Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I was gonna post about this yesterday.

While looking up the Easter articles on Wikipedia over the week for a project, I've encountered a few of the typical atheist vandals who blank the article and write something like "I'm atheist, Christians suck, woot!" That's expected, but it doesn't make me any happier.

What got me really angry is the War on Easter that I stumbled across while lookin up this stuff. I am not making this up.

First, a little background, so you know why this pisses me off: Does the name "Brian Flemming" ring a bell with any of ya'll? He's a militant atheist who has created the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There," that purports to prove Jesus never existed and Christianity is a lie. Problem is, that documentary has been proven to be little more than atheist Michael Moore-type propaganda-umentary; historian critics have shot it full of holes, so to speak, demonstrating that Flemming has a dismal grasp of history and got quite a few important things wrong.

Liberal and conservative Christians, as well as agnostic reviewers, have all slammed the documentary for being little more than militant atheist fanservice. (Which would explain why his documentary's advertisements are plastered all over atheist websites) I don't want to see it at all, but I've been told that Flemming goes on anti-religious rants throughout that documentary instead of, you know, doing what a documentary should do.

In fact, it seems that Flemming is really, REALLY self-important. From what I understand, he created an article for his documentary on Wikipedia, and led an atheist's holy war to keep it on there when Wikipedians tried to delete it--that is to say, he was making a lot of noise and calling upon atheists to defend the article from votes for deletion, etc.

From things I've seen in the past, other atheists pleaded Flemming to stop, that he was making all atheists look bad with his actions. Between his Wiki-behavior and the documentary I'm inclined to agree.

Okay, now you know about Flemming and his flick. Now here's what's going on: Flemming has organized this "War on Easter" campaign in which he and his so-called "Rational Response Squad" were spreading copies of his documentary around Christian churches, especially where kids are easter egg hunting and will be likely to find the copies. Included in this campaign is advertisements for his documentary saying "HAPPY EASTER FROM THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE!" This is all part of his campaign to "demonstrate" that religion is harmful to society.

What appears to be one of Flemming's squaddies also created an article on Wiki about it, then edited the main Easter article, listing it as a criticism of Easter (WTF?).

So let me get this straight ... trying to further the myth that belief in God automatically hardens your heart and mind, doing this with a so-called "rational response squad," trying to target kids with a documentary full of historical inaccuracies and fallacies, is somehow okay, rational, and tolerant?

The thing that makes me really sad is that I noticed evidence of a struggle over this article--people who edited out requests for delition because it's "anti-atheist" to delete said article, or that it's censorship. Am I to understand these guys believe anti-religion and atheism are hand in hand, and that trying to stomp anti-religious BS by promoting religious tolerance is persecution of atheists?

Perhaps the saddest thing of all--according to Flemming himself this event really caught on, and he was having a hard time keeping up with the so-called "battle reports" from people spreading his documentary everywhere.

_________________

Good to remember that there are idiots from both extremes and everywhere inbetween.

Agreed--I hope I'm not giving the impression I'm equating ALL atheists with Brian Flemming and his goons, though.

_________________

People lke that can really make me angry. What's their problem? It's like their life is not complete until everyone knows their name and viewpoint and agrees with them. They value the right to have freedom of religion - in their case, none - yet they try to force theirs onto others. It's pretty sad.

I know a lot of Atheists, and none of them try to shove their beliefs down my throat. This guy really ticks me off, and sends an extremely negative, and usually extremely false, picture of Atheists. This guy is like, an Atheist version of Westboro Baptist Church...

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

You have to put Brian Flemming in context.

He was a kid who went to a fundie Christian school and was brought up in that faith, and had a bit of a backlash that turned him against it all shortly thereafter. He made a movie called The God Who Wasn't There, a Super-Size Me style documentary-ish film positing that Jesus never existed.

While I never promote evangelism or throwing your beliefs all over, I find it incredibly amusing that he gets so much focus considering his efforts are on a far smaller scale than guys like Pat Robertson, Phelps, Falwell, and the others who will shove Christianity at everyone who'll listen.

I suppose you could call him the counterbalance, there to give religious crazies the same they give us (note for the slow: that's an indictment of just the crazies, not the religious).

_________________

Two wrongs do not make a right.



