The fact that you spend so much time trying to diprove, or belittle Christ means there is still part of you questioning.  Why spend all this energy trying to disprove.  Interesting, very interesting.

It's easy to "diprove" when you're reading a book written BY MAN with under developed and malnourished brains...over 2000 years ago.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant
character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty,
unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty
ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,
infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,
megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent
bully."

-- Richard Dawkins

This kind of talk doesn't do my heart good.  Disrespecting others' spiritual paths is a place where I will not go.

Having said that, those who claim to follow a particular faith may want to ask themselves if they are behaving in such a way as to bring such reproach upon their faith.

If this is the sentiment that they are instilling in "unbelievers," then they are doing exactly the opposite of what their Lord Jesus Christ wanted them to do.

 If this is the sentiment that they are instilling in "unbelievers," then they are doing exactly the opposite of what their Lord Jesus Christ wanted them to do.

Great question actually, and is tough to answer.  Christ does say that God's ways will seem like folly to men, much like what Dawkins writes (from what I've read, he doesn't seem like a very nice guy himself), and that Christians will be ridiculed for their faith.  I will be the first to admit that I've not live up to what I believe at times, but I just keep trying to grow. 

What I don't like are people like this Betty Bowers that pick and choose quotes and take them out of context and make incorrect assumptions.  I had a Philosophy professor in college that said the bible is sexist, and he quoted the verse that "wives shall submit to their husbands", and said this is sexist (much like Betty does), I asked him to read the following sentence which states that husbands shall "love their wives as Christ loved the Church", and asked him what did Christ do for His church...He died on the cross.  My professor paused for awhile and told me that he appreciated hearing that and that he had never read that before.  He was one of the more open minded professors on campus as he would listen to others opinions and not have knee jerk reactions.  Unfortunately when you have a website like the one above, there is no back and forth, and just negative talk. 

It is too bad when Christians incite hatred for Christ, sometimes though, it is not them, but the negativity of the receiver of the message.

Perhaps instead of reading web sites made by people who feel compelled to  make clumsy attacks on Christianity to shore up their faltering faith; it would be more profitable to actually study what Orthodox Christianity teaches.  What can you lose by studying the Christian faith?  You might find good arguments against the Faith.  I myself have made studies of the Atheist faith as well as Neopaganism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. 

I myself have made studies of the Atheist faith

The fact that you honestly believe that shows how shallow those "studies" were. 

What in the Dawkins quote above is incorrect?

Oh, and keep in mind, Grumpy, that the quotes you've provided did *NOT* come from eyewitnesses.   Second-or-third-hand at best.

See Grumpy by being ignorant of both sides of the issue you can only make weak, unsupported statements like Random.  I have also challenged Random to actually study the Christian Faith ,but he has not answered my challenge yet;P 

I myself have made studies of the Atheist faith

I find that highly unlikely, for two reasons.

One, there is no Atheist faith. And two, a study requires the use of scientific methods and you've made it clear you lack scientific knowledge.

"Great question actually, and is tough to answer.  Christ does say that God's ways will seem like folly to men, much like what Dawkins writes (from what I've read, he doesn't seem like a very nice guy himself), and that Christians will be ridiculed for their faith.  I will be the first to admit that I've not live up to what I believe at times, but I just keep trying to grow."

That's a good answer to a different reading of the comment than I had intended, but you bring up a good point yourself.

I do understand that some of the beliefs of the Christian faith risk being seen as foolish by non-Christians.  (I am not in any way endorsing those characterizations.)  But many Christians manage to live according to those beliefs without being antagonistic toward others.  People who aren't antagonistic run less of a risk of making their own beliefs the targets of insults and ridicule.

I really catch little flak for being a Witch, though I am sure that if I were in people's faces about it and boasting about how superior I was or how inferior everyone else is, I would begin taking a lot of well-deserved hits on my own beliefs.

It is possible to hold some unusual beliefs and carry them with honor.  If I can do it, Christians can do it, and a great many Christians do just that.  :)

"It is too bad when Christians incite hatred for Christ, sometimes though, it is not them, but the negativity of the receiver of the message."

