Truth of Mother Teresa

[Edric O]

Then we have fundamentally different definitions of morality.

[Anathema]

In medieval times it was moral to burn witches. It no longer is, so how can you say there is an objective moral standard? Are our morals the standard? Then what if in 500 years everybody starts burning witches again? They'll frown on our ways, because we didn't burn witches and therefore were immoral.

[Edric O]

The Christian moral standard, as stated in the Bible, is objective and unchanging. The rest is relative, that's why I don't care about it.

And before you say that the people who burnt witches (those weren't real witches, actually) were Christian... yes, they were. But they were NOT acting according to Christian morals. Which part of "thou shalt not kill" didn't they understand?

[Caid Ivik]

It was like a myth. Fire destroys everything, they had believed demonic presence within the "witch" too. But all (nearly) myths are also against the truth. It wasn't moral then, but it is same fight against evil like today's anti-terrorist wars. There is no moralty on killing, but heads of states want to ensure peace in their countries by eliminating sources of fear. Also, witches were burned by state, Church only found him/her guilty from heresy.

Morale for our civilisation is strictly defined in Bible. If we won't follow it, this civilisation does not exist! You must believe our morale is the "right one". It has reasons. Any brake will hurt you, or your society.

[emprworm]

what one man does in the "name of Christianity" does not one iota have any effect whatsoever on Christianity. If Fred comits a crime, do we then condemn Fred's parents, brothers, sisters, children, and his whole family tree? Such a notion is rediculous. No matter what someone does, or even a nation does, in the name of Christianity, it wont change the fact that Christianity teaches to love your neighbor- and your enemies.

[Acriku]

If one follows the bible, and committs a crime in the name of it, whether it be opposite of what it teaches or not, it's possible for others to interpret the bible in the same way. A lot of people don't look at the commandments, they look at the verses and examples in the stories for justification of their doings.

[SurlyPIG]

Celebrating men? Saint Mary has more fests than Jesus, so I don't know what you mean. Priests are usually men in every religion, patriarchate ruled for thousands of years. As man is natural leader, woman is a raiser of children, what has same importance. Today it isn't so straight, but male priests are tradition. Also there are still less women studying teology or philosophy.

Yes, head religous figures ARE usually men in almost every religion. That sure says something about religion, does it not?

Homosexuality is one of the problems of the sexualy opened, immoral society, which was being built by Freud, Kinsley and such. Church in core resisted, altough all its people were from that society. Some has fallen. But the homosexuality is a psychical deviance (believe me or not, but it isn't natural), which grows only when someone wants to be sexually active. And the priests (or better catholic priests) have a celibate, they sacrifice it.

A problem? Is that what you see when you look at a homosexual? A problem? Funny. Thats what I see when I look at people with such an attitude...

Are you suggesting that the Church is less moral than you or me? That is utterly insane.

You're damn right I am. Give me ONE example when the Church has gone public and said "This priest committed acts of sexual assault, so we're kicking him out of the priesthood and turning him into police." And I won't even mention the continued advocation of hate towards gays...

This is a small piece of the puzzle, though. You'll sometimes see 60-year-old men come forward to say that they were sexually abused by a priest as a child.

What? I never heard of anything like that. Was there an actual case of this or are you just assuming things?

Sadly it's true. Wherever there has been a Catholic majority, a couple times each year an adult will come forward admitting they'd been taken advantage of by a priest as a child. If you think it doesn't happen, well, remember; FIVE BILLION. That's billion. With a B.

Does one turning away from their religion make them morally decadent?

Yes.

LOL. Are you calling me decadent? My parents? My family? And about 1/2 the friends I know, and their families? I havn't seen them cause any trouble lately. I've never seen them commit mass murder, rape, enslavement and genocide - all of which are widespread products of religion.

Casual sex, pornography, violence in schools, drug abuse, rising crime rates... these are all symptoms of a society that is losing its moral values. So far, religion has proved to be the best way to uphold moral values.

