Jump to content
Guest kingfish out of water

Religion


Recommended Posts

so I was at my kid's preschool this morning for a daddy breakfast. One of the other fathers was there w/ his daughter and happened to be wearing a fleece which said over the left breast in the typical logo area 'in Christ Jesus is Lord'.

 

Now normally I wouldn't have thought twice about this except for one oddity....we both are sending our kids to a Jewish preschool.

 

I think a few minutes later he thought about it himself and took it off.

 

I don't think he had any agenda. I think he just threw on something this morning and didn't realize it said anything until he got to school.

 

Anyway I thought it was slightly humourus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe someone's feelings were hurt after misinterpreting the title of a thread on the internet. Jesus. H. Christ.

 

My feelings were not hurt, and I didn't misinterpret the title of the thread, thank you.  I just simply suggested that the thread be titled something a little more in tune with the discussion that was going on in the thread now.  I am not religious, and personally think that a lot of what happens in the name of religion is indeed horrible, but to some, it is important and sacred, and I think we should respect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that strike me is the absolute lack of respect for non-believers.  Bowing heads for the State of the State is a good example.  Has a non-believer ever been elected to a major public office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're in the minority.  Plus we threaten something that many in the majority hold sacred.  Not exactly a match made in heaven (bad joke).

 

Lord!  lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't afford to be a non-believer politically.  You can't afford to be Muslim a whole lot either, but I think there are a few in office out there.  Not being Christian or Jewish really is a barrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood the reasoning behind the original name of this thread, and didn't have a problem with it.  But, please don't act like the non-believers get no respect.  You guys constantly ridicule believers whether they are privately practicing their faith or publically expressing beliefs in some extreme manner.

 

How long would a thread titled "All the non-believers are going to hell" last?

 

If I am in a group that is expressing some form of faith, out of respect I play along.  Bowing heads, kneeling, whatever.  I'm secure enough to not have to make a spectacle of myself by not following along.  Doesn't hurt anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^You've never shown yourself to be a go along to get along sort, DanB. It says a lot that you would expect others to compromise their own belief system for fear of offending the majority.

 

Make no mistake: Atheists are excluded from political life in the US and carry a huge social stigma in about every other corner of society. Many atheists, out of fear of retribution or exclusion, bow their head and play along just as you do.

 

As for religious displays at civic events, nobody has any business bowing their heads for anything. We are very lucky to have a constitution that draws an explicit line between religion and government. Let's just all understand that once we let that boundary blur, we're on our way to being Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I know you don't believe that is what the founders intended!  There is too much evidence to the contrary.

 

I would never expect others to compromise their belief systems, especially out of fear of offending the majority.  My point was for respecting the majority.  What point does it prove in not bowing one's head?  Only says you are insulting, or are better than those who do.

 

When attending a Jewish wedding, should a Catholic refuse to wear a Yamulka (sp)?  That would be disrespectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, that is a poor argument.  I could turn that around and ask you about equality.  Do you really think the Founders intended for blacks to be treated equally?  HELL NO.  So, according to your logic, equality isn't part of the constitution, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing in which us non-atheists can take comfort: In any large city there are major medical facilities bearing names like “Catholic,” “Good Samaritan,” “Saint So-and-So,” “Lutheran,” “Methodist,” “Baptist,” “Beth Israel,” and “Mt. Sinai,” etc. It is therefore unlikely that atheists and other garden variety non-believers—being so highly principled and unwilling to compromise their integrity--will be clogging up the ER's of these places in need of treatment for a medical emergency! Who knows what kind of voodoo medicine they practice. (Surely the nearst atheist hospital must be right around the corner--well, when at least when they finally get around to building one) LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I would be compromising anything if I went to St. Vincent Charity.  I would be going for the best health care (which at St. Vincent's, doubtful it's true).  I was delivered at St. Thomas in Akron, too.  I don't think many people equate going to a health-care institution with a religous name as anything religious, they're going to get fixed. 

