But seeing as we are talking about sciences.... Going back to high school level biology where there are only three distinct races, Caucasian, Mongoloid (Asian) or Negroid (African) which can be easily determined by physical evidence.
You went to high school a really long time ago then, or you got your education from some really misinformed people. If you want to divide humanity into races based on genetics, you end up with either two races (those who left Africa, and everybody else), or dozens. The differences between Africans are far, far greater than those between Europeans and Asians, for example.
Basing it on a single cosmetic feature like skin color (which is subject to strong evolutionary pressure, which means it can change pretty quickly in a population), is very unscientific. Do you want to lump Australian aboriginals in with sub-Saharan Africans?
It's not race, it's culture. There are typical "black" and "white" subcultures in the US. Or at least subcultures where not every skin color is proportionally represented. Not every person with black or white skin identifies with those subcultures, but they will have a big impact on these kind of statistics.
There is of course also a geek/engineering culture. From these OKCupid statistics, you can tell that a significant number of Asians and Indians (don't they also come from Asia?) identify with geeky/engineering themes, whereas among whites and blacks they get completely drowned in the much larger numbers of jocks/hiphoppers/etc. Is that because Asians and Indians are genetically that much more disposed towards engineering? Or could it be that they come from a culture that values engineering more? Or maybe Indians and Asians with valuable engineering skills are more likely to migrate to the US than their non-engineer relatives.
There's really a lot more culture than race involved in these lists.
Actually, when you're on a dating site, it's very much worth it to repel the people you're not interested in. If you seem attractive to everybody, you'll be approached by everybody, and you're in for a lot of work trying to figure out who might possibly like the real you. Instead, be honest about your bad side, and you might find someone who doesn't mind that bad side.
Of course it's also good to be aware of your bad aspects and work on them. Nothing wrong with liking comic books (to take just one example), as long as it doesn't completely dominate your profile.
It's not an either/or thing. You can join a dating site and go out and meet people. Having hobbies and meeting people is healthy even if you already have a relationship. Joining a hiking club with the explicit expectation to pick up a girl there is not such a good idea. It might happen, but it's not what hiking clubs are for (unlike dating sites).
I go out and meet people, my wife goes out and meets people, yet we met on a dating site. My brother goes out and meets people but is still single. Dating sites definitely fill a useful role, and according to various surveys, they do often lead to healthy and stable relationships. Don't expect them to be a substitute for having a life, because they're not. But that doesn't mean they add nothing of value.
Why is this modded troll? This article is entirely about Americans (and not just white ones). It's worth pointing out that this analysis says nothing about people from other countries.
Same for me. Also for the particles. Do only USAns get to see doodles at google.com? Or were these only shown at google.co.uk? (I haven't seen them at google.nl either.)
Who said anything about killing people? I said "burn abortion clinics".
Somehow I read "bomb" instead of "burn", and assumed (possibly incorrectly) that it was an attempt at someone's life, rather than an attempt to destroy property.
Whatever the case, the big question from a religious point of view is: do they honestly regret what they did? If they do, are they willing to do everything they can to repay the damaged property? There's not much in the way of sin that can not be forgiven, biblically speaking.
But to be honest, I think this is all pretty theoretical. Is it very likely that these people will regret their actions? If you resort to that level of terrorism, you've got to be pretty full of yourself.
From a societal point of view, it's clearly a crime, and deserves punishment. Not to mention the fact that if they want to keep doing it, they're clearly a threat to society.
In the US it's also a federal crime, and no amount of forgiveness from the direct victims will stop the government from going ahead with the process.
And rightly so. It is the government's job, after all. You can't go condoning people intentionally burning down stuff.
Certainly not, but your reply was most curious. First you profess a religious position, then when I ask what would you do seem to forget about what you just said, and answer just like an atheist might. It's like you're religious in theory but not in practice.
The religious aspect and the secular aspect are very different. You can be forgiven and still go to jail. In fact, you can love them and still think they need to go to jail.
This and the next few paragraphs are interesting. Do you ever worry you might overstep your bounds and go to hell as a result, or the right intention is all that matters? And with such a tolerant doctrine, is belief needed at all, or good deeds would be sufficient?
