Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
My Christian daughter says I'm going to hell
salon.com — I am the father of a 13-year-old daughter whose mother has been taking her to an evangelical Christian church her whole life. Her mother's family is entirely Christian. I am not a Christian, and in fact think that organized religion is actively harmful to her development into a rational adult. None of my friends are Christian, nor any of my family.
SeaMowse- 2851 diggs
- digg it
- theNazz, on 10/21/2007, -48/+865Why on Earth would somebody who does not believe in God have a kid with an Evangelical? Yikes!
- vault, on 10/22/2007, -29/+384the sex is kinkier with the repressed?
- diggsahole, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4My brothers, may the love of Christ compel you!!! (to do weird and kinky things!)
- wburglett, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Look, I don't know how this even came up
- diggsahole, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4My brothers, may the love of Christ compel you!!! (to do weird and kinky things!)
- doctechnical, on 10/10/2007, -69/+9Because Mom spends more time with the kid than Dad?
RTFA.- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35Can you read?
- 471776, on 10/10/2007, -24/+5@ doctechnical
You seem to be missing the point. Or maybe you don't understand the word "Evangelical" or something. Either way, it makes you look kinda stupid.
UYFB. That's "Use Your ***** Brain", if you didn't know. Which you probably didn't, seeing as I just invented it. And also, RTFC - Read The ***** Comment.
Edit: Replied to the wrong comment. Which makes ME look kinda stupid. But I don't care.- SuperCow1127, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4Why do you write @doctechnical, but reply to frazw?
- 471776, on 10/10/2007, -24/+5@ doctechnical
- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35Can you read?
- OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/14/2007, -18/+239You'd be surprised how many "Christian" women are whores 6 days out of the week. After all, all the sinners are in church..or so they say.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -43/+6Whores? I'm guessing you know this from exp?
- Zephir62, on 10/10/2007, -1/+57Yeah he's a level 7 christian-banger while you're still at level 1. I think you should listen up.
- popfrogs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+37Just wait till he earns his +4 Ring of Chastity Destruction.
- Fracture98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I have a +2 Rod of Cherry Destruction. Should I swap?
- blitzkriegpunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Only +2? lol
- Zephir62, on 10/10/2007, -1/+57Yeah he's a level 7 christian-banger while you're still at level 1. I think you should listen up.
- Drahkar, on 10/11/2007, -35/+151The sad part is that Evangelical Christians are just as dangerous as Islamic Extremists. They are just as fanatical and refuse to listen to anything anyone has to say unless you are agreeing with them.
- melonhedd, on 10/11/2007, -29/+95Just like Linux users.
- mrvalue, on 10/11/2007, -14/+55Or iSheep?
- Acglaphotis, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Cheap shot.
- stainlessjack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Ha ha
- OswaldKenobi, on 10/16/2007, -53/+17And it's the same with devout atheists. Just as dangerous as Islamic extremists or Fundamentalist Christians.
- Teej, on 10/10/2007, -6/+47I have yet to see a terrorist attack in the name of Atheism.
(although if one HAS happened that I don't know about, I would love to have it pointed out) - TKDEE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26Everyone knows this happens in the future, the United Atheist Alliance go to war with the Allied Atheist Allegiance. It's all really bloody, but I guess it's no worse than the French Chinese trying to take Hawaii.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4@TKDEE: Yes, a truly intersting period in posthistory. Would you be perhaps interested in joining the Historical Preenactment Society?
http://www.dresdencodak.com/store/shirts.html#pree ... - homefly, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2ya dude ah i am an athiest too, but i fear athsism b/c religion has been shown to be a moderating force. look at all the extremests faciest of communist their athiests. sociaty uses religion to keep people that are too stupid or too immoral to do right on their own in line.
- Teej, on 10/10/2007, -6/+47I have yet to see a terrorist attack in the name of Atheism.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+67I'm in total agreement there. A girl broke up with me shortly after joining , what some in my town called, a wierd church. She told me that unless I go to the same church and only hang around the people from that church( basically ditch my friends) that she couldn't be with me. So I said "***** THAT", see you on TV.
- LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31You should have joined her new found church, and hit on all the hot chicks she prays with,
who knows, trade up?
The Lord Works in Mysterious ways... - cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Lemme guess, Mormon?
- hansk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1all your brainwashed chicks are belong to bdog2g2
- LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31You should have joined her new found church, and hit on all the hot chicks she prays with,
- tdreyer1, on 10/10/2007, -30/+19Except that most evangelical christians don't strap bombs to themselves and massacre innocent people.
- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -11/+57Yeah they do it by starting wars
- didiman, on 10/10/2007, -31/+6minor details to a liberal
- lonnieh, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19literally, no. metaphorically, YES
- Cowmin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+46neither do most muslims
- JoEb0x, on 10/23/2007, -2/+37so you're saying MOST islamic extremists often strap bombs to themselves to massacre innocent people?
well if most of them do, why are there so many of them? wouldnt they, like, all be dead?
gee willickers batman, i wonder where your faith lies? - Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+48 they bomb abortion clinics.
- Yoshi39, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23Well your right the don't strap the bombs to them self they put them in cars instead
"...Christian terrorists is Eric Robert Rudolph, an American who committed a series of bombings across the southern United States in the 1990s, killing three people and injuring at least 150 others, ..."
"National Liberation Front of Tripura is a Fundamentalist Christian militant group in India, demanding a separate Christian state. Allegedly funded by the Baptist Church of Tripura, it is accused of ethnic cleansing[9] and bombings that have killed hundreds, as well as forcing gunpoint conversions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism - wolfofwar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16most radical Islamics don't strap bombs to they're chests either, about .01% of radical Islamics do so. But just like evangelical extremism, but extremisms primarily breed and propagate hatred, intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance. Thats the real danger to our societies on earth, not a few bombs, or a few deaths, but lifelong ignorance propagated through our species via the mindnumbing extremists views in our cultures.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18dropping bombs from airplanes is so much more civilized and courageous, right?
- LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Have you read Blackwater's whole Army of God thing ? Scary stuff.
Christians subcontract only the very best mercenaries. - MegaHyster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yet...
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think that's more of a lack of follow through. Bombing abortion clinics, and not getting caught up in the blast strikes me as somewhat less courageous than blowing yourself up *with* your target.
I mean, *****. At least Islamic extremeists save us the trouble of a lengthy death penalty process.
- NeoCon4Life, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1hey since the Islamic extremist don't all strap bombs on their chests doesn't mean they like you.
- melonhedd, on 10/11/2007, -29/+95Just like Linux users.
- nicko68, on 10/11/2007, -2/+84Going to church does not mean you are magically free of sin.
- r0b0, on 10/11/2007, -5/+71Not going to church also does not mean that you are going to hell, some christians are just insane.
- r00ts, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3According to some religions, it does.
- LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4My Jewish buddy tells the very best Pope Jokes.
And the best line is 'What can he do - send me to hell? Hell doesn't exist, we don't believe in it !' LOL - zediker, on 10/10/2007, -11/+14The funny thing is, is that hell actualy was never part of the christian dogma, the church created it about 1000+ years ago. heh
- DoubleBitAxe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8It does if you're catholic!
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12As long as you enter a tiny room and tell your darkest secrets to a priest.
I always thought "confession" was pretty creepy as a kid. I always had good and kind priests, but still, it's a little creepy. - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Eh, seems like it would be akin to going to a shrink or secretly confessing your secrets online (which people do, in fact, do). It's a good way to clear your conscience and feel better about yourself.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12As long as you enter a tiny room and tell your darkest secrets to a priest.
- raithetarkon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Yes, it means you are saved. You just have to be regretful of all the sins you committed when you weren't at the church.
/thinks this is all bogus. - cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's right, you have to say the magic words first.
- r0b0, on 10/11/2007, -5/+71Not going to church also does not mean that you are going to hell, some christians are just insane.
- tedhead2k, on 10/16/2007, -36/+36Are you (and everyone digging you up) actually basing that on any fact or experience, or are you all just digging up anything to bash religion more?
Sorry, I'm just tired of having my religion constantly generalized and criticized on digg on what, in my life experience of Christianity, is usually not true.- ryansmith18, on 10/16/2007, -31/+13Kinda like how the jackass a few threads up compared evangelical Christians to Islamic Extremists?
Digg thinks we are suicide bombers now.- sacherjj, on 10/23/2007, -4/+36But there are parallels. Not all Islamics are Extremists. Not all Christians are Extremists. I consider myself a Christian, yet don't understand how people can believe it is God's will to kill someone to stop abortion. Just as some followers of Islam can't understand how others of their belief can think suicide bombing is justified.
- strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33And to be exact, extreme evangelical Christians have been known to murder abortion doctors and such... Which is terrorism.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Timothy Mcviegh was a devote Catholic although he had written letters saying he wasn't really into any more. But they did find that he had performed a Roman Catholic ceremony prior to the bombing.