All of those guys started out small, too. And well, Phelps' "church" is probably about as big as Flemming's Irrational Response Squad is, given that this "War on Easter" BS is so popular.

I see advertisements for his Moore-umentary with disturbing frequency, and NOT on atheist websites (those are a given). People are buying into the lies and falsehoods, just like you get the fanatic Moore fans who pointedly ignore the glaring, gaping holes in his facts.

_________________

It does speak a lot about the full range of human thought..... that there militant atheists who damn Easter as a Christian fallacy, and that there are Christian fundementalists who damn Easter as a pagan festival - like these people here. Almost hilarious.

It's amazing what people like Flemming do to get publicity, and it's amazing that there people who might actually believe him.

But... but... the Colbert Report isn't supposed to become real.



Ah, so he's a "same game, different name" convert. It's funny how the people raised in one extreme often rebel by going to the other, even if it's just as obnoxious or even more so.

_________________

As a note, I own Flemming's "The God Who Wasn't There". While it can't be considered a definitive resource by any means, it's provocative, well-done for the first half, and opened me up to more research than I've done on any single subject before in my life. I've probably spent 100 hours or so looking into the Jesus puzzle thanks to that film. Read a few books, checked out the Bible itself, talked to some priests and a few historians.

Say what you will of the content itself in GWWT, it will open your eyes and forces you to research in order to find out if what you see is really the case.

Also, I like the "moore-umentary" comment like that's going to make me shy away from it. Michael Moore made a very error-ridden film by the name of "bowling for columbine", but even the republican party's best attempt to refute F9/11 (Fahrenhype 9/11, cute no?) was pathetic and just amounted to a few guys sitting around talking about the movie, offering no real proof to speak of.

Also, I'd take Michael Moore over Anne Coulter any day. Moore may be biased (which he certainly is) and of course he presents the facts in a way to promote his beliefs, but unlike Anne he doesn't just make stuff up randomly. Her books literally are full of errors and lies. Moore, at his worst in F9/11, was biased.

_________________

Another stalwart defender of Michael Moore.

Please read this thread (at least the initial post) and then come back with concrete arguments or rebuttals.

Clicky.

Thanks.

Oh, and to paint the toast, you may want to offer your response in that threat instead of here.

I've seen this argument before in arguments about Michael Moore; the "wake-up call" defense of Moore-umentaries. Over Farenheight 9/11, a guy from the U.K. said "No matter how dishonest Moore's films are, they are still a necessary wake up call for Americans, that encourages them to question their president instead of blindly following him." (That in itself is a pretty biased assumption of Americans and their political beliefs ... )

My response to that was: Trying to counter lies with more lies does nothing but harm.

I went on to say that documentaries that intentionally mislead and misinform its viewers don't wake most people up or open their eyes, it forces their eyes shut with the super-glue of misinformation disguised as "the truth." Granted, some viewers might investegate the claims for themselves, as you said you have with GWWT, but I've noticed a lot of people parading that documentary around like it was the undeniable truth, that every thing in the documentary is absolutely right, that Flemming is a hero of atheism and rationality.

I seriously doubt Brian Flemming had "I want people to seriously investegate their faith and learn more about it" when he made GWWT. In fact, I think it was more like "I want to be like Michael Moore and have tons of fans who hang on my every word! !" He saw how Moore's strategy made him a celebrity, and got to blind quite a few people, and he's likely trying to emulate that style. Unfortunately, he's succeding.

Documentaries which deliberately try to mislead and misinform fool gullible people into thinking it's the truth. Skeptics and critics of a documentary might be compelled to look into the claims to see if they're real, but in the end it creates blind fanatics for those who think the director couldn't possibly be wrong.



It won't shy away fans of Michael Moore. They'll just flock to it.



A lot of politically neutral organizations--not just conservatives, but groups like Spinsanity that expose lies on both sides of the spectrum--have bashed Michael Moore's doumentaries as misleading, fallacious, and outright wrong.

And you can't call Spinsanity a right-wing organization for bashing Michael Moore when they've published a book about George Bush's own spin and misinformation.

In a similar context, I've read a few reviews and criticisms of GWWT by people of various perspectives. Aside from the ra-ra atheists, an anti-religious agnostic (chew on THAT one for a while) who constantly reminds readers of the joy he finds in toying with religious people, brands GWWT as an "artistic film" done in Moore's style that is hard to call a documentary.