The right intention is definitely important. According to 1 Corinthians 13, it is the only thing that matters. Am I worried I might go to hell? Not really. I have faith in God. Whether belief is needed at all, I don't know. Sometimes the bible is all about faith, sometimes it's all about good intentions (love). Do you need both? Is either one enough? Somewhere it even says that good deeds for the wrong intentions are still better than nothing. In the end, only the grace of God can save us. And personally, I hope that grace is not withheld from atheists or people from different religions who lived such a life of love.
But given all this, what do you need a god for,
Salvation, I guess?
why does it have validity, and what do you find in the bible or any other such source that you can't find somewhere else?
What I find is, I think, a hint of truth. Not the complete truth, nor do I think it's undiluted, nor the only source of truth. But what I get out of it most of all, is a sign saying "truth that way -->". That, and the trust that I'm safe. Which is certainly a nice feeling.
That seems to conflict with the previous idea of loving your enemy and forgiving them. Or is jail a form of forgiveness? Also that's a very secular approach.
If they're honestly sorry for what they did and promise not to kill people again, I'm all for second chances. Then again, if they're aware that what they did was wrong and regret it, they might agree that a prison sentence is only fair. In the end, though, they're not my enemy, nor did they wrong me in any way, so it's not really up to me to forgive them. If the family of their victims forgive them, who am I to object?
By the way, secular law is not invalid in any way. There's nothing wrong with following the law. Well, unless that law is wrong, of course. (I'm also a strong believer in civil disobedience.)
As far as I gather, the bible contains arguments both for and against, people pick whatever they like more.
It's a flexible book in some areas. Use what works for you. It leaves a lot of room for personal judgment (and the NT is quite clear about that too). In any case, there's no fundamental reason why women should not ever hold important positions in a church, though. Other than "because Paul said so", but considering the core tenets of the bible, that's not a terribly strong argument.
Note how the site mentions that women should still be restricted by the limitations mentioned by Paul.
That's their interpretation. It's not universal. I certainly disagree. Had it been such an important issue, it would have been mentioned outside of Timothy too.
Ok, so why still have it in the current bible?
Why not? It's part of the thing. I prefer reading it in the social and historical context over short-sighted revisionism.
How do you decide which limits are okay to remove?
Common sense. Some are helpful, some are harmful.
So why do you need religion at all? If you'd tell to your own God, "wait a sec, what am I doing this for?" then clearly you're exercising judgement that's not coming from your religion. Your sense of right and wrong therefore doesn't have a divine source to it. Might as well go all the way then.
All the way where exactly? The fact that I can think for myself doesn't automatically imply God has no validity anymore. I'm sure there are people who need God more than I do (ooh, a hint of hubris there), but that doesn't mean I don't need him at all.
I was actually under the impression that the law of gravity, like time ans presumably other laws of physics, were inextricably part of this universe, which would mean they came into being at the time of the Big Bang. Does Hawking now say that's not true? Or have I always been wrong in my understanding?
And how do you not think that organized religions do not have rules to keep people in line?
Who says I don't think that? I'm not defending organized religions here. I'm very much against them. Hierarchical organizations are very easy to corrupt. Corrupt the top (which is easy to corrupt, because there's power there), and you've got the rest too. Religion should be about a personal relationship with God, not about blind obedience to some organization.
Scary people. Don't think for a moment that they represent any meaningful part of mainstream christianity. I completely fail to see how anyone could believe themselves to be christian and do what they do.
sure that's a nice way to look at it but I was more talking about the millions that died in wars in the name of religion.
That a war is fought in the name of religion doesn't mean that that's what it's really about. Iraq was invaded in the name of WMDs, but nobody outside the US believed that one for a minute.
You pretty much said it for me religions are not what they should be they are corrupt. Todays religions are nothing more than a political system trying to control people.
I didn't say ignore the new testament, but why ignore all the rest?
I'm not saying ignore all the rest, I'm saying read it in the light of the new testament. And that quote from the NT in particular. Some parts are pretty hard, I admit. I'm no ultimate font of wisdom either.
Like Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
If that's how it's supposed to be, you've get the hell of a job to do to fix things.
We definitely do. Ghandi is completely correct, as far as I'm concerned.
On the other hand, I'm not sure this way of doing things is the best idea. If you love your enemy and forgive everything, how do you fight against those you consider that interpret your religion really wrong?
With words. It's what I'm doing here.
For instance, with a mindset like that you're probably not on the side of those who burn abortion clinics, do you try to do anything about them? And does it work?
I'm not aware of any in my country, but I'm all for giving them a fair trial and then locking them up for a good long time.
