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

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

The lady has a very valid point actually.

I think the point is vastly over-simplified. When we have stories about Christians committing crimes or doing bad things, you don't see people jumping in and saying that their behavior is what Christianity is all about. You do see people saying that when there's any story about a Muslim doing something bad.

There doesn't seem to be anybody here who has to be convinced that most Christians are decent-enough people. There do seem to be a number of people here who cannot be convinced that any Muslims are decent-enough people, on the other hand.

That's exactly what we do see here.

I disagree.

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It will end up the same as any other thread about religion on here, or any other thread which isn't even about religion - with Christians being sneered at.

Even if it doesn't, it will end up being about racism - like all the other threads which don't end up being about religion.

Ahh but if the blind could see, the atheists that sneer most and laughing stocks themselves

The Christianity thread is being used to slag of Christians, and so is the Athiest thread. Christians haven't been on the Athiest thread to slag off Athiests though, and they haven't slagged off Athiests on the Christianity thread either.

I have noticed that
Atheist thread should be for sneering at Christianity since that seem to be the main part of their faith

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And yet you don't like anyone criticising your views. You're so intolerant.

Don't bother to badger me for my own beliefs - I don't pander to arrogance.

Deflection argument again.
I debate daily with people who disagree with me, so that again is absurd.
Again to me you lack faith because a person of 100% does noty fear critism of their faith.
The only reason people act like you do because for one, you have not the answers to points raised to you and you fear you might be wrong and lose your faith. Otherwise your replies to my criticism do not make any sense.
So to claim I am intolerant is yet again a childish deflection

I don't give a damn about your "to me" stuff. You are bitter and twisted because of religion, and you want others to be the same as you. You need to get over whatever happened to you and stop telling others what they believe or should believe.

I think Raggs hit the nail on the head, the problem many atheists have stems from some prior dealing with Abrahamism leaving many of them permanently 'damaged'....

and some people do get something out of what ever they believe as long as they don't seek to deny others people freedom or bring religion into politics, why deny them that? the situation in the USA where they have corrupted the education system is not the case everywhere, in most educated nations people like HF and creationists are laughed at.

I agree Raggs, Christians do get hit a lot on here and think you do very good job defending your faith

Look its very simple. The vast majority of religious people, no matter if Christian, Muslim etc, are good people, who lead their lives based on the very good aspects of their faiths. They either ignore, downplay or do not adhere to bad parts. The problem stems to those who take literal views points of a faith and wish to impose this on others, which has gone on or 2000 years and still happens today. To m I have nothing personally against people who are religious, as long as it does not effect the well being and equality of others, but sadly it does in the world today, more so in the Muslim world. This to me is wrong where myths are the bases of law and punishment, of which people suffer discrimination also.
Its no good ignoring these problems. If I am really being honest here, much of my views debating on this, is because we have two posters from old, who are Christians and will debate about the topic, being as I am interested in theology, it helps brings about debate, which I enjoy. Another reason is to me HF may believe in Jesus, but is at odds with his teachings at times. Dibs knows I like her. Where I have nothing really against HF and to be honest when my brother was dying he sent me a lovely private message, which shows he does care and is even very passionate, but he is very bigoted and will clash with posters, by the fact he acts at times opposite in morality to the teachings of Jesus. This also brings about more reason to discuss Christianity..

This is not personal, I have debated many threads on Islam, of which I once also wrongly defended the faith from criticism, to now for some time I have seen this just ends up also defending the bad beliefs found in the doctrine of Islam. Again the vast majority of Muslims are good, but we still see how bad their faith can be followed and how it wrongly is the bases or criminal law. The hadiths to me play a very bad part within Islam and where we see many of the problems stem from.

So this is not personal and attacking Christianity, we have two posters who are very strong in their faith, which will always bring about such debate, even more, when one of them HF will be seen to be at odds with Christianity.

If people just personally believe and it did not effect others, I doubt, it would bring about much discussion, but sadly it does end up effecting others lives and why we should never shy away from challenging when it does effect others. Racist views were not changed by not challenging them but being openly critical of them. Hence why it is important to be critical of bad ideas, of which some religious people do follow bad ideas. Again Jesus was one of a kind and a teacher way ahead of his time, but claims here about Christianity being picked on, is unwarranted. As it certainly entices debate and shows how interesting it is for people to talk about it.

