Science is the Devil!

[voodoolily]

I'm not talking about what happened 250 years ago, I'm talking about what happened in the 1990s.

And still, no one wants to address the bloodthirty god aspect of Christianity. God is love, huh?

As far as going with a spirit of love and hope, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, isn't it?

1) You referenced missionary work, which has been going on for centuries with both successes and failures. It's not perfect but it has gone a long way to help bring new life to cultures that were dealing with being surrounded by the modern world. Like I said, nothing exists in a vacuum.

2) God has many faces. God is a parent, a judge, a lover, and a friend. He gave us life and an eternal soul with the gift of free will. He asks us to sacrifice part of our lives to him. The most precious thing in the world is your life, and the essence of your life is your blood. The sacrifices of the Hebrews of animals were meant as a symbol to cleanse their sins, but this did not work. That was why God came down in the form of Jesus and laid his life down on the cross. If you want to discuss the conditions in which sacrifices were made, look at the book of Hebrews. Also, refer to the story of Isaac, Abraham's only son, when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It was a test of faith that he was willing to make, but God did not require it in the end. Look at the trials of Job and his faith in God after everything had fallen apart. The message is that nothing in our life comes easy, and the most important things we have come with sacrifices that must be made.

I'm sorry, but this totally falls on deaf ears. God is not my lover (if he's yours, you really need to get out more). I already have been subject to these stories that are supposed to make our tribulations seem light in comparison to what others have been tested with. I appreciate your undying devotion to something you can't ever see or hear, but I still don't think you're right.

Missionary work has always, and will always do more harm than good. Trying to say that it's less evil now than it used to be doesn't really say much.

[Paelos]

Missionary work has always, and will always do more harm than good. Trying to say that it's less evil now than it used to be doesn't really say much.

Emphasis mine.

Thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. Crack a history book once in a while. Missionaries in the past have been responsible for helping cure diseases, rallied against genocides, and improved human rights conditions world-wide. I mean is telling people about God really that offensive to you? Open your mind an inch.

[Shockeye]

Thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. Crack a history book once in a while. Missionaries in the past have been responsible for helping cure diseases, rallied against genocides, and improved human rights conditions world-wide. I mean is telling people about God really that offensive to you? Open your mind an inch.

Crack a history book yourself. Missionaries have often been the ones bringing the diseases.

[Paelos]

I'm not the one saying they ALWAYS do more harm than good. I've admitted they have done horrible things, but they have also done incredibly noble things. By Voodoolily's logic, Mother Teresa should have just stayed at home. I'm sorry, but screw that. I'm glad there are people willing to go to places that are suffering and do good there.

[Shockeye]

I'm not the one saying they ALWAYS do more harm than good. I've admitted they have done horrible things, but they have also done incredibly noble things. By Voodoolily's logic, Mother Teresa should have just stayed at home. I'm sorry, but screw that. I'm glad there are people willing to go to places that are suffering and do good there.

Well, I'm willing to put Mother Teresa in a class by herself.

She was clearly the exception.

[voodoolily]

Telling people about god isn't offensive, it's just annoying. Most of these people who're getting nailed by missionaries already have a god. Who the fuck are you to say that their god isn't good enough? Did it ever occur to you that some people simply aren't in the market for a god? Evangelism assumes a superiority over everything that isn't Christian. There isn't but one right way, despite that whole "I am the way, the truth and the life" bullshit.

[SirBruce]

Mother Theresa has done plenty of bad, too.

Bruce

[Shockeye]

Telling people about god isn't offensive, it's just annoying. Most of these people who're getting nailed by missionaries already have a god. Who the fuck are you to say that their god isn't good enough? Did it ever occur to you that some people simply aren't in the market for a god? Evangelism assumes a superiority over everything that isn't Christian. There isn't but one right way, despite that whole "I am the way, the truth and the life" bullshit.

Now you're going overboard, even for me.

Part of Christianity is sharing the "good news" with others. And part of Christianity is that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Roman Catholics are big on that. As far as Christianity goes, there is only one right way, their way.

I don't believe that, but if they feel the need to try to save my soul by telling me about Jesus, well good for them. I'll just calmly tell them that the leader of my cult doesn't want me talking to them and that's that.

[schild]

You don't have to dance around with phrases like "Leader of my Cult" or whatever.

It's ok. We're all here for you.

Just say it.

Xenu.

[Shockeye]

Mother Theresa has done plenty of bad, too.

Will you stop with the Wikipedia shit already?

[Samwise]

Well, I'm willing to put Mother Teresa in a class by herself.

She was clearly the exception.

Is it your contention that every other Christian involved in charity work has some shady ulterior motive?  Are Christian soup kitchens really just fattening the homeless up for slaughter?  What?

[schild]

I think I'm going to change my avatar. Everytime I re-read one of my posts he looks at me as if he's going to do something naughty to what I've written.

I shouldn't have such a shifty avatar.

Either that or he just farted. And doesn't want you to know.

[schild]

Speaking of Science and religion. I was in the current affairs section of B&N the other day reading this "Lists of things the government doesn't want you to know" books.

It told me Jerry Seinfeld is a scientologist.

