# Do you think chrisitianity itself is responsible for it's decline in America?



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

It's no secret that over the last forty years the percentage of americans that identify as christian has declined.  It was a pain to find the census, but in 2008 3/4 of americans identified as christian whereas only 44% were active members. Over the last 20 years the percentage of americans that identify as christian has declined about 10%.

Do you think the cause of the decline in the percentage of americans that identify as christians is the direct result of christians?  And if so what do you think is causing it?


Me personally I think it's the cause of how many denominations are/have been trying to play politics to extreme degrees.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 18, 2011)

Did you make this to intentionally get on Ruhk's nerves or what?


----------



## Bliss (Oct 18, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Did you make this to intentionally get on Ruhk's nerves or what?


Do you mind if she did?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Did you make this to intentionally get on Ruhk's nerves or what?


Not really, I've been doing research on this subject and the theories about why christianity is on the decline is all over the spectrum, so I've been wondering about what's really causing it.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 18, 2011)

It's not like you haven't already tried to derail several other threads with this crap.

And no, I don't. I personally think that it's society as a whole that's shifting away from religion in general for a variety of reasons. Probably one of the greater contributing factors I see is that children are taught less to do what their parents want them to do and taught more that should should do whatever they want to do themselves.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 18, 2011)

In a way, I think so. In the modern day, there's a fat part of Christianity that goes against an awful lot of our everyday/everyman morals, ideals, and values, and because of how freaking obvious it is, I imagine a lot of people would do the best they can to avoid themselves being associated with those nutcases.



Lizzie said:


> she



Whu-? 6_9


----------



## Bliss (Oct 18, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Whu-? 6_9


Yes?


----------



## Vaelarsa (Oct 18, 2011)

People aren't afraid of the "unknown" any more.
They don't seek to make up their own explanations.
Science does that for them.

So of course religion would be on a decline.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 18, 2011)

All of the western world has seen a shift away from religion over the past half-century, so the US is hardly unique there. 

However, I think there tends to be a greater proportion of extremist churches and denominations here, which may enhance alienation among more recent generations. My father became an atheist after he got his degree in zoology and could no longer stand to listen to his old pastor rail against evolution.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Vaelarsa said:


> People aren't afraid of the "unknown" any more.
> They don't seek to make up their own explanations.
> Science does that for them.
> So of course religion would be on a decline.


 Well crap, here I thought there'd be one explanation over the others that would stand out and nope.
There's like fifty theories of what's causing it and they all have some good reasoning behind it.
I was thinking it's cause of politics cause of alot of people that leave christianity say that's their reason.


Onnes said:


> All of the western world has seen a shift away from  religion over the past half-century, so the US is hardly unique there.
> 
> However, I think there tends to be a greater proportion of extremist  churches and denominations here, which may enhance alienation among more  recent generations. My father became an atheist after he got his degree  in zoology and could no longer stand to listen to his old pastor rail  against evolution.


Do you think the shift away from christianity in the future may become more severe as time goes on?


Lizzie said:


> Yes?


Gibby in case you missed the memo.
<transgender
The literal only reason why I'm not fulltime as of right now is that I don't have the money to buy clothes.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 18, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Yes?



I always thought CF was male. o: Ah well.



CannonFodder said:


> Gibby in case you missed the memo.
> <transgender
> The literal only reason why I'm not fulltime as of right now is that I don't have the money to buy clothes.



I see a ninja. Yeah, gotcha. I must've missed/forgotten that.


----------



## Milo (Oct 18, 2011)

because unlike 20 years ago, where if someone so much as mentioned christianity in a bad way on television or in the media, it was controversial, where as now, some of the most popular t.v. shows poke fun at christianity on a daily basis. 

it's not so much a decline in christianity, as it is, organized religion in general. although I'm sure plenty of people have given it up altogether. 

you can probably thank the phelps for about 10% of that decline :U


----------



## Aetius (Oct 18, 2011)

Well yes but its mostly thanks to the media. 
The moderate Christians don't make good ratings, so why should they be given the spotlight? 
The crazies are what makes viewers, hence why you see them on the media.

The media makes the crazies seem like that they are the voice of the religion, which is a really bad thing : /


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Milo said:


> because unlike 20 years ago, where if someone so much as mentioned christianity in a bad way on television or in the media, it was controversial, where as now, some of the most popular t.v. shows poke fun at christianity on a daily basis.
> 
> it's not so much a decline in christianity, as it is, organized religion in general. although I'm sure plenty of people have given it up altogether.
> 
> you can probably thank the phelps for about 10% of that decline :U


Fred Phelps has done more damage than he... I was going to say any good, but I don't think he has done any good during his life.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Do you think the shift away from christianity in the future may become more severe as time goes on?



I'm not going to pretend to be able to predict long-term social trends. Take the Middle-East, which has actually become more radically religious with the rise of modernity. Clearly you cannot assume that religion will only fade away as time progresses. 
It's also important to consider how people approach religion. In many European countries an extremely high percentage of the population will self-identify as Christian, despite neither attending services nor incorporating much of the dogma into their personal beliefs. To these people Christianity has become more a kind of cultural background than an actual organized religion.


----------



## Rex Aeterna (Oct 18, 2011)

Xenke said:


> It's not like you haven't already tried to derail several other threads with this crap.
> 
> And no, I don't. I personally think that it's society as a whole that's shifting away from religion in general for a variety of reasons. Probably one of the greater contributing factors I see is that children are taught less to do what their parents want them to do and taught more that should should do whatever they want to do themselves.



 you are correct but that's what Christianity did was taught morals to people which lead to people having greater respect for their families and neighbors. i believe morals has went down hill when society started making everything that use to be wrong ok now and everything that was okay then just wrong. like there is no such thing as respect/honor and disciple of an individual anymore. respect/honor is just looked at being stupid and if you believe in honor then your a fool most likely, but there is a line of proper self-honor and too much pride/honor.

things are taught differently nowadays to be improve by modern society and political correctness . thing is morals don't have to involve religion but religion should not be hated or disliked cause of certain individuals. everyone deserve respect and understanding of one other's differences which no one can see or does. i mean look at something like the 50's or 60's or whatever, people back then had much more respect for an individual and had what was known as values and morals. most people don't nowadays.


----------



## Milo (Oct 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Fred Phelps has done more damage than he... I was going to say any good, but I don't think he has done any good during his life.



hey now, he's implanted the idea into people's heads that it's ok to abandon your 6 year old son if he doesn't love god as much as you. :U



...you're right, there isn't an ounce of good in that man :<


----------



## Rex Aeterna (Oct 18, 2011)

Milo said:


> because unlike 20 years ago, where if someone so much as mentioned christianity in a bad way on television or in the media, it was controversial, where as now, some of the most popular t.v. shows poke fun at christianity on a daily basis.
> 
> it's not so much a decline in christianity, as it is, organized religion in general. although I'm sure plenty of people have given it up altogether.
> 
> you can probably thank the phelps for about 10% of that decline :U



that's the main problem i see as well. why do media make fun of people like jews and catholics/christians but not muslim or any other domination of some sort? i don't get it. to be fair if a certain religion is to be made fun of then all should be made fun of cause they all tie into each other in some aspect or another.


----------



## Milo (Oct 18, 2011)

Rex Aeterna said:


> that's the main problem i see as well. why do media make fun of people like jews and catholics/christians but not muslim or any other domination of some sort? i don't get it. to be fair if a certain religion is to be made fun of then all should be made fun of cause they all tie into each other in some aspect or another.



I think stuff like the muslim faith is still too controversial to touch. although it still get's made fun of from time to time.

basically anything that ties into the war is still a bit too hot to touch :U


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Milo said:


> I think stuff like the muslim faith is still too controversial to touch. although it still get's made fun of from time to time.
> 
> basically anything that ties into the war is still a bit too hot to touch :U


Not to mention there was nationwide riots in france from a cartoon comic.
Making fun of a religion that flips out over pen and ink on a paper is not something you want to do.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> In many European countries an extremely high percentage of the population will self-identify as Christian, despite neither attending services nor incorporating much of the dogma into their personal beliefs. To these people Christianity has become more a kind of cultural background than an actual organized religion.


Everybody is registered to the 'state church' but in practice has something to do with it only once in December.

My mother toyed with the idea of resignation but was, like, "meh, why bother?". I went all the way since I'm such a militant. :V


----------



## Rex Aeterna (Oct 18, 2011)

Milo said:


> I think stuff like the muslim faith is still too controversial to touch. although it still get's made fun of from time to time.
> 
> basically anything that ties into the war is still a bit too hot to touch :U



 that can be so but i kinda think it has to be something with political correctness going too far. i remember seeing a video of a fellow american muslim saying the attack of 9/11 was justifiable and it was ok it happened but media didn't catch that and just ignored it. but when another individual who does something stupid that's involve in another religion it gets blasted all over the media and get turned into assumptions all people involved in that religion/group is like the messed up individuals. it's kinda like saying all mexicans are only good for hopping over borders.


----------



## Rotsala (Oct 18, 2011)

People are realizing that many "traditional Christian values" are irrelevant as society becomes more accepting of things that mainstream religion used to condemn. Religion evolves to reflect society, and if it doesn't, it will be gradually abandoned in favor of more relevant beliefs. 

This scares the shit out of people who have based their entire lives on something they assumed was immutable and creates loud-mouthed hateful motherfuckers like Phelps. Thankfully, he'll be dead soon enough with very little to show for his crusade.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 18, 2011)

I think it's a combination of things. 
First over recent years there has been a shift in western culture. I think part of this is due to globalization. So as we are more aware and interact with other cultures unlike our own and realize that they're not demons, the values for tolerance and such go up. So the culture teaches the children that it's wrong to hate someone for who they are, and this combined with earlier ideas that only bad people should be punished. 
Religion has to adapt or die, in a way. Look at what churches are most railed against in society, intolerance and punishing the innocent. Notice what changes are adopted by the churches that do adapt or try to. The catholic church removed limbo. they claimed it was always absent, but for a long time limbo was the place just outside hell where unbaptised babies, or good people that didn't know jesus go. the baby part in particular really struck people. SO in order to adapt with culture the idea was cut. 

There is also a stress on the secular, and I think parents take less time to in doctrine children in anything. I don't want to pick a fight of "all religious people brain wash kids" I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that. It's just that parents teach their children the values they want. Some teach them the ways of their religion, others teach them other things. The issue is 20 years ago it was more common to have the father go to work and mom stayed home. Recently it is more common for two parents to work, so the children are in school and other things. It is not anyone's job to teach values outside the home (unless it's a specific after school thing like sunday school) so in the end, the children are indoctrinated less. 

Finally, I think politics is part of it too. people do not want to be aligned with those that they view as intolerant and against their values. because the culture shift, and child rearing shift, fewer people have deep emotional ties to one particular message, but rather a more general one. so instead of believing "x is right no matter what and everyone will burn" it's more general like "jesus loves me, and I shouldn't be a dick to people"

I don't think there will be a dramatic drop off of christians. I think it is still a very prevalent view. However I do believe that many would be non-denominational and those churches which are intolerant and unadapting will continue to see a decline in followers.


----------



## Heimdal (Oct 18, 2011)

I'm responsible for Christianity's decline in America. I don't even live in the US, but I can't help but spread my amazing influence. I take full responsibility for all the positive strides for humanity this can be associated to. None of the negative ones, however, as I had nothing to do with that.



Rex Aeterna said:


> you are correct but that's what Christianity did was taught morals to people which lead to people having greater respect for their families and neighbors. i believe morals has went down hill when society started making everything that use to be wrong ok now and everything that was okay then just wrong. like there is no such thing as respect/honor and disciple of an individual anymore. respect/honor is just looked at being stupid and if you believe in honor then your a fool most likely, but there is a line of proper self-honor and too much pride/honor.



This all seems very arguable and subjective. That is, until you apply it to women, then it becomes clearly inaccurate. Women are roughly 50% of all humanity, so honour/respect towards them is decidedly a huge deal, and women's rights have only gained traction with modern sentiments. Frankly, old-fashioned ideas of respect and honour seem to be completely devoid of both when applied to women.

I suppose the point is that when someone hails religion as a bastion of morals, others could just as easily call bullshit on that. I'm not arguing one way or the other on that, but I am arguing against assumption that "decline of Christianity = decline of morals".


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not really, I've been doing research on this subject and the theories about why christianity is on the decline is all over the spectrum, so I've been wondering about what's really causing it.



Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Literacy-American-Know-Doesnt/dp/0060846704 

You can read excerpts which will give you an understanding of what's actually happening.  The decline really started before the Scopes 'monkey' trial (about evolution), though to hear everyone talk about it one would think it started within the last 10 years or so.


----------



## Azure (Oct 18, 2011)

I could waste my time with a big post but I'd rather not so I will say yes, it is one of the biggest factors in it's own demise. The other is EDUCATION.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 18, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I'm responsible for Christianity's decline in America. I don't even live in the US, but I can't help but spread my amazing influence. I take full responsibility for all the positive strides for humanity this can be associated to. None of the negative ones, however, as I had nothing to do with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not to mention that this has been stated across time for various different reasons. 1. culture and values changed, those still attached to older culture were angry. 2.some of these values never existed in the first place and were romanticized over the years. 

For instance, the chivalric code for knights. People looove to comment that chivalry is dead, but it never really existed much in the first place. it was romanticized by storytellers, in the same way that POTC is not how pirates really act. Media always exemplifies the truth. The 50s were not an age of perfect families all the time, it's just that all the nastiness of the era is forgotten. 
In terms of honor, there has always been a sense of what makes a good man and the duties of a good person, the idea of honor is stiff and archaic. It isn't that is dying, we just don't think of it like that anymore. Hell we have the whole "good guy greg" which shows the modern idea of what an honorable man is. 

It was once considered immoral to marry outside your race, immoral to show your hair, immoral to show skin above the ankle, immoral to talk of sex even in terms of health. 
Yet now it is considered immoral to lie or prevent someone from being aware of their sexual health (depending on age).


----------



## Tycho (Oct 18, 2011)

Religion and Christianity in particular is inherently divisive.  It constantly tears itself apart.  It's a wonder it didn't self-destruct sooner.

Christianity and religion in general are not going to go away.  The religion genie has been let out of the bottle and there is no way to get it back in.  It's impossible to kill an idea or concept, really, and that's what religion ultimately is.

As to whether scientific advancement and effective education are undermining religion: Actually, yes, somewhat.  Religion ultimately started as a way to answer otherwise unanswerable (at the time anyway) questions.  As our understanding of our universe increases, the need for religion in that capacity decreases. There are other factors and reasons for religion, but I'm not interested in writing an essay on it or anything.


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 18, 2011)

Those statistics. What the eff. 

My professor just said yesterday that we were I think 70% Christian and 16% Atheist/agnostic. I'm not sure those are necessarily completely accurate, but... 

If Christianity is 44% y it so mandatory for public officials to be Christian? Also what the fuck is everyone else? That's a pretty big segment of society being something else that you don't hear a lot about.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 18, 2011)

I am really not too fond of Christianity, but you still gotta look at what the good organized sects have done for the poor and starving, the people that nobody really gives a shit about.  

I guess at worst you can see religion as a necessary evil.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 18, 2011)

I live in the buckle of the bible belt so all this "critical thought" and "tolerance" riffraff crap has yet to make an impact on us.  So how is it eroding?


----------



## Fay V (Oct 18, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Religion and Christianity in particular is inherently divisive.  It constantly tears itself apart.  It's a wonder it didn't self-destruct sooner.
> 
> Christianity and religion in general are not going to go away.  The religion genie has been let out of the bottle and there is no way to get it back in.  It's impossible to kill an idea or concept, really, and that's what religion ultimately is.
> 
> As to whether scientific advancement and effective education are undermining religion: Actually, yes, somewhat.  Religion ultimately started as a way to answer otherwise unanswerable (at the time anyway) questions.  As our understanding of our universe increases, the need for religion in that capacity decreases. There are other factors and reasons for religion, but I'm not interested in writing an essay on it or anything.



the interesting thing to me, is that early Christianity actually seemed decently adaptive in terms of culture. Most people by now are aware that Christmas is a combination of a lot of different traditions from cultures that were invaded by a christian culture, and it actually has a lot to do with the roman, saturnalia. That was adaptive of the church. There is also things like the Anglo Saxon bible, which is fucking badass to read. the norman Christians were a guilt culture and the Christianity was pushing a "the meek shall inheret the earth" type thing. Well that's not how the Anglo Saxons rolled, their philosophy was "drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!" It is a language without a future tense.
The Anglo Saxon passages of the bible are fascinating, Jesus is a badass and pretty much nails himself to the cross, and yells for the cross not to bend. The stories were all adapted for the people that were being converted. That shows a lot of adaptability, versus the idea now where "the word is infallible no matter what, even though it's been translated and re-translated 1000 times"

Part of the loss of churches does seem to be that they refuse to adapt at all. Rather than change to better show the overall message, they stick to really small parts. 
My bible Lit professor describes the bible as a mosaic, and in many ways it is. There are 5 notable authors of the OT several for NT and hundreds of redactors. I get the sense now a days that many of the failing churches try far to hard to focus on a single tile, but ignore the picture as a whole.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

Shit like the prosperity gospel preachers, dominionism and New Apostolic Reformation have not only been allowed to stand, but have been openly embraced by many from the poor and helpless to the rich and powerful.

I'd say it's getting more polarized, with these louder, incredibly disgusting forms of worship with emphasis on hate and fear and money-hoarding taking precedence over Jesus's own teachings and even attempting to argue positions that Jesus has clearly spoken against (fuck you Paul you psychotic shit.)  Real Christians are marginalized, non-Christians are persecuted and driven away by what is seen, and those same charlatans are increasing and consolidating their political power.

Over the coming years, unless there's some kind of reformation away from the evangelical/pentecostal mess that has plagued us all since the early 20th century, I see only a slightly shrinking but vastly more fervent congregation of protestants, a continually shrinking Catholic church of lapsed members.  And even then, I wouldn't be surprised to see raised Baptists convert to other sects as a reaction to the increasing nuttery and viciousness shown by current trends, if it's not so bad as to cause them to lose their faith entirely.

Who knows.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 18, 2011)

It has something to do with immigration to America by cultures whose members are not the kind of Northern European stock that the clerks at Ellis Island actually preferred in the 19th century. There are many new immigrants coming from the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and the Orient who are not Christian simply for not having heard the Gospel.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 18, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> There are many new immigrants coming from the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and the Orient who are not Christian simply for not having heard the Gospel.


Actually, they are some of the more fervent Christians, as the Catholic church has almost monopolized power in those areas and most church's are deeply rooted in regular life.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 18, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> It has something to do with immigration to America by cultures whose members are not the kind of Northern European stock that the clerks at Ellis Island actually preferred in the 19th century. There are many new immigrants coming from the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and the Orient who are not Christian simply for not having heard the Gospel.



Have you ever actually looked at those areas? Latin America is incredibly catholic. As is Africa. I don't know the stats for the middle east and asia, but there is still an incredibly prevalent christian population in both those areas.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 18, 2011)

Well extreme-er-to-extremists Christians are shooting Christianity in the foot. Calling out the not-as-religious-as-me people, denying science, being as offensive as possible, lying to the public openly and proudly, etc.

Plus...you know... the absolute lack of evidence or anything worthwhile for their position at all?


----------



## BRN (Oct 18, 2011)

Yes, in action. Considering 'Christians' as one movement, the tendency towards silencing oppression leads towards the effects of the argument of infallibility.

If people hold their truths without remembering the reasons why, because they never have to fight for them, over the years the belief becomes nothing but a dogma, and will be seriously threatened by any serious competition.

In this case, the competition was the rise of atheism in the age of enlightenment, when things could suddenly start to be explained without using God. 

This also explains why Christianity is a highly powerful force in areas of the world where science comes via other countries and _understanding_ of science remains elsewhere.

Christianity would have fared better in the long term had it not gone out of its way to silence any diverging voices who they might have learned from.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 18, 2011)

Like some societies, there is no use for religion anymore because they have to focus on other things. Unless you are a pastor or priest, there's no profit in it.

Also, the rise of  extremist zealotry in some Christian communities can contribute to the decline. There are church members that would Ostracize others for being tolerant of gays, socializing with them, or just being one for instance. In backwards isolated towns can display the worst of Christians as well.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Oct 18, 2011)

Explaining the world with science and making up your own morals (aka enlightment) work as a substitute for religion, so its less inherited as important explanation/guidelines and more just a formality, so people still call themselves belonging to [religion] but heed less what [religion] is about (for example going to church more and more infrequently).
If [religion] doesnt change to fit the time, it becomes more of an bother being part of it and it has less chances to find and answer question that enlightment (or any other religion) doesnt answer, meaning that its attractiveness declines. So i dont think that christianity is solely responsible for its decline, but it does speed the decline up.
On the other hand, i dont have any idea about america, so i cant ultimatively say wheter it is actually like that or not for the USA...


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Shit like the prosperity gospel preachers, dominionism and New Apostolic Reformation have not only been allowed to stand, but have been openly embraced by many from the poor and helpless to the rich and powerful.
> 
> I'd say it's getting more polarized, with these louder, incredibly disgusting forms of worship with emphasis on hate and fear and money-hoarding taking precedence over Jesus's own teachings and even attempting to argue positions that Jesus has clearly spoken against (fuck you Paul you psychotic shit.)  Real Christians are marginalized, non-Christians are persecuted and driven away by what is seen, and those same charlatans are increasing and consolidating their political power.
> 
> ...


Speaking of which the denominations that haven't shrunk are the fundamentalist branches and the more extreme branches.
The ones taking it very badly are the non-fundamentalist branches unfortunately.
Meaning exactly what you said, the extremist branches are growing, but the rest are getting owned.


----------



## Akz (Oct 18, 2011)

I don't think the decline is the result of fundamentalist Christians defacing their cause through their bullshit. No, it's because people are slowly realizing the futility of organized religion. It's a relic of the middle ages, created to ease people's fear of the unknown - plus, it's not like there were other existing theories that might offer a better explanation.

Nowadays, the theory of evolution, the big bang, etc. are there to offer more than one perspective on things. And let's face it, while all theories have their own holes and fallacies, IMO evolution is more logical than "Oh, 6000 years ago a magical sky fairy came out of nowhere and made everything as it is today".

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Lukos Rylie (Oct 18, 2011)

As a Christian myself, I can honestly say, yes we are.

Sometimes Christians get a little too crazy, and that isn't what God wants, and that's not what Christianity needs. It's not the way to get people to accept our beliefs, and it's not the way we are taught to in the first place.

But there it is. I'm still a Christian, and that'll never change, but I don't always approve of the way some Christians behave.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 18, 2011)

Well.. okay look at it this way. A looong long time ago, in a galaxy far away...
there were nomads/cavemen/whatever. They were intelligent but.. not.. really intelligent if you compare them with us now.
Over time, we have gotten more intelligent, the same is happening with christians. People are becoming more and more intelligent and are dropping religion.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 18, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Well.. okay look at it this way. A looong long time ago, in a galaxy far away...
> there were nomads/cavemen/whatever. They were intelligent but.. not.. really intelligent if you compare them with us now.
> Over time, we have gotten more intelligent, the same is happening with christians. People are becoming more and more intelligent and are dropping religion.


The great pharoh raises the sun!...oh nope came up anyway. The gods are responsible for the rain...oh no actually it's pretty predictable. The gods are controllers disease...oh wait, turns out we can wash our hands. God is the only keeper of morals...no wait, turns out we can set a bar for ourselves. 
It's the same repeated structure over and over. People need to believe in something, we have to promise ourselves that the world will be okay. First we trust in faith, then we trust in science.


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 18, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Well.. okay look at it this way. A looong long time ago, in a galaxy far away...
> there were nomads/cavemen/whatever. They were intelligent but.. not.. really intelligent if you compare them with us now.
> Over time, we have gotten more intelligent, the same is happening with christians. People are becoming more and more intelligent and are dropping religion.



Humans haven't necessarily become more intelligent in the past couple thousand years. If you took a modern baby and, before he learned anything about modern society, booted his ass back to the turn of the last millennium, he would probably not grow up to be some sort of wizard genius. Some health issues aside, he would be a more-or-less functional member of their society. We've just had a thousand more years worth of collective experience.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> The great pharoh raises the sun!...oh nope came up anyway. The gods are responsible for the rain...oh no actually it's pretty predictable. The gods are controllers disease...oh wait, turns out we can wash our hands. God is the only keeper of morals...no wait, turns out we can set a bar for ourselves.
> It's the same repeated structure over and over. People need to believe in something, we have to promise ourselves that the world will be okay. First we trust in faith, then we trust in science.



God:
I hurricane places because of their gays during hurricane season in hurricane-prone places


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

Rick Perry
prayed for rain
now Texas burns

we;lp


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Rick Perry
> prayed for rain
> now Texas burns
> 
> we;lp


Only logical explanation:
Even god doesn't like rick perry


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 18, 2011)

I think it's partially because of that, but mainly because we're becoming more global (tv/internet) and people who would have otherwise been sheltered by small communities are now open to larger ideas and perspectives


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 18, 2011)

The behavior in general of many denominations most certainly plays some factor here. However in general religion is on the decline as it is and not just with one religion. You are also seeing people turn to alternative religions, or turn away completely as they realize that yes they can chose to disassociate or choose a non majority religion.

The information highway also plays a heavy role as well. As people have more access to global news and become aware of what major denominations are doing it starts to deride moral.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 18, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> In backwards isolated towns can display the worst of Christians as well.


 
The giant megachurches aren't really any better. :V



Bobskunk said:


> Rick Perry prayed for rain now Texas burns
> 
> we;lp


 
PRAYER AND CHURCH MEETINGS: RESULT IN NOTHING
ATHIEST CONVENTION: RAINED ON SECOND DAY



But yeah, the inability of many religious groups- or worse the fundamentalists who actually praise complete ass-backwardsness- to adapt to changing social norms is a big problem with most religions these days. Among christians, protestants, born-again christians, and calvinists like the WBC are the worst of it and do way more to turn people away from their faith than any atheist could. It'd be nice if the rest of the world didn't have to drag religion kicking and screaming towards civility is all.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> PRAYER AND CHURCH MEETINGS: RESULT IN NOTHING
> ATHIEST CONVENTION: RAINED ON SECOND DAY


 Did that actually happen?  And if so I so want a link to laugh my ass off.


Trpdwarf said:


> The behavior in general of many denominations most certainly plays some factor here. However in general religion is on the decline as it is and not just with one religion. You are also seeing people turn to alternative religions, or turn away completely as they realize that yes they can chose to disassociate or choose a non majority religion.


How much is religion on the decline globally anyhow?
I know it's still growing, but that's because of population growth.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Did that actually happen?  And if so I so want a link to laugh my ass off.
> 
> How much is religion on the decline globally anyhow?
> I know it's still growing, but that's because of population growth.



To be honest I don't know. I know it's on the decline in America because I've seen the stats. However globally? I don't know of any recent stats. Then again I have not been looking. The hard thing about such stats is there are still places where it's...well not an option to be anything other than the religion of the theocracy.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Did that actually happen?  And if so I so want a link to laugh my ass off.


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guuhdBGdl2g


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 18, 2011)

Xenke said:


> It's not like you haven't already tried to derail several other threads with this crap.
> 
> And no, I don't. I personally think that it's society as a whole that's shifting away from religion in general for a variety of reasons. Probably one of the greater contributing factors I see is that children are taught less to do what their parents want them to do and taught more that they should do what large Lobbying organizations want them to do.



