Religion is man-made, not God-made and beware only, the Religious Blind Mice

First topic message reminder :

This has always been my problem with it.

I have no problem with religion as it brings people together, in a family-type unit and they pray to their "father".

Religion doesn't destroy people or lives anymore than any other inanimate object does, until it gets in the wrong hands. People can find comfort in coming together and reading from their books; it's a community after all.

It only goes wrong when people become fanatical and so tunnel-visioned that they can't see beyond their scripts and their faith. When they cast God as in imposing force and a great dictator they do their own "father" an injustice.

They become religious blind mice.

Why do people have to question what other's believe? If a human wants to hold dear, some words that warm his soul and then share them with others who want to fill their souls with those words like a warm blanket, then who are we to judge?

As long as the religious who walk on the earth know that religion was made as a comfort club for the like-minded, what is the harm?


God didn't make religion. He doesn't need worship or promises or words set in stone to be carried like a boulder on your shoulder. He doesn't need undying love or the loyalty of a man acting like a lovesick new puppy.
He doesn't need any more blind mice.
He doesn't need, full-stop.

If he created you he wants you to be you. A you, that you created and sculpted and gave birth to. He trusts you to make the right choices and use the free will that he gave you to live and walk the path you choose.


God doesn't make religion; man makes religion in his own image.

Here's my poem (turned into a rock song) about religion and religious blind mice:

What was the fuss all about?
Couldn't help but notice there was nothing about you
A big fat ego in an empty shell
You blow your own trumpet and you blow it well
A little red book clutched to your heart, emphasising your love of God
Over and over and over

You ain't unique and you ain't exceptional
Speaking in tongues try and work a miracle
Walk on water then turn it to wine
Script that tries to twist your mind
Robots are what you got, well here's a sheep that strayed the flock
Over and over and over

Your words are candy floss they don't fill me up and I've had enough now
Back to the sidelines, get back to the sidelines
Your words are candyfloss, get on your cross coz I've had enough now
Oh I've had enough now...


I think God would like it

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, I'm not a Catholic. I could have chosen to "join" the Catholic Church, but I do not go along with some of their beliefs, so I haven't.

I never claimed you were not a Christian , which is about the third incorrect claim you have made to things I have not said. Catholics may very well challenge if you are Christian if you have not been baptized.
This is why it was an utter farce for HF to claim that none of us were Christians, when we were.
Again good luck to you on your Christianity Rags, to be honest you "seem" to mainly follow the teachings of Jesus, was in the main is no bad thing. You see your interpretation of being a Christian, if it does not effect the well being and equality of others, I would have little problem with, except if you back some of Paul's sexist views for example

I didn't say you claimed I was not a Christian (although you have kind of implied it from time to time). I said I wasn't a Catholic, and I didn't say you claimed I was not a Catholic either, so I don't understand your first point.

You are talking about the Catholic Church, not Christianity generally.

I don't give a stuff if Catholics challenge me or not. I'm not a Catholic, so it doesn't matter. I have been baptised, but that didn't make me a Christian.

When you're talking about Christianity, are you talking about Catholicism?

I can't answer for HF and what he said - you'll have to take that up with him.

I have my own views about what Paul said, but that's for another time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


I never claimed you were not a Christian , which is about the third incorrect claim you have made to things I have not said. Catholics may very well challenge if you are Christian if you have not been baptized.
This is why it was an utter farce for HF to claim that none of us were Christians, when we were.
Again good luck to you on your Christianity Rags, to be honest you "seem" to mainly follow the teachings of Jesus, was in the main is no bad thing. You see your interpretation of being a Christian, if it does not effect the well being and equality of others, I would have little problem with, except if you back some of Paul's sexist views for example

I didn't say you claimed I was not a Christian (although you have kind of implied it from time to time). I said I wasn't a Catholic, and I didn't say you claimed I was not a Catholic either, so I don't understand your first point.

You are talking about the Catholic Church, not Christianity generally.

I don't give a stuff if Catholics challenge me or not. I'm not a Catholic, so it doesn't matter. I have been baptised, but that didn't make me a Christian.

