Login Register Sign up for the GRM e-newsletter

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » 101 Atheist Quotes « 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »
  • Toyman01

    Feb. 16, 2009 3:00 p.m. Toyman01 New Reader

    To add to my last post:

    If you live only by the Old Testament, when you die you will be Judged by the Old Testament and you will probably go to Hell.

    If you live trying to follow the Old Testament teachings and the New Testament teachings, and accept Jesus as your personal Savior, your sins(I have a lot of them) are forgiven, and you go to heaven.

    I choose the latter. To be Christian is to choose the latter. To do any other is to not be Christian. It is not my place to be the judge of any man.

    If you chose to be atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, what ever, I accept that. If you ask me about being Christian, I am supposed to try to teach you what it is about. I am not supposed to try to force it down you throat because it it "right"

    You guys asked so here are my "teachings"

  • Jensenman

    Feb. 16, 2009 3:17 p.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

    That's great. No sarcasm or kidding from me at all. I just wish more people were like that.

    Now if I could just teach YOU how to drive...

  • Feb. 16, 2009 3:17 p.m. SVreX UberDork

    Duke wrote:

    The New Testament and the Old Testament are packaged together in one book that says "Holy Bible" on the cover. If you want to cherrypick your parts, then you should reject everything in the Old Testament.

    Which is not commonly done among Christians that I have met.

    I wouldn't suggest anyone cherry pick any part.

    Take the whole thing as a whole. But then you'll need to be careful when you take those "abomination" verses out of context and exclude the "grace" and "savior of the world" parts.

  • Feb. 16, 2009 3:45 p.m. SVreX UberDork

    aircooled wrote:

    To summarize:

    To a non-Christian, there is no real way for anyone to say a "moderate" Christian is more Christian than a "wacko" Christian. And realistically, no way for a Christian to do that either.

    Why? The same reason you cannot argue religious and non-religious (or one religion to another), faith! In any faith based system, there is no way to PROVE anything, that's the whole point. You might say there is the bible, yes, but even main stream Christianity has declared many exceptions to what it says (e.g. Old Testament stuff), so even that cannot be held as "canon".

    I am hoping that I would never be identified as a "moderate Christian". I'd much rather be a "wacko Christian".

    But Phelps was a wacko, and not a Christian.

    The word "Christian" means "Christ one". So defining a Christian has something to do with Christ, and the life and person of Christ is described in the Bible.

    Calling myself a peanut butter sandwich does not make me one.

    I am a Christian because it is defined in the Bible, and I choose to follow. I'm not arguing with anyone. But Mr. Phelps was an imposter, and I don't mind telling you that.

    Just as you may know what a real racer is, or a real mechanic, a real Christian certainly can be defined. He is defined by Christ. When someone lives waaay outside of the boundaries defined by Christ and sells evil as Christianity, claiming to be a Christain will not make him one.

    Anyone who judges all Christians and all Christianity by the standard set by an imposter is being judgemental (that is a general statement, not directed at you, aircooled).

    I would invite anyone to check out the real thing, instead of lumping all Christians together with a wacko.

    And I am not making any exceptions to Scripture. I am taking it as a whole, and the whole (including the risen Messiah part) suggests that there is now a better way to live than stoning people. That doesn't change what is right and what is wrong, it simply means that the price for wrongdoings has already been paid.

  • Toyman01

    Feb. 16, 2009 3:59 p.m. Toyman01 New Reader

    Jensenman wrote:

    That's great. No sarcasm or kidding from me at all. I just wish more people were like that.

    Now if I could just teach YOU how to drive...

    Good luck with that. I am trying to paint the RX7 orange one cone at a time.

    I haven't quite figured out how to get the roof yet...

  • aircooled

    Feb. 16, 2009 4:16 p.m. aircooled Dork

    SVreX wrote: ...I am hoping that I would never be identified as a "moderate Christian". I'd much rather be a "wacko Christian".

    But Phelps was a wacko, and not a Christian.

    The word "Christian" means "Christ one". So defining a Christian has something to do with Christ, and the life and person of Christ is described in the Bible...

    I completely see your point, but I still see it as silly for someone to define themselves as a "better" or "more proper" form of any religion. For two reasons:

    One, as mentioned, is the fundamental basis of most religions, faith. I do not believe you can criticize someone esles faith anymore than someone can criticize yours.

    Two, change. Religions evolve. Christianity has changed (and morphed) a LOT. An obvious example would be some of the horrible things that were condoned by it's leaders. It is difficult to criticize a change as "wrong" since that seems to be the natural state (of Christianity that is).

