Jeffthinks

There's nothing much wrong with anything Jesus said or did, or at least what's been attributed to him. The damage has been done by people twisting that stuff to their own ends and saying, "Not me. Jesus said it".

The next time you go out for ink, Jeff, get a "Spell Check".
 

Just wat are you saying Grodon, I think that I am a good speeler.
 

Jeff, I'm glad you have something that works for you....and I'm not being insincere when I say that. It just wouldn't work for me. Life's too full of bullcrap. I remember years ago when Jesse Ventura said that religion was for the weak. I say, "Count me in." I admit that I'm weak. There's just too much crap that, left to myself, would drive me crazy or have me slitting my wrists.

At the same time, my faith serves me well. It gives me meaning as well as hope (something I desperately need as I look at the world around me). It keeps me from killing my wife or leaving her in frustration (and keeps her from doing the same with me). It gives me a perspective on how I relate to my kids that I don't find in pop psychology or anywhere else.

We're not the Cleavers. I don't have time to tell you all the crap I deal with (don't EVER be tempted to go into Christian Ministry - unless you want to be one of those hucksters on TV. You may have to sell your conscience, but it looks like it pays awfuly well). But I've also worked for a major corporation and it really isn't any better there. My faith doesn't deliver me from the crap, but it sure makes it smell nicer.
 

Paul, religion helping the weak is perhaps fine in some respects, but isn't it really a cop-out? I mean, if you can blame everything on a god, isn't that taking the responsibility off of your shoulders? In the end, it all has to come from within each and every individual, exterior god or no god. It's called in this day and age, a "reality check."
 

Jeff, I don't think it is a cop-out because I don't blame everything on God. Hitler was a free moral being. Why would I blame his actions on God? I've read the stories of a lot of people who suffered under Hitler without blaming God. God is where they found their strength IN SPITE OF the actions of the Nazis.

What would you tell someone living in that hell who has already looked within and found nothing but emptiness? Look a little harder? Suck it up? Get over it? That's just it. If I'm the final answer there are some things that life will deal me that will leave me without hope.

Throughout human history people have looked within themselves. Here we are in 2005 and none of the strictly humanistic look-within answers have emerged as THE answer.

A while back I read an interview with Harrison Ford, a most successful person from all outward appearances. He basically said that his private life was a living hell. He felt hopelessness and dispair frequently - doing exactly what you suggest...looking within.

None of that is God's fault. The Christianity of the Bible doesn't blame God for anything. I'm not sure where you get that idea. Surely you can't blame a god that doesn't exist, eh?
 

Oh, and as for responsibility it seem to me that the very basis of the Christian faith is to hold each person accountable for their own actions. You never hear someone in court saying, "Well, it's not really my fault. It's God's fault." Now, they'll blame their parents. They'll blame society. They'll blame the neighbor's dog. It seems to me to be an un-Christian thing to shift or avoid personal responsibility.
 

those hucksters on TV One of the big problems facing modern American Christianity is that gullible people think those ying-yangs are the real deal.
 

Paul, I think that you may be missing the point of logic here. Whether you turn inward to find courage, answers, wisdom or whatever to get you through life and find either your own personal stengths or those of a/or supplied by a mythical god is not the issue here. Logic says that you're turning inward either way. On the point of the weak needing help from an outside source (a god)... I suspect that's a huge part of the whole problem. The weak are easily manipulated, whether it be by certain preachers, politicians or other scam artists. Is it the same acceptance of finding help from a "god" that sets these same believers up to be taken down by whomever tricks them the best?
 

Well, but I consider myself one of the weak. Are you saying I'm easily manipulated? I'm not sure you know me well enough to come to that conclusion. If you're not careful it might sound like you look down your nose at all religious people.

Gordon, I love the "ying yang" thing. I might have to use that one. :-)
 

"Logic says that you're turning inward either way."Only if I accept the premise that the only god that exists is me. In reality that is unproveable either way which, from a philosophical standpoint, means that it isn't logical at all. At least no more logical than for me to say that "logic says when you are turning to God you are turning outward." I may believe that (and do) but I can't logically prove it.
 

