I have a feeling that there are exceptions: I read that the Catholics in Argentina went bananas when the country voted yes on same-sex marriages, and thus became the first Latin American country to do so. Do they feel that they are above democracy...?
I am for sure agnostic, my parents forgot to baptism me, unlike my brother and sister. So I assume this was the chosen road for me. As a child I tried to involve myself within The Church of the Nazerene (born again christians), but I was 9, and in the end only went for the social aspect. They had an amazing youth program and all my friends attended. I also date for 7 years, a Catholic who came from a hardcore Catholic family; priests, nuns and deacons were the job choices of most of his aunts and uncles. None of which ever spewed the beliefs on me and the accepted me for who I am. We all disagreed on every single topic, minus the bf, but they respected me and I respected them.
Im curios as what would happen if kids were "allowed" to chose for themselves once they become old enough? Most friends I have share the values and teachings of their parents. For example: My mom taught me that there is NEVER an excuse for racism, no exceptions. Would I have thought differently if I had NOT been "influenced" since I was born...? Maybe a bad example, considering racism as such is a basic stupidity... Hope you understand what I was getting at For me its fairly simple: As long as religion doesnt respect every other person, I cant even pretend to respect "it".
Jesus teaches that not only are we to respect everyone (no exceptions), but we are also to go a step further and actually "love" everyone. Sadly, many Christians focus so much on being perfect that they develop a "holier than thou" attitude, which makes Christianity as a whole look bad. In the New Testament, these were the people Jesus criticized. In other words, religion is not disrespectful... people are. Sounds like many of the posters have bigger problems with certain "Christians" than they do with Christianity itself (with the possible exception of CancunCanuck, who brought up a good point about the role of women in the church) All I'm saying is don't base your opinions on religion on what other people say. The only thing that matters in Christianity is what Jesus said.
I couldn't agree more. I love my church (I'm a Christian, too), but I don't agree with everything they say. Two quotes from Gandhi: "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today." "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
There are times I believe in god, and times I don't. I don't really have a problem with it because I believe that any god truly worth believing in is far beyond human comprehension anyways. Comprehension of god is not essential to my existence. It's the human ego that needs to believe in god, and find a reason "to be." The human spirit knows its own truth and doesn't need a god for affirmation. In fact, in my opinion, most religions do more damage to the human spirit than any other supposed evil. I don't like religion...that stuff sheds far too much blood and causes far too many tears for my tastes. And for that reason, I like the Sufis. Even though they are originally an offshoot of Islam, they don't hold on to religion too tightly. And there are some very cool Sufis: the great poet Rumi, who also founded the whirling dervishes...Ibn-Arabi, whose complex philosophies beautifully illustrate god in the world...and Rabia, the 8th century saint who was once seen running down the streets of Baghdad carrying a bucket of water in one hand, and a fiery torch in the other. When asked where she was going she replied "to put out the fires of hell, and burn heaven, so that no one can live their lives in hopes of heavenly reward or fear of hellish punishment. Without heaven or hell, all one can do is live for the divine." Nicely put. To me, everything beyond that is just noise..a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. And there's so much of it. I hate talking religion; there always seems such a need to defend territory. But I like the Sufis. They're highly underrated players.
I did a definition search and I wanted to correct myself on this. When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God. Christopher Hitchens describes himself as an "Anti-theist" in that he is adamantly opposed to organized religion. That, I think, is the perception of many. That an atheist is angry or bitter and has rejected God because of some personal traumatic experience. There is a full spectrum of atheists, just as there are Christians. For my part, I have studied enough to know that religious doctrine is historically unsubstantiated and simply mythology. Take for example the story of Exodus. The Jews leaving Egypt to establish themselves in the Promised Land. During the period this is purported to have taken place, the Jewish population in Egypt would have been a very significant percentage. As slave labor they would have been an integral part of the economy. An exodus of this sort would have decimated Egypt's economy and greatly impacted the workforce. Egyptian's were meticulous record keepers. Nowhere is there a record of such an exodus. Further, after years and years of archeological study of the region, there is absolutely no evidence of an exodus. Without going into detail, archeologists knew what they were looking for and where to look. Most approached the study without bias. That many people could not possibly have made that journey without leaving behind some evidence. It simply didn't happen as reported in the bible. Imagine, thousands of years from now, archeologists finding no evidence of the U.S. civil war, in studies of famous battle grounds. The story would be dismissed, rightly so, as mythology. Conversely, finding evidence substantiates the story as having historical validity. Why would this simple method of establishing truth be so readily accepted in every respect....except when applied to religious writings? Obviously, it becomes an emotional issue deeply rooted in religious indoctrination. "It doesn't fit with what I want to believe so I reject it". I prefer knowing the truth.
News from the Vatican today... Vatican says women priests a 'crime against faith' "The new rules issued by the Vatican puts attempts at ordaining women among the “most serious crimes” alongside paedophilia and will be handled by investigators from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), considered the successor to the Inquistion." Ordaining a woman priest is as serious a crime as paedophilia? Something is very, very wrong with the church.....
Of course scientists found no evidence. I'm no archaeologist, but... They were nomads from up to 4000 years ago, they were only wandering for 40 years, and it's the desert. What were they hoping to find? It's not exactly the best environment for preserving things (or for finding things, for that matter) I can't prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Exodus did happen, to be honest. Still, a quick Google search pulled up a few Egyptian documents that certainly seem to reflect the slavery, plagues, and economic effects. Not sure how much I trust the Internet, but at the very least it shows there are scholars who think it may have happened. Also, the Bible itself has various books, written by different people at different times, mentioning the Exodus. It wasn't until much later that they were all put together. (In other words, there is literary evidence, but many choose not to pay attention to it because of a label) Nobody can prove it happened, but nobody can prove it didn't happen, either. I, for one, am open-minded on this one.
