socrates that dog just will not hunt. You gotta do better than that! You can't hold people to a standard that Christians will not hold themselves accountable to.

Thanks BD for the heads up. I'm not that swift on the keyboard. Also it took me a moment to catch on to your commet.

Have a laugh on me. :-)

Izzy...what happened to taking the log out of your own eye?

Socratese My eyes are clear and my conscience clean. Now you address my comment #13 if you're not too blinded by your ideology and the utility poles in your eyes.

Your data for this, or is this just your supposition

rescue dogs, no amount of data will clear your vision or assuage your doubts and fears. But my data or supposition is simply based on every day exposure to Christians in the news in politics and mega preachers on TV. But mostly here on Newsvine, reading articles, seeds and comments by the self righteous who shall remain nameless.

Have a laugh on me. :-)

BD Styers, I need little to no incentive to laughter, so thanks for the tickle.

So this thread has come down to the Seeder, when unable to refute a position presented to turn to..what...talking about logs in the face??? Saying the other person is not even worthy of a response because he is blind...

Or is it you know you have been measured and found wanting?

I think it's closer to your first conclusion Dr. Hunk. lol

as I read the thread it turned into a "your blind" " no, your blind", "nu-uh, your blind...i'm telling mom".

At least that's how it played out in my head. =)

I don't think you're too far off on that assessment either! lol

Sometimes it's better to concede then to exhaust yourself trying to swim up river. hehehe

Interesting, so how do explain the failure of Cristian teachings? What with about 80% of the population in America self identifying as Christian, I wager that the majority of atiests were raised Christian. I also posit that with America's prisons holding the highest population in the world and the majority self identify as Christian. with the crime rate in America among the highest in the world, from petty thieves to religious TV charlatan preachers to pedophiles drug dealers and terrorists, how do you reconcile that with Christian teaching and child rearing? This is not to mention the lying, the cheating and hypocracy blantnly practiced by a majority of Christian

Soc, I will try.

The facts mentioned above are quite simple to analyze. The christian teachings do not fail, they just don't pertain to certain individuals, dependent of where they are in life, mentally and economically.

Take your parents for example, every teenager rebels at some point against their parents teachings, does that mean your parents failed...no it just means you are not ready to accept those teachings as truths yet. It is not until later in life, for most around 26, that you understand what your parents were trying to teach you and then you embrace all hat you learned.

The prisons hold more than another country because America larger than any other country. If you want to compare try using just Texas, it is about the size of France and England combined alone. (I say about because I'm to lazy to look it up). Why so many convert to Christianity while in prison is also an easy one. Those that convert do so for 2 main reasons. 1. Acceptance, there are a lot of pressures in church to be accepted by the masses, it is a eat or be eaten sub society, those that do not openly show conviction for Christianity are ostracized and singled out.

2. Forgiveness, some people are so stricken with guilt that they have no other recourse but to find something or someone who will listen to them and forgive them so they can begin forgiving themselves. This is what is called hitting the bottom and the only way out for most is to look up to god for the inner strength, a crutch if you will.

The rest of the post speaks to those that have secretly made a pack with the devil to steal the souls of the innocent by feeding them misinformation and disguising their true intentions. There payment is a kingdom on earth, which is why they receive millions of dollars. The price they ay in death will be 100 times that in pain and suffering.

How i do Soc, that was a fast first run at it. =)

meant to say prison not church in reason 1. for prison conversions.

DRHunk

I'll respond to just one small point, actually two.

those that do not openly show conviction for Christianity are ostracized and singled out.

Those in prison who accept Christ pay a terrible price in prison

As I mentioned before most that 80% identify themselves as Christian to differentiate from being Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. How many of those actually attend church, read their Bible, pray (except at football games)...? you will find the number drop drastically.

.

I think we are trying to say the same thing, a lot of the 80% are claiming Christianity in prison out of fear, those people will never become true Christians. Others seek it out of despair, a majority of those people will go on to claim to be true Christians while still performing the sinful or immoral acts that got them to prison in the first place.