The point being, when you come off as holier than thou you set yourself up for a fall. I believe that is why many Christians catch so much hell. You're not catching hell because of what you believe, its what you preach and preach and preach, and condemn, condemn and condemn. Then when we get a sneak peak into your private life, we find that you do not practice what you preach. All religions do it, but its been my experience that evangelicals do it more.
Just let sleeping dogs lie and you won't get bitten.
If you'd like a better reference, its like a congressman constantly for anti-gay legislation and movements, and then he's caught in a bathroom with soliticiting sex from a man. Honestly it wouldn't have been more than a 2 day story had he not preached and been so outright anti gay.
- Malshew, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10And don't forget the mention of how we never think about our decisions, but just blindly accept.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+44"Sorry, I'm just tired of having my religion constantly generalized and criticizedt"
Funny, I think Muslims feel the same way.- CorpT, on 10/16/2007, -38/+5Let me know the ratio of Muslim suicide bombers to Christian suicide bombers. Thanks.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+37Let me know the ratio or hypocritical Christians and Evangelicals to hypocritical Muslims.
And thanks for proving my point. - MiDri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Give me a nation with out much law, full of different branches of Evangelical Christians and I'll give you a Christian Iraq.
- Yoshi39, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Well in my opinion just comparing the rate of suicide bombers does not give you any meaningful statistics but if you instead compare the number of dead on either side you'll get a better comparison in my opinion
Iraq: 3000 us soldiers dead 500 000 iraqis
israel: "in 2004 22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children"
Starting to notice a trend?
*(in my opinion neither side are directly motivated by religion but since this is where most suicide bombings are occurring at the moment I'm assuming you where including this in your "suicide bombing rate" example also the estimated number of dead CIVILIAN iraqis vary between 50 000 - 1 000 000 so I simply took the middle number) - Batfishy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Bdog - Well, I am tired of hearing from a president that "..Atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens'" I am tired of being told in some states that they can't serve on juries, can't hold public office and are considered to be completely devoid of morals. Atheists make up about 7% of the population (I read that somewhere) yet do not represent 7% of the prison population. We are not bad people. But now, with the pro-life movement, and not teaching kids who really need to be taught about birth-control and safety. It's getting crazy. No more evolution in science class - that is just a pity because the whole process of nature is as beautiful as anything religious.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually Bat, I wasn't the one who was tired, I was just quoting the original poster and then countering his notion with another perspective. Personally I feel if you want to be a Diest, Atheist, Evangelical, Buddhist, **insert relibion or way of life** go for it, just don't preach it to me, sell it to me, or try to convert me. I am buddhist with a baptist background, I'm not religious (as I don't like organized relgion), but I am very spiritual.
My only gripe is other who feel that their way of life and their ideology is somehow better than mine and want to force it on me and condemn me for how I live. If your way of life works for you, awesome, then go live it that way and dont' worry about "saving" others, even if your religion preaches that.
"It is not our preference that cause problems but our attachments to them" ~ Buddhist saying - NeoCon4Life, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Well in my opinion just comparing the rate of suicide bombers does not give you any meaningful statistics but if you instead compare the number of dead on either side you'll get a better comparison in my opinion
Iraq: 3000 us soldiers dead 500 000 iraqis
israel: "in 2004 22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children"
Starting to notice a trend?
*(in my opinion neither side are directly motivated by religion but since this is where most suicide bombings are occurring at the moment I'm assuming you where including this in your "suicide bombing rate" example also the estimated number of dead CIVILIAN iraqis vary between 50 000 - 1 000 000 so I simply took the middle number)"
To what yoshi said. Mmmm 50000 dead really and people say were losing the war? - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Damn right. Their religion is generalized even more. I only take catch ***** on Digg and Fark while Muslims can face biases in the real world. For the record, I'm Roman Catholic, but I'm also a libertarian, so I want the Church out of politics, and I want people to be able to choose whatever moral system they want to follow, so long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights. I recognize my religion as a personal choice, and I wish others would, too. Ditto non-religion.
No one can force their views (e,g, through legislation) on others. I see no problem with gay marriage (actually, I don't see homosexuality as wrong) and while I am pro-life and opposed to abortion, I have no right to stop others. Ditto euthenasia, polygamy, prostitution, drugs, etc. I personally am opposed to some of those, but others might not be, and they have the right to it as long as it's consensual, so it should not be illegal.
*As far as abortion being "murder", we just have to scientifically define the line between being a fetus and being a human, It's sometime before birth (think of it this way: is the baby different a minute before birth? no, what about an hour?, etc.) but it's way after conception. Babies have rights and fetuses don't, as it should be, but where's the line?
So guys, please don't flame me just because I'm Catholic. I don't support anti-gay rights legislation or banning porn or banning violent video games or any of that nonsense. The only thing you could say is "I place my blind trust in a sky fairy made up by stupid desert people 2000 years ago" or something along those lines. And it's true, I do, to a degree. Do I have any proof? I guess not, but I don't really mind it. I suppose I could say from personal experience I've felt like there's a God, and whether that's real or simply the neurochemistry of my brain due to certain external or internal stimuli, so be it. - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Damn right. Their religion is generalized even more. I only take catch ***** on Digg and Fark while Muslims can face biases in the real world. For the record, I'm Roman Catholic, but I'm also a libertarian, so I want the Church out of politics, and I want people to be able to choose whatever moral system they want to follow, so long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights. I recognize my religion as a personal choice, and I wish others would, too. Ditto non-religion.
No one can force their views (e,g, through legislation) on others. I see no problem with gay marriage (actually, I don't see homosexuality as wrong) and while I am pro-life and opposed to abortion, I have no right to stop others. Ditto euthenasia, polygamy, prostitution, drugs, etc. I personally am opposed to some of those, but others might not be, and they have the right to it as long as it's consensual, so it should not be illegal.
*As far as abortion being "murder", we just have to scientifically define the line between being a fetus and being a human, It's sometime before birth (think of it this way: is the baby different a minute before birth? no, what about an hour?, etc.) but it's way after conception. Babies have rights and fetuses don't, as it should be, but where's the line?
So guys, please don't flame me just because I'm Catholic. I don't support anti-gay rights legislation or banning porn or banning violent video games or any of that nonsense. The only thing you could say is "I place my blind trust in a sky fairy made up by stupid desert people 2000 years ago" or something along those lines. And it's true, I do, to a degree. Do I have any proof? I guess not, but I don't really mind it. I suppose I could say from personal experience I've felt like there's a God, and whether that's real or simply the neurochemistry of my brain due to certain external or internal stimuli, so be it.
- walkingdogs, on 10/10/2007, -10/+28Hey it's not our fault your belief system is generally crazy and critical of free rational thought.
- vulapine, on 10/16/2007, -21/+6I have found that "free thinkers" tend to all agree with one another and deride anyone who expresses thoughts contrary to their notions of how things are. Pot & Kettle.
It's like the old martial arts style: Poe Tae Toe-Poe Tah Toe - IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11> have found that "free thinkers" tend to all agree with one another and deride anyone who expresses thoughts contrary to
> their notions of how things are
Except you forget that if someone finds the right answer, and the "Free thinkers" agree, then you would accuse them of operating en masse, even if they were right. You fail at logic. - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2We have our points of contention. You have the exact nature of God's non-existence*, or the question of how to deal with theists.
Lets use the latter here. Some of us, like myself, prefer a soft handed approach - to correct you when you make sweeping statements about atheism, to try and expand your world view, to lobby for a more secular government with fewer ties to religion.
Others think it's best to just dismiss your sort as a bunch of crazies and stupids; that your minds will never change, and that you'll be stupid and crazy your whole lives. I rather vehemently disagree with such statements.
I think of religion as more of a little glitch; it doesn't affect most of your thought, but it does introduce tiny and sometimes compounding errors that can be and often are exploited by those who are aware of them (government, church leaders, etc). I see it as my duty to make an attempt to counter such exploitation, but avoid attempting to alter your beliefs.
Meanwhile, you may come around and you may not; keep in mind that almost all atheists were once theists of one flavor or another, and came to the conclusion that religion is not for them through rational thought.
* Variations:
God simply does not exist
God's existence is irrelevant, as He doesn't influence the universe anymore, if he ever did
God is sufficiently improbable that one can behave as if he doesn't exist
There are so many Gods out there that to believe in one would be foolish, as it may be the wrong one and bring punishment upon me anyway. Better to just live life and be good.
- vulapine, on 10/16/2007, -21/+6I have found that "free thinkers" tend to all agree with one another and deride anyone who expresses thoughts contrary to their notions of how things are. Pot & Kettle.
- Ndiggnation, on 10/21/2007, -3/+41Christianity is so oppressed in this country. Man, I wish they could just get a president into office.
- LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8And take more of your paychecks to unconstitutionally give away bribe money to silence the church against American Global Atrocities and War Crimes.
''Faith Based Initiative Hush Money - Bribing God's Chosen to STFU.''
- LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8And take more of your paychecks to unconstitutionally give away bribe money to silence the church against American Global Atrocities and War Crimes.
- ostracize, on 10/21/2007, -16/+8You must be new here.