    Obviously with a very rigidly defined faith, you could point out that one is running outside the boundaries (you still cannot criticize them for their faith though). But I think it is reasonable to say Christianity has many many widely varied forms which would be considered "traditional" or "normal", so saying one is wrong and another is right seems unreasonable.

  • Jensenman

    Feb. 16, 2009 4:21 p.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

    Toyman01 wrote:

    Jensenman wrote:

    That's great. No sarcasm or kidding from me at all. I just wish more people were like that.

    Now if I could just teach YOU how to drive...

    Good luck with that. I am trying to paint the RX7 orange one cone at a time.

    I haven't quite figured out how to get the roof yet...

    Um, don't wanna be around for that.

  • aircooled

    Feb. 16, 2009 4:22 p.m. aircooled Dork

    I would like to ask a question of those "in the know":

    Taking Gods name in vain: It was stated that using Gods name in the form of praise "thank god" or pleasure "ohh god" is OK. If that is so, why is it that Mormons like to use "oh my heck", is it not OK in the form of surprise?

    Besides, isn't Gods "name" Jehovah? (or is it Yarway?) Always figured the Jehovahs witnesses were in a constant state of pissing off the more "traditional" Christians.

  • Duke

    Feb. 16, 2009 4:25 p.m. Duke Dork

    SVreX wrote:

    I wouldn't suggest anyone cherry pick any part.

    Take the whole thing as a whole. But then you'll need to be careful when you take those "abomination" verses out of context and exclude the "grace" and "savior of the world" parts.

    But you can only receive grace by not performing the abominations any more. How is that something I've left out?

    I have no argument that it is possible to be forgiven for your sins if you repent them. If you truly forsake the sin and accept Jesus, He will save you. That's pretty standard fare and I understand it, even if I don't believe it.

    The issue I have is what is defined as "sin". I've got a problem with requiring forgiveness for homosexuality. I can't agree with requiring someone to give up that part of their personal life in order to receive "grace". That doesn't seem like a lot of depth of forgiveness to me, because it isn't something that should need to be forgiven in the first place..

  • Toyman01

    Feb. 16, 2009 5:40 p.m. Toyman01 New Reader

    Can a Christian be gay? Yes

    Will he go to Hell for being gay? No, he is forgiven for his sins by Christ.

    Is a non Christian being gay sinful. Yes

    Will he go to Hell? In my religion, yes, but not for being gay.

    What I think about being gay is irrelevant. The Bible says being gay is sinful.

    Do I condemn gay people? No. I have lived next door to a gay couple for 22 years and I can honestly say I love them like uncles. They are both in their 60s. They are great guys. I would help them in any way I could. If they were being persecuted I would come to their defense.

    Do I think they are living in sin? Yes. But it isn't my business what they do in their private lives. Nor is it my business to tell them the are damned for eternity because they are gay. Personally I think they will make it to heaven because they are GOOD people. I think Good and Bad are more important than Christian and non Christian. I would rather be friends with a Good atheist that a Bad Christian.

    A man that goes around telling every one they are going to hell because they aren't Christians, is a hypocrite. That is self righteous, not to mention, annoying. The self righteous man is a sinful man. He should first look to correcting his own sin before telling another man he is sinful.

  • aircooled

    Feb. 16, 2009 6:23 p.m. aircooled Dork

    Toyman01 wrote: Do I condemn gay people? No.

    Curious. Do you think they should be allowed to me married?

    And no, civil union is not an answer, it clearly is not the same thing (legally). We are talking legal rights here, not spiritual.

  • Toyman01

    Feb. 16, 2009 6:36 p.m. Toyman01 New Reader

    In a Christian church? No. The church should not condone any sinful behavior.

    As far as the government? They have no business even entering into the question. Anything relating to your private life is just that, private. If you want to marry a man or a horse, that is your business. Not mine, and certainly not the government. The way the legal system treats a gay couple is ridiculous. Telling a man that he can't legally be listed as his partners significant other with all the legal rights that go along with that is just some peoples way of pressing their morals on someone else. I would not want you or anyone else forcing me to live by their morals, I therefor will not force mine on you.

  • rebelgtp

    Feb. 16, 2009 7:02 p.m. rebelgtp HalfDork

    jamscal wrote:

    BTW, most of you are going to hell.

    I already figured that after what happened in that church that time....