When you're talking about Christianity, are you talking about Catholicism?

I can't answer for HF and what he said - you'll have to take that up with him.

I have my own views about what Paul said, but that's for another time.

Again there is so many denominations where some say you do have to be baptized and others claim you do not. The verse from Mark is very telling where you need to do both to be saved. I have seen the arguments against this, but it seems silly not to get baptized just in case it is a requirement and God many. Works have been omitted which makes the notion of who is right or wrong based solely on the views of men who lived centuries after the events and decided which books were legitimate.
Catholicism, one of 40,000 sub sets or denominations of Christianity.
So being a catholic, you also still be a Christian also.

Here this will help explain:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_vs_Christianity

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

no I base it on the total lack of knowledge of anything to do with Christianity....

You keep claiming the same absurd answer.
I was baptized and confirmed into the faith from birth (I nearly died so they had me confirmed also) and believed in Jesus as the Lord Saviour and that he was God made flesh, one with the Holy spirit.
The fact is on being baptized alone into the faith by my family and leaving makes me an ex-Christians. I was accepted into the Christian faith, even though I had no choice over the matter. Are you going to claim now that children can not be accepted into Christianity through baptism and their parents?

there is no baptism or confirmation of faith as far as the bible is concerned, not for children anyway, that is catholocism....

no children do not get accepted by their parents....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



You keep claiming the same absurd answer.
I was baptized and confirmed into the faith from birth (I nearly died so they had me confirmed also) and believed in Jesus as the Lord Saviour and that he was God made flesh, one with the Holy spirit.
The fact is on being baptized alone into the faith by my family and leaving makes me an ex-Christians. I was accepted into the Christian faith, even though I had no choice over the matter. Are you going to claim now that children can not be accepted into Christianity through baptism and their parents?

there is no baptism or confirmation of faith as far as the bible is concerned, not for children anyway, that is catholocism....

no children do not get accepted by their parents....

Which shows you know very little about Catholicism, which argues your views are wrong also
So who is right, nobody knows, hence your view was absurd to say we were not Christians, unless you are claiming every catholic that has lived and the billion that follow Catholicism, are not Christians?
Then that proves how unreliable the works are where so many peoples interpretations of Christianity differs.


Mark 16:16English Standard Version (ESV)

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say you claimed I was not a Christian (although you have kind of implied it from time to time). I said I wasn't a Catholic, and I didn't say you claimed I was not a Catholic either, so I don't understand your first point.

You are talking about the Catholic Church, not Christianity generally.

I don't give a stuff if Catholics challenge me or not. I'm not a Catholic, so it doesn't matter. I have been baptised, but that didn't make me a Christian.

When you're talking about Christianity, are you talking about Catholicism?

I can't answer for HF and what he said - you'll have to take that up with him.

I have my own views about what Paul said, but that's for another time.

Again there is so many denominations where some say you do have to be baptized and others claim you do not. The verse from Mark is very telling where you need to do both to be saved. I have seen the arguments against this, but it seems silly not to get baptized just in case it is a requirement and God many. Works have been omitted which makes the notion of who is right or wrong based solely on the views of men who lived centuries after the events and decided which books were legitimate.
Catholicism, one of 40,000 sub sets or denominations of Christianity.
So being a catholic, you also still be a Christian also.

I think baptism can have several meanings. If one refused to be baptised on the grounds that one doesn't have faith, that's different to not being baptised by omission or chance.

Of course Catholics are Christians, but not being a Catholic doesn't mean one is not a Christian.

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:


there is no baptism or confirmation of faith as far as the bible is concerned, not for children anyway, that is catholocism....

no children do not get accepted by their parents....

Which shows you know very little about Catholicism, which argues your views are wrong also
So who is right, nobody knows, hence your view was absurd to say we were note-Christians.