People in prison who claim Christianity indeed do not pay a terrible price, they are in the majority and those who claim a differing religion are often targeted for assault.

People in prison who claim Christianity indeed do not pay a terrible price

I disagree. My Dad was in prison ministries, and did Bible studies with some for more than 15 years in maximum security facilities all across California. I won't bore you with the details of his memorial service, but I've been blessed to be able to continue Bible studies with several, and most are not "admired" for their faith.

equality, women's rights and the concern for all humanity

On the contrary, lost. Religion has set back and continues to set back progress especially in the sciences. Just look at the debate raging now over women's rights, religion in schools and issues that should have been resolved years ago but were not because of obstinacy on the part of religion.

I think we as a species have progressed DESPITE religion- all of them in every society.

I could almost agree with #14.2 except that blaming the institution deflects from the real problem which is the people running that institution. Religion is the precursor to science in that through it we attempted to explain mysterious phenomenon. Science produced the control.

14.3 Science produces the empirical data which all to often is promptly rejected by religion (the Pope, pastors, the priests- who ever. They in turn influence the congregations who follow suit. It is a closed door system with no room for expansion of ideas.

Science collects data just as historians secular and non.

closed door system with no room for expansion of ideas.

Scientists may be just as guilty of same.

I agree that some of the arguments "newsblogs" make are valid. But it still does not explain why people believe that we have progressed in spite of religion. One of the main tenets of Christianity is that all people are equal, please name the nation or nations that have progressed more than the United States without Christianity.

Christianity is that all people are equal,

Actually Lost, that is a tenant of the Constitution of the United States. Read the preamble. Where does Jesus or the Bible say that all men are created equal?

Was it not the Church who held back Galileo. Is it not religion (including Islam) that holds back science i.e. Darwin's theories????? It is NONE but religion that does that.

I mean the Dec. of Independence.

Get off the high horse, your arrogance isn't helping your cause.

The arrogance of that statement is positively stunning in it's absurdity.

Your whole article is one long hate-fest for people who don't believe what you do

But I'm not really surprised by that in the least since your article and many of the comments by your fellow "Christians" on here are a perfect example of the hateful, contemptuous, arrogant, condescending and completely lacking in any kind of insight or empathy attitude I've come to expect from Christian

The love, kindness and empathy you display in your despising of all who are different from you REALLY makes me want to convert!

Do you think you are representing anything attractive? I've read the board several times, and I don't see a hate fest from anyone who professes to be a Christian. Perhaps you might read it again.

Wow, Christians are the "hosts" of atheists? The arrogance of that statement is positively stunning in it's absurdity. "Hosts????" REALLY? Unfreakingbelievable! Christians are not the HOSTS of anyone in this country!! We are NOT, and never have been in any way, shape or form, a Christian nation. And you all shrilling shouting it in our faces over and over again that we will never make it so! You just continue to demonstrate your ignorance of our history and our constitution as well as out current circumstances by continuing to claim that we are.

Wow, didn't see that coming. Actually the founders were for the most part Christians.

Sorry, but they are NOT our hosts. And they never will be. Saying they are our hosts implies that we are guests, not citizens, and that they could rightfully ask us to leave at any time. I am a citizen and NO ONE is my host here! ( And no, the founders for the most part were NOT Christian. They were Deist, which is very different. And even if they were it wouldn't make the NATION Christian! They specifically didn't want a theocratic nation, and for very good reason.) And they have in the last 10 years or so been anything BUT gracious. As for me, my house is in order. Atheists do not have to follow Christian rules--only Christians have to follow Christian rules! I have my own code of morality that I follow. That being said, I'm not attacking them. I'm saying what I observe, which is the monumental hypocrisy that seems to abound. I used to be a Christian so I know fairly well how they think. (I have to say I'm generally a much nicer, kinder, happier and more peaceful person since I stopped being a Christian than I ever was when I was one!) And I know the Bible quite well--better than most modern Christians judging by the crap they say about what God wants. I don't have a problem with them believing whatever they believe, but the attempt to turn us into a the United Christians of Armageddon has to stop. And believe me, that IS what most of them want, no matter what they say. I have many Christian friends from my past and from school (I attended a Christian college.) I respect them and what they believe as long as their beliefs end at their doorstep and they stop trying to bring it to mine.