A large swathe of American Christianity seems to have thoroughly derailed, and I have no idea how to get that train wreck back on the rails again. I'm confident there are also still some more sensible Christians in the US, though.
Which functions you mean?
Deacon is one literally mentioned. My minister/vicar/preacher (or whatever it's called) claims there were more, though.
Paul wrote quite a few things on women in churches, but I don't remember seeing anything very progressive.
Not for today perhaps, but for those days, everything he wrote was incredibly progressive.
Which? The Vatican declared that ordaining women is a crime.
Who cares what the Vatican declares? Not even all catholics do.
For a start, please tell me of which denominations comply with the Bechdel Test for Religion:
(1) at least one woman in a position of authority; (2) who plays a formal, recognized role in shaping doctrine or practice; (3) that is binding on male members of that religion.
I've never heard of the Bechdel Test, but my local church has women in the leadership team who shape quite a bit of practice. Plenty of churches of female priests, preachers/ministers/vicars, etc.
So it got better. Why not make it better still by removing the limits that christianity imposes? There's no reason why improvements can only happen once.
I'm not sure those limits are really imposed by christianity, but I'm all for removing limits.
For me at least, a command like "kill somebody" is never valid on its own and must be questioned. I'm not of the sort that would never, ever in any circumstances take a life, but what I'd definitely never do is doing it without an excellent explanation for why it's needed. No amount of trust overrides that.
I fully agree there.
Heheh, but so do you, and so does everybody else. According to Wikipedia there are about 38000 christian denominations. So what makes you think you've got a more accurate view of it than I do?
My impression is that I've got a bit more of an inside view. Mostly, though, I don't know. My interpretation is an interpretation like any other. I arrived at it through quite a bit of critical thought and common sense, but most Christians I meet seem to agree with it for the most part. The people who disagree are mostly atheists or Americans.
It does matter. It's the essence of what it's all about. If you ignore the words of Jesus, you're ignoring the most important part of the bible (at least from a Christian viewpoint).
Oh and don't forget about the crusades and Spanish Inquisition or is it b/c those are 100's of years old they don't count
No, they don't count because they're political, rather than religious. Religion was just an excuse. The people in power used religion to keep people in line, which makes heresy basically rebellion. The crusades weren't religious, but cultural. "Those people are different and getting closer! Let's go take their stuff!"
OK how about all the terrorists fighting for religion now?
Which ones exactly are fighting for religion? It seems to me most are fighting for freedom or against cultural suppression. They feel put down, so they rise up.
Hell on a smaller scale how about abortion clinic bombings?
You mean the people who are insane murderers? I'd like to know what kind of religion inspires that kind of murder.
I'm willing to bet many more people died for their faith
I'm not denying that. Many people are willing to die for what they believe in, rather than renounce that belief. Is that wrong of those people? Or is it wrong of the people who kill them? (You know, the ones in power who feel their power threatened by people who believe something they can't control?)
I mean other than the original10 commandments nothing else was actually written by the hand of god. So the only thing important enough for god to write down himself was a list of rules that are pretty common sense. If that was what Christianity taught and not hate no one would have any problems with it.
That is what Christianity teaches. Or should be teaching. A lot of confused christians keep getting in the way.
Ghandi once said: "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today." (I thought he said it would be irresistible, but this is what Google gave me.) It's not the teachings that are wrong. It's the people.
I guess you're a Bahá'í then? It's the only religion I know which pays more than lip service to science and reason, faith in any other religion pretty much precludes critical thinking.
I'm not familiar with Bahai, but you might not be familiar with all branches of Christianity.
My church encourages critical thinking, has a lot of mathematicians and scientists among its members, and the level of education is, as far as I can tell, at least, quite a bit higher than that of the average (mostly non-Christian) population. But even that bastion of conservativism and traditionalism, the Vatican, invests quite a bit in science.
Somebody making generalizing claims that this can not be true, is just not terribly convincing.
No it doesn't. It acknowledges the existence of it, and limits its abuse. Slavery was dead common in all countries in that part of the world at that time.
Furthermore, the new testament makes it pretty clear that to God, a slave is not any less than his master. There's a story where Paul helps the runaway slave of a friend, and sends him back as an equal, rather than a slave.
I don't think you understand what my religion is about. It's not about some verse in Exodus. It's about the NT. It is, in fact, quite explicitly about love. Love for God, and love for your fellow humans.