  • alex

    Feb. 16, 2009 8:08 p.m. alex Reader

    After reading the list, and before I go through the thread, one thing to add that I find interesting for a literary and philosophical standpoint. From Randy Newman's Faust, a 'rock musical' which is loosely based on Goethe's poem of the same name, this line is spoken (sung, actually) by the Devil, directed to God:

    'Some fools in the desert with nothing else to do, so scared of the dark they didn't know if they were coming or going; they invented me and they invented you, and other fools will keep it all going, and growing. We're a figment of their imagination.'

    Brilliant album, for a variety of non-theological reasons, as well. Great cast (James Taylor, Bonnie Raitt, Linda Ronstadt, Elton John, Don Henley), great writing.

  • geomiata

    Feb. 16, 2009 8:23 p.m. geomiata Reader

    Toyman01 wrote:

    Can a Christian be gay? Yes

    Will he go to Hell for being gay? No, he is forgiven for his sins by Christ.

    Is a non Christian being gay sinful. Yes

    Will he go to Hell? In my religion, yes, but not for being gay.

    What I think about being gay is irrelevant. The Bible says being gay is sinful.

    Do I condemn gay people? No. I have lived next door to a gay couple for 22 years and I can honestly say I love them like uncles. They are both in their 60s. They are great guys. I would help them in any way I could. If they were being persecuted I would come to their defense.

    Do I think they are living in sin? Yes. But it isn't my business what they do in their private lives. Nor is it my business to tell them the are damned for eternity because they are gay. Personally I think they will make it to heaven because they are GOOD people. I think Good and Bad are more important than Christian and non Christian. I would rather be friends with a Good atheist that a Bad Christian.

    A man that goes around telling every one they are going to hell because they aren't Christians, is a hypocrite. That is self righteous, not to mention, annoying. The self righteous man is a sinful man. He should first look to correcting his own sin before telling another man he is sinful.

    +1

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 16, 2009 10:49 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    SVreX wrote:

    friedgreencorrado wrote:

    I think the problem starts when others less tolerant than yourself convince themselves that their own `representation in the eternal' depends upon forcing others to live according to the tenents of their faith. At the least, it leads to the waste of public resources (i.e., President Bush's "faith-based" gov't handout program), and at it's harshest, it leads to the denial of civil liberties and human rights (the censorship and reduced freedom of women in the Islamic world).

    Will it be a lesser waste of public resources, now that President Obama has renamed it to the "White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" with the stated intent "to expand the role of this office as it relates to policy issues where religious and local leaders can be effective"?

    No, it will not. And I will continue to voice my opposition to it through the avenues avalible to me as a citizen.

    SVreX wrote:

    Seems like Bush is not the only one at fault here.

    Agreed.

    Although I must admit, I do have a great suspicion that Bush actually believed the program would work, while Obama just uses it to placate the vast (compared to other Western nations) numbers of the superstitious people who live (and vote ) in our nation.

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 16, 2009 11:00 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    John Brown wrote:

    A Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Chinese traditionalist, Buddhist, African traditionalist, Sikhist, Juchist, Spiritist, Jew, Baha'ist (?), Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zoroastrianist, Tenrikyon, Paganist, Unitarian, Rastafarian and Scientologist walk into a repair facility... The guy working at the couter screams "Praise GRIP!"

    A priest, a rabbi, and an imam walk into a bar. The bartender says, "..what is this? A joke?"

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 16, 2009 11:22 p.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    Salanis wrote:

    Jensenman wrote:

    If expecting people to be responsible for their own lives ain't the foundation of conservatism, I'm damned if I know what is.

    Which makes it ironic, that atheism and secularism get associated with the political "left" but the people who supposedly follow the teachings of a guy who was all about "love your neighbor" tend to gravitate to the political "right".

    Agreed. That's why I think one of the pieces of genius contained within the US Constitution is not only the protection from governmental interference into religious matters, but also the protection from religious interference into governmental matters. In my opinion, if "church" and "state" were indeed successfully separated in this country, a conversation like this one (where people fight over the legacies left behind by ancient philosophers for secular political purposes) would not exist.

    friedgreencorrado wrote:

    Strangely enough, I actually support some of the things the gun lobby is trying to do, even though I believe the historical evidence says the very existence of Jesus may not be a foregone conclusion. IMO, it's not much of a jump from "..you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer.." to "..you don't need 300hp to get to work..".

    Salanis wrote: My statement about Jesus not being an NRA member was not to say that I disagree with the gun lobby. Just because I think Jesus was more "liberal", doesn't mean I think conservatives are bad. And no, you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer. You need an AK-47 to oppose a government that becomes tyrannical.