When I was young Christians didn't involve themselves in politics. There were no megachurches or rockstar pastors. And Christianity was a lot more about love and being a good person than it was about hating everyone and trying to take over the world or the "gospel of prosperity" which is a complete joke. Jesus would be kicking most of these people out of the temple all over again. I don't know what happened to them to make them so hateful and utterly without insight as to how they appear to nonbelievers. And frankly I don't have the energy to care. I just find it sad that something that could be force for good has become such a force for evil in the world and that so many Christians are so hateful and horrible. You used to try to convert someone by being kind and loving and therefore making people want to know what it is that makes you that way so that they would want to follow Christ too. I'm sure there are some Christians who are like that, but I find fault with them because they are silent and they are letting the nasty, hateful ones represent them without speaking out. Now it's all about force and "you'll burn in hell for that!" Small wonder that Christianity,and religion in general, is dying a slow death. And given the things that these people are doing in the world right now, I don't think it's a bad thing.

I'd have a lot more respect for Christianity if the one's who demonstrate the true spirit of Christ were the ones speaking out against their brethren who want to kill homosexuals and take away all birth control or deny basic science, etc. But they don't speak out. And as Edmund Burke said, all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Saying they are our hosts implies that we are guests, not citizens, and that they could rightfully ask us to leave at any time. I am a citizen and NO ONE is my host here!

That's not what I meant. We have a government philosophy that is very tolerant of all religious perspectives. Contrasted with a government of intolerance, I think the term host is appropriate albeit when I first read it I experienced a similar reaction as yours. Socrates' writing is very subtle.

Yes, rescue, I think you prove my point about not being ABLE to see the hate. So many statements on here show a complete lack of any insight as to how you (and I mean the collective you, not rescue dog in particular) sound. I know very well that I sound angry, because at this point in time I am angry. You'll pardon me if I don't take kindly to people demeaning and dismissing an entire group of people whom you don't even know while at the same time screaming about that same group of people demeaning you. Ah, you've got to love the smell of hypocrisy in the afternoon. (Notice that I didn't lump ALL Christians together--I still recognize that there are some good, albeit way too quiet, Christians out there. I know that there are some kind, caring Christians. Too bad you can't seem to give atheists the same courtesy of not generalizing that they are all horrible people.) Do you all know how you sound? Because I can tell you how you DON'T sound: filled with the Holy Spirit and filled with love. Let's just take even one of the statements from the article shall we?

If one takes away all that is good in Christian doctrine one might begin to understand the misguided and seriously demented world view of these "new" atheists.

And here's yet another:

They are dogmatic, closed minded, disingenuous, biased, and mean spirited. They purport to be intellectuals, but barely make it to the level of pseudo-intellectuals.

But no, none of that is hateful, right? But I'll tell you what, I'd STILL rather be called all of those things than be called what passes for a modern Christian! And I'm not even an atheist. Oh, and I don't really care about representing something "attractive." Nor do I care what anyone "abhors" either. I'd rather have something true. What most Christians don't get is that you have ZERO proof for your beliefs and yet you want the whole country to live by your rules. Now THAT'S truly unattractive. No one wants to stop you from believing what you believe--but please just do it in your own space and stay out of mine. Sorry, but there'll be no killing or homosexuals or denying women basic rights or any of that today.

I'm leaving now as I have lots of other things to do, but please feel free to continue with your loving, Christian attitude of tearing me down and defaming an entire group of people (whom you don't know) while screaming about how atheists defame Christians. Yeah, that will work. No one ever said you had to make sense, correct?

Socrates' writing is very subtle.

No BD. it is not subtle it is provocative, and aggressive. When someone responds to the aggression he turns the tables. His writing does the very thing that he complains about. It is a double standard that he is operating under.

Thank you news. I couldn't have said it better!

Provocative yes, aggressive? Perhaps not. Subject to misinterpretation, definitely. Just examine the title:

Why I Defend Christians

One might interpret this to mean Christianity. It is a huge difference between the institution and those who might compose the institution.