Conservative Christian bashes are to be expected, but I recently came across a point-by-point refutation of Flemming's documentary written from the perspective of a self-identified 'moderate Christian.'

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... alysis.htm

Interestingly enough, he's made similar observations about reactions to the movie:



I'd go see this movie myself to get a better idea of just what is said, but I fear if I do I'll pop a few veins in anger just from what I've periphially read on what Flemming says and does, from looking up the various reviews.

_________________

I agree, being one myself. And Trev-Mun, you've given me a slightly less than warm impression more than once...

(Also, saying that Jesus Christ didn't exist is like saying 2 + 2 = 5. It's idiotic.)

I have to agree. Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed were all in my World History book, and i believe that they all existed at one time or another. I mean, if Jesus didn't exist, then why do we have Christianity? I personally have more of a scientific view on his miracles, however, but that doesn't mean he's BS. In fact, I think his lessons and teachings are way more important than his miracles. The only thing that still confuses me is how did he come back to life, so I'll need to look into things.

Anyway, to toastpaint this topic again, I've watched "Super Size Me" in Health and there is a fact I can say: Houston and Chicago were the 1st and 2nd fattest in the nation at one point (I love watching the news).So even though many movie documentaries are riddled with lies, there are the rare truths, however small. So there might be a subtle truth or two in Flemming's documentary. Not saying there is, since I haven't seen it, I'm just saying there's a possibility.

But as I stated before, if Jesus didn't exist, then why is there Christianity? Random people can't just make a religion just like that; usually it has to have a "chosen one" that'll have God call to them and tell them things to pass down to the people or that person, after years of deep thinking creates a philosophy of life that becomes popular to people in that area.

This guy can't just be going around and saying Christ never existed because of his personal beliefs. He needs to go to a library, research until his eyes glaze over twice and then make an informed decision for himself or tell people his opinion instead of forcing it.

However, atheists complaining that religious tolerance is persecution to them is confusing. Religious or not, everybody could use some. Tolerance means that people don't persecute people who believe in other things, so religious tolerance meaning atheist persecution makes no sense. Religious people who are tolerant aren't trying to make different or non-religious people follow theirs.

Anyway, I'm sure this ramble doesn't make any sense, so if I strayed too much... toastpaint'd! Again!

_________________

And because he's the Atheist version of Fred Phelps, he should be paid attention to just as much...meaning not at all...unless he starts physically hurting people, at which point we can throw his rear end in jail.

Really....people like this are just SO stupid and beyond reason that there's no point trying to waste any breath over them. Let them go through life full of delusions.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Eh. I've tried ignoring zealots of any flag before--atheist, theist, whatever their beliefs were.

I've found that if you leave them unchallenged they will use their fallacies to corrupt others, and turn them to their line of thinking. I mean really, if people spread nasty, bald-faced lies about you personally, and you did nothing to refute them, people would just keep spreading it and spreading it ...

I mean, we ARE living in the Information Age, where information (or misinformation as it were) are some of the most powerful weapons a person can wield.

Brian Flemming isn't alone in his intolerant endeavors--Richard Dawkins has done similar things, trying to prove that belief in God and religion are mental illnesses, and in his own shows he tends to equate all religious folk with the craziest, nastiest people to try and prove his point.



I can only assume you're saying this because you think I'm hypocritical, that (in your opinion) despite my openly saying I have no prejudice towards atheists in general I still am prejudiced because of how I've reacted to you.

Well, you're one to talk about less than warm impressions. I pointed out to you before that some of your first posts here were rather snarky, and even obnoxious.

_________________

Sorry, but religion IS harmfull to society.
You might say it brings order to society (it doesn't, but you're probably gonna say that); I say it brings stupidity, intolerence, war, injustice, ignorance, blind faith, and a whole host of other evils.

_________________

Actually, Sarge, you're once again spouting off about things without adequate justification for doing so, and in the process, actually proving Trev's point. You are acting with the same blind prejudice and ignorance that you falsely accuse us of.

_________________

The sad thing is, I don't think Sarge even cares to read responses to his ignorant ranting--or even cares to read what the topic about. He just sees some topic dealing with religion and goes "Oooh! Time to call religion the true evil!"

What is this, the second time Sarge has gone and posted a "I hate religion it's the cause of all problems in the world and religious people are blindly ignorant" in a thread that has a specific topic?

