Is this right?

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am grown up and have a mature posting style. Giving your direct quotes instead of referring to them second hand is mature and effective. Its why I do it.

My direct quotes eh?

Well, have a game for you. It's called spot the differences:
"any christian parents would rather thier kid be a christian than an atheist."

and

"They rather have me be a nice guy atheist than a christian bastard"

I even told you they would rather have it I believe in God. I posted that a while ago. But I'm not at all surprised you missed that.

And here it is again:
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
They do. But they believe everyone has to love God out of free will. Not because it's want they're raised to believe. Love does not work that way you see? Hmm, no I'm sure you don't.

Bottom line, you didnt refute anything, you simply refuse that which is factually correct, especially when you keep referring to the old testament first commandment. The above scripture is the answer to the question, given by Jesus himself, which has been my answer to the question since this discussion started. You are simply wrong and in a great deal of denial.

Spoken like a true hypocristian.

I havent misquoted you at all. Not once. Also, as to your inferior comment - how do you know? You sit in judgement over me? I dont think so - its simply not your call.

Above the example of missquoting. And you also sit in judgement over my parents. Again, spoken like a true hypocristian.

More insults? I debate you here and dont insult you at all. I point out things you say and make comments and use the bible to back those comments up. In turn you insult me. It is now obvious to me that you have totally lost this debate and are down to your last resort.

No, you insult my parents. I happen to take offense at that. Just like you did when I called you a fake christian. But since you continue on you abuse, the gloves are of, and I'm calling you as I see it. A fake christian.

And to think I apologized to you.

Not being condescending. I am commenting on the belief level of someone who would make something more important that God - and it was something that you brought up...not me. If you wish to drop the issue then dont post.

False, they didn't make anything more important then God. There can't be love without free will.

edit: If this were just about me, I would have dropped the issue long ago.

I shouldnt respect a belief that is in direct contradiction with the bible. Period. Any christian would claim that. To do any less is to compromise and water down your faith. As for your parents wanting you to be like you are instead of like me..../shrug. Total assumption here, but I would think any christian parents would rather thier kid be a christian than an atheist. But heck, what do I know.

I adressed this above.

Again, I merely take your words and apply them biblically. You dont like the result that is not my fault.

No, you twist my words to win an argument *standing ovation*

Again, I am not called to respect incorrect biblical viewpoints. Did Jesus respect the pharisees viewponts? Nope.

Cool then I don't have to respect your viewpoints either, since I believe and am taught they aren't correct.

Not at all. And I am hardly stoning you to death either.

Oh, so that quote of Jesus only reffers to people stoning other to death? Not what I have been taught. So you are wrong. Hey I'm getting the hang of your debating style.

My house has 40 year old cedar planks. It can take it.

Translation: Damn you have a point so I will intentionally act stupid and act like I don't understand what you mean.

Now I am an inquisitor? Heh. Funny that.

Here we go again. O I forgot: Sigh, here we go again.
"The way you understand christianity belongs in the dark ages. In the time of inquisition."

Meaning you have about the same demeanor about religion as certain people in the Middle East you feel incredibly superior to, but are incredibly alike.

/shrug. At least I have the concept of putting God first pretty well covered.

I disagree.

Nope. Just the same, correct one that you choose to ignore all over again.

Wrong. I adressed it every flipping post I made.

Please note that I have not made any such judgement in this thread anywhere like this. Nary once. And you have no authority over me and am certainly not qualified to judge me or my faith. You are right on one thing though - narrow is the path and few there are that truly walk it. Remember that.

You haven't judged?!? You have accused my parents of using christianity to do ill! How mirrorblind can you be?

Pretty sure you wont be doing much laughing. I know I wouldnt be if I were in that situation. I woudnt wish such a thing on anyone - not the worst atheist or sinner I ever ran into deserves that. So, I hope you feel better for wishing such things on people.

As you might have noticed (who am I kidding?) I said according to your rigged narrow viewpoints you have failed in christianity.

- You do not love thy neighbour. You don;t even respect your neighbour
- You Judge without wishing to be judged yourself
- You are throwing stones without being sinless
- You are pointing out the imaginary splinter in other's eye but ignore the beam in your own.

Install a new governor?

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Ziggy, MobBoss, warned, flamewar.