You have another valid point.  Often the negativity is intrinsic to the person, and it will manifest itself in whatever spiritual or secular guise the individual presents.  You can have negative Christians, negative atheists, and, alas, negative Wiccans.

Jjames, they bring reproach to atheism.  :)

I feel your pain with respect to how often the burden of good behavior is disproportionately placed on Christians.

 How convenient that those with NO beliefs get to behave how they want,

Yes, that would be convenient if true.  It is of course nonsense.  All actions have consequences regardless of whether you believe in a particular mythology or not.    And atheists have ethics that serve us just as well as believers' morals do.

One of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is to force your opponent to live up to his/her expressed code of conduct...because so few of them can do so.

One of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is to force your opponent to live up to his/her expressed code of conduct...because so few of them can do so.

 There is an interesting point RF.  When a Christian falls and mourns his fall and then repents and prays to God for help.  He is in fact practicing his faith.  If you actually studied Christianity you would have known that.  On the other hand one of the beliefs of the atheist religion is that the atheist always lays asides his biased beliefs and examines the question empirically and rationally.  Unfortunately what the empirical evidence shows is that you can not scientifically disprove the existence of God and in making a premise that God doesn't exist you are in fact making a statement of faith.  So if we examine the atheist faith by it's own values of empiricism and logic; we find that it is deeply hypocritical.  It would be better to say that you were just a plain agnostic and admit that you don't know in the first place;)

And wayfarer again smites the wanna be mighty DEMO DONKEY known as 'Random Factor'

Ah, but we followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are immune to his wet noodles.  Immune, I say!

.

When a Christian falls and mourns his fall and then repents and prays to God for help.

When an atheist falls, he gets up again and tries to do better.  With the same results.  Difference is, we don't count "sex" or "not believing in two-thousand-year-old fairy tales" to be "falling."

.

On the other hand one of the beliefs of the atheist religion

You could have stopped at *THAT* particular falsehood.  I haven't finished *WRITING* my atheist religion yet, and that ain't gonna be one of the beliefs.  And not a single one of the suggestions ("commandments" is way too harsh) begins "Thou shalt not..."

.

Unfortunately what the empirical evidence shows is that you can not scientifically disprove the existence of God

Whereas you, using empirical evidence, can scientifically disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Heavy sigh........that is what you get trying to reason with a donkey.  Silliness instead of facts and thoughtful discussion;( 

Is *THAT* what you were trying to do?

What "silliness"?  Can you or can you not disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  Is she not as real as *YOUR* imaginary deity?

Buffoo seems to think that makes a difference.

All you want to know about the FSM and the influence of pirates on global warming here:

http://www.venganza.org  Yes, there's a gospel available.  She also has a number of "I'd rather you didn'ts," some of which I keep religiously.

Mainly the FSM just protects us against silly creationism being taught in public schools.  We don't expect that much of our deities.

"Maybe in the form of a big book, with the things she said notated in red letters."

I have followers, therefore I am.  ;)

I have followers, therefore I am

And when those followers cease to believe, the deity ceases to exist.  Unlike reality, which continues whether you believe in it or not. 

As long as what the religiousness produces is good,  it's good.

Let's keep it simple and take the beatitudes seriously ... living as if they had more to say than Machiavelli when, let's say, discussing what is good.

--virgil

I must admit that what I wrote was say rather brash,intended to incite some argument, but seriously, the real reason is that I was once a very devout christian. It was simple quotes like this, and the inability to reconcile certain things in the bible that made me see the light..... I'm hoping to plant a seed of reason and doubt. no one actually found any logical way to defend their views....just a bunch of straw men about how it isn't nice to make fun of, or belittle peoples beliefs..... I'll pose some questions to you believers out there of the Christian Faith, who's God's God? are you telling all the heavenly bodies in the whole universe  there were no suns! no stars, no single speck of light? until god said "let there be light" really? you really really believe that? SEE sometimes stupid ideas need to be made of fun so people can see the scope and depth of their ignorance. If you really believe the earth is 6,000 years old dam your stupid, the ridiculous needs to be ridiculed

Maybe god is more than the it - the ineffable it,  as Paul Tillich would say. .... something beyond language, as the hebrews wrote and talked about.  If that's the case then it does not make sense to talk about god. In fact, that question as to god's existence is not even a question.