_________________

Who's "us"?
And what part of religion breeding stupidity, intolerence, war, injustice, ignorance, and/or blind faith do you wish to take issue with?
Be sure to phrase your response correctly: As you say, I'm an ignorant blind prejudiced false accuser, so I might not understand you unless you talk slow and use words I understand.

_________________

For those of you who don't speak "Crybaby" here's what the above means:
"Whaaaaaaaa! Sarge wrote something I don't agree with so I'll call him names and accuse him of being off topic!"
Again, nobody's atempting to refute what I said. That's two for two.
Care to make it three in a row?

_________________

Breeding stupidity - I am a very educated person. I hold a Bachelor of the Arts in Humanities and Biblical Studies. I graduated at the top of my class with a 3.91 GPA. I also have a Master of Divinity. I have studied Greek and Hebrew so that I can translate the Scriptures from their original languages. I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has an extensive history of supporting education, from grade school to colleges and universities. It seems to me that, with this type of emphasis on education, your claim that we "breed stupidity" is simply not true.

Intolerance - we Christians believe in a God who so loved the world, so loved humanity, that he sacrificed his most treasured possession to redeem that world, his own Son. Granted, there are some extremist idiots, like that guy from the "God hates fags" church, but then again, there are also plenty of atheist idiots, like Stalin, Ho Chi Man, etc.

War - war has been a reality throughout human history, and universally, it seems that the primary motives for war are economics and racial/ethnic hatred. Even the Crusades (the "trump card" people often pull to prove how horrible Christians are) were fought primarily over trade routes through Southeast Asia and North Africa. Heck, one crusade was even fought by Catholic knights against the Greek Orthodox! But it was gold that motivated them, not religion. All this proves is that even those who claim to be the most devout are susceptible to their fallen human nature. If anything, I see true religion as being the only corrective to this at all. I don't see Darwin's theory of Natural Selection contributing much to a philosophy of the value of human life. But if you want an example of the way a true Christian responds to the horrors of war, rent Hotel Rwanda sometime.

injustice - as stated above, without religion, I don't see humanity developing much of a philosophy of the value of human life at all. But if you want to see an example of the "injustice" you claim we foster, why don't you go to Laclede Groves in St. Louis, and see how Lutheran Senior Services is subjecting numerous elderly people to "injustice." Or to Jefferson Barracks VA Medical Center, to the rehab clinic where I was a volunteer chaplain, and see how us religious types abuse the homeless and addicts.

blind faith - funny, I would say that the faith I proclaim is anything but blind. However, you expect us to just believe every derrogatory statement you make without any evidence to back them up. Which of us is offering arguments and evidence, and which of us is just making accusations? I would contend, Sarge, that if you are unable to back up what you have to say with evidence and sound reasoning, then it is you who are expecting us to blindly believe you.


Sarge, you really haven't offered any sound reasoning or evidence for Trev to refute. And I have. And I'm sure Trev will have his say the next time he logs on.

_________________

Didn't they teach you anything about sociology at your college? Sociology doesn't concern itself with individuals, only groups. Since we're talking about religion as a whole an it's relationship with society at large, you telling us about yourself tells us nothing about the society you live in. Go find a Sociology 101 class and sit in. You need to brush up on this.


Telling us what your religion professes to believe tells me nothing about what it's actual effect is in society. Moreover, I'm not insterested in what any small, single religious group might be doing to society, except as it adds to the understanding of what religion as a whole is doing to humanity. Adding a caveat that tries to put all the blame on radical fringe elements really doesn't help your case, such as it is. Again, you need to brush up on the concepts of Sociology.

Ok, this time you tried to make point. You missed the mark, but at least you didn't drop the weapon.
Your main points seem to be that we'll all live peacibly one day with no wars, and we'll have religion to thank for it.
Huh. Well, religion is sure taking it's sweet time about it. Humans have had religion in one form or another as far back as recoded history goes. You'd think we'd be seeing some of what you term it's "corrective" properties by now. How long is this supoposed to take, anyways? You know, from a sociological standpoint, that's not an acceptable time frame for change. Even if you're talking geneological time frames, the eveidence is against your theorgy of peace-through-religion. Perhaps you might find localised evedence of peacefull nreligious comunities: In fact, I'm sure you would. But on the whole, it doesn't seem to ballance in your favor.