Still, the bottom line is that YOU, the individual are making the decision. The matter of accepting that YOU the individual can handle your own affairs vs. the acceptance of something that YOU, the individual need outside assistance from a "god" doesn't change the fact that YOU, the individual are making the call and it's an INWARD call isn't it?
 

Paul, just because you might think of yourself as weak doesn't necessarily mean that you are and no, I'm not saying that all christians are weak, but the ones who are could be easy prey to any number of con men and their ideas and yes, that includes preachers!
 

Whoah, you two. Let's not get into an episode of Crossfire here.
 

It's okay, Jack. Paul knows that I think of him as one of the good guys, not one of the enemy. Besides, what's wrong with a little "Crossfire" not and then?
 

Putting it that way I suppose that, yes, we would agree that the decision resides in the individual. But I must warn you. You are now beginning to sound a little like St. Augustine. :)

Jack, your observation is the primary thing that frustrates me about blogging - and written words. You can't look the other person in the eye to see if they're "heated" or not. Hopefully this is all just a nice little debate. I think of Jeff as one of the good guys, too.
 

Yes, it's just a nice little debate. St. Augustine, huh? Do you mean the canonized or the grass?

Frankly, Paul, I think that there's only a hair's worth of real difference in the PURE beliefs of many of the bloggers who have responded to this series. In fact, I think that if almost any one of us had ten minutes on the pulpit, our basic "sermons" would be similar and positive.

I hope that is as comforting to you as it is to me.

By the way, being a pastor must be a heck of a task. You must have to be a spiritual leader/CEO/psychiatrist/counselor/teacher/healer/the man with all of the answers/babysitter (and I don't necessarily mean for kids) all rolled into one.

Good luck. Keep telling the TRUE intent of Jesus' message, brother Paul.
 

"It keeps me from killing my wife or leaving her in frustration "

Does you wife know that the only reason you haven't killed her yet is because you believe in God?

I mean, I'm sorry, but that comment boggles my mind. I'm an atheist and I can honestly say, I've never considered killing my wife. I've never considered laying a finger on her, and I try to consider everything I do with her in the context of how it might affect her or make her feel. I guess I'm glad I don't need a book and a weekly trip to a church to keep from murdering the most important person in the world to me in her sleep.

Wow.
 

Thinking about this a little more and taking it to a logical conlusion, what you seem to be saying is this: For many people, only their faith prevents them infringing on the human rights of others. Without faith, these people would kill or steal from others, even those they are closest to, those they have chosen to make a life with. So what does it say about the faithful that they need the promise of a happy, eternal afterlife and a set of guidelines given to them by a creator that they fear to keep themselves from visiting pain and death on others, even those that they love?

If this is true, then the truly enlightened end of man's cultural and intellectual evolution is to consider the hapinees and security of others WITHOUT being told to, simply because it's right and not because it serves one's own self interest.
 

Mourn,

Actually you are the one who used the word "only." I never suggested that my faith is the "only" thing that keeps me from killing my wife. I was also using hyperbole. In reality I have never thought of killing my wife. I was simply suggesting that our conflicts are not what they might be were it not for a faith that teaches me what love looks like (not just what it "feels" like, and certainly not the mushy image portrayed in popular culture that is now practically devoid of any real content).

Frankly I'd be happy to compare our relationship with most any other marriage I see walking around.

Secondly, I would agree with your second comment. I think that the conclusion you come to is borne out in history. Just look at some of the greatest atrocities going on in our lifetime - in the former Soviet Union, in China, in North Korea - all atheistic. For the most part you won't find your murderers, thieves, etc. in church every week. And when they are they are acting in a way that is strictly contrary to what they sould be learning there (unless, perhaps, it is a fundamentalist mosque).

I know that the argument will come back that as much harm has been done in the name of religion. I would say that such may only be true to the extent that the religious have consistently and overwhelmingly outnumbered the completely irreligious such that it is really impossible to evaluate on that kind of a statistical basis.

I would also suggest that, at least in regards to the Christian faith, those who have harmed or killed others in the name of Christ have done so quite apart from his teaching, not because of it.

Lastly, if matter is all that is then who's to say that the happiness and security of others is a good thing? How, from a scientific point of view (atoms, dna, etc.) do you even come to a definition of what happiness and security are? It's all arbitrary. Those values may be important to you, but what if they aren't to someone else (for example the Muslim who has it in for you simply because you aren't a Muslim?). Who's to say you are right and he is wrong? It all becomes an arbitrary choice.
 

