h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Cynic: I study the Bible because it is the one weapon we can use to successfully undermine all Xtian logic. The Bible is the cornerstone of their faith, so by chipping away at its integrity, we chip away at the cornerstone, until the whole structure collapses. Every time I move on to a new section (despite the lavish praise, there is still much in there I'm ignorant of, partly because it's so damned huge, and partly because that which I study I study intently) I am illuminated again. Just the other day, I decided to give Acts a shot, because I'd been reading stuff about the original Jerusalem Church, and Acts and a few others are a sort of history of the Jerusalem Church. In the first four verses I came across my first contradiction, and my Bible is annotated, so I wanted to see what they had to say about it. Here is how they rationalize it:

"According to John, the ascension of Jesus to the kingdom of his Father took place on the day of his Ressurrection. Luke (author of Acts) writes from a different perspective and speaks of a visible ascension of Jesus after 40 days. For John, the ascension means primarily the risen Jesus' new existence with the Father, and the appearances are those of the risen and ascended one. For Luke, the ascension marks the end of the appearances of Jesus except for the extraordinary appearance to Paul."

It's an argument completely devoid of any logic, and it's an answer that fails to illuminate, but makes one sorry they'd ever asked the question. My first reaction was laughter, followed by pity for all the people who manage to swallow this argument, mostly because they lack the cognitive skills to examine it. Gives a new perspective on how the religion still manages to thrive, even in an era of greater education.

I understand what you are doing. I'm not undermining you. By pointing out the illogic and paradoxes of the bible one reveals how much of it is useless. But what I'm on about is that the X-tians react to any criticism by quoting something with full reference - but that is pointless. That's like a Scieno telling a X-tian that in Dianetics Hubbard said "Cleansing will enhance the mind" and therefore he must believe it. I'm saying that to me, the bible is as sound evidance as the Daily Star. Just because this old book says something happened doesn't mean it has!

Okay, context. The whole book of Ecclesiastes is a long sort of parable where the author (presumably Solomon) writes from the standpoint of "The Preacher", who is sharing the wisdom in life. Since it is a parable, it' not really to be taken literally. However, we're mostly making application with it, which is what parables are for, so no problems yet. If there is one theme for the whole book of Ecclesiastes, it is vanity. Notice the intitial question in the first chapter

Eccl 1:3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

The passage we are discussing fits right in with this question, and states that all man's labour, knowledge and wisdom shall pass away with death (verse 6), and at death they no longer have any part of affairs here on earth. I also noticed you failed to mention verse one of chapter nine in your discussion. An important insight? Let's examine it:

Eccl 9:1
For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them.

We are in the hands of God, yet most of the time we cannot see the love of God through our life. It is not reasonable for any righteous person to expect that he will have a life deserves through that righteousness. Yet the Preacher also tells us that we should make the most of the life we have while here on earth, because it is our present portion.

I don't see where the Preacher says there is no life after death, no resurrection. He just states that anything accomplished or gained here on earth such as wisdom, work, knowledge, or reason will end at the grave. This is true, the body will die, but not the spirit(which doesn't necessarily encompass anything previously named). This is even stated later in the book:

Eccl 12:7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

So, what have we learned? The question at the beginning of the book is answered: the labour of a man has no profit. Yet the Preacher isn't quite done yet. He leaves with this conclusion:

Eccl 12:13:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Yet if GargleBlaster is fully justified in undermining Christianity, using the Bible as his source, am I then not justified in defending Christianity through the same source? You have made your opinions on the subject of the Bible very clear. But if the Bible is as reliable as the Daily Star, surely your words and opinions are worth no more. You are trapped by your own argument, you say most of the Bible is useless, yet you are only human, prone to grievous error at times. Just because you don't think "the old book" is authoritative doesn't mean it really isn't.

When GB uses quotes showing the how little sense the bible makes he undermines its reliability. The quotes don't mean a thing to me whether he or you say them. The difference between following a book because it is written in old dialect and thought to be the words of God and generally thinking is very big. No, I can't completely prove Evolution but I don't use Darwin's book as a bible - I don't pick random quotes from it to try and convince you that evolution is correct. I think in a scientific way. That does not mean I believe what the scientific community does. It means that I believe the theory that best explains and is best suited. Therefore I do not believe in creationism as I can't believe that all existance was created by a single deity and that two thousand years ago he decided to impregnate a human female. I just can't believe it when there is no evidence of this or logic in it - just a cryptic book written from tales passed down for hundreds of years.

