Do you believe in God?

[Joey D]

Obviously it works both way, doing soul searching can lead you to being a non-believer too. I don't have a problem with anyone's belief as long as they thought about it and can explain why they believe that way.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

It's called the force, you just happen to finally discover your midi-chlorians.

What level are your midi-chlorians?

I had 23mg/dL last time I checked

 

[Kingland093]

Nah, I don't know why it is a sin nowadays (the New Testament doesn't say that it's a sin; hence the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian Lutheran (Protestant) churches have allowed gay "marriage"). The old context is no longer valid in current western (or any) society.

If by "old context" you mean the Old Testament, of course it's still valid!!! It's part of the Bible is it not?

Well, I'm guessing religious people feel somekind of joy from worshipping?
Worshipping is pain, the sacrifices people make to worship are pain.
Being born into sin is pain, being a servant is pain.

I don't find going to mass painful.

 

[Joel]

I don't find going to mass painful.

Are you implying that church pews are comfortable?

 

[Scaff]

Well, the sin aspect is not very loudly preached here. The priests mostly talk about doing good.

That they hide it is a moot point (and would arguably make Catholasism at the very least more honest about its credo), its still a central tenant of Christianity.

The second it changes this then the entire control element disappears.

Weichnachtsbaum tradition was established in a society that had been Christian for almost 1500 years, it doesn't have a straight line to pagan worship. Especially when the trees the Germanic tribes worshipped were usually oaks (oak is a holy tree in many pagan religions) or other monumental, usually broad-leaved trees. It's true that in every country Christianity has expanded to it has been mixed with local traditions, somewhere more, elsewhere less. The gift tradition was also discontinued for a long time before it began again. Of course it might have taken influence of festivals from the past, but the current is associated with Saint Nicholas (which over time became Santa Claus).

It's however true that Christianity has taken a lot of influence from pagan traditions; the original Sabbath is Saturday, while the Christians' resting day on Sunday, because Sunday was a Roman resting day and it was more convenient to continue the old tradition in Rome.

Now aside from the fact that non-christian religions (including the Romans) have all revered the evergreen long before Christianity, why do you believe that Christianity has needed to hijack other festivals?

To this day, children and teenagers are pretty obedient in the Middle East (minus Israel, because it's mainly influenced by the West). The people there aren't practically allowed to rebel almost at all in their teen years, and they don't usually do it. Cultural context, again.

My own experiences in the region would counter than, and to be blunt young people seem to have been doing a very good job of rebelling in the Middle East and North Africa over the last few years.

As an example of the cultural context difference, during the war (WWII) here in Finland people could be trialled and executed for a theft - crimes were really rare during the war because even a small crime could result in execution. Soldiers who disobeyed orders in combat were shot without trial, and general disobedience resulted in prison camp. Even though the strict rules, very few were executed or imprisoned.

Such rules were in place in almost every country in Europe during WW2, they were not as effective as you seem to think, given that a good number of people managed to make a living from subverting those rules.

Nowhere it says that God cares only of us humans. After all, according to Genesis everything is his creation, if that's true, why wouldn't he care for those other creatures on Earth?

Please explain exactly what you think was meant by God giving man dominion over everything.

Oh and it would seem he cares so much about all those other animals that not a single one of them gets into his heaven.

Qu'ran's original language is Arabic. Torah is originally in Ancient Hebrew. They have been translated to English too.

Yes I'm aware of that, I have friends who are both and have discussed it with them.

Also, even though trinity was introduced later, God still was "God and the Holy Ghost". That would be enough to say "us". But what are you trying to acquire from this? The time Leviticus was written Judaism was clearly monotheistic, and Islam has always been strictly monotheistic, Allah means "[the] only God".

The holy spirit in the Jewish context was a trait of the God, not another form of him (so still a singular), and I'm not sure why you are mentioning Leviticus as this was from Genesis.

Now most historians believe (as we actually have evidence for it) that this is simply a throwback to the fact that Judaism has its roots in the Canaanite religion of the region, which had a pantheon of gods, one of whom was Yahweh the god of the Israelite's and War. They because monotheistic in the 6th century BCE.

Now you are again being black and white. If all the law is based on that, what is the supreme law? The Great Commandment. The Law and Prophets are just to keep people in line with the Great Commandment, as pre-emptive action to prevent people from doing wrong. It might not work nowadays, but who is to say it didn't work back then?