Sex and porn is none of your business. People are free to do as they please with their own life, as long as it's lawful and does not bring harm to others. Crime rates are rising because we're cracking down on crime. School violence is caused almost always by bullies, sometimes by something stupid like gang violence. As for drug abuse, well, isn't alcohol acceptable in your religion? And it's the most widely abused drug in the world. So religion is the best way to uphold moral values? Well what the f***'s a priest gonna be able to do against a serial killer. Law and order is the best way to uphold moral principles. A policing force and a judicary to punish the guildy are all that is need. I've never heard of a police force committing mass genocide. I've never heard of a judge proclaiming it illegal for women not to be seen in public without wearing traditional covering dress. No, only religion is so illogical.

loss of religion => softening of moral values => loss of control over the definitions of "good" and "evil" => complete loss of moral values => porn, violence, rape, murder, etc. (a.k.a. the world we see today)

Not everyone is so weak as to live their entire life by the teachings of an unknown book. If you need commandments and passages to tell you how to live your life, fine. Don't expect others to follow. And I think the trend is more like this:

loss of religion => elimination of religious hate and violence => creation of a tolerant society => inexclusive widescale enforcement of rights => freedom for all

If you think I'm wrong, look at five countries ruled most totally by religion, and five that have little or nothing to do with it. In the latter five, you are free to practice anything you please. You have freedom of speech, carreer, opportunity, movement, and freedom from opression. In the former five, if you're not one of the norm you're not consided human. You're locked up. You have no rights. You're poor. If you ARE one of the norm, then the norm will rule you. The majority will decide what you do and how you will live.

If you choose to live your life out of an ancient book, fine. That is your choice. Don't force your book on anyone else, and CERTAINLY don't live in a place that forces it on the entire populas. Live and let live. Hey - if you're in the right, they'll burn in hell anyway, right?

[Acriku]

Good points ACE, and I might add that I turned away from Judaism as a religion, but I still am active in my community, I am in National Honor Society, I do an average of 32 hours of community service a year, I go to school and have a 4.2 (weighted) and 3.7 (unweighted), I'm taking AP classes, I'm running cross country, I have a job at Publix, and probably other things that prove Caid's 'equations of loss of religion' horribly wrong.

[Caid Ivik]

Acelethal, you are talking like usual nihilistic atheist. Without no values and morale logic. You see only things on top.

what one man does in the "name of Christianity" does not one iota have any effect whatsoever on Christianity. If Fred comits a crime, do we then condemn Fred's parents, brothers, sisters, children, and his whole family tree? Such a notion is rediculous. No matter what someone does, or even a nation does, in the name of Christianity, it wont change the fact that Christianity teaches to love your neighbor- and your enemies.

Human isn't a person to condemn. Christianity does no condemns. Even Jesus was more with "sinful people". Sin is mostly a weakness of human mind, so christianity is to strenghten it. Your problem is another. You are losing sense of seeing what is sinful.

[Edric O]

Here we go...

You're damn right I am. Give me ONE example when the Church has gone public and said "This priest committed acts of sexual assault, so we're kicking him out of the priesthood and turning him into police." And I won't even mention the continued advocation of hate towards gays...

And how exactly is the Church supposed to KNOW everything that every priests ever did?

Second, how can it advocate "hate towards gays", when Jesus Christ clearly advocated love towards every human being, including your enemies?

And the next time you call yourself more moral than the Church, show me how many charity funds YOU run, how many disillusioned people YOU give hope to on a daily basis, and everything else YOU do better than the average priest/monk/nun!

Sadly it's true. Wherever there has been a Catholic majority, a couple times each year an adult will come forward admitting they'd been taken advantage of by a priest as a child.

1. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, remember? Anyone can claim anything they want, but that doesn't make them instantly right.

2. If this is as widespread as you claim, SHOW ME SOME PROOF.

LOL. Are you calling me decadent? My parents? My family? And about 1/2 the friends I know, and their families?