I've noticed two pre-programmed responses to any challenge to the validity of the Bible. Each time I raise a new point, I get these two responses, in order:

1) You're taking it out of context.

Then I go on to show how it is perfectly in context, and in fact, couldn't be clearer. Which brings us on to phase two:

2) It's not supposed to be taken literally.

Argument two, of course, is entirely valid. It is my assertion, as it has been all along, that NOTHING in the Bible should be taken literally. Did David really pay 200 foreskins for his wife? Did God really have to retreat, because he wasn't stronger than iron chariots? Did Methuselah really live to be 950 or so? NO! So the question is, why is there so much selectivity? The Gnostics warned that the ressurrection was not to be taken literally, it was a metaphor and a ceremony that took place while in this life. But Xtians, whenever they see a real compromise in the writings, naturally say that that portion is not to be taken literally, yet the ressurrection, the Revelations, and all sorts of foolishness is still assumed to be "Gospel truth" (my favorite oxymoron). The entire body of work by Paul is taken literally, and I've already discussed why Paul was completely unqualified to preach about Jesus.

But to discuss Ecclesiates further: The opening verse credits the whole body to one Qoholeth, son of David. It's mostly a wisdom tract, and has some pretty good lines, including the words to 'Turn, Turn, Turn' by the Byrds, which leads one to believe that Jehovah is a hippy. But back to 9:1, that opening line basically says that we're God's muppets if we're just and wise. Not one of the best lines there, and "not to be taken literally." Then you commit the same sin you accuse me of, that of cutting off important stuff. That second line reads like this in its entirety:

"Love from hatred man cannot tell; both appear equally vain, in that there is the same lot for all, for the just and the wicked, for the good and the bad, for the clean and the unclean, for him who offers sacrifice and him who does not."

Translation: we're all gonna die. Nothing else beyond that.

It appears to me that a bit of license was taken in your translation of 12:7, because mine mentions nothing of any sort of spirit rising up. Mine reads this way: "And the dust retuns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God who gave it." In other words, the magic that gave life returns to the creator, and nothing that was you remains. If he was promising some sort of eternal life, this line would not have directly followed: "Vanity of vanities, says Quoholeth, all things are vanity!" Besides, ressurrection was integral to many of the cults active in Jesus' time, but was never a part of Judaism.

Arguments one and two are both valid, because in the context of Ecclesiastes, things are not necessarily literal. However, the fact that it shouldn't be taken quite literally wasn't meant to be part of my argument, and doesn't affect your argument at all. We are both discussing application, which is what parables were meant for.

Qoholeth means the preacher in Hebrew, and there's a fair amount of evidence in the text that he was none other than Solomon.

"Love from hatred man cannot tell; both appear equally vain, in that there is the same lot for all, for the just and the wicked, for the good and the bad, for the clean and the unclean, for him who offers sacrifice and him who does not."

Translation: humanity in and of itself is unable to discern Love from Hatred, the Good from the Bad, because the state of this world is such that both Hatred and Love come to all people no matter what their state of righteoussness or wickedness.

Lastly spirit literally means breath, and in Genesis 2:7 it says "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The breath, the soul, the spirit, for most intents and purposes the same thing. The rest of the Bible teaches pretty clearly about spirit, I don't see why Qoholeth is making an exception.

Vanity refers to earthly things. Notice how many times it has the phrase "under the sun"? Doesn't that seem to suggest an earthly context? And if *all* things are vanity, why should Qoholeth tell us to obey God as he does in his last statement?

Fun discussion, I'm enjoying it immensely. Keep on challenging me GB.

But you can't automatically judge me and say that I'm not generally thinking just because I defend the Bible. Show me from my posts where I'm just spouting religious drivel without really thinking, and I'll see what I can do to improve.

Man, you lot write so much, it is very boring. But of course, I feel compelled to read it. It hurts me to think I'm letting people get away with things that could well make me tick.

I've heard something mentioned about people not taking bits of the bible literally, choosing to ignore bits of it etc.
Way back up there, at the top, Peregrin mentioned that he is wrote an article to flame athiesm (very typical response for an xtian) he'd be unable to pin it down because athiests can say "well i don't believe anything anyway"....

This sounds like christianity is even more, oooh can't think of a word..."precarious" than before. (i hate it when you can't find a word for something)
Surely this means xtians can have all sorts of justifications to their slaughters and killings? "Oh it's all right to kill poofters because it's how you interperet love thy neighbour and god hates homos anyway".
Which gives me the impression that christianity is really a big crock of shite. Which gets me even more pissed off when I have to have it rammed down my throat.