Fix'd.

The downfall of Christianity in this nation is coming from its sectarian nature. There are thousands of sects within our country, and they all interpret the bible in different ways. What has permitted Christianity's continued existence is ultimately leading to persons becoming disenfranchised with Christianity, due to the hostility many churches have towards one another and their ideologies. From this hatred comes a war for church members amongst ever shrinking crowds of Christians, and often times, churches end up proselytizing and end up turning towards increasingly bizarre methods of attempting to sell their church to people, either through radical zeal, or through a relaxed atmosphere that stresses nothing but "communitarian, brotherly love, man."


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 18, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> To be honest I don't know. I know it's on the decline in America because I've seen the stats. However globally? I don't know of any recent stats. Then again I have not been looking.


 
Christianity is still growing in the strict numeric sense, but relative to the population Islam is now bigger IIRC.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 18, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Christianity is still growing in the strict numeric sense, but relative to the population Islam is now bigger IIRC.



And yet Atheism and Agnosticism is steadily creeping up.


----------



## Kreevox (Oct 18, 2011)

wow I'm surprised that Rukh hasn't gone and thrown a shitfit over this thread yet


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guuhdBGdl2g


 Hahahaha!
*slow clap*
Thank you Mojotech, you just made my night.
Also what's even more ironic when you think about it is Texas is the bread and butter for the tea party and denies global warming and Texas is getting it's ass kicked by global warming.
During the summer we had tumbleweeds, that has NEVER happened before.


Mojotech said:


> Christianity is still growing in the strict numeric sense, but relative to the population Islam is now bigger IIRC.


The main reason why religion isn't going anywhere any time soon is population increase.

Does anyone have the information on decline of religion in the world?


Trpdwarf said:


> And yet Atheism and Agnosticism is steadily creeping up.


 That's no surprise, unlike religion atheism and agnosticism not only  has population increase on it's side, but the low percentage of people  that remain religious after college and a billion other things.


Kreevox said:


> wow I'm surprised that Rukh hasn't gone and thrown a shitfit over this thread yet


Don't say that name! You're going to summon him!


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

*goddamn it sorry for double post*


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Well if finding the decline rate overall in the world is difficult, does anyone know the estimated projections for the USA for the future?


----------



## Namba (Oct 18, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> Fix'd.
> 
> The downfall of Christianity in this nation is coming from its sectarian nature. There are thousands of sects within our country, and they all interpret the bible in different ways. What has permitted Christianity's continued existence is ultimately leading to persons becoming disenfranchised with Christianity, due to the hostility many churches have towards one another and their ideologies. From this hatred comes a war for church members amongst ever shrinking crowds of Christians, and often times, churches end up proselytizing and end up turning towards increasingly bizarre methods of attempting to sell their church to people, either through radical zeal, or through a relaxed atmosphere that stresses nothing but "communitarian, brotherly love, man."



This is why I'm non-denominational. That whole "house divided among itself" thing? It was ironic to be taught that particuar passage back in my catholic years. Now I'm truly what Catholicism is supposed to be, which is a part of "one church" or "one body." That's what catholic used to mean, at least.

As far as selling the church? Yeah, this one church tried to do that to me when I was already involved in another (which is wrong on so many levels). I think it was invlolving... an iPad giveaway and this big concert feel? Hmmm... say, did you say anything about Jesus? No? Just checkin'. That church was one big performance and I never went again.

As far as a decline, I'd say Christianity is still a pretty strong force, but it's been noticeably declining. Still, I don't think it's going away.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 18, 2011)

People do realize that the whole Christian thing has never really been a single religion? There's always been a bunch of different sects, maybe not as many as there are now, but that's what the people who decided what is going in and coming out of the Bible, the religious leader peoples were trying to unify people together under fewer religions, but yeah :v


----------



## Neuron (Oct 18, 2011)

It seems like people have been becoming more generalized in their beliefs to just being more agnostic than anything. 

It's been too much effort to really study your religious roots for awhile now (see: lots o' christians that have not actually read most of the stuff in the bible) and kids are getting more freedom to choose what they want as they grow up, as well as getting smarter, perhaps seeing prejudices in organized religion and not really liking what is happening. Which happened to most of my Mormon friends.


----------



## Namba (Oct 18, 2011)

Heh... Mormons.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Lacus said:


> It seems like people have been becoming more generalized in their beliefs to just being more agnostic than anything.
> 
> It's been too much effort to really study your religious roots for awhile now (see: lots o' christians that have not actually read most of the stuff in the bible) and kids are getting more freedom to choose what they want as they grow up, as well as getting smarter, perhaps seeing prejudices in organized religion and not really liking what is happening. Which happened to most of my Mormon friends.


Actually speaking of which it is true the majority of christians have never fully read the bible.
Found what I was looking for
Also 3/4 of americans identify as christian, only about 44% are active members of a church, 1/5 of americans attend church regularly.
It estimated that agnosticism will be on the rise, but will eventually plateau with the rise in hispanic population, also fundamentalism will continue to slowly rise.

Aha!
Found the projection table for the world.
http://www.wnrf.org/cms/next200.shtml


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 18, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Seeing prejudices in organized religion and not really liking what is happening. Which happened to most of my Mormon friends.


 
Generally, the quicker someone is to try to exclude or marginalize another group, the more likely they are to have serious self esteem issues. Possibly due to unhealthy self-loathing.

There's also the issue of people claiming huge worldwide christianity numbers, but who are equally likely to turn around and say "Mormons/protestants/catholicas/etc aren't really christians." and more or less always leads into various shrill screeds on how only their chosen sect is REAL christianity. This of course leads to the problem where every other group is "not really christian" by every other group's standards, leaving outsiders going "Yeah, I guess none of you are."...


----------



## Fay V (Oct 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Well if finding the decline rate overall in the world is difficult, does anyone know the estimated projections for the USA for the future?


the overall rate is difficult because we're not really seperating developed and developing nations, which have two very different cultural needs. I think the best option it to look at developed nations and their census information.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 19, 2011)

If you're looking for a complete information overload on trends of religion in the US, you probably can't beat this article from the Pew Research Center. One interesting trend is that while younger Americans are less likely to affiliate with any religion, those that do affiliate are in many cases just as religious as in previous generations. All varieties of religious activity increase with age, so a given generation always has the possibility of over time becoming more or less religious relative to others.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 19, 2011)

Onnes said:


> If you're looking for a complete information overload on trends of religion in the US, you probably can't beat this article from the Pew Research Center. One interesting trend is that while younger Americans are less likely to affiliate with any religion, those that do affiliate are in many cases just as religious as in previous generations. All varieties of religious activity increase with age, so a given generation always has the possibility of over time becoming more or less religious relative to others.


Dayuum the millenials are far less religious to the point it's no comparison.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 19, 2011)

While the behavior of some Christians is drawing attention to its capacity as a force for evil, all it really comes down to I think is the fact that it's the Information Age.  With the advent of the internet, the tools to deconstruct any ancient mythology are never more than a few keystrokes away.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Dayuum the millenials are far less religious to the point it's no comparison.



Take care when looking at those charts. Since for a given generation the statistics trend with age, you should really only compare Millennials with Gen Xers in the late '90s or Boomers in the late '70s. (These data points are circled on the charts.) What I find interesting is that in a number of cases the Boomers were less religious than the Millennials at a given age.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 19, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Take care when looking at those charts. Since for a given generation the statistics trend with age, you should really only compare Millennials with Gen Xers in the late '90s or Boomers in the late '70s. (These data points are circled on the charts.) What I find interesting is that in a number of cases the Boomers were less religious than the Millennials at a given age.


 
Strange how the <1928 and the 1928-'45 cohorts track counter to each other on the most recent two points for many of those graphs, but otherwise trend similarly.  Wonder why that is.


----------



## Fenrari (Oct 19, 2011)

In theory the US wouldn't exist as we know it if it wasn't for Christianity. We can't change the past transgressions by zealots and other religiously obsessive people (think of the 3 Gs that the Spanish sought out when they came to the Americas), however we can change the future or at least the present which will lead into the future. If we don't want religion to be the mark that defines this generation. Marginalize it to a degree that will allow the future to think of us for other things.


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 19, 2011)

This is my third post in this thread but the first directly on topic. Oh well. 

Historically speaking there have always been less-than-exemplary members of the Christian faith. People who make the WBC look compassionate and reasonable by comparison. People using religion to glorify and enrich themselves is also pretty old. 

If I had to "blame" anything it would be communication. Ideas are allowed to get out there that simply wouldn't at other times in history. People can see things that aren't directly around them. If everyone you know believes in one thing, you're probably going to stick with it. The consequences of doing otherwise are just to high. If on the other hand you can turn on the TV and see people living their lives in a completely different way than your own, and you can see that they're *not* being stuck by lightning every 4-5 seconds, you're given freedom to question whether or not your way really is the only one. In isolation the choice is two-way. You are either part of the group, or you are not. You are an insider or you are an outsider. With a wider perspective however you can see that there often is no inside. Now if someone wants to believe in one specific version of truth above others, they have to do so as a minority. They have to be certain that the authority of "this is what* I* was taught" outweighs the opinions of most other people on the planet, and many just aren't. 

Anyways, that's my two cents from a "I have absolutely no expertise in this area whatsoever" point of view. Make of it what you will.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2011)

I voted "maybe."  The problem I see with Christianity is really not so much with Christianity itself but with two flavors of Christianity that are popular in the USA today: Feel-Good Christianity and so-called Fundamentalist Christianity (I say "so-called" because there's nothing fundamental about that movement, imo.) 

 Feel-Good Christianity is easy to spot: mega-churches with thousands of parishioners and sermons that consist of self-help psychobabble rather than any meaningful spiritual teachings.  "God loves you all.  Don't you feel God's love?  Praise Jesus!  Pass out the collection plate, please."  Yeah, no thanks.  Ultimately Feel-Good Christianity isn't Christianity at all because the pushers of it don't worship Jesus, but the Almighty Dollar.  Christianity is supposed to be about teaching people ways to become better people by following the teachings of Christ.  But Feel-Good Christianity tosses out anything that might make anyone feel guilty in any way.  "God loves you just as you are" is a teaching I've heard over & over again.  It sounds good, but absent any teachings of sin, repentance and real forgiveness... it's completely empty.  And in a mega-church, there are so many people there no one notices or cares if you go or not.  When the weekly cheer session starts to ring hollow, it's no wonder many people just stop going... and stop believing.  As a believing Christian, I personally believe the pastors of such churches deserve Hell just as much as Adolf Hitler does for they too have the blood of countless thousands on their hands.

The flip side of that is Fundamentalist Christianity.  Westboro Baptist Church is an extreme example of this, but there are plenty others that push a theology almost as poisonous.  Fundamentalist churches don't toss the Bible out of the window to pack the pews.  Instead, they pile on man-made rules and teach them as if they were the Ten Commandments.  "Drinking's a sin!"  (uh, chapter & verse please?)  "Dating's a sin!"  (Wha...?  Since when?)  These modern-day Pharisees believe they and they alone are righteous enough to make it into Heaven, and they prove it by adhering to a behavioral code that goes far beyond anything written in the Bible.  Jesus had some choice words to say to people such as these, and those words are just as true today as they were back then:  "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you  hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in peopleâ€™s  faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are  trying to." (Matthew 23:13)

There are good churches out there that don't water their sermons down with psychobabble or political rants or a bunch of man-made rules.  They're a bit more difficult to find these days, but for a believer, finding and attending a good church is worth the extra effort.

Alas, so many churches fall into the Feel-Good Christianity or the Fundamentalist Christianity categories, it doesn't surprise me at all to hear that many people are abandoning their faith.  I don't believe it's the end of Christianity by any stretch of the imagination, tho.  There will always be a few who search the Bible for the truth, and who don't just accept whatever's taught from the pulpit.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 19, 2011)

^ Adolf just needed a hug. :C


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> ^ Adolf just needed a hug. :C


*lol*  Disturbing!


----------



## Neuron (Oct 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Alas, so many churches fall into the Feel-Good Christianity or the Fundamentalist Christianity categories, it doesn't surprise me at all to hear that many people are abandoning their faith.  I don't believe it's the end of Christianity by any stretch of the imagination, tho.  There will always be a few who search the Bible for the truth, and who don't just accept whatever's taught from the pulpit.


A lot of people abandoning those churches after realizing this joined the Unitarian Universalist Church, provided they get comfortable with the idea of sharing a room with people with a lot of different beliefs. It's a good church. The main idea is that you decide your spirituality and the sermons are meant to inspire you to find what you personally believe, not shove you into a priest's personal view point.

I also rather like the small Mennonite churches and Liberal Quakers.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Oct 19, 2011)

Christianity lost its appeal to me long ago. It wasn`t because of any negative factors, it just stopped being practical and so I simply gave up on it. 

I wasn`t really aware of the negative side of the faith until I started browsing forums regularly (about two years ago).


My research since has led me to another line of belief which I feel more comfortable with. I guess my point is that abandoning Christianity does not equal abandoning Religion altogether.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2011)

Lacus said:


> A lot of people abandoning those churches after realizing this joined the Unitarian Universalist Church, provided they get comfortable with the idea of sharing a room with people with a lot of different beliefs. It's a good church. The main idea is that you decide your spirituality and the sermons are meant to inspire you to find what you personally believe, not shove you into a priest's personal view point.
> 
> I also rather like the small Mennonite churches and Liberal Quakers.


I'm not surprised.  Virtually every Wiccan I've ever known grew up in a Fundamentalist Christian church.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> I'm not surprised.  Virtually every Wiccan I've ever known grew up in a Fundamentalist Christian church.



*raises hand*  Pretty much, yeah.  I can attest to that.  Or they were raised in Catholic faith.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> I'm not surprised.  Virtually every Wiccan I've ever known grew up in a Fundamentalist Christian church.


They're not always wiccans. Please don't make that misconception. A lot of them are just Christians with some new age leanings.

There are also groups of us in the UU church that have leanings in eastern beliefs like Hinduism and Buddhism, like me.


----------



## VoidBat (Oct 19, 2011)

I don't know anything about the Christianity in Amurrica, but globally, yes Christianity as a religion has lost a lot of followers.
There is a whole plethora of causes, but I'd say the kiddy-diddling priests are likely one of the most common causes for their dwindling numbers of followers, and I'm not talking about the globally well-known, media cases here either. Almost every day you can read about it in the newspapers, a priest in SkÃ¶vde did this to a little girl, a priest in Karlstad did that with two little boys etc etc. It's sickening, and I fully understand it if people want to distance themselves from these common and repeated events.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 19, 2011)

Smugmeister said:


> I don't know anything about the Christianity in Amurrica, but globally, yes Christianity as a religion has lost a lot of followers.
> There is a whole plethora of causes, but I'd say the kiddy-diddling priests are likely one of the most common causes for their dwindling numbers of followers, and I'm not talking about the globally well-known, media cases here either. Almost every day you can read about it in the newspapers, a priest in SkÃ¶vde did this to a little girl, a priest in Karlstad did that with two little boys etc etc. It's sickening, and I fully understand it if people want to distance themselves from these common and repeated events.


Why the crap can't a priest just fucking marry? WHY? It leads to so many problems, combining a dominant, fundamentalist conversion view with immense sexual tension that results in pedophilia out of a sick domination kink they get from being the leader.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 19, 2011)

in my opinion the whole concept of religion (especially chirstianity) is just outdated. thats why i think less and less people actually see themselves as members of a certain religion.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 19, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Why the crap can't a priest just fucking marry? WHY? It leads to so many problems, combining a dominant, fundamentalist conversion view with immense sexual tension that results in pedophilia out of a sick domination kink they get from being the leader.


Cause dogmatically they believe the pope can never be wrong and if the pope says that the priests can marry that will open a massive can of worms leading to question whether or not popes are infallible or whether or not popes are truly messengers of god.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Cause dogmatically they believe the pope can never be wrong and if the pope says that the priests can marry that will open a massive can of worms leading to question whether or not popes are infallible or whether or not popes are truly messengers of god.


Maybe the fucking pope should just make a statement about it being pedophilia prevention and maybe the people who are messengers of God should reproduce after all, I mean they're the most God loving and God spreading people of all right? Why bar them from reproduction?


----------



## ADF (Oct 19, 2011)

I think most religions are in decline because of their inability to adapt. The churches stance on things often being decades, even centuries behind the times. I think a lot of religious people are actually secularists, but simply identifying themselves as being with the majority/their parents religion. Christian's who haven't read holy texts or go to church, simply thinking there is a god looking out for them; and that their good deeds would be rewarded. Not enough for someone claiming to be Christian.

I imagine there are a lot of closet secularists out there simply calling themselves religion X. You get that impression in religious debate, when you find people rejecting things that being in religion X is supposed to be part of their belief system.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 19, 2011)

ADF said:


> I think most religions are in decline because of their inability to adapt. The churches stance on things often being decades, even centuries behind the times. I think a lot of religious people are actually secularists, but simply identifying themselves as being with the majority/their parents religion. Christian's who haven't read holy texts or go to church, simply thinking there is a god looking out for them; and that their good deeds would be rewarded. Not enough for someone claiming to be Christian.


 If you ask me in order for someone to be considered religious they need  to come up with a scale and have it pretty simple to understand.
Like on the scale of 0-5 how important is religion in your life? and on  the scale of 0-5 have you ever attended church and how often?
Like a 0-1 would be not religious, 2-3 barely religious, 4 somewhat  religious, 5-6 religious, 7 more religious, 8-9 very religious, 10  extremely religious.
I imagine there are a lot of closet secularists out there simply calling  themselves religion X. You get that impression in religious debate,  when you find people rejecting things that being in religion X is  supposed to be part of their belief system.


Lacus said:


> Maybe the fucking pope should just make a statement about it being pedophilia prevention and maybe the people who are messengers of God should reproduce after all, I mean they're the most God loving and God spreading people of all right? Why bar them from reproduction?


You do realize who the pope is right now right?


----------



## Neuron (Oct 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You do realize who the pope is right now right?


Is he that young nazi dude or whatever? I don't really care to keep up beyond outrage at catholic pedophilia.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 19, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Is he that young nazi dude or whatever? I don't really care to keep up beyond outrage at catholic pedophilia.


Eeyup, honestly if I was catholic the fact my would be religious leader was in Hitler Youth group alone would make me gtfo out of there.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Cause dogmatically they believe the pope can never be wrong and if the pope says that the priests can marry that will open a massive can of worms leading to question whether or not popes are infallible or whether or not popes are truly messengers of god.



The hell are you talking about?

The Catholic Church has reversed its stance on a lot of things regarding the celebration of Mass and what is acceptable within the Church.

If your above statement was the rule here, Catholicism would have been abolished once they got rid of celebrating Mass in Latin.

And frankly what the Pope was forced to do as a kid has absolutely no affect on my opinion of him now.  I let his decisions and actions as Pope do the justifications here.  And in any case his actions don't mean squat when it comes to my faith.  If it was in fact as fickle as to be based solely on those who are associated with my faith, I'd be as deplorable a human being as chuckle heads who say they give up on humanity every chance they get.

In answer to the thread question, I don't think it's the religion itself and more of how we as human beings live our lives today.  We're busy people who don't necessarily have the want or desire to sit around for an hour once a week and listen to story time from the Bible.  A lot of people worship in their own way and don't feel the need to practice with the establishment of religion.  I myself identify as Catholic, but I don't even come close to attending mass once every four months at most.  Part of it has to do with my jobs, part of it is football Sundays, and part of it is not wanting to wake up to go to 10 AM mass on my day off from work, especially if I'm hungover from the night before.

People today don't make religion their one and only calling in life, and it's probably a good thing that they don't.  Most people have more important things to do than contemplate the cosmos and the afterlife, like making the most out of the one they have now, which I'd like to think is the way God would have intended it to be.  A lot of people here seem to think it's caused by some "great enlightening" that there's no God, but I think the answer, as I've provided, is a bit more practical than that.  We simply don't think that much about it and don't care to bother ourselves with the question.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 19, 2011)

Sorry Term, I'm not catholic.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Sorry Term, I'm not catholic.



Well I'd expect with your unending tendency to make threads about religion you'd at least know a thing or two about what goes on within some of the major ones, as opposed to making sweeping statements about what would or wouldn't happen and sound like a fucking moron doing it.

BTW, depending on the sect of Christianity, a priest can get married.  You were specifically referring to Catholicism.  Get it right.

I don't think I'm asking a lot for you to at least know yo' shit, bro.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Eeyup, honestly if I was catholic the fact my would be religious leader was in Hitler Youth group alone would make me gtfo out of there.



Because ya know, the German youth of the 1940s were totally not being forced to join or else be thrown in prison or worse.


----------



## Alstor (Oct 19, 2011)

Azure said:


> The other is EDUCATION.


Just going to quote this for a second, as this has happened to many, including me. I was a big Catholic when I was a small child, but I broke away from the Church when I learned about the atrocities it did in the Middle Ages. That, plus the acceptance of other religions and the freedom to think, got me out of Christianity.

Hi, I'm Alstor, and I have been off Christianity for four years. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 19, 2011)

Alstor said:


> Hi, I'm Alstor, and I have been off Christianity for four years. :V


Inb4 "coming out nonchristian" thread.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 19, 2011)

Lacus said:


> They're not always wiccans. Please don't make that misconception. A lot of them are just Christians with some new age leanings.
> 
> There are also groups of us in the UU church that have leanings in eastern beliefs like Hinduism and Buddhism, like me.


No, I wasn't saying that ppl who attend a UU church are Wiccan.  I was talking about the fact that many people who leave a fundie church tend to follow a faith that's as close to the polar opposite to Fundamentalist Christianity as possible, and using my Wiccan friends as an example.  I used to be pretty heavy into the occult and many of my friends at the time were Wiccan, and every single one of them told pretty much the same story: forced to attend a church that teaches man-made rules with as much emphasis (if not more so) than the Ten Commandments, hated it, left  as soon as they possibly could, became Wiccan.

(Yay for epic run-on sentences!)


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 19, 2011)

Telnac said:


> No, I wasn't saying that ppl who attend a UU church are Wiccan.  I was talking about the fact that many people who leave a fundie church tend to follow a faith that's as close to the polar opposite to Fundamentalist Christianity as possible, and using my Wiccan friends as an example.  I used to be pretty heavy into the occult and many of my friends at the time were Wiccan, and every single one of them told pretty much the same story: forced to attend a church that teaches man-made rules with as much emphasis (if not more so) than the Ten Commandments, hated it, left  as soon as they possibly could, became Wiccan.
> 
> (Yay for epic run-on sentences!)


That sounds like my sister :\
Of course she went so far off the deep end of the occult she wound up Cullenist.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Oct 19, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Well yes but its mostly thanks to the media.
> The moderate Christians don't make good ratings, so why should they be given the spotlight?
> The crazies are what makes viewers, hence why you see them on the media.
> 
> The media makes the crazies seem like that they are the voice of the religion, which is a really bad thing : /


The reason I converted and never regretted that.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 20, 2011)

Nah public education and the internet are responsible for more atheists than anything Christians in particular did.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 20, 2011)

If I may say Term the Catholic church has to be careful of just how much change they are willing to allow. Too little and it causes problems. Too much and it also causes problems leaning more into what cannon said.  The problems of course I speak of deal with being able to hold onto flock and be seen as a authority figure. To be honest, allowing for the priests and stuff to marry really is a huge change that could in ways rock the foundations of the church. Canon is not wholly wrong in what he is saying.

Personally I find that the kind of atrocities that go on today and get hidden or ignored to be deplorable. For example not too recently a girl that was in a catholic family was raped by another catholic. She ended up pregnant and if the fetus were to develop even half way it would have killed the child. So in the best interest of an existing life the family had the child go through an abortion. The girl was excommunicated by the church for saving her own life, and the rapist who endangered her mentally and physically? He was forgiven....and that's not right. What kind message is that to say that existing life is less important than life that could be? There are many many things that go on with Catholicism that at this point has not changed and it's terrible.

Going around allowing so called saints like Mother Theresa to claim that use of contraceptives is murder is terrible. Sending missionaries to Africa to preach against contraceptives is also terrible. Ditching the people who have the sense to adapt for the betterment of the living is also terrible. Maybe the church has allowed some changes but there are also a lot of terrible things not yet changed and it does probably tie into that fear that the church and it's leaders must be viewed a certain way. The church(the priest-hood, the Roman Catholic Church) is far too conservative for it's own good and that's my own educated POV.

EDIT: and late ish response I know but it's something I feel strongly about.



CannonFodder said:


> Inb4 "coming out nonchristian" thread.



Lol.

I remember sitting there in a church with one of those lady teachers and she was telling us something about how if you don't atone for your sins you will go to hell. Everyone in the group was so scared by this and would often sit down in prayer circle to pray for atonement. I must have been little more than ten and thinking about how silly it was. I was probably only a few years older if even when I realized that religion is a lot like mythology. Believing in these deities is a lot like believing in dragons. Or so that was my conclusion back then. Everyone goes through a phase where they want to believe that dragons and unicorns are real and there are fairies in the woods. It makes life seem more interesting to have these fantastic creatures. When I came to terms that these fantastic creatures of the imagination are in fact that...imaginary I drew that line to religion and there you have it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

^What's worse for the denomination is that if they don't adapt to the times then as society advances it'll just hurt them even worse in the end.
So really they have the choice of not modernizing and causing atrocities like this to continue or modernizing and potentially causing another great schism.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 20, 2011)

Alstor said:


> Just going to quote this for a second, as this has happened to many, including me. I was a big Catholic when I was a small child, but I broke away from the Church when I learned about the atrocities it did in the Middle Ages. That, plus the acceptance of other religions and the freedom to think, got me out of Christianity.
> 
> Hi, I'm Alstor, and I have been off Christianity for four years. :V



Hi Alstor!  Congrats man!  It gets better from here -  I just got my 10 year chip at AA (agnostic anonymous) last year :3

I used to go on the same line of thinking.  Christianity = Crusades = BAD!   I've done a lot of reading since then, and yeah, it's pretty horrendous, but once you accept the term that all religious have their period of douchebaggery to some degree AND have been victimized as well, you realize that they're only as perfect as the humans that run the show.  Depending on the person at the top it is either a benevolent movement or a evil force to be reckoned with.



Telnac said:


> No, I wasn't saying that ppl who attend a UU church are Wiccan.  I was talking about the fact that many people who leave a fundie church tend to follow a faith that's as close to the polar opposite to Fundamentalist Christianity as possible, and using my Wiccan friends as an example.  I used to be pretty heavy into the occult and many of my friends at the time were Wiccan, and every single one of them told pretty much the same story: forced to attend a church that teaches man-made rules with as much emphasis (if not more so) than the Ten Commandments, hated it, left  as soon as they possibly could, became Wiccan.



In my personal experience Wicca was the jumping off point for a lot of people.  I don't think it would be out of line to say there are as many non-traditional Pagans and eclectics out there as Gardenarian or Dianic Wiccans.   For example, Wicca resonated with me, but certain aspects of it didn't quite jive.  Ecclectic Pagan is the best term I can describe for myself with a Druidic-Buddhist leaning.  I've had Christian family members say that's like treating religion as a smorgasbord in how they pick and choose tenants, but I take a completely opposite approach.  

