jeffgreen wrote:
You have argued about one group who misused spirituality or another person here or there who misused it but have not dealt with the crux of the matter that I pointed out.  Where did morality come from?  Morality came from spirituality.  A belief in a higher power who directs us to live a certain way. 

Tim made the silly post comparing Santa Claus and the Bible and trying to oversimplify the Bible in hopes of diminishing it.  How do I know that the Bible is accurate?  NOT because my parents told me or the preacher told me.  I was taught, by my father (a preacher for over 25 years) to question everything and only then can you obtain the truth.  What is the evidence that Jesus Christ existed?  The writings of the New Testament match up perfectly with historical facts that we know.  Most of it was written a very short time after Christs death.  Far more compelling evidence that Christ actually existed than that Santa ever did.

I don't have any problem with Jesus or Santa...Just with people trying to force everyone around them to act/think/worship/learn the same thing in the name of one or the other.  I wonder what Jesus would think of Pat Robertson or what Allah would think of Oosama Bin Laden or what Moses would think of PM Sharon...Do you really think these self-appointed paragons of morality are what the Original Artists had in mind?

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

I don't have any problem with Jesus or Santa...Just with people trying to force everyone around them to act/think/worship/learn the same thing in the name of one or the other.  I wonder what Jesus would think of Pat Robertson or what Allah would think of Oosama Bin Laden or what Moses would think of PM Sharon...Do you really think these self-appointed paragons of morality are what the Original Artists had in mind?

I don't think any of those 3, Jesus, Allah or Moses have much in common with those 3(PR, Bin Laden or Sharon) at all.  I think Jesus would be shocked at how his teachings have been interpreted and taught, I assume Allah and Moses would have similar reactions.

jeffgreen wrote:
Okay, now who decided what was right for living with other people?  I didn't EVER say that spiritual people are the only moral people because, as you pointed out, the jails are full of "spiritual" people.  What I AM saying is that spirituality played an important part in determining what was moral and immoral.  Obviously animals are not moral or immoral, they just do what is natural... to the point of killing of the slowest to further themselves.  So where did morals come from?  If we evolved from animals we would have the same "thought" structure. 

So back to my original point, spirituality played a HUGE role in developing morals in this society as well as others.  We can also see that when spirituality is taken out of the mainstream that morals tend to slip.... Las Vegas anyone??

What's right for living with other people comes directly from the animal kingdom. 

A pride of lions cooperate in hunting, learn how to fight among themselves (without causing serious wounding), and defend their territory against rival prides.  Bees learn to tell the difference between bees from another hive and defend against the intruders.  Chimpanzees form cooperative groups and learn to get along quite well with each other through grooming and other rituals they do.

Since literally all it takes for humans to get along with each other is for each to decide to not be agressive towards their neighbor, spirituality clearly isn't a necessity for creating moral behavior.

Spirituality seems to provide guidance for hatred of those who have chosen a different religion.  Just about every religion seems to have a "commandment" to not kill other humans.  Yet we constantly see those same spiritual leaders willing to have their "servants" kill those of different faiths on the grounds that "God" has made an exception.  After all those creatures can't be human because they follow the wrong "God".

As for Las Vegas not being spiritual, that's got to be a joke on your part.  I've heard more praying going on in the casinos than I ever heard in church.  There are a huge number of preachers plying the strip damning everybody that walks past without making a contribution.  Is it moral to wish damnation on someone that has chosen to ignore you (your God may not be his God)!

What huge part of moral behavior truly comes from spirituality?  I haven't seen sufficient evidence to convince me that any moral behavior comes from that.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Let us not forget that there are Jewish fundamentalists that are willing to join their Muslim and Christian counterparts in creating war.

The main part of this is "counterpart" and the term Christian should have quotation marks around it.  For someone to burn people at the stake or to slaughter innocent people is to go against Christianity.  Just because one says they are doing it in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that it automatically is a Christian act.  Just as just because terrorist were islamic, it doesn't mean that true islam supports the murdering of all Christians.  The problem is that people, especially on this site, are so excited to pin a horrible act on Christians that they ignore that the person commiting the crime did NOT follow Christianity.  Christianity doesn't teach violence, but love.  The greatest command is Thou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart soul mind and spirit and the second great command is you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
And I don't know the history but there have probably been Buddhist, Seik, and Hindu fundamentalists causing war as well.