I think that if you boil either or both of these arguments down, it all ends up coming down to the selfish side of human beings. In other words, it doesn't matter if mass murder is done in the name of a god or not, humans have a great weakness for pleasures, worldly or otherwise and will exercise whatever excuse they need to exploit others to achieve their personal selfish goals.
 

Wait, wait, wait.

Paul, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that the societies that fostered the Crusades, the Inquistion and the destruction of native South American and North American populations, all in the name of God and Christianity were done outside the influence of Christ and then claim the the bad things that have happened in more secular societies were somehow attributable to their agnosticism. Either a society, government or community is responsible for its actions or it isn't. If it is, those things I mentioned previously are on Christianity and you can't just walk away from them as being mistakes or as being perpetrated by people outside the teachings of Christ. Whether they were or not, they were done in his name and by people who stridently believed in his existence and, supposedly, in his teachings. If you want to blame Stalin on Atheism, then Cortez, King George and Torquemada are on you. I'm sorry but you don't get to pick and choose when it's ok to lay the blame at the feet of the predominate spiritual climate of a country or state that commits an atrocity.

In the end, it would appear that people are people, regardless of what they believe or pretend to believe. Bad people are bad people, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or otherwise. The problem you have is that your position is that your beliefs somehow instill a sense of morality that is beyond self-interest. You have to defend that and you're unable to. I don't have to defend Stalin because I don't believe that being an atheist makes me a better or worse person strictly by that position, I don't think it has anything to do with it, just as I don't think your average Christian is any better or worse based on that belief.
 

Mourn, I think you have oversimplified things. If a whole society, or government, or community is responsible for every action that is committed in it then you and I are responsible for murders, stealing, rape, incest, as well as the war in Iraq (whether you agree with it or not). By that argument you would also be responsible for the bombing of abortion clinics by religious radicals (and actually, much of the world outside of America sees it just that way. If you don't believe me just take a trip to the middle east somewhere and see how safe you feel - regardless of your own personal positions on matters that affect them).

Using that argument, everyone, in the end, is responsible for everything because we all live in cultures that have murderers, rapists, etc.

I think it is naive to think that our thoughts/philosophies/religious views don't affect our behavior. A view of life that suggests we are nothing more than matter will ultimately treat life much differently than a view that says life is in the image of God. Look at the abortion debate as an example. There is no credible person on the pro-choice side saying that the unborn child is a full human being. They can't and maintain their position.

What I'm saying is that Christians don't murder others in the name of God without violating the command "You shall not murder," which is a part of the Christian Scriptures.

Atheism doesn't have a unified philosophy of life. Even you, as an athiest, can only speak for yourself. You have no Scriptures that guide you. It is your philosophy of life and then the next person's. You may believe murder is wrong, but you can't rule out the next person (despot?) who says that it is a viable option. Most religions, on the other hand, do.

If there is a cop out going on I think it is the view that says that, in the end, it doesn't matter if you're religious or not, we're all bad people who do bad things. There doesn't seem to be any accountability in that (not that accountability is a thing that is particularly valued these days).

I'm certainly not suggesting that any of this is a matter of anyone being "better or worse," especially in the sense of who we are as people. One idea may be superior to another (if you don't believe that then I suspect you don't vote or make many decisions in life).

I've said it before here in this space: if you have a better way to live than the one Jesus presnets to us then, by all means, go for it. Personally, I haven't found anything superior to his ways, despite the frequent failures of those who go by the name "Christian."
 

Wow. There are so many logical inconsistencies and points orthogonal to the issue at hand in your response that I don't even know where to begin.

"If a whole society, or government, or community is responsible for every action that is committed in it then you and I are responsible for murders, stealing, rape, incest, as well as the war in Iraq (whether you agree with it or not)."

Ok, you'll have to point out where I said "in". I did not say the members of a community are responsible for all actions committed "in" that society. My aforementioned examples are cases were a government whose rule was inextricably linked to the predominate, Christian theology of it's members commited atrocities in that name of those people, of the state and of Christianity. That is indesputable. As such, your example of Stalin fits as well, his actions were done by the government on behalf of it's citizens. To lump an idividulal murder, rape or clinic bombing in with this is completely ridiculous and not what I said.