Oh, no, not just them. I'm calling us ALL decadent. You, me, everyone you know AND everyone I know. Our society is decadent.

I've never seen them commit mass murder, rape, enslavement and genocide - all of which are widespread products of religion.

Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than in the name of religion. Atheism has spawned more genocides and atrocities than religion ever did. Just take a casual look at the history of the 20th century.

Let's take just Stalin and Mao (and not include other wonderful atheists such as Pol Pot). Those 2 together managed to kill some 80 million people, which is over 100 times more than all the people ever killed in the name of Christianity. So before you slander religion, look at the horrible atrocities commited by your own dear atheists.

Sex and porn is none of your business.

That doesn't change the fact that they are clear indicators of moral decay and cultural decadence. History repeats itself.

Crime rates are rising because we're cracking down on crime.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic behind that statement.

School violence is caused almost always by bullies, sometimes by something stupid like gang violence.

...which would not happen as often if they knew God is watching them.

As for drug abuse, well, isn't alcohol acceptable in your religion? And it's the most widely abused drug in the world.

I was talking about the loss of hope. For many people, life goes down the drain and they lose all hope. Religion could give them hope, but without it they sink in despair and often start doing drugs.

So religion is the best way to uphold moral values? Well what the f***'s a priest gonna be able to do against a serial killer.

Prevent him from becoming a serial killer in the first place.

Not everyone is so weak as to live their entire life by the teachings of an unknown book. If you need commandments and passages to tell you how to live your life, fine.

And not everyone has such a weak willpower that they are not able to control their basic instincts. Not everyone is immoral enough to live their lives for the sole purpose of seeking pleasure.

Some of us want to live our lives by certain teachings, instead of making our own rules as we see fit.

loss of religion => elimination of religious hate and violence => [...]

Yes, we eliminate religious hate and violence... and replace it with atheist hate and violence, which is 100 times worse.

If you think I'm wrong, look at five countries ruled most totally by religion, and five that have little or nothing to do with it.

I'm not supporting ALL religion, I am only supporting Christianity. There are no countries ruled by Christianity today, so you can't make this comparison.

In the former five, if you're not one of the norm you're not consided human. You're locked up. You have no rights. You're poor. If you ARE one of the norm, then the norm will rule you. The majority will decide what you do and how you will live.

All those countries are ruled by Islam. Congrats for making a case against Islam, but I'm talking about Christianity.

Hey - if you're in the right, they'll burn in hell anyway, right?

That's the whole damn point!! I DON'T WANT them to go to hell! I'm trying to make sure they DO NOT burn in hell!

You clearly don't understand my point of view.

[Caid Ivik]

If society is decadent, it doesn't mean all people are decadent. You can't put all people into one bag. Everyone has other flaw. Difference is that some feel their faults and some call it "usual". No one is perfect. But no one is fully fallen into hands of Evil. People must see difference between good and evil, and showing this view is main cause of christianity.

Those priests aren't whole religion. Don't look at them, look on our codex. Don't lie to yourself and see that whole Church is condemning such acts. We pray for their return to right values. As for whole world anyway.

[Anathema]

The people in the medieval ages had the bible, yet it did not stop them from burning "witches". They thought that those people were performing satanic arts, and thought they should die for it. They didn't even kill them quick and painless. They tied them up to a post, threw wood around them and lighted them up, giving them a slow, frightening, and painful death. Some of them probably even enjoyed watching it.

Today our society is drained in sin, even the christians sin. Even you admit that. The bible has always been followed rather loosely by most people.

Yes, we eliminate religious hate and violence... and replace it with atheist hate and violence, which is 100 times worse.

Interesting point. I'll admit that if mankind didn't follow religion in the past, we'd all be cavemen or something. It did tow away people from their immoral and anarchistic ways and guided them to modern times.

But times change. In my country almost half of the population no longer believes in God. Yet we don't massively run through the streets, torching everything and raping everyone we find. Why would that be?