Actually no I'm not the one being black and white. I am not the one taking text that doesn't specific state that it dismisses or overwrites the OT laws and state that they do.

I'm saying that the quote from Matthew I cited says that Jesus intend to fulfill these laws, the other quotes you have provided talk of the order of importance of laws and throws in a new one (that originated in a number of other pre-christian cultures). It only talks however of the order of importance, not the replacement of other laws.

Now within the (actual) historical context none of this surprises me. Judaism has its roots in a warrior cult of Canaanite origins, much of the OT supports this - with its strict and unyielding laws, many of which deal with what to do with the people you conquer and enslave. However Christianity is (as Famine has mentioned before) an attempt at a religious 're-boot' and starts to introduce a new direction, however it wasn't quite ready to alienate its carried over Jewish followers and get rid of the old laws.

 

[fitftw]

Do religious people kill bugs in their house? I am non-religious and I take bugs outside or I leave them alone. Is there anything in the Bible about leaving bugs alone because you wouldn't want to be killed if YOU were a bug? If not, why not? Why does man just get to do whatever the hell he wants while the other animals get screwed? That does not seem very fair to every non-human on this planet. In fact it would seem to me extremely selfish to consider yourself above any other living creature. We are ALL fighting for survival in our different ways.

 

[XoravaX]

If by "old context" you mean the Old Testament, of course it's still valid!!! It's part of the Bible is it not?

Nah, I meant the social context. The reason why homosexuality was possibly detrimental to the society is no longer valid.
Of course it is valid in religious tradition, because religion is based on it. Even though I don't have anything against gays and gay "marriage" as a civil union, I see church marriage something that is only between a man and a woman, because of the tradition.

Now aside from the fact that non-christian religions (including the Romans) have all revered the evergreen long before Christianity, why do you believe that Christianity has needed to hijack other festivals?

It was far easier to spread when it just replaced the older traditions without abolishing the new. But you purposefully try to avoid the point that the Christmas tree tradition begun over 1000 years after the Germanic religion was abolished.

My own experiences in the region would counter than, and to be blunt young people seem to have been doing a very good job of rebelling in the Middle East and North Africa over the last few years.

Those who've rebelled were mostly young adults (as its western meaning, around 20) that is. The 15-year-olds' teenage rebellion against parents is a western-world-only thing, because traditionally in the Middle East the people are given a lot more responsibility and freedom already at the age of 13-15. They needn't rebel against their parents to gain freedom.

Such rules were in place in almost every country in Europe during WW2, they were not as effective as you seem to think, given that a good number of people managed to make a living from subverting those rules.

Well, here they were pretty effective. My grandfather was a military police officer and later a prison camp guard, he said most of the crime was civilians buying smuggled goods (from Sweden) that were never registered in the rationing system. Also, another punishment was lowering food rations, which worked pretty well.

Please explain exactly what you think was meant by God giving man dominion over everything.

Oh and it would seem he cares so much about all those other animals that not a single one of them gets into his heaven.

Well, the Finnish modern translation (from Greek) uses a word that would be translated to English as "reign" or "look after".

But where is it said that he doesn't care about the animals? There are even metaphors like "Agnus Dei" (Christ), which literally means "lamb of God"; and the Holy Ghost is said to have an appearance of a bird, presumably a dove.

The holy spirit in the Jewish context was a trait of the God, not another form of him (so still a singular), and I'm not sure why you are mentioning Leviticus as this was from Genesis.

Ah, my bad, was too tired. Anyway, all five books of Moses, the Torah, were written in the same period. Of course, there are things that question the strict monotheism like the angels and Satan, too. Us, may also refer to the angels, his servants. Because the whole Genesis is monotheistic, why would there have been left a trace that may be thought as a hint of polytheism? I doubt it really has anything to do with polytheism.

Now most historians believe (as we actually have evidence for it) that this is simply a throwback to the fact that Judaism has its roots in the Canaanite religion of the region, which had a pantheon of gods, one of whom was Yahweh the god of the Israelite's and War. They because monotheistic in the 6th century BCE.

Yeah, I've read that. But the Moabites (a Canaanite people) didn't name Yahweh as one of their gods in the 9th century BC, instead they just wrote how they plundered a temple of Yahweh after defeating the Israelites.

Yw or Ym might refer to Yahweh, but it can't be said for sure. Linguistics is a science where things can easily be misinterpreted: for example, my language (Finnish) word for water, "vesi" shares similarity to Germanic languages' word for water (Wasser (with a German w), vatten), to the extent it was believed to be a loanword, but later research found out that it was derived from an original Fenno-ugric word and actually as far as from original Uralic language.