Because Buddhism, to my understanding, promotes self-enlightenment, you won't see much in the way of religious wars over Buddhism. It's not much of an evangelistic, sanctimonious, "my way or no way" type of religion. In fact, in Japan, a majority of people who admit to religious adherence cheerfully admit to being both Shinto (native animism and rituals) and Buddhist (spiritual philosophy).

Nothing piles up the pages like a good ol' science/religion thread, hey?

Habenero Photography wrote:
What's right for living with other people comes directly from the animal kingdom. 

Since literally all it takes for humans to get along with each other is for each to decide to not be agressive towards their neighbor, spirituality clearly isn't a necessity for creating moral behavior.

Wrong and just plain silly.

Moral: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character

Animals do not have morals and certainly do not know morality.  They know protection.  To suggest that they have morality is just ignorant.  It takes far more than humans not being aggressive toward their neighbor to be moral.  Morality is the knowledge of right and wrong.  All animals know is action=consequence. 

Spirituality seems to provide guidance for hatred of those who have chosen a different religion.  Just about every religion seems to have a "commandment" to not kill other humans.  Yet we constantly see those same spiritual leaders willing to have their "servants" kill those of different faiths on the grounds that "God" has made an exception.  After all those creatures can't be human because they follow the wrong "God".

And you just answered your ulterior allegation that spirituality breeds hatred.  Christianity condemns murder and if a Christian commits murder, no matter what he claims, he is violating Christianity.  I would assume the same goes for other religions.  Christianity also opposes hatred for those of different religions!  It commands a hatred for sin but how is one to convert someone outside of Christ if he hates the person he is trying to convert?

As for Las Vegas not being spiritual, that's got to be a joke on your part.  I've heard more praying going on in the casinos than I ever heard in church.  There are a huge number of preachers plying the strip damning everybody that walks past without making a contribution.  Is it moral to wish damnation on someone that has chosen to ignore you (your God may not be his God)!

If he is claiming to be a Christian then he is foolish and not abiding by Christianity.  I feel that you already know the answer to your question but your silly paragraph above shows that you will try every silly little tangent to try and belittle Christianity.  So far you have failed.

What huge part of moral behavior truly comes from spirituality?  I haven't seen sufficient evidence to convince me that any moral behavior comes from that.

How can you see sufficient evidence when you think that animals have the ability to know morality?? lol

Justin wrote:

Because Buddhism, to my understanding, promotes self-enlightenment, you won't see much in the way of religious wars over Buddhism. It's not much of an evangelistic, sanctimonious, "my way or no way" type of religion. In fact, in Japan, a majority of people who admit to religious adherence cheerfully admit to being both Shinto (native animism and rituals) and Buddhist (spiritual philosophy).

Nothing piles up the pages like a good ol' science/religion thread, hey?

Justin, indeed. I lived and worked in Thailand. Is was when I became part of the culture (as much as an outsider can) did I realize that the Buddhist lived and worshiped the say Christians say they do, but they don't. I never met a Buddhist who didn't judge others or who didn't respect other's beliefs.  It is truly an amazing religion and philosophical way of life.  I only wish we could send 'Christians' to live in S.E. Asia for a year of so to truly realize what religion is supposed to be about. 

/tim

PS I was never judged while living in S.E. Asia - I was in Saudi Arabia and the U.S.

Tim Baker wrote:
Is was when I became part of the culture (as much as an outsider can) did I realize that the Buddhist lived and worshiped the say Christians say they do, but they don't. I never met a Buddhist who didn't judge others or who didn't respect other's beliefs.  It is truly an amazing religion and philosophical way of life.  I only wish we could send 'Christians' to live in S.E. Asia for a year of so to truly realize what religion is supposed to be about.