I remember someone saying that it is because christians provided our society with morale and continues to do so. IMO the primary factor for people to become good citizens that don't torch everything is the way parents raise them. In our current society morale is so structurally settled that we don't longer need the bible to prevent further immoralisation.

[Edric O]

The people in the medieval ages had the bible, yet it did not stop them from burning "witches".

Yes, but I honestly do not understand their way of thinking. I mean, it would be something along the lines of:

"We have captured a witch. What shall we do with her? Let's see what the Bible says: 'Thou shalt not kill'... err, yeah, whatever... burn the witch!!"

(btw, I would like to point out that very few "witches" were burned - most were hanged)

In my country almost half of the population no longer believes in God. Yet we don't massively run through the streets, torching everything and raping everyone we find. Why would that be?

You are from Holland, correct? Isn't that the country that legalized prostitution, drugs and euthanasia?

[Acriku]

If someone wants to sell their body, dignity, and life (std's) for money, who are you to stop them? Or even say that's bad? It's their choice. It isn't hurting anyone but the buyer and the seller, and the buyer comes by choice.

[SurlyPIG]

And how exactly is the Church supposed to KNOW everything that every priests ever did?

I'm talking about specific incidents where they have been privately alerted to clergy abuse and have done nothing. For example, look at the secong like I provided below.

And the next time you call yourself more moral than the Church, show me how many charity funds YOU run, how many disillusioned people YOU give hope to on a daily basis, and everything else YOU do better than the average priest/monk/nun!

When did I ever put them down as a hole? I'm simply pointing out the obvious flaw in the system. I fully acknowledge that religious organizations do fantastic work around the world from feeding the hungry and housing the homeless to just being there in the community for anyone who needs them.

And not that I have to prove myself, and not that it's any of your business, but I'm in an organization within my school that is literally constantly raising money and organizing charitable events. I put about 300 hours into it in a year. Just last week we finished a food drive that had $18,400 food items donated to the food bank from a school of only 1500. I also volunteer at the local YMCA 4 hours/week teaching kids how to play basketball and swim. In the summer I run day camps there too.

1. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, remember? Anyone can claim anything they want, but that doesn't make them instantly right.

Of course, but why would a person, after decades of a healthy life, put themselves in harms way, through a huge amount of proffessional and personal embarrassment, all for shits and giggles? I'll bet it's happened but it would be extremely rare. Why would someone come forward after like 30 years if they know it cannot be proven, and that they won't get a settlement? Why? Because it's the truth. And it's justice.

2. If this is as widespread as you claim, SHOW ME SOME PROOF.

Like I said, all it takes is a quick little net search.

Here's a great site that indexes to coverage of many cases and analysis:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/

Here's a specific example, in that site, of people that have come forward after many years. A whopping 130 claim to have been taken advantage of by this one priest:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/geoghan/

Here's a great organization called "The Linkup - Survivors of Clergy Abuse" that aims to reduce the occurrance of such atrocities and provide justice to those who have been wronged:

http://www.thelinkup.com/

Here is the mother-of-all database on allegedly abusive priests:

http://www.survivorsfirst.org/

Here is the clergy abuse of google linking to 870 clergy abuse web sites. This is the mother load:

EDIT: link is too big to fit in one page

LOL. Are you calling me decadent? My parents? My family? And about 1/2 the friends I know, and their families?

Oh, no, not just them. I'm calling us ALL decadent. You, me, everyone you know AND everyone I know. Our society is decadent.

Far more people have been killed in the name of atheism than in the name of religion. Atheism has spawned more genocides and atrocities than religion ever did. Just take a casual look at the history of the 20th century.

LOL. I don't suppose you have any proof to back up this ridiculous claim. I've never heard of a country over-running another because they believe in a supreme being. If you think common murder is a product of atheism, you're so ridiculously wrong it's not even funny. And only in the last century has the civilized world realized that religous war is bad, and even still it goes on. Look at Israel/Palistine. Or Northern Ireland. And it's even more prevalent in ancient history. Remember the cruscades? Or how about the entire birth of the Islamic religion? How about hitler?