Here are the facts of digg comments in a story about some fanatic "Christian(s)":
1. Pro-religion = bury
2. Comparisons between all religion and any one of the following terms: myth, fable, fairy tale, legend = digg up
3. Atheists understand all Christians are not like that, however, since you all claim the same title, they consider you all equally responsible to the title
I call myself Christian too but I'm not naive enough to think I will never be grouped like a confused evangelical girl. We are misrepresented all the time and it pisses me off too when I have to fix the mistakes. Digg is definitely not the place to vent that anger though. - homefly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dude ah ***** any way i dont how to respond to this i was trying to say somthing nice then at the end of my commit say i am an atheist, but realy your just whining come on.
- rendereduseless, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1then leave, if you dont like it... get the hell out, its your choice to be here.
- 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2As a Christian, I am shocked and alarmed by the opinions that are being stated here. Although I have not been an evangelical for some time now, it is obvious to me that "the two witnesses are lying dead in the street." The two witnesses being the true church of Jesus Christ who condemn wickedness on the basis of God's Word, and the tramplers being the anti christian world who refuse to accept God's free gift, which is Jesus Christ's payment for all sin, Because he was the only sinless man, he was the only one who could pay the price for all sin. But those two corpses will stand upon their feet once more, when God breathes the breath of life into them in connection with Christ's second coming. But by then it will be too late for the tramplers.
Quoted from "More Than Conquerors" An interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
by William Hendriksen
- ryansmith18, on 10/16/2007, -31/+13Kinda like how the jackass a few threads up compared evangelical Christians to Islamic Extremists?
- moofer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Actually, the mormon gals were the biggest freaks in my high school (comparing teenagers).
- razor150, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Despite some religious bigots speaking otherwise, Mormons are Christians as well.
I find it funny that Christians are willing to believe Jesus walked on water and healed the sick by only touching them, but Jesus coming to South America to preach his message suddenly becomes over the top.- krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16Yeah, nonsense is nonsense. They're both crazy death cults.
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15>Mormons are Christians as well.
They aren't because basic Christian faith requires that there is only one god, jesus, and then humans. Mormonism includes notions of sub-deity-hood for the true apostles. And both are ridiculous. First we say Jesus has Resurrection +5, now you expect us to believe that Jesus has Teleportation+10. - LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Mormonism is just as Valid as Catholics or Protestants.
Jesus said we are all the children of god - and children grow up - so we are all gods.
And in fact, 'We, I, They' are all temporal misnomers. God is All.
All beings, all planets, stars, and the whole Universe is god.
So, why wouldn't god children grow up to get their very own universe?
Makes perfect biblical sense to me.
Hey - It's Mythology - there are no wrong answers here. - MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7@iceZZ:
No, being a Christian requires ONLY that you believe in the sanctity of Christ. That's why it's called "Christianity". Some Protestant preacher may say that someone else isn't a Christian, but that has no actual effect on reality.
For more reading on this topic, please Google the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. - cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1He's right, all of your superstitions are equally crazy.
- BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5The reason for that is that the majority of Christian's faith rests on the very thin layer of uncertainty that text written so long ago creates. Christians don't believe in Mormonism because the facts of the matter are clear and we can put a face and a name to the man who looked into a hat and made it all up unlike Christianity.
Both are ridiculous, but one is easier to trick people into believing than the other. - hansk, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2I AM FULL OF CHRIST LOVE! *shoves girl into the side*
- razor150, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Despite some religious bigots speaking otherwise, Mormons are Christians as well.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -43/+6Whores? I'm guessing you know this from exp?
- humperdeath, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2i think so too
- fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -5/+42Probably because he had sex with an evangelical. Churches are great places to pick up women.
- 1power4all, on 10/19/2007, -0/+0I know someone that says churches are good places to pick up women.
- blubberlump, on 10/10/2007, -18/+4Well, it is pretty hard to find non-christian's these days, unfortunately...so he's probably just settling for what he could land.
- Eivo, on 10/10/2007, -10/+132Maybe I misunderstood the columnist reply to the article. Did they just tell the dad, in order to fix this problem that he need to buy into all the theist ***** and do as his daughter says?
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+81Yeah, that was an awful answer. It would have been much more helpful if the "expert" had instead described other methods of talking to his daughter about other beliefs instead of just telling him to suck it up and *go against* his own beliefs.
- Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You both missed the point. Basically the "expert" was saying that it doesn't matter WHAT the daughter is interested in... just do it with her. Fighting with her will only hurt their relationship at this point in time. Not once did the expert tell dude to "go against" his own beliefs and BELIEVE what the message is at the church, but instead to just go FOR the daughter and THEIR relationship.
It's not like his belief is to not set foot in a church. There is no admission fee so the worst thing that could come out of this is he can lose approx 2.5 hours of time on the weekend with his daughter. However this guy has a great relationship to gain by just going and then discussing what was talked about etc. with his daughter. - DoctorFrog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, and that's what the letter writer was asking for. The guy even said that he considered organized religion to be detrimental to his daughter's development; despite that he is not trying to stop her from going to church with her mother, he just wants to teach his daughter to be open-minded. I'm sorry, but playing along with what he considers harmful teachings is not what a responsible parent should do, and it isn't the way to initiate a conversation. The columnist is giving bad advice.
- Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You both missed the point. Basically the "expert" was saying that it doesn't matter WHAT the daughter is interested in... just do it with her. Fighting with her will only hurt their relationship at this point in time. Not once did the expert tell dude to "go against" his own beliefs and BELIEVE what the message is at the church, but instead to just go FOR the daughter and THEIR relationship.
- iticu, on 10/10/2007, -16/+21No, they told him to share in his daughters beliefs and pretend to care about God so she doesn't think there's a chance of him being tortured for eternity the next time he crosses a road.
She can learn to think when she's older.- EricSchC1, on 10/23/2007, -6/+39She's 13! If she isn't already "questioning the answers" at least on some level, thats really sad. At what age should she start "learning to think"?
- crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3at 13 your start learning to think... at 18 you start actually thinking
- GOVStooge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29actually, at 18 you are pretty much an idiot
- crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2maybe I'm the only one took the time in college to learn about more than the computer science degree I was there to obtain.
- Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually unfortunately for her it appears there is no turning back. She will never "question the answers" because the bible tells you not to question but only to ask God for guidance and obey his word. Everything in the bible is to be taken as FACT and to question that is to question God.
That should be very apparent by the fact that Adam and Eve were told to not eat the fruit from the tree as before they did they were naive to what good and bad was, only what God told them was right, all else was wrong.
- BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -1/+15Yeah... no one learns to think when they're older. That's when they start yelling at other people to believe the same or suffer for eternity.
- EricSchC1, on 10/23/2007, -6/+39She's 13! If she isn't already "questioning the answers" at least on some level, thats really sad. At what age should she start "learning to think"?
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32I agree that "expert" was *****. I'm glad no one wrote to them about being suicidal. Their response might be:
"Well in order to know if you really want to commit suicide, you should first do it and then look around to you see those who really love you. You can't just think about it without having in the back of you mind the commitment to see it from both angles (alive and dead)." - nikkesen, on 10/10/2007, -5/+46I thought the thing at first, that I was missing the answer, but no, it seems this "expert" is telling the dad to sellout his beliefs. I sense that the "expert" is a Christian as well trying to convert a non-believer rather than give impartial advice.
- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16 As do I..By the time i was 13,I had had it up to here with church and told my mother i was not going any more..End of story.
- senixon, on 10/10/2007, -24/+6The football analogy might not have been the best fit here, but the responder is right, how can you argue about things you don't know.
- bentracy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Just because he is not a Christian and his family are not Christians does not mean he is not informed about Christianity.
- senixon, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3then he and his daughter should have a real conversation why he does not believe in God... yet he is asking for advice... hmm, what do you think is hi "informed" about Christianity?
- Yoshi39, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12You're absolutely right since you can't (objectively) know that there is a god you shouldn't be arguing that he does in fact exist.
- bentracy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Just because he is not a Christian and his family are not Christians does not mean he is not informed about Christianity.
- TKDEE, on 10/10/2007, -11/+22The response said he should take an interest in what his daughter is doing. That he should try and find out what actually goes on there, and understand that aspect of her life. Basically as a father he really should put his daughter ahead of himself, even if he doesn't believe it he should take an interest in what is going on for HER sake. This is something that is true for all things not just religion. Once you've had a kid you are no longer the most important person in your own life.
- yutt, on 10/23/2007, -7/+36So, while the mother brainwashes the child, the father should actively assist in the brainwashing, for the sake of their daughter?
How the hell does that make any sense?
So, say, the mother lets the daughter drink at age 13, and the father doesn't drink. He should go by their daughter alcohol for her sake? - MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22If he feels that organized religion is harmful (which it says he does), then accepting his daughter's fundamentalism would be immoral. I agree that you should take an interest in everything your children do, but if you think that what they do is harmful that doesn't mean you just have to "go along with it".
- phauna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I think he should go to church, but then offer to take her to a hindu temple or a mosque or a laboratory. This would show her that there are a lot of faiths around. This would hopefully get her thinking about why she doesn't believe in those faiths and only her own. Then she'll be an atheist.