And by the way, we *ARE* responsible for the war in Iraq and the associated atrocities because we as a free, democratic people have endorsed the person responsible, even after the acts were committed.

"By that argument you would also be responsible for the bombing of abortion clinics by religious radicals (and actually, much of the world outside of America sees it just that way. If you don't believe me just take a trip to the middle east somewhere and see how safe you feel - regardless of your own personal positions on matters that affect them)."

This would be the deeply religious, fundamentalist Middle East you are referring to, I assume.

"I think it is naive to think that our thoughts/philosophies/religious views don't affect our behavior. A view of life that suggests we are nothing more than matter will ultimately treat life much differently than a view that says life is in the image of God."

What does this mean? Differently how? Are you implying that because I don't believe in God I automatically hold life in lower regard than you? Have you ever been an atheist? If you haven't, you can't speak to that issue, any opinions you have are conjecture. I don't dispute that you personally, and many Christians, may hold life in very high regard. But there are countless examples throughout history where Christians and other religious fundamentalists have held life, especially life that doesn't agree with their religious beliefs, in little or no regard. So you cannot tell me that being a Christian *automatically* confers a respect for life, it obviously does not.

"What I'm saying is that Christians don't murder others in the name of God without violating the command "You shall not murder," which is a part of the Christian Scriptures."

I'm sure that makes someone who was murdered by a Christian feel a lot better. Again, it's clear that professing to follow the teachings of a peaceful leader isn't the same as actually doing it. There are any number of secular philosophers who have espoused respect for life and a code of basic human rights that include not killing other people that, if universally followed, would result in just as peaceful a world as if everyone followed Christ to the letter. The fact of the matter is, some people don't walk the walk, regardless of what they believe. So again, being a follower of a peaceful philosopher doesn't make you a peaceful person.

"Atheism doesn't have a unified philosophy of life. Even you, as an athiest, can only speak for yourself. You have no Scriptures that guide you. It is your philosophy of life and then the next person's. You may believe murder is wrong, but you can't rule out the next person (despot?) who says that it is a viable option. Most religions, on the other hand, do."

Do they? Think about what you just said because it's completely false. And yes, every atheist may not have the same philosophy I have, but what good does it do to have scriptures to guide you if you don't follow them? The fact of the matter is, the murder rate in the bible belt is the highest in the country, so is the divorce rate, so is the rate of child molestation and incest. The scriptures are clearly not preventing those things from happening. It's not your fault, as a (assumedly) good, law abiding, Christ-following Christian that other members of you faith do terrible things, but the fact that they are proves that reading the scriptures doesn't, in any way, discourage them from doing bad things to other people. You can claim to believe whatever you want, but it doesn't mean squat if you don't live it, and clearly, many Christians don't follow their faith.

I would even suggest that in many ways, Christianity can foster a feeling that it's okay to take another life because you can be forgiven and go to heaven anyway. What's 30 years in jail or the electric chair if God is waiting to fogive you and hand you the keys to paradise? People who bomb abortion clinics, whether you like or admit it or not, are doing it in the name of God. They believe they can't be judged on earth by a corrupt society that has lost it's way. They know they may be jailed by the heathens that make our laws, but they also believe when it's over, they will be fogiven and even thanked by God because they've done his work. Are these people warped? Hell yes they are. Do they represent the average Christian, I doubt it and I hope they don't. But again, they are following the same scriptures you are, they have just decided to emphasize and ignore different parts than you may have chosen to.

"If there is a cop out going on I think it is the view that says that, in the end, it doesn't matter if you're religious or not, we're all bad people who do bad things. There doesn't seem to be any accountability in that (not that accountability is a thing that is particularly valued these days)."

I don't believe everyone is bad. You are the one, by the way, who said you might be inclined to kill your wife if it wasn't for your religion. You seem to be ednorsing the opinion that all people are bad but that we can rise above if we follow Christ. I believe that there are many things that can make a person "bad". These things can be genetic, environmental or circumstantial. What I don't believe, or see any evidence of, is that religion manages to reign these people in any more effectively than a lack of belief does. The thesis I hear is that we need God and Christ to show us the way or we will have no moral compass, yet i see plenty of believers without one, and plenty of non-believers who seem to be finding their way just fine.

