To David F.

You and I have been down this conversation before. I've seen where it ends. Do you really want to get into it all again?

The other conversation I posed the topic of loving God helps people love one another and be better people. (Specifically that a focus on God will help in this way, not just an acknowledgement of God). In that conversation, much of the topic was ignored to fan perspectives against religion. Essentially bringing up the topic of religion (in any way) is enough to step into a bear trap for all of the anger people have towards religion or towards those practicing a religion.

Your part of the conversation you starts in the same manner that you are here. A polite disagreement with religion. It intensified in the language you used until, you were raving against me for being evil and part of a history of evil. Placing crimes against me that I've never done. And taunting insults at me for this intense and growing hatred you had towards me. Even to the point that I addressed your pushy attitude to your accusation of me of being a missionary. That you were acting as a missionary as you've describe it. A point you actually agreed to even after all the ire you threw at that label as part of your reason for hating Christians and Christianity. I didn't back down from my faith, which seemed to fan your anger even hotter.

Do you remember this conversation? I do. Saying that I may be a decent fellow means nothing to me when I remember your part of the conversation from before and the hatred that grew more and more through the conversation. And bringing up the evils of missionary likewise shows nothing new to me because that was an intro to your anger in the last conversation. More then willing to place the crimes of religion on anyone who happens to in that religion, and have me to account for actions I've never done, and answer for a history I was never there for.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I've seen this conversation David F. And if you are wanting to continue it, then I hope you do better at reeling in your anger and hatred. If you want to push this topic then there are a few correction I want to point out before continuing on. (And forgive me if I don't continue on anyways, I saw this conversation from you before, and you get very ugly in it). None the less a few corrections.

•#1) "He wanted to push his religion - his particular version of Christianity."

Wrong. I wanted to teach from what I knew. I was more then willing to have a conversation if given the chance. I didn't get that chance though because by just holding to my faith as real and reasonable, I was thrust into arguments trying to push me out of my faith, or personally attack me for being part of that faith. All I had the chance to do was to stand up against you and a few others push against my faith. Against any version of it.

•#2) "Historically it [missionaries] has created great suffering and been a part of the suppression of cultures and the slaughter of peoples. Would you have me be silent in the face of what I see as evil?"

Have I told you to be silent? Did you not admit to being a missionary against Christianity, even in the face of your accusations towards missionaries? What history do I have to account for with events I was not there for? But most importantly, you asked if you should be silent on what you believe, yet in your very stance you want me to be silent in bringing up any topic of religion. Of any of my core beliefs that may have stemmed from study and faith. Should your stance or your double standard be acknowledged or given the rubber stamp of approval, that you're standing up for what you believe, when you strive to silence me from doing the same?

(Continued)

•#3) "We are two sides of the same coin. You want to save people from hell. I I want to save you from superstition."

What is there to save me from? From my faith? From my beliefs? From not rejecting religion as you have? God is real. From there it should be a task to seek what is from God and what is not. If that can be determined it should be. But at the very least it should still be tried to determine what is from God and what isn't.

Your fist comment included this quote "Perhaps it is better if we learn to live with people who have other beliefs rather than to try to get them to adopt ours. That is an alternative to fighting." Is this something you're willing to practice too? Or is it that no one should try to teach from their religion or their faith? That teaching is getting in the way of other people holding on to their own beliefs?

Before you answer, consider this. Why do you believe what you believe? Is it because you think it's a nice possibility to believe in, or because you think it's false but enjoyable? Of course not! You believe what you believe because you find it to be true. Should you stay silent on what you think is true because it might interfere on what someone else believes? If the answer is no then consider what you are doing here, because that is exactly what you are asking of me to do.

Dear NNS,

We both feel we are right, and, feeling we are right, makes us heated in speech. I think you really don't know enough about your religion. I have no hostility to Christians, but I do not feel good about Christianity. Some Christians such as Bishop Spock are fully aware of the flaws in Christianity and are trying to create a different Christianity without the arrogance and intolerance that has characterized so much of its history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

"The sin of Christianity is that any of us ever claimed that we had somehow captured eternal truth in the forms we had created."

If we are aware of evil it is a moral imperative to try to do something about even if it is only putting posts on the net. Some Christian missionaries have faced the evil in Christianity and are aware of it at the same time that they are trying to spread their faith. It seems to me a contradiction. One such person is Colin Barnes. This website describes the book he wrote:

https://www.bokus.com/bok/9780956200624/they-conspire-against-your-people/

"This book explores the extent to which the European churches and their theology contributed to a mindset that permitted the genocide of six million Jews during the Holocaust."

Diarmaid MacCulloch, a former member of the Church of England hierarchy, wrote "A History of Christianity". I cite two quotes from his book:

"For most of its existence, Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism a qualified exception, for which (thanks to some thoughts from Augustine of Hippo) it found space to serve its own theological and social purposes." P. 4

"I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species." P. 11

Spong, Barnes and MacCulloch are aware Christians. You are an unaware Christian. Go and learn.

davidf & NNS,
The dilemma with "Good" is that it really become indefinable so, people must therefore agree to disagree which in turn is the cause of all trouble.
Just look at Religion, they all say there's only one God yet these same religious organistations have wars to fight for the Good of their religion ?
What is good in the mind of an intelligent person can be the exact opposite of an educated one.
A producer's definition of good differs from the end users definition. Good is only good when it is to the everyone's advantage or on a much more important level, good is only good if peoples' actions are not imposing on others. In other words we need to discipline ourselves to be less self-centrered & focus on being more tolerant & even more important, more understanding.
We have petty laws & rules which all but ruin peoples' lives yet there are laws & rules which are designed to curb negative imact of our actions on others yet they are so punctured with loopholes that they end up causing more harm than good.
Democracy & its laws was supposed to work along those lines but it was hijacked by dictators under the guise of equality & opened the floodgates of exploitation. That is not good !

Oh C'mon seriously.

Calling yourself a Christian doesn't automatically make you a good person,
And you can be a good person without being a Christian.

The answer is ethics.

You people have it all stuffed up.
It's not about believing Jesus existed and suffered, it's about that he was 'teacher' and what he taught.

'Do unto others' = ethics.

This is why you have religious people with their heads up their backsides.
They think they have ethics when often they don't.

Holy crap...
And I'm not even religious, I'm agnostic.

Regards 'Fighting the good fight'
What do you all think of this?
http://.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/06/pompeo-reportedly-gives-kim-jong-un-elton-john-rocket-man-cd-at-trumps-request.amp.html