Let's take just Stalin and Mao (and not include other wonderful atheists such as Pol Pot). Those 2 together managed to kill some 80 million people, which is over 100 times more than all the people ever killed in the name of Christianity. So before you slander religion, look at the horrible atrocities commited by your own dear atheists.

Atheism has nothing to do with Stalin or Mao. The de-tzarification process in Russia, during which the removal Orthodox church (that had been shoved down Russian throats by the tzars) took place, was actually done by Lenin after the Bolshevik party took control of the country. And the murders he committed in "the great purge" were in the name of Communism and the USSR, NOT atheism. Murderers, sociopathic dictators and inhumane war criminals come from EVERY religion, or lack thereof. If Hitler was a good little christian, he wouldn't have slaughtered 6 million Jews. If Osama bin Laden was a good little muslim, he wouldn't have organized the slaughter of thousands of innocent US citizens. Again, these psychopaths come from all walks of life. If stalin was a good little atheist he wouldn't have ritualistically murdered his opposition.

Sex and porn is none of your business.

That doesn't change the fact that they are clear indicators of moral decay and cultural decadence. History repeats itself.

That's where we simply disagree. These two things are not publically shoved down our throats. The fact that they are allowed to be practiced in private, to me, is an indicator of a tolerant society. But that's just where we differ in opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

Crime rates are rising because we're cracking down on crime.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic behind that statement.

Edric, your logic is usually quite impecable. Perhaps you just don't understand what I mean.

Lets say that Country A has no crime at all, but it is legal to steal. If theft laws are implemented and enforced, crime would skyrocket. Lets say that the crime rate becomes 50%. Now lets say Country B has no laws at all. It is a completely anarchistic territory. It's crime rate is therefore 0%. Now, if we compare the 50% of country A to the 0% of country B, it looks like country B is a much better place, doesn't it? Well it isn't, because of the difference in laws. Keep in mind that many of the laws we take for granted have only been in place for a few decades. In my country, sadly, there were laws to protect animals in place before there were laws in place to protect children.

School violence is caused almost always by bullies, sometimes by something stupid like gang violence.

...which would not happen as often if they knew God is watching them.

Ah yes, the "big brother" effect. Again, it is completely arbitrary to think this. It's ludacris. Bullying occurs in private Christian schools too you know. Believing in God won't make you a good person. God doesn't control your actions, you do.

As for drug abuse, well, isn't alcohol acceptable in your religion? And it's the most widely abused drug in the world.

I was talking about the loss of hope. For many people, life goes down the drain and they lose all hope. Religion could give them hope, but without it they sink in despair and often start doing drugs.

Again, arbitary. Statistically, almost 100% of the reason people start doing drugs is either for fun or because of peer pressure. The reason they continue is because of addiction.

So religion is the best way to uphold moral values? Well what the f***'s a priest gonna be able to do against a serial killer.

Prevent him from becoming a serial killer in the first place.

Again, simply not true. There are psycos from every walk of life. You are correct in saying that if that serial killer was truly a Christian, he wouldn't be a serial killer. Almost every atheist you meet will belive in law and justice, and if that serial killer had believed in law and justice he wouldn't be a serial killer.

not everyone has such a weak willpower that they are not able to control their basic instincts. Not everyone is immoral enough to live their lives for the sole purpose of seeking pleasure.

Of course not. Many atheists will choose a cause and dedicate themselves to it, be it their family, scientific progress, or making a difference in peoples lives. Again, arbitrary...

Some of us want to live our lives by certain teachings, instead of making our own rules as we see fit.

That is, of course, your choice. But do not call someone immoral because they don't belive in your god. That is completely elitist, intolerant, closed-minded, and bigoted.

loss of religion => elimination of religious hate and violence => [...]

Yes, we eliminate religious hate and violence... and replace it with atheist hate and violence, which is 100 times worse.

