My! The sincerity of your bombasity warms the cockles of my heart!

What beliefs do you believe don't hold up to scrutiny?

Oh, wait, since you don't hold any religious beliefs, perhaps it's simply stupid to ask you. Unless, of course, you're omniscient?

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Not.

Congrats on becoming a moderator, uber, and I couldn't agree more.

Open-mindedness is having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas, or the opinions of others. That's right out of the dictionary. I'm not making it up. You can have convictions and still be receptive to new ideas. You can still entertain new opinions. All the convictions in the world have nothing to do with being open-minded. The smartest people in the world constantly challenge their own intelligence, their own ideas of the hows and whys of the universe. I don't know how anyone can make "open-mindedness" a negative thing. Your interpretation/understanding of the term is somewhat skewed, unfortunately, and that's why your assertion is incorrect.

i've never had a hostile response to my religious posts here.

thing i've noticed is there is an emptiness in me when i'm not religious, just a part missing that only that can fill. Always been curious about people that can go on perfectly fine without it, without that feeling of missing a huge chunk of something from their being or their life.

Perhaps...you just don't miss something that you've never had? Or, you don't really miss something that you've never needed in the first place? Just a thought.

No, I am most definately not "religious". I have not, however, belittled or was ever hostile toward anyone who was/is. Nor will I condone anyone else that does. I have always, from day one, found the TFP to be a place of open, and respectfull, discussion. Religion included.

I think we all have differing opinions. I definitely am more hostile towards Christians, only because there are so many hypocritical ones that have entered my life (my mother- and sister-in-law, for example). However, if a Christian takes a non-religious stance on an issue, I will respect him or her for it.

Open mindedness in the vernacular though is more about accepting everything and having no strong convictions about anything.

Being closed minded means you will refuse to accept new data that might contract your stance on an issue, but you can very well be opened minded and still reject new ideas, as not everything new or different is good.

Very few people are truly close minded, but in PC speak these days, anyone who doesn't accept (insert whatever cause/group/point of view) is closed minded to those who support that (cause/group/point of view).

Rejecting it doesn't imply that you weren't open to it in the first place. In my mind, the key to being "open minded" is being open to considering other points of view. In the end, rejecting or accepting that new idea is where your convictions come in. The problem is when your convictions are so strong that you are completly unwilling to see beyond them.

I don't disagree here. I see this a something to struggle against at both ends of the socio/political spectrum.

The key is understanding the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

On one hand you can disapprove of something and yet tolerate it's practice so long as it doesn't involve you. On the other you impose your disapproval on others.

The point that I was trying to make was that while a large majority of the christians I have met, follow their religion blindly, not questioning it, almost none of those kind reside here. I think I would have been better off just stopping after the first paragraph, but the end of the second was there to make clear that this was not something I felt about TFPers.

The fact is, that many people believe things that they may not, if they thought about it more, and not just religious things.

I try to go through things logically, if I can, and that is the reason I hold no beliefs. Nothing I have seen holds up to my own logic. Of course, there are things that logic cannot deal with, especially in religion, and I respect that, but there are things that it can deal with, and some people seem to just ignore the logic that does exist.
For example, seeing as I would be asked for one other wise, many christians say that the bible is the literal word of god, but do not act as if it were so. That's just not right.

in terms of religion.. or at least the Jewish religion and its children - the key belief is that there is one true God. What Analog said about being open to other idea's really is an issue I think. A devout Christian/Jew/Muslim may respect other's beliefs and their right to hold them, but they KNOW that anyone who believes something different is wrong. This is a knowledge based on faith rather than evidence.

Communism vs Capitalist Democracy is a debate between idea's and interpretions. But Differences in religion are differences in fact (that cannot be supported, because it simply IS) - I think this makes religious differences more personal and more likely to cause offense.

Personally, I would debate anyone on my religious beliefs, and anyone who thinks that religion is by nature idiotic doesnt offend me. I would only say that Aethism is a religion also.