I suggest you two ignore each other in the future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Stolen Rutters]

They say no discussion because of the morals (they say atheist societies lack it) they aren't that into the god and the myth stuff. I am Roman Catholic.

Ahh, to learn morals... that makes sense, then. If they aren't into the god and myth thing, then they are maybe trying to impress on you the way to live that will give you the most success in life? You always figure it out after the fact. They say youth is wasted on the young, you know.

It is true that serving others is the best and fastest way to success in your life over the long term. At the most facetious level, you provide a service, people give you money. The more valuable the services you can provide, the more you are generally paid. If you have something more valuable to someone else, and they have something more valuable to you, you trade, and you both win. Time or money, it doesn't matter.

At a deeper level, it's more than just money and time. It also includes contacts, opportunitites, and what not. More people will do for you if you are a giver than if you are a taker.

Pay attention to what they talk about at this level and you might see that it is one of the under-current focuses of the sunday school. In my mind, that's probably what your parents are hoping you get out of Confirmation, not necessarily the God thing. But if you buy the God thing, the morality should come by default.

Moral people and moral societies are SO much better for all involved, it's unsettling. Many will disagree with me, but if you can expect to benefit from your efforts, you will work harder. Corrupt societies where people are taking from you what you worked for and providing nothing that you need in return really kills the productivity of economies.

Sweden is near the former Soviet Union, which is probably the best model of a completely atheist society in your parents' minds. Except for the elite insiders, those few who ran the party and the economy and gave themselves dachas in the countryside, it was a total disaster of massive proportions, something to be avoided. I believe it's the main reason the system collapsed so quickly and totally when it people saw the opportunity to end it.

 

[Antilogic]

First mistake you make. Assuming a rebellious child is being rational. Most kids are not rational in how they think. Anyone who has raised a kid past the age of 10 knows this.

Children should be taught what their parents deem essential to that childs upbringing and development. In my opinion, and practice, that includes religion. Considering how good my kids turn out, I highly recommend it.

I did not say I assumed rebellion was rational. I simply said that I got the impression from your posts that you believe children using logic is a sign of rebellion. It may sound like semantics, but you have made a logical fallacy (I never said what I believed).

I do agree with the later part of your statement though, sans religion. I don't know if I posted this here, but I was raised non-denominational Christian and decided to be an atheist after considering several viewpoints and schools of thought. I believe that teaching your children how to think and not blindly trust the clergy and some old book is more important, but that's just my opinion as well.

 

[Antilogic]

Ahh, to learn morals... that makes sense, then. If they aren't into the god and myth thing, then they are maybe trying to impress on you the way to live that will give you the most success in life? You always figure it out after the fact. They say youth is wasted on the young, you know.

It is true that serving others is the best and fastest way to success in your life over the long term. At the most facetious level, you provide a service, people give you money. The more valuable the services you can provide, the more you are generally paid. If you have something more valuable to someone else, and they have something more valuable to you, you trade, and you both win. Time or money, it doesn't matter.

At a deeper level, it's more than just money and time. It also includes contacts, opportunitites, and what not. More people will do for you if you are a giver than if you are a taker.

Pay attention to what they talk about at this level and you might see that it is one of the under-current focuses of the sunday school. In my mind, that's probably what your parents are hoping you get out of Confirmation, not necessarily the God thing. But if you buy the God thing, the morality should come by default.

Moral people and moral societies are SO much better for all involved, it's unsettling. Many will disagree with me, but if you can expect to benefit from your efforts, you will work harder. Corrupt societies where people are taking from you what you worked for and providing nothing that you need in return really kills the productivity of economies.

Sweden is near the former Soviet Union, which is probably the best model of a completely atheist society in your parents' minds. Except for the elite insiders, those few who ran the party and the economy and gave themselves dachas in the countryside, it was a total disaster of massive proportions, something to be avoided. I believe it's the main reason the system collapsed so quickly and totally when it people saw the opportunity to end it.

All right, I had to respond to this one. The fact is, forcing a religion on someone (even the lack of one) only makes for problems. Trying to turn a society atheist by legal means and then watching it fall apart does not mean atheism is immoral.