Name one atheist war caused by atheism. I've never heard of one. But I have heard of inquisitions and cruscades.

I'm not supporting ALL religion, I am only supporting Christianity. There are no countries ruled by Christianity today, so you can't make this comparison.

I see your point, but there aren't any atheist-ruled countries either, so you can't make that comparison either.

All those countries are ruled by Islam. Congrats for making a case against Islam, but I'm talking about Christianity.

Point taken, but you still don't have a case against atheism because I'm only referring to law-abiding atheists and the fact that they are not automatically morally decadent because of their beliefs, or lack thereof. I'm not reffering to anarchy or the rare pleasure-gobbling atheists you sometimes see floating around.

Hey - if you're in the right, they'll burn in hell anyway, right?

That's the whole damn point!! I DON'T WANT them to go to hell! I'm trying to make sure they DO NOT burn in hell!

You clearly don't understand my point of view.

Of course I see where you're coming from. I completely understand your position. Well, good on you for caring and same for trying. But some people do not want to be saved and converted. Imagine if there was a religion almost exactly like Christianity in the fundamental ways, valuing love and peace, but they had a different God, different saviors and a different heaven and hell. If they were constantly tring to "save" you from their hell, though their intentions are noble, it would get pretty annoying after a while, wouldn't it? You would think that their hell does not apply to you because you do not belive in it. Well, that's kind of the arguement I'm making here. Live and let live. Remember, the Lord will judge, not us (see, I'm not quite as ignorant as I seem ;D)

BTW, I'm glad to see everyone handling this discussion so maturely.

[SurlyPIG]

Got posted twice somehow, sorry...

[Anathema]

You are from Holland, correct? Isn't that the country that legalized prostitution, drugs and euthanasia?

First, prostitution. Yes, it's legal. What can I say? I don't think its ethical, but it is still a womans decision to sell her own body.

Drugs aren't legal, despite common thinking. Soft drugs are allowed, but not by law. We have a policy that allows possesion of small amounts, but that is. This policy draws a clear line between soft drugs and hard drugs, wich are much more dangerous.

Euthanesia? Not legal.

[Acriku]

It's funny that Edric says the Crusades and such do not reflect on what Christianity is, and yet he attacks Atheism stating millions of murders were in the name of Atheism, as if it reflects upon what Atheism is. ROFL.

[Edric O]

Yes Acriku, I'm using a double standard, because so are you. Of course, we could just agree that both the crusades, inquisition, etc. AND the gulags and horrible genocides of the communists are NOT representative for their respective belief system (Christianity/atheism).

Are you willing to accept that?

[Acriku]

Edric, the murders of Stalin and such were in the name of Communism, not atheism. Atheism is nothing to have a name of anyways, it's just a lack of belief, not a doctrine of beliefs.

[SurlyPIG]

Precisely, Acriku. The killings in the cruscades were made in the name of God and Jesus. Stalin's murders were in the name of Communism. Atheism is not a static set of beliefs, it's the opposite. It's a lack of beliefs. It's the most general non-religion in the world. You can't just say, "Look, here is an atheist killing people" and say it is atheist violence, which is somehow 100x worse than religious violence. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city bomber, called himself a Christian. I would not judge you and other Christians by his actions, so please don't judge atheists by the actions of people like Stalin.

[Edric O]

I'm talking about specific incidents where they have been privately alerted to clergy abuse and have done nothing. For example, look at the second link I provided below.

Like I said, all it takes is a quick little net search.

[followed by a number of links]

In all honesty, I don't have the time to look at those sites. So I don't know what they contain. But I am willing to accept them as proof.

Your case has been made. I accept that some priests are corrupt and immoral people, either because they abused minors or because they covered up the things commited by other priests.

However, for a Church that has hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions?) of priests worldwide, these are only isolated cases. The overwhelming majority of priests are honest, moral people who live to serve God and do their best to help people in their local community and beyond.

It is unfair to judge all of these decent people according to the actions of a few madmen.