I reacted against your statements which I saw as a pretty unfair and blanket attack. Ironically, when I see something like that, it strikes me that the one making the attack may be a bit blind to some things. I recognize my rhetoric was a bit harsh, but it was an attempt to meet what I felt was a harsh view "in kind" if you will. I am sorry if I crossed the line.

The fact is, however, that the thing you claim you have only seen in Christians likely applies to some TFPers. Zyr, could it be that perhaps you have a blind spot based on a bias you have?

A little honest introspection wouldn't hurt. Admitting truth never does, and admitting a short coming simply means we understand areas we may have to grow in. Of course, you may feel it is not the case. And I guess we are all entitled to whatever feelings and opinions we have.

Dude! Let's be honest! I guess this is what I was thinking of above. Your first post certainly seemed to intimate ANYTHING BUT respect for areas where perhaps only faith can proffer where logic fails.

Frankly, I would appreciate knowing if you've read any of the very good Christian apologetics works which exist. Many of them have this common line of reasoning: faith and logic are not inconsistent; and the Christian religion is a logical faith.

Agreeing with the "ingredients" of their argument YOU may not, AND the true Bible Christian -- in my experience -- would be the first to acknowledge your perfect right to disagree. But let's not be condescending and so quick to dismiss intelligence when and where it exists, and at least recognize that there have been some brilliant minds throughout history which have come to that conclusion, one which seems to have some merit to it.

Hypocrisy is never pleasant. But I would suggest this...

Perhaps -- PERHAPS? -- you may have a bias against Christianity such that you perceive some beliefs and actions as hypocritical when the individual who holds them does not. Can you at least admit that's possible?

However, and this is true, hypocrisy is an equal opportunity disease. No matter the value system you hold to, any one can succumb to it. And it is equally true that you find some hypocrites in Christianity. Perhaps by virtue of the high moral standard unbelievers presume believers should hold -- a presumption not without merit -- hypocrisy amongst Christians is a bit easier to spot?

I would suggest unbelievers presume a high moral standard is the norm when someone tells them, "I'm a Christian," from what they understand Christianity is to be. Those understandings may be flawed at times. When they are not, it is possible the unbeliever gives a more careful and critical eye [critical in the sense of discerning] to examining the life of the believer because they would like to see if what they have is genuine, or perhaps to find fault and make them self feel better about not measuring up to an internal standard they have but may deny.

That's pretty natural, too.

But to be fair, as I understand it, a Christian might readily admit "I'm not perfect but I am forgiven." Not to use that as an excuse, one would hope, but as an honest assessment of where they are at, at that moment. And, if you feel they are hypocritical, then you are letting a hypocrite come between you and God.

The above post is what I consider to be the norm when discussing things "christian" on this board.

Very few people on this board actually give a shit about each other's religious orientation. Maybe those kinds of understandings are relevent at church, or on a board centered around religion, or even in some topics on this board.

But many "christians" profess their orientation on this board purely to set up a distinction about themselves from other members. And then, the irony I see anyway, is that when an otherwise normal person voices his or her opinion, a "christian" jumps his or her shit until they just stop posting and simultaneously whines about persecution, hypocrasy, & etc.

"Unbelievers," and hey wouldn't you know that believers too, presume a high moral standard when someone says they are christian because, well shit, that's the point of the claim. It's almost always the point of the claim when christianity is used in philosophy, politics, and as one's "moral compass" in many other walks of life as we often witness espoused in the general discussion board, too.

Now maybe Zyr was referring to eating pork or shellfish, or sleeping next to a woman on her mense, or any number of "minor" or "old" things christians refuse to do in their daily lives under the guise that they aren't necessary anymore but more often than not are just ignored because they present inconveniences and/or are things the christian actually likes to do. And perhaps a christian could debate why he or she ought not have to follow such rules anymore--yeah those things are contested ideas to some, I'll admit.

But I don't see how anyone could wrap their heads around the notion that you aren't supposed to lust, either under the "old" rules or the "new." And looking at naked women and thinking about fucking them is just as bad, so the scripture says, as actually doing it...but hey, "Perhaps -- PERHAPS?" that's just some bias of mine creeping in when I wonder about all these pious christians roaming this particular web-hub of TFPorject.

