FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Many people claim that the purpose of religion is to explain the mysteries of the universe to ignorant, superstitious peasants. They are wrong. The purpose of religion is to guide and teach, and to correct, so that it's followers may have a harmonious life together.
Naturally, I voted 'Other'. I am, after all, a Jehovah's Witness, and we bear about as much resemblance to what claims to be Christianity as roast beef does to horse doo-doo.
Some of us quote the rules, some of us actually try to obey them... Some of us keep the religion pure, some of us add whatever will keep us from getting beat up, or whatever will get bodies on the pews and money on the plates.
Tell you all what: go read a Bible, and then examine the various religions that claim to follow it's teachings. Don't take my word, don't take the Pope's word, don't take Jerry Falwell's word. Just take a good hard long look, and make your own decision as to who is trying their best to do the will of the God they claim to follow.
Then look at the way those people act, toward each other, toward strangers, and even toward themselves. Ask yourself which of these groups really seems dedicated to the concept of 'love thy neighbor'.
Now ask yourself, which one of these groups' followers would I like to live next door to me? And you know what? Feel free to examine the teachings and followers of all the religions that don't claim to be Christian or Bible-based, measuring all of them by the same yardstick: how well they practice what they preach.
I can't think of any more powerful argument than your own eyes. All I am asking is that you open them up.
And one last thing: I am about the worst example of a Christian you'd ever hope to meet. I try to be a nice person, but I am very easily distracted or enticed from doing what is right. I anger easily, and I 'hit' back when attacked. (Although I've never struck any one in anger, I speak only of verbal assaults.)
(Honestly, I've been beaten several times, but I never raised a hand against my attackers. Of course, that may be because they were cowards who outnumbered me three to one minimum every time, but I could be wrong. But I've never hit anyone, ever. Wow. That totally freaks me out. I just turned thirty two.)
I'm not supposed to be political, but I am in many ways. I don't like Communism, and I don't like Democrats in America, because they are thinly veiled communists. I suppose one could argue that communists embrace atheism and therefore it's okay to not like them, but I still shouldn't thereby like capitalism(well actually, the Bible seems to encourage laissez-faire, as long as the rich make charitable contributions of a meaningful size to those less fortunate). Still, I shouldn't like Republicans(then again, I registered as a Conservative, because they're the closest thing to decency in politics. ARRRGGGGHHH!!)
You see what I mean about being a lousy Christian? You want a halfway decent example of a Christian, ask Brad to hook you up. He's a real Christian, so he'll know a few.
Anyways, I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't bother listening to someone talk about their religion, they're gonna sugar-coat it. Just get a basic lexicon of terms and rules that these proponents are supposed to be following, and then examine the representative to see how well they represent their faith.
If they are doing a great job, then you now need to examine that faith. You need to decide whether or not this faith is conducive to the harmony of humanity as a whole, not just one race or economic class. Further, if this religion bases itself upon some book or other defined philosophy, you should attempt to ensure that the message the religion claims is a) genuine, inasmuch as available texts can be translated, and b) unique, inasmuch as if differing versions exist, one of them can be reliably treated as authentic, and that is the one followed.
At the risk of angering the resident atheists, I'd have to state the obvious: their religion, since it has no rules whatsoever, is utterly non-conducive to harmony, as the absence of governing is anarchy, and anarchy simply does not work on any level once it is applied to a second entity. As soon as a second person arrives in an anarchistic 'society', some laws must be created to protect the individuals, and the anarchy must instantly vanish, by definition. Even 'unspoken rules' agreed upon by members of the now-defunct anarchy qualify as government.
(If anyone wants to debate anarchy/atheism with me, please start another thread.)
Naturally, I voted 'Other'. I am, after all, a Jehovah's Witness, and we bear about as much resemblance to what claims to be Christianity as roast beef does to horse doo-doo.
Some of us quote the rules, some of us actually try to obey them... Some of us keep the religion pure, some of us add whatever will keep us from getting beat up, or whatever will get bodies on the pews and money on the plates.
Tell you all what: go read a Bible, and then examine the various religions that claim to follow it's teachings. Don't take my word, don't take the Pope's word, don't take Jerry Falwell's word. Just take a good hard long look, and make your own decision as to who is trying their best to do the will of the God they claim to follow.
Then look at the way those people act, toward each other, toward strangers, and even toward themselves. Ask yourself which of these groups really seems dedicated to the concept of 'love thy neighbor'.
Now ask yourself, which one of these groups' followers would I like to live next door to me? And you know what? Feel free to examine the teachings and followers of all the religions that don't claim to be Christian or Bible-based, measuring all of them by the same yardstick: how well they practice what they preach.
I can't think of any more powerful argument than your own eyes. All I am asking is that you open them up.
And one last thing: I am about the worst example of a Christian you'd ever hope to meet. I try to be a nice person, but I am very easily distracted or enticed from doing what is right. I anger easily, and I 'hit' back when attacked. (Although I've never struck any one in anger, I speak only of verbal assaults.)
(Honestly, I've been beaten several times, but I never raised a hand against my attackers. Of course, that may be because they were cowards who outnumbered me three to one minimum every time, but I could be wrong. But I've never hit anyone, ever. Wow. That totally freaks me out. I just turned thirty two.)
I'm not supposed to be political, but I am in many ways. I don't like Communism, and I don't like Democrats in America, because they are thinly veiled communists. I suppose one could argue that communists embrace atheism and therefore it's okay to not like them, but I still shouldn't thereby like capitalism(well actually, the Bible seems to encourage laissez-faire, as long as the rich make charitable contributions of a meaningful size to those less fortunate). Still, I shouldn't like Republicans(then again, I registered as a Conservative, because they're the closest thing to decency in politics. ARRRGGGGHHH!!)
You see what I mean about being a lousy Christian? You want a halfway decent example of a Christian, ask Brad to hook you up. He's a real Christian, so he'll know a few.
Anyways, I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't bother listening to someone talk about their religion, they're gonna sugar-coat it. Just get a basic lexicon of terms and rules that these proponents are supposed to be following, and then examine the representative to see how well they represent their faith.
If they are doing a great job, then you now need to examine that faith. You need to decide whether or not this faith is conducive to the harmony of humanity as a whole, not just one race or economic class. Further, if this religion bases itself upon some book or other defined philosophy, you should attempt to ensure that the message the religion claims is a) genuine, inasmuch as available texts can be translated, and b) unique, inasmuch as if differing versions exist, one of them can be reliably treated as authentic, and that is the one followed.
At the risk of angering the resident atheists, I'd have to state the obvious: their religion, since it has no rules whatsoever, is utterly non-conducive to harmony, as the absence of governing is anarchy, and anarchy simply does not work on any level once it is applied to a second entity. As soon as a second person arrives in an anarchistic 'society', some laws must be created to protect the individuals, and the anarchy must instantly vanish, by definition. Even 'unspoken rules' agreed upon by members of the now-defunct anarchy qualify as government.
(If anyone wants to debate anarchy/atheism with me, please start another thread.)
Euthenasia very helpfull in solving the Social Security problem.