Belatucadros wrote:Look its very simple. The vast majority of religious people, no matter if Christian, Muslim etc, are good people, who lead their lives based on the very good aspects of their faiths. They either ignore, downplay or do not adhere to bad parts. The problem stems to those who take literal views points of a faith and wish to impose this on others, which has gone on or 2000 years and still happens today. To m I have nothing personally against people who are religious, as long as it does not effect the well being and equality of others, but sadly it does in the world today, more so in the Muslim world. This to me is wrong where myths are the bases of law and punishment, of which people suffer discrimination also.
Its no good ignoring these problems. If I am really being honest here, much of my views debating on this, is because we have two posters from old, who are Christians and will debate about the topic, being as I am interested in theology, it helps brings about debate, which I enjoy. Another reason is to me HF may believe in Jesus, but is at odds with his teachings at times. Dibs knows I like her. Where I have nothing really against HF and to be honest when my brother was dying he sent me a lovely private message, which shows he does care and is even very passionate, but he is very bigoted and will clash with posters, by the fact he acts at times opposite in morality to the teachings of Jesus. This also brings about more reason to discuss Christianity..

This is not personal, I have debated many threads on Islam, of which I once also wrongly defended the faith from criticism, to now for some time I have seen this just ends up also defending the bad beliefs found in the doctrine of Islam. Again the vast majority of Muslims are good, but we still see how bad their faith can be followed and how it wrongly is the bases or criminal law. The hadiths to me play a very bad part within Islam and where we see many of the problems stem from.

So this is not personal and attacking Christianity, we have two posters who are very strong in their faith, which will always bring about such debate, even more, when one of them HF will be seen to be at odds with Christianity.

If people just personally believe and it did not effect others, I doubt, it would bring about much discussion, but sadly it does end up effecting others lives and why we should never shy away from challenging when it does effect others. Racist views were not changed by not challenging them but being openly critical of them. Hence why it is important to be critical of bad ideas, of which some religious people do follow bad ideas. Again Jesus was one of a kind and a teacher way ahead of his time, but claims here about Christianity being picked on, is unwarranted. As it certainly entices debate and shows how interesting it is for people to talk about it.

Well said

You cant deny we pick on Christianity here although it is largely Hf's fault


Ragg's does a legitimately good job defending from the difficult position... of being wrong

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Whenever there's a thread about a Christian, the usual suspects all leap in howling about how bad the religion is. If there's a thread about a Muslim, they say - oh well, you can't judge all Muslims by the actions of a few.

Hypocrites.

I think you will find I am highly critical of Islam.

Bullshit!


You only ever defend Muslims and Islam unless you are condemning Christianity and then say you don't like any religion so as to try to appear balanced...


Religion itself, ie a belief in god or gods, is not a bad thing.

Christianity is usually the target of anti-religious talk here generally because most of us are either ex-Christian, Christian, or live in traditionally Christian countries. It is the one we have most contact with or knowledge of.

When Zack posts it is Islam that gets dragged under the spotlight, but he doesn't post so often.

Regardless, no one here makes blanket claims or false associations on Christians based on few bad cases. That is exactly what some people do to Muslims however.

If people get upset because their faith is always receiving criticism then I'd suggest their faith isn't as strong as they'd think.

The truth always stands up to scrutiny.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

I think you will find I am highly critical of Islam.

Bullshit!


You only ever defend Muslims and Islam unless you are condemning Christianity and then say you don't like any religion so as to try to appear balanced...


Religion itself, ie a belief in god or gods, is not a bad thing.

Grow up, I can show countless threads where I have been critical of Islam and have had spats with Ben over them because he was not being critical enough. Unless you have something valuable to add, then do pipe down, there is a good chap...

Religion is fine when it is a personal belief and where it does not effect the well being and equality of others

Ok... give us some examples of where you have been exclusively critical of Islam?


And some examples of where you have pulled Ben up for not being critical enough of Islam...!?



Is this the same Ben who claimed that Islam had nothing to do with Mohammed...!!!???

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7916-islam-is-privilege

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8430-theocracy-with-a-human-face


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7794-sharia-law-versus-secular-democracy


Have plenty more if you like

Care to show the specific posts you are referring to...?





And again...






Is this the same Ben who claimed that Islam had nothing to do with Mohammed...!!!???