Buddha said it best this way: 
"Don't go by gossip and rumour, nor by what's told you by others, nor by what you hear said, nor every by the authority of your traditional teachings.  Don't go by reasoning, nor by inferring one thing from another, nor by argument about methods, nor form liking an opinion, nor from awe of the teacher and thinking he must be deferred to. 

Instead, Kalamas, when you know from within yourselves that certain teachings are not good, that when put into practice they lead to loss and suffering, you must then trust yourselves and reject them." (_Anguttara Nikaya_)  *N.B:  This teaching here was the one that put to rest my feelings on leaving Christianity.*



CannonFodder said:


> That sounds like my sister :\
> Of course she went so far off the deep end of the occult she wound up Cullenist.



I just want to state for the record that being involved in occult/ paganism does not automatically mean that the person is going to end up a Twi-hard. :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> For example not too recently a girl that was in a catholic family was raped by another catholic. She ended up pregnant and if the fetus were to develop even half way it would have killed the child. So in the best interest of an existing life the family had the child go through an abortion. The girl was excommunicated by the church for saving her own life, and the rapist who endangered her mentally and physically? He was forgiven....and that's not right. What kind message is that to say that existing life is less important than life that could be? There are many many things that go on with Catholicism that at this point has not changed and it's terrible.


 
She was 10. Those were twins. The man was her father. Also, the mother and the hospital staff who were involved were also all excommunicated.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 20, 2011)

Telnac said:


> No, I wasn't saying that ppl who attend a UU church are Wiccan.  I was talking about the fact that many people who leave a fundie church tend to follow a faith that's as close to the polar opposite to Fundamentalist Christianity as possible, and using my Wiccan friends as an example.  I used to be pretty heavy into the occult and many of my friends at the time were Wiccan, and every single one of them told pretty much the same story: forced to attend a church that teaches man-made rules with as much emphasis (if not more so) than the Ten Commandments, hated it, left  as soon as they possibly could, became Wiccan.
> 
> (Yay for epic run-on sentences!)


Oh well yes that's definitely something I agree on. Although interestingly enough, I was raised a Wiccan and I eventually went to the UU and I actually like Jesus Christ and a lot of his message an awful lot, I don't necessarily think he was divine he was saying we all are. I like Jesus, but I don't like the messengers, is my point I guess.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

Speaking of horrible things done by the Catholic church, I haven't seen this make the rounds on FAF yet: 300,000 newborn babies stolen from 'unfit' mothers in the hospital, then sold to good Catholics for adoption.  An entire generation of stolen children.  Often times the mothers were told their babies had died at birth.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 20, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Oh well yes that's definitely something I agree on. Although interestingly enough, I was raised a Wiccan and I eventually went to the UU and I actually like Jesus Christ and a lot of his message an awful lot, I don't necessarily think he was divine he was saying we all are. I like Jesus, but I don't like the messengers, is my point I guess.


I was raised by an Atheist, but dropped Atheism when I had my first premonition fulfilled.  That led me deep into the occult until I realized that sin was a real thing, and how deep the sin in my life really was.  That led me to Christ.  I find it rather sad & ironic that the spiritual path I took is almost the exact opposite of the spiritual path many people fleeing fundie churches take.  There's a reason why Jesus delivered His harshest rebukes to like-minded people in His day.  It still amazes me that modern-day Pharisees honestly think that Matthew 23 doesn't apply to them, even when they're doing more harm to Christianity than an entire army of Richard Dawkins clones ever could.

As for Jesus' divinity, I guess I never had a problem with believing in it (once I believed in anything spiritual whatsoever, that is.)  When I was in the occult, I believed that Jesus was a god in a pantheon of gods... and I believed that I would someday reach enlightenment and become a god myself.  Needless to say, I don't believe that any more.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Oct 20, 2011)

Maybe a little, but our media, technology, and parenting seem to do more damage.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 20, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I myself identify as Catholic


[lutheran] 
YOU AND YOUR CORRUPTED FALSE PROPHETS GET OUT OF OUR LAND DAMN SEXIST ELITIST OPPRESSOR SAINT SUCKERS! 
[/lutheran]

:V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> She was 10. Those were twins. The man was her father. Also, the mother and the hospital staff who were involved were also all excommunicated.



So they ex'd the family and stuff too. Hey Term, how you feel about your group doing that? Hmm?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

Fay V said:


> The stories were all adapted for the people that were being converted. That shows a lot of adaptability, versus the idea now where "the word is infallible no matter what, even though it's been translated and re-translated 1000 times"
> 
> Part of the loss of churches does seem to be that they refuse to adapt at all. Rather than change to better show the overall message, they stick to really small parts.
> My bible Lit professor describes the bible as a mosaic, and in many ways it is. There are 5 notable authors of the OT several for NT and hundreds of redactors. I get the sense now a days that many of the failing churches try far to hard to focus on a single tile, but ignore the picture as a whole.



Fay, the Bible has not been re translated 1000 times. Every time a translation (a legit translation) it comes from the same text. The ancient Greek manuscripts that number 5600. Not to mention the 19,000 plus in Latin, Aramaic, and Coptic(and this is just the New Testament texts) What we have today matches 98% of what was written originally (the entire Bible). Nearly 100% identical. The other 2% is just copyist errors which are grammar and spelling mistakes. Which, do not detract from what is being said in the passages. No other ancient book comes close to being nearly 100% pure and unchanged.

Second, the Bible is 66 books, written by 40 different authors over a 1500 year period.


Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Also, the rise of  extremist zealotry in some Christian communities can contribute to the decline. There are church members that would Ostracize others for being tolerant of gays, socializing with them, or just being one for instance. In backwards isolated towns can display the worst of Christians as well.


Excommunication is in the Bible. The Church should not tolerate sinful behavior. The Church should not turn a blind eye from what its members do.

"Your boasting is not good. Donâ€™t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batchâ€”as you really are."

"But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

Strong words written here. That is the standard. Many churches fail at this, and because they tolerate sinful behavior, the entire church is brought down. One unrepentant sinful Christian can bring down their entire congregation.



CannonFodder said:


> Hahahaha!
> Don't say that name! You're going to summon him!



To late.


Now, onto answering the topic question. The reason why is because many people who say they are Christians don't even know the gospel message. Let alone actually read Scripture on a regular basis. Christianity in America has become the religion of nominal devotion. Its changed from actually worshiping Jesus to worshiping ourselves. And people have become blinded to that in many churches.

When Jesus said "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of  heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your  name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I  will tell them plainly, I never knew you, away from me, you evildoers!" He was not speaking to atheists or agnostics. He was not speaking to pagans or heretics.  He was speaking to devoutly religious people who were deluded into  thinking they were on the narrow road that leads to heaven when they  were actually on the broad road that leads to hell.

Many people in America who check on a piece of paper that they are Christians really are not. Now, some of you may say thats intolerant, but look back to the passage I quoted earlier. Even Jesus said these things. The fact is, many of these people refuse to surrender all of themselves. The Gospel message requires something from you. Complete devotion.

What has deeply hurt the Christian church in America, is America itself and what it teaches. The American Dream itself is a problem.

Kierkegaard says it best. "If we American Christians genuinely lived the Gospel we say we believe,  every single aspect of how we live, work, love, commune, and bleed would  be radically altered. Almost none of the way we live would resemble the  lifestyles we have becomes so enamored of. We wouldnâ€™t recognize our  old lives at all. And we would look so profoundly different from the  rest of the world that it would have to sit up and take notice."

The reason why Christianity in America (nominal devotion or Christian only in name) is failing is because people are not willing to pick up their cross, deny themselves, and follow Christ exclusively. Every single aspect of how we live, work, love, commune, and bleed  MUST be â€œsoldâ€ to follow Jesus.

Like the young ruler that Jesus spoke to in the Bible. Most people are unwilling to take that step. But instead of going away sorrowful like the young ruler that Jesus spoke to, we construct a syncretistic faith  that melds the parts of the Gospel we can stomach with the life we  cannot leave behind.

Like a dog that returns to its vomit (sin), so do people who refuse to let Jesus affect every, single, part, of their life. And that is why they fail.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh, I don't think "effeminate" translated to "homosexual offenders" is a typo :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Rukh, I don't think "effeminate" translated to "homosexual offenders" is a typo :V



KJV was written in 17th century English. That is not the English we use today Aleu, surely you know this. You actually have to do some digging and look into what effeminate in 17th century English means. 

Its like trying to translate ancient Hebrew using modern Hebrew or ancient Greek with modern Greek. It doesn't work. How many times do I have to tell you this. I cannot even think how many times I have said this to you especially.

Edit, lets look at the actual passage in KJV.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor  effeminate, *nor abusers of themselves with mankind* (means men who have sex with men), Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

If you have to insert a parenthetical clarification into your quote to back your case that it makes a clear statement, then it's not making a clear statement.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> KJV was written in 17th century English. That is not the English we use today Aleu, surely you know this. You actually have to do some digging and look into what effeminate in 17th century English means.
> 
> Its like trying to translate ancient Hebrew using modern Hebrew or ancient Greek with modern Greek. It doesn't work. How many times do I have to tell you this. I cannot even think how many times I have said this to you especially.
> 
> ...



Abusers of themselves with mankind sounds more like whores and sluts to me. So unless you're saying homosexual = whore/slut, you're wrong. But if you are, you're still wrong.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Abusers of themselves with mankind sounds more like whores and sluts to me. So unless you're saying homosexual = whore/slut, you're wrong. But if you are, you're still wrong.



Aleu, *look at what it means in 17th century English, not modern English.* Yet again I tell you this. This is getting old. Second, you also need to look at the problems the church of Corinth had going on. It was very well known that the church of Corinth was allowing homosexual behavior. 

Seriously,you actually have to look look into the context and meanings.

But, since you refuse I guess I need to do that for you. In 17th century English, the word effeminate was used in the context of passive homosexual partners, and the abusers of themselves with mankind is speaking about homosexual practices. Now, to further break your point, notice how the word fornicators is used. Whats fornication mean again? Oh yeah, sex. So, why would Paul write 3 times to be speaking against just being a slut/whore?
Secondly he also mentions adultery separately as well. So, clearly he is not just speaking about fornicating your brains out when he says abusers of themselves with mankind. Unless you want to say he was just repeating himself over, and over, and over. Which, makes no sense.

So, you are the one who clearly is wrong. But, you will probably deny that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

*longpost by Rukh*
You are right on several parts actually, 3/4 of americans call themselves christian, but only 44% of americans actually go to church on a regular basis/pray regularly/read the bible/etc/you get the idea.  What I am getting at is 31% of americans say they are christian, but really their only connection to christianity is writing a check in the, "are you christian?" checkbox.

If you ask me there should be a scale that you can actually figure out if someone is really religious.  Like a 10 would be super religious, 5 moderately, and a 1 would be a, "sorry, nope.avi".  Does that sound like a good idea to anybody else?
Cause as of right now they pretty much ask if you are christian and if you say you are regardless they count you as.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV)
> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, *nor  effeminate*, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (means men who have sex with men), Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


What exactly does effeminate mean in this situation? Is it a physical thing? Like, what if a dude develops gynecomastia and it doesn't go away on its own, or a person is born basically male but is otherwise slightly physically intersexed? (Or just born so physically intersexed that their gender is as likely to be one as it is the other, or neither. It happens.) What happens there? Are they disinherited from the kingdom of God on that basis unless they get a surgery or something? Those surgeries weren't always, still aren't always, available. Seems to me that there are some circumstances when a dude can't help being ladylike.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 20, 2011)

Most people are not willing to become bona-fide monks.


----------



## Blutide (Oct 20, 2011)

I voted yes because its outdated and people use it as a shield for outrageous bullshit. Why do you hate gays getting married? TELL me that had NOTHING to do with religion and politics, and I will straight out find you and laugh at you. Land of the free, and free to practice whatever the fuck you want....that's what America was suppose to stand for.....but mix in religious ideals and a government that doesn't follow its own rules you get 'merica. Not America, 'merica, where you get shit on for being other than perfect, white and rich. But that's one example, but LOL, look at the recent news and look back on how things are being handled....Fucking prayer? FUCKING PRAYER? Holy shit we are so fucked, and I really think that the occupy movement has more a chance of doing some good rather than ever praying.....

I think, if anything is to be taken from this, that Christianity, Religion, in general has a big part in whats going. ( Because of HOW things are handled, not so much anymore what it is.....Please take the time to think about what I am saying before responding. )


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Blutide said:


> I voted yes because its outdated and people use it as a shield for outrageous bullshit. Why do you hate gays getting married? TELL me that had NOTHING to do with religion and politics, and I will straight out find you and laugh at you. Land of the free, and free to practice whatever the fuck you want....that's what America was suppose to stand for.....but mix in religious ideals and a government that doesn't follow its own rules you get 'merica. Not America, 'merica, where you get shit on for being other than perfect, white and rich. But that's one example, but LOL, look at the recent news and look back on how things are being handled....Fucking prayer? FUCKING PRAYER? Holy shit we are so fucked, and I really think that the occupy movement has more a chance of doing some good rather than ever praying.....
> 
> I think, if anything is to be taken from this, that Christianity, Religion, in general has a big part in whats going. ( Because of HOW things are handled, not so much anymore what it is.....Please take the time to think about what I am saying before responding. )


I'm going to stop you Blutide, but there are atheists who are opposed to gay marriage.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> *longpost by Rukh*
> You are right on several parts actually, 3/4 of americans call themselves christian, but only 44% of americans actually go to church on a regular basis/pray regularly/read the bible/etc/you get the idea.  What I am getting at is 31% of americans say they are christian, but really their only connection to christianity is writing a check in the, "are you christian?" checkbox.
> 
> If you ask me there should be a scale that you can actually figure out if someone is really religious.  Like a 10 would be super religious, 5 moderately, and a 1 would be a, "sorry, nope.avi".  Does that sound like a good idea to anybody else?
> Cause as of right now they pretty much ask if you are christian and if you say you are regardless they count you as.


 
Its annoying that polls and such just ask, "are you a Christian?".  The question that should be asked is, "have you completely 100%  surrendered everything you are and what you do, to Christ Jesus? Have you died to yourself?"

Not as many would answer yes. And that is why I say not all who claim the name of Christ, actually are Christians. Nominal devotion isn't real Christianity.



Ad Hoc said:


> What exactly does effeminate mean in this situation? Is it a physical thing? Like, what if a dude develops gynecomastia and it doesn't go away on its own, or a person is born basically male but is otherwise slightly physically intersexed? (Or just born so physically intersexed that their gender is as likely to be one as it is the other, or neither. It happens.) What happens there? Are they disinherited from the kingdom of God on that basis unless they get a surgery or something? Those surgeries weren't always, still aren't always, available. Seems to me that there are some circumstances when a dude can't help being ladylike.



Look to edited post to Aleu. Basically its men who are in a homosexual relationship but not having sex. Paul is writing here that, their romantic relationship itself is a sin, even if you abstain from having sex. I have met Christians who actually believe that they can be in a homosexual relationship as long as they don't have sex. They think that is a loophole that they can use. Paul shuts that down really quickly.


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In 17th century English, the word  effeminate was used in the context of passive homosexual partners, and  the abusers of themselves with mankind is speaking about homosexual  practices. Now, to further break your point, notice how the word  fornicators is used. Whats fornication mean again? Oh yeah, sex. So, why  would Paul write 3 times to be speaking against just being a  slut/whore?
> Secondly he also mentions adultery separately as well. So, clearly he is  not just speaking about fornicating your brains out when he says  abusers of themselves with mankind. Unless you want to say he was just  repeating himself over, and over, and over. Which, makes no sense.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

And the thread was going so well, too.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Its annoying that polls and such just ask, "are you a Christian?".  The question that should be asked is, "have you completely 100%  surrendered everything you are and what you do, to Christ Jesus? Have you died to yourself?"


Uh Rukh, people would lie on the test, christianity has in a lot of places become a cultural identity rather than a religion.
The idea I proposed would basically do the same thing, except give a grading scale.
Like if the person put on the test, "yes I am a christian, very much so!' and they score a 0 out of ten, they're probably lying.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Look to edited post to Aleu. Basically its men who are in a homosexual relationship but not having sex. Paul is writing here that, their romantic relationship itself is a sin, even if you abstain from having sex. I have met Christians who actually believe that they can be in a homosexual relationship as long as they don't have sex. They think that is a loophole that they can use. Paul shuts that down really quickly.


 Can you actually link me to a 17th century English dictionary (That's what, Early Modern English? According to this it is.) that has that definition for effeminate? Because "effeminate means you're a frigid gay" seems like a stretch to me.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Uh Rukh, people would lie on the test, christianity has in a lot of places become a cultural identity rather than a religion.
> The idea I proposed would basically do the same thing, except give a grading scale.
> Like if the person put on the test, "yes I am a christian, very much so!' and they score a 0 out of ten, they're probably lying.



I know, I was just posing basic questions. But there are ways to phrase what I said in a way that would make a nominal Christian balk at what was being asked of them. But yes, Christianity has become a cultural identity. And what we are seeing now, are those who are nominal in their faith, fall or walk away. Scripture alludes to this when it speaks of the Wheat being separated from the Chaff.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No other ancient book comes close to being nearly 100% pure and unchanged.
> 
> Second, the Bible is 66 books, written by 40 different authors over a 1500 year period.



Are you also including all the councils in that time period, that determined what was going in and out of bibles/teachings/etc.? 

Circumcision, Arianism, insisting upon first sin, excommunication of those who rejected the councils decrees, creating the Trinity, making Jesus into a man and God, with two wills and two somethings else...Celibacy amongst the clergy, eh heh clothing requirements, various prohibitions, defining rules on who can name the infallible pope, and so forth ;v these things went on until like the 20th century >>


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I know, I was just posing basic questions. But there are ways to phrase what I said in a way that would make a nominal Christian balk at what was being asked of them. But yes, Christianity has become a cultural identity. And what we are seeing now, are those who are nominal in their faith, fall or walk away. Scripture alludes to this when it speaks of the Wheat being separated from the Chaff.


Are you arguing with me for the sake of arguing?
We're saying the exact same thing Rukh.
http://pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx
Also here's a good link to look up, it was posted a few pages back by another user, it basically proves scientifically what people have known for a while.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Can you actually link me to a 17th century English dictionary (That's what, Early Modern English? According to this it is.) that has that definition for effeminate? Because "effeminate means you're a frigid gay" seems like a stretch to me.



Its a loose term because it applies to a whole host of things (Biblically speaking), but I am using it in the context of the church of Corinth, where homosexuality in the church was a problem (yes, even way back then). The word Effeminate in KJV, stems from the ancient Greek word Malakia or Malakos. Which, yes means feminine male. But not in the way we use the term today. The greek used the word Effeminate to describe a man who has feminine' love of being sexually penetrated by other men. In other words, a homosexual.

 The text where Paul says Abusers of themselves with mankind in Greek is Arensokoites. Which is two Greek words molded into one. And is directly translatable back to the ancient Hebrew passages such as Leviticus 20:13_.
_


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 20, 2011)

The stuff Rukh quotes as NT evidence of gayhate is all Paul.  Paul was a schizophrenic fraud who claimed to be BFFs with Jesus and hated the shit out of the Greeks.

Leviticus?  Bitch, you'd better not be wearing two different fabrics in one article of clothing.  Also lol "no true scotsman," and not knowing fornication is sex out of wedlock, not sex period.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> The stuff Rukh quotes as NT evidence of gayhate is all Paul.  Paul was a schizophrenic fraud who claimed to be BFFs with Jesus and hated the shit out of the Greeks.
> 
> Leviticus?  Bitch, you'd better not be wearing two different fabrics in one article of clothing.  Also lol "no true scotsman," and not knowing fornication is sex out of wedlock, not sex period.


 
So Rukh has once again derailed the thread into his own twisted theology. Great.

How about we get it back on track? Here in this thread, but not the person I got my reply from, we have a fundie who not only has pushed moderate christians away from their faith, but in fact seems to be all for it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> So Rukh has once again derailed the thread into his own twisted theology. Great.


I am explaining the context of Scripture passages, to which I was asked.



Mojotech said:


> How about we get it back on track? Here in this thread, but not the person I got my reply from, we have a fundie who not only has pushed moderate christians away from their faith, but in fact seems to be all for it.


"Moderate" Christian=nominal devotion=not a real Christian Mojo. Moderate/nominal have no place in the faith. Its all or nothing. No in-between. Again, Jesus says it best.

"So, because you are lukewarmâ€”neither hot nor coldâ€”I am about to spit you out of my mouth."


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> So Rukh has once again derailed the thread into his own twisted theology. Great.
> 
> How about we get it back on track? Here in this thread, but not the person I got my reply from, we have a fundie who not only has pushed moderate christians away from their faith, but in fact seems to be all for it.


We should probably rerail, cause I'd hate to see this derail into, "no true scotsman" discussion.


Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am explaining the context of Scripture passages, to which I was asked.
> 
> 
> "Moderate" Christian=nominal devotion=not a real Christian Mojo.  Moderate/nominal have no place in the faith. Its all or nothing. No  in-between. Again, Jesus says it best.
> ...


Please Rukh, we all agree that there's not as many christians in america and people claim, obviously cause you can lie on a checkbox on a sheet of paper.
All of us have different opinions of where the line is of what qualifies someone as being christian, but it's obviously not, "I'm christian cause I say I'm christian".
All I was proposing was bump up on the religion questionnaire from, "anybody who checks this box is christian" to differentiating between a christian and somebody obviously lying on the questionnaire.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 20, 2011)

Hey Rukh, what are your views on the poor, and the prosperity gospel currently making its way around the land?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Highly sectarian and divisive statements.



See what I mean?

Let's all stop humoring Rukh and get back to a serious discussion- The damage fundamentalists are doing to their faith.

 At the very least, it will be significantly more difficult for the fundamentalists to do what they do without the huge numbers of more moderate christians to act as human shields and do the legwork.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> "So, because you are lukewarmâ€”neither hot nor coldâ€”I am about to spit you out of my mouth."



This verse helped me to decide to leave Christianity.  I wouldn't be a 'Sunday Morning' Christian.  The only thing keeping me tied to the church was the need to please my parents and not embarrass the family.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> See what I mean?
> 
> Let's all stop humoring Rukh and get back to a serious discussion- The damage fundamentalists are doing to their faith.
> 
> At the very least, it will be significantly more difficult for the fundamentalists to do what they do without the huge numbers of more moderate christians to act as human shields and do the legwork.


Well not all fundamentalists act stereotypical, but there's enough out there acting stereotypically doing damage to christianity.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Hey Rukh, what are your views on the poor, and the prosperity gospel currently making its way around the land?



The poor:
Christians are to care for the poor. But, that does not mean we focus on physical needs more than spiritual needs of a person.

Prosperity gospel: 1 Timothy chapter 6 speaks on people who do this.

Basically the prosperity gospel tries to tell people they can use God. Placing oneself above God. Prosperity theology sees the Holy Spirit as a power to be put to use for  whatever the believer wills. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is a  Person who enables the believer to do God's will.

Prosperity gospel is not Biblical.




CAThulu said:


> This verse helped me to decide to leave  Christianity.  I wouldn't be a 'Sunday Morning' Christian.  The only  thing keeping me tied to the church was the need to please my parents  and not embarrass the family.



Define the Sunday morning Christian. Is this someone who goes to church, worships, and then comes home only to do the very things that they are not supposed to do? That's called lip service.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm going to stop you Blutide, but there are atheists who are opposed to gay marriage.


 
Damned few and far between.  So much so that I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that every case of such is either a remnant of former adherence to religion, the result of being misled by heavily slanted, religion-backed "research studies", or a cultural instillment of homophobia from constant exposure to a highly religious community around them.

edit: or only technically opposed to gay marriage out of opposition to government recognition of "marriage" altogether


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Well not all fundamentalists act stereotypical, but there's enough out there acting stereotypically doing damage to christianity.


 
They generally fall into the same pattern based on denomination, mind you.

The pattern of behavior most Calvinist fundamentalists, such as the WBC, conform to includes being very vocal about his beliefs, thinks Pious Fraud/"Lying for Jesus" is A-OK, very vocally homophobic/xenophobic in general and attempting to marginalize people who don't agree with them, to the point of outright denying their faith or trying to drive them away from it.

Other patterns of christian fundamentalism include Mormon fundamentalists tend to build creepy compounds and catholic fundamentalists joining various convents.

Generally it's the more vocal ones, like Haggard and Hovind, who do the most damage to their faith as a whole though.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Define the Sunday morning Christian. Is this someone who goes to church, worships, and then comes home only to do the very things that they are not supposed to do? That's called lip service.



Yes, if you mean hypocritical allegiance, which is exactly what I did not want in my faith.  I was a christian with a crisis of faith trying to decide once and for all whether to leave or not.  But I knew I couldn't do both, because of that verse.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> They generally fall into the same pattern based on denomination, mind you.
> 
> The pattern of behavior most Calvinist fundamentalists, such as the WBC,



Please stop confusing hyper Calvinism with Calvinism. They are not the same.



CAThulu said:


> Yes, if you mean hypocritical allegiance, which  is exactly what I did not want in my faith.  I was a christian with a  crisis of faith trying to decide once and for all whether to leave or  not.  But I knew I couldn't do both, because of that verse.



The reason Jesus says you can't do both is because you cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). It doesn't work.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Please stop confusing hyper Calvinism with Calvinism. They are not the same.



I agree, but considering that WBC aren't Calvinists to begin with (the B standing for Baptist) it's a moot point.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Please stop confusing hyper Calvinism with Calvinism. They are not the same.


Okay okay, hold on folks whether or not they are Christian I think we can all agree however that regardless it is hurting Christianity to be associated with those people.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> I agree, but considering that WBC aren't Calvinists to begin with (the B standing for Baptist) it's a moot point.


 
You've really gotta learn how to look past branding. Lots of organizations take on names other than what they are, such as the people's republic of china. :V


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 20, 2011)

I think a lot more people are seeing technological advancements and their modern lifestyle distance them from their religion, as well as the fact that the world is becoming a lot more tolerant of atheism, and when you tolerate something, it gains legitimacy in people who already would have joined it but couldn't because of social pressure. It's like divorce.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> You've really gotta learn how to look past branding. Lots of organizations take on names other than what they are, such as the people's republic of china. :V



Oh, I know that. :3   You're speaking to someone who's made studying different denominations a hobby (stamp collecting would have been easier *L*).   But why confuse WBC with calvinists when they could be Baptist extremists or whatever.   Baptists and Calvinists have completely different tenents and focuses on doctrine, so it's best not to get the two confused if you want to really know the motivation behind Phelp's church.

Other then heaping bucketfuls of crazy.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Oh, I know that. :3   You're speaking to someone who's made studying different denominations a hobby (stamp collecting would have been easier *L*).   But why confuse WBC with calvinists when they could be Baptist extremists or whatever.   Baptists and Calvinists have completely different tenents and focuses on doctrine, so it's best not to get the two confused if you want to really know the motivation behind Phelp's church.
> 
> Other then heaping bucketfuls of crazy.


 
I know that, but that doesn't change that they preach the main doctrines of calvinism. :V (Including unconditional reprobation and predestination and etc.)

But yeah main point is it's crazy christian groups like them that do the most damage.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> as well as the fact that the world is becoming a lot more tolerant of atheism, and when you tolerate something, it gains legitimacy in people who already would have joined it but couldn't because of social pressure. It's like divorce.


