Graham,

I agree with you - The Bible can't be read as literal history. But the churches teach it as literal history - don't they? Likewise did Jesus say many of the things that he is quoted to have said? A few things are unJesus-like!

Jesus changed some of the rules in Matthew 5, 6 & 7. and rightly so! God didn't invent these laws!

Christian preachers are the ones who teach this book as fact, they teach hellfire and damnation and there seems to be a stronger teaching in the drug-induced rantings of Revelations in their teachings! Ask Runner he will probably tell you it is 100% accurate even the totally contradictory bits.

I have no problems with people having faith - but I do have problems with people who proselytize, who feed the starving whilst pushing the Bible down the poor (hidden agendas), with falshoods taught as fact and the culture busting history of the believers.

I object to Christians preaching the Bible and then doing the opposite to what it states regarding judging others, money, and who attend organisations that have covered up horrendous crimes, doing nothing to out the criminals, but then, having a say on moral issues. Jesus said it "First remove the log from your own eye" Matthew 7:3-5 The churches fail this regularly!

I find it morally reprehensible that a woman cannot follow her religious journey to reach the pinnacle within her religion just because Paul had women issues. Why are Christian men scared of women?

IF Jesus was the son of God he forgot to outlaw slavery, he forgot to insist that a rapist can't marry the rape victim, he forgot lots of stuff. There are two possibilities 1. A lot of what he said never got written down or 2, He isn't the son of God. (Why did he celebrate passover if it is a fib?)

I have always erred on point 1 but then I listen to many Christians and if they represent him and the kingdom of heaven... No thanks.

My prayer "Jesus please save me from your followers"...lol

Graham

Your post is evidence of how the various religions manipulate biblical passages to suit their own doctrines.

And if you consider the differences between the religions of the world, it becomes obvious these differences exist because they teach different doctrines. But why? (You would need to give us answers since the religious are good at ignoring them).

Otherwise, we are forced into one of three conclusions in that regard. Either there is no God, so there is no absolute standard of right and wrong (and so it doesn't matter what anyone believes); or there is a God, but either it doesn't matter to Him who believes what, or He hasn't indicated what He wants (and so it still doesn't matter what anyone believes); or there is a God, and there is an absolute standard which has been announced, and it does matter to Him what people believe.

God has instructed George Pell and the collective "conscience" of the Vatican to order humans to continue breeding like rabbits, despite the evidence that the planet is groaning under the weight of humans.

Now He permits the Catholic church to marry divorcees when once they were denied the sacraments - even excommunicated.

Why do Jehovah Witnesses deny a child a blood transfusion thus allowing them to die. Is this not infanticide?

And what is the correlation between infanticide and abortion when one sperm only fertilises an egg and your "merciful" God permits millions of others to die? Why does he not supply just one sperm for each individual conception?

I would also suggest to Runner that the irreligious can live equally or more morally than many religious, simply from a highly developed conscience (which is not innate but developed.) Most eminent psychologists agree with me. For instance when a three year old child kicks a dog, the child is either chastised or ignored. The child that is ignored, will continue to kick a dog! One does not need your God Runner to understand that a conscience in humans is developed over time and is essential for the collective morality of a nation!

Graham

You are now quite deliberately choosing to misinterpret my words, when you make claims such as:

“Fractelle, you appear to be saying that Christians aren't entitled to allow their own opinions to inform their public arguments. You apparently want to privilege your own opinions over those of others.”

In your wildest fantasies, if there was even a mote of truth in the above, I would've bailed on OLO long ago. But here I am, heh, heh.

I want there to be balance. Until recent years, atheists rarely spoke up and now that we speaking out the religious are reacting like a swarm of wasps to a stick. Where are the speakers to counter the outrageous claims made by high profile religious extremists? Where is the monthly article on humanism to counter Sellick's dose of Proselytising Monthly Tension.

I want separation of state and church. I want the special exemption that is made for all religions, by way of taxes and privilege, ended.

Abbot actively campaigned against RU486, is anti-choice for women AND let his religion rule when making legislation in the Howard government. While I agree abortion is a separate topic:

The point which you continue to evade is that religion impacts on all people not just the religious.

Pell has influence that carries into the general population rather than just a few Catholics. His latest pronouncement was to endorse the Pope's view that condoms encourage promiscuity, this after the closure of Father Peter Kennedy's church which expressed the ideology of Jesus far better than anything most variants of Christianity ever achieve.

As editor of OLO you should know better than to construct such arguments of straw. Do you not realise how biased you are making yourself appear?