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8628-in-latest-book-ayaan-hirsi-ali-says-reform-is-the-best-weapon-against-radical-islam


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8912-sam-harris-on-islam-message-to-the-left-liberals


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8659-a-researcher-delves-into-Muslim-antisemitism

Again I can post countless.
So you have no case poor Tommy Blooper.

Never mind boy lol

veya_victaous wrote:You cant deny we pick on Christianity here although it is largely Hf's fault


Ragg's does a legitimately good job defending from the difficult position... of being wrong        

er ... thank you Veya - I think.

So no proof then...




My post still stands...


"You only ever defend Muslims and Islam unless you are condemning Christianity and then say you don't like any religion so as to try to appear balanced.."

Eilzel wrote:Christianity is usually the target of anti-religious talk here generally because most of us are either ex-Christian, Christian, or live in traditionally Christian countries. It is the one we have most contact with or knowledge of.

When Zack posts it is Islam that gets dragged under the spotlight, but he doesn't post so often.

Regardless, no one here makes blanket claims or false associations on Christians based on few bad cases. That is exactly what some people do to Muslims however.

If people get upset because their faith is always receiving criticism then I'd suggest their faith isn't as strong as they'd think.

Oh dear, now you sound like Didge.

Please think about what you just said. If there was thread after thread on here about how homosexuality was wrong, and you objected, that's like saying that you're only objecting because you're not sure that you're gay.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't give a damn about your "to me" stuff. You are bitter and twisted because of religion, and you want others to be the same as you. You need to get over whatever happened to you and stop telling others what they believe or should believe.

I think Raggs hit the nail on the head, the problem many atheists have stems from some prior dealing with Abrahamism leaving many of them permanently 'damaged'....

and some people do get something out of what ever they believe    as long as they don't seek to deny others people freedom or bring religion into politics, why deny them that?  the situation in the USA where they have corrupted the education system is not the case everywhere, in most educated nations people like HF and creationists are laughed at.

I agree Raggs, Christians do get hit a lot on here and think you do very good job defending your faith

Thank you again Veya.

I think that this disillusionment happens in other religions too, including ones like Buddhism. It largely stems not from the actual faith but from the "organised" part of the religion. Those who feel they've been badly treated by a particular organisation naturally want to tell others about it, and try to pursuade them to feel the same.

I don't know if HF speaks publically about his faith off the forum, but of course some people will not like his views. I wouldn't say he gets laughed at though. He has some interesting views, so I don't think he should be mocked for them.

I also dislike this business on here where some people use religion as a stick to beat others with. You know the kind of thing - where people say "well that's not very Christian is it?" in a thread which is nothing to do with Christianity. There are enough threads about religion without it being used in other threads too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Christianity is usually the target of anti-religious talk here generally because most of us are either ex-Christian, Christian, or live in traditionally Christian countries. It is the one we have most contact with or knowledge of.

When Zack posts it is Islam that gets dragged under the spotlight, but he doesn't post so often.

Regardless, no one here makes blanket claims or false associations on Christians based on few bad cases. That is exactly what some people do to Muslims however.

If people get upset because their faith is always receiving criticism then I'd suggest their faith isn't as strong as they'd think.

Oh dear, now you sound like Didge.

Please think about what you just said. If there was thread after thread on here about how homosexuality was wrong, and you objected, that's like saying that you're only objecting because you're not sure that you're gay.

spot on

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Christianity is usually the target of anti-religious talk here generally because most of us are either ex-Christian, Christian, or live in traditionally Christian countries. It is the one we have most contact with or knowledge of.

When Zack posts it is Islam that gets dragged under the spotlight, but he doesn't post so often.

Regardless, no one here makes blanket claims or false associations on Christians based on few bad cases. That is exactly what some people do to Muslims however.

If people get upset because their faith is always receiving criticism then I'd suggest their faith isn't as strong as they'd think.

Oh dear, now you sound like Didge.

Please think about what you just said. If there was thread after thread on here about how homosexuality was wrong, and you objected, that's like saying that you're only objecting because you're not sure that you're gay.

He does not have to think about anything because there is no comparison, being they do not need 100% faith to know they are gay, when that person is in a homosexual relationship. If they fancy women they would be bisexual and would know if they are bi Where as your over sensitivity and constant whining about criticism of religions could easily be argued that you lack faith. As person of 100% belief and faith embraces their religion and have no doubts. A person who has doubt and lacks faiths, uses any means to try to derail, censor, avoid etc any criticism of their faith. Just like you are doing funny enough.
A person of full faith does not fear criticism, they take it head on and make their case.
They would rise to the challenge and defend their God. You though do not want to defend him, you just want to disrupt any of these debates.