Fifty years ago society was extremely hateful towards atheists/agnostics, nowadays not even close.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Fifty years ago society was extremely hateful towards atheists/agnostics, nowadays not even close.


 
It's still extremely bad outside of the internet.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I know that, but that doesn't change that they preach the main doctrines of calvinism. :V (Including unconditional reprobation and predestination and etc.)
> 
> But yeah main point is it's crazy christian groups like them that do the most damage.



*G* I'll just say this.  NEVER go up to a Baptist and call him a Calvinist.  Not unless you have a lot of free time on your hands to hear the differences ^_^

Just for interests' sake, from the 'Baptist Press': Southern Baptist leaders disassociate SBC from Phelps 'anti-gay' message & methods.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Fifty years ago society was extremely hateful towards atheists/agnostics, nowadays not even close.


UH


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> *G* I'll just say this.  NEVER go up to a Baptist and call him a Calvinist.  Not unless you have a lot of free time on your hands to hear the differences ^_^
> 
> Just for interests' sake, from the 'Baptist Press': Southern Baptist leaders disassociate SBC from Phelps 'anti-gay' message & methods.



I am well aware of the differences. You're not the only one who's studied theology. =P

But yeah. Calvinists are trying to play that game too. Organizations like that are a PR nightmare. It's just ended up with them trying to outscotsman eachother.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> UH


 


Lobar said:


> It's still extremely bad outside of the internet.


I meant in comparison.
Fifty years ago, the norm in america, they would've drug your ass out behind a truck and begun firing bullets into your skull.


Mojotech said:


> I am well aware of the differences. You're not the only one who's studied theology. =P
> 
> But yeah. Calvinists are trying to play that game too. Organizations  like that are a PR nightmare. It's just ended up with them trying to  outscotsman eachother.


Would you say the outscotsmanning each other has done a ton of damage as well?


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I am well aware of the differences. You're not the only one who's studied theology. =P
> 
> But yeah. Calvinists are trying to play that game too. Organizations like that are a PR nightmare. It's just ended up with them trying to outscotsman eachother.



TouchÃ© ^_^.  But you're debating from a point where the differences don't matter, but I'm coming from the position that they do...at least to those who are under those labels.  To everyone else on the outside it's still calling a spade a spade 

And it definitely is a PR nightmare.  Personally I'm still surprised that GOP presidential hopefuls still use their religious beliefs as their main platform.  Case in point: Rick Perry and his Pray for Rain convention in Texas (the irony of the rain coming a month later during the atheist convention is delicious  )


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> And it definitely is a PR nightmare.  Personally I'm still surprised that GOP presidential hopefuls still use their religious beliefs as their main platform.  Case in point: Rick Perry and his Pray for Rain convention in Texas (the irony of the rain coming a month later during the atheist convention is delicious  )


Honestly that's going to have to change eventually for the GOP, cause of the slow and steady decline of christianity in the usa, cause twenty years down the line when the baby boomers will be on their death beds if the GOP still use christianity as their main platform they'll be s.o.l.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> TouchÃ© ^_^.  But you're debating from a point where the differences don't matter, but I'm coming from the position that they do...at least to those who are under those labels.  To everyone else on the outside it's still calling a spade a spade
> 
> And it definitely is a PR nightmare.  Personally I'm still surprised that GOP presidential hopefuls still use their religious beliefs as their main platform.  Case in point: Rick Perry and his Pray for Rain convention in Texas (the irony of the rain coming a month later during the atheist convention is delicious  )


 
FOUR months later.  And in the meantime, his state was devastated by wildfires.  And it so happens that he had slashed the state firefighting budget by 75% this year, which was already just equipment only to begin with because it's an all-volunteer operation down there IIRC.

Yeah, a great example of the power of prayer as well.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 20, 2011)

^ Faith based firefighting at it's finest. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> FOUR months later.  And in the meantime, his state was devastated by wildfires.  And it so happens that he had slashed the state firefighting budget by 75% this year, which was already just equipment only to begin with because it's an all-volunteer operation down there IIRC.
> 
> Yeah, a great example of the power of prayer as well.


Wait wait, think about it even more for a second.  Texas is the bread and butter for the GOP, and the GOP denies climate change and yet we're getting hit by it the worst.
Every time someone here claims it's not real I just go, "dude have you been outside today?"


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 21, 2011)

It's subjective. Some see a decline and others see an incline. I see an incline. I'm seeing anarcho-capitalism and Voluntaryism spread. A lot of people are getting into it. I like that. It's not religion that's doing it, it's the almight government that is encroaching on people's lives because a few assholes in government think they know what's best for us.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 21, 2011)

Lobar said:


> It's still extremely bad outside of the internet.


I can vouch for conservative christian areas still being intolerant for alternative things, especially wicca, but even then you would be so surprised. Even the rich, conservative christian kids couldn't bother the kid who studied Buddhism (and some even thought THAT was cool) or Hinduism, and very surprisingly I actually got a few people that liked and were interested in my interesting, eccentric beliefs, although they didn't believe them. One of my favorite teachers in high school and one of my inspirations for joining the UU church was a part of it himself, and most of the kids that became surprisingly VERY tolerant were a lot of Christian kids who listened to him teach the value of learning different beliefs to be aware of the world and how awesome it is. I love that man. 

My point is that there is interest, intrigue, and tolerance even in places where you would NEVER expect it. 

The mormons were always shithead about different interests, and the ones that weren't left Mormonism, but even a lot of the other Christians didn't like them for knocking on the rest of Christianity all the time.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 21, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I can vouch for conservative christian areas still being intolerant for alternative things, especially wicca, but even then you would be so surprised. Even the rich, conservative christian kids couldn't bother the kid who studied Buddhism (and some even thought THAT was cool) or Hinduism, and very surprisingly I actually got a few people that liked and were interested in my interesting, eccentric beliefs, although they didn't believe them. One of my favorite teachers in high school and one of my inspirations for joining the UU church was a part of it himself, and most of the kids that became surprisingly VERY tolerant were a lot of Christian kids who listened to him teach the value of learning different beliefs to be aware of the world and how awesome it is. I love that man.
> 
> My point is that there is interest, intrigue, and tolerance even in places where you would NEVER expect it.
> 
> The mormons were always shithead about different interests, and the ones that weren't left Mormonism, but even a lot of the other Christians didn't like them for knocking on the rest of Christianity all the time.


 
Most treat atheists as much worse than followers of other religions because "well at least they still believe in SOMETHING"


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Most treat atheists as much worse than followers of other religions because "well at least they still believe in SOMETHING"



1. I'm reminded of the joke about "Yes, but are you a _Catholic_ atheist, or a _Protestant_ atheist?"

2. I remember hearing from work colleagues in a former job I had that while Christians were permitted to enter Saudi Arabia for work assignments, atheists were barred from entry... presumably for that very reason of "at least Christians / Hindus etc believe in some god".


----------



## Paul'o'fox (Oct 21, 2011)

You bet I do. Christianity has given itself a lot of bad publicity. All this world is gonna end stuff (which it didn't) all the god hates fags stuff... People are beginning to see Christianity as a big joke.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

I got a question; it's no secret the baby boomers and generations before are the most religious; when the baby boomers start dying of old age do you think that will cause a extreme decline of Christianity in america, since the generations younger aren't nearly as religious?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I got a question; it's no secret the baby boomers and generations before are the most religious; when the baby boomers start dying of old age do you think that will cause a extreme decline of Christianity in america, since the generations younger aren't nearly as religious?


That's a big "Probably". I think the new religious and non-religious generation are both a bit more radical and less caring (less moderates, more people who DGAF). 



Paul'o'fox said:


> You bet I do. Christianity has given itself a  lot of bad publicity. All this world is gonna end stuff (which it  didn't) all the god hates fags stuff... People are beginning to see  Christianity as a big joke.



Wait, Christianity isn't a big joke? :v


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> That's a big "Probably". I think the new religious and non-religious generation are both a bit more radical and less caring (less moderates, more people who DGAF).
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, Christianity isn't a big joke? :v


Well the last twenty years christianity declined 10%, obviously over the next twenty years it's obviously going to decline another 10% at least, but what I'm wondering is that since the baby boomers and older generations are going to have majority died from old age will that cause a larger than 10% decrease for christianity in america and if so how much?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 21, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> That's a big "Probably". I think the new religious and non-religious generation are both a bit more radical and less caring (less moderates, more people who DGAF).


 


CannonFodder said:


> Well the last twenty years christianity declined 10%, obviously over the next twenty years it's obviously going to decline another 10% at least, but what I'm wondering is that since the baby boomers and older generations are going to have majority died from old age will that cause a larger than 10% decrease for christianity in america and if so how much?



The decline is a good and bad thing. Its bad in that many who are leaving the Church have skewed knowledge of what Christianity is. Its bad because many who have left have been fed false information and/or straight up lies. This hampers efforts of Christians who are walking with God. 

But at the same time, what we are seeing isn't a decline so to speak. We are seeing a pruning. Like a tree with a sick branch or a plant with a damaged section. The only way to save the rest is to cut off the bad part and throw it away. So the rest of the plant can grow. That is what we are seeing today. Those that are left, are the true and faithful. And this makes the Church stronger, not weaker. Contrary to what many would think, this apostasy that has spread through the Church, is strengthening those who are serious about walking with God.


It drives me nuts how inconsistent many Christians are with their worldview. Many Christians make claims to believe in God and to trust the Bible as God's absolute Word, yet, as soon as the Christian worldview stands in the way of something they want to do, the Bible and God for that matter gets thrown away. Only to be recovered the next time it becomes convenient. 

Some examples of inconsistency from Christians:

"Because times have changes, many things in the Bible have to change in order to keep with the times."

"Christianity evolves with the world."

"The Bible is open to other worldviews."

This is what Jesus spoke of in Revelations 3:16 ("But since you are lukewarm and not hot or cold, I'm going to spit you out of my mouth.") I, too, would rather have people be hot or cold. If they are hot, I am  ready to partner with them in declaring and living the truth. If they  are cold, I am ready to attempt to reach them by speaking the truth. If they are lukewarmâ€¦(insert disgusting vomiting sound here). 

For a Christian, their marriage (if they are married), their job, their hobbies, their morals, or their desires, everything they are and do, God should be the foundation.  Nothing in a Christian's life should be separated from the fact that they are a Christian, a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ. A Christian should be on fire for God. There is no room for remaining lukewarm, its spewage.

I don't like it when people treat God like He's a smart phone.  They delete  the features they don't like and add features they want it to have to  suit what they want.


----------



## Conker (Oct 21, 2011)

I voted yes, but that's my own personal bias, I think. Religion hurts religion these days, and it's because of fanatics and fundies and the like.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 21, 2011)

Much like how the Republican party has "pruned" all their moderates and remnants of sanity...


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 21, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Much like how the Republican party has "pruned" all their moderates and remnants of sanity...



Republicans have longed used faith as a means to get votes. Its pathetic. They are trying to use God as a means to suit their interests. Its self-centeredness to the nth degree.

And whats going on in the Republican party is nothing like what I am speaking about of the Church. What the party has done is all about themselves, where as the Church is about the entire Body of Christ. Big difference.


----------



## Waiting Cactus (Oct 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> I remember hearing from work colleagues in a former job I had that while Christians were permitted to enter Saudi Arabia for work assignments, atheists were barred from entry... presumably for that very reason of "at least Christians / Hindus etc believe in some god".



Hindus are very rarely allowed to get in.  Though the Christians are allowed becasue they are the "people" of the book.

Thus, once you get permission / documentaion they have free reign to enter except for Mecca and Medina.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2011)

Waiting Cactus said:


> Hindus are very rarely allowed to get in.  Though the Christians are allowed becasue they are the "people" of the book.



I do know there's a shitload of flights between Riyadh and Manila for the Filipino guest workers working in Saudi, seeing as (thanks to the Spanish) the Philippines is the most Christian nation in Asia...


----------



## Waiting Cactus (Oct 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> I do know there's a shitload of flights between Riyadh and Manila for the Filipino guest workers working in Saudi, seeing as (thanks to the Spanish) the Philippines is the most Christian nation in Asia...



There will be fighting no matter what religion is involved with the other.  Also, if i'm not mistaken, wasn't the Philippines controlled by America as well?


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The poor:
> Christians are to care for the poor. But, that does not mean we focus on physical needs more than spiritual needs of a person.



Based on your previous posts on the subject, this reads like: Harvesting their souls takes priority over their physical well-being.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2011)

Waiting Cactus said:


> There will be fighting no matter what religion is involved with the other.  Also, if i'm not mistaken, wasn't the Philippines controlled by America as well?



Very true. America ran the Philippines from 1898 (the Spanish-American War) through to 1935 when "Commonwealth" status was granted. It was only in 1945 when the Philippines obtained full independence.

As the Filipinos describe it, they spent 400 years in a convent, followed by 40 years in Hollywood


----------



## Waiting Cactus (Oct 21, 2011)

Anyway I voted yes.  I feel it's on a decline because the of the media, and how they potray it, and who the media looks for.

They usally can only find the most vocal, and intolerant/extreame groups of people.  Then it usally potrays the religion/group wrongly.  Once that happens, a stigma is attached and will take a long time to reverse, it may even be impossible.



Mayfurr said:


> Very true. America ran the Philippines from 1898 (the Spanish-American War) through to 1935 when "Commonwealth" status was granted. It was only in 1945 when the Philippines obtained full independence.
> 
> As the Filipinos describe it, they spent 400 years in a convent, followed by 40 years in Hollywood



Ahh thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Based on your previous posts on the subject, this reads like: Harvesting their souls takes priority over their physical well-being.



Caring for someones spiritual needs (which is way, way more than evangelism) is more important than caring for physical needs. Jesus' own example of His life showed this.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Based on your previous posts on the subject, this reads like: Harvesting their souls takes priority over their physical well-being.


 
Fundies say the darndest things!


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

So the majority of the reasons people have said call fall under bad PR and education?

No wonder why the republican party keeps slashing the education budget, hiyo!
*rimshot*


----------



## Lobar (Oct 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Based on your previous posts on the subject, this reads like: Harvesting their souls takes priority over their physical well-being.


 
This is why I don't donate to religious charities.


----------



## Falux (Oct 21, 2011)

I personally think if people knew how followers of Christ should _*really *_be and what it means, there would be less than 1/8 semi serious (though semi seriousness is a contradiction with true followers) there are now in America. For real.


Why it is still declining despite all the gimmicks, sugar coating and modernization, well, the other reason I can think of is division. At LEAST there are 30,000 denominations of Christianity. Of course there are some in there that can be considered insignificant, but division nonetheless.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 21, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Caring for someones spiritual needs (which is way, way more than evangelism) is more important than caring for physical needs. Jesus' own example of His life showed this.



"Oh who cares if he's starving to death? At least his soul will be saved when he does die" :V


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Based on your previous posts on the subject, this reads like: Harvesting their souls takes priority over their physical well-being.



Haven't you noticed that his posts oft seem to revolve around that? He doesn't care about people, he cares if he can help them get to his "heaven", or can save them spiritually. Fuck hand-outs, unless it's a 25$ Bible and a dollar bill.

/Paraphrasing. :v


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

It was a pain, but I finally found what I was looking.
Basically twenty years from now it's estimate that christianity will fall at minimum another 10%, at most 20%
The reason being a bunch of obvious stuff we've gone over in this thread already.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Unless the new generation is going to be sporadically radical.  Thus trying to convert as many people as possible, to there twisted since of christanity.
> 
> It would most likely screw up the estimates by a fair margin, which I wouldn't doubt that form happening.


It's possible, but considering alot of christian denominations are trying to their hardest to do exactly that already, I doubt that this will actually come to pass.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I can see it happening, along with a new sense of nationalism that comes with it.  Though I put nothing ahead of any ultra-fundamentalists as they can and will do anything in their power to have this come through.
> 
> Honestly though anything is possible, I mean look who you guys are trying to elect.  :V


I mean I know it's possible, but if they tried this in all likelyhood, since alot of people quit christianity cause of this exact reason i.e. extreme fundamentalism, it probably wouldn't last that long without some major repurcussions and/or causing christianity to slide even further.


----------



## Falux (Oct 21, 2011)

Actually, I'd say most denominations are just getting more and more gimmicky to try to bring people to God. That is how I will forecast any raise in Christian numbers, severe gimmicks, sugar coating and plain lies.


No, you know, actually teaching from and about the Holy Book that for at least the New Testament has presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament with internal consistency of roughly 99.5% accuracy between versions. Heaven forbid them to teach out of a book like that.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 21, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> If I may say Term the Catholic church has to be careful of just how much change they are willing to allow. Too little and it causes problems. Too much and it also causes problems leaning more into what cannon said.  The problems of course I speak of deal with being able to hold onto flock and be seen as a authority figure. To be honest, allowing for the priests and stuff to marry really is a huge change that could in ways rock the foundations of the church. Canon is not wholly wrong in what he is saying.



I truly think he is, considering that the Church still recognizes a priest's marriage if he goes into the priesthood post-matrimony or was a married priest of another denomination and changed sects.  This is exactly what happened with one of the priests at the Church I attend.  And believe me, the congregation isn't up in arms because of some taboo about priests getting married.  I'd say if you polled most Catholics who attend on a semi/regular basis, most wouldn't have any sort of issue with priests getting hitched.  They certainly haven't if they've already been apparently.

I seriously think you and Canon are making the issue of marriage for priests much bigger than it is, especially considering that decision doesn't personally affect the congregation in any way, certainly not as much as my Latin Mass example or when eating meat on any Friday was decided not to be a major sin.  The priests get their authority from training with the dioceses.  If there's a change in policy that doesn't immediately discredit them from having authority.  It's like saying fry cook's boss wants them to wear a specific color hat to work and then later says they can wear any kind of hat they like.  That doesn't discredit the boss' authority, and at the end of the day, the fry cook's still making burgers, so who gives a damn?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Falux said:


> Actually, I'd say most denominations are just getting more and more gimmicky to try to bring people to God. That is how I will forecast any raise in Christian numbers, severe gimmicks, sugar coating and plain lies.
> 
> 
> No, you know, actually teaching from and about the Holy Book that for at least the New Testament has presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament with internal consistency of roughly 99.5% accuracy between versions. Heaven forbid them to teach out of a book like that.


They're just trying to adapt to stay afloat, can you really blame them though?
With christianity on the decline, many churches face continuous membership declines for a ton of them.  Membership declines mean less tithing, less tithing means less money to pay for even the basic necessities.
Like for example one church I used to go to for several months they were in the red, and that's just for keeping the lights on not including charities and such.  A ton of churches are facing this problem, what's worse is a massive chunk of church membership is baby boomers and older generations, what do you think is going to happen when they start dying of old age.
In short you can't blame them for wanting to stay open.


----------



## Falux (Oct 21, 2011)

Well CannonFodder, most churches are businesses nowadays, so I suppose. I still say that is bad, very bad, but if a church is a business then of course it is logical to do what they can to stay afloat.


Disgusts me.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Falux said:


> Well CannonFodder, most churches are businesses nowadays, so I suppose. I still say that is bad, very bad, but if a church is a business then of course it is logical to do what they can to stay afloat.
> 
> 
> Disgusts me.


I agree, but it's a tough choice for a lot of churches.
It was linked a couple pages ago, but-
http://pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx
Each and every generation the last 100 years has become less and less religious, the churches are being forced to adapt.  Fifty years from now where do you think america is going to be?  Or even twenty years from now?
Regardless as time goes on in the future a ton of churches are going to fail and it's just going to keep spiraling downwards.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I agree, but it's a tough choice for a lot of churches.
> It was linked a couple pages ago, but-
> http://pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx
> Each and every generation the last 100 years has become less and less religious, the churches are being forced to adapt.  Fifty years from now where do you think america is going to be?  Or even twenty years from now?
> Regardless as time goes on in the future a ton of churches are going to fail and it's just going to keep spiraling downwards.



Lot of assumptions in that Cannon.

You assume churches must adapt to the world in order to survive. Mine hasn't and won't. We have 5000+ members, the church is thriving, is well respected in the area. I could go on here but I think you get the picture. The churches that are failing are failing because they have stopped focusing on God's message. Churches that stay true and follow God prosper.

One of the biggest problems in why churches are failing: They are depending on themselves and not God.

The American dream radically differs from the call of Jesus and the  essence of the gospel. This differentiation is highlighted when we  contrast trust in the power of God with reliance on our own abilities. This is where people and churches fail.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You assume churches must adapt to the world in order to survive. Mine hasn't and won't.


 
So the women of your church, they're all forbidden to speak in church, and are wholly subservient to their husbands, then?


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Caring for someones spiritual needs (which is way, way more than evangelism) is more important than caring for physical needs. Jesus' own example of His life showed this.



Thanks for confirming once again that you don't give a damn about anyone else's physical well-being, as long as you've got them to sign over their soul to your "god". I guess you've be the sort that would hand a starving person a Bible tract instead of a sandwich, amirite?

Interesting that Jesus according to Matthew 25: 41-46 doesn't agree with you:



> â€œThen he will say to those on his left, â€˜Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. *For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,* I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.â€™
> 
> â€œThey also will answer, â€˜Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?â€™
> 
> ...



(I eagerly await how you'll now claim that the context is somehow wrong and that "hungry" and "thirsty" actually mean something like "bottle" and "melon".)

And it's highly amusing how having said this you still claim to be a "true" Christian and most others claiming to be Christians are wrong. Most Christians I know would be ministering to the physical needs of the poor _first_, on the basis that a person can't hear their preaching over the noise their stomach is making from hunger...

Frankly, it's the Ruhk-type self-proclaimed "true" Christians of this world that give the rest of Christianity a bad name.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I truly think he is, considering that the Church still recognizes a priest's marriage if he goes into the priesthood post-matrimony or was a married priest of another denomination and changed sects.  This is exactly what happened with one of the priests at the Church I attend.  And believe me, the congregation isn't up in arms because of some taboo about priests getting married.  I'd say if you polled most Catholics who attend on a semi/regular basis, most wouldn't have any sort of issue with priests getting hitched.  They certainly haven't if they've already been apparently.
> 
> I seriously think you and Canon are making the issue of marriage for priests much bigger than it is, especially considering that decision doesn't personally affect the congregation in any way, certainly not as much as my Latin Mass example or when eating meat on any Friday was decided not to be a major sin.  The priests get their authority from training with the dioceses.  If there's a change in policy that doesn't immediately discredit them from having authority.  It's like saying fry cook's boss wants them to wear a specific color hat to work and then later says they can wear any kind of hat they like.  That doesn't discredit the boss' authority, and at the end of the day, the fry cook's still making burgers, so who gives a damn?



I'm not "Making it out to be a big issue" Term. I''m just saying that what he has to say is based in some truth. You seem to want to brush it off to the side but the lack of open encouragement for the priest hood to marry is only one of the many problems that plague the church based partially on old ideology that is out of date in this world and an unwillingness to exhibit change when it is vitally necessary. Some of which definately would draw a lot of criticism from the followers and make them wonder about if they should see the Pope and his ilk as authority figures.

Somehow I don't see the church stopping it's bullshit antics any time soon. Such as harboring(and protecting pedophiles), and sending missionaries to Africa to teach contraception as murder. Or painting up terrible people as saints. Just to name a few. ;/


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

^IMO the pope has probably done far more damage to christianity than good, which is probably why some people have been calling for him to be taken to trial for crimes against humanity.  The major reason why he hasn't is that he has diplomatic immunity, since the vatican is a city state.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Oct 22, 2011)

I not sure exactly sure what to think but I believe it is very well possible.

Not really going to give all reasons I am thinking into this
 With more thinking differently these days I think most just don't care. Also religions say they cant do things that they want to do.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Here's my two cents,

I think that fundamentalists are responsible for the decline in trust of organized, evangelical fanaticism; Christianity itself is just a thought. It hasn't changed necessarily, or been usurped, but it's speakers, preachers, and students have over a great many years, changed, so it's natural that people wouldn't state that they align themselves outright with Christian beliefs when there's no punishment for changing what you don't like, and keeping what you do. Or, when there's no decided right or wrong in how you can interpret the bible, or the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ.


----------



## virus (Oct 22, 2011)

It's not so much the christian theology itself, rather- the mindfuck sickening plot that a couple of people have figured how to exploit out of it. 

You have to realize, that this is still part of the original reason people came to this country. To practice their believes- but then we established that you can practice; but if you preach it- fuck you, your a loony. So in some sense, this is a sleeper cell that was prone to coming back after 150-200 years or so. It'll run the country into the ground just because religious folk don't understand anything outside of a cardboard box.

I find it hysterical though that it says directly in the bible, "thou shall not worship me." MOTHERFUCKER . Jesus is eternally giving himself cigarette burns


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 22, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'm not "Making it out to be a big issue" Term. I''m just saying that what he has to say is based in some truth. You seem to want to brush it off to the side but the lack of open encouragement for the priest hood to marry is only one of the many problems that plague the church based partially on old ideology that is out of date in this world and an unwillingness to exhibit change when it is vitally necessary. Some of which definately would draw a lot of criticism from the followers and make them wonder about if they should see the Pope and his ilk as authority figures.



I'm not talking about the other major problems because that's not what I was taking Canon to task for.  His claim was that letting priests marry would somehow destroy the Church, I rebutted that by giving much greater examples of change in policy and have further rebutted it by offering examples of Catholic priests who are married.  That had absolutely nothing to do with missionaries in Africa, and bringing it up is basically saying "well, you're right but you're still wrong because of this unrelated stuff that the Church does wrong."

Churches do evolve.  Slowly I'll admit.  There's still plenty I find wrong with Catholicism's policies and I don't make any buts about it, including the lack of teaching of contraception, gay rights, etc.  It's sad to say that the first major progress that the Church has made in abolishing the prohibition on birth control was on November 20th of last year when the Pope came out and said that condoms are an effective means of curbing the spread of HIV, but should only be used in exceptional cases, and he cited male prostitutes.  It's a very small bit of progress, but it's progress none the less.  Am I happy or satisfied?  No, but I'd like to think that this is the beginning of a greater understanding that those in high position of the Church will have for their fellow man.

But again, what does any of this have to do with mine or anyone else's personal faith?  Our personal opinions on faith are usually based upon our own personal faith and spirituality as well as our personal experiences, however prominent that may be in our lives.  Because priests have been moved around to other churches instead of simply being expelled from the clergy doesn't destroy my faith just like how teachers who've physically or mentally abused their students being moved around to other schools instead of having their teaching certification revoked diminishes my faith that sending kids to school is a good idea.  Shenanigans happen with any large organization of establishment.  It's sad, deplorable, and downright wrong.  But despite those things people still maintain faith in the services that these organizations provide.


----------



## Falux (Oct 22, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Thanks for confirming once again that you don't give a damn about anyone else's physical well-being, as long as you've got them to sign over their soul to your "god". I guess you've be the sort that would hand a starving person a Bible tract instead of a sandwich, amirite?
> 
> Interesting that Jesus according to Matthew 25: 41-46 doesn't agree with you:
> 
> ...




You can't argue this validly in your mind at all, you can't argue with validly in anyone's mind. I don't know what you believe but I of course get the vibe you don't believe in Christianity. This being the case you can't possibly believe, think, or know eternal salvation is much more important than how someone's physical shell as a means of transportation in this world is doing, so me trying to say anything to you about how it relates to the next life is silly...you won't believe it.