"I'm certainly not suggesting that any of this is a matter of anyone being "better or worse," especially in the sense of who we are as people. One idea may be superior to another (if you don't believe that then I suspect you don't vote or make many decisions in life)."

I don't even know what that means. I do believe directions are better than others. Voting is a human construct, it's results in the course of human history can be clearly charted. So yes, of course I vote. What does that have to do with me not seeing God in everything around me? And again, if you believe this is already charted out according to God's plan, then why would *you* vote? Why do people who believe their entire destiny is laid out for them look before they cross the street?

"I've said it before here in this space: if you have a better way to live than the one Jesus presnets to us then, by all means, go for it. Personally, I haven't found anything superior to his ways, despite the frequent failures of those who go by the name "Christian." "

I have no problem with his way, if everyone did it, we'd be fine. His way, last time I checked, calls for helping the poor, respecting life, being honest and non-judgemental. It includes accepting that we are all imperfect and not persecuting people because their way of being imperfect might be distasteful to you.

I see very, VERY few people living their life that way. I may go to my grave having made some mistakes. I may have some regrets about the way I lived my life. But at least I wont die a hypocrite, telling everyone to "love thy neighbor" while I dropped bombs on and bankrupted the neighbors whose way of life I don't like.

I still have yet to see a single shred of evidence that the belief in God makes the believer a better person. There is far too much evidence to the contrary. I'll keep waiting.
 

One other thing. You said:

"I've said it before here in this space: if you have a better way to live than the one Jesus presnets to us then, by all means, go for it. Personally, I haven't found anything superior to his ways, despite the frequent failures of those who go by the name "Christian." "

In other words:

This set of beliefs works for me. People who believe this way have varying degrees of success following these teachings, but I can't live my life any other way.

This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. It doesn't matter if you call yourself a Christian, it's what you do that matters. The simple act of believing in God or calling yourself a Christian doesn't give you a true moral compass, and if it does, people are damned good at ignoring it.

Lastly, I enjoy a good debate, and I'm glad that we have degenerated into name calling and that it has stayed civil. I respect your opinions and it seems you respect mine. I'd just ask that you not put words in my mouth. I never said all people were bad and this is not something I believe. It may be something you've heard from another atheist (as you pointed out, we don't exactly have a unified philosophy), or it may be something you assume I (we) believe. But, I never stated that opinion and it's not one I hold.

I do enjoy the back and forth with someone who has actually reasoned out and thought about their opinions. You obviously have.
 

Wow. I don't want to debate every point. But let me make just a few.

You say that it doesn't matter if people are following what Jesus said (or what is said in the Christian Scriptures), that if they are doing something in God's name then God must bear the blame for it (or at least Christianity must bear the blame for it). But at the same time you say that that argument only works when larger systems are involved (like governments - you Stalin example, for instance). That seems to be a contradiction.

Then you go on to say "Again, it's clear that professing to follow the teachings of a peaceful leader isn't the same as actually doing it." Which is just what I've been saying. To say, "I believe the Bible," and then go out and commit murder means that actions aren't lining up with words. Which is to be blamed? The actions or the words? Obviously the actions - as you indicate with your charge of the hypocracy you see all around you. So from a logical standpoint the message isn't necessarily false, the actions are. I would suggest that, whatever a particular Christian may claim, if everyone in the world were able to keep the ten commandments, for instance, the world would be a much better place than it is today. If everyone were to do what Jesus taught the world would be a much better place than it is today.

The message is no more or less true because individuals fail to abide by it. That only means that people fail. Though an obvious side effect is that the message takes a beating in the process. I understand why. I've been telling the congregations I preach to for years that it is useless for us to stand for something we refuse to live by ourselves.

Since I used the ten commandments as an example, let me do so again. I recently told our church that we're making a mistake when we argue in favor of public displays of the ten commandments when most churches don't display them, most Christian homes don't display them and too many of us who go by the name Christian don't live by them. If we're not demonstrating them in our own lives what good will they do in the local court house?