OR, the persecution christians feel on this board is their own concsious, the thing they claim they can't possibly have without a deity sticking it in them, so maybe it's your god telling you that you aren't acting like he says you should, well because you aren't mainly. but your own guilt isn't any reason to go beating on other members; if you're that conflicted about your place on this site, then go practice what the old monks used to do, go ole ascetiscm. beat on yourselves while creeping up and down some stairs--but don't take your guilt out on non-christians, or other christians, who don't particularly see the relevence of your religious orientation in every speck of their lives or internet responses.

and, btw, you aren't "forgiven" unless you stop the sinful behavior.
'member that lil part about every time you sin you recrucify your christ?

So, Smooth, do you think Christians feel welcome here?

Not that I expect you care, from your post, but I'm curious.

Can you tell me who in this thread identified themselves as a Christian, jumped on some else to prevent them from posting, and then simultaneously whined about feeling persecuted, etc.?

And is this directed towards me?

If it is, does that mean you think I am a Christian? To my knowledge I haven't posted my particular religious persuasion in any particular thread.

Thanks.

I was raised Catholic, and am currently a non-denominational Protestant Christian attending a Unitarian/Universalist church. My wife is a Shinto Buddhist, and my Sister a . . . regular? Buddhist. I'll have to ask her. Her version is slightly different from Grace's. The differences in our faiths don't cause any conflict at all, and it isn't because it doesn't come up; we do discuss things, and I've adapted a little bit of Sissy's Buddhist philosophy and a lot of Grace's Shinto as a part of my own spirituality.

I've never felt unwelcome here, or for that matter anywhere, as a result of my being Christian, though it does seldom come into play, as I tend to avoid Politics and Philosophy. They just tend to get too contentious for me to really give the thought that I should to a debate there.

Hee hee. I'm pretty sure I'm absolutely the last person here who would be called an loud-mouthed evangelical homophobe. :)

I think I can truly say I've never been made unwelcome anywhere as a result of my religious beliefs. I've been told, fairly recently in fact (not here), that I'm not really a Christian because I'm a lesbian and in a homosexual marriage, which means that I don't believe biblical teachings or live my life in Christ, but that's an objection based on my orientation and their religious beliefs, not having anything to do with mine.

I don't feel a need to reconcile them, just as I don't feel a need to reconcile my orientation with my religion. I see no conflict to be resolved.

Gilda

Taxes are an example which shows where this logic does not always apply, and we can think of many others.

There are few issues which have no repercussions to individuals or society beyond the individuals directly involved.

You're right. I think I do indeed stereotype christians, tending to dismiss them, unless they prove themselves. Guilty untill proven innocent, rather than the other way, as I treat non-christians. Perhaps even applying that to all people that don't agree with me. I like to think however, that I will listen, and form my conclusions based on what they say, and not my pre-concived notions.

The best way I can describe my opinion of christianity, is that for the most part it is logical. There are several "leaps of faith" that have to be made, but up to and after those, it is fairly logical. Unfortunately, most christians' beliefs fall apart in the logical part, the part I am comfortable arguing about. I understand there are things I can't discuss, things where both sides are right, coming from the right point of view, but these I try to avoid.

The only book I've read on the subject is Tearing Down Strongholds by RC Sproul, Jr. If you can recomend any others, I would be interested.

The fact that a person has come to a right conclusion, does not mean they did so correctly. Christianity may very well correct, I am not the person to say otherwise, however many who are christian do not understand their own religion, perhaps having grown up with it, never questioning it. By the same account, people may come to a wrong conclusion, following correct logical steps. Brilliant people have indeed come to the conclusion that christianity is correct, which it may not be, having made all logical steps, bar those leaps that I can not fault anyway.

Of course. I would like to think that if they could justify it to themselves, they could justify it to me, but they have no obligation to, obviously.

That may be the case.

People thinking they know what christianity is, and not, is a problem, I know I don't know as much as I would like to know to give me a more solid footing during arguments, but I try to argue the points that I do know.

Also, thank you for taking the time to write a more complete post. I realise you may have taken offence at my post and I'm sorry.