Liberals get outraged when a conservative says "Liberals believe X" because you don't like conservatives lumping everyone together.  We see the above example of how the double standard exists.  All Christians do not judge others religious motives.  While it is true that those here in the states and in the Western Culture do not understand the difference that exists in Asia or the Middle East, that doesn't mean that we are worthless and are any less because we live here.

jeffgreen wrote:
Animals do not have morals and certainly do not know morality.  They know protection.  To suggest that they have morality is just ignorant.  It takes far more than humans not being aggressive toward their neighbor to be moral.  Morality is the knowledge of right and wrong.  All animals know is action=consequence.

Action/consequence is the entirety of morality, no matter how you acquire it! The only difference between simpler animalistic instinct and our version of 'morality' is that we can think about how to create our own based on our cultural, personal and psychological wants and desires. That is where morality comes from: the fact that we have retrospective self-cognisance + natural biological impulses (many of which do point us towards altruistic ends and not pure individual supremacy, as you suggest. We are, after all, pack animals. It is contrary to logic for us to work solitarily).

jeffgreen wrote:
Liberals get outraged when a conservative says "Liberals believe X" because you don't like conservatives lumping everyone together.  We see the above example of how the double standard exists.  All Christians do not judge others religious motives.  While it is true that those here in the states and in the Western Culture do not understand the difference that exists in Asia or the Middle East, that doesn't mean that we are worthless and are any less because we live here.

Not sure that I used the word 'worthless' in my post. Like your religious dogma, I fail to see your point. /t

jeffgreen wrote:
We see the above example of how the double standard exists.  All Christians do not judge others religious motives.  While it is true that those here in the states and in the Western Culture do not understand the difference that exists in Asia or the Middle East, that doesn't mean that we are worthless and are any less because we live here.

Wait, wait. I didn't say anything of the sort.

There was a statement made about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists all conducting religious warfare. All I did was to take Buddhism out of it, because the nature of Buddhism doesn't lend itself to religious warfare.

That's all. I'm not saying that any religion is worthwhile or worthless, good or evil, right or wrong. Just that Buddhism doesn't lend itself to religious warfare.

If you can figure out if I'm liberal or conservative from my postings, let me know, because I haven't figured it out myself. 

Justin wrote:
All I did was to take Buddhism out of it, because the nature of Buddhism doesn't lend itself to religious warfare.

Google "Nichiren Buddhist warrior monk" and you can put buddhism back on the list of "lending itself to religious warfare"

Even the shogunate was afraid to mess with 'em; they were seriously vicious, well-trained, and well-armed "peace-loving" ass-kicking buddhists. For a peace-loving vegan to make a samurai think twice, we're talking serious bad-asses.

Religions preach peace, and practice/cause war and oppression.

mjr.

Justin wrote:

Wait, wait. I didn't say anything of the sort.

LOL that is because I quoted Tim's post, not yours! 

jeffgreen wrote:
And my point, that gets overlooked so that others can discredit the truth, is that Christianity teaches peace.  Those who ignore it's teaching, no matter what they call themselves, are not true Christians, PERIOD.

So does Islam. /tim

jeffgreen wrote:
Just because one says they are doing it in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that it automatically is a Christian act.

Well, the bible encourages smiting heathens, so I'd say that laying the smack down on unbelievers is the definition of a "christian act" - assuming you accept the notion that christians take the bible seriously!

jeffgreen wrote:
Just as just because terrorist were islamic, it doesn't mean that true islam supports the murdering of all Christians.

Actually, the koran is even more chock full of admonitions to smite, kill, etc, infidels. That nonsense everyone is spouting about "islam is a religion of peace" is simply political correctness.

In an attempt to get religious people around the world to be less violent, everyone keeps trying to tell them that (insert religion here) is a "religion of peace" but the holy books are chock full of intolerance and incitement to violence. Since the premise of these religions is that their holy books are divinely inspired, or whatever, and are direct communications about what the divine has in mind, it's just ridiculous to assert that a religion that's full of slaughtering of idolaters, laying waste to towns, smiting and so forth is a "religion of peace" - god doesn't want people to be peaceful, he wants them to commit atrocities. So does allah.

mjr.