Fine, you've described what your position is on the issue. You've then proceded to offer anecdotal examples to support a position in a sociological deabte. You do realise that for every example of social justice that is carried out in the name of religion, I can cite multiples upon multiples of examples of social injustice caried out in the name of that same religion. For example, take the injustice of the last two elections in the USA. They were rigged. That's an injustice, and your Christian Fundamentalists SUPPORTED it (tacitly or explicity) becasue their man was the one doing the rigging. Don't like that example? OK, how about the way women are treated in the Muslim-dominated cultures? Not likeing that one? OK, how about the way the "Christian" countries of the rich north exploit their fellow "Christians" in the poor south? Want more examples? They're not hard to find. I'll give you some more if you want.


You just proved my point: You're so sure that your faith isn't blind that you don't even attempt to exaimine it in any critcal or objective manner. None are more blind then them who don't want to see.
Besides, I'f you're so assured that your faith is not blind, then why does it disturb you when I challange that faith? Could it be that you're not so secure in your faith after all? That you only profess to beliove because that's what you're expected to do?
I don't expect you to just belive me, but neither am I going to spoon-feed you all the evidence. You've got the internet, a brain, and a very habndy set of oposable thumbs. Nothing's stopping you from going to see if what I say is true or not.


Sarge, you really haven't offered any sound reasoning or evidence for Trev to refute. And I have. And I'm sure Trev will have his say the next time he logs on.[/quote]
Uh, let's just tally up your arguments, shall we? Let's see, that's a void, another void, and three strikes against you.

You want sound reasoning? Ok: Try this on for size:

Religion is fundamentaly flawed, like any other invention of humanity, becasue it can be used as a tool to exploit people. And, becasue it cqan be, it will be. It's a tool used by those who know how to use it, and it afords them undue influence. But, more than that, religion is dangerous not becasue of what it can do but becasue of the message it's mere existance sends; In other words, religion doesn't harbor the problem, religion IS the problem. The very idea that someone else can tell you what the correct way for you to live is.. well, that's abhorent to me. Where do you get off telling me how to live? For all the equality religions espose, they practice a very pervasive inequality in that the religious leaders all claim to know what's right for you. Oh no no no, you don't know what's right untill you follow the religion and THEN you might know. What hubris! Am I supposed to belive that I, who know myself better than anyone else possibly could, must submit to the morality of someone else just becasue that's what their religion demands? You know what, you can do whatever you want with your mind, and you can go join whatever religion you want: Leave me out of it.
Ah, if only they would leave me out of it.
What really burns me is where people start making decisions at the political level based upon religious convictions that detrimentaly affect the whole of society. As far as I'm concerned, politicians who decide things on the basis of religion alone should not be tolerated: It's a sure fire way to ruin a nation.

_________________

I'll just leave Didy to the rest, but I will say this: I do find it interesting your statement about religeon ruining a nation, especailly since the majority of the Founding Father, George Washington included, were involved and devout members of the church.

_________________

Yeah, how's that working out for you, that America experiment? Everthing's going great, is it?

_________________

It's pretty good, actually. We have an economy that's the envy of many countries, a reasonable unemployment rate, a powerful military, and a government that has been the model of dozens of nations around the world and has inspired others to change from corrupted governments into more ideal, non-dictorial forms of government. Also, our tax rates are among the lowest in the world, a strong educational system, and among other things, many, many civil liberties not enjoyed by citizens of other nations. As the longest standing Democracy in the world, I'd say we are doing fine.

_________________

I took Sociology here at college just last semester...but I (nor the professor who taught me) is stupid enough to believe that all members of a society will grow up exactly the same, carrying the exact same beliefs and attitudes. If you DO think such a thing, then you harbor what Sociologists (and everyone else) call a "stereotype", which makes you "prejudice"...or did your Sociology class skip over those definitions?



But you don't seem to understand that it IS those small radical groups that make up almost all of the problem of intolerance (at least in Christianity), even though they themselves only represent a tiny fractional percentage of all people who profess such a faith.



Are you a sociologist or something? I mean, where do you get off saying what is or is not "sociologically acceptable"? Just because you're being impatient with the process of human evolution and social maturity you think that you have a grand say so in how long a society should take to grow and mature?