I don't deny that Yw shares similarity to YHWH, but it's still far from certain. Even if it were, it's not certain the Israelites borrowed it from the Babylonians, it could have happened the other way around. See, in Rome in the 1st century BC some Romans, especially sailors and merchants begun worshipping Yahweh too, along with the Roman gods. It could have happened in Babylon as well.

By the way, using BCE may cause problems in the future. It's not certain our culture will live forever, and there are other systems too - Jews, Muslims, the Chinese, Hindi and Japanese have their own Common Eras too - future historians may have a problem with the BCE markings.

Actually no I'm not the one being black and white. I am not the one taking text that doesn't specific state that it dismisses or overwrites the OT laws and state that they do.

I'm saying that the quote from Matthew I cited says that Jesus intend to fulfill these laws, the other quotes you have provided talk of the order of importance of laws and throws in a new one (that originated in a number of other pre-christian cultures). It only talks however of the order of importance, not the replacement of other laws.

Now within the (actual) historical context none of this surprises me. Judaism has its roots in a warrior cult of Canaanite origins, much of the OT supports this - with its strict and unyielding laws, many of which deal with what to do with the people you conquer and enslave. However Christianity is (as Famine has mentioned before) an attempt at a religious 're-boot' and starts to introduce a new direction, however it wasn't quite ready to alienate its carried over Jewish followers and get rid of the old laws.

The order of importance however makes some of the "lesser" laws conflict with the Great Commandment; if a lesser law is against a greater one, wouldn't you presume it's the greater one to follow? That, technically makes the conflicting lesser law void.

Yeah, Christianity is a clear re-boot, but similar opinions had already been heard amongst the Jews. Talmud already has that.

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn it.

It doesnt really matter, It's magical thinking that is the problem.
If we allow magical thoughts to creep into us, some people take them to seriously, (extremists) when truly believing means it is not an insane thought to think that death is better than life.

Moderates are providing a shade under which an extremist can be taught and cultivated.

Well, you actually hit the nail with that one. But there are always idiots, and they needn't religion to be lured to extremism. Enough anger, and those people are ready to do anything.

 

[VBR]

...

 

[Emptyone]

"Faith is...the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 King James Version (KJV). God cannot be seen by man, just as it's written; "No man hath seen God at any time..." John 1:18 KJV.

But God has been seen by man, at least twice, by Abraham Genesis 17.1 and by Moses Exodus 24:9-11. There seems to be a contradiction there.

Also ...

The majority of scientists believe in at least one of the various & conflicting theories of evolution.

When was there more than one theory of Evolution? There is the theory of Evolution, and it is not conflicting with any other one.

 

[Carbonox]

But God has been seen by man, at least twice, by Abraham Genesis 17.1 and by Moses Exodus 24:9-11. There seems to be a contradiction there.

Really, proof from men whose existence hasn't even been confirmed, and even if it was, they would be dead for very long by now?

Not valid by any decent standards.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

But God has been seen by man, at least twice, by Abraham Genesis 17.1 and by Moses Exodus 24:9-11. There seems to be a contradiction there.

No one has ever seen God;

Definitely some contradiction.

 

[fitftw]

So belief in God is based on the "fact" that 2 dudes thousands of years ago claim to have seen God? And you believe this "fact" why? Oh that's right...faith...which is evidence of things not known or seen...

Well then, those with faith will believe, and those who need a bit more tangible evidence, will not.

 

[niky]

The majority of scientists believe in at least one the various & conflicting theories of evolution.

There are no conflicting theories, there is only the one.

However, there are many scientists who do not & believe the available evidence actually leads to the conclusion that there is indeed a Creator.

Intelligent Design is not a science, therefore not scientists.

The problem is that we mostly only see evidence from the prosecution in the media, so to speak, which over our lifetime could lead to us having a biased viewpoint.

The evidence is the evidence. And evidence for Evolution does not disprove the existence of God any more than the Bible proves it.

If you consider yourself to be a reasonable person with an open mind, download the PDF below & consider the evidence for the defense. It's from one of the less popular Christian denominations, but it is extemely well researched & presented. You'll find little to no religious doctrine in it, just scientific reasoning.





PS: After reading the brochure watch this video & then ask yourself; did all these vastly complex molecular machines really just create themselves out of non living matter?

