Christianity is a false religion

How come you have the authority to say what the spirit of that commandment is?
Then you come out with 'if you really sought out Gods word' as if no 'seeking' is valid unless it aligns with yours.
If you were really a kind moral person you would not kill and eat animals.
Anybody can play your game of saying something is so only if you agree with me.

 

The only way to interact with this is to tell you that you have a very narrow view of Christianity. I don't think there's a whole lot of point in debating it.

 

Where is the 'people' amendment?

One of you goes on about the so called correct translation, and another doesn't worry about that because they say you have to look at the spirit of what is meant.
Make up you minds Christian people.

 

In the word murder. You can't murder a chicken.

So you want them all to think alike? You know each individual Christian person has their own mind the fact that the beliefs aren't uniform across all people profess them make sense. You wouldn't want them to be all alike anyway I would make them a cult and much more powerful than you. Likely to the point of legislating this sort of thing.

So essentially you're saying all you individuals you need to be a hive mind for this to be legitimate which is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

 

Ignoring Revelations for the moment, the acts we see are the acts of man. Religions are organizations of humans. As such, they are not (and can't be) so perfect that it's impossible for them to be used as you note has happened. In fact, religious organizations can hold whatever beliefs they want and name themselves as they want.

There is a long list of Christian denominations that accept same sex members, marry them, etc. And, there are others that oppose LGBTQ with whole hearted opposition both in their religion, in government, and in life. So, I'm not sure what your point is with LGBTQ.

 

I'm pretty sure that if God was talking about what to eat, that he would have mentioned it.

 

You seek out God's Word by comparing it with other scripture, researching the Greek and Hebrew, with a real desire to know what God speaks. You do not do that. Are you preaching to the coyotes yet? If you were a kind and moral person you would!

 

Nobody can be that sure of whether there is no god. Let's remember that agnostics behave as atheists - they have no other choice. And, neither is somehow immune from the presentation of convincing evidence.

In other words, I don't believe there is a significant difference in terms of real life. Do you know of one?

That sounds good, but I think it is misleading.

The importance of belief or lack of belief in god comes in terms of where one derives guidance, philosophy, motivation, etc.

The minute you say I have a belief, you HAVE TO expect that I have a motivation in this direction you have assigned.

But, atheism doesn't suggest a motivation, a sources of philosophy, a method of reasoning, or anything else like that.

We've seen that in this thread, as @yabberefugee assumed (I hope that's changed) that since I'm an atheist I must be motivated to attack Christianity. There are others who think that since I'm an atheist I have other objectives, or that I have zero morality or ethics, or whatever else they assume.

But, atheism doesn't identify objectives, motivations, sources of philosophy, etc. It doesn't identify any of that.

Saying someone believes in god DOES identify at least some of those elements. Belief in the Christian god is NOT neutral - Jesus ordered Christians to be ACTIVE.

Atheism is passive. If YOU decided to agree with atheism, you would get NOTHING but a blank slate from which to start figuring out your life.

 

So is it passive atheism that wants to take down crosses or silence the mention of God in public places?

 

This idea is a central error, in your thinking. Many people feel quite confident, that belief in God is only a weakness of mind. I have seen an interview, on one of the late night talk shows, with a person who had written a book, in fact, explaining the "fact" that there is no God, and condescendingly laughing at the simple mindedness, of any who believed in such nonsense. But one can see a similar attitude, among some, even on our forum. Where you get the impression that no one is sure of God's nonexistence, I have no idea.

 

Once again, beliefs have to be active. They have to say something about what you do, what motivates you, where you find philosophy, how you derive principles of ethics and morality, etc.

Atheism does NONE of those things.

If you believe in the all mighty dollar, in god, in whatever else, that belief is a STRONG statement of what you do, where you find meaning, etc., etc.

In that sense, atheism CAN NOT be considered a "belief" - let alone a religion.

Atheism is a flat out nothing-burger. If you switch to atheism, what you get is a blank slate.

 

Well, they are undoubtedly atheists, right???