It's wrong, right?

[voodoolily]

Now you're going overboard, even for me.

Part of Christianity is sharing the "good news" with others. And part of Christianity is that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Roman Catholics are big on that. As far as Christianity goes, there is only one right way, their way.

This is all I was getting at, from the beginning. I don't know of any religion besides Christianity that not only assumes it's the only right way, but also employs evangelism to enforce it.

I don't believe that, but if they feel the need to try to save my soul by telling me about Jesus, well good for them. I'll just calmly tell them that the leader of my cult doesn't want me talking to them and that's that.

I dunno, I may just be getting fired up again, but it still feels like a mild form of religious persecution. Pretend I didn't say 'bullshit' after the truth and the life thing.

[voodoolily]

I think I'm going to change my avatar. Everytime I re-read one of my posts he looks at me as if he's going to do something naughty to what I've written.

I shouldn't have such a shifty avatar.

Either that or he just farted. And doesn't want you to know.

It's not so much shifty, as it is coy. Just like this picture I will foist upon you once more:

[Fargull]

I don't believe that, but if they feel the need to try to save my soul by telling me about Jesus, well good for them. I'll just calmly tell them that the leader of my cult doesn't want me talking to them and that's that.

No. No. No.  Just send a large Cephalopod to eat their congregation.

[Samwise]

Now you're going overboard, even for me.

Part of Christianity is sharing the "good news" with others. And part of Christianity is that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Roman Catholics are big on that. As far as Christianity goes, there is only one right way, their way.

This is all I was getting at, from the beginning. I don't know of any religion besides Christianity that not only assumes it's the only right way, but also employs evangelism to enforce it.

Islam?  Atheism?  Those are the first two thoroughly non-Christian examples that come to mind.  Not only do both those religions have a lot of evangelism, in some cases it's been military in nature.

Even religions that don't have organized evangelism (I'm not sure, but I think the Mormons are the most evangelical, since every Mormon man is required to do a year or so of full-time formal evangelizing when he reaches a certain age) do have individual evangelism to some extent.  Unless you can guarantee me that no member of your religion ever talks about his/her religion with anyone else (which is probably only the case for very small and very secretive cults), you can't tell me that your religion doesn't employ evangeliism.

[voodoolily]

Oh, c'mon - let's not use semantics. If I must clarify, I should've used the word 'proselytism' instead of 'evangelism'. Although 'aculturation' would've worked just as well.

Seriously, I didn't know there were evangelical Muslims. I didn't think they tried to recruit members. As far as my atheism, perhaps I am evangelizing by participating in a forum in which my views are exposed.

[HaemishM]

Islam used to use a very effective form of evangelism. "Convert or die." Worked wonders in the Middle Ages. Most of the religious wars throughout history were a very violent form of evangelism. Shit, the fundamentalist Islamic groups out there are just doing their twisted fucking idea of evangelism.

Christianity is not alone in evangelism, or in dangerous evangelism. At their hearts, very few religions are going to claim that they are anything other than the right, true and only path to "salvation/redemption/enlightenment."

[tazelbain]

> Also, refer to the story of Isaac, Abraham's only son, when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It was a test of faith that he was willing to make, but God did not require it in the end

Evil.

I can't decided which is worse:
a) that God was cruel enough to give this test
b) that wiliness to slaughter your children passed the test

Also see:
Story of Isaac by Leonard Cohen - I'd post the lyrics but they really don't do the song justice.

[Shockeye]

Evil.

I can't decided which is worse:
a) that God was cruel enough to give this test
b) that wiliness to slaughter your children passed the test

It just goes to show that Old Testament God had low self-esteem and had to reassure himself that people would still do everything single thing he said.

I'd rather have a God on Prozac, myself.

[Samwise]

Honestly, I'm not trying to argue semantics here - I really don't see any difference between a Christian espousing his faith and a member of any other religion doing the same.  Dictionary.com sez that proselytizing is defined as:

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

So if you participate on a forum espousing your doctrine (be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, atheism, even agnosticism), you are proselytising, evangelizing, whatever you want to call it.  Different people will place different levels of importance on "converting" other people, but on some level, most people who talk about their beliefs do so because they feel that their beliefs are "right" and they want to share them with others.  Atheists, you're just as guilty of this as fundy Christians.  I've seen you at it.  

If you want more concrete examples of military non-Christian evangelism, look at how Muslims conquered other countries (including Christians, Hindus, and probably others I'm not aware of), starting around the 8th century, to spread their faith.  Or look at religious persecution in the Soviet Union - atheism effectively became the official state religion after the October Revolution, and any Russian Christians or Jews who didn't fall in line were punished.  If that isn't evangelism/proselytism/whatever, I don't know what is.

[Samwise]

Evil.

I can't decided which is worse:
a) that God was cruel enough to give this test
b) that wiliness to slaughter your children passed the test

It just goes to show that Old Testament God had low self-esteem and had to reassure himself that people would still do everything single thing he said.

I'd rather have a God on Prozac, myself.