Mark 16:16English Standard Version (ESV)

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Well there you see it doesn't say that someone who is not baptised will condemned or not saved. It omits the part about baptism in the last bit. It's basically talking about faith.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Again there is so many denominations where some say you do have to be baptized and others claim you do not. The verse from Mark is very telling where you need to do both to be saved. I have seen the arguments against this, but it seems silly not to get baptized just in case it is a requirement and God many. Works have been omitted which makes the notion of who is right or wrong based solely on the views of men who lived centuries after the events and decided which books were legitimate.
Catholicism, one of 40,000 sub sets or denominations of Christianity.
So being a catholic, you also still be a Christian also.

I think baptism can have several meanings. If one refused to be baptised on the grounds that one doesn't have faith, that's different to not being baptised by omission or chance.

Of course Catholics are Christians, but not being a Catholic doesn't mean one is not a Christian.

Never claimed being a Catholic are the only Christians. Remember it was HF making the accusations here.
I just pointed out that children become Christians through Baptism in Catholicism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Which shows you know very little about Catholicism, which argues your views are wrong also
So who is right, nobody knows, hence your view was absurd to say we were note-Christians.


Mark 16:16English Standard Version (ESV)

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Well there you see it doesn't say that someone who is not baptised will condemned or not saved. It omits the part about baptism in the last bit. It's basically talking about faith.

It does say by both you will be saved does it not Rags.
All it is saying is that if you are baptized, yet later do not believe, like me for example as now I am an atheist, I would be condemned. You still by this verse need to be baptized and believe to be saved.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think baptism can have several meanings. If one refused to be baptised on the grounds that one doesn't have faith, that's different to not being baptised by omission or chance.

Of course Catholics are Christians, but not being a Catholic doesn't mean one is not a Christian.

Never claimed being a Catholic are the only Christians. Remember it was HF making the accusations here.
I just pointed out that children become Christians through Baptism in Catholicism.

Well that's not what you said before - you were talking being accepted into the Christian faith.

Anyway, it seems to be a misunderstanding, so never mind.

I don't recall HF talking about baptism tbh - I'll go back and look.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Never claimed being a Catholic are the only Christians. Remember it was HF making the accusations here.
I just pointed out that children become Christians through Baptism in Catholicism.

Well that's not what you said before - you were talking being accepted into the Christian faith.

Anyway, it seems to be a misunderstanding, so never mind.

I don't recall HF talking about baptism tbh - I'll go back and look.

I was talking about how Catholics are accepted into the Christian faith
Never claimed HF said anything about baptism either.
He was the one that jumped in claiming that we were not ex-Christians, claiming we were never Christians.
Do keep up Rags

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well there you see it doesn't say that someone who is not baptised will condemned or not saved. It omits the part about baptism in the last bit. It's basically talking about faith.

It does say by both you will be saved does it not Rags.
All it is saying is that if you are baptized, yet later do not believe, like me for example as now I am an atheist, I would be condemned. You still by this verse need to be baptized and believe to be saved.

I think it's a matter of interpretation. I do not believe that someone who was not baptised would be rejected on those grounds. It's faith which counts.

I actually don't believe that someone without faith would necessarily be rejected either.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

It does say by both you will be saved does it not Rags.
All it is saying is that if you are baptized, yet later do not believe, like me for example as now I am an atheist, I would be condemned. You still by this verse need to be baptized and believe to be saved.

I think it's a matter of interpretation. I do not believe that someone who was not baptised would be rejected on those grounds. It's faith which counts.

I actually don't believe that someone without faith would necessarily be rejected either.

Well, as seen that verse is very clear. You need to believe and be baptised to be saved. No interpretation is required from that. Again who is to say who is right, when all of it is down to faith what you believe written in the religious text.
I am only pointing out, why take the risk if you do believe by not getting baptised?

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's not what you said before - you were talking being accepted into the Christian faith.

Anyway, it seems to be a misunderstanding, so never mind.

I don't recall HF talking about baptism tbh - I'll go back and look.

I was talking about how Catholics are accepted into the Christian faith
Never claimed HF said anything about baptism either.
He was the one that jumped in claiming that we were not ex-Christians, claiming we were never Christians.
Do keep up Rags  

This post?

incorrect, some claim to be ex christians and after brief debate prove they are not...