No religious doctrine, when Question Number Five directly states the Bible is scientifically accurate? Right.

Most of these questions have been discussed and debunked here at length, but if you want to take them up again, there's always the "Creation vs. Evolution" thread, right here in this subforum:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51448

 

[ScouserInExile]

To make a comparison; just the existence of the computer code that makes up GT5 is indirect evidence that Polyphony Digital actually exists, even if we've never personally seen them.

Actually, no it doesn't. Having the Polyphony logo proves nothing other than the existence of a polyphony logo. The game could have been created by another company under a pseudonym.

And the massive difference between the idea the a god created the universe and a specific company created a game is that there is physical evidence that can be independently proven for who created the game. There is no actual evidence a higher being created the universe.

 

[BobK]

wrong. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin but we are not told to hate or fear gays because they're people to

Right. We are not told to hate or fear gays. We are, however, told they should be put to death. Don't hate them, just kill them:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

I mean, really.

 

[fitftw]

BobK, don't you know that almost every religious person today is somehow allowed to pick and choose things from their religious texts and ignore the rest? Apparently God will still let them into heaven even if they don't kill the gays.

God: I see you didn't kill all the gays even though my book told you to.
Religious Guy: Yes God, I didn't want to go to jail for murder.
God: Well that's too bad. Have fun in hell!

 

[Liquid]

Sorry BobK, but Leviticus is outdated and doesn't count today, even though it's in a book of God's alleged definitive word.

Didn't you know you can pick and choose sections to tailor for your own beliefs? That's the beauty of multiple choice!

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Sorry BobK, but Leviticus is outdated and doesn't count today, even though it's in a book of God's definitive word.

Didn't you know you can pick and choose sections to tailor for your own beliefs? That's the beauty of multiple choice!

Is this satire?

It is isn't it.. Ooops.

Yes God changes his mind frequently.

 

[Joey D]

BobK, don't you know that almost every religious person today is somehow allowed to pick and choose things from their religious texts and ignore the rest? Apparently God will still let them into heaven even if they don't kill the gays.

God: I see you didn't kill all the gays even though my book told you to.
Religious Guy: Yes God, I didn't want to go to jail for murder.
God: Well that's too bad. Have fun in hell!

People pick and choose because most religious people aren't hateful people and most understand the Bible was written in a time that is vastly different from today's world. Following an overall message tends to be what many religious people do. It's not to say there aren't hateful people who believe the literal word but that happens with just about every group out there.

 

[ScouserInExile]

"This book is the irrefutable, absolute word of god. Well... the bits of it that we agree with are, at least. The rest is just filler, really"

 

[fitftw]

People pick and choose because most religious people aren't hateful people and most understand the Bible was written in a time that is vastly different from today's world.

Then perhaps they should abstain from religion? The book is telling you to go out there and slit the throats of gay people. If you choose not to, you are faking your religion and God would probably be more offended by your fakeness than by someone who abstains completely.

Tell me why religious people circumcise children but do not kill gays. The children don't get to say "HEY get AWAY from that!" And the gays don't get to say "I do" in most states of America. Religion is cruel and selfish.

 

[Joey D]

Then perhaps they should abstain from religion? The book is telling you to go out there and slit the throats of gay people. If you choose not to, you are faking your religion and God would probably be more offended by your fakeness than by someone who abstains completely.

Tell me why religious people circumcise children but do not kill gays. The children don't get to say "HEY get AWAY from that!" And the gays don't get to say "I do" in most states of America. Religion is cruel and selfish.

Or people use their brains an understand that parts of the bible are outdated like I said.

And circumcisions and gay people are related? What on earth are you on about?

 

[fitftw]

Circumcision and gays are both discussed in religious texts. Jews are SUPPOSED to circumcise their baby boys AND kill gays.

Circumcising a baby who has no language skills is WRONG. Telling gays they can't marry is WRONG.

 

[Joey D]

Circumcision and gay people are both discussed in religious texts. Jews are SUPPOSED to circumcise their baby boys AND kill gays.

Both are STUPID. Circumcising a baby who has no language skills is WRONG. Telling gays they can't marry is WRONG.

I don't know I know quite a few Jewish people and I don't know any of them that think they are supposed to kill gays. I even know a few gay rabbis.

And circumcision is a cultural thing. But leave it for that creepy thread because I'm not all about discussing snipping tips

 

[ScouserInExile]

Or people use their brains an understand that parts of the bible are outdated like I said.