According to Matthew 22:36-40, the entire bible hangs on that. If parts of the bible don't seem to agree with this, it might be prudent to question your interpretation of them.
That's not picking and choosing, that's sticking to what's important. What the single central figure in the bible personally says it's all about.
I've read the whole of the bible twice btw. God directly started wars in the old testament. That sounds like religion giving reasons for war to me,
True. I'm just pointing out that the new testament is quite different in that respect (and does that not count? does negative stuff in the OT mean that the NT can't possibly bring something positive?), and that not all wars are divinely inspired. Most wars where religion plays a role, it's really just an excuse for an Us vs. Them war. It could just as easily be about skin colour, ideology or football teams. People tend not to be very picky when it comes to excuses to exclude people.
*gasp* Would humans ever do something like that, make up gods and beliefs to control people and get their own way? Surely not!
Isn't that kinda what I said? Politics abuses anything as an excuse to get what they want. Abstract concepts are really popular, apparently.
Critical thought is frowned upon in religion it is not encouraged. This is practically the definition of faith.
Depends on your religion, I guess. Mine encourages critical thought.
Parroting "evolution is JUST a theory" is not critical thought.
It's also not religious.
Atheist are perfectly capable of embracing peace, tolerance, acceptance, equality, familial care, critical thought and responsibility. They do this because of a personal ethic, not because they are afraid of the wrath of an invisible monster.
Speaking broadly and drawing from all of the Abrahamic religions; war, racism, homophobia, sexism, indoctrination, anti-reason, and anti-contraception are all practically sacraments.
You might be more convincing if you demonstrated some tolerance, acceptance and critical thought. The things you mention are all works of people. Things people have done with or without religion. They're products of conservativism and traditionalism, and have very little to do with religion.
Slashdot Mirror
But seeing as we are talking about sciences.... Going back to high school level biology where there are only three distinct races, Caucasian, Mongoloid (Asian) or Negroid (African) which can be easily determined by physical evidence.
You went to high school a really long time ago then, or you got your education from some really misinformed people. If you want to divide humanity into races based on genetics, you end up with either two races (those who left Africa, and everybody else), or dozens. The differences between Africans are far, far greater than those between Europeans and Asians, for example.
Basing it on a single cosmetic feature like skin color (which is subject to strong evolutionary pressure, which means it can change pretty quickly in a population), is very unscientific. Do you want to lump Australian aboriginals in with sub-Saharan Africans?
It's not race, it's culture. There are typical "black" and "white" subcultures in the US. Or at least subcultures where not every skin color is proportionally represented. Not every person with black or white skin identifies with those subcultures, but they will have a big impact on these kind of statistics.
There is of course also a geek/engineering culture. From these OKCupid statistics, you can tell that a significant number of Asians and Indians (don't they also come from Asia?) identify with geeky/engineering themes, whereas among whites and blacks they get completely drowned in the much larger numbers of jocks/hiphoppers/etc. Is that because Asians and Indians are genetically that much more disposed towards engineering? Or could it be that they come from a culture that values engineering more? Or maybe Indians and Asians with valuable engineering skills are more likely to migrate to the US than their non-engineer relatives.
There's really a lot more culture than race involved in these lists.
Actually, when you're on a dating site, it's very much worth it to repel the people you're not interested in. If you seem attractive to everybody, you'll be approached by everybody, and you're in for a lot of work trying to figure out who might possibly like the real you. Instead, be honest about your bad side, and you might find someone who doesn't mind that bad side.
Of course it's also good to be aware of your bad aspects and work on them. Nothing wrong with liking comic books (to take just one example), as long as it doesn't completely dominate your profile.
It's not an either/or thing. You can join a dating site and go out and meet people. Having hobbies and meeting people is healthy even if you already have a relationship. Joining a hiking club with the explicit expectation to pick up a girl there is not such a good idea. It might happen, but it's not what hiking clubs are for (unlike dating sites).
I go out and meet people, my wife goes out and meets people, yet we met on a dating site. My brother goes out and meets people but is still single. Dating sites definitely fill a useful role, and according to various surveys, they do often lead to healthy and stable relationships. Don't expect them to be a substitute for having a life, because they're not. But that doesn't mean they add nothing of value.
Why is this modded troll? This article is entirely about Americans (and not just white ones). It's worth pointing out that this analysis says nothing about people from other countries.
Same for me. Also for the particles. Do only USAns get to see doodles at google.com? Or were these only shown at google.co.uk? (I haven't seen them at google.nl either.)