Justin wrote:
But my point was that the Buddhist philosophy of self-enlightenment doesn't lend itself to religious warfare. It's difficult in a philosophy to say "get enlightened my way or die!" when the philosophy itself calls for that person to reach enlightenment on their own.

UNfortunately, your idealistic words are contradicted by nearly a century of slaughter. The nichiren buddhist sect's warrior monks were a serious military force that the shogun's army steered away from because their temples were so heavily fortified that they were virtually unassailable. The various temples used to periodically try to slaughter eachother over important details of their peace-loving religion.

This has some decent description of the differences (which were interpretations of buddhism between different monasteries) and the warfare surrounding them:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/HokkeShu_03.html
They were killing eachother over important self-enlightenment topics like:
- making pilgrimages to the temples or shrines of slanderers.
- all Nichiren Buddhists, both monastic and lay, should practice shakubuku (whatever the F- that is...)

Religion of peace: acts of slaughter. I'm sorry to puncture your pretty preconceptions but buddhism is just as red-handed as every other major religion has been.

mjr.

jeffgreen wrote:
And you just answered your ulterior allegation that spirituality breeds hatred.  Christianity condemns murder and if a Christian commits murder, no matter what he claims, he is violating Christianity.  I would assume the same goes for other religions.  Christianity also opposes hatred for those of different religions!  It commands a hatred for sin but how is one to convert someone outside of Christ if he hates the person he is trying to convert?

Why should there be any attempt at conversion.  Based upon their behavior,  Christians have no respect towards other religions.  Yet, by your argument there can never be a moral war involving Christians.    I ask again, what huge part of moral behavior truly comes from spirituality?  You are still not being specific as to what part or parts come from spirituality. 

jeffgreen wrote:
How can you see sufficient evidence when you think that animals have the ability to know morality?? lol

My dogs have on 2 occasions become agressively hostile towards certain individuals (very abnormal behavior for these dogs).  This was on a busy street with a fair amount of pedestrians.  In both cases the guys approached from the front and were not arousing any suspicion on my part.  I found out that those people were apprehended for armed robbery (about 1 to 2 months after my encounters).  The individuals had not acted in any way to harm me, yet the dogs still reacted to them.  Why did the dogs ignore over 99% of the people I talked to and yet single these guys out for attention?  Weren't the dogs judging them?  What specifically could have been the trigger that made the dogs ignore their own training, and my own attempts to calm them?  As far as I can tell the dogs made a moral judgement on those guys (at least a judgement that I didn't make).

Christianity teaches peace.

So does Islam.

Are you kidding me?

here's some fun -- find an online koran that's searchable (such as: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/simple.html ) and search it for "unbeliever" and "slay"
then find an online bible (such as: http://www.biblegateway.com/ )
and search for "idolater" or "slay"

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
So when he brought to them the truth from Us, they said: Slay the sons of those who believe with him and keep their women alive; and the struggle of the unbelievers will only come to a state of perdition.
...etc.

Sheesh, this stuff ought to be 18+ for violence.

mjr.

jeffgreen wrote:
And my point, that gets overlooked so that others can discredit the truth, is that Christianity teaches peace.  Those who ignore it's teaching, no matter what they call themselves, are not true Christians, PERIOD.

A review of most religions will show that they teach peace with regards to their members.  My own observations have shown me that most religions, in their my God is better than your God mode, exercise violence towards the "infidels" who dare to believe in any other God or no God.  I have yet to see a Christian that would accept me as I am.

jeffgreen wrote:
Geeze we are going around in circles here all so no one has to admit that Christianity is not a religion that teaches violence toward anyone.  Please provide a passage to support your accusations that Christianity teaches violence.  If you are unable to provide it then your observation that person A or person B has been unChristianlike to you only proves that those persons are not acting as Christians.

Keep in mind that referring back to the Old Testament when we were under the Old Law of Moses is not Christianity.