Religion is not shielded today from criticism like it was for centuries. Seriously, what if you were trying to convert someone and they raised many of these critical points? You would turn them away in an instance.

Eilzel wrote:Christianity is usually the target of anti-religious talk here generally because most of us are either ex-Christian, Christian, or live in traditionally Christian countries. It is the one we have most contact with or knowledge of.

When Zack posts it is Islam that gets dragged under the spotlight, but he doesn't post so often.

Regardless, no one here makes blanket claims or false associations on Christians based on few bad cases. That is exactly what some people do to Muslims however.

If people get upset because their faith is always receiving criticism then I'd suggest their faith isn't as strong as they'd think.

I don't think anyone o here is ex christian... that shows oh to quickly he they are questioned..

the bias comes from the gay contingent on here....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Christianity is usually the target of anti-religious talk here generally because most of us are either ex-Christian, Christian, or live in traditionally Christian countries. It is the one we have most contact with or knowledge of.

When Zack posts it is Islam that gets dragged under the spotlight, but he doesn't post so often.

Regardless, no one here makes blanket claims or false associations on Christians based on few bad cases. That is exactly what some people do to Muslims however.

If people get upset because their faith is always receiving criticism then I'd suggest their faith isn't as strong as they'd think.

I don't think anyone o here is ex christian... that shows oh to quickly he they are questioned..

the bias comes from the gay contingent on here....

Ben and Didge are ex Christians.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Christianity is usually the target of anti-religious talk here generally because most of us are either ex-Christian, Christian, or live in traditionally Christian countries. It is the one we have most contact with or knowledge of.

When Zack posts it is Islam that gets dragged under the spotlight, but he doesn't post so often.

Regardless, no one here makes blanket claims or false associations on Christians based on few bad cases. That is exactly what some people do to Muslims however.

If people get upset because their faith is always receiving criticism then I'd suggest their faith isn't as strong as they'd think.

I don't think anyone o here is ex christian... that shows oh to quickly he they are questioned..

the bias comes from the gay contingent on here....

Incorrect.

I am ex-Christian
So is Stardesk
So is Ben
There is plenty more

There is only two gay posters on here, Eilzel and David, of which the later is rarely here, so it seems you are more at odds with one homosexual being critical compared to many heterosexuals being critical.
Very odd

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:


I don't think anyone o here is ex christian... that shows oh to quickly he they are questioned..

the bias comes from the gay contingent on here....

Incorrect.

I am ex-Christian
So is Stardesk
So is Ben
There is plenty more

There is only two gay posters on here, Eilzel and David, of which the later is rarely here, so it seems you are more at odds with one homosexual being critical compared to many heterosexuals being critical.
Very odd

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

the gay bias in this forum is quite obvious....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Incorrect.

I am ex-Christian
So is Stardesk
So is Ben
There is plenty more

There is only two gay posters on here, Eilzel and David, of which the later is rarely here, so it seems you are more at odds with one homosexual being critical compared to many heterosexuals being critical.
Very odd

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

the gay bias in this forum is quite obvious....

Again you are basing this on your "own" understanding of Christianity, which from what I have seen is far removed from how most Christians practice their faith.
I was a Catholic and so was Ben, my family are still Catholic, whether you agree Catholics are Christian or not. So you are very wrong and often wrong on understanding the love of Jesus.

Have a nice day, have work to do

Ah yes, I forgot to include Stardesk. That's three ex Christians on here, and they are the most vocal and belligerent about Christianity.

I'm also an ex-Christian. Went to Sunday school and was in the church brigade. But as I learned more about other religions and myths which people used to believe in by the million I began to realize the chances of Christianity being the 'truth' were pathetically small. I stopped being a Christian before I finished high school.

And raggs Christianity and homosexuality are utterly incomparable. One is a natural fact, way beyond our control. If I'd been born on a desert island with no books or medua I would still be gay; had you been born on a desert island with no books or media you would not be Christian. So don't try to compare the two that way.

People criticize a religion becomes it is an ideology just like communism, liberalism or feudalism- only with a divine element. Being gay is not an ideology.