I don't really know what that means tbh.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it's a matter of interpretation. I do not believe that someone who was not baptised would be rejected on those grounds. It's faith which counts.

I actually don't believe that someone without faith would necessarily be rejected either.

Well, as seen that verse is very clear. You need to believe and be baptised to be saved. No interpretation is required from that. Again who is to say who is right, when all of it is down to faith what you believe written in the religious text.
I am only pointing out, why take the risk if you do believe by not getting baptised?

It's very clear to me that it is not saying that you must be baptised in order not to be condemned.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


I was talking about how Catholics are accepted into the Christian faith
Never claimed HF said anything about baptism either.
He was the one that jumped in claiming that we were not ex-Christians, claiming we were never Christians.
Do keep up Rags  

This post?

incorrect, some claim to be ex christians and after brief debate prove they are not...

I don't really know what that means tbh.

Yes that is the post he is claiming we were not Christians, based on his absurd reasoning that his understanding of Christianity is correct compared to 39,999 other Christian Sub sets.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

This post?



I don't really know what that means tbh.

Yes that is the post he is claiming we were not Christians, based on his absurd reasoning that his understanding of Christianity is correct compared to 39,999 other Christian Sub sets.

I still don't get it. Perhaps he will explain what he meant. It looks to me like he's saying that you are still a Christian rather than an ex Christian.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's not what you said before - you were talking being accepted into the Christian faith.

Anyway, it seems to be a misunderstanding, so never mind.

I don't recall HF talking about baptism tbh - I'll go back and look.

I was talking about how Catholics are accepted into the Christian faith
Never claimed HF said anything about baptism either.
He was the one that jumped in claiming that we were not ex-Christians, claiming we were never Christians.
Do keep up Rags  

I don't believe you are and none of you have shown me any reason to believe any of you ever have been....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Well, as seen that verse is very clear. You need to believe and be baptised to be saved. No interpretation is required from that. Again who is to say who is right, when all of it is down to faith what you believe written in the religious text.
I am only pointing out, why take the risk if you do believe by not getting baptised?

It's very clear to me that it is not saying that you must be baptised in order not to be condemned.

Its very clear, you need both to be saved.

Mark 16:16English Standard Version (ESV)

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


So a person like myself does not get in by a loop hole through my baptism, I still need to believe.
Its an auto judgement, where you still have to be judge by God.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Yes that is the post he is claiming we were not Christians, based on his absurd reasoning that his understanding of Christianity is correct compared to 39,999 other Christian Sub sets.

I still don't get it. Perhaps he will explain what he meant. It looks to me like he's saying that you are still a Christian rather than an ex Christian.

Nah, he is claiming we were never Christians, based on his own interpretations of Christianity.
You know, the one where he goes around expressing bigotry calling homosexuals as queers and countless other insults about groups of people

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's very clear to me that it is not saying that you must be baptised in order not to be condemned.

Its very clear, you need both to be saved.

Mark 16:16English Standard Version (ESV)

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


So a person like myself does not get in by a loop hole through my baptism, I still need to believe.
Its an auto judgement, where you still have to be judge by God.

who as being spoken too on this scripture...? it will help answer your question well part of it ...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


I was talking about how Catholics are accepted into the Christian faith
Never claimed HF said anything about baptism either.
He was the one that jumped in claiming that we were not ex-Christians, claiming we were never Christians.
Do keep up Rags  

I don't believe you are and none of you have shown me any reason to believe any of you ever have been....

So you are now claiming God like status, claiming to know your Gods' judgement before he has even judged or of who has been following the faith correctly.
You could all be wrong and the correct aspects of Christianity have been left out in other works.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's very clear to me that it is not saying that you must be baptised in order not to be condemned.

Its very clear, you need both to be saved.

Mark 16:16English Standard Version (ESV)

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


So a person like myself does not get in by a loop hole through my baptism, I still need to believe.
Its an auto judgement, where you still have to be judge by God.

Sorry - don't agree with you that you must be baptised.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Its very clear, you need both to be saved.