Or, more to the point, people use their brains to choose which parts of the bible they want to believe are outdated and which parts they want to believe are still relevant in order to make it all fit in with their current world view.

 

[fitftw]

If the bible can be outdated and we agree that some parts of it are indeed outdated, then what makes us think the rest of it is any better than Buddhism or non-religion? I'll tell you: irrational fear and childhood indoctrination.

 

[Joey D]

If the bible can be outdated and we agree that some parts of it are indeed outdated, then what makes us think the rest of it is any better than Buddhism or non-religion? I'll tell you: irrational fear and childhood indoctrination.

I don't think one belief or non-belief system is better than anyone other belief or non-belief system. I'm not suggesting Christianity is the best religion out there, I'm not even Christian myself.

But many people think their belief is correct because it's human nature. We all think we have something better than the next person. I mean look at cars, it's really obvious when people talk about cars they think theirs is the best.

 

[Scaff]

It was far easier to spread when it just replaced the older traditions without abolishing the new.

What a polite way of describing the systematic destruction of other, already established belief systems.

But you purposefully try to avoid the point that the Christmas tree tradition begun over 1000 years after the Germanic religion was abolished.

So if a Christian digs up an old pagan totem and co-ops it for Christianity that automatically makes it Christian does it?

I'm not sure which part of pagan's used the evergreen as a religious symbol well before Christianity is causing problems?

Those who've rebelled were mostly young adults (as its western meaning, around 20) that is. The 15-year-olds' teenage rebellion against parents is a western-world-only thing, because traditionally in the Middle East the people are given a lot more responsibility and freedom already at the age of 13-15. They needn't rebel against their parents to gain freedom.

May I ask how much time you have spent in the middle east, as the above most certainly doesn't gel with my own experiences.

They may not rebel in the exact same way that they do in the western world (that would however be your issue for assigning western norms to a non-western culture), but rebel they most certainly do.

Well, here they were pretty effective. My grandfather was a military police officer and later a prison camp guard, he said most of the crime was civilians buying smuggled goods (from Sweden) that were never registered in the rationing system. Also, another punishment was lowering food rations, which worked pretty well.

In other words the laws and harsh penalties didn't stop people from breaking the law, which was the exact point I was making.

Well, the Finnish modern translation (from Greek) uses a word that would be translated to English as "reign" or "look after".

But where is it said that he doesn't care about the animals? There are even metaphors like "Agnus Dei" (Christ), which literally means "lamb of God"; and the Holy Ghost is said to have an appearance of a bird, presumably a dove.

Dominion means to rule over and or to control (which is exactly what reign means as well.

It does not mean 'to look after', and I'm not sure why you keep heading for these fluffy (and incorrect) definitions.

I also have never stated that he didn;t care about animals (so please don't imply that), I said the bible says that man is superior to the other animals and plants of the Earth.

Ah, my bad, was too tired. Anyway, all five books of Moses, the Torah, were written in the same period. Of course, there are things that question the strict monotheism like the angels and Satan, too. Us, may also refer to the angels, his servants. Because the whole Genesis is monotheistic, why would there have been left a trace that may be thought as a hint of polytheism? I doubt it really has anything to do with polytheism.

Hold on he's only just created the universe and the earth, so I must have missed the bit in Genesis in which he mentions creating them? Could you let me know what chapter that is.

Yeah, I've read that. But the Moabites (a Canaanite people) didn't name Yahweh as one of their gods in the 9th century BC, instead they just wrote how they plundered a temple of Yahweh after defeating the Israelites.

Yw or Ym might refer to Yahweh, but it can't be said for sure. Linguistics is a science where things can easily be misinterpreted: for example, my language (Finnish) word for water, "vesi" shares similarity to Germanic languages' word for water (Wasser (with a German w), vatten), to the extent it was believed to be a loanword, but later research found out that it was derived from an original Fenno-ugric word and actually as far as from original Uralic language.

I don't deny that Yw shares similarity to YHWH, but it's still far from certain. Even if it were, it's not certain the Israelites borrowed it from the Babylonians, it could have happened the other way around. See, in Rome in the 1st century BC some Romans, especially sailors and merchants begun worshipping Yahweh too, along with the Roman gods. It could have happened in Babylon as well.

So what your saying is that Judaism just popped up as a Monotheistic religion despite the rather large amount of evidence that points to it being originality a sect worshiping one god within a pantheon that decided to go it alone?