As for the murder rates, etc. that you cite, I would contend that, for the most part that data doesn't prove your point. Washington DC has one of the highest crime rates in the country and is not particularly religious at all. Studies show that one reason the divorce rate is higher is because the marriage rate is higher (more people living outside of the Bible belt choose cohabitation over marriage - then when they split up it doesn't count in the divorce rate).

Lastly, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I wasn't suggesting that you believe everyone is bad (though your rebuttal sounds awfully close to me). At the same time I hope you'll not put words in mine. For example, your statement: "I would even suggest that in many ways, Christianity can foster a feeling that it's okay to take another life because you can be forgiven and go to heaven anyway," is just that. For one there are many Christian denominations that would outright refute that as a point of doctrine (for instance, all those who say that such a sin means you lose your salvation). But even those denominations who don't follow that particular teaching would never suggest that what you say is a possibility. Perhaps you can maintain the name "Christian" and think that way. But you can't have Christ alive in you and think that way.

My comment about voting and making decisions is this: If all ideas are the same then why vote? One candidate's ideas are just as good as another's. One decision in life is really no different than another. I say that to say that some ideas are superior to others. I think the commands "don't murder," "don't steal," etc. are superior to the alternatives. I think Jesus' words, "Love your enemy," are superior to the alternative.

Thanks for the conversation.
 

Paul my man, you did it again:

"You say that it doesn't matter if people are following what Jesus said (or what is said in the Christian Scriptures), that if they are doing something in God's name then God must bear the blame for it (or at least Christianity must bear the blame for it). But at the same time you say that that argument only works when larger systems are involved (like governments - you Stalin example, for instance). That seems to be a contradiction."

Never once do I *blame* God or Christianity for the actions of it's members who may or may not be real believers but who certainly commit atrocious acts that are out of line with Christ's philosophy. I guess I remble too much because the one thesis I am attacking here is the assertion that being a Chrstian and professing to follow his teachings does not confer a moral compass on an individual that they are incapable of attaining in a non-spritual means. I hear this all the time, without God and Christ, we don't know right from wrong. Without God, I might kill my wife. I say this is pure crap. There are good people, there are bad people and there are people in between and there is no evidence you can present that proves that you can't be a good person without being a Christian, and that you can't be a bad person if you are a Christian. I don't blame God or Christ for the acts of the Crusaders, I'm merely pointing out that an entire society made up of 99% Christians whose secular laws are inextricably intertwined with the law of God is still capable of committing extremely inhumane and decidedly non-Christian acts of violence and subjugation on others. I don't *blame* Chrsitianity for it, I'm merely pointing out that a belief in Christ certainly didn't prevent it as it should have. When I say the Crusades are "on" Christianity, I am saying so as it related to you blaming Stalin on a lack of Christ's guidance. I was pointing out that you can't have it both ways. If you want to blame the atrocities of communism directly on the secular nature of the society, you have to blame the Crusades on the prevailing belief of that community. You don't get to have it both ways.

Personally, I believe Christianity (as well as Islam and other religions) is used by power hungry people as a means to pacify and unify a population of what are noramlly peaceful people behind certain acts that they would otherwise reject as unthinkable. It isn't Christ's fault that his teachings are perverted and used in direct opposition to what he was trying to say anymore than it is the Founding Fathers' fault that their attempt to keep church and state seperate is misinterpreted by some as an intent to protect their personal faith from the government and not the other way around. However, it doesn't say much for the moral compass argument when the very thing that is supposed to make people good can be used to get them to back some of the most unspeakable events in human history.

"Then you go on to say "Again, it's clear that professing to follow the teachings of a peaceful leader isn't the same as actually doing it." Which is just what I've been saying."

Me too.

"To say, "I believe the Bible," and then go out and commit murder means that actions aren't lining up with words. Which is to be blamed? The actions or the words? Obviously the actions - as you indicate with your charge of the hypocracy you see all around you."

I agree, again, I'm not blaming the words, I'm merely pointing out that they didn't prevent the actions.

"So from a logical standpoint the message isn't necessarily false, the actions are."

Absolutely. See above.

"I would suggest that, whatever a particular Christian may claim, if everyone in the world were able to keep the ten commandments, for instance, the world would be a much better place than it is today."