Mark 16:16English Standard Version (ESV)

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


So a person like myself does not get in by a loop hole through my baptism, I still need to believe.
Its an auto judgement, where you still have to be judge by God.

who as being spoken too on this scripture...? it will help answer your question well part of it ...

14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.




Seems very clear he is instructing the apostles to intrsuct what people are required to do in order to be saved

Right, I think I misunderstood HF's post.

Re this post, if you had genuine faith and now you don't, that makes you an ex Christian. However, being baptised does not make you a Christian IMO. You might have been accepted into the Catholic Church, but that's not necessarily the same thing.

You keep claiming the same absurd answer.
I was baptized and confirmed into the faith from birth (I nearly died so they had me confirmed also) and believed in Jesus as the Lord Saviour and that he was God made flesh, one with the Holy spirit.
The fact is on being baptized alone into the faith by my family and leaving makes me an ex-Christians. I was accepted into the Christian faith, even though I had no choice over the matter. Are you going to claim now that children can not be accepted into Christianity through baptism and their parents?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Its very clear, you need both to be saved.

Mark 16:16English Standard Version (ESV)

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


So a person like myself does not get in by a loop hole through my baptism, I still need to believe.
Its an auto judgement, where you still have to be judge by God.

Sorry - don't agree with you that you must be baptised.

Is up to you Rags what you believe

it is what the bible says that is important, for a start it is too adults , he says be saved and be baptised but he then says if you are not saved you ill be condemned he does not say if you are not baptised you are condemned..

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that people need to clarify what they mean by "religion". The word "religion" and "faith" can be used interchangeably, so this is perhaps where some of the confusion is coming from. If you mean individual religious organisations, say so. For example, one can say that Christianity is a religion, which means that the followers have a certain faith which is common to all of them, but there are various different organisations within that religion where certain issues differ.  

Even if you do mean organisations, you are still being quite patronising. If someone feels that the beliefs which that organisation has feel right to them, who are you to say they're wrong to feel that way?

I'm sure that if anyone said that being gay was unnatural, you would not like it, so please don't talk about "context". If you want to split hairs, saying that homosexuality is unnatural does not necessarily imply a mental problem. However, by your own logic, saying that faith is unnatural is offensive because you're saying that it implies a mental problem.

It's ironic that you think I'm trying to tell you what a believer is because there are people on here who constantly try to tell me what I believe, or what I should believe, and you say absolutely nothing about that.

I have been explicit in saying how people come to follow a particular religion is not natural. 

Naturally coming to religion would be like this:

Man is just doing his man thing, eating, walking, working, sleeping etc- then one day he meets an angel or speaks to god (having no previous info on either) and suddenly KNOWS Christianity is true and real. That would be natural. Unreal.

Man being taught about Christianity by his parents, at school, at church, by reading the Bible etc- is an incredibly materialistic and human way to come across the absolute truth of human existence. Real.

Being gay naturally would be like this:

Man grows up to teenage years, man sees a man he likes, man has all kinds of nice feelings and maybe a certain 'rising sensation' in his pants. Real.

Being gay unnaturally would be like this:

Man is taught that fancying other men is normally. Man is chastised for showing interest in women. Man is made to watch gay love until it affects him positively. Man decides to be gay. Unreal.


I'm not saying believers have anything wrong with them. Far from it, since most in this world believe in something or other. And while I don't say they have wrong with them, I do say they believe in falsehoods (which by definition most people must do, since only one or no interpretation of one faith can be the right one).

I do not believe that I believe in falsehoods.

Raggamuffin wrote:Right, I think I misunderstood HF's post.

Re this post, if you had genuine faith and now you don't, that makes you an ex Christian. However, being baptised does not make you a Christian IMO. You might have been accepted into the Catholic Church, but that's not necessarily the same thing.

You keep claiming the same absurd answer.
I was baptized and confirmed into the faith from birth (I nearly died so they had me confirmed also) and believed in Jesus as the Lord Saviour and that he was God made flesh, one with the Holy spirit.
The fact is on being baptized alone into the faith by my family and leaving makes me an ex-Christians. I was accepted into the Christian faith, even though I had no choice over the matter. Are you going to claim now that children can not be accepted into Christianity through baptism and their parents?