So, with a god like that, rocks make no sense too. Neither do attributes like omniscient and omnipresent;, or grammer, or logic.

The experience of a supermudane reality  certainly is a recognizable human trait. Some have it more than others.

To be truly empirical about it, though,  I take issue with Dawkins explanation of how we came to conceive god in the first place. I think it's a big jump to make from the recognition of other minds during the process of our evolution to the causation of the notion of a god or gods in the cosmos. 

Being tied by the contingencies of the mundane soup of our origins does not explain how we came to super-mundane notions of transcendence. Not that we have to see spirituality in our everyday experience, but because we do - many of us.

--virgil

Well grumpy from your post you evidently didn't seem to have grasped Christianity the first time around which then it is no wonder that you fell into delusions.  But if at first you don't succeed then try, try again.  To answer a question I think you were trying to ask in the above comment.  Even most materialist believe in the big bang theory.  That the universe as we know it was created in a big explosion.  Your post are also good for showing how the atheistic religion is based on irrational and false beliefs;)

lol, no I believe I had a very good grasp on the good old book, logic and reason over came and I saw the light. Which beliefs are irrational and false? If you have proof I'd be more than happy to change my position on ANYTHING... see I can be convinced that there is indeed a god.... how about some real reproducible "supernatural" occurrences that might tip me over to believe....what will convince you there is no god? yes the big bang is much much more than just... bang it and it happened..... with string theory several dimensions....symmetry....things we at least hope we can peer at with the LHC....*sigh* wouldn't it just be easier to say a magical being made it.....as opposed to several complex, confusing, and deep explanations....science ruins our self delusions of importance darn that science

yes the big bang is much much more than just... bang it and it happened..... with string theory several dimensions....symmetry....things we at least hope we can peer at with the LHC....*

Well that statement show that you are not making judgments using logic and reason.  Big Bang theory is just a theory and not a fact.  String theory is hotly debated among physicist.  Logic and reason is based on facts.  Perhaps you should take a class or two to learn how to think critically;)

yes, and gravity is also just a theory, so is germ theory, and many many more. So far it's the best explanation. string theory is debated and is getting close to being tested. perhaps you need to take a few natural science classes and learn how the world and science works

I will ,if you will;) 

Silliness instead of facts and thoughtful discussion; religion is based on irrational and false beliefs.

Excellent Wayfarer, couldn't have said it better myself.

Keep up the fight grumpy! You see, the quotes you posted show that christianity contains the same hatred and lust for blood as the islamic religion does. Given enough power and influence, the blood lust of the christians would return (as in the past) and they would become just as dangerous and destructive as the Taliban was, or still is, I should say.

People like Wayfarer are not the dangerous ones. I like to banter with him about religion and such, but I couldn't care less what he really believes (about religion that is), and I know he does not wish to haul me and my family to a death camp because we're not christians. Unfortunately, there are those that would. We must guard against any religion becoming too strong in this country. If we lose secularity (I made that word up), and become a christian theocracy by default, the death and destruction that would follow will be catastrophic, far worse than what christians have done in the past, and what islamics have done recently.

Read history! How many wars, persecutions, mass killings, genocides or episodes of ethnic cleansing have happened in the name of religion? In my opinion, religion, in all forms, does far more harm than good.

Now, if we could have a naked religion...well, sign me up for that!  No place to put the guns and knives, you see...and without clothes, everyone is equal ;-)

"Now, if we could have a naked religion...well, sign me up for that!  No place to put the guns and knives, you see...and without clothes, everyone is equal ;-)"

I would suggest mine, but since most American Wiccans are Americans first, alas, skyclad covens aren't that common.

That's one reason why I do not work with a coven.  I dislike robed.

From the book: Aradia, or The Gospel of the Witches

"I don't know, Apollo...they seem to have some anger issues too. Naturists and anger don't mix well."