Eilzel wrote:I'm also an ex-Christian. Went to Sunday school and was in the church brigade. But as I learned more about other religions and myths which people used to believe in by the million I began to realize the chances of Christianity being the 'truth' were pathetically small. I stopped being a Christian before I finished high school.

And raggs Christianity and homosexuality are utterly incomparable. One is a natural fact, way beyond our control. If I'd been born on a desert island with no books or medua I would still be gay; had you been born on a desert island with no books or media you would not be Christian. So don't try to compare the two that way.

People criticize a religion becomes it is an ideology just like communism, liberalism or feudalism- only with a divine element. Being gay is not an ideology.

Faith isn't necessarily a choice, it's a feeling, so I will compare the two things.

If you had been born on a desert island with no other men there, you probably wouldn't have known what being gay is. Also, there are always stories about men who married, had children, and then realised later that they were gay.

Of course, some people do go through the religious "catalogue" to choose one, but I don't think that applies to many people. If they do that, they're usually looking for a different organisation within the same religion, and a religious organisation isn't necessarily the same as faith.

Others feel that a particular organisation suits them better based on their belief. For example, someone might feel that they don't need to go through the Pope to speak to God, so they're not Catholics. In Buddhism, some people broke away from the Dalai Lama because they feel that it's right to worship Dorje Shugden and he didn't.

So how many of the ex Christians on here are ex Catholics?

I would know I was gay the moment I saw another guy. Without contact with the Bible or a Christian however you would never know Christianity or Jesus ever existed. The point in that comparison was that with no outside help people are gay; yet to follow a particular religion you MUST be told about it by another or read the texts. It is completely unnatural.

And people don't realise they are gay- they get married because either a) they want kids or more likely b) because thats expected and they want to cover their true feelings.

Whatever the case, since being gay is not an ideology the comparison is false. You can criticise a religion as you can communism or feudalism (or are these also beyond scrutiny for you?). If you criticise homosexuality, you are attack the innocent love of another person- that is NOT the same as criticising ideas of faith.

In response to your last post, I'm ex-Church of England. I believe stardesk is too.

Eilzel wrote:I would know I was gay the moment I saw another guy. Without contact with the Bible or a Christian however you would never know Christianity or Jesus ever existed. The point in that comparison was that with no outside help people are gay; yet to follow a particular religion you MUST be told about it by another or read the texts. It is completely unnatural.

And people don't realise they are gay- they get married because either a) they want kids or more likely b) because thats expected and they want to cover their true feelings.

Whatever the case, since being gay is not an ideology the comparison is false. You can criticise a religion as you can communism or feudalism (or are these also beyond scrutiny for you?). If you criticise homosexuality, you are attack the innocent love of another person- that is NOT the same as criticising ideas of faith.

In response to your last post, I'm ex-Church of England. I believe stardesk is too.

Are you saying that you fancy all men?

The point is that you're saying you need something visual to know you're gay, which is the same as a Christian reading or hearing about Jesus.

It's quite offensive for you to say that having faith is unnatural. I haven't said that being gay is unnatural like some people do, so please don't be offensive about it.

I would question your claim that gay men get married and have children for those reasons. If they do, that makes them very selfish and dishonest.

If you criticise a religion, you are also criticising the followers of that religion, however you dress it up. You've already called them unnatural.

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

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

the gay bias in this forum is quite obvious....

Again you are basing this on your "own" understanding of Christianity, which from what I have seen is far removed from how most Christians practice their faith.
I was a Catholic and so was Ben, my family are still Catholic, whether you agree Catholics are Christian or not. So you are very wrong and often wrong on understanding the love of Jesus.

Have a nice day, have work to do

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

I would say that those ex Christians never really had faith. They probably just went along with it. That's why they don't understand about faith being a feeling.

Eilzel wrote:I'm also an ex-Christian. Went to Sunday school and was in the church brigade. But as I learned more about other religions and myths which people used to believe in by the million I began to realize the chances of Christianity being the 'truth' were pathetically small. I stopped being a Christian before I finished high school.

And raggs Christianity and homosexuality are utterly incomparable. One is a natural fact, way beyond our control. If I'd been born on a desert island with no books or medua I would still be gay; had you been born on a desert island with no books or media you would not be Christian. So don't try to compare the two that way.