Yes I have to believe, but as a baby this is impossible and so they are accepted into the faith through baptism. The parents and god parents make the vows for the child

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:it is what the bible says that is important, for a start it is too adults , he says be saved and be baptised but he then says if you are not saved you ill be condemned he does not say if you are not baptised you are condemned..

That's right, and also one has to decide what is right - as Jesus said. I do not think it's right that someone has to be baptised in the usual sense of the word to be saved. I mean they don't have to have water poured on them whilst wearing a sweet christening gown, or be dunked in a river with another person presiding over it.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:it is what the bible says that is important, for a start it is too adults , he says be saved and be baptised but he then says if you are not saved you ill be condemned he does not say if you are not baptised you are condemned..

Not its very clear, both are required to automatically be saved and if you do not believe you are automatically condemned.

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

This is just saving God countless time on judging, when there is automatic judgements.

If it had said you only have to believe and you would be saved, he would not have need to say you need baptism as well. The point is he did though.  What it means  is you are not guaranteed to be saved by just believeing

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:it is what the bible says that is important, for a start it is too adults , he says be saved and be baptised but he then says if you are not saved you ill be condemned he does not say if you are not baptised you are condemned..

That's right, and also one has to decide what is right - as Jesus said. I do not think it's right that someone has to be baptised in the usual sense of the word to be saved. I mean they don't have to have water poured on them whilst wearing a sweet christening gown, or be dunked in a river with another person presiding over it.

the bible takes baptism as an adults choice not a childs. it is a decision to be made by someone who is informed.

on john 3 16 it says believe on Jesus and you will be saved...

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Right, I think I misunderstood HF's post.

Re this post, if you had genuine faith and now you don't, that makes you an ex Christian. However, being baptised does not make you a Christian IMO. You might have been accepted into the Catholic Church, but that's not necessarily the same thing.

Yes I have to believe, but as a baby this is impossible and so they are accepted into the faith through baptism. The parents and god parents make the vows for the child

That is other people making the decision for the child.

I'm not knocking baptism - I think it's a lovely thing, and it reaffirms the parents' faith. I just don't think it means that one is necessarily a Christian. One could say that being Confirmed is perhaps more important.

Of course you don't believe that you believe falsehoods raggs.

But you do believe Zack believes falsehoods, and he thinks the same of you.

Mr Singh who prays to Rama doesn't believe he believes in falsehoods.

My boyfriend's mother who devotes herself to Buddha doesn't believe she believes in falsehoods.

Nor does Tom Cruise.

But only one you can possibly be right (or none of you).

Eilzel wrote:Of course you don't believe that you believe falsehoods raggs.

But you do believe Zack believes falsehoods, and he thinks the same of you.

Mr Singh who prays to Rama doesn't believe he believes in falsehoods.

My boyfriend's mother who devotes herself to Buddha doesn't believe she believes in falsehoods.

Nor does Tom Cruise.

But only one you can possibly be right (or none of you).

By the same logic, you could be said to be wrong, and therefore you believe in falsehoods.

It's a silly argument really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Yes I have to believe, but as a baby this is impossible and so they are accepted into the faith through baptism. The parents and god parents make the vows for the child

That is other people making the decision for the child.

I'm not knocking baptism - I think it's a lovely thing, and it reaffirms the parents' faith. I just don't think it means that one is necessarily a Christian. One could say that being Confirmed is perhaps more important.

I think it as introduced by the cathlolic church to keep up numbers and attendance... I don't think infant baptism is ever mentioned in the bible.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Yes I have to believe, but as a baby this is impossible and so they are accepted into the faith through baptism. The parents and god parents make the vows for the child

That is other people making the decision for the child.

I'm not knocking baptism - I think it's a lovely thing, and it reaffirms the parents' faith. I just don't think it means that one is necessarily a Christian. One could say that being Confirmed is perhaps more important.