For me provocative is the key word.

Provocative means to provoke. Socrates is provoking which is just what he is so aggrieved about when others do it.

Yes provocation is not negative. We have an excellent discussion in progress as a result of it. To this point, I see emphatic statements of valid perspective and analysis on multifaceted perspective. Of course the credit belongs not only to the author but those who are willing to participate. I find this discussion very stimulating, and I don't 'hate the messenger'.

Provoking with the intent to insult and anger is negative. Why do you defend Socrates? Is it because he lacks debating and reasoning skills? He obviously can not converse with out getting defensive.

Not defending, I actually have my own point of view. I'm not 'taking sides'.

See #19, not my comment, but I would tend to agree.

Or of most of the Replican candidates who profess to be such good Christians, for that matter.

cognitive dissonance

Excellent point! Holding conflicting concepts is difficult at best.

Only if you wish to continue to exhibit an inability to grasp the facts.

I would have totally agreed with your statement if you would had only changed one little word. Change the word "facts" with "faith".

grasp the "facts."

Oh yes, christianity has facts by the buttload...

Yep, you can obviously see right through me. Your delusions are must stronger than anything my medulla oblongata can counter against. So, you have the floor, sir. Good day.

Thanks for all you said Rescue Dog :)

I have grown so much since I wrote the article "Why I Am A Christian". I can't believe I wrote it almost two years ago! I had more issues with acceptance of others when I wrote it then I realized. I followed my heart, looked for love and have you seen where that thread has gone?!?!? God has really opened my eyes and I can't help but feel I wouldn't be true to myself and doing wrong if I kept quiet. I KNOW He's changed my heart for the better. I hope and pray the same has happened for those who have read it. It's STILL growing! Peace :)

Although your premise is a good one, all I see is that non Christians took your article to have been written by a Christian which just fed the flames of their ire. Perhaps that's what you were after to demonstrate your point, but I read it with sadness, because it just stokes an ever increasing flame. We are definitely a minority on the Vine. I actually am a moderate, social liberal, as is cowboygrampa and we've both spoken out against the hypocrisy of those who espouse Christianity but adopt platforms of the right that are contrary to anything Jesus would have supported.

The atmosphere on Newsvine has deteriorated badly over the past one to two years. There are 'new' people who bring with them a commitment to aggressive, rude atheism and the energy to write articles and post seeds on the topic every day. It is connected with the perception that politics is over influenced by religion, for which there really is no proof. The atheists confuse the constitutional right of religious people to profess their beliefs with a budding 'theocracy'. They are seriously ignorant, and their aggressiveness with their ignorance is causing big problems.

Gifflenet,

It is connected with the perception that politics is over influenced by religion

I would again have to respectfully disagree with you...or perhaps I should say that I think politics has been influenced by the "guise" of religion., and I'm saying this as a Christian.

A large portion of the platform, and that the candidates are running on "vote for me because I'm a Christian....I stand for Christian values" when in actuality many of the "values" of the platform are not Christ-like, and Jesus would stand against them.

Much of their rhetoric is to pander to a certain portion of the population to garner votes, when the emotionally laden issues which are brought up every single election season which are gays, guns and abortion, are not the ones that are actually dealt with, or need to be dealt with in my humble opinion.

We need jobs, healthcare, food for the children who are born....I realize I'm probably stepping on your toes.....and Christians need to stop worshiping at the altar of the almighty dollar.

I apologize, Socrates, this is not a political board, I derailed, and you can delete me if you wish.

You see many of these new atheists who predicate much of their opposition to religion based on opposition to "religious expression". In other words, as long as Christians or other believers keep their mouths shut outside of the confines of the church or their homes, everything will be fine. They want a complete secularist immersion for society, but no religious influence. This is pure and simple prejudice. A religious viewpoint is no less valuable or deserving of the right to be heard than a secular one is, no matter how hard the atheists try to convince otherwise. They do not understand democracy or our governmental system.

I don't approve of much of what right wing religionists say, but they have every right to make their case in public and in a political context.

they have every right to make their case in public and in a political context.