I seem to get this reaction alot in this forum. And I am truly wondering, is this response to what Christians are writing here, is it Christians you have met personally elsewhere, is it Christianity in general, what you have heard that Christians are doing or have done? I'd like to know, please give me some feedback.

Ok, yeah, I figure you may not want to take my stuff personally. I have a short temper and this thread is ripe for making it snap.

1. A lot of the christians irl, that I have known personally, have made me flip. I remember when I was a wee kid I was bullied by a couple of them. That really hurt back then. That's for starters...

2. I do get ticked off when I see homepages and find that every researcher and his friend is pretending to be a meek xtian. I see "if you are xtian please talk to me as there appears to be absolutlley no xtians here whatsoever".
And I'm thinking "wtf??? Like there's not enough of you already! Stop pretending xtianity is dead etc etc".
To me, it's a sign that these people are quite keen to show off their religeon. To be a christian is a 'cool' thing to show off. To show the world "I am xtian I am 1 with god u r not you die ha ha" is cool.

3. I hear about a lot of bad things that christians do. What's more, I actually -see- christians doing quite un-christiany type things. Very hypocritical.

4. Bigot that I am (among other things), I have kinda mixed feelings about whether god exists or not. Christians tend to sway me towards "Does Not Exist" with their riduculous antics.

5. Did you see the pictures that used to be on my homepage (I took them down)? Did you see the top one? Powered By Hate, it said. I love to hate. And I sure get given a damn fine set of reasons to hate (as always).

Easy, Mike. Down boy... down... good boy. *Scratches behind Mike's ears*

You make an excellent point about the showiness of xtianity. They pretend it's dying, when in reality, it's the majority. Governor Jesse Ventura fell out of favor for speaking his opinions about xtainity, because he said some rather mean things about Catholics (all ofwhich the pope just admitted last week), and his state is 60% Catholic. That doesn't even begin to factor in the protestants, and the non-practicing types. A recent poll showed that something on the order of 85% (can't remember what the real number was, but this is a conservative guess) of Americans believe in God. What this really is a manifestation of is the whole open display of piety that Jesus was against. It's also a superiority thing... a 'Hah, hah, I'm going to Heaven, and you're gonna burn forever!' kind of thing. They even do it with their own kind, too...they memorize a few quotes, and deliver those handful to impress their peers. They try to out-holy each other at church. One says 'Praise God,' then the next hits his Bible on his leg and shouts something else, and this progresses through the congregation until (I actually had to see this to believe it happens) somebody jumps up out of their chair and starts running laps around the outside of the pews.

Ok...back to Ecclesiastes. First of all, the editors of my Bible disagree with the author of the book. They say that it has often been mistakenly attributed to Solomon, because Quoholeth is described as 'son of David, King of the Jews,' but in fact the language of thepiece places it in the late Hebrew era somewhere around the time Alexander the Great was subjugating the world. Solomon came much later. They go on further to state that the author attributed it to the king just as a way to lend credence to it, but say that that should in no way impugn it.

I have yet another problem with the word 'spirit' in your translation. In the Genesis reference, it says nothing of spirit in mine. It simply says "God blew the breath of life in him, and he bacame a living body." I would like to know which version you are using, who translated it, and exactly what their purpose was in producing it. Mine claims to be a fresh translation (okay, maybe not fresh, since it was done in the 70's, but close enough) into American English from the oldest surviving transcripts, which are in the hands of the Catholic Church. This is a version produced by the Catholics, so it works. There are also certain notes, like the discrediting of the Solomon=Quoholeth theory, that lead me to believe that at least some serious scholarship went into producing it. So when I see no mentions of any sort of spirit ascending to heaven anywhere in the Old Testament, I tend to think that that was not a mistake. Anyway, the very idea of a second life after death is completely alien to Judaism, and the Old Testament is the Bible of Judaism. In the ancient days of Israel, the only religion that had a rebirth element (aside from Druidism, which believed in reincarnation, not rebirth) was that of Egypt, and in their religion, the only one to be reborn was the Pharaoh, since he was the earthly manifestation of the god Amon-Re. Ressurection cults first began to appear on the scene around 350 BC with the development of Mithraism in Tyre. The Old Testament was nearly completed by then, and Jews would have rejected those ideas had they been introduced to them. The only mentions of anyone going to heaven are of Enoch and Elijah, and those two were accepted into heaven while they still lived.