You miss the point though and why the faith to me is absurd.

I know it is other people Rags, and it is necessary along with believing to be automatically saved.
So basically a mass murderer can be baptised and truly believe whilst in jail and will be automatically
So righteous people are condemned for not believing but evil people can be saved for being baptised and beliving.

Yes raggs, I could be wrong. And my views as an atheist are totally open to scrutiny and I wouldn't be offended in the slightest (veya and darkness do this often enough tbf). That is the difference between us, you think your precious belief in Jesus is unjustly mocked, I couldn't care less if my none belief is mocked- I could be wrong after all ;-)

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That is other people making the decision for the child.

I'm not knocking baptism - I think it's a lovely thing, and it reaffirms the parents' faith. I just don't think it means that one is necessarily a Christian. One could say that being Confirmed is perhaps more important.

You miss the point though and why the faith to me is absurd.

I know it is other people Rags, and it is necessary along with believing to be automatically saved.
So basically a mass murderer can be baptised and truly believe whilst in jail and will be automatically
So righteous people are condemned for not believing but evil people can be saved for being baptised and beliving.

I haven't missed the point, I just disagree with you.

If a mass murderer repents, of course he will be saved. God will know if he's being genuine.

I've never said that people can be saved by being baptised - in fact, I've said several times that being baptised doesn't necessarily mean that one has faith.

Eilzel wrote:Yes raggs, I could be wrong. And my views as an atheist are totally open to scrutiny and I wouldn't be offended in the slightest (veya and darkness do this often enough tbf). That is the difference between us, you think your precious belief in Jesus is unjustly mocked, I couldn't care less if my none belief is mocked- I could be wrong after all ;-)

The trouble is that athiests don't really have any views, other than their disbelief in God. That's why some of them have to get belligerent and mock those with faith because they have nothing else to say.

I'm not going to bother trying to convince you to be a Christian - you must make up your own mind.

As I said, if someone mocked you over and over on here for being gay, or if they started thread after thread saying that homosexuality was wrong, bad, or that gay people were stupid, you would soon object. You enjoy the status of being on a forum where the majority of people think or say nothing of the kind, but there are several athiests on here who never seem to lay off.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



You miss the point though and why the faith to me is absurd.

I know it is other people Rags, and it is necessary along with believing to be automatically saved.
So basically a mass murderer can be baptised and truly believe whilst in jail and will be automatically
So righteous people are condemned for not believing but evil people can be saved for being baptised and beliving.

I haven't missed the point, I just disagree with you.

If a mass murderer repents, of course he will be saved. God will know if he's being genuine.

I've never said that people can be saved by being baptised - in fact, I've said several times that being baptised doesn't necessarily mean that one has faith.

As seen Baptism gives and auto pass with believing to be saved.
Good people are condemned and bad people saved, it does not get much more screwed up than that.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't missed the point, I just disagree with you.

If a mass murderer repents, of course he will be saved. God will know if he's being genuine.

I've never said that people can be saved by being baptised - in fact, I've said several times that being baptised doesn't necessarily mean that one has faith.

As seen Baptism gives and auto pass with believing to be saved.
Good people are condemned and bad people saved, it does not get much more screwed up than that.

It hasn't been seen by me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Yes raggs, I could be wrong. And my views as an atheist are totally open to scrutiny and I wouldn't be offended in the slightest (veya and darkness do this often enough tbf). That is the difference between us, you think your precious belief in Jesus is unjustly mocked, I couldn't care less if my none belief is mocked- I could be wrong after all ;-)

The trouble is that athiests don't really have any views, other than their disbelief in God. That's why some of them have to get belligerent and mock those with faith because they have nothing else to say.

I'm not going to bother trying to convince you to be a Christian - you must make up your own mind.

As I said, if someone mocked you over and over on here for being gay, or if they started thread after thread saying that homosexuality was wrong, bad, or that gay people were stupid, you would soon object. You enjoy the status of being on a forum where the majority of people think or say nothing of the kind, but there are several athiests on here who never seem to lay off.