Do you honestly think that Christian Fundamentalists would desire an election to be rigged? Furthermore, what evidence do you have to say that the last election was so rigged? Bush won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. There were no recounts needed...what was rigged?



Okay...do you even read through all of the posts? I mean, Didymus is a Biblical Scholar, for goodness' sakes! It's his PROFESSION to question and examine his own religion!! Yes, he's got the Internet and thumbs, just as you do, but it appears that he's the only one of you two to have a brain...at least one that functions in any manner above an oyster.



So because people will exploit the tool of religion, it should be abolished? By your reasoning, anything and everything that can be used as a weapon against another person--physically or otherwise--should be rid of entirely. That means no more hammers, guns, teeth, lying, hands...come on, man. Ever hear of PolPot? The man that led the genocide of plenty of religious people? Yeah...he ended up killing people because he was Atheist and saw religion as some sort of tumor upon the world. So there's your wonderful world without religion right there--it still sucks, because the driving force for people's negative actions ISN'T religion. It's greed and the desire for power.

And before you go off on me, know that I'm not religious. I don't follow any organized religion. I have spiritual beliefs, sure, but I'm not religious. So why do I defend religion? Because I have seen that organized religions, even if flawed in details, can and have improved the quality of living for countless MILLIONS of people. If you don't want to follow any religions, fine. That's your choice, and no one has the right to force you otherwise. However, if you don't want to accept the fact that so many people are happier and can live better lives as a direct result of their religious beliefs, then you're just being as close-minded and ignorant as Fred Phelps.

Chew on that.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

You know, Sarge, I'm almost tempted to agree with you - almost. No doubt, religion has been used and misused by some as justifiction for pretty terrible acts. However, I think you're looking at this from a very skewed angle. Because those traits you mentioned - ignorance, stupidity, intolerence, whatever - are not exclusive to religion in any shape or form. Your problem is with human nature, Sarge, because it's human nature that is the source for these evils.

Seeing as you are such an expert in sociology (apparently), you'll know that a society is as wretched or utopian as the human nature of the people who create and populate it. If people commit terrible acts, more than likely they do so because of their own selfish desires. Unfortunately, some try to fulfil these desires by exploiting religion, using it as a justification. But that doesn't reflect any truth on the nature of religion - it only shows up the flaws of human nature.

So getting rid of religion won't help society one bit. Those who currently use it for shady reasons will just find some other justification for their actions. As sure as I live and breathe.

Actually, my college did instruct me in basic sociology. Like most of my other subjects, I got an A in it. But just for clarification’s sake: 1. I’m an individual, a member of a group you claim promotes ignorance, and yet I’m highly educated. 2. Contrary to your accusation, the group I am a part of is heavily involved in promoting education. 3. You snide attitude in your attempt to instruct me in basic sociology isn’t exactly proving your point or endearing you to anyone who might be concerned about what you have to say. For someone who claims to know so much about sociology, you seem to know very little about being social.

And you need to brush up on basic manners. Spelling and grammar might also be helpful.


That’s because idiots keep missing the point. You can’t blame the idea for the idiots that just don’t get it.

Post your evidence to prove this.


Again, post your evidence to prove it.


You, sir, are in no position whatsoever to tell me whether I have examined my faith or not. You know nothing about me except what I have told on this forum, and not even all of that. You do not know my struggles, my doubts, my life, or anything else about me for that matter. So you are really in no position whatsoever to make this statement, now are you?


Who says it disturbs me that you challenge my faith? No, what disturbs me is your self-righteous attitude with which you do it. You spout off nonsense without supporting evidence and expect people to just believe you. Now that's blind faith if I ever saw it.


I’m not asking you to “spoon-feed.” I’m asking you to present evidence and argue your case with logic, which, at present time, you seem either unable or unwilling to do. If you are not willing or not able to support your claims, then you’d be better off not making them.


I would agree, if I believed that my religion was entirely invented by humans. As I do not agree, then I can only say that, if it is flawed, it is because flawed human beings took what God gave them and abused it for their own purposes. It does not change the reality of who God is and what he has done for humanity.


In my thinking, if God exists, and he created you, then he not only has the right to tell you how to live, he also has the right to expect you to live that way. What you like and don’t like doesn’t change that.