 I'm not saying I'd stick a knife in someone's hand and say "DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PAIN! I DID THAT IN GOD'S NAME!". Physical well being is important to, well, exist in this world. Duh, however what goes on with your REAL self in the REAL life, is more important than what happens than what happens with your SHELL in a TEMPORARY life.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Uh Falux, you just gave Mayfurr a massive amount of fuel and he's holding a lighter.(metaphorically)


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 22, 2011)

By his noodly appendage, now we have two crazy fundies in this thread!


----------



## Aleu (Oct 22, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> By his noodly appendage, now we have two crazy fundies in this thread!



One was bad enough D;


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Oct 22, 2011)

Falux said:


> [...]
> Duh, however what goes on with your REAL self in the REAL life, is more important than what happens than what happens with your SHELL in a TEMPORARY life.


The real life, there is no good proof it exists, there is no realistic indication that it exists, BUT IT* IS* THE REAL LIFE! Because an old book told me!
:V

(btw, there is one "http://" too much in your sig, it should be "http://christianfurs.net/")


----------



## Falux (Oct 22, 2011)

I thought this thread was about how Christianity was failing, not a debate about whether Christianity was valid, or making useless statements about me being a fundie. Sure, I replied to Mayfurr, I had the choice not to but I will defend my belief at any corner. Let's talk about the topic, not stray. You don't want to argue with me. I don't want to argue with you.


And thank you Toboe, I appreciate it. It's fixed.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Falux said:


> I thought this thread was about how Christianity was failing, not a debate about whether Christianity was valid. Sure, I replied to Mayfurr, I had the choice not to but I will defend my belief at any corner.
> 
> 
> Do we want to get back to the real topic at hand or argue back and forth? I don't want to argue with you, you don't want to argue with me.


I'm not going to argue, but I've learned any discussion on christianity will eventually since the majority of furries are agnostic/atheist eventually it will turn into a discussion whether or not christianity is true.
I've learned the only winning move is not to play.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 22, 2011)

Im mad.  Bout CHURCH  SON of a bitch wow angry about thing right now..  Plz don't mess w/ me!!!!


----------



## Falux (Oct 22, 2011)

I wouldn't be on here explicitly stating my beliefs and talking to folks  about them if I wasn't here to change the fact that most furries agnostic/atheist, mind you. 

Back  to the real topic of the thread, to sort of reiterate what I said  earlier in the thread but not as clear...I think anything that doesn't  focus on self pleasure and benefit will decline in the world, and it is.  That's evident. People just naturally don't like being helpful, their  selfish, mean, cruel...what have you, but there are other factors. There  is fake Christianity and Orthodox Christianity, with the fake brand  people won't lose interest as fast because it has all these 'cool'  ideals. "Oh, The Bible is wrong, disregard what it says about  homosexuality.", things like that...however at the core it is still  about being a good person (For Fake Christianity, I'd call it good in  the physical sense.). In the end to humans sticking to their natural  desires, that won't swing, so ultimately Fake Christianity shoots itself  in the foot.

As for Real Christianity, it makes even a Fake  Christian go "WHAT?!?!!", so people are extremely turned off to it.  Itself is the cause of it's low popularity, but itself being itself  isn't the reason it declines. In fact I wouldn't say it declines any.  The ones who are in it, are *IN *it. They don't get persuaded out. 


My true two cents on the matter.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 22, 2011)

Falux said:


> I wouldn't be on here explicitly stating my beliefs and talking to folks  about them if I wasn't here to change the fact that most furries agnostic/atheist, mind you.
> 
> Back  to the real topic of the thread, to sort of reiterate what I said  earlier in the thread but not as clear...I think anything that doesn't  focus on self pleasure and benefit will decline in the world, and it is.  That's evident. People just naturally don't like being helpful, their  selfish, mean, cruel...what have you, but there are other factors. There  is fake Christianity and Orthodox Christianity, with the fake brand  people won't lose interest as fast because it has all these 'cool'  ideals. "Oh, The Bible is wrong, disregard what it says about  homosexuality.", things like that...however at the core it is still  about being a good person (For Fake Christianity, I'd call it good in  the physical sense.). In the end to humans sticking to their natural  desires, that won't swing, so ultimately Fake Christianity shoots itself  in the foot.
> 
> ...



quoting some kind of nihilist here.  sorry about your not realizing the multi-faceted nature of people


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 22, 2011)

Falux said:


> The ones who are in it, are *IN *it. They don't get persuaded out.


Nonsense. Both of my parents were devout Christians for most of their lives, but my father spontaneously de-converted in 1998 (reasons of his own) and my mother is now very lax.


----------



## Falux (Oct 22, 2011)

You know, I could be wrong with what I said, however...


What denomination was he apart of?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 22, 2011)

If a mod's reading this, can I get a sockpuppet check on Falux? Thanks.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 22, 2011)

More Fake Christians and True Scotsmen. 

Rukh probably called for a forum invasion somewhere.


----------



## Falux (Oct 22, 2011)

You could have PMed a forum moderator for them to check that, Mojotech, and then have made your post in here something that contributed to the thread's substance instead of indirectly attempting to heckle me. Oh well, I'm not a sockpuppet anyway.


And perhaps in a sense Rukh did. He's asked for help. I am a fan and learner of the things he posts in his journals, he is a good teacher. I can say my knowledge on The Bible falls far behind his, so I may unwantingly deter people instead of help them because of my lack of knowledge. I don't consider myself a new Christian though...just not one who ranks among the top knowledgeable.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 22, 2011)

^ Either I've found my second radical believer or he's really a sockpuppet :/

Edit: sorry but I had to say it.
The deal with you can get so ridiculous at times. It makes one quite giddy.


----------



## Falux (Oct 22, 2011)

Commie Bat, I don't label myself any sort of denomination. I just consider myself a disciple. The reason why I don't label myself any denomination is because there are too many denominations of Christianity in the world, much too many, causing so much divide instead of Unity. To try to align one's self with one and then think down upon other denominations is being part of a problem. Of course there are some denominations that DO need to be looked down on, some of their doctrine is not aligned with the Word.


However, if you want to answer your own question with less words tacked on...I go to a non denominational church. (Which is really a misnomer sort of, but it's the closest and best church I can go to.)


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Fay, the Bible has not been re translated 1000 times. Every time a translation (a legit translation) it comes from the same text. The ancient Greek manuscripts that number 5600. Not to mention the 19,000 plus in Latin, Aramaic, and Coptic(and this is just the New Testament texts) What we have today matches 98% of what was written originally (the entire Bible). Nearly 100% identical. The other 2% is just copyist errors which are grammar and spelling mistakes. Which, do not detract from what is being said in the passages. No other ancient book comes close to being nearly 100% pure and unchanged.
> 
> Second, the Bible is 66 books, written by 40 different authors over a 1500 year period.


I realize this is old but it really bothers me. 
First of all the bible having several authors proves my point. I know there are 5 for the OT and can point out the stylistic differences with each major author, but that's not the point. 
There are multiple authors, there were multiple edits (which we can track through the replications from priests) and the bible is not a consistent single work, but a mosaic. 
Second...the thousand translations was a hyperbole, but it has in fact been translated a lot. There is the KJV, NIV, NAB, NRSV and so many more, for each of those pick at least a dozen other languages to translate the bible into. 

I don't know if you've ever translated anything in your life ever Ruhk, but anyone that has knows that there are different methods of translation. Literal translation, and paraphrasic translation. 
Go on google translate and it will give you a literal translation. 100% of the words may be correct and spot on, but that doesn't mean the sentence makes any form of sense. In order to make sense of the translation the translator plays with words. However this corrupts the text as the translator is trying to figure out the intent of the text. It gets worse when the translator attempts to be poetic. So the word chosen may have the same technical definition, but the connotation of the words changes. This can change the meaning of the text. 

So unless you actually speak ancient hebrew or ancient greece you will not have the exact meaning of the text given. You will have the closest interpretation that a mortal man could get. 

Also KJV is written in Early modern english. You can claim that it's like translating Ancient greek with modern greek, but it's more like reading a book from 60 years ago and having someone explain "Gay meant happy"


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> You can't argue this validly in your mind at all, you can't argue with validly in anyone's mind. I don't know what you believe but I of course get the vibe you don't believe in Christianity. This being the case you can't possibly believe, think, or know eternal salvation is much more important than how someone's physical shell as a means of transportation in this world is doing, so me trying to say anything to you about how it relates to the next life is silly...you won't believe it.
> 
> I'm not saying I'd stick a knife in someone's hand and say "DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PAIN! I DID THAT IN GOD'S NAME!". Physical well being is important to, well, exist in this world. Duh, however what goes on with your REAL self in the REAL life, is more important than what happens than what happens with your SHELL in a TEMPORARY life.



Translation: "Compassion... we've heard of it. We've gotta get their soul before they die - after that, who gives a shit, it's only a shell. Let them suffer, we've got what we want."

While you might not actually stick a knife in someone's hand in God's name (though I suspect you would if you felt God instructed you to), you may as well have done if you prioritise preaching at someone over _actually providing meaningful help to get them out of whatever hole they are in_ be it hunger, injury or whatever. 

Thankfully, there are Christians who don't have this particular attitude and get on with helping people first BEFORE preaching at them - my father being one on particular. And while I might not agree with the theology, I respect Christians (and Muslims, Hindus, etc) with this attitude far more than the soul-harvesting "the body is only a shell so let's not worry about it" attitude expressed by you and Rukh.



CannonFodder said:


> Uh Falux, you just gave Mayfurr a massive amount of fuel and he's holding a lighter.(metaphorically)



<ka-chink> <flick> <flick> <flick> I'm his worst nightmare. I'm an atheist with a Bible 



Falux said:


> And perhaps in a sense Rukh did. He's asked for help. I am a fan and learner of the things he posts in his journals, *he is a good teacher.*



You owe me a new keyboard.

Actually, Rukh's "teaching" reminds me a lot of this particular rant from Jesus:



			
				Matthew 23: 15 said:
			
		

> â€œWoe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! *You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.*
> [...]
> â€œWoe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spicesâ€”mint, dill and cummin.* But you have neglected the more important matters of the lawâ€”justice, mercy and faithfulness. *You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. *You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!* (emphasis added)


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Hey Rukh, just a heads up since Falux told us you asked for help, you had better be careful you are flirting with no /i/ rule.
If you ever post a journal on the fa group you moderate to post in the forums or such, that will qualify as a invasion.
You're flirting with the rules under the pale moonlight bud.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Hey Rukh, just a heads up since Solux told us you asked for help, you had better be careful you are flirting with no /i/ rule.


 
Falux. Solux is this guy.
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2...uck_papercraft_by_kittyintheraiyn-d2xqjh6.jpg

But yeah, I really wouldn't put that past Rukh to pull.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Falux. Solux is this guy.
> http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2...uck_papercraft_by_kittyintheraiyn-d2xqjh6.jpg
> 
> But yeah, I really wouldn't put that past Rukh to pull.


I just realized I didn't notice.

Think about it, if he does that then Rukh and everyone involved will be banned.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I just realized I didn't notice.
> 
> Think about it, if he does that then Rukh and everyone involved will be banned.


 
Well you're more than welcome to go through his FA, facebook and personal forum posts- I get more than enough crazy fundie just staying here, although I'd have waited to remind him that's against the rules until after he was caught since he's probably just going to go cover his tracks after reading it- although what Falux said IS pretty damning. (And has other implications I'll go over later.)



Falux said:


> And perhaps in a sense Rukh did. He's asked for help. I am a fan and learner of the things he posts in his journals, he is a good teacher. I can say my knowledge on The Bible falls far behind his, so I may unwantingly deter people instead of help them because of my lack of knowledge. I don't consider myself a new Christian though...just not one who ranks among the top knowledgeable.


 
Falux, assuming you're not a sockpuppet or troll, you're getting snookered. Rukh is basically the worst person you can go to for information on theology or the bible. Being a christian and all is fine, but you really should get your info from someone who actually knows something about their chosen religion.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> I wouldn't be on here explicitly stating my beliefs and talking to folks  about them if I wasn't here to change the fact that most furries agnostic/atheist, mind you.
> 
> Back  to the real topic of the thread, to sort of reiterate what I said  earlier in the thread but not as clear...I think anything that doesn't  focus on self pleasure and benefit will decline in the world, and it is.  That's evident. People just naturally don't like being helpful, their  selfish, mean, cruel...what have you, but there are other factors. There  is fake Christianity and Orthodox Christianity, with the fake brand  people won't lose interest as fast because it has all these 'cool'  ideals. "Oh, The Bible is wrong, disregard what it says about  homosexuality.", things like that...however at the core it is still  about being a good person (For Fake Christianity, I'd call it good in  the physical sense.). In the end to humans sticking to their natural  desires, that won't swing, so ultimately Fake Christianity shoots itself  in the foot.
> 
> ...



Christianity is not the only faith that preaches an afterlife, not is it the only one that preaches goodwill. Simple fact is there are so many negatives and inconsistencies associated with the religion that many simply choose to give up on it, myself included. 

A religion like Bhuddism or Luciferianism holds as much significance as any Christian denomination imo because the core of both those faiths is spiritual enlightenment. There is no divine reward nor punishment beyond what the individual creates for themselves. 


This is my reason for leaving Christianity. I voted maybe because others may or may not have had a similar approach.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> stuff



I've tried making a similar argument with him before.  It doesn't matter because apparently there's absolutely no possible way that "legit" translations or versions of the Bible could ever be wrong or not to be taken literally, and of course "legit" is according to him.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Thanks for confirming once again that you don't give a damn about anyone else's physical well-being, as long as you've got them to sign over their soul to your "god". I guess you've be the sort that would hand a starving person a Bible tract instead of a sandwich, amirite?
> 
> Interesting that Jesus according to Matthew 25: 41-46 doesn't agree with you:
> 
> ...



You missed everything I was saying. I never said physical needs were not important. Christians are, to take care of those less fortunate. But, what good does that do if you don't even tell them who Jesus Christ is and the free gift that is offered? A Christian can help someones physical needs all they want. But if they don't tell the person about Jesus Christ, then nothing was accomplished. The person still dies and faces the wages of sin. This life here is temporary. My question for you is, why do you seem to advocate that the Bible says that Christians should only cater to ones physical needs? Remember, I said to look at Christ's life. What did He do every morning? He got up, very, very early and went and prayed and mediated alone. Even if He was up late and had lack of sleep, even if He hadn't eaten yet. His priority was be in communion with the Father. That, is what I am talking about. A Christians top priority should always be to be in communion with God.

Second, go and read the book of James, or I and II Corinthians, because a lot of what James and Paul wrote is rebuking and admonishing people. Most of James is basically a call out. James and Paul did the exact same thing I am doing now.



> Most Christians I know would be ministering to the physical needs of the poor _first_, on the basis that a person can't hear their preaching over the noise their stomach is making from hunger...



*"It is written, 'One must not live on bread alone, but on every word coming out of the mouth of God.'" *

"Jesus answered, â€œEveryone who drinks this water will be thirsty again (physical health),  *but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst*. Indeed, the  water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to  eternal life.â€






People who give Christians a bad name are the ones who are halfhearted and not serious about following Christ.

Lastly, is it really that hard to spell my name correct? Its 4 letters.




Fay V said:


> I realize this is old but it really bothers me.
> First of all the bible having several authors proves my point. I know  there are 5 for the OT and can point out the stylistic differences with  each major author, but that's not the point.
> There are multiple authors, there were multiple edits (which we can  track through the replications from priests) and the bible is not a  consistent single work, but a mosaic.
> Second...the thousand translations was a hyperbole, but it has in fact  been translated a lot. There is the KJV, NIV, NAB, NRSV and so many  more, for each of those pick at least a dozen other languages to  translate the bible into.
> ...



Fay, again, you are wrong. The Bible is a continual story. From beginning to end. An amazing feat considering it was written over a 1400 year period.

And , you completely missed what I said. NIV, NLT, ESV, whatever, all of those translations came from the same texts. The thousands of ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Which, by the way we have far more of then Plato's or Aristotle's manuscripts. And you believe that they were never tampered with. How is it so hard to believe that the Bible hasn't changed when their are tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts dating back to the 3rd century B.C?
Your question can be boiled down to this:

Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it?

First, that is a common misconception. You think that the Bible was written in  one language, translated to another  language, then translated into yet another  and so on until it was  finally translated into the English. 

The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten.  

Again, all I have to do is point to the New Testament.The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament   in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have  around  6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close  to the time of  the originals (the John Rylands manuscript was written less than 100 years after the crucifixion of Christ. The first copy of Plato's or Aristotle's works are over a 1000 years after those men actually wrote what they did. Not to mention we only have 7 copies of Plato's work and 49 copies of Aristoltle's works. ow can you be so sure that what we have is actually what they wrote with so little evidence?)

These various manuscripts, or copies,  agree with each other to  almost 100 percent accuracy. No other book in the history of man comes close with the numbers of the manuscripts we have from the Bible.   Statistically,  the New Testament is 99.5%  textually pure.  That means that there is  only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies  that do not agree with each other  perfectly.  But, if you take that 1/2 of 1%  and examine it, you find  that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more  than spelling  errors and very minor word alterations.

So, when the Bible is translated, its not translate from a translation of a   translation of a translation.  We translate from the original language  into our  language.  It is a one-step process and not a series of steps  that can lead to  corruption.

In other words. The Bible has not been rewritten, it has not changed.




CannonFodder said:


> Hey Rukh, just a heads up since Falux told  us you asked for help, you had better be careful you are flirting with  no /i/ rule.
> If you ever post a journal on the fa group you moderate to post in the forums or such, that will qualify as a invasion.
> You're flirting with the rules under the pale moonlight bud.



You make the assumption that everything I do is on FA. Where I said for help, which was a general call for Christians who are furs to step up to the plate and act like Christians on FA, was on the Christian fur website that I am in charge of the FA outreach section (Yes, you read that correctly.) Go through my journals on FA, or on The Furry Truth Ministry which I co-lead on FA. There is no journal about trying to get Christians to in your words "invade".
I moderate the Christian-Furs group on FA, all that entails is that I speak for them. I don't write their journals.



Mojotech said:


> Well you're more than welcome to go through his  FA, facebook and personal forum posts- I get more than enough crazy  fundie just staying here, although I'd have waited to remind him that's  against the rules until after he was caught since he's probably just  going to go cover his tracks after reading it- although what Falux said  IS pretty damning. (And has other implications I'll go over later.)



My facebook isn't on FA. It was hacked by people on FA, and was illegally given out many many months ago. And said users that have done this have been perma banned.  And if you are advocating illegal releasing of personal info, then you yourself could be in some trouble. And as I said to Cannon, I help run a FA outreach section on a Christian furry website (you have no clue what I do, do you?, You think that what you see here on FAF is all I do. You couldn't be more mistaken.) You can go there and look. I never speak about the forums, cause this isn't where my ministry is. This is just a place I like to go. Think of it, as practice for me here. 




Mojotech said:


> Falux, assuming you're not a sockpuppet or troll, you're getting  snookered. Rukh is basically the worst person you can go to for  information on theology or the bible. Being a christian and all is fine,  but you really should get your info from someone who actually knows  something about their chosen religion.


Coming from someone who can't distinguish Mormonism, or Hyper Calvinism from what the Bible actually says, this is quite funny. You advocate getting info from lax, feel good, halfhearted Christians, who think being a Christian gives one the right to sin continuously and get out scott free. You advocate that one should go to a "Christian" who isn't serious about following Jesus and only Jesus. Lukewarm faith isn't following God.  I still like how, someone who continuously has ripped Scripture out of context, then tries to say "I know what I am talking about and you don't."  All the while attacking and baiting and flaming the person he is debating with, then tries to trump himself up as the only place for "true" knowledge and understanding of Christianity.

Let be be point blank why you cannot understand or get what I say. 

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from  the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand  them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."

A non Christian studying theology, won't get what a Christian does out of it. Won't understand spiritual things that a Christian does. Why? Because you can't. A non Christian does not have the Spirit of God within them.


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> I may unwantingly deter people instead of help them because of my lack of knowledge.


\
If you are anything like Rukh, you will do exactly that.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

In this thread:
Taking quotes from a book upon which nobody agrees to cement a never-ending discussion that is already a lost cause.
Let's just agree that spiritual needs and physical needs are just as important? (Even if I don't think spiritual needs are a must, although Rukh does and is coming from good intentions, etc, etc...).


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> People who give Christians a bad name are the ones who are halfhearted and not serious about following Christ.
> 
> Lastly, is it really that hard to spell my name correct? Its 4 letters.


Actually it's people like you that make me despise Christianity. If someone seriously preached to me every single day about "loving God" and such and so forth, I'd probably either go insane and kill them, kill myself, or all of the above.

Now if someone DIDN'T rub it in my face at every corner, I'd be more open to learning about it.

Also, just because your name is 4 letters doesn't mean it's not already arranged in a derpy way.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I've tried making a similar argument with him before.  It doesn't matter because apparently there's absolutely no possible way that "legit" translations or versions of the Bible could ever be wrong or not to be taken literally, and of course "legit" is according to him.


Then the only "legit" translation of the bible would have to be the personal translation of the original text from you. Reading all the words and understanding the meaning, then carefully selecting ever word carefully to mean exactly what you think it means. Everything else is has a slight twist of interpretation in it. 
This is what I hate most about people that want to take the bible literally. None will acknowledge the issues with translation. There are denotative meanings, the exact definitions of words, and connotative meanings the meaning that is cultural and more fluid. 
There is a difference if I say someone is killed, and someone is butchered. There's even more difference if I'm talking about an animal. If one were to translate "Sam butchered Bill" they would have to decide whether or not to use kill or murdered or some other variant, and in the end that slightly changes the sentence. Maybe not a lot, but multiply that for every sentence in the bible, every time it was ever translated, greek to latin to english there is plenty of room for the specifics to be twisted, only the general message would stay true. 

It's not as if the bible is special. ruhk commented that it is the only ancient text that is this pure...no. The Tao te ching is complete, and even though the original date is argued the latest complete text was 4th century BC. That's ages before the NT was drafted. 
The epic of Gilgamesh is 7th century and is one of our earliest works of literature. It also predates the OT and does deal with the historical record. It tells the same flood story with incredibly similar specifications. So no, the bible isn't really special in terms of ancient writing. It's as open to interpretation and flaw as all the other ancient texts, more so considering gilgamesh was written in clay rather than paper and the original writing is still around.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Fay, again, you are wrong. The Bible is a continual story. From beginning to end. An amazing feat considering it was written over a 1400 year period.
> 
> *She's not saying it's not continual she's saying it's inconsistent in style and worldviews*.
> 
> ...



That's all I've got to say (hope it came out well).


EDIT: oops, not completely, it seems.
But I still stand by the loss of layers in the translation. Which is why I'll always read a text in its original language if I can.


----------



## Armaetus (Oct 23, 2011)

We need more godless heathens or Wiccans in government.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Actually it's people like you that make me despise Christianity. If someone seriously preached to me every single day about "loving God" and such and so forth, I'd probably either go insane and kill them, kill myself, or all of the above.
> 
> Now if someone DIDN'T rub it in my face at every corner, I'd be more open to learning about it.



'In everything you do, do it for the glory of God." Aleu, a Christians life is supposed to be all about God. You are basically saying you hate worship, cause worship is about praising God. Telling God how much you love Him.  Which, by the way as that verse I quoted above, states that ones life as a Christian should be living worship.

A Christian should be so on fire for God, that it affects everything around them. A Christian's own life and how they live, should cause those around them to wonder why they act so different. "How is that person always happy?", "How is that person always full of joy, and life?" Nothing in a Christians  life should be separated from the fact that they are sealed with Christ.

What you want, is a ho hum style preaching. Where nothing is serious and everything is okay. You don't want anyone to get serious about what the Bible says, cause frankly, from talking with you, you have a lot of problems with what it says. So, its not about preaching. Its the fact you don't like whats written in God's Word, and what bugs you, is when Christians take to heart what God has written down. That's what annoys you. If a Christian preaches wholehearted abandon to God, then you check out, cause you want to hold onto yourself. You don't want to let go.

I preach to be either hot or cold. Their is no room for lukewarm, as I stated before, lukewarm is spewage. You either believe it all. Or none of it.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 'In everything you do, do it for the glory of God." Aleu, a Christians life is supposed to be all about God. You are basically saying you hate worship, cause worship is about praising God. Telling God how much you love Him.  Which, by the way as that verse I quoted above, states that ones life as a Christian should be living worship.
> 
> A Christian should be so on fire for God, that it affects everything around them. A Christian's own life and how they live, should cause those around them to wonder why they act so different. "How is that person always happy?", "How is that person always full of joy, and life?" Nothing in a Christians  life should be separated from the fact that they are sealed with Christ.
> 
> ...


When I'm talking to friends, or hanging out, or playing games, the last thing I want to hear is how great God is. Unless I ask, don't fucking tell me. Frankly I couldn't give less of a fuck.

And it's not about what IT says, it's what you CLAIM it says when I've heard otherwise and take THEIR word for it over yours because all you do is parrot common misconceptions and don't even bother looking into anything that might even have a disagreeing view. That is why I hate it. Not this bullshit "oh you don't like what it says", no, I hate this "Holier than thou" christian attitude that "SRS CHRISTIANS" flaunt.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Fay, again, you are wrong. The Bible is a continual story. From beginning to end. An amazing feat considering it was written over a 1400 year period.


No it's not. If it were we would know the full life of jesus, but there's a noticeable gap during his preteen years. Does that matter? no. Does that mean that the bible is made up of important stories with a message, yes. I am not saying the story is inconsistent and doesn't go together, I am saying that  the bible is a big combination of different stories in one timeline. You go from Cain and Abel to Noah, not through the lives of all the people that were referenced in X begot X. 
Is that wrong? Hell no! That's the point, it is combining the important aspects, different writers focusing on different parts of the same story, but that's different from something like an autobiography that just tells everything. 



> And , you completely missed what I said. NIV, NLT, ESV, whatever, all of those translations came from the same texts. The thousands of ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Which, by the way we have far more of then Plato's or Aristotle's manuscripts. And you believe that they were never tampered with. How is it so hard to believe that the Bible hasn't changed when their are tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts dating back to the 3rd century B.C?
> Your question can be boiled down to this:


 I'm not sure why you brought up Plato and Aristotle. I'm a Philosopher so I must take all the writing 100% literally? No. Because 1 I can discuss the general idea rather than the specifics, and 2. anyone with half a brain will realize that if they did want to take Plato literally they would need to read the ancient texts. But let's ignore that silly Red Herring for a moment. 

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying at all. Was the bible written in English? NO! So the text is not 100% pure. It will never be 100% pure. Words have denotative and connotative meaning. There is never an exact equivilant word to another. 
When anyone translates a text they have to make a choice on what word to use. One person may translate "Sam butchered bill" another may translate "sam killed bill". These are ever so slightly different meanings. 
*The only 100% pure text is in ancient greek* even a direct greek to english translation has a slight bit of interpretation by the author. 
Even though all the translations came from the same text they are not all 100% the same because to have something translated means it was subjected to the intentions of the translator. This happens with any language, no matter what, even if it is a 1:1 translation. 
If you want to understand a text 100% you have to read it in the original language. No ifs ands or buts.



> Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it?


 no. I'm saying "hasn't the bible been translated, so we can not take it literally to the word" I say this because of my above reasons.



> First, that is a common misconception. You think that the Bible was written in  one language, translated to another  language, then translated into yet another  and so on until it was  finally translated into the English.


The bible was written in two languages. Hebrew and Greek, but yes the original parts were one language. 

No the Bible has been translated to many different languages at different times. Someone translated greek to english and made the KJV, BUT the KJV has been translated to spanish, french, arabic and many others. 



> The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten.


 I never said that. Except for the Anglo Saxon bible and a few other specific ones in which things were, in fact, rewritten. The story was shifted in order to appeal to the people. 
You can say this isn't a legit translation, and that's fine, when I said that it wasn't my point. I was saying the religious groups did change things to convert others. 

Still the bible was translated, which is an issue, see my earlier points.



> Again, all I have to do is point to the New Testament.The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament   in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have  around  6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close  to the time of  the originals (the John Rylands manuscript was written less than 100 years after the crucifixion of Christ. The first copy of Plato's or Aristotle's works are over a 1000 years after those men actually wrote what they did. Not to mention we only have 7 copies of Plato's work and 49 copies of Aristoltle's works. ow can you be so sure that what we have is actually what they wrote with so little evidence?)


Oh it's this again. Well here's the problem with your plato game. 
1. no one is trying to claim that what plato wrote was 100% true facts history. In fact scholars didn't believe that socrates existed until they found seperate records saying he totally did. Even then it is acknowledged that what aristotle and plato wrote was a characterisation. 
2. It doesn't matter who specifically wrote it, what matters is the ideas. It could have been written by Fred for all that it matters, the ideas still stand.
3. there are 15000 Harry potter fanfics written around the same time. Dear god this must be true! For a less ridiculous example. We have thousands of texts referencing zeus, written around the same time. That doesn't mean anything about historical validaty. 
4. No one is using it to control anyone else. There have been no crusades in the name of plato. No one has been tortured. No one has claimed another person will be punished forever because socrates said so. 
If you are going to make such important claims, and act in such a manner then you better be able to beck yourself up. The works of plato are fine for what they are. He talks about what would make a better society and that holds up. As soon as someone tries to force laws based on Plato's writing, then there would be an issue with the validity of the text. 

All this is a red herring though, because I wasn't talking to you about who wrote what. I do not care who wrote the bible. We both agree it was not a single person.



> These various manuscripts, or copies,  agree with each other to  almost 100 percent accuracy. No other book in the history of man comes close with the numbers of the manuscripts we have from the Bible.   Statistically,  the New Testament is 99.5%  textually pure.  That means that there is  only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies  that do not agree with each other  perfectly.  But, if you take that 1/2 of 1%  and examine it, you find  that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more  than spelling  errors and very minor word alterations.


By manuscripts do you mean the replications by monks? In which case...yeah we do have other texts like that. Are they similar? yes. Is it all grammar? nope. 
The "he who is without sin..." story? Look into it and you'll find a scholar that has traced the story back through replications of the text and found where it was not originally there. It was an apocrypha story written in the margins, one clerk added it to the full text, then it was copied from there. There's a lot of research into this sort of thing noting where and when certain things were added and changed. 

Do all translations agree with one another 99.5% nope. So translation 1 and translation 2 can both come from  the same greek text, but it is two different translators and you will get differences with intention for both. So now you have to make an argument for which text is more pure than the other. 
Which I don't think you can do Ruhk, because you don't speak ancient greek. 



> So, when the Bible is translated, its not translate from a translation of a   translation of a translation.  We translate from the original language  into our  language.  It is a one-step process and not a series of steps  that can lead to  corruption.


One step still leads to corruption. 



> In other words. The Bible has not been rewritten, it has not changed.


 It may not have been rewritten, but it has been changed. Unless you are reading ancient greek, you're never going to be able to take it 100% literally. 




[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> 'In everything you do, do it for the glory of God." Aleu, a Christians life is supposed to be all about God. You are basically saying you hate worship, cause worship is about praising God. Telling God how much you love Him.  Which, by the way as that verse I quoted above, states that ones life as a Christian should be living worship.
> 
> A Christian should be so on fire for God, that it affects everything around them. A Christian's own life and how they live, should cause those around them to wonder why they act so different. "How is that person always happy?", "How is that person always full of joy, and life?" Nothing in a Christians  life should be separated from the fact that they are sealed with Christ.
> 
> ...


 

Problem with that approach is that it's as subtle as this scenario:







An scenario that also summarizes my feelings againts your post.
I can speak with catholic nuns (even though I'm not catholic) without them breaking into preaching or mentioning god for an hour. I can speak with priests with the same results. 
Frankly, the *Divine Comedy* is infinetely more likely to convert me than hours of preaching and preaching.


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> When I'm talking to friends, or hanging out, or playing games, the last thing I want to hear is how great God is. Unless I ask, don't fucking tell me. Frankly I couldn't give less of a fuck.
> 
> And it's not about what IT says, it's what you CLAIM it says when I've heard otherwise and take THEIR word for it over yours because all you do is parrot common misconceptions and don't even bother looking into anything that might even have a disagreeing view. That is why I hate it. Not this bullshit "oh you don't like what it says", no, I hate this "Holier than thou" christian attitude that "SRS CHRISTIANS" flaunt.



Alright, this may seem slightly left field, but...when you are doing those things, what do you like to hear about then? What do you like to talk about, other than say, the video game on hand?


We claim what the Bible says, simple. Some things in The Bible are confusing and do seem to contradict...but those things aren't. You just have to dig deeper. The Bible isn't a novel, you can't really read straight through and get everything, ya know? Also, I look into things that disagree with me. They've been wrong.

I don't attempt to give off a 'holier than thou' attitude because I'm a 'SRS CHRISTIAN', however if I do then I'm sorry. I do not intend to, but if people want to still think I do it intentionally, it's their problem.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> Alright, this may seem slightly left field, but...when you are doing those things, what do you like to hear about then? What do you like to talk about, other than say, the video game on hand?
> 
> 
> We claim what the Bible says, simple. Some things in The Bible are confusing and do seem to contradict...but those things aren't. You just have to dig deeper. The Bible isn't a novel, you can't really read straight through and get everything, ya know? Also, I look into things that disagree with me. They've been wrong.
> ...


I dunno, maybe THE GAME? Seriously, if I'm playing Team Fortress 2, I'd be more concerned about Spys backstabbing me while I'm a Sniper than if my soul is going to be eternally damned (which it probably is regardless but whatever).


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> When I'm talking to friends, or hanging out, or playing games, the last thing I want to hear is how great God is. Unless I ask, don't fucking tell me. Frankly I couldn't give less of a fuck.
> 
> And it's not about what IT says, it's what you CLAIM it says when I've heard otherwise and take THEIR word for it over yours because all you do is parrot common misconceptions and don't even bother looking into anything that might even have a disagreeing view. That is why I hate it. Not this bullshit "oh you don't like what it says", no, I hate this "Holier than thou" christian attitude that "SRS CHRISTIANS" flaunt.



A Christians ACTIONS should speak for themselves. Hanging out, talking with friends, a Christian should be acting like Christ. I never said they had to be talking about God. Their lifestyle should reflect Christ. 

 "_Preach_ the Gospel _always_, and if _necessary_, _use words_." Francis of Assisi

Second, I don't claim anything. I preach right from the source. Not what I say, but what God says. Not my will, not my desires, not my heart.

Third, anyone that disagrees with what the Word says, well, is wrong. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth and the Life." Notice how He said He is the truth, not a truth, not some truth. He is the very definition of truth. That means, everything that contradicts Him, is wrong. 

As for the so called "holier than though complex", you accuse me of, where in anything that I have said and I boasting about myself? I have pointed all my accomplishments back to God. Not me. I couldn't have done what I have to get where I am today. Where have I said I am better than anyone here? I distinctly remember always saying salvation is a free gift, you cannot work for it. You mistake confidence for pride. 

If I ever pointed to myself, gloating about my abilities, my skills, and my gifts, and not giving God the proper acknowledgement that its Him working inside of me, then yeah, it would be pride. Thing is, I continually have pointed to God as the source behind what I have accomplished. Rather its been Him all along, in me.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> A Christians ACTIONS should speak for themselves. Hanging out, talking with friends, a Christian should be acting like Christ. I never said they had to be talking about God. Their lifestyle should reflect Christ.
> 
> "_Preach_ the Gospel _always_, and if _necessary_, _use words_." Francis of Assisi
> 
> ...



You're just proving my point. I really don't think you're even comprehending my posts, or anyone's really. You even completely missed Fay's points and brought in irrelevant crap.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Third, anyone that disagrees with what the Word says, well, is wrong. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth and the Life." Notice how He said He is the truth, not a truth, not some truth. He is the very definition of truth. That means, everything that contradicts Him, is wrong.



And we know it's true because God said so, and we know everything God says is true because God said it, and everything God says is true because God said it is.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh: Do you think a person that doesn't believe in Jesus but lived in accordance to generosity, humillity, and such is any less of a role model?
Just out of curiosity.

Are his or her opinions any less valid for not including Jesus? For being an "infidel"?


----------



## Xenke (Oct 23, 2011)

Good to see that FAF still enjoys exercises in futility.

Oh wait, that's not good at all.

Seriously, doesn't anyone even remember what the original topic is?


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Good to see that FAF still enjoys exercises in futility.
> 
> Oh wait, that's not good at all.
> 
> Seriously, doesn't anyone even remember what the original topic is?




Frankly, no. 
I had to watch the title to remember.
Anyway, my answer is "not christianity, but the christians who preach it an make it seem unnatractive and are annoying about it".


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Seriously, doesn't anyone even remember what the original topic is?



I gave my reason why Christianity lost a supporter from personal experience. That counts...right?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 23, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Good to see that FAF still enjoys exercises in futility.
> 
> Oh wait, that's not good at all.
> 
> Seriously, doesn't anyone even remember what the original topic is?



Hentai?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

The biggest reason to dismiss Rukh out of hand is that he plainly demonstrates no intellectual rigor in his beliefs.  When faced with a powerful counterargument for which he has no response, he simply ignores it and moves on to respond to something easier, instead.  That's happened more times than I can count.  Of those he does reply to, he doesn't really consider the argument; he's been caught at _least_ half a dozen times plagiarizing random sites he just Googled to grab an answer from to dismiss a problematic question.  The last time he even left the hard-coded spacing in his stolen text.

Is that someone you really want to be following for spiritual insight, Falux?


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

I'm not going to make any decisions based off an Atheist's words with no proof. You're acting like I'm a new person to Christianity. 


The only real person I look to for spiritual insight is the Holy Spirit, Rukh just has good journals so relativity simple minded people like me can learn a bit better. No insult to others who read those, not saying you're simple minded. I just acknowledge I am!


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> Alright, this may seem slightly left field, but...when you are doing those things, what do you like to hear about then? What do you like to talk about, other than say, the video game on hand?
> 
> We claim what the Bible says, simple. Some things in The Bible are confusing and do seem to contradict...but those things aren't. You just have to dig deeper. The Bible isn't a novel, you can't really read straight through and get everything, ya know? Also, I look into things that disagree with me. They've been wrong.
> 
> I don't attempt to give off a 'holier than thou' attitude because I'm a 'SRS CHRISTIAN', however if I do then I'm sorry. I do not intend to, but if people want to still think I do it intentionally, it's their problem.


Hey there dude.  You seem like a pretty cool fella, like someone I could easily get along with despite our differences, but really. Don't follow Rukh's footsteps, here. If you like his journals, that's fine, but don't do what he does on this forum. FAF has proven itself time and time again to be a terrible place to proselytize; Rukh himself is widely considered a joke. I can respect him for defending his faith, but I'd be pretty surprised if he's really ever changed any minds here; I doubt you'll have more success.  If you want to spread your faith, I suggest trying to do so with people that have at least a mote of interest. If you want to defend your faith, well. It's certainly within your rights, and I can respect that impulse, but this is not a productive way to do so. So far you've mostly just fueled more anti-Christian sentiment. I really suggest you just state your case, and then move on. Get your message heard if you have to, that's fine, but you're not going to make headway here; work with people who want to be worked with. 

It's one of those "you can bring a horse to water" things, and I'm saying that as the horse.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> I'm not going to make any decisions based off an Atheist's words with no proof. You're acting like I'm a new person to Christianity.



You just shot yourself in the foot in the exact way I predicted you were going to. 
Please, don't be like Rukh.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> I'm not going to make any decisions based off an Atheist's words with no proof.



Oh no, not atheists! *hisss* *hisss!* "unclean!" :V


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Rukh: Do you think a person that doesn't believe in Jesus but lived in accordance to generosity, humillity, and such is any less of a role model?
> Just out of curiosity.
> 
> Are his or her opinions any less valid for not including Jesus? For being an "infidel"?



Someone who doesn't have the Spirit of God in them simply cannot teach anything about the Bible correctly, because they themselves cannot get the revelations that the Spirit will give to a believer. Its like trying to explain the Trinity to people on here.

Never said someone can't be a good role model. That being said, it doesn't matter how good of a role model someone is, Not one person is good in their own nature. And a non Christian cannot be a role model for anything spiritual. Because they don't have the Spirit in them. 




Lobar said:


> The biggest reason to dismiss Rukh out of hand is that he plainly demonstrates no intellectual rigor in his beliefs.  When faced with a powerful counterargument for which he has no response, he simply ignores it and moves on to respond to something easier, instead.  That's happened more times than I can count.  Of those he does reply to, he doesn't really consider the argument; he's been caught at _least_ half a dozen times plagiarizing random sites he just Googled to grab an answer from to dismiss a problematic question.  The last time he even left the hard-coded spacing in his stolen text.
> 
> Is that someone you really want to be following for spiritual insight, Falux?



You demonstrate little to no understanding of theological terms nor teachings Lobar. You continually try and use fallible human logic, to understand what only can be given by the Spirit (as per written in God's Word). I also like how this thread has evolved into you trying to discredit me, and what I teach (which isn't my words, cause I teach straight from God's Word). And, its my prerogative to respond to what I respond to. Just because you ask a question, doesn't mean I have to answer you. Because frankly, many times you are not asking a question. You are demanding, you bait, you make personal remarks about me. Tell me, with an attitude like that, give me one good reason I should answer your questions? Who I choose to respond to it not your concern, nor is it my problem if I refuse to respond to someone. Especially when the person has a history of making insolent remarks.

And your counter arguments all fall back on "You're wrong, I am right. You can't possibly understand your own faith."  Good argument. I on the other hand counter with Scripture to back up what I say, and not just one passage, but multiple passages. You, grab one passage, rip it out, throw it in my face, and them demand I explain it to you. You actually think that makes for a good conversation? You expect me to respond to that? Good luck.


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

Stop trying to say I'm trying to be like anyone other than what I need to be, but if me being what I need to be is being similar to someone you don't like then you won't like me I'm afraid. I know what I need to do.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> Stop trying to say I'm trying to be like anyone other than what I need to be, but if me being what I need to be is being similar to someone you don't like then you won't like me I'm afraid. I know what I need to do.


I don't actually dislike Rukh, though we don't agree on much and he has led me to lose my temper on one occasion. But I can see that he means well. I just feel his efforts are badly wasted, and yours too if you direct them the same way. 

But I guess I'm in another lead-a-horse-to-water situation, though this time not as the horse. Welp. Can't say I didn't try.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Someone who doesn't have the Spirit of God in them simply cannot teach anything about the Bible correctly, because they themselves cannot get the revelations that the Spirit will give to a believer. Its like trying to explain the Trinity to people on here.
> 
> Never said someone can't be a good role model. That being said, it doesn't matter how good of a role model someone is, Not one person is good in their own nature. And a non Christian cannot be a role model for anything spiritual. Because they don't have the Spirit in them.
> 
> ...



And you wonder where people are getting the "holier than thou" attitude?


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Someone who doesn't have the Spirit of God in them simply cannot teach anything about the Bible correctly, because they themselves cannot get the revelations that the Spirit will give to a believer. Its like trying to explain the Trinity to people on here.
> 
> Never said someone can't be a good role model. That being said, it doesn't matter how good of a role model someone is, Not one person is good in their own nature. And a non Christian cannot be a role model for anything spiritual. Because they don't have the Spirit in them.


They can, however, be role models for more practical matters. I hope you acknowledge that.
That said, we're obviously bent to disagree for parting diferent principles. 

All I've got to say is that I want someone to create a method to send e-bitchslaps. It would come in handy now.

As for the rest of your post. Hoo boy! People are going to say you've just described yourself.

Edit: 

Religion is not essential for a person living in the modern world, a strong moral education will suffice, not for having a good afterlife, but for living this one life to its fullest. There, I said it.


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

That's not a 'holier than thou' attitude, that is a 'getting tired of usual garbage someone throws'. Would you want to constantly reply to deliberate baits, and personal remarks? I wouldn't.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> That's not a 'holier than thou' attitude, that is a 'getting tired of usual garbage someone throws'. Would you want to constantly reply to deliberate baits, and personal remarks? I wouldn't.



If you feel that way about constantly replying to deliberate baits and personal remarks, feel free to no longer respond in this thread.  No one is making you, or any other person who feels this way stay, you know. 

Besides, you haven't seen how much the person your defending steps on everyone else's toes around here.  Trust me, he asks for it.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> That's not a 'holier than thou' attitude, that is a 'getting tired of usual garbage someone throws'. Would you want to constantly reply to deliberate baits, and personal remarks? I wouldn't.



"Christianity is the only way. Everything else is wrong", that's what he said a few posts back.
Also, we're tired of him throwing remarks at us too.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> That's not a 'holier than thou' attitude, that is a 'getting tired of usual garbage someone throws'. Would you want to constantly reply to deliberate baits, and personal remarks? I wouldn't.



And we also get tired of plagiarism and circular logic. It's also directed at the first paragraph which is obviously not talking about "tired of the usual garbage bawwwwww" unless you are terribly lacking in reading comprehension as well.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Its funny, if you all go back, I agreed with OP to a point.  I have been saying all along, much of the American church has let ungodly worldviews creep into church doctrine and teachings. The American dream itself doesn't belong in the church. This is a problem that much of the young adult members of the Body of Christ all feel. And we all agree that we (The Body) need to do something about it.



AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> "Christianity is the only way.  Everything else is wrong", that's what he said a few posts back.



That's what Jesus said. Jesus Christ made the claim that only He is right. Truth can't contradict itself, either its all true, or none of it is. Truth is always intolerant of falsehood.

 It boils down to that verse I quoted in Revelations 3:16. If Jesus is true, then we, who are Christians, need to be hot, on fire for God. If Jesus isn't true, then we should be as cold as the south pole. No in-between crap.



Aleu said:


> And we also get tired of plagiarism and circular  logic. It's also directed at the first paragraph which is obviously not  talking about "tired of the usual garbage bawwwwww" unless you are  terribly lacking in reading comprehension as well.



I get tired of all the emotionally laden terminology that is used by people (ie sky daddy, magic sky god, Christian mythology) Think. Do you honestly believe a good discussion will come about when people talk like that? 

You don't have to agree with Christianity. But you  need to realize that  if you, for example, insult Jesus our Savior, all you do is  make  yourself look bad, get people defensive, and make people like you look like obstreperous twits.

And because this behavior is continuous, I am reluctant to answer certain people. They give me no reason to even talk to them. And I grow more and more reluctant to respond to certain people and/or the way questions are worded (more like demanded) because it seems they simply do not want to study what they criticize and they  don't want to present their arguments in a cogent, non-volatile manner.   They very often use pejorative terms, demeaning phrases, and refuse to  learn. I will hold conversations with people who actually want to talk, those who don't, don't let the door hit you in the face.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That's what Jesus said. Jesus Christ made the claim that only He is right. Truth can't contradict itself, either its all true, or none of it is. Truth is always intolerant of falsehood.
> 
> It boils down to that verse I quoted in Revelations 3:16. If Jesus is true, then we, who are Christians, need to be hot, on fire for God. If Jesus isn't true, then we should be as cold as the south pole. No in-between crap.



And here's another fallacy for you:
And God himself said that eating pork is wrong, and since God is also Jesus (in a way, supposedly, I'm not sure, I don't care) and what God says is also Jesus's word it must be true as well. 

And everywhere religious group with fanatics will try to do same: parting from their yet undemonstrated beliefs to justify their interpretations.

Anyway... there's no point in discussing anymore.
Can a mod please close this?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You demonstrate little to no understanding of theological terms nor teachings Lobar. You continually try and use fallible human logic, to understand what only can be given by the Spirit (as per written in God's Word). I also like how this thread has evolved into you trying to discredit me, and what I teach (which isn't my words, cause I teach straight from God's Word). And, its my prerogative to respond to what I respond to. Just because you ask a question, doesn't mean I have to answer you. Because frankly, many times you are not asking a question. You are demanding, you bait, you make personal remarks about me. Tell me, with an attitude like that, give me one good reason I should answer your questions? Who I choose to respond to it not your concern, nor is it my problem if I refuse to respond to someone. Especially when the person has a history of making insolent remarks.
> 
> And your counter arguments all fall back on "You're wrong, I am right. You can't possibly understand your own faith."  Good argument. I on the other hand counter with Scripture to back up what I say, and not just one passage, but multiple passages. You, grab one passage, rip it out, throw it in my face, and them demand I explain it to you. You actually think that makes for a good conversation? You expect me to respond to that? Good luck.


 
I needn't entertain the rationalizations of the Emperor's courtiers to point out that the Emperor is, in fact, naked.

I also wasn't referring to just my posts that you ignore, stonewall with plagiarized rebuttals, or otherwise refuse to engage.  You have a history of doing that with _everyone_ that demonstrates themselves capable of countering you.  That is exactly why I choose to simply needle you now, because long ago you proved the futility of trying to actually debate you in good faith.

Note, Falux, that Rukh hasn't denied the allegations, only offered excuses for them.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> And here's another fallacy for you:
> And God himself said that eating pork is wrong, and since God is also Jesus (in a way, supposedly, I'm not sure, I don't care) and what God says is also Jesus's word it must be true as well.



Well, seems to need to read again, what Scripture says.

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with  regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." Colossians 2:16

"Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them. Donâ€™t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesnâ€™t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.â€ (Jesus declaring all foods are clean) Mark 7:14-15, 18

This is what I am talking about, people that can't even look into what Scripture is actually saying. They grab on verse and run with it, not taking into account the context of what was being said, nor do they understand the 3 types of the old covenant law and how they work with the new covenant.



Lobar said:


> I needn't entertain the rationalizations of the  Emperor's courtiers to point out that the Emperor is, in fact, naked.
> 
> I also wasn't referring to just my posts that you ignore, stonewall with  plagiarized rebuttals, or otherwise refuse to engage.  You have a  history of doing that with _everyone_ that demonstrates  themselves capable of countering you.  That is exactly why I choose to  simply needle you now, because long ago you proved the futility of  trying to actually debate you in good faith.



Good faith? from you? Ha, don't make me laugh. 

I wasn't just referring to you either Lobar. There is a group of people that have a history of using incendiary terms just to be jerks. You too, have a long history of using emotionally laden terminology. And you used it right out of the gate, which shows its impossible to have an actual conversation on anything about Christianity with a Christian who actually holds to what the Bible says. Many people on here who counter me, do so with insults to me, or insult my Savior on purpose. Then, when they get the door slammed in their face, they cry "see, see, he won't respond or talk with me, they can't defend themselves."

No, its the fact I would rather not try and deal with someone who has to resort to petty insults in every thread toward a specific user. Case and point now, thread has derailed into talking about me. Heck, before I was even here I was mentioned. People put insults down, and then acted shocked when I come into a thread with a demeanor where I won't put up with crap.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

There's also the matter those quotes come from the NT, while the other one comes from Leviticus, the OT. And both are eminetly different (one has a tyranic God, the other presents a benevolent one through his son). Let's also remember that the Jews live only by the OT, deny Jesus's messianic attributes but still believe themselves to be the saved ones.
See? You're manipulating the scriptures just as much as them and my hypothetical example. Is either of of us factually wrong? We don't have the same standards, and it's not something we can demonstrate.
So no, Jesus's words are not inherent truth (even if I agree with most of what he's said).


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> There's also the matter those quotes come from the NT, while the other one comes from Leviticus, the OT. And both are eminetly different (one has a tyranic God, the other presents a benevolent one through his son). Let's also remember that the Jews live only by the OT, deny Jesus's messianic attributes but still believe themselves to be the saved ones.
> See? You're manipulating the scriptures just as much as them and my hypothetical example. Is either of of us factually wrong? We don't have the same standards, and it's not something we can demonstrate.
> So no, Jesus's words are not inherent truth (even if I agree with most of what he's said).


 
Most of which involved selling or giving away all your worldly posessions and following in said mythological figure's footsteps, and what modern protestants usually latch onto is what Paul said...



Falux said:


> That's not a 'holier than thou' attitude, that is a 'getting tired of usual garbage someone throws'. Would you want to constantly reply to deliberate baits, and personal remarks? I wouldn't.


 
Rukh has a massive PR problem, mostly stemming from his failure to listen or respect other posters on this board. Trust me when we say we've tried to have serious conversations with him, but through his various failings (Unable to hold a non-Jesus related conversation, constant outrage over anything he doesn't like, massive hypocrisy, repeated outright lies and fabrications, his holier-than-thou attitude, constant unwanted personal jabs, claiming to be god's gift to furries, apparently calling in help from outside boards, etc.) he's long since worn out his welcome. If he had some other debate tactic instead of massive walls of copypasted text and simply doing anything he can to discredit people talking to him (instead of presenting evidence for his own ideas), we might give a fuck.

But he doesn't, so we don't. There are better ways to get your message across than following in his fooststeps.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Since Falux can't bring himself to believe the words of an atheist (but really primarily for my own entertainment), I went back through the thread to look for posts that showed signs of plagiarism.  Whaddaya know, old habits die hard:



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Now, onto answering the topic question. The reason why is because many people who say they are Christians don't even know the gospel message. Let alone actually read Scripture on a regular basis. Christianity in America has become the religion of nominal devotion. Its changed from actually worshiping Jesus to worshiping ourselves. And people have become blinded to that in many churches.
> 
> When Jesus said "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of  heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your  name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I  will tell them plainly, I never knew you, away from me, you evildoers!" He was not speaking to atheists or agnostics. He was not speaking to pagans or heretics.  He was speaking to devoutly religious people who were deluded into  thinking they were on the narrow road that leads to heaven when they  were actually on the broad road that leads to hell.
> 
> ...


 
Compare to http://ceruleansanctum.com/2009/11/why-christianity-is-failing-in-america.html.  I doubt Rukh even knows what the word "syncretistic" _means_. (until he Googles it upon seeing this post)

edit: bolded ripped parts

edit2: Saved by the mod, Rukh.


----------



## Xipoid (Oct 23, 2011)

This has devolved enough. Return to the topic of the suspected causes of the reduced following of Christianity in the U.S. or take the current discussion to another venue.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> There's also the matter those quotes come from the NT, while the other one comes from Leviticus, the OT. And both are eminetly different (one has a tyranic God, the other presents a benevolent one through his son). Let's also remember that the Jews live only by the OT, deny Jesus's messianic attributes but still believe themselves to be the saved ones.
> See? You're manipulating the scriptures just as much as them and my hypothetical example. Is either of of us factually wrong? We don't have the same standards, and it's not something we can demonstrate.
> So no, Jesus's words are not inherent truth (even if I agree with most of what he's said).