Are you trying to say that a Christian trying to convert a Nonchristian is not acting as a Christian?  After all those filled with the Holy Spirit are supposed to go out and spread the word.  And many of them have done so with the aid of their army.  Soldiers of Christ have been pretty damn violent in trying to gain converts.

When are you going to provide the evidence that supports your premise that morals can only arise from spirituality?

jeffgreen wrote:
Geeze we are going around in circles here all so no one has to admit that Christianity is not a religion that teaches violence toward anyone.  Please provide a passage to support your accusations that Christianity teaches violence.  If you are unable to provide it then your observation that person A or person B has been unChristianlike to you only proves that those persons are not acting as Christians.

Keep in mind that referring back to the Old Testament when we were under the Old Law of Moses is not Christianity.

Here's one.  While you will just pass this by as saying "Pat doesn't speak for us" - he had a following of over 2.5 million Christians.

"In a recent pronouncement, television evangelist and Christian Coalition president Pat Robertson advocated death by stoning for UFO enthusiasts."

Preacher: http://www.parascope.com/articles/0897/ufodeath.htm

Passage: 1 John 3:15.  "Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know very well that eternal life and murder don't go together."

Source: The Bible.

By the way, without the Old Testament, you wouldn't have Christianity nor the Bible.


Questions?

/tim

jeffgreen wrote:
And my point, that gets overlooked so that others can discredit the truth, is that Christianity teaches peace.  Those who ignore it's teaching, no matter what they call themselves, are not true Christians, PERIOD.

And how many Christians has our good Christian leader put to death in Texas?

"Our priorities is our faith." —George W. Bush, Greensboro, N.C., Oct. 10, 2000

Tim Baker wrote:
Here's one.  While you will just pass this by as saying "Pat doesn't speak for us" - he had a following of over 2.5 million Christians.

"In a recent pronouncement, television evangelist and Christian Coalition president Pat Robertson advocated death by stoning for UFO enthusiasts."

By the way, without the Old Testament, you wouldn't have Christianity nor the Bible.

First he does not speak for me or any Christian that I worship with throughout the entire country and world.  So I would change your sentence to "he had a following of over 2.5 million "Christians" because I believe that those who follow him are not truly following Christ.  How can you follow two people?  But in the article you linked to he did not say that we should stone UFO enthusiasts.  He did acknowledge that God, in the Old Testament, called for the stoning of those who brought about worship to another God.  His point, IMO, is not to stone them, but to show just how much of an importance God placed on having no other gods before him.  But if it were me, I would have said it much difference in order to ensure there was no confusion.

You are right in your last sentence.  We wouldn't have Christianity without the Old Testament.  It was Moses law, or the "Old Law" that paved the way for the "New Law" of Christ.  The Old Law has been done away with as you can read MANY places throughout the New Testament though so we are not under the Old Law.  Did it serve a purpose?  Yes.  Does it still?  Yes, but not for us to live by, but for us to gain an understanding of how important God considers some issues.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Religions preach peace, and practice/cause war and oppression.

"Nobody talks peace, unless he's willing to back it up with war."

Col. Green,
Star Trek episode #77 - "The Savage Curtain"

Habenero Photography wrote:
Are you trying to say that a Christian trying to convert a Nonchristian is not acting as a Christian?  After all those filled with the Holy Spirit are supposed to go out and spread the word.  And many of them have done so with the aid of their army.  Soldiers of Christ have been pretty damn violent in trying to gain converts.

When are you going to provide the evidence that supports your premise that morals can only arise from spirituality?

Yes, a Christian is acting like a Christian by trying to convert nonChristians.  No, one is not acting as a Christian if he is forcibly attempting to convert a nonChristian.  Becoming a Christian is an intimate act and not one that someone can make you do.  I don't care WHO says they are Christians, if they are using violence in the name of Christ they are NOT CHRISTIANS.  If you still can not understand this after I have said it about 5 times you have a learning disability and continued discussion is pointless.