Look at it from a totally historic point of view for a second if you are able and honestly say which is more likely, that worship of Yahweh simple popped out of thin air, or that it evolved from a pantheon into a monotheistic religion of its own?

The simple fact is that we may never know, however over time the evidence does build for the latter, particularly as early Yahwism (pre-Judaism) wasn't monotheistic:

Orthodox Yahwism demanded the exclusive worship of Yahweh (although without denying the existence of other gods).

By the way, using BCE may cause problems in the future. It's not certain our culture will live forever, and there are other systems too - Jews, Muslims, the Chinese, Hindi and Japanese have their own Common Eras too - future historians may have a problem with the BCE markings.

The exact same issue can be said for using BC and AD, Christianity has been around for 2,000 years, a fraction of the time mankind has been around and a speck in the time span of the planet. I will stick with my preferred measure thanks.

The order of importance however makes some of the "lesser" laws conflict with the Great Commandment; if a lesser law is against a greater one, wouldn't you presume it's the greater one to follow? That, technically makes the conflicting lesser law void.

Yeah, Christianity is a clear re-boot, but similar opinions had already been heard among the Jews. Talmud already has that.

In doing it creates create confusion and introduces a mass of contradictions to the work of a divine being (opps - that's not supposed to happen).

I also find it interesting that you constantly bang on about how the great commandment (that isn't Christian in origin) is superior to the OT laws, you also like to re-enforce that the Lutheran church in particular follows this.

The reason why I find it interesting is because of the great importance that Martin Luther placed on OT laws in his own writings:

You have this law to see therein, that you have not been free from sin, but also that you clearly see, how pure toward God life should be. Have mercy, Lord!
Lord Jesus, help us in our need; Christ, you are our go-between indeed. Our works, how sinful, marred, unjust! Christ, you are our one hope and trust. Have mercy, Lord!

The Ten Commandments cause us to ask ourselves the following questions: Do I fear, love and trust in anything or anyone above the Triune God? Have I honored the Lord's name on my lips and in my life? Have I gladly held His Word sacred, listened attentively to the preaching of that Word, and made use of it in my daily life? Have I honored and obeyed all the authorities placed over me? Have I maintained the purity of my marriage and my sexual life in my thoughts, words and deeds? Have I stolen property or not helped my neighbor protect his? Have I gossiped, either by listening to it, or spreading it myself? Have I been content with all that the Lord has given to me?

The Law is a blinding reflection of our sin. The Law of God is what the Holy Spirit uses to make us realize how much we need the forgiveness Christ won for the world and now distributes through His Word and Sacraments. The Holy Spirit calls us by the Gospel, to turn to Christ Jesus, who is our only hope, for He has fulfilled the Law perfectly for us and died so that our sin would be forgiven. Through His resurrection from death, He conquered death. In Christ, we have been adopted as the Lord's own dear children.

Therefore, God uses His Law in three ways: First, like a curb, by which outbursts of sin are controlled. Second, and most importantly, like a mirror, to show us our sin and our need for a Savior. And then, like a guide, to teach us what is pleasing to Him. Living in the forgiveness won by Christ, throughout our lives we pray, "Have mercy, Lord!"

Source - http://10commandments.biz/biz/ten_commandments_list_lutheran.html

It also casts a bit of a new light on the idea of Sin not being a central point, seems he was rather hot on it.

 

[fitftw]

But many people think their belief is correct because it's human nature. We all think we have something better than the next person. I mean look at cars, it's really obvious when people talk about cars they think theirs is the best.

I don't go around telling everyone my Miata is God's gift to the car world. It's the best car "for me" much like your religion is the best religion "for you" and you should not push the laws of your religion onto others, only yourself.

Having a vote on gay marriage or other things that religions fear, just doesn't work when most people use their religion as a reason to vote against it. Issues like that should not be up for a vote. I don't know any atheists who vote against gay marriage.

Religion needs to stay FAR away from politics, but it can't because those two subjects are actually married. How can I issue a divorce, or a restraining order? Why is it not possible?

 

[Joey D]

I don't go around telling everyone my Miata is God's gift to the car world. It's the best car "for me" much like your religion is the best religion "for you" and you should not push the laws of your religion onto others, only yourself.

Right, you shouldn't force your religion onto others but at the same time you shouldn't force a non-belief onto others either. Believe or not-believe how you want and don't force your view onto others.