Edited.



Xipoid said:


> This has devolved enough. Return to the topic of  the suspected causes of the reduced following of Christianity in the  U.S. or take the current discussion to another venue.


I am fine with that.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

Xipoid said:


> This has devolved enough. Return to the topic of the suspected causes of the reduced following of Christianity in the U.S. or take the current discussion to another venue.


 
I think we've already pretty clearly established it's the crazy fundies going around ruining it for the moderates trying to spread their various good newses by this point. :V It's most obvious with things like Islam and their crazy Jihadist sects, but also with Christianity and the catholic priest scandals and the like.

That and science pushing the divine into smaller and smaller gaps, which leads to either highly nebulous deity concepts or science denialism which is crazy in its own right.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Since Falux can't bring himself to believe the words of an atheist (but really primarily for my own entertainment), I went back through the thread to look for posts that showed signs of plagiarism.  Whaddaya know, old habits die hard:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I quoted the dude first. See the quotations? Or did you miss that? Oh, no you didn't. Seeing as you left that part alone. Not sure why you bolded the guys name. I guess its plagiarism to quote someone now? 

And I used 2 sentences after that. And one of them I edited and added in my own words with it. I liked how it was written. Scuse me for using 2 sentences. Now, if you get back to topic, what do you say about what is being said?


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Right so I'm too lazy to use quote, but this seemed like a good topic point to play with. 
"Religion is not essential for a person living in the modern world, a  strong moral education will suffice, not for having a good afterlife,  but for living this one life to its fullest. There, I said it."

I am going to play devil's advocate. 
So human beings are social creatures and need some form of interaction, they also aren't very good at moral decision making, but are very good at following directions. We can see in many psychological experiments that humans will put emotional reactions over rational ones and will not always pick the logical answer. So assuming there is a moral code to live by, chances are that emotion may override the choice if something is left to them to decide. On the other hand Milgram experiment shows how far a person is willing to go in order to follow directions. 
So regardless of if you believe in God, wouldn't the way to have the most moral society be to have people part of this group following these rules without question? The grouping could also stimulate social behavior, something that humans do need. We are social creatures so a formalized meeting is good for people. 
So my hypothetical place has people follow a good set of rules because they are told, and stimulates them socially, wouldn't this be the best for society?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Wouldn't the way to have the most moral society be to have people part of this group following these rules without question? The grouping could also stimulate social behavior, something that humans do need. We are social creatures so a formalized meeting is good for people.
> So my hypothetical place has people follow a good set of rules because they are told, and stimulates them socially, wouldn't this be the best for society?


 
No. There is no set of rules that, when followed expressly and to the letter, will form a perfect- or even good- society. Especially if the people do not understand why they are following the rules they are following. Flexibility and adaptation are what drive the growth of societies the world over.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay, the problem is, the world can't decide what is right and wrong. Therefore people won't agree to what someone tells them is right and wrong because it clashes with what they perceive as right and wrong. The world doesn't disagree that there are morals (most believe morality is relative), they just disagree with what those morals are. And that's the whole issue.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I quoted the dude first. See the quotations? Or did you miss that? Oh, no you didn't. Seeing as you left that part alone. Not sure why you bolded the guys name. I guess its plagiarism to quote someone now?



The point isn't that you quoted Kierkegaard, it's that you don't actually know anything about Kierkegaard and stole someone else's post about something he said to prop up your words with.  And when one considers all your talk about Fake Christians that only appear to follow the Gospel, this is an especially damning act.  You rely on the words of people smarter than you to keep your ideology afloat, but have no knowledge of whether those people interpret the Bible the same way you do.  They may well be those Fake Christians you decry and would also vehemently oppose the arguments you appropriate their words to support, but you would never know because you've failed to adequately scrutinize your own beliefs with a critical eye.  You are a sham.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And I used 2 sentences after that. And one of them I edited and added in my own words with it. I liked how it was written. Scuse me for using 2 sentences. Now, if you get back to topic, what do you say about what is being said?


 
The standard of plagiarism is six words taken verbatim from an original source.  And this is one of your less flagrant examples of plagiarism, you've had posts with zero original content before.

To keep on topic, all of the above is an example of why Christianity is declining in America.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Right so I'm too lazy to use quote, but this seemed like a good topic point to play with.
> "Religion is not essential for a person living in the modern world, a  strong moral education will suffice, not for having a good afterlife,  but for living this one life to its fullest. There, I said it."
> 
> I am going to play devil's advocate.
> ...



I can see your point. In fact, most of my moral standards are influenced by catholicism, since I come from a catholic background, and God used to be my moral standard for everything at some early point of my life; also, my classmates had similar backgrounds and we were taught catholic views and standards in school. 
Forgiveness, after life, the ideals we've always praised and adored (eternity and infinity being among the key ones) are good stimuli for imposing certain world views.
Likewise, one can also refer to more mundane matters, whether utilitarian ("if I do this, mom will ground me") or more empathic ("if I do that, Milly will be sad, I don't want her to feel sad, because I'll feel sad for making her feel sad, poor Milly feeling sad, I feel compassion of Milly, therefore, it's wrong). Either can work to a certain degree (although the utilitarian motivations must preferably evolve into more empathic ones).
(I hope that came out well).

Either way, eternal life is too big a prize for a life of being morally correct to resist it for your whole life (like it happened to Woody Allen's character in *Hannah and her Sisters*), and it's possibly more effective overall once you manage to convince a person. 
Problem is the Golden rule is not always religion's strongest suit. Neither is effective communication.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The point isn't that you quoted Kierkegaard, it's that you don't actually know anything about Kierkegaard and stole someone else's post about something he said to prop up your words with.


Next time you quote a scientist to prop your words with then I will say the same you are right now. Anytime you quote them, you just stole from their work, that they understand better than you.



> And when one considers all your talk about Fake Christians that only appear to follow the Gospel, this is an especially damning act.  You rely on the words of people smarter than you to keep your ideology afloat, but have no knowledge of whether those people interpret the Bible the same way you do.


Again, the same can be said anytime you quote anyone who is smarter than you. That and I read the whole page, and I agreed with what it said, I read that a long time ago and remembered it on this topic. And you seem to forget that one can easily (as a Christian) see if someone is writing down truth or not. And what that man said, is absolutely true.


> They may well be those Fake Christians you decry and would also vehemently oppose the arguments you appropriate their words to support, but you would never know because you've failed to adequately scrutinize your own beliefs with a critical eye.  You are a sham.


And now we go back to the insults. First, you insinuate that I haven't scrutinized my own beliefs. First mistake you make. I came to what I believe after 10 long years of looking everywhere else, but to the Bible. Second, you insult me and call me a sham, because I use Kierkegaard who was a well known Christian philosopher and theologian. Like I can't use say John Calvin, John Wesley, or C.S Lewis writings to further arguments? I can't read what they wrote, mediate on it and come to an agreement with what was said and use it? You just axed out pretty much anyone who uses anyone else but themselves to make an argument. That's the second mistake. Good job.



> The standard of plagiarism is six words taken verbatim from an original source.  And this is one of your less flagrant examples of plagiarism, you've had posts with zero original content before.


You are nitpicking and you know it. You just do this when you can't make an argument about what is actually being said.



> To keep on topic, all of the above is an example of why Christianity is declining in America.


Not really. That doesn't explain how I have brought people back into the Body of Christ. It doesn't explain how people have decided to rally behind me. It doesn't explain how I have people look up to me since I started doing what I do on FA.

What I do, isn't causing a decline. Its forcing people (who already claim to be a Christian) into a corner and making them choose. Either one chooses to follow Jesus, or they don't. And note, its not out of anger or whatever else you think. Its cause in making them choose, when they choose to follow the world, even though they have pledged their life to Christ, its the only way for them to come back. 

Read 1 Corinthians chapter 5.

"But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

"Hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord." Notice how it says the man must fall away in order to be destroyed (his flesh) so he can come back to Christ.


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Woot, this thread got me a new quote for my sig!


Fay V said:


> Right so I'm too lazy to use quote, but this seemed like a good topic point to play with.
> "Religion is not essential for a person living in the modern world, a  strong moral education will suffice, not for having a good afterlife,  but for living this one life to its fullest. There, I said it."
> 
> I am going to play devil's advocate.
> ...


Well, the problem comes from those enforcing the rules. We can't rely on the enforcers to not be corrupt in some way, since history sort of shows that those with power like to abuse it, at least to an extent. The other problem comes from a society that advances. A ten set rule system might work for someone living in the 1800's, but we'll need new rules to help hold our advancements in check in the 2000's. So, someone has to make new rules, and just how trustworthy are they? 

Your devil's advocate reminds me of almost every dystopian society. Everyone follows these rules to a letter, and everyone thinks the society runs perfectly...until that one person goes "wait, this is wrong" and then we realize the society actually sucks and the leader is a power hungry asshole


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh, the mods told you to stop, not post self-aggrandizing TL;DR material. Stop repeatedly derailing threads. Thread derailment is a leading cause of the decline of christianity. :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> I'm not going to make any decisions based off an Atheist's words with no proof. You're acting like I'm a new person to Christianity.



And you're acting as if I've got no firsthand experience of Christianity, have never studied the Bible, and/or have never been to church. Been there, done that, bought the "born-again Christian" T-shirt for many years into the bargain... and part of the catalyst for my deconversion was conversations with _exactly_ the same type of Christian fundamentalist as Rukh. The more I examined their words and re-examined Christianity, the more I realised that it was irrelevant at best and bullshit at worst. 

Besides, I _gave_ you proof with _quotes from your own holy book_ which is freely available online. Who are you going to believe, Rukh or your own eyes?


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

For those of you against hypothetical Fayism, does it change anything is the institution is completely voluntary? The institution exists and lays out a code, but the practitioner is voluntary and can choose if they agree before following the laws of the institution. 

@Aristo-I agree (anticlimactic I know) there's actually a variety of good moral codes, though I prefer deontic myself. It has that blend of empathy and logic. 
But anyway that's more an "in theory" versus practice thing. I've seen some churches that are actually really good at the golden rule thing. I mean, look at Mother Theresa. She was pretty awesome. It's just that, it's true, the metaphorical carrot isn't enough to keep people from wanting to be better than others, and trying to hurt others for their own sake.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> For those of you against hypothetical Fayism, does it change anything is the institution is completely voluntary? The institution exists and lays out a code, but the practitioner is voluntary and can choose if they agree before following the laws of the institution.
> 
> @Aristo-I agree (anticlimactic I know) there's actually a variety of good moral codes, though I prefer deontic myself. It has that blend of empathy and logic.



Not really, then the organization would just end up being another fraternity or the like. To say more about it I'd need to know more about the rules, orgnaization and benefits involved. Including wether or not they actually follow the rules 100% and what methods are used to achieve this.



Fay V said:


> But anyway that's more an "in theory" versus practice thing. I've seen some churches that are actually really good at the golden rule thing. *I mean, look at Mother Theresa. She was pretty awesome.* It's just that, it's true, the metaphorical carrot isn't enough to keep people from wanting to be better than others, and trying to hurt others for their own sake.


 
Mother Theresa refused to treat many of her patients, preferring to watch them suffer and die because doing so gave her a religious head-rush. Most of the money people gave to her to improve her facilities and buy medicine went right to the church instead, and was never seen again.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

I am going to make this really clear. Get. Back. On. Topic. 
This is not about anyone's personal beliefs, why they believe it, or why someone else should. Make a new thread or drop it.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Stuff



I do not care if God spoke to you through a Goldfish, stop the derailment or I will derail your account for a few days.

You want to preach? Start a new thread.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay: 
Very well then. But I doubt we can get back on topic, it's already much too derailed.



Mojotech said:


> Mother Theresa refused to treat many of her patients, preferring to watch them suffer and die because doing so gave her a religious head-rush. Most of the money people gave to her to improve her facilities and buy medicine went right to the church instead, and was never seen again.


True, and thanks for reminding me (I once read it in a general culture magazine).
Also, she said something along the lines of pain and suffering being a way to make contact with God. Depressing, I know. I mean, at least stigmae are not permanent (if they're real) and Jesus's suffering was imposed by his own people and the romans.But what can you do against a virus? How can you stop it from affecting you if not through medicine, since it's neither your fault nor someone else's?


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Not really, then the organization would just end up being another fraternity or the like. To say more about it I'd need to know more about the rules, orgnaization and benefits involved. Including wether or not they actually follow the rules 100% and what methods are used to achieve this.
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Theresa refused to treat many of her patients, preferring to watch them suffer and die because doing so gave her a religious head-rush. Most of the money people gave to her to improve her facilities and buy medicine went right to the church instead, and was never seen again.



Well does it being a fraternity make it inherently bad? or is it just far less effective? That's really the concern I guess. Should we drop something that is ineffective, even if the effect is at least a bit good?

As for MT, I didn't know that. I know she gave money to the church but didn't know the details. I suppose I would have to do more research to make a proper comment, but mostly I was just trying to show that people do good in the name of something like religion, even if they aren't perfect. 
But I really don't want to get into autobiographies and balance games of "was X actually a good person, even if he let someone die?"


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Next time you quote a scientist to prop your words with then I will say the same you are right now. Anytime you quote them, you just stole from their work, that they understand better than you.



Again, the problem isn't that you quoted Kierkegaard, it's that *you don't know Kierkegaard*.  You haven't studied his works and philosophy, you just found some guy on the internet that had quoted him, and plagiarized his post, giving yourself the _appearance_ of having studied Kierkegaard and having his assent to your views.

This is what makes you a sham.  When you turn to Google to rip a response to a question you can't answer, you can't immediately see the underlying ideology in which that response is rooted.  What you ultimately present in defense of your particular interpretation is a hodge-podge of a wide range of Christian talking points, some of them contradictory, and some of them likely from those you'd consider the very Fake Christians you so frequently decry.  They've crept into your preaching, and because you allowed them to, because you couldn't come up with the answers on your own.

This is common practice amongst many fundamentalists today, and it's becoming easier and easier to uncover it when it happens.  When people find out that they've been following someone that doesn't know what they're talking about, they feel cheated.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Fay:
> True, and thanks for reminding me (I once read it in a general culture magazine).
> Also, she said something along the lines of pain and suffering being a way to make contact with God. Depressing, I know. I mean, at least stigmae are not permanent (if they're real) and Jesus's suffering was imposed by his own people and the romans.But what can you do against a virus? How can you stop it from affecting you if not through medicine, since it's neither your fault nor someone else's?


 
All stigmata investigated so far have been a result of man-mad wounds, usually self inflicted. And she refused to even give food or pallative care to the people she had despite being able to afford it. I'm sure there were cases that they would have lived if she had tried to also treat them in the usual way but did not.



Fay V said:


> Well does it being a fraternity make it inherently bad? or is it just far less effective? That's really the concern I guess. Should we drop something that is ineffective, even if the effect is at least a bit good?
> 
> As for MT, I didn't know that. I know she gave money to the church but didn't know the details. I suppose I would have to do more research to make a proper comment, but mostly I was just trying to show that people do good in the name of something like religion, even if they aren't perfect.
> But I really don't want to get into autobiographies and balance games of "was X actually a good person, even if he let someone die?"


 
Not particularly.Usually organizations like that are a drag on society- if they cannot update at least as fast as society they will fall behind and serve as at least a partially backwards organization keeping society from progressing. Dogma is more bad than good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI8A0VsgeuY Penn and Teller put it better than I could. And much more entertainingly. Naturally as a P&T link, there's some coarse language involved. I'm aware people do good things in the name of religion, but I'm also aware they do horrible terrible things in it's name too. The truth of their claims aside, I just wish they'd keep the good stuff and ditch the bad stuff. =/


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> For those of you against hypothetical Fayism, does it change anything is the institution is completely voluntary? The institution exists and lays out a code, but the practitioner is voluntary and can choose if they agree before following the laws of the institution.


If the institution is completely voluntary, then is there a point to it at all? I guess it depends on its rules and how arbitrary some of them are. If we assume it holds the rules that a normal society would need to function without collapse (don't murder, don't rape, don't steel, etc), but has arbitrary rules like "don't eat fish on Tuesday's", then it being voluntary won't really matter. If, let's say it has rules like "you must donate 2% of your yearly earnings to charity" then it's kind of a toss up. But if donating to charity isn't forced, and this group decides they want to, then I suppose no one should stop them from doing so.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Conker said:


> If the institution is completely voluntary, then is there a point to it at all? I guess it depends on its rules and how arbitrary some of them are. If we assume it holds the rules that a normal society would need to function without collapse (don't murder, don't rape, don't steel, etc), but has arbitrary rules like "don't eat fish on Tuesday's", then it being voluntary won't really matter. If, let's say it has rules like "you must donate 2% of your yearly earnings to charity" then it's kind of a toss up. But if donating to charity isn't forced, and this group decides they want to, then I suppose no one should stop them from doing so.



Define normal rules though. Not all countries or people groups can agree on whats a normal rule. Even if going to this institution or created utopia is voluntary, I still don't think it would work.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Conker said:


> If the institution is completely voluntary, then is there a point to it at all? I guess it depends on its rules and how arbitrary some of them are. If we assume it holds the rules that a normal society would need to function without collapse (don't murder, don't rape, don't steel, etc), but has arbitrary rules like "don't eat fish on Tuesday's", then it being voluntary won't really matter. If, let's say it has rules like "you must donate 2% of your yearly earnings to charity" then it's kind of a toss up. But if donating to charity isn't forced, and this group decides they want to, then I suppose no one should stop them from doing so.


Okay for the sake of specifics I shall say fayism has a few rules
1. Don't murder
2. Don't steal
3. no telling people they will burn in hell
4. No fish on thursdays
5. Donate 1% of your earnings to the group (unless you are super poor) 
6.every may 17th shall celebrate creation with mini blimps and fireworks
7. all practitioners must get a tattoo, piercing, or yearly flu vaccinations
8. Everyone has to do 50 hours of chairty a year. 

This is all strictly voluntary, no one is forced into the group, but if you join the group you have to follow these rules. So the good is probably ineffective, but is this enough to say that we should remove it from society?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> 3. no telling people they will burn in hell


 
So Fayism is an organization that believes in some type of negative afterlife, or is this just a general "Don't be a dick to nonmembers" rule?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Hypothetical Fayism seems to be transposing into a secular institution resembling those that already exist.  As a voluntary order, it's a fraternity like the Lions club or Rotary International; as a designator of mandatory rules, it's a legislature.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> So Fayism is an organization that believes in some type of negative afterlife, or is this just a general "Don't be a dick to nonmembers" rule?


More "don't be a dick" rule. 
But let's say that it's there because punishment and retribution are beyond the perception of man. It is the ultimate act of pride and sin to assume anything about another person's fate. Therefor, telling people they will burn in hell is bad mmkay. 
note that there is a difference between "you can go to hell, here's a way not to" and "you personally will go to hell because X"


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Define normal rules though. Not all countries or people groups can agree on whats a normal rule. Even if going to this institution or created utopia is voluntary, I still don't think it would work.


 I already gave my definition of that, "a normal society would need to function without collapse". I guess you could call them the "common sense rules". I'm pretty sure all countries have rules against murder and theft and the like, though not all countries punish those that break those laws equally. Of course, I don't know much about most third world shitholes, so I could be wrong.


Fay V said:


> Okay for the sake of specifics I shall say fayism has a few rules
> 1. Don't murder
> 2. Don't steal
> 3. no telling people they will burn in hell
> ...


I don't think it needs to be removed from society; however, certain members of this organization might preach it too strongly and make non followers resentful and annoyed to the point where they would want it removed. That might be more out of spite than anything else though. As it stands, no, the rules themselves don't hinder anyone that wants to voluntarily follow them, so the group should stay.


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

I'm confused on Zeke's post. No more 'derailment' on Rukh's part (when he in his first post only cleared up some misconceptions from prior posts and then gave his two cents.), but the people replying to Rukh caused the thread to derail. Now on this page there is no talk about the original topic. Oh well.

Also Conker, feel free to use my quotes in your signature but don't put your own spin on my quotes because you disagree with it. That looks bigoted.


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> Also Conker, feel free to use my quotes in your signature but don't put your own spin on my quotes because you disagree with it. That looks bigoted.


Was the easiest way to add context to it.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Okay for the sake of specifics I shall say fayism has a few rules
> 1. Don't murder
> 2. Don't steal
> 3. no telling people they will burn in hell
> ...


 
Well alright. If there's no other dogma or baggage to consider I'd say that's a well meaning group. I've seen wierder and more pointless rules than 4 in actual fraternities. It's definitely not enough to remove it from society given the information presented here. The rest involves hypotheticals on the development of the organization.



Falux said:


> I'm confused on Zeke's post. No more 'derailment' on Rukh's part (when he in his first post only cleared up some misconceptions from prior posts and then gave his two cents.), but the people replying to Rukh caused the thread to derail. Now on this page there is no talk about the original topic. Oh well.
> 
> Also Conker, feel free to use my quotes in your signature but don't put your own spin on my quotes because you disagree with it. That looks bigoted.



The ability of the fundamentalist to blame the victim never fails to astound me. By the way, did we ever get that sockpuppet check on this guy?


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

I'm not going to argue. It's disrespectful. Quote me exactly or not at all. Put your opinions outside the quote. If I quote anyone for my signature it'll be what they say, not what I feel about it.


Mojotech, I'm sure with everything going on in this thread a mod would have done that already, me with a relatively small number of posts, an account with a sign up date that should have more posts seemingly sitting in reserve to only talk about stuff like this. I can still assure you, I'm not a 'sock puppet'. Stop thinking it.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> I'm confused on Zeke's post. No more 'derailment' on Rukh's part (when he in his first post only cleared up some misconceptions from prior posts and then gave his two cents.), but the people replying to Rukh caused the thread to derail. Now on this page there is no talk about the original topic. Oh well.
> 
> Also Conker, feel free to use my quotes in your signature but don't put your own spin on my quotes because you disagree with it. That looks bigoted.



And yet he continued to respond. :V

Really, you're dangerously close to whiteknighting here.



Falux said:


> I'm not going to argue. It's disrespectful. Quote  me exactly or not at all. Put your opinions outside the quote. If I  quote anyone for my signature it'll be what they say, not what I feel  about it.
> 
> 
> Mojotech, I'm sure with everything going on in this thread a mod would  have done that already, me with a relatively small number of posts, an  account with a sign up date that should have more posts seemingly  sitting in reserve to only talk about stuff like this. I can still  assure you, I'm not a 'sock puppet'. Stop thinking it.



Too  bad. The comment you made was bigoted enough without Conker adding the  other bit. Now unless you're actually going to contribute to the  thread's topic, shut up.

Or you can just continue to make yourself look bad. Whichever


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> And yet he continued to respond. :V
> 
> Really, you're dangerously close to whiteknighting here.


 
What do you mean "Close to"? He's already there. :V


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

I'm whiteknighting/defending for my beliefs, I'm not whiteknighting/defending for Rukh.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> I'm confused on Zeke's post. No more 'derailment' on Rukh's part (when he in his first post only cleared up some misconceptions from prior posts and then gave his two cents.), but the people replying to Rukh caused the thread to derail. Now on this page there is no talk about the original topic. Oh well.


 


Falux said:


> I'm whiteknighting/defending for my beliefs, I'm not whiteknighting/defending for Rukh.


uh huh


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

Now you are confusing fact for whiteknighting.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux: 
I suggest you leave for a few days, or at least stop making all of your posts about your religion. You look like Rukh's fanboy/fangirl, to put it euphemistically.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Conker said:


> I already gave my definition of that, "a normal society would need to function without collapse". I guess you could call them the "common sense rules". I'm pretty sure all countries have rules against murder and theft and the like, though not all countries punish those that break those laws equally. Of course, I don't know much about most third world shitholes, so I could be wrong.



I think its kinda hard to to define normal rules using society though. For all we know, rape may be legal in another country (I am not going to go looking for that info either). Common sense rules are not common unfortunately. Loopholes will be a problem and need to be addressed. Like age of consent and statutory rape and things like that. What constitutes murder and what constitutes self defense. All of that would have to be addressed. There is no such thing as basic laws cause humans are thrown into the mix. A loophole will always be found, somewhere.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Well alright. If there's no other dogma or baggage to consider I'd say that's a well meaning group. I've seen wierder and more pointless rules than 4 in actual fraternities. It's definitely not enough to remove it from society given the information presented here. The rest involves hypotheticals on the development of the organization.
> 
> 
> 
> The ability of the fundamentalist to blame the victim never fails to astound me. By the way, did we ever get that sockpuppet check on this guy?


 


Conker said:


> I already gave my definition of that, "a normal society would need to function without collapse". I guess you could call them the "common sense rules". I'm pretty sure all countries have rules against murder and theft and the like, though not all countries punish those that break those laws equally. Of course, I don't know much about most third world shitholes, so I could be wrong.
> 
> I don't think it needs to be removed from society; however, certain members of this organization might preach it too strongly and make non followers resentful and annoyed to the point where they would want it removed. That might be more out of spite than anything else though. As it stands, no, the rules themselves don't hinder anyone that wants to voluntarily follow them, so the group should stay.


So pretty much just what everyone has been saying. I just wanted to play a game by taking out any specific religion. 
Back to the point that started my hypothetical. Honestly I think it depends on the person. I do well without religion in my life, but I've also seen it turn around someone that was on a bad path. so I think in modern day no everyone needs religion, but some people do indeed need it. 
So a lot of it is being there for the people...and to bring it full circle the problem I see with christianity lately is it doesn't adapt as well and can't help people in the way that it really should. Too much rejection rather than acceptance. 
Which is a pity since it's a more flies with honey thing 
If you give a man bread and mention god he might be more interested than if you tell him no bread without god. 





Falux said:


> I'm confused on Zeke's post. No more 'derailment' on Rukh's part (when he in his first post only cleared up some misconceptions from prior posts and then gave his two cents.), but the people replying to Rukh caused the thread to derail. Now on this page there is no talk about the original topic. Oh well.
> 
> Also Conker, feel free to use my quotes in your signature but don't put your own spin on my quotes because you disagree with it. That looks bigoted.


If you are confused then PM a mod or report it. Don't just bring up the issue even more in thread, that's just further derailment.

By the power of greyskull stop talking about ruhk and derailment people!


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I think its kinda hard to to define normal rules using society though. For all we know, rape may be legal in another country (I am not going to go looking for that info either). Common sense rules are not common unfortunately. Loopholes will be a problem and need to be addressed. Like age of consent and statutory rape and things like that. What constitutes murder and what constitutes self defense. All of that would have to be addressed. There is no such thing as basic laws cause humans are thrown into the mix. A loophole will always be found, somewhere.


While all of that might be true, it's not something worth discussing in regards to Fay's hypothetical. Would take too long and get us nowhere, so I used the saying "normal rules" and left it at that, and then the conversation went on further.


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

> and to bring it full circle the problem I see with christianity lately  is it doesn't adapt as well and can't help people in the way that it  really should. Too much rejection rather than acceptance.



Hey, you're right. Real Christianity does a terrible job adapting to the world because that isn't what it does. Our beliefs, which is all in The Bible, our Bible doesn't adapt to people. People adapt to it. That's how it is.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> Hey, you're right. Real Christianity does a terrible job adapting to the world because that isn't what it does. Our beliefs, which is all in The Bible, our Bible doesn't adapt to people. People adapt to it. That's how it is.