But, atheism did not tell them to do that. They are just profoundly befuddled by our constitution, by principles of legality, morality, etc.

Christians do crap, too. So do those of other religions.

As for "public places", there are legitimate American principles concerning how public space may be used. EVERYONE should support that such principles exist.

 

This is all side-issue, to the central question of whether one believes in:
A) the certainty of a God;
B) the possibility of God being either truth, or fiction; or
C) that reality is strictly & exclusively defined, by what we accept as scientific fact. Granted, there is a bit of inconsistency, in that last position, because such people do recognize, at least, that there are things we have yet to discover. But atheists draw a line between speculations that are based on known physics, or theoretical physics, or things which can be validated mathematically, which they will consider as credible, and any speculation about a Supreme Being, which they typically relegate to belief in a "man in the sky." Their attitude towards belief in God, is similar to the way many, for a long time, thought about UFOs (and the way some still do), and thought about any people who are credulous enough, to believe in them.

 

Yes, there are rude people all over the place.

If Jesus showed up and rang that guy's doorbell, he'd change his mind. Fact.

So, the only real issue is how much evidence is necessary for him. Plus, maybe he should make his dollars in some other manner than being a professional ass.

 

Science doesn't (and doesn't claim to) have an answer concerning the existence of a supreme being. Science is based on observation and testing. God can't be tested. As seen in the link I gave to Dr. Sean Carroll's talk on origins, extending beyond what is testable (theoretical physics) the possibility of God's involvement can be discussed in science, but no "answer" is going to be found there.

There are many Christians in all the sciences. They need to follow the same rules of science that other scientists follow, obviously.

I don't see this as a big problem. Sometimes we see things like "intelligent design", but things work themselves out over time - which is the best science can do.

 

The commandment does not necessarily imply murder of a person. I think you might need to re-examine that.
As for what you think I am saying, you're wrong. What I am saying is that Christians that kill and eat animals are hypocrites. But as you say people are not uniform, and some people of whatever faith are vegetarians and vegans.

 

Wasn't this God fellow talking to Moses about life and death?

 

You are doing nothing more, here, than
stating the obvious, and confusing the issue, in your non sequitur response. Also, you are needlessly retreading old ground, which I and I'm sure many others, have already been over, with you. What "science doesn't" or does do, is irrelevant to the question of anyone's spiritual beliefs which, FYI, is the topic of our conversation.

You are, inexplicably, translating my point about what any person believes vis a vis God's existence, or the possibility thereof, to be speaking about science. Can you make sense of your equating of those two, totally separate things? If one does not, privately, entertain thoughts of the possibilities of anything which is not scientifically verifiable, then that equates to denying the possibility of God's existence; making that person, therefore, an atheist. But if that person's attitude is that they acknowledge, for example, it is not provable that a Divine Essence created our universe, yet they do not discount the possibility that this may be, in fact, the truth of the matter, then, their noncommittal position, makes them an agnostic.

That litmus is as clear as day. Your refusal to address it, in favor of going off on tangents, about scientific method (which are enlightening to no one), only gives readers cause to doubt the sincerity of your argument-- just to give you the 411, if you did not recognize this.

 

How about Aramaic or Latin?
Buddhist scripture says you should not eat animals, where does that sit in your scholarly panoply?
What have Coyotes got to do with it?

 

No I am not. Both religion and philosophy are based on beliefs. Beliefs run both ways. You can believe something is true, or you can believe something is false. The only other possibility is to believe that you do not have enough evidence to make the decision. And a religious belief system is just that a system of beliefs. Atheism is not a belief system, per se', but I would put it close it it too comprises of multiple beliefs that can vary. For example, a atheist can believe that Jesus was an actual man and historical figure, but believe that he was not the "Son of God". Those are two different beliefs. You can combine many beliefs into an overall, such as one's belief that there are no gods. That belief comprises both the belief about all the gods one knows about (in the sense that they have been mentioned to one), as well as the general belief that covers any potential deity another may reveal to them for the first time.