To attribute elements of rebirth into Old Testament writings is to commit the ad hoc logical fallacy. In other words, you're saying that you know what the authors were really talking about, because Jesus told us all about it later. You have to ignore what you know from later stuff and take it for what it is.

Quite obviously, I couldn't type the night I wrote the above. So when you see the idiotic part about Solomon coming after Alexander, please disregard. Solomon came much SOONER than Quoholeth.

I checked an online resource, and discovered that your line about a living soul in Genesis occurs in the King James version. I thought you might like a bit of history on exactly who wrote the KJV.

King James I of England really had very little to do with the work, and a good thing, too, since he was far from a saint. He simply commissioned the work, which means he bankrolled it. He did so only under tremendous pressure from the Puritans, who at that time were gaining popularity and influence in England. The work was done by Puritan scholars. I know I don't have to bore you with an argument on how extreme their beliefs were, nor go into details of witch hunts and oppression of women (even by 16th century standards), followed by a diatribe on what a poor example they are as a people, and how their beliefs filtered through in the translation of their Bible. But I would take their words with a heavy grain of salt, as well as with any version that used the KJV as a base. Since mine uses much older texts as a basis, I give it credibility over any disputes in wording.

Whatever you or I say, it's definitely not certain who Quoholeth was. I still have a pretty strong idea that it was Solomon and present a few clues:

1. (vs 1)"The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem" Solomon was David's son, and was a king of Jerusalem. Granted, I don't think son is a definite term, so it could be any of jerusalem's kings descended from David, but Solomon still fits.

2. If you look at Quoholeth's statements in Chapter 2 concerning all he had done, it definitely fits with what is known about Solomon. Indeed you said yourself that Ecclesiastes is a wisdom tract, and was not Solomon reputed to be Israel's wisest king?

3. The tone and style much fits with Proverbs, in which Solomon's name actually appears as the author.

That's just my opinion, however. I don't think either of us have enough evidence to prove it either way.

In reference to the translation issue, regardless of who translated the King James Version, I have an idea of how it was translated. First of all, I know that thousands of manuscripts of the hebrew and greek were used in the effort, all that were available at the time. What is remarkable about the manuscripts is that they were all very similar to one another. There were differences to be sure, but how they handled these differences seems the most logical way to do so. Wherever there was variation, they searched through all the manuscripts and used the word that the majority of the manuscripts used. The possible weakness of the King James is that every once in a while, inexplicably, the translators used a different word, that didn't agree with the majority. In fact, this flaw was one of the reasons that the New King James was produced (and it is an original translation effort), to follow the majority more closely (and to include the dead sea scrolls in the manuscripts used).

Still, if you don't want to accept the King James, the American Standard Version uses the same word. And the New International Version, the New King James, and the Revised Standard use the term living "being" which would at the very least imply something more than just body.

Actually, the style of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are quite different. And Solomon is only credited with parts 2 and 5. Those two parts are much simpler in style than Ecclesiastes.

Now it sounds to me as if you are accusing the Catholics of purposely excising the word 'soul' out of the Old Testament. I can think of several reasons why the other translators would add it, but no reason why the Catholics would edit it, since the word is as important to their sect as to any Protestants. If they didn't interpret the words that same way, I'm sure there is an excellent reason. I'm not accusing the authors of the other versions of doing it on purpose, either, I think they may have just interpreted things the way they wanted to see them. I would have to research the origins of those other versions, but I am certain at least some of them are simply rewrites of the KJV.

As far as your 'lack of variety' theory, the Dead Sea Scrolls don't back it up. Those tracts that also appear in the Bible, in some instances, are notably different from the biblical ones. There are many disagreements in different manuscripts.

Alright, I think we can put the Solomon Quoholeth equivalency argument to rest, obviously its not conclusive either way.

I am not accusing catholics of anything, merely pointing out that the KJV is not the only version to translate that way. Actually if you take it back to the Hebrew, both translations are valid. In the most literal sense the word used does mean body, but its usage is often figurative of soul, spirit, etc.

Forgive me if I gave you the wrong impression from my argument. There are many discrepancies and differences to be found in the manuscripts, but any scholar who has worked extensively with these manuscripts could probably tell you that they are remakably similar for a book that has been copied so many times by so many groups. The real point is that there are so many manuscripts and partial manuscripts still in existence that a picture of the original can be approximated by the method of using the word that the majority of the manuscripts use.