Yup, and so does everyone else who doesn't support their position, including non-believers.

And if the government allows Christian prayers to open Congress, or Christian biblical writings to hang in public house hallways than it should also allow Hindu prayer, or Muslim Prayer, or Wiccan prayer or Hopi prayer, or Universal Unitarian prayer or whatever other prayer and/or sacred writings to be displayed as well.

Ya think the fundamentalists who think this is a Christian nation would stand for that?

Why - what?

Ya lost me. What is it you are trying to say?

We are all here and its the same difference?

If that is the case then you have no argument and nothing to defend at all.

the theory behind the formation of this country was that we all believe in basically the same thing,

Um, where are you pulling this from? There was big time debate and dissent in the founding of this nation among the framers, leaving divides that were never settled and that lead to civil war. Divides that still exist today.

By the same token, I have found that it is often impossible to engage in discussion without having to read long quotes from the bible, which some Christians seem to think is a legitimate response in a discussion.

Give it time.
You can go to any discussion of religion and find plenty.

What is wrong with Flying Spaghetti monsters, Santa Clause, Easter Bunnies, Tooth Fairies? Is there not as much to discuss about those mythical beings as there is the God of Christianity?

What about Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite. Were they too at one point considered to exist? What happened to them?

If you are to discuss the existence of one mystical being you should be able to discuss them all.

P.S. I still believe in Santa Clause, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. I am guessing my belief in them comes from the same place Christianities belief in "their" god comes from.

DRHunk

Well if I were to ridicule you because you believe In Santa Claus would there be a positive result? Seems to me the only positive result is entertainment for the ridiculer.

Santa Clause, as God, exists in the hearts and minds of those that wish to continue the basic principles in which they represent.

So not to much to ridicule, just as you cannot ridicule someone for believing in god, but you do get ridiculed if you try to convince you such a being exists in reality.

DRHunk

Is ridicule productive?

ridicule can be a very effective medium to get ones point across.

John Stewart or Stephen Colbert as an example. They ridicule those that they deem are deserving, and are very effective in doing so and hence makes pushing their agenda very effective.

DRHunk

Would you employ ridicule (rather than discussion) to dissuade a viner from a personal position?

ridicule can be a very effective medium to get ones point across.

No, ridicule breeds contempt and retaliation. You can point out irony and use satire (as do Colbert and Stewart), but ridicule is just mean spirited bashing and has no productive merits.

Ok, Fla Pat. Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Ann Coulter..all the Talk radio hosts. Do they Ridicule? Is it not effective to some degree?

The question of effectiveness is defiantly a yes, productive, depends on the audience but yes it can also be productive. Moral and just, no defiantly not, there are better ways to communicate that may be more effective and productive, but ridicule is an avenue some take and have had success with it.

DR Hunk

My questions to you have all been in the context of interpersonal communication - especially the scenario of two viners in discourse.

Ridicule is great entertainment (very commonly used in comedy) and it is indeed a great way to rally those against a mutual opponent (or enemy). However, ridicule does not generally persuade someone to move to the ridiculer's point of view.

In my opinion, when someone on the vine ridicules someone else, they are generally not attempting to engage in thoughtful discourse but rather are simply entertaining themselves.

I assume you agree with that, but if not please advise.

I do agree, I do not think using ridicule in interpersonal communication is value added.

I am not sure how we got on the subject, unless you think by me saying i still believe in Santa Clause (or the spirit in which Santa Clause operates) I was trying to ridicule someone.

I am not sure how we got on the subject, unless you think by me saying i still believe in Santa Clause (or the spirit in which Santa Clause operates) I was trying to ridicule someone.

Well.....yeah....that's some of it. It's also saying that we haven't looked very deep in order to be believers as adults. If you haven't noticed.......I've really studied the Bible and I am a grown up that is not blind to the world. I fit the Bible with people of today. We're not all that shallow and it's hard not to take those kind of comments personally because it's also saying that believers aren't very bright. It's not very hard for someone to figure out who is behind Santa.........Macy's. lol