    I wasn't trying to be so philosophical about gun ownership in my reference to assault rifles. I simply meant that on one level, they are interesting examples of human engineering and ability, and that many people find them fascinating simply because of that. Much like ourselves with our high-performance cars, people who hold that fascination should not have to discard it, as long as they are responsible owners of those devices.

    Salanis wrote: And for my part, I view Jesus much like I view the Buddha: a historical figure who was a spiritually enlightened leader.

    I now realize my comment about Jesus was entirely irrelevant to the discussion. My apologies.

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 17, 2009 12:01 a.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    aircooled wrote:

    SVreX wrote: ...I am hoping that I would never be identified as a "moderate Christian". I'd much rather be a "wacko Christian".

    But Phelps was a wacko, and not a Christian.

    The word "Christian" means "Christ one". So defining a Christian has something to do with Christ, and the life and person of Christ is described in the Bible...

    I completely see your point, but I still see it as silly for someone to define themselves as a "better" or "more proper" form of any religion. For two reasons:

    One, as mentioned, is the fundamental basis of most religions, faith. I do not believe you can criticize someone esles faith anymore than someone can criticize yours.

    Two, change. Religions evolve. Christianity has changed (and morphed) a LOT. An obvious example would be some of the horrible things that were condoned by it's leaders. It is difficult to criticize a change as "wrong" since that seems to be the natural state (of Christianity that is).

    Obviously with a very rigidly defined faith, you could point out that one is running outside the boundaries (you still cannot criticize them for their faith though). But I think it is reasonable to say Christianity has many many widely varied forms which would be considered "traditional" or "normal", so saying one is wrong and another is right seems unreasonable.

    Well said. The only thing I would add is that those of us who do not adhere to any religion have a very difficult time determining how or why the members of a religion decide to segregate themselves from each other. Before his dementia, the English philosopher Anthony Flew described our dilemma with his "No True Scotsman" argument:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

    Although we who are not members of any religion can see as a practical matter which sects of a religion are benign or harmful to society (based upon their behavior, of course), often we are confused by the internal struggles within your religions. As an example, consider the confusion within the Islamic community after the Nov. 11 2001 attack on New York and Washington DC. These "No Real Scotsman" accusations are made not only by the peaceful adherants to that religion towards the violent members, but have also been made by the violent members towards the peaceful ones!

    To someone who is indifferent to either camp, their disagreement is often seen as an obstacle to finding a solution to the secular reasons for their anger. They "can't see the forest for the trees", as it were.

    When reading my example, please try to understand that people who do not believe in any "supernatural" explanation of humanity's ills probably do not see much of a difference between Christianity and Islam (other than the aforementioned concern about the level of violence the fundamentalists create within society).

  • rebelgtp

    Feb. 17, 2009 12:08 a.m. rebelgtp HalfDork

    Considering some have changed this into a christian/gay thread.

    Obviously even if it is a sin all those priests that like to touch little boys have a loop hole they must be exploiting cause I doubt many of them are worried about going to hell while teaching little Timmy to kneel.

    Personally I think so many religious people are such hypocrites its disgusting. Go on out "sin" all week and MAYBE go to church for an hour on Sunday. If not no worries I'll just say I'm sorry just before I kick the bucket. The problem with having a belief in sin, yet being able to get all those sins forgiven is there is no accountability.

    Many of the best people I know are not christian or catholic or any other denomination related to either. Funny thing is they seem to be by far the most moral of people I know. Most are pagans, by a "christians" belief they would go to hell because of that, yet they are better people then those that would condemn then.

  • friedgreencorrado

    Feb. 17, 2009 12:51 a.m. friedgreencorrado Reader

    rebelgtp wrote:

    Considering some have changed this into a christian/gay thread.

    Obviously even if it is a sin all those priests that like to touch little boys have a loop hole they must be exploiting cause I doubt many of them are worried about going to hell while teaching little Timmy to kneel.

    Personally I think so many religious people are such hypocrites its disgusting. Go on out "sin" all week and MAYBE go to church for an hour on Sunday. If not no worries I'll just say I'm sorry just before I kick the bucket. The problem with having a belief in sin, yet being able to get all those sins forgiven is there is no accountability.

    Many of the best people I know are not christian or catholic or any other denomination related to either. Funny thing is they seem to be by far the most moral of people I know. Most are pagans, by a "christians" belief they would go to hell because of that, yet they are better people then those that would condemn then.

    Dude, I agree with a lot of what you say, but please don't be so rude about the way you say it. I'm not trying to deny your freedom of speech, I just don't want to see the thread locked.