I would suggest that as well, and I did.

"The message is no more or less true because individuals fail to abide by it. That only means that people fail."

Exactly what I am saying. But if your point is that the message is great but people have varying levels of ability to abide by it, then you can't say the message itself has some power by which simple subscription to it's tenets makes a given human being a better person. This is all I'm saying, and it clearly isn't the case.

"Though an obvious side effect is that the message takes a beating in the process."

Not be me, I've never attacked the message itself, only the inherent power of that message.

"I understand why. I've been telling the congregations I preach to for years that it is useless for us to stand for something we refuse to live by ourselves."

Another good message, I hope your people are listening because not many are.

"Since I used the ten commandments as an example, let me do so again. I recently told our church that we're making a mistake when we argue in favor of public displays of the ten commandments when most churches don't display them, most Christian homes don't display them and too many of us who go by the name Christian don't live by them. If we're not demonstrating them in our own lives what good will they do in the local court house?"

I think that's an excellent point and I think it speaks well of you that you recognize the contradiction there.

"As for the murder rates, etc. that you cite, I would contend that, for the most part that data doesn't prove your point. Washington DC has one of the highest crime rates in the country and is not particularly religious at all."

Here, you're wrong. People love to point out Washinton D.C, which yes, has a high murder rate. It's also the most impovershed large American city, and it alone doesn't outweigh this:

In 1996, the U.S. murder rate was 7.4 per 100,000 people. The rate that same year state by state showed 12 of the 20 states with the highest murder rates are in the South.

States topping the list of murders per 100,000: Louisiana (17.5), Mississippi (11.1), Alabama (10.4), Tennessee (9.5) and South Carolina (9.0).

"Studies show that one reason the divorce rate is higher is because the marriage rate is higher (more people living outside of the Bible belt choose cohabitation over marriage - then when they split up it doesn't count in the divorce rate)."

Ok, let's assume that this is correct. It still doesn't speak well for the supposed sanctity of marriage. It's indesputable that the Bible Belt has a high divorce rate, so let's say you're tied with the blue states, does that suggest that being a church going Christian somehow makes marriage more important and sacred? It doesn't seem to. Teen pregnancy is also higher in the bible belt than the rest of the US. So the preching of abstinence isn't doing anything to quell the hormones of the youth of the bible belt, shouldn't belief in the scriptures be preventing teen pregnancy?

"Lastly, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I wasn't suggesting that you believe everyone is bad (though your rebuttal sounds awfully close to me). At the same time I hope you'll not put words in mine. For example, your statement: "I would even suggest that in many ways, Christianity can foster a feeling that it's okay to take another life because you can be forgiven and go to heaven anyway," is just that."

How is that putting words in your mouth? I merely made an observation and drew my own conclusions, I never said you said it.

"For one there are many Christian denominations that would outright refute that as a point of doctrine (for instance, all those who say that such a sin means you lose your salvation)." But even those denominations who don't follow that particular teaching would never suggest that what you say is a possibility. Perhaps you can maintain the name "Christian" and think that way. But you can't have Christ alive in you and think that way."

We're back to what I said before. Lots of people call themselves Christians but they really aren't. For those who really do follow his teachings and don't commit violence on other people, I commend them. But there are tons of people not committing violence who do not call themselves Christians, so it's really just another philosophy and the idividual actions of the person in question are all we have to judge them by. This has been my point all along. I suspect that were you to suddenly lose your faith, you wouldn't up and murder your wife as you suggested. You might not believe that, but I do. You have faith in God and Christ, I have faith in you.

"My comment about voting and making decisions is this: If all ideas are the same then why vote?"

I never said all ideas are the same. I merely said that there are many alternatives to Christianity that don't involve belief in a higher power that still profess kindness and respect for other's lives and human rights.

"One candidate's ideas are just as good as another's. One decision in life is really no different than another."

Putting words in my mouth again, where did I say this?

"I say that to say that some ideas are superior to others. I think the commands "don't murder," "don't steal," etc. are superior to the alternatives."

So do I, but Jesus is far from the first or only person to have said that.

"I think Jesus' words, "Love your enemy," are superior to the alternative."

Me too, too bad few are really listening.

"Thanks for the conversation."

Likewise