 

Really, I don't see why the believers just don't pray to God to fix their ills.  Why rely on science?  Science brought evolution.  Can't denounce science with creationism and then turn around and depend on it for medical treatment, can you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, by your logic, you tremble with fear/avoid at all costs the prospect of being treated in a hospital without a religious-sounding name? LOL!!!

 

not at all, I just have more options! LOL

 

Wherever you go, though, you'd better check the credentials of your medical team; they may have Ivy League educations and/or voted for Obama. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible! Everybody knows hospitals refuse to touch filthy, filthy government money. ESPECIALLY the ones with religious-sounding names.

 

Religiously-affiliated hospitals accept government money because they know that atheists will show up to utilize their services; and isn’t it only fair that they also help pay their own way? (Not that anyone would be turned away; everyone knows that people of faith are far more charitable and benevolent than those without--but I digress)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much medicare reimburses for services performed by Prayeramedics.

 

Oh, and speaking of charity/scorekeeping, I swam my mile for Central Ohio Diabetes Association this morning and urbanohio was well represented--forumers of all political/faith stripes gave, and in turn, UO just received a reciprocal gift of $25 from me. Pictures coming soon. Oh yes: there were pictures.

 

If you want on the give train, click on over to my fundraising page: https://www.kintera.org/faf/donorReg/donorPledge.asp?ievent=300345&lis=0&kntae300345=3073F4EA11034B76A44DC07E956897AD&supId=163164349

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

 

Matthew 7.1-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Settle down, that is why it was originally titled "The Awful Relgion Thread." 

 

Do you have facts to back up your assertion that the religious are more charitable? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You settle down.  You are the one mocking other's for their beliefs.

 

Kingfish, I prayed at mass today that nothing untoward would happen in the pool today.  No thanks necessary!  :roll:  What was your time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

 

Matthew 7.1-5

 

it was a joke! But not as bad as your awful (is there any other kind?) pun!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nu Uh, he mocked mine first. :-D :-D

 

One thing in which us non-atheists can take comfort: In any large city there are major medical facilities bearing names like “Catholic,” “Good Samaritan,” “Saint So-and-So,” “Lutheran,” “Methodist,” “Baptist,” “Beth Israel,” and “Mt. Sinai,” etc. It is therefore unlikely that atheists and other garden variety non-believers—being so highly principled and unwilling to compromise their integrity--will be clogging up the ER's of these places in need of treatment for a medical emergency! Who knows what kind of voodoo medicine they practice. (Surely the nearst atheist hospital must be right around the corner--well, when at least when they finally get around to building one) LOL

 

Dan B, you also never asked my question about the constitution and what the Framers wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One oft-cited study 2007 study indicated a higher rate of charitable giving by self-described conservatives http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html, church giving/volunteering driving the numbers.

 

Then there's this study that suggests some ulterior motives: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-07-morality-giving_N.htm

 

This study suggests something else: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/01/19/would-you-pay-for-something-if-you-didnt-have-to/

 

And this study, well...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6977202&page=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Settle down, that is why it was originally titled "The Awful Relgion Thread." 

 

Do you have facts to back up your assertion that the religious are more charitable? 

(why do I think we're reliving something on another thread from months ago?)

 

Full article: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

 

March 27, 2008

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

By George Will

 

"WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love bible verses.  Here are some of my favorites:

 

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"  -Matthew 19:23-24

 

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"  -Matthew 19:21

 

And....probably my favorite

 

"A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished."  -Proverbs 28:20

 

:shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you mean answered your question.  Besides, you answered it yourself.  No, woman and slaves were not considered equal.  What does that have to do with their feelings about religion?  All they said was no official government sponsored religion.  They opened every session with prayer, there is mention of God "everywhere" in our government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the conundrum is that that while the conservative/religious may be more charitiable, the big charity they give to is their church. that's only true charity in small part (have you seen the pastor's new watch? or the bills for waxing the floor of the vatican? ouch.), but yet it counts as 100% charity in any survey. that's unfair.

 

i'd think looking at the number of say, red cross donors in various cities and towns, would give a better picture of truly charitable people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You settle down.  You are the one mocking other's for their beliefs.

 

Kingfish, I prayed at mass today that nothing untoward would happen in the pool today.  No thanks necessary!  :roll:  What was your time?