Morals can only rise from spirituality.  This is something that in todays time is harder to see because morals have been ingrained in most of us from an early age.  The issue again, as I have said OVER AND OVER, is that morals did not arise out of nowhere but out of spirituality.  The knowing of right and wrong are not found in the animal kingdom so it is something that is strictly a humanistic knowledge.  So there is something inherent in us that tells us what is right and wrong... what could that be... root word of spirituality is what?....

jeffgreen wrote:
Keep in mind that referring back to the Old Testament when we were under the Old Law of Moses is not Christianity.

That brings us back to the proper reason ID doesn't belong in a classroom.  You have no right within science class to throw out data or consider it irrelevant when it conflicts with your hypothesis.  Yet because the Old Law of Moses is in conflict with your argument about what Christianity is, you tell us to disregard it.  If you can disregard it for this argument, then the book can not be used as a reference for any kind of scientific argument.  All of it has to be used or none of it.  A scientific hypothesis has got to explain all of the observations.  Keep in mind that no supernatural entities or forces are allowed in a scientific hypothesis.

Habenero Photography wrote:
That brings us back to the proper reason ID doesn't belong in a classroom.  You have no right within science class to throw out data or consider it irrelevant when it conflicts with your hypothesis.  Yet because the Old Law of Moses is in conflict with your argument about what Christianity is, you tell us to disregard it.  If you can disregard it for this argument, then the book can not be used as a reference for any kind of scientific argument.  All of it has to be used or none of it.  A scientific hypothesis has got to explain all of the observations.  Keep in mind that no supernatural entities or forces are allowed in a scientific hypothesis.

You have got to be kidding me.  So you are taking human law and applying it to scientific law?  You are ignorant of the facts in which you are attempting to debate.  But I will follow your logic and assert for you that the United States Constitution is scientific as is ever other constitution in the world.  And surely even you can understand that morality is not scientific either, otherwise everyone would understand its importance and all would be forced to conform to it since it would be like gravity and apply to all.

BTW, it isn't what "my argument about what Christianity is", but the argument that Christianity makes in and of itself.  It is simple to prove, all you have to do is educate yourself, if you dare.

"Since mutation is a random process, changes can be either useful, unfavorable, or neutral to the individual's or species' survival. However, a new characteristic that is not detrimental may sometimes better enable the organism to survive or leave offspring in its environment, especially if that environment is changing, or to penetrate a new environment—such as the development of a lunglike structure that enables an aquatic animal to survive on land (see lungfish ), where there may be more food and fewer predators. "

First question is this: Evolutionists, do they believe that all beings are one species?  If not, then what I was saying from the beginning is accurate in that evolution teaches that species evolve into other species.  Every time I would say that you would tell me that I need to educate myself on what evolution actually is.  I knew what it is but went ahead and read the link you gave me and it reenforced my understanding.  That is evident by the last sentence I quoted.  To grow lungs to survive on land means that an aquatic animal now becomes a land animal thus becoming a different species.  How am I incorrect here?

Second question is this: Where are the evolving beings now?  Evolution is the gradual, continuous change from existing previous forms.  Since it is gradual and positive or negative changes can occur in evolution then there would be some "in between" stages at all times.  All things can not evolve at the same time.  This would indicate that there would be no "missing link" because somewhere (especially since evolution has been researched for 3 centuries now) there would be an existing "misssing link".  As long as we have simple celled organisms we will have them evolving into something else and so on.  We SHOULD have fish that walk.  We should have different evolved animals, both aquatic and land and air.  So the claims of "missing links" (which I *think* has been abandoned now) seem lacking as there should be living evidence especially, as I have said, since scientists have been searching for 3 centuries now!

I guess to answer my first question, I'll quote from the definition of "evolution" from the same site you linked me to:

Organic evolution conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/e1/evolutio.asp

jeffgreen wrote:
Geeze we are going around in circles here all so no one has to admit that Christianity is not a religion that teaches violence toward anyone.
[...] Keep in mind that referring back to the Old Testament when we were under the Old Law of Moses is not Christianity.