People criticize a religion becomes it is an ideology just like communism, liberalism or feudalism- only with a divine element. Being gay is not an ideology.

again you show your ignorance neither sunday school or church brigade attendance make you a Christian, thank you for demonstrating the lack of knowledge that in turn demonstrates the posters on here ho claim to be ex christians clearly are not...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I'm also an ex-Christian. Went to Sunday school and was in the church brigade. But as I learned more about other religions and myths which people used to believe in by the million I began to realize the chances of Christianity being the 'truth' were pathetically small. I stopped being a Christian before I finished high school.

And raggs Christianity and homosexuality are utterly incomparable. One is a natural fact, way beyond our control. If I'd been born on a desert island with no books or medua I would still be gay; had you been born on a desert island with no books or media you would not be Christian. So don't try to compare the two that way.

People criticize a religion becomes it is an ideology just like communism, liberalism or feudalism- only with a divine element. Being gay is not an ideology.

again you show your ignorance neither sunday school or church brigade attendance make you a Christian, thank you for demonstrating the lack of knowledge that in turn demonstrates the posters on here ho claim to be ex christians clearly are not...

Indeed. One can be a Christian without ever setting foot in a church or going to Sunday School.

Having said that, I think that if someone does go in a church, they should treat it with respect.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Again you are basing this on your "own" understanding of Christianity, which from what I have seen is far removed from how most Christians practice their faith.
I was a Catholic and so was Ben, my family are still Catholic, whether you agree Catholics are Christian or not. So you are very wrong and often wrong on understanding the love of Jesus.

Have a nice day, have work to do

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?

One doesn't need to be baptised to be "accepted" into the Christian faith. Faith is not like a club where you have to be a member in order to be accepted by God.

Raggamuffin wrote:One doesn't need to be baptised to be "accepted" into the Christian faith. Faith is not like a club where you have to be a member in order to be accepted by God.

A child certainly does and is required to be baptized into the faith, as how does the child decide?
It does not decide but has been accepted into the faith through baptism.

1. No I'm not saying I fancy all men- do I really need to ultra clarify every single minor point with you raggs?

2. I said 'religion' (not faith, there is a difference, ask your buddy HF) is unnatural AS IN you wouldn't come to know you are Christian by any natural means (conversely, even without language, I would know I was gay the moment I saw a man I was attracted to). Unnatural doesn't automatically imply a negative (depends on the context). In this case it doesn't. Getting from Manchester to Paris is 1 hour is also unnatural, it isn't negative though is it. The difference again with homosexuality  is that saying it is unnatural implies a mental problem- which is a negative and proven untrue. 

3. I never said Sunday school or the brigade made me a real Christian, they were just things I was involved in. But I also had numerous Bible stories which I read, loved and believed were true. I absolutely believed in the divinity of Jesus long after I acknowledged much of the OT was mythical. Sadly HF and raggs neither of you get to decide what makes or made someone a real believer just because you are. I was, from stardesk's life story I know he was, and I expect the same is true of Ben and didge. That said, being a true believer imo is nothing to be particularly proud of, it is just a belief, same as communism. You totally accept the truth of the Bible, communists totally accept that communism would create a Utopia- you are the same.

Again, I emphasize, homosexuality, unlike Christianity, is NOT an ideology and that ideologies ARE open to criticism.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:One doesn't need to be baptised to be "accepted" into the Christian faith. Faith is not like a club where you have to be a member in order to be accepted by God.

A child certainly does and is required to be baptized into the faith, as how does the child decide?
It does not decide but has been accepted into the faith through baptism.

Absolute nonsense. One doesn't have to be baptised to hear the word of God. A baby wouldn't remember it anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



A child certainly does and is required to be baptized into the faith, as how does the child decide?
It does not decide but has been accepted into the faith through baptism.

Absolute nonsense. One doesn't have to be baptised to hear the word of God. A baby wouldn't remember it anyway.

You do have to in the Catholic Church, which the first sin is also forgiven. Hence why there is over 40,000 denominations who claim to know what Christianity is and how it should be followed. I never said to be a Christian you need to be baptized, but a child cannot decide and is thus baptized into the faith, hence your short comings here. As otherwise any children of Christians are not Christians, by the view they are not mature enough to decide.
So you need to make your mind up whether children are Christians through Baptism or not?

Eilzel wrote:1. No I'm not saying I fancy all men- do I really need to ultra clarify every single minor point with you raggs?