It depends on whom you ask.  :)

You should keep in mind that that was written when Witchcraft was much more oppressed, and even then, that would not likely be taken today to perpetuate anger, but instead as a statement that the practice shall continue until we are no longer oppressed.

There are some Wiccans with anger issues.  I am not one of them.  Anger detracts both from the practice of the Craft itself, and from its benefits to me.

"...the practice shall continue until we are no longer oppressed." I like that much better. That's how us Naturists feel. We'll keep finding more secluded, natural places to enjoy freedom from clothes. The Textiles can't keep us off every beach, out of every natural hot spring or away from every peaceful mountain meadow. Someday, it will be normal to shed your clothes in such places, and those who pretend to be offended to satisfy some religious belief will be the outcasts. Yep...it all comes back to religion. Amazing.

 Let's keep it simple and take the beatitudes seriously ...

I'ts important to remember that Saul of Tarsus had never *HEARD* of the Beatitudes when he founded the death-cult which became known as Christianity.

"American Wiccans are Americans first, alas, skyclad covens aren't that common."

How sad is it that the unique American puritanical, irrational and just plain silly fear of nudity actually influences Wiccans enough to make them uncomfortable with their own bodies? I thought that was just a Christian thing. As much as I love my country, I am embarrassed at times when I see how our religious craziness and our ridiculous, purely hypocritical sense of "modesty" plays around the world.

How sad is it that the unique American puritanical, irrational and just plain silly fear of nudity actually influences Wiccans enough to make them uncomfortable with their own bodies?

I don't see it that way, H8cloz (and I'm a fellow nudist.)   They just know that the traditional Christian hatred of other faiths would double if it became known they showed too much skin on top of it...

"It's important to remember that Saul of Tarsus had never *HEARD* of the Beatitudes when he founded the death-cult which became known as Christianity."

Actually,  he probably  did. The beatitudes were recited as part of an oral tradition in the first decades after that Jesus lived, and before the gospels (the ones that survived) were written.  Saul was certainly pissed about something, and some sort of religious experience changed his mind about it.

It's  certain a paul (saul) of Tarsus existed ... and, what I suggest  is that what he talked about was not conceived in a vacuum.  It's not too much to assume that what he  wrote to various christian communities he helped start, he was sincere about.

The beatitudes came first - nothing wrong with them - epistles should be taken in context.  Also, Paul never castrated himself ... that sort  of weirdness ( like flaying neoplatonists in public) took a little a while in coming.

--virgil

Saul/Paul's writings don't refer to most things in the gospels prior to the Last Supper and crucifixion story.  It would be odd if he knew about Jesus' life work but just never bothered to mention it.

I don't think Paul's church was conceived in a vacuum.  He borrowed from *LOTS* of mythologies existent at the time.  Just not from what Jesus of Nazareth actually said or did.

.

that sort  of weirdness ( like flaying neoplatonists in public) took a little a while in coming.

The end result of its becoming a death cult.  That's why the early church had to put restrictions on the all-too-common urge to martyrdom.

Hey. did you see that Pope Ratzi just reinstated four bishops who'd been excommunicated, including the one who stated publically that the Holocaust didn't happen?  (That's not why he was excom'd, of course--even Adolf Hitler wasn't excommunicated over that.)

"Saul/Paul's writings don't refer to most things in the gospels prior to the Last Supper and crucifixion story.  It would be odd if he knew about Jesus' life work but just never bothered to mention it."

He wrote about only what he needed to write ... papyrus was expensive - so was postage in the first century ( you know, Roman roads were good, it's that sea travel that was hazardous.).

"The end result of its becoming a death cult.  That's why the early church had to put restrictions on the all-too-common urge to martyrdom."

Indeed ...

Weird how things happen, like the Nazis and the Inquisition and Nixon and Bush ( dad and brother, too) ... those things were not about the beatitudes, though. The beatitudes came from some place else.

--virgil

I realize some people have serious issues that cause them to demonize other people and try to tear down good things in a attempt to feel better about themselves.  But let us remember a few other sayings from the Lord +Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank in your own eye?  Hypocrite!  First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speak that is in your brothers eye.+  St. Luke 6:42  and +A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil.  For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks+ St. Luke 6:45