Getting back to Ecclesiastes itself, let me ask a question again. If all is vanity, then why does Quoholeth exhort us at the end of the book.
(Eccl 12:13) "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man". Is this a contradiction, or could it be be that there is something more than what is "under the sun"?

Did you read my stuff about heavy metal? Now, that was written with a distinct point in mind, but it seemed to be missed. I hope someone got it, but I'm going to say it properly here.

I am a fan of heavy metal. OK. I especially enjoyed Black Sabbath because they did the back-masking and biting the heads off small mammals thing in order to poke fun at the strait laced "demons are cool" HM attitudes. As a fan of this sort of music, I am all too aware that a lot of it isn't really about that - it's about loud guitars and showmanship. Only the real fans know this. People only hear about heavy metal in News reports which read something like "Alice Cooper tears up live chicken on stage." They never hear about AC's love of golf, or the stories backing it up and explaining it. It's all sensation, sensation, sensation. People can't understand heavy metal because they can't figure why someone would _want_ to spend 6 hours in a sweaty bunch of other people throwing their long hair around their heads in time with the music, moshing simply because they have to if they want to avoid friction burns. You come home from a decent rock gig and you have what is known as "the stretch" around my area, whereby your neck muscles are so stretched out at the back and sore that your head hangs slightly forward for a few days until they are back to normal. And ordinary people cannot understand why I should want to do that. The answer is simple, the experience is worth it. The point I was making is that there are hypocrites in every area of life - just because there are in Christianity doesn't make us any better or worse, just subject to human foibles. I would imagine that there are plenty of atheists who would start to pray if their plane suddenly started hurtling towards earth!

It isn't "cool" to listen to HM or Goth anymore. It probably never really was in England. It's "cool" to go with the crowd down to the club and listen to the anonymous DJ mix together a few sampled breakbeats and pop an E because you can't get enough adrenaline going by yourself. The whole trip about metal and rock is that it's not "cool," and that's where the burn kicks in. To be accepted, you have to be different in exactly the same way as everyone else. Similarly, the hardest place to be a Christian is at school, because there the pressure is on to conform, and to admit to taking anything seriously is to admit to being the biggest dropout in the world. The result - nearly all of PKs and MKs drop out big-time.

As for Christians being in the majority, well I certainly hope so but I can't see any sign of it. So what, people get annoyed if you attack their religion? who cares? Western Society is still straying more and more into a self destructive path of hedonism...whoa, that sounded a bit heavy What I mean is: people have abdicated responsibility for their own live - most Christians included! People sue for tripping over pavements, sue for people calling them names, sue for their own incompetence with razors and toothpaste and coffee. Now, Christianity cannot solve this, but it can try to offer an alternative, whereby you stop blaming everyone for your life being so sucky, in fact forget how sucky your own life is, and try and make everyone else's life a little less sucky. Do I care if you have been turned off Jesus by Christians? Why, yes I do. I care about that a lot. However, it seems that you will always find something wrong about us. If we're proud of being able to stand out from the crowd and live like we think we should rather than how we want to, then we get slack for being all high and mighty. If, otoh, you see Christians not acting like you think they should, probably not like they should, then we're hypocrites. Tell me, Mike, what do you want us to do? Are you proud of your self, of your achievements in life? Why begrudge us the same opportunity? Don't like it, fair dos, but make up your mind. Do you dislike us because we're all hypocrites, or because we're proud of being Christians and loving each other and looking out for each other? There are examples of both types, and all in between, in rl.

Here's an analogy for you. Suppose you were bullied in school by two black kids, and you saw lots of black people comitting crimes, would that justify you to be racist? I know that's not a great analogy, so here's another one. Suppose you were bullied by two homosexuals because you were straight. Suppose you saw a lot of homosexuals comitting crime, and then you found out that many, although claiming to be gay, were actually sneaking out and having heterosexual relationships with people. Would this give you a reason to become homophobic? Well?

In conclusion, if Christianity was dead then I wouldn't be here. It is, however, in trouble, it is eating itself up from the inside and trying to stick to the wrong things. It is too fragmented, and people keep arguing about what everything means in little details (like on this board) instead of saying "OK, Jesus said 'Love your neighbour as if he was you. And that's not just the guy next door, that's any bugger who gets into trouble.' That's what we should do." Unless the church realises this, and realises that the only way to recover what it's losing is to get back to love, then we're going to see the whole world go the way of the Anglicans and the Southern Baptists - half the ministers aren't even Christian but no-one knows or cares!