2. I said 'religion' (not faith, there is a difference, ask your buddy HF) is unnatural AS IN you wouldn't come to know you are Christian by any natural means (conversely, even without language, I would know I was gay the moment I saw a man I was attracted to). Unnatural doesn't automatically imply a negative (depends on the context). In this case it doesn't. Getting from Manchester to Paris is 1 hour is also unnatural, it isn't negative though is it. The difference again with homosexuality  is that saying it is unnatural implies a mental problem- which is a negative and proven untrue. 

3. I never said Sunday school or the brigade made me a real Christian, they were just things I was involved in. But I also had numerous Bible stories which I read, loved and believed were true. I absolutely believed in the divinity of Jesus long after I acknowledged much of the OT was mythical. Sadly HF and raggs neither of you get to decide what makes or made someone a real believer just because you are. I was, from stardesk's life story I know he was, and I expect the same is true of Ben and didge. That said, being a true believer imo is nothing to be particularly proud of, it is just a belief, same as communism. You totally accept the truth of the Bible, communists totally accept that communism would create a Utopia- you are the same.

Again, I emphasize, homosexuality, unlike Christianity, is NOT an ideology and that ideologies ARE open to criticism.

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.

Here you go Rags, this is what Catholics believe:



Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.

Belatucadros wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Absolute nonsense. One doesn't have to be baptised to hear the word of God. A baby wouldn't remember it anyway.

You do have to in the Catholic Church, which the first sin is also forgiven. Hence why there is over 40,000 denominations who claim to know what Christianity is and how it should be followed. I never said to be a Christian you need to be baptized, but a child cannot decide and is thus baptized into the faith, hence your short comings here. As otherwise any children of Christians are not Christians, by the view they are not mature enough to decide.
So you need to make your mind up whether children are Christians through Baptism or not?

One can be a Christian without being a Catholic. If someone "leaves" the Catholic Church, they can still be a Christian.

Children are not Christians through baptism. They are Christians because of their faith. That faith will not be there at first of course because if they're babies they don't understand it, but it will come later - or not.

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.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


You do have to in the Catholic Church, which the first sin is also forgiven. Hence why there is over 40,000 denominations who claim to know what Christianity is and how it should be followed. I never said to be a Christian you need to be baptized, but a child cannot decide and is thus baptized into the faith, hence your short comings here. As otherwise any children of Christians are not Christians, by the view they are not mature enough to decide.
So you need to make your mind up whether children are Christians through Baptism or not?

One can be a Christian without being a Catholic. If someone "leaves" the Catholic Church, they can still be a Christian.

Children are not Christians through baptism. They are Christians because of their faith. That faith will not be there at first of course because if they're babies they don't understand it, but it will come later - or not.

I never said someone has to be a Catholic either.
You still are not grasping the point are you.
They are Christians in baptism though their parents and God parents.


Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.


Mark 16:16English Standard Version (ESV)

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


A billions Catholics disagree with you Rags it seems.

I disagree with you Didge - that is not my view of baptism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:1. No I'm not saying I fancy all men- do I really need to ultra clarify every single minor point with you raggs?

2. I said 'religion' (not faith, there is a difference, ask your buddy HF) is unnatural AS IN you wouldn't come to know you are Christian by any natural means (conversely, even without language, I would know I was gay the moment I saw a man I was attracted to). Unnatural doesn't automatically imply a negative (depends on the context). In this case it doesn't. Getting from Manchester to Paris is 1 hour is also unnatural, it isn't negative though is it. The difference again with homosexuality  is that saying it is unnatural implies a mental problem- which is a negative and proven untrue. 

3. I never said Sunday school or the brigade made me a real Christian, they were just things I was involved in. But I also had numerous Bible stories which I read, loved and believed were true. I absolutely believed in the divinity of Jesus long after I acknowledged much of the OT was mythical. Sadly HF and raggs neither of you get to decide what makes or made someone a real believer just because you are. I was, from stardesk's life story I know he was, and I expect the same is true of Ben and didge. That said, being a true believer imo is nothing to be particularly proud of, it is just a belief, same as communism. You totally accept the truth of the Bible, communists totally accept that communism would create a Utopia- you are the same.

Again, I emphasize, homosexuality, unlike Christianity, is NOT an ideology and that ideologies ARE open to criticism.

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).

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 Christianity, 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.