That is wrong, we have many differing views, just not any religious ones.
An atheist is not bound to follow anything.
My problem as it always has been is when religious views effect the well being and equality of people.
Religion should be a personal belief.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


As seen Baptism gives and auto pass with believing to be saved.
Good people are condemned and bad people saved, it does not get much more screwed up than that.

It hasn't been seen by me.

or me, funny how the atheists see what they want to see in the bible..lol

Religion is a big area of controversy that's why.

In the ME ISIS are attempting to establish a caliphate over the region and launch attacks on the west.

In the USA Christians constantly seek to prevent the progress of gay and women's rights.

In Israel religion remains a constant cause of tensions.

In India Hinduism is becoming dangerously intertwined with nationalism.

In the UK and Europe religious groups constantly make desperate attempts to counter equality.

That's why atheists and secularists alike are so fired up about religious belief. Because for all the good the bad is what rises to the fore. So of course it remains an area of sometimes harsh condemnation.

Being gay, in the west, is accepted now and for reasons we've been discussing is as similar to ideologies as baking is to football.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The trouble is that athiests don't really have any views, other than their disbelief in God. That's why some of them have to get belligerent and mock those with faith because they have nothing else to say.

I'm not going to bother trying to convince you to be a Christian - you must make up your own mind.

As I said, if someone mocked you over and over on here for being gay, or if they started thread after thread saying that homosexuality was wrong, bad, or that gay people were stupid, you would soon object. You enjoy the status of being on a forum where the majority of people think or say nothing of the kind, but there are several athiests on here who never seem to lay off.

That is wrong, we have many differing views, just not any religious ones.
An atheist is not bound to follow anything.
My problem as it always has been is when religious views effect the well being and equality of people.
Religion should be a personal belief.

Well duh! Chance would be a fine thing on here for religion to be private. There are at least five of you banging on and on about it, so why should I keep quiet about it? I will defend my faith. If you never mentioned all this stuff, I'd be quite happy for it to be private.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



That is wrong, we have many differing views, just not any religious ones.
An atheist is not bound to follow anything.
My problem as it always has been is when religious views effect the well being and equality of people.
Religion should be a personal belief.

Well duh! Chance would be a fine thing on here for religion to be private. There are at least five of you banging on and on about it, so why should I keep quiet about it? I will defend my faith. If you never mentioned all this stuff, I'd be quite happy for it to be private.

Private means to yourself.
I am not religious and thus not bound by such a degree.
Also has this not been an interesting discussion on Christianity?

Eilzel wrote:Religion is a big area of controversy that's why.

In the ME ISIS are attempting to establish a caliphate over the region and launch attacks on the west.

In the USA Christians constantly seek to prevent the progress of gay and women's rights.

In Israel religion remains a constant cause of tensions.

In India Hinduism is becoming dangerously intertwined with nationalism.

In the UK and Europe religious groups constantly make desperate attempts to counter equality.

That's why atheists and secularists alike are so fired up about religious belief. Because for all the good the bad is what rises to the fore. So of course it remains an area of sometimes harsh condemnation.

Being gay, in the west, is accepted now and for reasons we've been discussing is as similar to ideologies as baking is to football.

So why don't you go to the US and tell them then? You're banging on about it on here, and mocking people on this forum.

In fact, you seem to accept the situation with ISIS and don't seem very outraged by it at all.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well duh! Chance would be a fine thing on here for religion to be private. There are at least five of you banging on and on about it, so why should I keep quiet about it? I will defend my faith. If you never mentioned all this stuff, I'd be quite happy for it to be private.

Private means to yourself.
I am not religious and thus not bound by such a degree.
Also has this not been an interesting discussion on Christianity?

It's been better than usual, yes. There has been marginally less scorn and mockery of Christians.

You know, I don't talk about religion much off this forum. I don't talk about my personal faith on here much either. I'm just fed up with the constant barrage of criticism and mockery, so I decided enough was enough.

I am but really what more can I say?

And this is a US forum as much as a UK one, the admin is a Texan lol and I also mentioned the UK.