I explained in very reasonable terms why I object to the labelling of atheists as Sellick and his ilk indulge themselves. Not once have I denied anyone the right to hold their belief.

I may ask questions, but I do not ever deny freedom of religion. Therefore, what I expect in return is freedom from stigma.

horus QUOTE>>--"he(?..god of love"<<love god love neighbour,..where god hate..then it would be hate neighbour to love god..[lol]..see how even the most ugly brutal beast yet loves it's young,..god is of course beyond sex[personally i think of him as her]but logiclly he gives life..[as man gives life to a woman]

>>--"god lives ever in LIVE TIME">>see me see my father...i see god/logus/logic in everyone,...adam lived because gods breath was breathed into him..[from adam to you,each man passes the living sperm,to give life]

read the stories[god spoke to mosus,in real time,jesus reveals even a beast knows the voice of its master..god is that good inner voice of good concious..enthroned in our heart..[where else could a[the]living god be ..but in live time...[he either is here now or he is thought captured in some holy text or other,...god is not to be caught into the spell-ing of any holy text...do we not pray to the living god who even now..'art in heaven'[first find your peace within]

>>"god live inside you..inside all life"....they seek him here[they seek him there,but he is within..its complicated to explain to those who deney he even egsists...knowing he is in everyone living helps to respect neighbour,thus respecting god[that we did to the least we did to him]

<<"good is all good...[all god]"..>>ya that comes from sweden borg, and m,ary baker eddie[and a course in miricles and hinted at in the holytexts of many beliefs[

<<What is the source of your knowledge?>>my reading comes from hundreds of texts[new test,koran,old test,bagda veta,gnostic writings,esoteric writings,anything about god or belief for the last twenty years]
try reading swedenborgs arcana celestia, or heaven and hell,or health and science
or http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/gonewest.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/wsltoc.html

you either'know'god/good..is in your heart..or not

we are revealed by our works..not the books we read...no book is more true[or faulse than any other]..[except the talmud but then i havnt read it..[..only selective quotes from it..[it MAY have'some'good in it]
http://www.google.com.au/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=friedman+talmudic+truth&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

once you know god is love you learn..if its not all love..[its not of god]..i can ignore the vile..to find that good..[from god]..in any book..its AS i believe...[you believe as you will]

Well said Arjay - it is not what we believe but how we treat others.

George,
It doesn't matter which way it is phrased it means the same. :)

The mistake many make in questioning Atheism as a force for good. Atheism is not a force for anything it is just the disbelief in a supreme being.

Altruism is what this is about - whether or not humans have an inborn sense of altruism or whether we can only achieve it through belief in a moral divine being.

The reason I am an Atheist is because there is no evidence of God only books and documents that record the history and ethos of a man named Jesus who is purported to be the son of God.

runner, I find it difficult that you believe man might 'manufacture' global warming but don't carry this possibility over to the scriptures.

Posters that quote from the scriptures to prove God don't seem to get that this is not proof if the scriptures themselves are not legitimate.

I don't speak for atheism only myself in saying that I believe that we are most connected to each other in a spiritual sense and there are certainly things we cannot know or explain. It is okay not to know something.

I don't need to know the answer to why we are here or what purpose, I am more interested in the way we behave while we are alive - when I die I may know more or I may not, I may be compost.

Some argue religion is important because the idea of afterlife or reincarnation is the motivation for living a moral life on earth.

That may be the psychology behind religion but it still does not prove the existence of God. I am aware from the investigations by journalists into the Vatican (can't remember his name for the moment) revealed many priests do not actually believe in God, only the message and morality that the 'belief' encourages.

One Under God,

1)––"god live inside you..inside all life".... he is in everyone living helps to respect neighbour,thus respecting god[that we did to the least we did to him]”

If this is the case I’m inclined to think there must be more than one god, or else, “he” must have a multiple personally disorder,for it seems that many of our most religious are receiving contradictory messages.

And, if we read a few of the holy texts, a goodly portion seems to be assigned
to instructing us to exterminating our neighbours rather than live with them.

2) ––“my reading comes from hundreds of texts[new test,koran,old test,bagda veta,gnostic writings,esoteric writings,anything about god” ..
––“.no book is more true[or faulse than any other]”

It all sounds very cosy and ecumenical but, what of the contradictions, i.e.
where one “holy” source calls for something the other prohibits, how do you
reconcile such differences?

For example, Islam says: Mohammed was the “seal of the prophets”
there’d be NO FURTHER PROPHETS while, The Baha’i faith ( &
arguably Swedenborg have later prophets!) ..or, don’t you perceive any
contradiction(s)?