And I find it disturbing you believe that "if you buy the God thing, the morality should come by default" [sic]--that is about the most flagrantly untrue statement I have ever read. Every time somebody mentions Stalin, I mention a great Catholic, Cesare Borgia (anybody read The Prince?). Just because you are convinced there is some supernatural being does not mean your actions are moral. There are dozens of accounts of peoples of all religions raping, killing, and committing other acts that are typically condemned [by their own religions and others]. Consider the Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases a few years ago...does being a Catholic mean everything you do is moral? No. Unless you think having sex with children is a "good" act, in which case I don't ever want to meet you, ever, with my family or any of my younger relatives.

I realize that's a pretty brutal example, but the truth of the matter is, I agree that moral societies are much better than immoral ones. I, however, dispute your reasoning that accepting God makes you moral. It's the decisions you make that are the barometer of whether or not you are moral or immoral.


EDIT: I toned this down a little...

 

[Stolen Rutters]

All right, I had to respond to this one. The fact is, forcing a religion on someone (even the lack of one) only makes for problems. Trying to turn a society atheist by legal means and then watching it fall apart does not mean atheism is immoral.

And I find it disturbing you believe that "if you buy the God thing, the morality should come by default" [sic]--that is about the most flagrantly untrue statement I have ever read. Every time somebody mentions Stalin, I mention a great Catholic, Cesare Borgia (anybody read The Prince?). Just because you are convinced there is some supernatural being does not mean your actions are moral. There are dozens of accounts of peoples of all religions raping, killing, and committing other acts that are typically condemned [by their own religions and others]. Consider the Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases a few years ago...does being a Catholic mean everything you do is moral? No. Unless you think having sex with children is a "good" act, in which case I don't ever want to meet you, ever, with my family or any of my younger relatives.

I realize that's a pretty brutal example, but the truth of the matter is, I agree that moral societies are much better than immoral ones. I, however, dispute your reasoning that accepting God makes you moral. It's the decisions you make that are the barometer of whether or not you are moral or immoral.


EDIT: I toned this down a little...

I agree with everything you said, and I agree I was being too simplistic on the "if you buy the God thing" part. I was more going back to what they were teaching when I went through Confirmation back in the eighties. It was pretty persuasive argument about making me want to live a more moral life. I may be atheist, agnostic, or an apostate now (depending on your worldview and how you would define me), but I completely believe that taking others' best interests into consideration and overall not screwing people over in life has given me so much more than I would have ever been able to have done otherwise. What I learned in Catholic Confirmation played no small part in that.

I had already "accepted God" before Confirmation, I guess, though that sounds hideous to say it that way. It sounds like I was some sort of "born again" (maybe Confirmation is the Catholic equivalent, but I had a weird experience with some people from the ICOC a few years ago and have issues with that terminology now).

 

[Antilogic]

I am not an expert on (Catholic) Christianity in the 1980's...so I won't comment on the Confirmation. I mentioned before I was raised as a non-denominational Christian, which essentially means Protestant-lite because our family never participated in half of the crazy rituals of the Catholic Church.

However, on the terms atheist, agnostic, or apostate...generally, the other religions are responsible for the confusion. I'm going to go on this tangent because the thread has seemingly died down since my last post...

If you are an atheist, then you are "without" theism (that's what adding the prefix a- to a word does). So, if you do not follow a particular religion but still think there is the potential for a divine being (as in the common view of agnosticism), then you are technically an atheist. An apostate, if you do not adopt another religious persuasion, is also an atheist.

I think largely the confusion here is the responsibility of religious, actually. They feel the need to categorize people who don't agree with them as well as people who worship the same God but in a different manner...they can't accept "Theory of Evolution" or "Natural Selection", they have to call it "Darwinism", for example. No scientist or engineer I've ever met has called Evolution "Darwinism" unless they were making a joke. In a similar fashion, I believe the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, which are both really just atheism, is the result of this need to categorize things into different "-isms".

It bugs me that people use the word "agnostic"...it's root word is gnosis, I believe, a Greek word meaning "to know" as opposed to the root word of theism, which is "to believe". If I ask you what you believe, and you say agnostic, then you are just really saying "well, I don't know if there is/are (a) God(s)". That's dodging the question. I tend to favor the theist or atheist approach to the question, and leaving "knowing" out of it because nobody knows for certain what's going on.