 

The swim went fine: 28-minutes, no divine intervention required. Thanks again!

 

I love bible verses...

 

I like verses from the Supreme Court, too. Such as Justice David Souter, writing for the majority in the decision on the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), declaring "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egads!  The Bible supports communism.  Or at least it has funny ideas about private property. 

 

Leviticus 25

Acts I 2:44-45

Acts I 4:31-35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of people with no religion grows

By The Associated Press

03.09.2009 10:39am EDT

 

(New York City) A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths. And, since 1990, a slightly greater share of respondents - 1.2 percent - said they were part of new religious movements, including Scientology, Wicca and Santeria."

 

wicca and santeria are 'new?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the grand scheme they are.  Both are hybrid religions based on older elements, but they haven't been around that long as themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individualism, graying of churches contribute to religious downturn

By Meredith Moss, Dayton Daily News, March 11, 2009

 

The challenge to Christianity in the United States comes from a rejection of all forms of religion, according to a principal researcher of a new study on religion in America.

 

Full story: http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/oh/story/news/local/2009/03/11/ddn031109religion2.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^When I look at the the "religion versus atheism" argument, I don't think religious affiliation has much to do with anything. I think the problem is people don't practice what they preach. The issue in the United States is not that we're "too religious" (religion can be a very good thing in the community), the problem is teens "promise" not to have sex before marriage, get blackout drunk the next weekend, and hook-up at a trashy high school bonfire before the cops break it up...

 

And it's true our STD rates are terrible. That dude made some valid points on that, but he needs to keep in mind this is independent of religious influence. Correlation does not prove causation. There's no evidence that raising your kids in a right wing religious family makes them sluttier or more likely to catch an STD, and vice versa. I think we might just overall be sluttier/trashier/more risky people. That's the easiest conclusion. We're a nation in denial more than anything else.

 

I don't think liberalism/conservatism or religion/atheism have much influence on real world behavior. It seems there are lots of "bad seeds" from every belief system in regards to sexual promiscuity. This is a hook-up culture. That seems to cut across every line. You probably know kids from every background living like this. I wouldn't single out America's religious and conservative influence as being a reason we have higher STD rates than our Western counterparts. There are other influences at work...

 

The one bad thing I can say in regards to the right wing influence is that it did tie the hands of schools when it came to sex education. Kids weren't getting the information at home either, so where did they turn? Their peers...we all know how that ends up. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's true our STD rates are terrible. That dude made some valid points on that, but he needs to keep in mind this is independent of religious influence. Correlation does not prove causation. There's no evidence that raising your kids in a right wing religious family makes them sluttier or more likely to catch an STD, and vice versa. I think we might just overall be sluttier/trashier/more risky people. That's the easiest conclusion. We're a nation in denial more than anything else.

 

Everytime he compared the US to the Netherlands, France and Germany I rolled my eyes.  The demographics of those countries are MUCH different then the demographics of the United States and to pin our higher STD and teenage birth rates on the "conservative religious influence" is a bit of a leap IMO.

 

In any case it was a pretty funny video!  Thanks for posting that David.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

 

This is my 2nd post.

 

I decided I was an agnostic when I was 12 but am currently a heretic.

 

I say Born Again Heisenberg Heretic because B.A.H.H. cannot be sheep.

 

LOL  A joke with serious slightly components.

 

The word HELL is not in the Bible.  The Old Testament says SHEOL and the New Testament says HADES.  Now if Hades is the Greek word for HELL then why don't we ever hear the Greek word for HEAVEN?  If atheists are so smart why haven't they been telling the Christians that their translations of SHEOL and HADES have been wrong for centuries?  Get a Cruden's Concordance and look up HELL.

 

Ask most Christians and they have never heard of SHEOL.  Don't they believe the Bible is the Word of God?  If they really believed that shouldn't the correct translation be EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to them?