    1.) Most child molesters are actually heterosexual. Perhaps because there are more of us in the population than there are homosexuals.

    The whole Catholic molestation thing is a public (media?) misrepresentation of the problem. The only reason it's become such a social icon is because the church tried to protect those criminals by moving them from place to place, rather than help the local authorities prosecute them. Oh, and it also appeals to the ancient, insipid stereotype that homosexuals are more prone to molestation than heterosexuals are. And honestly, who knows? Repressed sexuality takes many different forms, regardless of sexual orientation. In Western societies, homosexuals are repressed much more than the rest of us.

    2.) I grew up in a Southern Baptist home. I'm well aware that many of those Christians only go to church to show off their new clothes, or their new cars, or to absolve their guilt about drinking too much or having sex with the neighbor/maid/groundskeeper/etc. But focusing upon that point is pretty much irrelevant to the larger issues being discussed.

    3.) Also, you're right about the increasing number of people in our country who are discarding traditional religions for other expressions of "spirituality". For reasons I can't comprehend, many of the "traditional" religious types consider that a threat as well.

    Most theists are just like us..trying to get through life the best way they can. Unfortunately, here in the US, theism is still a very important part of their lives, and they're having a really tough time understanding that those of us who don't share their beliefs are not much different than themselves.

    Please don't `go for the throat' while it's still possible to get them to listen...

  • Wally

    Feb. 17, 2009 5:44 a.m. Wally UltraDork

    SVreX wrote:

    Salanis wrote:

    I'm suggesting the Conservatives are more inclined towards an ideology of individuals taking care of themselves, rather than focusing on the community. They are inclined to be more interested in commerce and business than social welfare. I'd say they're more inclined to seek justice over forgiveness.

    I would say that Republicans are more inclined to be judgemental of non-"traditional" lifestyles.

    I am pretty sure that Jesus would not be an NRA member.

    OK, I can agree with most of that, but it might be possible that there is another side.

    Perhaps Conservatives are very caring about community, but very fed up with individuals taking advantage of the system for their personal gain, lazy selfishness, and the detriment of the community at large. Perhaps they would rather encourage and promote individual and community successes than make everyone wards of State. Perhaps they would rather give people a hand up rather than make them dependent on an ever-increasing and controlling State run hand-out system. Perhaps they are defenders of the weak, and protective of victims instead of wishy-washy on crime.

    Perhaps Republicans identify certain lifestyles to be harmful to the community at large, and would rather encourage better choices.

    I think you are right on the NRA, though I don't picture Jesus suggesting it would be a good idea for people to fall in neat little lines behind a government or leader who promotes a worldly view instead of an eternal view.

    So, that's where you stand on Conservatives and Republicans. Where do you stand on Christians?

    I have to agree with SVreX. I grew up helping my conservative Christian father feed homeless people in lower Manhattan, building churches and shelters in Brooklyn and traveling south with to help rebuild homes after hurricane Andrew, He gives his time and money freely to groups he knows do alot with it, some are and some are not affiliated with his church. These groups do far more good with a dollar then the gov't does.

  • Feb. 17, 2009 6:37 a.m. SVreX UberDork

    Duke wrote:

    But you can only receive grace by not performing the abominations any more.

    Absolutely wrong.

    Salvation by Grace is the opposite of salvation by works. There are no strings attached.

    Let's say you've got a kid who is a clinical kleptomaniac. He steals, and you know it. He regrets it, but it is still an ongoing issue.

    So he breaks into the neighbor's house. You pay the debt, and restore all the neighbor's stuff. He expresses his sorrow and regret and seems truly repentant, but you are pretty sure the issue will re-surface one day.

    Do you love him any less?

  • Feb. 17, 2009 6:41 a.m. SVreX UberDork

    aircooled wrote:

    I completely see your point, but I still see it as silly for someone to define themselves as a "better" or "more proper" form of any religion.

    I'm not claiming to be better, or more proper. I'm saying Mr. Phelps is not a Christian, he is an imposter.

    Consider Dustin Hoffman's Raymond character in "Rainman". He said he was a very good driver, and was convinced as such.

    Was he? Who cares if he said so?

  • Feb. 17, 2009 6:46 a.m. SVreX UberDork

    rebelgtp wrote:

    Personally I think so many religious people are such hypocrites its disgusting.

    I agree. But I would say the same about non-religious people.

    We are all hypocrites. I try to define the limits of my own hypocrisies.

    BTW- I am NOT a religious man. I am a Christian.

« 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  

You'll need to log in to post.