Can I just put a point across here?

Solomon or Quoholeth? Well, does it really, I mean really, matter? Yes, ok, it may well be an interesting point to debate which can maybe give us an insight into the politics of the era. But in terms of living like a Christian or an atheist, does it affect ddombrow or Gargleblaster? Apart from Solomon being easier to say and type than Quoholeth, does it make a gnat's whisker worth of difference to the main argument? This is the sort of thing I mean - why make all this fuss over little details.

As for the arguments that GB posited as being get out clauses, there are many books in the Bible where you are not supposed to take it as fact, and also many where you are. All this is academic, however, because:

Paul writes to Timothy "All scripture is God breathed and useful for instruction and teaching." He does not write "all scripture is infallible." We are God breathed and yet fallible. However it does have the notable distinction of being the book which has been, via whatever mechanism, given to us at this time to help us to understand the nature of God. Believe it or not, it is very obvious to me, reading any part of the Bible, that the God mentioned everywhere is the same one, and not some literary character invented by Bathsheba, or mythical figure passed down from generation to generation to explain various natural events. It is also obvious to me that this is the God of my prayers. The simple fact of the matter is that without the Holy Spirit, whose effects are tangible and physical as well as spiritual, the Bible is only words. Wise words, but there are a lot of those around. You need the HS there to tell you, "well, Moses said _that_ but he meant _this_. It is necessary to look beyond the words to understand the message. Words are merely pale shadows of concepts, and concepts are merely pale shadows of the words of God. A great many people come to Christ simply by reading the Bible for the first time in 15 years, because they are in a place where they need something and suddenly a nudge of Le Saint Esprit, as the French know Him, makes them look at the old book.

Is all this clear? Even if you don't believe me or agree with me, is it clear what I believe? I'm not saying that we don't need the Bible, we still need it more than ever, but if we are going to use it to build our faith on rather than build our knowledge on, then we need more than an old dusty tome.

last question of the day: GB - if there was no mention of the afterlife in the OT, where did Enoch and Elijah go? Forgetting the theories about some bugger murdering them and hiding the bodies, we are debating OT here, so where did they go?

I just thought that for once I'd follow up a positive message from a Christian with another one. Look people....We are not all fanatical nutters, some of us even have a life as well!!!.

Love is at the centre of the Christian faith (as taught by Jesus). most of the arguements posted on this conversation relate to pretty much anything but the fundamental basics of the Christian faith. (love thy neighbour).

I am not a fanatical Christian, I don't even like to call my self a Christian because as far as most people on this forum are concerned being a Christian is akin to being a complete tosser!!

Yes I believe in the teachings of Jesus. No I don't hold with all the teachings of Churches.

I like to think that I get on with my life and try not to impose my views on others. If I am to be condemed simply for having faith and trying to live my life as Jesus taught us then fine. I don't believe that anyone on this earth has the power to judge. I try to share my love around and help others in my daily life. thats pretty much it. I keep my worship to myself and most of my views on "religious" subjects.

I think it's about time we all just realised that people are very very different. we need to learn to accept our differences and get on with life. We can only move forward to together.

Together we stand - Divided we fall.

Spread your love

MB

Well, now that the forum has eventually loaded, it seemed a shame not to post anything

That's all very well and good, MB, but why do you need Jesus in order to be nice to people? I am capable of loving others, being kind to others and helping others, and none of this is born out of Religion.

It stems from what I believe is my duty to be a good person and to be able to develop friendships and relationships with other people. Surely, you too must be able to see that if you abandoned your faith tomorrow, this wouldn't change your personality. You'd still be a good, decent person. So what i'm saying is, where does Jesus come into the equation?

People don't need religion in order to be good human beings. It just so happens that some good human beings are religious, just as some religious people are not good, and what's more atheists too come in good and bad varieties. It's all down to each individuals personality. But, what has that got to do with Jesus? As far as I am concerned, nothing.

You were right about the fact that all people are different and that the human race must accept the differences of people. I am a firm believer that people should be allowed to do anything they like, believe what they like, as long as it does not hurt other people. That's the utopian dream, and i think you and i are both trying to live it.

However, my *big problem* with religion is that it is a huge barrier with people accepting others for what they are. It tries to force non-believers to convert in order to make them *acceptable* people in religious society, and that just isn't right. That's not acceptance of others, that's brainwashing.

That's why whilst i'm living my life being a good person, i'm doing it because that's what I have chosen to be, not because it's what 'Jesus told me to do'.

AA