- LoopyChew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Far as I can tell, it was more along the lines of "humor her once or twice," as opposed to "FALL IN LINE YOU GODLESS HEATHEN." Try it out a couple of times, show her you don't catch fire when you cross the threshold of a church but you don't really belong there, and let that be it.
- yutt, on 10/23/2007, -7/+36So, while the mother brainwashes the child, the father should actively assist in the brainwashing, for the sake of their daughter?
- gropo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11By breaking down the relationship barriers and engaging in her beliefs she'll be more receptive to Reality rather than the Jehova Fairy Tales.
Rather than the "But listen, Point Blank. It's all *****" technique that obviously wasn't going anywhere. - aelias, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I thought it was one of the most reasonable, well worded responses I've ever heard to a genuinely compelling question. Bravo. I love the part about speaking with one of the church leaders in front of your child. Cults are fascinating in their lack of depth. If you start digging in front of your kid, however gently, they'll pick up on the ***** all by themselves.
- baalze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No, they won't. If his daughter is already as brainwashed as the article suggests, then "digging in front of your kid, however gently" would be interpreted by her as an attack on her beliefs. I think the daughter's *****. Goddamn mother's ruined that mind for good.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+81Yeah, that was an awful answer. It would have been much more helpful if the "expert" had instead described other methods of talking to his daughter about other beliefs instead of just telling him to suck it up and *go against* his own beliefs.
- senixon, on 10/10/2007, -51/+12I love how many people who *say* they don't' believe in God, read+respond to articles about religion... it's especially obvious here at Digg. To me that indicates you are not yet sure that you're right about God's non-existence, and you're seeking the truth, whatever the truth is.
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34So if I say I hate onions does that mean, secretly, I am not sure if I like onions?
Because I seriously hate onions and I don't want to like them.
I'll be consulting the Bible and Jesus on this one.- senixon, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5WTF? You're proving my point for me... If you don't like onions... don't eat them, don't smell them, don't buy them--- yet you came here, read it and now responding to all the onio.. I mean comments.
- youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14So what you are saying is that if you don't like something shut up and if you do like something let the whole world know?
The digg comments are here for members to post comments and have discussions on the articles posted. If one side keeps their mouth shut then I would hardly call it a discussion. - senixon, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1:youareretarded: not what I'm saying at all... go back to my original post and follow the tread!
PS: your name suits you.
- youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14So what you are saying is that if you don't like something shut up and if you do like something let the whole world know?
- waynetheman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Well, if you're vocal about your dislike for onions anytime you so much as smell them; if you get into arguments about how terrible they are; if you work to convince others to dislike them, and post negatively about them anytime they're brought up online... it does make people wonder what's going on in your head. You either have a very vengeful obsession with them, or yes, have some strange onion-phobia that's probably based on a fear of actually coming to like them.
Just my opinion.- screensnot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10To me, it seems more like;
Some guy hates onions, and is tired of hearing people preach about how everyone should eat several onions every day, and his kids should be required to eat onions at school in case their parents are neglecting to teach them to like onions at home.
- screensnot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10To me, it seems more like;
- BlueSun420, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4That's a really good comparison, cuz you know, people that don't like onions are threatened with the fires of hell by people that do like onions. And often in today's society, a person's taste in onions is used as a way to justify certain public policies and condemn people that don't like onions and suppress scientific research into non-oniony foods. Onions and religion are very similar. A person that actively dislikes onions is a lot like a person that actively dislikes religion. You really hit the nail on the head.
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"OMG ARE YOU SAYING RELIGION IS EDIBLE AND SOME PEOPLE PUT IT ON PIZZA? LOL YOU ARE SO DUMB AND THAT ANALOG IS BAD!!!"
- kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5@waynetheman (theres no reply button)
if onions made me have a nervous break down when i realized that i couldn't force myself to like onions, if my sister's and my dislike of onions made my mother threaten to kick both of us out of the house when we were younger, if i had the people i thought were my friends ditch me for my dislike of onions, and the onion appreciation society had put in my head from the time that i was very small that my real friends who like onions, hate onions , like garlic, whatever would abandon me because my dislike of onions would make me "a different person", if i had to convincingly lie everyday for six months to anybody who was friends with anybody in my family, if i had gone to onions when i was grieving and been told in graphic detail the death of a friend of mine, if i had to internally clean out any ***** rationalizations for a particular type of onion that had built up over a lifetime of living in a minority of people who liked my type of onion, then i would hate onions.
in fact, ***** onions!
- senixon, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5WTF? You're proving my point for me... If you don't like onions... don't eat them, don't smell them, don't buy them--- yet you came here, read it and now responding to all the onio.. I mean comments.
- SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Digg just has a disproportionate number of Atheists* , senixon... that's all.
*disproportionate when compared to... well... the world. - iheartjebus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12no, it's just that here we are given a forum to be as loud as the evangelicals, with hopes of converting a christian into an atheist. I'm not about to wander into a church and yell at the congregation, nor am I going to go door to door espousing my love for a hedonistic lifestyle. However, I do like to come to internet message boards where I might be able to get into an argument with a fundie christian.
- cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"hopes of converting"?? What is this, evangelical atheism? "Converting" implies that atheism is a religion, which is stupid. You've made a very poor choice of words.
- JonestownRed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17I'm a firm believer in senixon's esteemed school of thought, which is why I know that all Christians on Digg who read articles on Islam are not yet sure if Islam is the true religion.
- senixon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4now you've done it, pissed off atheists, Christians and Muslims... lord have mercy.
- paulofmandown, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11This article was about an atheist, with a christian problem.
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34So if I say I hate onions does that mean, secretly, I am not sure if I like onions?
- SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21OOf... see this is the sort of conflict that makes me think the same thing. It's come up in conversation before, that I think your faith (or lack of faith) should be factored in with who you choose to be with. Nevermind the awkwardness of figuring out if to go to church and which church to go to... the child rearing thing is another beast entirely.
That poor girl is going to grow up hating her father because he's an Atheist. Sad thing is her religion preaches love and prayer...
Also faith and religion is just one of those things you can't compromise on easily. And before the Atheists jump on me about that, I mean you too. If the guy in the article had tried to stop the mother from taking the kid to church, lo' and behold he's forcing his (lack of) belief. But where do you come to a middle ground on THAT can of worms? Take the kid to church every other Sunday? Have her watch football on the odd sundays?- gameboyhippo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I think this is the big misunderstanding. A person tells another person that if they do not accept Jesus as their savior then they will die in hell because they love them and do not want them to meet that fate, not because they hate them. If they hated them, they would keep the path to salvation a secret.
- jbmicastorm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9In logic there is the Law of the Excluded Middle: It is one or the other; there is no middle ground. The fact is Christianity and Atheism are diametrically opposed. The Law of Non-contradiction states that since they are opposites, one is true and the other is false.
So frankly, the only way to avoid "forcing" one's views is to never come in contact. That is simply impractical. So really, getting on one's high horse about having another's religion forced down your throat is just childish. As for them getting married...there is a reason several religions forbid "marriage outside the faith."- 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1I assume that she wasn't a Christian when they got married.
- Zyphron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wouldnt assume that. It happens all the time. Sometimes it results in one member of the couple converting. Other times it results in a breakup. Very occasionally it works.
- cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@jbmicastorm
That's assinine logic you have there, a false dichotomy to be precise. You've made the same error as found in Pascal's wager. Have you considered that there are many religions other than Christianity? Atheism and Christianity are not opposites, atheism and theism are.- Zyphron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ok, so lets correct your logic.
You claimed that Atheism and Theism were actually opposites, whereas Atheism and Christianity were not. The first part is definitely true. Atheism and Theism are pretty much direct opposites. The second part is not really true. Here is a basic logical argument: (1) Atheism and Theism are opposites. (2) Christianity is a type of Theism THEREFORE Christianity is opposite Atheism.
Now, you are correct in claiming that Christianity is not the ONLY thing that is opposite Atheism, but that hardly disproves any of the points that jbmicastorm made. It just says that his points could be applied to other theistic religions.
- Zyphron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ok, so lets correct your logic.
- ChefAnubis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7havent you heard of beer?
- Stettenbauer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Aside from the lowbrow comments...........It is not uncommon for someone to go to the other extreme as they are growing up(hence compensation theory) in fact it is very common
- starkes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7If there is a god (which I doubt), you're going to hell for letting loose another evangelical christian on His earth. God's too slack for extremists.
- SpyDerMann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No, the question is not why he married her. Why did she married HIM!? Aren't christians supposed to marry only christians? Sheesh.
(Disclaimer: I'm a catholic, I wouldn't marry her anyway ;-)- Memnochxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Actually, no.
- Aurra, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14
- diggimator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Marrying someone of your own religion is a legal requirement in many Islamic states BTW.
- 1power4all, on 10/19/2007, -0/+0The bible says to not be unequily yoked with unbeleavers. I would say that this means to not marry someone that has a very different way of thinking.
- Memnochxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Actually, no.
- Foamator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+42Truly ***** response by the columnist.
- WorldLeader, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6This really is are stark reflection on the sorry state of churches these days. I am a Christian but I often feel rejected by many other Christians and churches for being liberal and open-minded. It is hard to express that you don't need to only listen to christian music or go to youth groups or participate in organized religion to have a healthy relationship with God.
I understand that being an Atheist is a popular thing these days but it really isn't any better than being a crazy-ass conservative christian if you aren't open-minded to other people's opinions. The fact that every pro-religion comment has been dugg down is telling. *sigh*- jhaks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I would have dugg you up if you didn't portray Atheism as a popular trend and hadn't compared all Atheists to the crazy theists. ALL people regardless of religious stance can be open or closed minded.
- eberhardt333, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Obviously you didn't read the Digg article stating that over 60% of Digg users claim to be Athiests. That seems like a popular trend to me... at least on this site.
- 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Except for the Atheists that have made most of the comments here on this article.
- MaTT2011, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Atheism is "a popular thing these days" ??
LMAO - eberhardt333, on 10/13/2007, -3/+3Amen. Being a Christian and an open minded individual, I am saddened by the unending need for Atheists to belittle other people's viewpoints for believing in "something". On a different note, I know how concerned Christ was about evolution and people's sexual choice, etc. According to the Bible, he sure addressed those issues a lot when he was here on earth... oh wait, no he didn't. In fact he spent most of his time teaching about acceptance and loving others. Wow, what a horrible man. I'd hate to see them base a religion around that kind of concept.
- jhaks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I would have dugg you up if you didn't portray Atheism as a popular trend and hadn't compared all Atheists to the crazy theists. ALL people regardless of religious stance can be open or closed minded.
- Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, Catholics are much more fun. Repression is one thing, but you can't beat the guilt... (or the skirts)
- cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I dunno, I'm not too keen on blowing Father O'Malley.
- vault, on 10/22/2007, -29/+384the sex is kinkier with the repressed?
- SheilaNoya, on 10/20/2007, -138/+768He should scare his daughter and make her read Leviticus, then tell her that she's going to hell too. Has she ever eaten shrimp? Does she wear clothing of mixed fibers? Has she ever spoken aloud in a church? Sorry bitch, but all of those are "abominations unto God" and will send your little ass straight to hell.
- therightside, on 10/20/2007, -72/+163But if she read the rest of the Bible she would realize that Christians do not live by the old testament anymore. That was the point of Jesus, which is a major part of the Bible and kind of makes your argument stupid. How could you read the Bible without reading about Jesus?
And where did your qoute "abominations unto God" come from? please reference.- nblsavage, on 10/20/2007, -30/+150then where do you schmucks get off condemning gays? That comes from the old testament also.
- weside, on 10/20/2007, -13/+68It's also in Romans, in the New Testament.
- noahhoward, on 10/14/2007, -10/+116Which is ironic because the Romans were some fruity guys.
- Hobbes24, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3i digg it so hard
- crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6"Which is ironic because the Romans were some fruity guys."
Speaking of generalizations - josell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3wouldn't it make sense to tell the people who have a problem with it? Seems kinda pointless to yell at a bunch of heterosexual men that they shouldn't have sex with each other, eh?
- nblsavage, on 10/20/2007, -6/+47Bah...I stand corrected.
- staplez, on 10/20/2007, -22/+64Actually Romans says god will punish you by giving you gay children. Not that being gay is wrong. Basically according to the bible, gay people are because their parents are bad. It's stupid.
- freetyme, on 10/20/2007, -42/+9homosexuality is listed as sin in Corinthians. Jesus himself in Matthew also speaks on the issue.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/20/2007, -9/+62Jesus never once mentions homosexuality. Not one single time.
- snarfyboy, on 10/23/2007, -3/+30That translation in Corinthians is not a very good one.
Jesus never said anything about gays. Where do you get that idea. - lp66, on 10/20/2007, -1/+23Um, actually it says nothing about gay children. Not to quote Bible verses on Digg, but Romans 1:27 says, "men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
- martinjd, on 10/20/2007, -3/+19lol... God will punish you with gay children? you're unbelievable. If you'd like to know what's really in Romans, here it is:
Romans 1:26-27
(26)For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
(27)and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. - snarfyboy, on 10/23/2007, -6/+34Of course, if one reads all of Romans in context, you realize that Paul was talking about same sex acts committed under the auspices of pagan rituals and not homosexuality as we know it today, so the point is moot. Besides, in Roman 2, Paul continues by saying it isn't our place to judge people based on such things anyway.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7It's quite strange to me that people decided to add words to the teachings of Christ after he died. Which is why I do not believe being gay is a sin at all. Jesus knew exactly when he was going to die. You would think he would have made sure to mention everything he could before he died. Another thing Jesus never mentioned is that you have to believe in God to get to heaven. Even when asked specifically how to get to heaven Jesus never mentioned you have to believe in God.
Jesus says he is the way the light the truth. I believe anything that Jesus did not say is not something that is worth being concerned about. - Syntaxis, on 10/20/2007, -8/+11Jesus and Mohammed, sitting in a tree...
I'd make a comic, but "they" would ask for my head.. - walkingdogs, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19Seeing that not a single gospel was written until 60 years after jesus's supposed death, the bible is nothing but a story book, and all gods are mythical figures who "speak" to people with voices in their heads I doubt jesus or god said any of this. But hey I'm just some random atheist.
P.S. was raised christian, attended CCD, was even an altar boy (was NOT molested) and figured out how to ask questions and think for myself and form my own opinions based on my amazing ability of observation. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4I ask questions too. Not everyone reaches the same conclusion simply from asking questions. I was originally an atheist. To this day I've never stepped foot in a church. But things just weren't adding up to me that this world could be created by chance. I asked questions like How do cells know that our blood stream needs little flaps in it to keep the blood moving forward? How did the first strand of perfectly ordered amino acids just fall together in the same nanometer by chance? How is our ecosystem so perfectly balanced all by a series of dice rolls and chance? I came to a very different conclusion from my questions. My conclusion was that we had to have been created by something. Nothing else explains how perfectly engineered nature is.
From there I just had to decide which God I felt had the best message. At first I didn't even consider Christianity. I didn't want to be like all the gay bashers. I didn't want to be like the people who used to tell me I was going to hell for being an atheist. But a good friend of me convinced me that those people were not true Christians. She told me that I should read the bible and come to my own conclusion. So I did. And I realized she was right. Those people were not Christians. They were self richeous bigots. - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3except nature is far from being perfectly engineered.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1How can you honestly look at nature and not see the most perfect balance in the universe? Everything relies on everything to survive. In many ecosystems if you take out a single piece of the puzzle it can offset the balance of the entire ecosystem. And on top of it all there is even an emergency backup plan when things get out of hand. It's called adaptation and evolution. No matter if you believe in God or not you have to admit that earth/nature could not have been better designed for the trillions and trillions of life forms it holds.
And if there is no maker then we really need to give cells a lot more credit. Because as tiny as they are and as simple as they seem they built a fully functional living creature. Every cell big and small of all shapes and sizes work together to form every living creature on the planet. Is that not amazing to you? Does that not make you question how they do that? And I don't mean they use DNA. I know that. I mean how are they THAT good? It just boggles my mind. It really does. - t.toe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@walkingdogs: You do realize that 60 years after Jesus was crucified, there were still eyewitnesses to his life around? If the Gospels were written within this timeframe, as is widely believed, there would have been plenty of people around to protest any inaccuracies contained within, thus preventing it from becoming canonized.
- dk911, on 10/20/2007, -59/+9I don't know where us SCHMUCKS get off, but ASSHOLES like you love to get off by reciting how much better you think you are than us. Why? I really don't know, because as far as I know I'VE never tried to evangelize Christianity to you. So take your religion-hating rhetoric somewhere else. Maybe if you'd keep your opinions to yourself, instead of feeling like you have to personally convert me to your non-religion, I'd enjoy a dialog with you. But I don't... so move on.
- TheHydrogens, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33oh man, I don't know if that was meant to be satire, but it made me chuckle...
- Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -11/+29Converting someone to non-religion is like selling someone on the virtues of air. I could spend all day telling you about it, but you're already breathing it so, deep down, you already know.
- walkingdogs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19"Maybe if you'd keep your opinions to yourself"
Tell that to the states and school districts trying to indoctrinate our PUBLIC education system with the craziness that is Creationism. And tell that to the governments that are trying to deal with abortion and Gay rights based on their religious beliefs. - moofer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5God damn.
- timjim31, on 10/20/2007, -5/+19not all of us condemn gays
- murasako, on 10/20/2007, -8/+10Several New Testament references to homosexuality and it being a sin... let's see...
Romans
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Corinthians
6:9 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,- seventoes, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Might wanna look up. makes you look dumb.
- kriderkl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8So let me get this straight. According to the bible god is omniscient and knows everything before it ever happens. Thus he knew full well the Old Testament rules would not work and he still went ahead with them anyways? What is the point of putting into place a plan that he knows full well will not work. Either he is not omniscient (shown by the use of Jesus and changing the rules) or he is a sadistic prick who enjoyed knowing the Jews would screw up.