By leaving out the inconvenient bits of the old testament you are editing christian doctrine to suit your purpose. In the "good old days" they'd call you a "heretic" for doing that, and burn you at the stake after a good session of torture. Gotta love those peace-loving christians! Yay!

There are literalists who believe that every single word of the scriptures is truth and divinely inspired. Even the nasty parts. Maybe you're (thank you!) progressive enough to believe some kinder, gentler, interpretation of christianity. I don't think we can meaningfully argue whether your particular interpretation of christianity preaches violence because then I'd have to dig into your own particular psychopathology and what the voices in your head, or your imaginary playmates say, and that's just a pointless discussion.

mjr.

jeffgreen wrote:
First he does not speak for me or any Christian that I worship with throughout the entire country and world.  So I would change your sentence to "he had a following of over 2.5 million "Christians" because I believe that those who follow him are not truly following Christ.

Wheee!!! A schism, right here, on ModelMayhem!! 2 competing views of "Christianity" -- are you guys going to resolve it the "traditional way" christians resolve schisms?

Every faith - every single one that has been around for more than a few hundred years has had some kind of doctrinal disagreement that has resulted in warfare and wholesale slaughter within the religion itself. You've got the catholics and protestants going at it bigtime from 1560 to 1600, resulting in wholesale slaughter. Then you've got the boxer rebellion, which was this weird christian-oid rebellion that resulted in millions of deaths. And don't forget the hundred years' war, which was largely fuelled by christian sectarianism. And then there's those wacky sunni and shiites, who've been slaughtering eachother over some minute detail of what mohammed ate for lunch one day, or something dumb like that. Or the nichiren buddhists (versus the nichiren buddhists!) arguing about some aspect of how they worship. etc, etc, etc, etc.

Only a complete idiot can look at the history of religion, and read the entire corpus of any given religion's holy scriptures and say that religion teaches peace.

Put differently: if religion teaches peace - it's doing a lousy job and maybe we should start teaching people peace some other way. Playing Grand Theft Auto has caused infinitely fewer deaths than christianity!

mjr.

jeffgreen wrote:
Morals can only rise from spirituality.

I am an atheist. Are you saying I'm incapable of having morals?

Those are fighting words.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Only a complete idiot can look at the history of religion, and read the entire corpus of any given religion's holy scriptures and say that religion teaches peace.

This is my last post to you because it is not ignorance from which you speak since I have told you time and time again.  Since you have been made known that what you are saying is wrong and you still speak it then I would say it is plain stupidity.

Christianity DOES NOT teach violence and I have asked for specific scriptures that teach violence.  None has been provided.  I have informed you of what Christianity is yet you ignore it so that you can bash religion.  All one has to do is look at the New Testament and the life of Christ to know that it does, in fact, teach peace.

If you are still unable to speak truthfully on the matter, it is on you.

jeffgreen wrote:
I have informed you of what Christianity is yet you ignore it so that you can bash religion.  All one has to do is look at the New Testament and the life of Christ to know that it does, in fact, teach peace.

Christianity is not just the New Testament. That's an edited version of the bible that was developed hundreds of years after the death of christ. Or are you saying that the christians of christ's time weren't christians? I'm trying to wrap my brain around that!!!!

You're probably not a catholic, are you - but do you deny they're christians?? Catholic doctrine says that the pope speaks with the voice of christ and is infallible. The papal bull authorizing the inquisition - was that the voice of christ, then? Or are the catholics not christian? It seems a simple either/or question.

I understand what you're saying, and it's basically "I believe the good parts"  That's intellectually dishonest but I completely understand why you'd feel you had to do that. After all, if you look at the entirety of christian dogma it's really really scary stuff.

So, no, I'm not going to get into arguing about who smote whom in Leviticus or how much the old testament books say a daughter should be sold into prostitution for. Because you apparently have decided that's not part of christianity. There are lots of folks who'd disagree with you - and I'm not one of them. I find it makes more sense to reject the whole thing rather than trying to edit some semblance of a peaceful religion out of that bloody mess.

mjr.