Who said anything about killing people? I said "burn abortion clinics".
Somehow I read "bomb" instead of "burn", and assumed (possibly incorrectly) that it was an attempt at someone's life, rather than an attempt to destroy property.
Whatever the case, the big question from a religious point of view is: do they honestly regret what they did? If they do, are they willing to do everything they can to repay the damaged property? There's not much in the way of sin that can not be forgiven, biblically speaking.
But to be honest, I think this is all pretty theoretical. Is it very likely that these people will regret their actions? If you resort to that level of terrorism, you've got to be pretty full of yourself.
From a societal point of view, it's clearly a crime, and deserves punishment. Not to mention the fact that if they want to keep doing it, they're clearly a threat to society.
In the US it's also a federal crime, and no amount of forgiveness from the direct victims will stop the government from going ahead with the process.
And rightly so. It is the government's job, after all. You can't go condoning people intentionally burning down stuff.
Certainly not, but your reply was most curious. First you profess a religious position, then when I ask what would you do seem to forget about what you just said, and answer just like an atheist might. It's like you're religious in theory but not in practice.
The religious aspect and the secular aspect are very different. You can be forgiven and still go to jail. In fact, you can love them and still think they need to go to jail.
This and the next few paragraphs are interesting. Do you ever worry you might overstep your bounds and go to hell as a result, or the right intention is all that matters? And with such a tolerant doctrine, is belief needed at all, or good deeds would be sufficient?
The right intention is definitely important. According to 1 Corinthians 13, it is the only thing that matters. Am I worried I might go to hell? Not really. I have faith in God. Whether belief is needed at all, I don't know. Sometimes the bible is all about faith, sometimes it's all about good intentions (love). Do you need both? Is either one enough? Somewhere it even says that good deeds for the wrong intentions are still better than nothing. In the end, only the grace of God can save us. And personally, I hope that grace is not withheld from atheists or people from different religions who lived such a life of love.
But given all this, what do you need a god for,
Salvation, I guess?
why does it have validity, and what do you find in the bible or any other such source that you can't find somewhere else?
What I find is, I think, a hint of truth. Not the complete truth, nor do I think it's undiluted, nor the only source of truth. But what I get out of it most of all, is a sign saying "truth that way -->". That, and the trust that I'm safe. Which is certainly a nice feeling.
I'm not familiar with Bahai, but you might not be familiar with all branches of Christianity
I guess not ... I just assume that if you believe in the Bible then you're not a critical thinker despite the label you put on yourself.
Man, did you just condemn a lot of influential philosophers. Kant not a critical thinker? Descartes and Erasmus not critical thinkers?
And if it doesn't work?
Then I keep trying.
That seems to conflict with the previous idea of loving your enemy and forgiving them. Or is jail a form of forgiveness? Also that's a very secular approach.
If they're honestly sorry for what they did and promise not to kill people again, I'm all for second chances. Then again, if they're aware that what they did was wrong and regret it, they might agree that a prison sentence is only fair. In the end, though, they're not my enemy, nor did they wrong me in any way, so it's not really up to me to forgive them. If the family of their victims forgive them, who am I to object?
By the way, secular law is not invalid in any way. There's nothing wrong with following the law. Well, unless that law is wrong, of course. (I'm also a strong believer in civil disobedience.)
As far as I gather, the bible contains arguments both for and against, people pick whatever they like more.
It's a flexible book in some areas. Use what works for you. It leaves a lot of room for personal judgment (and the NT is quite clear about that too). In any case, there's no fundamental reason why women should not ever hold important positions in a church, though. Other than "because Paul said so", but considering the core tenets of the bible, that's not a terribly strong argument.
Note how the site mentions that women should still be restricted by the limitations mentioned by Paul.
That's their interpretation. It's not universal. I certainly disagree. Had it been such an important issue, it would have been mentioned outside of Timothy too.
Ok, so why still have it in the current bible?
Why not? It's part of the thing. I prefer reading it in the social and historical context over short-sighted revisionism.
How do you decide which limits are okay to remove?
Common sense. Some are helpful, some are harmful.
So why do you need religion at all? If you'd tell to your own God, "wait a sec, what am I doing this for?" then clearly you're exercising judgement that's not coming from your religion. Your sense of right and wrong therefore doesn't have a divine source to it. Might as well go all the way then.