- kriderkl, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3So let me get this straight. According to the bible god is omniscient and knows everything before it ever happens. Thus he knew full well the Old Testament rules would not work and he still went ahead with them anyways? What is the point of putting into place a plan that he knows full well will not work. Either he is not omniscient (shown by the use of Jesus and changing the rules) or he is a sadistic prick who enjoyed knowing the Jews would screw up.
- snarfyboy, on 10/20/2007, -2/+6See my above comment on Romans.
Corinthians (and Timothy) is a bad translation - there really isn't a word in Greek that equates to homosexuality as we know it. Although there were some pretty close words. Paul didn't use them. - snarkleclackers, on 10/20/2007, -13/+3I have absolutely no problem with gay people. Only the sin.
- keane, on 10/20/2007, -3/+14I have absolutely no problem with christians. Only the stupid ***** they believe.
- weside, on 10/20/2007, -13/+68It's also in Romans, in the New Testament.
- Neiby, on 10/20/2007, -30/+124They still believe in the Old Testament. But they just pull out the Jesus excuse so they don't have to believe the parts that are inconvenient for them or that no longer fit into our culture.
- pevensen, on 10/10/2007, -8/+29Not really. Jesus himself declared all food clean. There is a difference between ceremonial law and moral law. Jesus fulfilled the latter (so Christians are no longer bound by it).
- Trocisp, on 10/10/2007, -10/+29Other than the fact that multiple times in the new testament it says to obey all the rules of the old?
- achortleaday, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1don't you mean former? or did you really want to say that Jesus fulfilled the moral law so that Christians need no longer be moral?
- snarfyboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Jesus never said all food is clean. In fact, Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the law would change until all had come to pass.
- crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If you believe that he rose from the grave then you believe that all has come to pass. We would now be living under the new law until the second coming of Christ.
- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The Law=Ten Commandments. Jesus also explicitly said that Moses made allowances for remarriage that were inappropriate, which were part of what you're calling the law, which would mean it couldn't have all been right in the first place. Not very workable logic.
- snarfyboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2@crawf: Jesus said it was until heaven and earth are no more. Is the earth gone?
@Phyltre: The Law of the Prophets Ten commandments. Indeed, the ten commandments is just a popular summary of many commandments. Never said the Bible was logical, by the way. Just pointing out that Christ himself never said you can eat anything you want. - crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lk.21:33 - " Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
Jesus's words are the foundation of the new law. So I guess I was wrong. We will be under the new law BEYOND the second coming of Christ, even after the earth is no more. Thanks for the clarification.
- timjim31, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8what ignorance... obviously you don't really understand christianity
- martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7You talk with an awful lot of certainty about something you clearly know little about.
1 Timothy 4:3-5 speaks to this exact subject: "These false teachers forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."
True, certain foods and various external actions were forbidden/required in the Old Testament, but they served the purpose of setting Israel apart from the other nations, as well as demonstrating the futility of a works-based salvation.
As Jesus Himself said, He did not come to abolish the Law (Old Testament), but rather fulfilled it. An external code of laws was no longer required, as Jesus provided the once-for-all sacrifice covering all who believe. - Ndiggnation, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9So, if everything that God says is infallible, why would he need to supercede his old Word and Convenant with a new one? Same goes for Islam.
- martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Allow me to grossly over-simplify this with an analogy:
When you were 14, it was illegal for you to drive. But now, assuming you're 16+, it's perfectly legal. This doesn't mean that it was a bad law back when you were 14... just the conditions have changed. When Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament law, the 'conditions' changed.
Obviously this analogy is far from perfect, but the point is that God was not mistaken. God had a purpose for the Old Testament laws (namely setting Israel apart, and demonstrating the futility of a work-based salvation), and when the purpose had been fulfilled, He introduced the New Covenant (NT laws). - Memnochxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5@martin
So then, it could be said that since the old testament needed to be changed that now the new testament does?
- martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Allow me to grossly over-simplify this with an analogy:
- pevensen, on 10/10/2007, -8/+29Not really. Jesus himself declared all food clean. There is a difference between ceremonial law and moral law. Jesus fulfilled the latter (so Christians are no longer bound by it).
- norman619, on 10/20/2007, -12/+50I call *****. Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God?
- pevensen, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Yes, and what is your point?
- threemagic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38God is infallible.. so why wasn't the word of god correct in the first place? why did he have to send make jesus so he could tell us what's correct and what's not?
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1There is actually an argumentative train of thought in reform Judaism about a learning, active, developing G-d who makes mistakes and does his best to fix them. The story of Job, Isaac, etc.
- Batfishy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You see? How convenient - the ever changing rules. And it is not the same as the ever evolving scientific method, which expects to refine and adapt its original theory or hypothesis.
- StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -5/+42God changed his mind, regarding the Law? As I recall, Evangelicals state that God never changes.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5Which is exactly why i disagree with most Christians. I am a Christian myself but I don't believe God is infallible. God makes mistakes. God feels regret sometimes. After Noah's flood God promised that he would never cause a global flood again. Really? Under no cercumstances would he cause a global flood? Even if man got just out of control as before? That to me almost certainly proves if there is a God he is capable of regret. And you can't be capable of regret and still be infallible. God changes just like people change.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12@TheTaoOfBill:
You are priceless. You call yourself Christian yet choose not to believe the teachings. Let me clue you into something. If you do not follow the teachings of the Christian Bible then you aren't Christian. You are making ***** up as you go along. Nothing wrong with that but I do ask that you be honest with yourself. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Making stuff up? It's in the Bible. God promised never to flood the earth again. That implies he regretted it. If you interpret it differently that's up to you. Frankly doesn't matter to me either way. The only important part of the bible to me is the parts where Jesus speaks. I am a christian because I follow the word of christ. That by definition is a Christian.
- SuperCUBE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6All of this is from the new testament... Corinthians, to be precise. "13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him"
- SuperCUBE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Thank you digg comment system for not putting my entire comment on here. Thanks a lot.
- Broelke4, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...
- pevensen, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Yes, and what is your point?
- uraliar, on 10/10/2007, -19/+13"Christians do not live by the old testament anymore." -- So it's ok now to be gay and/or wear woman's clothing? That's old testament stuff, and according to your argument, it's OK now. Jesus died so you could wear a dress. How comforting for you.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Not all Christians believe being gay is wrong. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. It was only mentioned after his death. It's very questionable when people start adding to the word of Christ after he died.
- dmgordon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Jesus wore a dress. As did everyone else at the time. :-P
- jbmicastorm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Frankly you are missing the point. But just to address your comment, homosexuality are forbidden in the New Testament as well.
- CaptMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -12/+75Christians don't live by Law of Moses from the Old Testament anymore? That's not what Jesus said...
Matthew 5:17-20
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
I think you broke the commandments and just taught others to do the same.- CaptMonkey, on 10/23/2007, -1/+28Sorry, I forgot verse 20 above...
"20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."- crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2it is all in context... he is talking to people alive at the same time that he was alive... thus under the old law. When he rose from the grave, the old testament was fulfilled thus beginning the era of the new law. This is basic Christian stuff guys.
- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Commandments=Ten Commandments. Otherwise this is directly contradictory because Jesus says that previous laws concerning marriage had inappropriate allowances, which would mean that more than a small letter was getting removed from what you're referring to as the Law. You can't have it both ways, that he teaches a new (and frankly, incompatible) message to the Old Testament but still keeps it in entirety.
- kriderkl, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1@crawf061
Were you there?
It is amazing the bible is literal when it fits your brand of Christianity and the opposite when it proves you sound like a dumb ass. - betterth, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2And yet you forget the most famous passage, John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son and whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but will have everlasting life".
It's simple. Belief that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected by the power of God three days later and you go to heaven. That's what they teach. Breaking the commandments is wrong, but it's inevitable. If you were unable to get into heaven for breaking one of the ten, then heaven would be empty.
At least, thats what they always told me in church when I was younger. :shrug: - crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@kriderkl
I was not there. Maybe he was talking to people NOT alive at the same time that he was alive. I guess I'm going to have to rely on logic for this one.
- glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5good job on that one.. i think i'm going to keep that handy every time a see a christian eating a shrimp.
- jlondon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yeah..but you left out the "these commandments."
He opens the sermon by saying you have to obey these commandments and then he lists them....Murder, Adultery, Divorce, Oaths, Eye for an Eye, and Love for your enemies.
It's all right there in Matthew 5.- martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I agree that if I looked at those 4 verses and disregard the rest of the passage/book/bible, I would have to come to the same conclusion as you. But some of the first rules of apologetics are to look at the context of a passage and at other related passages.
Interpretation of a passage should be dependent on the surrounding text, as well as other passages that speak clearly to the same subject. In light of the context and other related passages, I believe that the logical (and not all that complicated) explanation of the passage is what I previously posted.
- martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I agree that if I looked at those 4 verses and disregard the rest of the passage/book/bible, I would have to come to the same conclusion as you. But some of the first rules of apologetics are to look at the context of a passage and at other related passages.
- martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10That passage is the center of much debate with regards to following old testament laws. I would argue, however, that if you want to understand that passage, you need to keep reading. Immediately following, Jesus begins a series of "You have heard...., but I tell you...." statements. It would make no sense for Jesus to say "You have to follow all the Old Testament laws..." and then proceed to tell people to do differently.
The point that Jesus makes is that the law has not been abolished, but rather fulfilled. This fulfillment is key to understanding much of the New Testament. Jesus did not "override" everything that was said in the Old Testament, but instead Jesus Himself, as the pinnacle of redemptive history, fulfilled the demands of the Father. Instead of ritualistic sacrifices and external actions, Jesus' one time sacrifice "fulfilled" the need for the Old Testament laws.
Christians today follow commands that were given in the New Testament. Although at times these commands were restatements of what had already been given in the Old Testament, they serve a different purpose. They are not external actions by which we can achieve salvation, but rather they are commandments which further the sanctification and christ-likeness of His followers. - saltinekracka20, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1The "Law" is the 10 Commandments. Ive never met a Christian that believes they arent still supposed to be followed. Youre arguement is null and void.
- CaptMonkey, on 10/23/2007, -1/+28Sorry, I forgot verse 20 above...
- mr138, on 10/10/2007, -18/+51The bible is like LEGO's, you just kind of add and build what you like and get rid of what you don't. I used to play with LEGO's before I grew up, hopefully bible thumpers will also one day grow up.
- SuperCow1127, on 10/10/2007, -6/+55You don't grow out of Legos. Sorry. The Bible, maybe, but never Legos.
- xOKxWhy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I just had some slushie run out of my nose when I read that
- SuperCow1127, on 10/10/2007, -6/+55You don't grow out of Legos. Sorry. The Bible, maybe, but never Legos.
- CatalystGhost, on 10/10/2007, -15/+24If you Christians don't agree with the Old Testament, don't put it in your ***** Bible... seriously, are you that retarded... it can go as a separate book all it's own, but putting it in the Bible means you ***** BELIEVE it.
- therightside, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Uh are you kidding? You obviously have no idea what this discussion is about.
- Ndiggnation, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6While you've got a point, your method of expressing it leaves a little to be desired.
- phronko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Well, Godfather 3 sucked, but you still gotta buy it if you want the DVD box set.
- MrWally, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1We believe the old testament, when people here refer to the "Old Testament" they are specifically referring to the Torah, which is the Jewish Law (the first five books of the Old Testament).
- Muligan21, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Oh how I love the people who attempt to utilize scripture without having a clue of their context or application. If people really disagree so heavily with the Bible or with God you would think they would at least educate themselve with what they disagree. You would think people would consider their lives and everyone around them a little more... I guess it's more important to prove a point and protect their insecurities than be educated and strong in their own beliefs.
- HalfNakedPappy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Maybe they just spend their time learning science and leave the hocus-pocus part up to you.
- buckrogers1965, on 10/10/2007, -13/+15The first commandment of god is that "you shall have no other gods before me."
By putting Jesus before god you are breaking the first of the 10 commandments.
The second commandment is "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
How many Christians use a fish, or a cross, or the figure of Jesus on a cross? All of these violate the second commandment against worshipping idols.- WaterJake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Now that's just missing the point entirely
- klagdon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Jesus is part of the holy trinity, so he IS god. They cannot put Jesus before God as they are one in the same. The second commandment refers to false idols, those not representing the Christian god. The fish, crucifix etc are all representations of the Christian God.
I'm an atheist btw. Just pointing out the flaws in your logic.- urik88, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Isn't Jesus supposed to be the son of god? How can they be the same thing?
- kriderkl, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The word trinity is never mentioned once in the bible.
- crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1@urik88
Isn't ice the solid form of water? How can they be the same thing? - UniverseJDJ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Are you and your father the same person?
- mwmccullough, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2How about this one:
1 Corinthians 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."
Paul quotes Jesus as basically saying "do not associate with sinners". How's that for compassion.- macp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Actually if you actually read the chapter you would realize that Paul is not quoting Jesus, he is writing to the church in Corinth about issues in the congregation, specifically in this case about a man who was sexually immoral and the church was not doing anything about (he sleeps with his mother, 1 Corinthians Chapter 5, verse 1).
The idea here is that those that call themselves followers of Christ must act like it and be holy and to avoid people who CLAIM to be followers however are not acting like it. Try including the two verses before the one you quoted:
1 Cor 5:9-11:
"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy, and swindlers, or idolators. In that case, you would have to leave this world. But I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a BROTHER but is sexually immoral..."
So Paul isn't saying to avoid outsiders of the church who are sinful, but rather to not allow poser Christians amongst their midst. If you really want to contest that Jesus said not have compassion with sinners, look at Mark 2:15-17. Jesus is eating with sinners and gives the reason "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners." That sounds like he is coming to help the sinners. i.e. all of us.- mwmccullough, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Touche! Nice scriptural hold you've got there.
- cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@macp
What the ***** did Paul know? He was basically the Pat Robertson of the day according to tradition.
According to reality, he wasn't even a christian anyway. His real name was Apollonius and Constantine's cronies appropriated his story and his writings into christianity when they were constructing the "universal" religion from other religions of the day. You know that's what "catholic" means, right?
- macp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Actually if you actually read the chapter you would realize that Paul is not quoting Jesus, he is writing to the church in Corinth about issues in the congregation, specifically in this case about a man who was sexually immoral and the church was not doing anything about (he sleeps with his mother, 1 Corinthians Chapter 5, verse 1).
- mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I hope that you are not trying to say that modern Christians follow the teachings of Christ, because evangelicals do not follow the teachings of Christ. Christ wanted people to be nice to each other and to treat each other with respect even if they have committed sin. Condemning homosexuals (sinners according to the Bible), abortion (sinners according to church dogma but not the Bible), and people who do not believe as they do (sinners according to the Bible for some, church dogma for others), is contrary to the teachings of Jesus, so don't claim that modern Christians follow the teachings of Christ if you are including evangelicals, which are what is being discussed in this article. These "followers of Christ" physically attack, attempt to make illegal, and otherwise harass "sinners" instead of embracing them. Evangelicals do not follow the teachings of Christ!
- Batfishy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What if sinners don't want to be embraced? Who are you to embrace me for my sins?
I don't believe in your god, so really, I don't sin. But I have made mistakes in my life.
- Batfishy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What if sinners don't want to be embraced? Who are you to embrace me for my sins?
- askegg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I am so glad we can now ignore the OT. That gets rid of creation, the flood, the 10 commandments, and a whole bunch of other barbaric *****.
- SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the Old Testament is no longer valid, then stop trying to cram your "Creation" myth down our throats. The bible isn't a salad bar, so stop picking and choosing what you like and what you want to ignore.
- nblsavage, on 10/20/2007, -30/+150then where do you schmucks get off condemning gays? That comes from the old testament also.
- sparquay, on 10/10/2007, -29/+91It's not that we don't live by the Old Testament anymore, it's that the "Law" was given so that we'd understand what sin was and how much we need the mercy of God. God gave his mercy through the sacrifice of his own son, Jesus (fully human and fully God) so that we might have a way to live free from the Law, freed from our sin, and adopted as sons of God, just like Christ through his death. Given the Spirit to live a new life and do God's will. Read Romans some time. My favorite book.
It's understandable that many people who read the Bible to find out what it says dismiss it because of the first few books. It's a shame it's so misunderstood and misquoted so much. And so-called Christians do a good job of disproving it themselves by how they live.
But more than likely this will fall on deaf ears who will shut it down as fundamental fairy tale poppycock.- glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -28/+22What a schizophrenic ***** your god is.
- Applo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is by far one of the funniest things I've ever read out loud for some reason lol.
- cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No *****. God creates fallible humans and then blames them for being fallible. If there is a god, she's female.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -21/+18It's that you guys have modernized your views of social interaction and ignore parts of your religious book's teachings becasue you know how backwards those passages are. You could at least be honest with us. God doesn't like a liar....
- leadingzero, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13In all honesty sparguay is right. Even Jesus and the new testament believers didn't follow all the old testament laws by the letter. We aren't compromising our beliefs. It's a genuine new covenant.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14So God felt he was wrong in the first book and released Bible v2.0?
- cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So when Jesus told people to "keep the commandments" he was wrong?
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Smells like a convenient steamy pile to me.
- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5 Yup.
"who will shut it down as fundamental fairy tale poppycock.."
That's because it IS" fundamental fairy tale poppycock.."
At least you do understand we no more believe the bible is based on facts than Humpty Dumpty is based on a real egg who was a thinking and feeling person.
- leadingzero, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13In all honesty sparguay is right. Even Jesus and the new testament believers didn't follow all the old testament laws by the letter. We aren't compromising our beliefs. It's a genuine new covenant.
- glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18no really. do angels have free will?