The beliefs may not adapt, but how those beliefs are acted on may be. 
You may say "one does not tolerate sinners" and it is in the book, but the way of non-tolerance may be different. To one group it is stoning a person to death. In another it is taking the person in and curing them of their addictions and feeding them. 
Both have the same sentence for their basis, but the behavior adapts to the people.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> By the power of greyskull stop talking about ruhk and derailment people!


 
Fay, people were talking about me before I even entered into the thread.


Conker said:


> While all of that might be true, it's not something worth discussing in regards to Fay's hypothetical. Would take too long and get us nowhere, so I used the saying "normal rules" and left it at that, and then the conversation went on further.


Its a crappy hypothetical because it doesn't address the fact that basic rules won't work. It assumes that people can make this hypothetical community without addressing the human factor.



Fay V said:


> The beliefs may not adapt, but how those beliefs are acted on may be.
> You may say "one does not tolerate sinners" and it is in the book, but  the way of non-tolerance may be different. To one group it is stoning a  person to death. In another it is taking the person in and curing them  of their addictions and feeding them.
> Both have the same sentence for their basis, but the behavior adapts to the people.



Fay, I cannot stress that this analogy doesn't work, because it misconstrues the context behind the law which you were referring too. Which goes back to the Old Covenant New Covenant thing I mentioned before. And I am not going to try and explain the difference because its pointless.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Religion can be good. I don't want ti eradicated. I personally don't agree with religion, and many aspects of it I oppose when those aspects try to impose on my personal life, liberty, and human rights. 

But religion can be good. I disaster zones the first organizations to step up are often the local places of worship, they already have the man power, and the leadership hierarchy and are rapidly mobilized and deployed. The first time in six years I stepped into a church was after the Joplin tornado to "enlist" in the volunteer efforts that were being cooridinated there. The churches reacted faster than local and state governments, faster than FEMA, and were on the scene within minutes and directing supplies, housing the homeless, and calling out to other states and people for aid. Then the churches acted as warehouses for the supplies, they acted as training centers for the volunteers, equipped the people and sent out organized directed volunteer crews. All before the city could react because the city wasn't caring about the people who were homeless, it was caring about the people who were trapped or missing (as it should have been, the priorities were good). The city had limited man power and the churches and volunteers stepped up. People literally RAN to their local churches for the structure and organization that the churches supplied to their lives and they RAN to their to be instructed on where best to take volunteer crews. Until secular organizations can have that many members, or have that sort of organization and fast reaction I would not ever ask that religion be removed from our society, if only for the sake that it offers aid to those who need it, a social community for people to haven in, and structure in their lives. Some people need that, and I recognize that need. Just because I am fine on my own does not mean that it's for everyone else, nor would I be so arrogant as to demand that others be stripped of their religious institutions just because I myself do better without. Live and let live. Christianity by becoming more radical may be ostracizing it's own followers, but I'm sure everything will work itself out in the end. Societies change, people change, culture and religion are fluid things when viewed over time.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Fay, people were talking about me before I even entered into the thread.
> 
> Its a crappy hypothetical because it doesn't address the fact that basic rules won't work. It assumes that people can make this hypothetical community without addressing the human factor.


Ruhk. My hypothetical was taking the place of religion. I never stated where the rules came from. Maybe they come from the big blimp in the sky. 
The point was that if people are awful at being moral by themselves wouldn't it be better to have a set of rules. It doesn't matter where the rules came from, only that they are there. 
Obviously you don't believe that every set of rules will never work, because that would negate your faith. 

The hypothetical was just to follow the line of thought without the baggage people have with other religions.


----------



## Falux (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay, you're on the right track, and for the most part I would agree with you except the fact that people follow morals and try to be good people with religion is because if you do what you are told in that religion, you are promised more than just rewards for being a good person. Like, eternal life after this one that is great. 

Just having rules won't have as many people follow it.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

And not just every set of rules would be moral either even if those rules supposedly cam from a god. 

For instance, if Julius Caesar passed a mandate and killed the first born sons of a large and specific population it would not be an ethical or moral action would it? Supplying "god" or "gods" in the place of rule-making-authority Julius Caesar does nothing to change the immorality of the act of killing children. Which is why many people like secular morals because they do not change on the perceived whim of a supernatural being, but are fundamental and universal.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Ruhk. My hypothetical was taking the place of religion. I never stated where the rules came from. Maybe they come from the big blimp in the sky.
> The point was that if people are awful at being moral by themselves wouldn't it be better to have a set of rules. It doesn't matter where the rules came from, only that they are there.
> Obviously you don't believe that every set of rules will never work, because that would negate your faith.
> 
> The hypothetical was just to follow the line of thought without the baggage people have with other religions.



Wasn't even thinking about religion in your hypothetical. I was merely thinking of the human factor for finding any loophole possible. That, basic rules can't work because its just that, they are to basic and leave to much in the open.

Do not murder. What is constituted as murder? What is constituted as self defense? Things like that would have to be addressed in any community. Sure, do not murder is good. But when people try and stretch that law, there in lies the problem. People like to toe the line as close as possible. So, that line has to be very clearly defined.




Deo said:


> A Which is why many people like *secular morals  *because they do not change on the perceived whim of a supernatural  being, but *are fundamental and universal*.



Glad I wasn't drinking anything, or I would have laughed so hard it would have come out my nose. The whole problem with society is that society can't decide on what is and isn't moral. It has a sense of it, but thats as far as it goes. One only needs to look at a cross section of the world and see what is morally okay in one country, isn't in another.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> Fay, you're on the right track, and for the most part I would agree with you except the fact that people follow morals and try to be good people with religion is because if you do what you are told in that religion, you are promised more than just rewards for being a good person. Like, eternal life after this one that is great.
> 
> Just having rules won't have as many people follow it.



I can understand that for some people it is for the reward of heaven, but you shouldn't make such huge generalizations. Not every religion is in it for the end reward. Some stress morals in order to create a better life here in this one. 
Even with some Christians they follow the laws of the bible in order to be part of the christian community and give themselves a better life than they had before. The afterlife is a bonus, not the end goal. 

In fact some sociology research shows that in some societies, people followed religious laws in order to avoid punishment, rather than gain reward. Societies which stressed damnation had more devote followers than societies that only stressed heavenly reward. 

So in the end people essentially do everything for reward (or lack of punishment) what that reward is doesn't really matter. Why they are doing it doesn't really matter either. 
I'm just making the point that religion does have these moral rules, and for some people they need a set of rules to follow strictly, rather than thinking everything out themselves.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Falux said:


> Fay, you're on the right track, and for the most part I would agree with you except the fact that people follow morals and try to be good people with religion is because if you do what you are told in that religion, you are promised more than just rewards for being a good person. Like, eternal life after this one that is great.
> 
> Just having rules won't have as many people follow it.


I would argue that it is not moral to behave in a moral manner only for the purpose of recieving a reward. True morality is actions taken not for personal gain, but because that is what is right. I think most people behave morally as default without going "what's in it for me?" And even if you're that pessimistic about people being innately good for the sole purpose of doing good then you can at least recognize the legitimate claims of The Social Contract right? If you mean people need to be kept in line and people are innately immoral then I suppose you subscribe to Hobbes and would be a fan of The Leviathan. But, I think you'd probably be less nihilistic than that about human nature and would probably be more of a fan of Rousseau and The Social Contract. Or Kant. 
But maybe you've not been introduced to separate schools of philosophical thought on the matter of why people act morally so you have no idea whom I'm talking about.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wasn't even thinking about religion in your hypothetical. I was merely thinking of the human factor for finding any loophole possible. That, basic rules can't work because its just that, they are to basic and leave to much in the open.
> 
> Do not murder. What is constituted as murder? What is constituted as self defense? Things like that would have to be addressed in any community. Sure, do not murder is good. But when people try and stretch that law, there in lies the problem. People like to toe the line as close as possible. So, that line has to be very clearly defined.


Ruhk, I'm not going to spend a year coming up with a set of incredibly detailed rules in order for you to understand a hypothetical. That's just pants on head stupid. If you don't understand the point of the hypothetical then let it go. it wasn't meant to be taken seriously, it was obvious that it was simplified. 
Other people in the conversation understood it and it served it's purpose so just let it go.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> Until secular organizations can have that many members, or have that sort of organization and fast reaction I would not ever ask that religion be removed from our society, if only for the sake that it offers aid to those who need it, a social community for people to haven in, and structure in their lives.


 
Of course, secular organizations have not really hit that point yet primarily _because_ there are so many churches that have entrenched themselves in that role.  A patch of soil can only support roots for so many trees.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Of course, secular organizations have not really hit that point yet primarily _because_ there are so many churches that have entrenched themselves in that role.  A patch of soil can only support roots for so many trees.


This is true, but I find that most secular organizations don't have the same unifying ability as places of worship. Fo example, it's hard to unify people or organize them into action or direct them if they're atheists. Why? Because atheists don't have the same structure, we don't have people in positions of trust or power like pastors or priests, and we don't have a unifying force like strong belief in an entity. I'd like to see atheists and secular groups rally and unify, but I fear there isn't much to unify people around. The main atheist groups I do see unify themselves by making their group the adversary of religion, and in creating a common "enemy" have a rallying unifying force. But I don't like the idea of making up monsters to unify people, that's no better than religion making up demons, hell, and gods for the same purpose or nationalism decrying the inhumanity of a warring nation's populace.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> The beliefs may not adapt, but how those beliefs are acted on may be.
> You may say "one does not tolerate sinners" and it is in the book, but the way of non-tolerance may be different. To one group it is stoning a person to death. In another it is taking the person in and curing them of their addictions and feeding them.
> Both have the same sentence for their basis, but the behavior adapts to the people.



Exactly. And one also finds that the very *emphasis *on certain passages of scripture varies over time - typically because the society around the believers changes to make what was acceptable behaviour unacceptable. 

For example, witch-burning ("Suffer not a witch to live") would be seen in all modern developed countries as a Bad Thing, whereas centuries ago such behaviour was seen as a Good Thing. What's changed? Society. And the practice of Christianity changes to suit in order not to alienate society, spinning witch-burning from a literal instruction to a metaphorical description of what "God" detests.

Same with slavery. One can equally argue for and against slavery using the Bible, and prominent Christians were on *both* sides of the debate. Yet today slavery is seen as a Bad Thing, and again Christianity now spins away their previous endorsement of the Bad Thing using lines like "it was appropriate for the time period" while hoping no-one asks why it was OK then but not now.

Getting back on topic somewhat, I suggest that one of the reasons for any decline of Christianity in the West is that it's precisely the above kind of change that is responsible - coupled with an interconnected global culture and information networks that allows anyone to look up anything in a single evening that previously required months of research. One can readily see examples of changes to so-called "unchangeable" faiths, be exposed to alternate opinions and previously hard-to-access facts, and - probably most importantly - be exposed to different cultures and beliefs through increased ease of travel and realise that _most of what you believe is a cultural artefact of where you were brought up_. And people in developed countries these days are far more willing to explore why this is for themselves instead of taking some priest's word for it.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> I would argue that it is not moral to behave in a moral manner only for the purpose of recieving a reward. True morality is actions taken not for personal gain, but because that is what is right. I think most people behave morally as default without going "what's in it for me?"



Are you saying people are born with an innate knowledge and don't have to learn moral behavior? Cause, one only has to look at a child to see what I am talking about. You don't teach a child to be selfish with their stuff, they just are. You don't teach a child to steal cookies, but they do. You don't teach a child to behave badly, but they seem to have this nature to do just that. You have to teach the child the right behavior, which includes morals. Its our nature to be immoral. One has to be taught moral behavior. One does not have to be taught immoral behavior. Mankind's default is not to behave morally. If it was, we wouldn't have to teach our children to behave morally. They would default to moral behavior as you put it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

*edit*
nvm


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Are you saying people are born with an innate knowledge and don't have to learn moral behavior? Cause, one only has to look at a child to see what I am talking about. You don't teach a child to be selfish with their stuff, they just are. You don't teach a child to steal cookies, but they do. You don't teach a child to behave badly, but they seem to have this nature to do just that. You have to teach the child the right behavior, which includes morals. Its our nature to be immoral. One has to be taught moral behavior. One does not have to be taught immoral behavior. Mankind's default is not to behave morally. If it was, we wouldn't have to teach our children to behave morally. They would default to moral behavior as you put it.


I'm saying that people are innately good, meaning that individuals in situations generally act not with malice but with good intentions. That human nature is fundementally good and that we try to do good. Yes, children have to learn the social rules and cultural constructs to properly act in good ways (since "good" is slightly different dependent on culture), but deep down people don't want to harm others and want to be beneficial.

So what I'm saying is that no, it is not our nature to be immoral. It is our nature to be sympathetic, it is our nature to strive to bring justice to this world, it is our nature to want to do good deeds, it is our nature to improve the lives around us. Arguing that because children have to be taught humanity is immoral is something that has many holes in it. 
Children have to be taught language, is it therefore human nature to be deaf and mute? 
Children have to learn how to walk, is it therefore human nature to crawl on the ground? 
No. All young creatures have to learn, that is how the world works, but just because they have to learn does not mean that by default humans are immoral or malicious.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What Deo is getting at is doing moral things for self benefit is immoral.


Except a lot of people believe what they are doing is right. So someone may be acting out their own personal morals believing what they are doing is right. Does that make them right even if they are not acting out of selfishness? No, it doesn't. The secular world cannot make any claim about having universal fundamental morals. They world can't agree on what those morals are. Like I have been saying already.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Except a lot of people believe what they are doing is right.


The same applies to actions done in the name of god, percieved to be right but still wrong. The intentions are good, they believe they are doing what is right, but this still applies to both religious law and personal morality. Slavery was once Biblically accepted and protected, is it still right to own another human being? No, and it was never right. The source does not make the rule moral, the rules must be moral on their own grounds.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So someone may be acting out their own personal morals believing what they are doing is right. Does that make them right even if they are not acting out of selfishness? No, it doesn't. The secular world cannot make any claim about having universal fundamental morals. They world can't agree on what those morals are. Like I have been saying already.


Religious posts can also act or decree rule in selfishness too. It is not solely the flaw of an individual, but can also be a flaw of religious organizations. 
The secular world does have universal fundamental morals. I don't know how you think we don't have them. We do. So be happy Rukh, the atheists are armed to the teeth with secular morality. And surprisingly we do agree on the fundamental morals and what they are.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Except a lot of people believe what they are doing is right. So someone may be acting out their own personal morals believing what they are doing is right. Does that make them right even if they are not acting out of selfishness? No, it doesn't. The secular world cannot make any claim about having universal fundamental morals. They world can't agree on what those morals are. Like I have been saying already.


Easy rebuttal: "everyone is the hero of their own story"


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> I'm saying that people are innately good, meaning that individuals in situations generally act not with malice but with good intentions. That human nature is fundementally good and that we try to do good. Yes, children have to learn the social rules and cultural constructs to properly act in good ways (since "good" is slightly different dependent on culture), but deep down people don't want to harm others and want to be beneficial.
> 
> So what I'm saying is that no, it is not our nature to be immoral. It is our nature to be sympathetic, it is our nature to strive to bring justice to this world, it is our nature to want to do good deeds, it is our nature to improve the lives around us.



Oh man, This is to good. You actually have a high opinion of humanity. We are not born with a moral fiber. You have to be taught one and learn it. You can reject morals, as we see far to often around the world.

 Having good morals doesnâ€™t mean you have objective morals.

Edit: Thats enough in here about this, I may, may consider making a thread on morality.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh man, This is to good. You actually have a high opinion of humanity.


Imma gonna let you finish, but I know this is going to derail into typical, "the world's going downhill" speech.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44999572/ns/world_news/#.TqS3HIa9q1E
I'm going to just give you a short synopsis, compared to previous generations this is the most peaceful generation even compared to even 50 years ago.
Violence, murder, rape, etc has over hundreds of years gone down and down and down.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh man, This is to good. You actually have a high opinion of humanity. We are not born with a moral fiber. You have to be taught one and learn it. You can reject morals, as we see far to often around the world.
> 
> Having good morals doesnâ€™t mean you have objective morals.
> 
> Edit: Thats enough in here about this, I may, may consider making a thread on morality.



Not having objective morals does not mean that people are not moral. You have to define what morals are before you start saying if people do not have them inherently, which means dealing with all contemporary theories and not just divine command theory. 

But anyway. A lot of contemporary shows that morals are closely tied with emotion and sympathy. It's true that we aren't born with empathy, but that doesn't mean that it is specifically taught. Socially deprived children will be without empathy, but they're also hardly human. Simple human contact is what "teaches" empathy to children and in turn fuels moral behavior.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

^Which is why psychopathy is considered a mental disease.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Oh man, This is to good. You actually have a high opinion of humanity. We are not born with a moral fiber. You have to be taught one and learn it. You can reject morals, as we see far to often around the world.
> 
> Having good morals doesnâ€™t mean you have objective morals.
> 
> Edit: Thats enough in here about this, I may, may consider making a thread on morality.


I do have a high opinion on humanity. People are good. Seriously. Sure, I see the shit of the world and get discouraged, but then I remember how hard people as individuals struggle to do what's right and how they strive to make a place for themselves in this world. I don't think that it's being naiive or idealistic or romantic to say that people are innately good and _want _to do good in this world. More often than not people who do malicious acts are the small exception to this rule, and even then the majority of them do such acts out of perceived necessity (as in to survive, or to protect what is theirs) or out of the perception that what their doing is good. So despite perhaps being misguided, people still want to be good, they want to see themselves as good, they want to be good. For instance as was mentioned earlier in this thread, witch burnings. i think we can all agree that witch burnings are a Bad Thing, but the people who took part in such did so with good intentions and thus are still fundamentally good despite actions that speak otherwise. And to be honest, it is not often in this world that we see people reject morals. Perhaps it feels like too often because even one occurance is something to be mourned, but by and all the human race of 7 billion people acts morally. If the vast majority of people did not act morally society could not exist or function, the world would be plunged into chaos of the likes we've never seen. The world is stable as it is because an incredible majority of the 7 billion inhabitants are content to live their lives in peace and do good. The few (and really, it is a very small amount comparative to the human population as a whole) that do malicious or Bad Things are the exception, not the rule. You seem to be very nihilistic about the human condition. 

Again, one has to be taught the specific actions to be moral in different cultural norms, but the underlying fundamental is that we strive to be Good. Just as the child has to learn language, it does not mean or prove that the fundamental state of the human condition is no communication.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I may, may consider making a thread on morality.



I've been lurking, but this one takes the cake and just f'ing runs with it. 

Rukh. King of morals. 


Aaaaaahahahaha.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ^Which is why psychopathy is considered a mental disease.


Quite. The funny thing is, even sociopaths are not without morals. Some are, some are truely twisted, but there are even those that strive to be good in society and do so with a more utilitarian natural moral code. But that's just blah blah blah I think sociopaths are neat. 

But right, empathy is something very human, and morals go along with it. In fact there are those such as prinz, churchill, and others that claim morality comes from emotion and points to the emotional points for several widely spread moral laws, and the "loopholes'


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Edit: I think that if people were innately bad, then we wouldn't exist. People came before religion. If all morals come from religion, then we had a span of people who were without morals. They didn't off each other to extinction...



Falux said:


> Fay, you're on the right track, and for the most part I would agree with you except the fact that people follow morals and try to be good people with religion is because if you do what you are told in that religion, you are promised more than just rewards for being a good person. Like, eternal life after this one that is great.
> 
> Just having rules won't have as many people follow it.


Doesn't this claim sort of match up to Pascal's Wager? Perhaps not directly, but it's sort of the same principle. Do good to get reward, not because you are good or want to do good. The Wager is similar, only it brings in doubt to the equation. Might as well do good because you might get a reward. But, I see similarities...

I don't remember who said it, it was probably a philosopher, but the quote is something like "those that act morally and do good because they expect a reward or fear the consequences aren't moral people; they are smart people." If you're only following the Bible because you think it'll get you into Heaven and not because you believe the teachings in it, then you aren't a moral person.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Hey Rukh, if I made that thread on morality would you really talk to me in it? I'm in a bit of a mood to talk about the subject, though I'm far less educated about morality and philosophical thought than Fay is.


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> This is true, but I find that most secular organizations don't have the same unifying ability as places of worship. Fo example, it's hard to unify people or organize them into action or direct them if they're atheists. Why? Because atheists don't have the same structure, we don't have people in positions of trust or power like pastors or priests, and we don't have a unifying force like strong belief in an entity. I'd like to see atheists and secular groups rally and unify, but I fear there isn't much to unify people around. The main atheist groups I do see unify themselves by making their group the adversary of religion, and in creating a common "enemy" have a rallying unifying force. But I don't like the idea of making up monsters to unify people, that's no better than religion making up demons, hell, and gods for the same purpose or nationalism decrying the inhumanity of a warring nation's populace.


I think I find this post to be the most interesting one in the entire thread; I wish I could think of some way to respond to it to keep the conversation going.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Conker said:


> Edit: I think that if people were innately bad, then we wouldn't exist. People came before religion. If all morals come from religion, then we had a span of people who were without morals. They didn't off each other to extinction...
> 
> 
> Doesn't this claim sort of match up to Pascal's Wager? Perhaps not directly, but it's sort of the same principle. Do good to get reward, not because you are good or want to do good. The Wager is similar, only it brings in doubt to the equation. Might as well do good because you might get a reward. But, I see similarities...
> ...



Pascal is about taking the better bet yeah.

As for the quote, I dunno that one particularly. I know that Kant was waaay against acting on morals for the personal self, but rather acting on morals out of duty, or the sake of doing good. He was against the hedonistic moral theories.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> Hey Rukh, if I made that thread on morality would you really talk to me in it? I'm in a bit of a mood to talk about the subject, though I'm far less educated about morality and philosophical thought than Fay is.



I am writing up a journal on FA right now actually. Nearly done. If you make one, I guess I would just edit my journal into the thread.


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Pascal is about taking the better bet yeah.
> 
> As for the quote, I dunno that one particularly. I know that Kant was waaay against acting on morals for the personal self, but rather acting on morals out of duty, or the sake of doing good. He was against the hedonistic moral theories.


Could have been Kant then. I'm pretty sure I mangled the quote, and that's just the gist of it. It may have been Lewis though, since I ended up reading a ton of his theological/philosophical works by chance in college.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I am writing up a journal on FA right now actually. Nearly done. If you make one, I guess I would just edit my journal into the thread.


If you're already writing something how about you make the thread with your journal (to save you the energy of tailoring the journal to a pre-existing thread)? I'd join you in the thread and we could discuss it. I'd like to talk to you more on the subject. I'm very strict in my own moral and ethical code, and I know you are too so it'd be interesting since we lay on different sides of the "where does morality stem from" divide.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Conker said:


> Could have been Kant then. I'm pretty sure I mangled the quote, and that's just the gist of it. It may have been Lewis though, since I ended up reading a ton of his theological/philosophical works by chance in college.


I don't think it's Kant. He wouldn't say that acting on your own interests is smart. In fact he'd probably said that it's part of the irrational behavior people have.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Conker said:


> Could have been Kant then. I'm pretty sure I mangled the quote, and that's just the gist of it. It may have been Lewis though, since I ended up reading a ton of his theological/philosophical works by chance in college.


Speaking of morals, what was the last name for the guy who wrote the, "Critique of pure reason"?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> He was against the hedonistic moral theories.



As opposed to Epicurus who is the Hedonism Bot of Philosophy.

Also Falux, from one Christian to another, you're young.  Got a lot of time on your hands.  You don't need to take your religious beliefs as seriously and as intently as Rukh does.  You got your whole life ahead of you, and God isn't that selfish and conceded that he put us on this Earth for the purpose of having his own personal fan club.  Of all the religions in this world, you're banking on the idea that yours is the only one that's true.  In reality, if you are truly fearing for yours and other's eternal souls, preach compassion for your fellow man and help those who desperately need it.  Not by reciting rhetoric, but with the things they need to enjoy their time in this world just as you are.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Speaking of morals, what was the last name for the guy who wrote the, "Critique of pure reason"?



Kant was his last name, Immanuel was his first.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Kant was his last name, Immanuel was his first.


I know Immanuel was his first name, you kant or won't tell me his last name?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I know Immanuel was his first name, you kant or won't tell me his last name?



Hey, HEY. Puns are my job >:c


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Hey, HEY. Puns are my job >:c


No Punn Wiantrakoon's job is a 3D modeler.


----------



## ravenofdread (Oct 23, 2011)

i only read the OP and i honestly say that it's just progress. some people don't have time to go to church, some people choose not to believe, some people are pushed away by pushy members of the church (or government) there's really no this or that answer.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Was that just a set up for a joke or were you really asking CF? Because Critique of pure reason is his thing with epistemology.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Was that just a set up for a joke or were you really asking CF? Because Critique of pure reason is his thing with epistemology.


I set up that joke.
 couldn't resist.


ravenofdread said:


> i only read the OP and i honestly say that  it's just progress. some people don't have time to go to church, some  people choose not to believe, some people are pushed away by pushy  members of the church *(or government)* there's really no this or that  answer.


Are you talking about politicians or actual governments?  And if you are talking about governments, where do you live?


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I don't think it's Kant. He wouldn't say that acting on your own interests is smart. In fact he'd probably said that it's part of the irrational behavior people have.


It was probably Lewis then...unless it was someone I studied in 19th-20th century philosopher's class. I took a ton of philosophy for lulz. Well, like four classes. But, shit's sort of muddled together now


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Conker said:


> It was probably Lewis then...unless it was someone I studied in 19th-20th century philosopher's class. I took a ton of philosophy for lulz. Well, like four classes. But, shit's sort of muddled together now



Oh it does the same thing for me. pitiful really.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 23, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Kant was his last name, Immanuel was his first.



Wasn't he the real pissant who was very rarely stable? 

[yt]xQycQ8DABvc[/yt]

"I drink, therefore I am."


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 23, 2011)

^I'd love to know more about XXth centhury philosophers and see whether I could find it funny in its entirety.
And about alcohol.

Also, it's /vIg,gen'shtain/ (in my limited knowledge of german).

Edit: it's pretty catchy, though.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> As opposed to Epicurus who is the Hedonism Bot of Philosophy.


 
Or at least this is how Christians were free to portray him as after scouring his homeland for everything he ever wrote and destroying it.  Only three letters survived.


----------



## Vega (Oct 24, 2011)

EDIT:  I was pretty tired and I feel the need to rephrase this now that I am well rested.

To answer the title question, Yes.  It's because most if not all Christians are close minded and hateful(prove me wrong) and it's driving away people in today's society BECAUSE of that.  Most non-religious people are more open minded and willing to give different things a chance.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 24, 2011)

Vega said:


> EDIT:  I was pretty tired and I feel the need to rephrase this now that I am well rested.
> 
> To answer the title question, Yes.  It's because most if not *all Christians are close minded and hateful(prove me wrong)* and it's driving away people in today's society BECAUSE of that.  Most non-religious people are more open minded and willing to give different things a chance.



I wouldn't say ALL Christians are closed minded and hateful. Pretty sure Term isn't hateful and he doesn't seem the close-minded type.

I'm not contesting the "most" though


----------