All the way where exactly? The fact that I can think for myself doesn't automatically imply God has no validity anymore. I'm sure there are people who need God more than I do (ooh, a hint of hubris there), but that doesn't mean I don't need him at all.
Thanks. I was surprised about that too. I usually have a bit more faith in the Slashdot moderators.
(It doesn't really put a dent in my karma, though. Whether you believe in that or not.)
Arrogance. Do we really think we understand everything?
Who is this "we"? I understand nothing of this stuff. As far as I can tell, only Hawking really understands it.
I was actually under the impression that the law of gravity, like time ans presumably other laws of physics, were inextricably part of this universe, which would mean they came into being at the time of the Big Bang. Does Hawking now say that's not true? Or have I always been wrong in my understanding?
And how do you not think that organized religions do not have rules to keep people in line?
Who says I don't think that? I'm not defending organized religions here. I'm very much against them. Hierarchical organizations are very easy to corrupt. Corrupt the top (which is easy to corrupt, because there's power there), and you've got the rest too. Religion should be about a personal relationship with God, not about blind obedience to some organization.
The one this group follows apparently
Scary people. Don't think for a moment that they represent any meaningful part of mainstream christianity. I completely fail to see how anyone could believe themselves to be christian and do what they do.
sure that's a nice way to look at it but I was more talking about the millions that died in wars in the name of religion.
That a war is fought in the name of religion doesn't mean that that's what it's really about. Iraq was invaded in the name of WMDs, but nobody outside the US believed that one for a minute.
You pretty much said it for me religions are not what they should be they are corrupt. Todays religions are nothing more than a political system trying to control people.
Not all. But way too many.
I didn't say ignore the new testament, but why ignore all the rest?
I'm not saying ignore all the rest, I'm saying read it in the light of the new testament. And that quote from the NT in particular. Some parts are pretty hard, I admit. I'm no ultimate font of wisdom either.
Like Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
If that's how it's supposed to be, you've get the hell of a job to do to fix things.
We definitely do. Ghandi is completely correct, as far as I'm concerned.
On the other hand, I'm not sure this way of doing things is the best idea. If you love your enemy and forgive everything, how do you fight against those you consider that interpret your religion really wrong?
With words. It's what I'm doing here.
For instance, with a mindset like that you're probably not on the side of those who burn abortion clinics, do you try to do anything about them? And does it work?
I'm not aware of any in my country, but I'm all for giving them a fair trial and then locking them up for a good long time.
A large swathe of American Christianity seems to have thoroughly derailed, and I have no idea how to get that train wreck back on the rails again. I'm confident there are also still some more sensible Christians in the US, though.
Which functions you mean?
Deacon is one literally mentioned. My minister/vicar/preacher (or whatever it's called) claims there were more, though.
Paul wrote quite a few things on women in churches, but I don't remember seeing anything very progressive.
Not for today perhaps, but for those days, everything he wrote was incredibly progressive.
Which? The Vatican declared that ordaining women is a crime.
Who cares what the Vatican declares? Not even all catholics do.
For a start, please tell me of which denominations comply with the Bechdel Test for Religion:
(1) at least one woman in a position of authority;
(2) who plays a formal, recognized role in shaping doctrine or practice;
(3) that is binding on male members of that religion.
I've never heard of the Bechdel Test, but my local church has women in the leadership team who shape quite a bit of practice. Plenty of churches of female priests, preachers/ministers/vicars, etc.
So it got better. Why not make it better still by removing the limits that christianity imposes? There's no reason why improvements can only happen once.
I'm not sure those limits are really imposed by christianity, but I'm all for removing limits.
For me at least, a command like "kill somebody" is never valid on its own and must be questioned. I'm not of the sort that would never, ever in any circumstances take a life, but what I'd definitely never do is doing it without an excellent explanation for why it's needed. No amount of trust overrides that.
I fully agree there.
Heheh, but so do you, and so does everybody else. According to Wikipedia there are about 38000 christian denominations. So what makes you think you've got a more accurate view of it than I do?
My impression is that I've got a bit more of an inside view. Mostly, though, I don't know. My interpretation is an interpretation like any other. I arrived at it through quite a bit of critical thought and common sense, but most Christians I meet seem to agree with it for the most part. The people who disagree are mostly atheists or Americans.
It does matter. It's the essence of what it's all about. If you ignore the words of Jesus, you're ignoring the most important part of the bible (at least from a Christian viewpoint).