No it's not false. You cant help but have a belief. We all have them. Once exposed to any idea, a belief on that idea forms. When you hear about the deity Tonlyn you automatically form an belief that either Tonlyn is real, Tonlyn is false, or that you don't have enough information to decide which. You can call it opinion if you wish, but an opinion is still just a belief about something.

No it doesn't. What is the motivation in the belief that unicorns are not real? Beliefs exists whether or not they have a motivation or a sense of direction or whatever. That which you cannot prove, you hold a belief about.

You can believe that (see what I did there?), but that's does hold true. If there is a source of direction then it's an internal source of self that drives the belief that deities do not exist.

That is still based on some belief about the nature of deities and religions, including that such do not exist or are made up.

It also does include what they are. To say that one believes in unicorns (making an example and also noting that believing in something is not the same as worshiping it) means that one believes that unicorns are real. To say that one does not believe in unicorns, means that they believe that unicorns are not real. It is still a belief. That belief may not work in the same manner or towards the same purpose, but it is a belief nonetheless.

 

DEFinning, YOU were the one who brought up science in the post I responded to.

Remember that science is a methodology that doesn't have the capability of answering questions about god. The body of scientists of the world includes representatives from every view of good. Remember that science and religion are separate in that they don't share fundamental premises or methodology.

I'm astonished at how much effort you put into somehow "proving" me wrong about my own view of god - even on the totally pointless distinction between atheism and agnosticism.

 

Coyotes eat meat. This thread is about Christianity so I'll stick with that. Buddha did not give his life so I could live.....Jesus did that for me.

It seems Jesus told a parable about a wayward son that squandered away his inheritance and left home. When he finally returned home, the father saw him from far away he was so overjoyed that he ran to greet him! That is a parable Jesus used to tell us how overjoyed He will be when we finally turn from our evil ways and come home to Him. Jesus went on in the parable that the man instructed his servants to "kill the fatted calf" and prepare a feast in celebration. Does that repulse you that my Lord would use that analogy? To eat meat in celebration of those that return home after drifting away?? Well again I will say, if you want to talk about Jesus, do a little homework. Ask God to show you what it means before you bandy it about.
I will add, I have a Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew dictionary. No use for Latin.

 

yes it does. If I slay a chicken to eat it slush that isn't murder if I slay a person to eat their flesh and that is.

If you think murder applies to anything but people you are using an esoteric meaning of the word.

I don't think I need three examine that murder in this context refers to killing people.

I understand this I just think it's moronic. Animals are lower life forms most of which only existed because we cultivate them specifically to be slain and eaten that's not murder. You can't murder an animal that isn't human. The word for that is slaughter.

So what, be vegan or vegetarian I don't care. Vegans don't have to adhere to my beliefs and I don't have to adhere to theirs.

 

Exactly. Atheism is not a belief system.

It's true that atheism isn't consistent with the Christian view, which is predicated on there being a god.

But, there are LOTS of people who reject the Christian view, who are doing so based on their personal favorite alternative religious beliefs. They reject Christianity because they are adherents of Judaism, or Islam, or ??

Atheism ISN'T an alternative. Atheism is a blank slate. If you decide to be an atheist, you don't get squat for guidance, motivation, philosophy, ethics, etc.

All you get is a blank slate. You get NO answers. You get NO directives.

The difference is that whatever those beliefs are, it ISN'T atheism. Remember? Atheism is a blank slate.

No, the view that there is no god is NOT a motivation of ANY belief system.

Like your unicorn example. My view on unicorns and god is that they don't exist. Thus neither gets consulted in forming a belief system or motivation or whatever.

This is the same problem. No atheist consults the absence of god. You can't consult the absence of something.

Yes. But, that's just a problem with English.

A belief in god is just nowhere similar in ANY respect to denying that there is a god.

One provides so much framework concerning how to live ones life, what one should be doing, etc.

The other is a blank slate. It is a vacuum. Put another way, you have NO idea what an atheist believes. All you know is one individual factoid.

A blank slate isn't a belief. It's what exists BEFORE there is a belief.

 

What does Buddhist scripture have to do with Christianity?