And incidentally, the very fact you live in a society at all means that you have obligations and expectations imposed upon you on how you should live. Maybe YOU should brush up on sociology.


Because as one who is called and ordained by God to proclaim his Word and administered his Sacraments, he has given me the authority. And not just me, but his messengers the Prophets, the Apostles, his own Son Jesus Christ, and pastors and teachers throughout the centuries. And through his servants, he has recorded his expectations for humanity, as well as his promises for humanity, in his Holy Scriptures. In the same way that a traffic cop has the right to tell you that you can’t drive over the speed limit, must obey stop signs and traffic lights, etc. He has the authority to do so, whether you like it or not.


Last time I checked, I wasn’t holding a gun to your head. All I can do is tell you what God expects.


If those decisions were concerning the establishment of a state church, or state-required religious obligations, I might be inclined to agree. But you cannot reasonably expect any human being to act in ways contrary to their faith, whatever that faith might be. Even if those actions are political in nature. Now, as I see it, a politician is supposed to reflect the ideals and beliefs of those people who elected him or her. And if the people that elected him or her did so on the basis of religious ideology, then that elected officials responsibility is to act according to the people he or she represents. In other words, we religious people have just as much right to think and act in public spheres as you non-religious types. Don’t like a politician’s religious ideals? Then don’t vote for them. Don’t like the fact that religious people vote other religious people into office? Then move to a new state. Either that, or learn to accept that a representational government is supposed to be just that: representative of the people’s ideals.

_________________

If anyone's wondering why I've been uncharacteristically silent over this, especially with Sarge calling me out as a 'crybaby' concerning his deliberate topic derailment, it's because I've been confronting his religious intolerance over PM in an attempt to prevent the thread from going unpainted as it has.

In fact, I had first PMed him shortly after my previous post here--a good hour before his 'crybaby' flame.

Since he hasn't yet replied to the latest PM I sent earlier last night though, I'll just paste a relevant part of it here. I'd paste the whole back-and-forth of the thing for everyone to see, but I'm loathe to do that for fear of what the mods might think of making the whole of a private argument made public, even if it's not that much different from what's happening right here.

---

In other words, no matter what words of wisdom a religion's scriptures give--no matter how much a given religion urges its believers to do good for others, no matter how many people have done good for the world and claim their religion gave them the inspiration to do so, no matter how many religious people have organized relief, charity, and other good will organizations ... you still claim religion is evil and label all that as "doing good in spite of their religion?"

That's a pretty absurd claim to make, especially when Ghandi openly said--several times--that it was his Hindu beliefs that gave him the courage and strength to persevere in his darkest hours.

You are all too willing to negitate the positive instead of looking at the situation evenly. An excessively, desparately pessimist outlook trying to ignore or dismiss any and all noble acts and deeds done by religious people, claiming no amount of them can possibly overcome any sort of atrocity committed by others.

It sounds far too much like the old "because it has been used for evil, even though it has been used for good, we should get rid of it and ban it" argument. That logic is flawed, because humans will always find a way to manipulate things--technology, concepts--for evil purposes. If you're going to advocate banning religion by blindly dismissing and ignoring the good it has done, instead harping only on the bad, you might as well do the same for computers, aircraft, automobiles, rocketry, democracy, and entire scientific fields and other industries. We would be reduced to living in a primitive, prehistoric state, and even THAT would not stop bad people from doing bad things.

Trying to advocate removal of religion ignores the fundamental problem. INTOLERANCE. It's not one's religion that motivates someone to kill someone else--it's that they cannot stand the other person for having another religion. But most religious scriptures--I can at least vouch for Christians in this matter--preach open-mindedness and tolerance. To hate, flame, discriminate, hurt, maim, and kill someone over a difference such as that goes against what Jesus himself taught--and I'm sure this is true of many other religions.

Intolerance is not inherent in religious belief if a religion's scriptures speak out against it. It's the people's fault for not living up to their creed. On the flip side, many non-religious folk (such as yourself) are quite capable of being intolerant--reflect on your own words, how nasty you are towards religious people as a whole, treating them like ignorant, mindless drones. Often you do it without provocation, barging into an unrelated thread to belittle religious people as being blind and ignorant and warmongerers. You say this in the midst of college honor students an people well read in books of philosophy, yet this fact goes completely unnoticed by you.

_________________