People have taught people to fear and hate. That doesn't mean that's what Christianity is about.
Oh and don't forget about the crusades and Spanish Inquisition or is it b/c those are 100's of years old they don't count
No, they don't count because they're political, rather than religious. Religion was just an excuse. The people in power used religion to keep people in line, which makes heresy basically rebellion. The crusades weren't religious, but cultural. "Those people are different and getting closer! Let's go take their stuff!"
OK how about all the terrorists fighting for religion now?
Which ones exactly are fighting for religion? It seems to me most are fighting for freedom or against cultural suppression. They feel put down, so they rise up.
Hell on a smaller scale how about abortion clinic bombings?
You mean the people who are insane murderers? I'd like to know what kind of religion inspires that kind of murder.
I'm willing to bet many more people died for their faith
I'm not denying that. Many people are willing to die for what they believe in, rather than renounce that belief. Is that wrong of those people? Or is it wrong of the people who kill them? (You know, the ones in power who feel their power threatened by people who believe something they can't control?)
I mean other than the original10 commandments nothing else was actually written by the hand of god. So the only thing important enough for god to write down himself was a list of rules that are pretty common sense. If that was what Christianity taught and not hate no one would have any problems with it.
That is what Christianity teaches. Or should be teaching. A lot of confused christians keep getting in the way.
Ghandi once said: "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today." (I thought he said it would be irresistible, but this is what Google gave me.)
It's not the teachings that are wrong. It's the people.
I guess you're a Bahá'í then? It's the only religion I know which pays more than lip service to science and reason, faith in any other religion pretty much precludes critical thinking.
I'm not familiar with Bahai, but you might not be familiar with all branches of Christianity.
My church encourages critical thinking, has a lot of mathematicians and scientists among its members, and the level of education is, as far as I can tell, at least, quite a bit higher than that of the average (mostly non-Christian) population. But even that bastion of conservativism and traditionalism, the Vatican, invests quite a bit in science.
Somebody making generalizing claims that this can not be true, is just not terribly convincing.
The Bible actively encourages slavery.
No it doesn't. It acknowledges the existence of it, and limits its abuse. Slavery was dead common in all countries in that part of the world at that time.
Furthermore, the new testament makes it pretty clear that to God, a slave is not any less than his master. There's a story where Paul helps the runaway slave of a friend, and sends him back as an equal, rather than a slave.
I don't think you understand what my religion is about. It's not about some verse in Exodus. It's about the NT. It is, in fact, quite explicitly about love. Love for God, and love for your fellow humans.
According to Matthew 22:36-40, the entire bible hangs on that. If parts of the bible don't seem to agree with this, it might be prudent to question your interpretation of them.
That's not picking and choosing, that's sticking to what's important. What the single central figure in the bible personally says it's all about.
I've read the whole of the bible twice btw. God directly started wars in the old testament. That sounds like religion giving reasons for war to me,
True. I'm just pointing out that the new testament is quite different in that respect (and does that not count? does negative stuff in the OT mean that the NT can't possibly bring something positive?), and that not all wars are divinely inspired. Most wars where religion plays a role, it's really just an excuse for an Us vs. Them war. It could just as easily be about skin colour, ideology or football teams. People tend not to be very picky when it comes to excuses to exclude people.
*gasp* Would humans ever do something like that, make up gods and beliefs to control people and get their own way? Surely not!
Isn't that kinda what I said? Politics abuses anything as an excuse to get what they want. Abstract concepts are really popular, apparently.
Is buddhism not a religion?
The essence of religion is prohibition and submission.
Depends on the religion, I guess. For me, the essence is faith.
Critical thought is frowned upon in religion it is not encouraged. This is practically the definition of faith.
Depends on your religion, I guess. Mine encourages critical thought.
Parroting "evolution is JUST a theory" is not critical thought.
It's also not religious.
Atheist are perfectly capable of embracing peace, tolerance, acceptance, equality, familial care, critical thought and responsibility. They do this because of a personal ethic, not because they are afraid of the wrath of an invisible monster.
Speaking broadly and drawing from all of the Abrahamic religions; war, racism, homophobia, sexism, indoctrination, anti-reason, and anti-contraception are all practically sacraments.
You might be more convincing if you demonstrated some tolerance, acceptance and critical thought. The things you mention are all works of people. Things people have done with or without religion. They're products of conservativism and traditionalism, and have very little to do with religion.