In the Old Testament, humanity's covenant with God was sealed by Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son.  Except God stepped in at the last second and said "psych, you don't really have to, I was just making sure."
In the New Testament, God's new covenant with humanity was sealed by God's willingness to sacrifice his son.  Except God actually went through with it that time, and humanity didn't say "psych, we'll take him down from the cross now."

Even if you don't believe that any of that stuff actually happened, there's some pretty interesting symmetry going on there.

[voodoolily]

How can you cite Dictionary.com and say you're not arguing semantics?  

I guess the main difference between myself and your friendly neighborhood jay-dub is that I  don't honestly think I'm going to change anyone's mind or get them to convert. I don't even want them to! I just want to challenge people to question their own beliefs.

Have you heard the good news? It doesn't matter how bad you are, you won't go to hell! (but you might get the shit kicked out of you if you piss off the wrong person)

[Paelos]

Skepticism towards religion is the arm-chair quarterbacking of philosophy. It requires no more effort than to poke at those who take a leap of faith. And I think I've said everything I needed to in this thread now.

[voodoolily]

Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I don't have beliefs. Nice assumption, though.

[tazelbain]

Skepticism towards religion is the arm-chair quarterbacking of philosophy. It requires no more effort than to poke at those who take a leap of faith. And I think I've said everything I needed to in this thread now.

lol, nice one.

[Shockeye]

Honestly, I'm not trying to argue semantics here - I really don't see any difference between a Christian espousing his faith and a member of any other religion doing the same.  Dictionary.com sez that proselytizing is defined as:

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

So if you participate on a forum espousing your doctrine (be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, atheism, even agnosticism), you are proselytising, evangelizing, whatever you want to call it.  Different people will place different levels of importance on "converting" other people, but on some level, most people who talk about their beliefs do so because they feel that their beliefs are "right" and they want to share them with others.  Atheists, you're just as guilty of this as fundy Christians.  I've seen you at it.   

If you want more concrete examples of military non-Christian evangelism, look at how Muslims conquered other countries (including Christians, Hindus, and probably others I'm not aware of), starting around the 8th century, to spread their faith.  Or look at religious persecution in the Soviet Union - atheism effectively became the official state religion after the October Revolution, and any Russian Christians or Jews who didn't fall in line were punished.  If that isn't evangelism/proselytism/whatever, I don't know what is.

I can't disagree with any of that. Well typed.

[Shockeye]

I guess the main difference between myself and your friendly neighborhood jay-dub is that I  don't honestly think I'm going to change anyone's mind or get them to convert. I don't even want them to! I just want to challenge people to question their own beliefs.

I don't for a second believe that tripe. You don't just around challenging people to question their beliefs for no reason other than the challenge. No one's brain operates that way. On some level you're hoping they'll realize they are wrong and you are right. Don't claim your crap doesn't stink, because it does.

[Samwise]

How can you cite Dictionary.com and say you're not arguing semantics?  

I was trying to avoid a semantic argument by saying "okay, it sounds like I misinterpreted what you said earlier, so here's what I think the term you're using means, correct me if I'm wrong."  If you want to provide your own definition, I'll be happy to work with that instead.  I'm trying to address what you actually said, not the words you used to say it (which would be a semantic argument), but I can only do that if I understand the words you're using, so I provided the definition I knew in order to make sure that my understanding was correct.

I guess the main difference between myself and your friendly neighborhood jay-dub is that I  don't honestly think I'm going to change anyone's mind or get them to convert. I don't even want them to! I just want to challenge people to question their own beliefs.

Have you heard the good news? It doesn't matter how bad you are, you won't go to hell! (but you might get the shit kicked out of you if you piss off the wrong person)

If you get people to question their own beliefs, and anything actually comes out of that questioning (changing the beliefs so that the answers to the questions are more satisfactory), it will qualify as a "conversion".  And you will have been responsible for that.  Even if you never actually succeed, the fact that your words are intended to provoke a re-evaluation of beliefs means that you're evangelizing.  I don't think that's at all a bad thing, but it's pretty hypocritical for you to lambaste people of other beliefs for doing the exact same thing.

If your words aren't actually intended to cause anyone to rethink anything, you're basically talking to yourself.  I doubt that this is the case.  

An evangelizing Christian wants to make people happy by giving them a personal relationship with God.  An evangelizing atheist wants to make people happy by relieving them of the burden of belief in God.  I just don't see the difference.  Both have beliefs that make them happy, both are trying to improve the world by sharing that happiness.  The sentiment is admirable, even if the behavior is usually annoying.

[voodoolily]

Okay, everyone. Tou-fucking-che.

[voodoolily]

You don't just [go] around challenging people to question their beliefs for no reason other than the challenge. No one's brain operates that way. On some level you're hoping they'll realize they are wrong and you are right. Don't claim your crap doesn't stink, because it does.

Daddy, what's a devil's advocate?

[Samwise]

Somebody who argues a point of view that opposes their own in order to challenge their own opinions and avoid groupthink.  It doesn't count if you're arguing your own point of view.

[SirBruce]

Mother Theresa has done plenty of bad, too.

Will you stop with the Wikipedia shit already?

No

Bruce

[Rasix]

Edit: blah, why bother.