- Webler707, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10No.
- glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14then lucifer is god
- scallon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Holy *****. That is quite possibly the best religious argument i have heard in a long time.
After all he killed what? Like 10 people. Last tally on God was like 1.3 million? - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1that's an often overlooked concept: satan can only do what god wills.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10There can be no free will with the existance of an omnipotent god. The god knows everything past, present, and future. Knows ALL of your life choices before you are even born. How the hell is that free will?
- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Since when does omnipotence equal omniscience? And are you implying that just because God could do something, that he's going to do it? Or that an omnipotent being would automatically know the totality of the future? Even assuming future omniscience, just because something is predictable doesn't mean you personally were involved in the outcome. I can predict the actions of others without causing them to act as I predict.
- noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3phyltre - god is also all knowing. meaning that god doesn't predict what others will do, he knows for absolute certainty. if god absolutely knows today what i'm going to choose for breakfast in three weeks, i have no way of choosing something else as if i do and god didn't know, he's fallible. since god is infallible, the choice i'll make for breakfast in three weeks is already guaranteed and therefore i have no way of choosing otherwise.
- expertninja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The problem with your thoughts here are as such: an omnipotent, omnipresent god may know all of our choices before we do, however, he/she/it does not guide them. We retain free will because we can make decisions that do not please god, though he/she/it may know we'll make such decisions, god does not stop us.
- Parthymon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Expertninja, there is yet another problem with your reasoning. Let's say that's true, that he knows everything that we're going to do but doesn't "guide our decisions." For one, you don't understand the original premise. If god KNOWS i'm going to go outside and take a left, the possibility doesn't even exist for me to do otherwise, thus I can only take one path. Couple that with the fact that god has created everything and is thus, the origin of me, the door, the word left, etc. Free will = make any choice you want. What you are trying to say is Free Will = Make any choice as long as it is left. He can't not influence our choice because we don't have any.
- Webler707, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10No.
- tedhead2k, on 10/10/2007, -23/+6You're absolutely right, and then all of digg jumps the bash-religion bandwagon, never having any idea how misrepresented Christianity is on Digg... sigh.
- glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7Why would you worship a god who chose who would be saved and who would spend eternity in hell? Ephesians 1:4 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight"
Sure sounds like a jerk to me- sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2God did not chose who would go to hell. He chose for all of us to be holy and blameless in his sight. It would be our actions that we did with free will that determine our fate. If you are going to try to prove a point with a scripture, at least pick something that doesn't say the exact opposite of what you are trying to say.
- buckrogers1965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I do the same thing to programs that I write that misbehave. I send them to purgatory, a disk that has a lot of bad sectors and stuck bits as punishment.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4@sacherjj
Then what the ***** is up with original sin and baptism? If everyone is blameless and holy, then why are newborn children already supposedly born with a mortal sin on their record? - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2if god didn't know that people were going to hell - and more specifically who was going to hell - before he made people and hell, then god wouldn't be all knowing. since god has always been all knowing, he created the universe specifically knowing who was going to hell and yet he still made it so that they'd be going there. if hell is as nasty as people make it out to be, that means god knowingly created existence knowing that some of his own creation would suffer eternal damnation. that sounds pretty messed up...
- Visnik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What tedhead2k and ryansmith18, and sacherji are missing is that most diggers are simply saying, extreme, is dangerous. Most religious individuals no matter the religion are extreme, they have to be, to look at fact, history, science and logic and disregard it for something called a belief. Sure I can believe you are good person, I can believe I am a millionaire, but if you kill someone or I make just over minimum wage with no investments, well those beliefs are a little irrational, but beliefs none the less. I am not saying those who believe something or believe is god or religion is a killer, don't mis- interpret all I am saying is simply, a belief is a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. A belief does not make it so.
Simply put, as a non believer in religion and god, I would have to say, “don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining". I place no trust in that statement as it is false, piss is not rain, and bad things are not going to happen if I don’t agree with you.
The largest part of conducting a rational conversation with extremes is that they don't like to hear differing views, generally because they conflict what the extremist want to "believe" and what he/she knows deep down is right. We've all heard it said, “the truth hurts”.
Sacherjj you state “Not all Islamic are Extremists. Not all Christians are Extremists.” Well the definition of extreme is: going to great or exaggerated lengths. I would have to say, believing is an entity or existence of a god as a controlling, knowing and omnipotent force with free will is extreme no matter the religion.
Once again he largest part of conducting a rational conversation with extremes is that they don't like to hear differing views, generally because they conflict what the extremist want to "believe" and what he/she knows deep down is right. We've all heard it said, “the truth hurts”. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4How can we "misrepresent" Christianity when we use your very own religious book to point out the problems/contradictions in your own religion and how most Christians choose to practice today? It's the book who's teachings you are supposed to be following but most choose to cherry pick.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I am fully aware of what's in Bible v1.0 and Bible v2.0 and if you Christians followed your books faithfully and honestly you'd be just as crazy as the fanatical Islamists we are so worried about today.
- glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7Why would you worship a god who chose who would be saved and who would spend eternity in hell? Ephesians 1:4 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight"
- FortyCaliber, on 10/10/2007, -14/+23All things are created by God. Concepts and ideas are things of Man, since Man is creation of God, ergo, God created all concepts and ideas.
Sin is a development of Man. Since Man is a creation of God, ergo, God created Sin.
God decrees Sin "bad." Since Sin is bad, and a product of man, and God made Man, ergo, God made the "bad" thing.
But, since God is perfect, and in that perfection, ergo, sin is not bad. Except... God has been "punishing" for these sins since the dawn of time.
So the problem therein lies: How can a perfect being create something so wrong when He is apparently perfect. Well, apparently, He isn't. See in all things perfect, perfection is neither mired nor muddled: Perfect just is.
"That is why God gave us free will..." Fine, but in creating it, He knew the outcome and repercussions, He is after all, perfect. And, Omniscient. He intentionally created a bad thing to punish his creations.
But when Michael Vick does what he does, it's not okay.
(I do not condone the actions of Michael Vick OR the Christian teachings.)- Webler707, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I am not a fan of modern Christians either. I think that the thought is that when h(H)e breathed life into Adam(sp?) the soul thing happened and sin is actually gift from above to help man mature. Or something, fancy jargon really.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You don't know how to spell "Adam"? Crikey!
- mattbatt77, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"All things are created by God. Concepts and ideas are things of Man, since Man is creation of God, ergo, God created all concepts and ideas."
uh, ergo this: since when is the Creator not sufficient enough to give the created the ability to create for themselves? (Procreation?) Hence, responsibility?
We chose an action and then live with that action instead of blaming our parents because of what they did or didn't do when raising us. Maybe we can stop blaming God for all of our problems (when in actuality those who blame Him don't even believe He exists nor spend time to rightfully listen to those who believe).- bullhead2007, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3This is a logical fallacy. God didn't raise us, and our parents arent all knowing omnipotent beings. God made the rules and then created us with the inability to be sinless in his eyes.
Every Christian believes every man, except Jesus, sins. This means God did not really give us free will. There are many other logical arguments that nullify the possibility that the Christian god intended free will. It's like saying "Hey Matt I'm giving you free speech, but if you don't speak the way I want you to I'll torture you for eternity once I get my hands on you." I don't see that as love, compassion, or free.
Besides let's look at the Adam and Eve story. God creates the garden of Eden. God places the forbidden tree in the garden. God creates and places the deceptive serpent in the Garden. God creates man without the ability to know right from wrong. God conveniently "sleeps" (not omnipotent if you need to rest) for a day and on that very day this evil serpent tricks the woman Eve into eating a forbidden fruit which would give them the knowledge of good and bad.
If knowing right from wrong was a bad idea and a sin, then obviously god didn't create us with free will in mind. Not only that but he set the very trap that he must have known would lead us to commit an eternal sin that would lead our species down a path of violence, sin, and war. He didn't forgive Adam and Eve for making a mistake that they could'n't have possibly understood was wrong. If you go by Genesis they were as naive as newborns. God told them it was wrong but they couldn't understand wrong from right until they ate the fruit!
God then kicks them out of paradise because they fell for his clever trap, and declares that women will for the rest of time suffer tremendously from child birth, and that women shall be servants to men (man will be their masters).
Of course I'm an Atheist so it doesn't matter what God in the old testiment or new testiment say. I have free will beca
- bullhead2007, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3This is a logical fallacy. God didn't raise us, and our parents arent all knowing omnipotent beings. God made the rules and then created us with the inability to be sinless in his eyes.
- Webler707, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I am not a fan of modern Christians either. I think that the thought is that when h(H)e breathed life into Adam(sp?) the soul thing happened and sin is actually gift from above to help man mature. Or something, fancy jargon really.
- glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -28/+22What a schizophrenic ***** your god is.
- therightside, on 10/20/2007, -72/+163But if she read the rest of the Bible she would realize that Christians do not live by the old testament anymore. That was the point of Jesus, which is a major part of the Bible and kind of makes your argument stupid. How could you read the Bible without reading about Jesus?