 

I didn't learn this until I was over 40.  I have never heard the word on television or radio.  How often have you heard the word HELL in your life.  Probably beyond counting.  So we have been brainwashed with incorrect information since childhood.  The culture runs on stupidity. [7876]

 

psik

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's true our STD rates are terrible. That dude made some valid points on that, but he needs to keep in mind this is independent of religious influence. Correlation does not prove causation. There's no evidence that raising your kids in a right wing religious family makes them sluttier or more likely to catch an STD, and vice versa. I think we might just overall be sluttier/trashier/more risky people. That's the easiest conclusion. We're a nation in denial more than anything else.

 

Everytime he compared the US to the Netherlands, France and Germany I rolled my eyes. The demographics of those countries are MUCH different then the demographics of the United States and to pin our higher STD and teenage birth rates on the "conservative religious influence" is a bit of a leap IMO.

 

What are the pertinent demographic differences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^When I look at the the "religion versus atheism" argument, I don't think religious affiliation has much to do with anything. I think the problem is people don't practice what they preach. The issue in the United States is not that we're "too religious" (religion can be a very good thing in the community), the problem is teens "promise" not to have sex before marriage, get blackout drunk the next weekend, and hook-up at a trashy high school bonfire before the cops break it up...

 

And it's true our STD rates are terrible. That dude made some valid points on that, but he needs to keep in mind this is independent of religious influence. Correlation does not prove causation. There's no evidence that raising your kids in a right wing religious family makes them sluttier or more likely to catch an STD, and vice versa. I think we might just overall be sluttier/trashier/more risky people. That's the easiest conclusion. We're a nation in denial more than anything else.

 

I don't think liberalism/conservatism or religion/atheism have much influence on real world behavior. It seems there are lots of "bad seeds" from every belief system in regards to sexual promiscuity. This is a hook-up culture. That seems to cut across every line. You probably know kids from every background living like this. I wouldn't single out America's religious and conservative influence as being a reason we have higher STD rates than our Western counterparts. There are other influences at work...

 

The one bad thing I can say in regards to the right wing influence is that it did tie the hands of schools when it came to sex education. Kids weren't getting the information at home either, so where did they turn? Their peers...we all know how that ends up. :roll:

 

You just contradicted yourself. You said that religion/conservatism doesn't play a role in how our society handles sex and issues related to sex (society's view on sex shapes our sex education programs, the quality of which influences statistics related to sex), but in your closing statement you said that religion/conservatism does play a role in the quality of our sex education programs (something that is shaped by our religious society). You also failed to mention the stigma that religion puts on sex and sex related topics. This stigma often makes it hard for people to talk openly about sex (and might cause people to have unprotected, promiscuous sex and cause people to not get tested, which causes the STD rate to rise). So, religion does have an effect on sex and sex related issues (as does our society, which is highly influenced by religion). If our country wasn't so Puritanical, I think that sex could be talked about more openly and STD rates, as well as teen pregnancy rates, would fall. I think you will also find that parents who raise their kids in an environment that is open about sex, that those kids are more likely to have protected sex with fewer partners (which some "religious" families might be open about sex, but it is more often than not a non-religions family that is open about sex). As far as our supposed "hook-up" society, I think it is a issue for college-aged people, but I don't think it is a societal problem.

 

Note: The media also holds some of the blame for its glamorization of sex (which ignores the consequences of unprotected or promiscuous sex), however, I feel that religion plays a much bigger role in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The demographics of those countries are MUCH different then the demographics of the United States

 

Well sex and Europe are equally overrated.  There, I said it. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The demographics of those countries are MUCH different then the demographics of the United States

 

 

Was that a quote? I said the opposite but then I realized those European countries are probably more like America without the Hispanics.

 

Well sex and Europe are equally overrated.  There, I said it. 

 

I can see that and I've never even been there. Hell, most people think London and Paris are 2000 years old when physically, London basically dates back to the mid Victorian era. It can't be any more intriguing than New York City.

 

But as far as education, business innovation, etc. I think Germany and Northern Europe deserve a lot of credit.

 

Apparently Russians are highly educated but I don't buy that since I've worked with Russian women who majored in stupid sh!t like "Tourism" who came to America to work at Kings Island. Then there's the anti-American propaganda and skewed, illogical economic theories imposed by the state. Russia is a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...