You are also ignoring the fact that there are many more paedophiles and child abusers among NON-clergy than among clergy.

Shouldn't we try to eliminate this phenomenon as a whole, instead of focusing on a small part of it?

And not that I have to prove myself, and not that it's any of your business

No, you don't have to prove yourself and it really isn't any of my business. :)

Of course, but why would a person, after decades of a healthy life, put themselves in harms way, through a huge amount of proffessional and personal embarrassment, all for shits and giggles?

It may be that they are simply using reverse psychology. It seems insane to think they are frauds, so this gives them virtual immunity from criticism.

LOL. I don't suppose you have any proof to back up this ridiculous claim. I've never heard of a country over-running another because they believe in a supreme being.

No, but there are plenty of examples of civil wars and other kinds of in-fighting started by atheists against the religious:

- it began with several clergy massacres and anti-Christian attacks during the French Revolution

- followed over 100 years later by communist insurrections, most notably the October Revolution in 1917

- we finally get to Stalin and Mao, who were responsible for massive religious purges (Hitler wasn't exactly the religious type either, except that he liked the idea of himself being worshipped as a god)

- Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and every other communist regime had a particular loathing for religion

Remember the cruscades? Or how about the entire birth of the Islamic religion? How about hitler?

I never tried to defend Islam. As for Hitler, he had his own religion, with himself as "god".

The Crusades were mostly started because of European greed for Arab wealth and used religion as an excuse, but I'll grant you this point.

Atheism has nothing to do with Stalin or Mao.

In that case you must also agree that the crusades and the inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity.

But here's a site that deals with the "who was worse" problem objectively:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm

(just one of several very good historical articles on that site)

Basically, we all have a bloody history. There is no pattern in the killings. Every country and ideology did its share. It's time to put the mistakes of the past behind us.

That's where we simply disagree. These two things are not publically shoved down our throats. The fact that they are allowed to be practiced in private, to me, is an indicator of a tolerant society. But that's just where we differ in opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes, we simply disagree.

Edric, your logic is usually quite impecable. Perhaps you just don't understand what I mean.

[followed by a more detailed explanation]

Ah, now I understand. You're saying that crime rates are increasing simply because we are imposing higher standards on ourselves. I agree. But I don't think that's the only reason.

Ah yes, the "big brother" effect. Again, it is completely arbitrary to think this. It's ludacris. Bullying occurs in private Christian schools too you know. Believing in God won't make you a good person. God doesn't control your actions, you do.

Again, arbitary. Statistically, almost 100% of the reason people start doing drugs is either for fun or because of peer pressure. The reason they continue is because of addiction.

Again, simply not true. There are psycos from every walk of life. You are correct in saying that if that serial killer was truly a Christian, he wouldn't be a serial killer. Almost every atheist you meet will belive in law and justice, and if that serial killer had believed in law and justice he wouldn't be a serial killer.

Arbitrary or not, you have to admit that a good Christian would never do one of those things. But there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" atheist. Therefore, Christiany (if properly "implemented") can reduce the number of that sort of events, while atheism cannot.

That is, of course, your choice. But do not call someone immoral because they don't belive in your god. That is completely elitist, intolerant, closed-minded, and bigoted.

I never said such a thing. I'm not calling all non-christians immoral. I'm only calling immoral those of them who live for pleasure and self-gratification. (and also any christians who do the same thing)

The people I'm calling immoral are hedonists, nietzcheians, and all those who support and engage in acts which are deemed immoral by the Bible (and by myself, I might add - I had a very similar moral code even before I became a christian).

Of course I see where you're coming from. I completely understand your position. Well, good on you for caring and same for trying. But some people do not want to be saved and converted. Imagine if there was a religion almost exactly like Christianity in the fundamental ways, valuing love and peace, but they had a different God, different saviors and a different heaven and hell. If they were constantly tring to "save" you from their hell, though their intentions are noble, it would get pretty annoying after a while, wouldn't it?

Well, I would appreciate their good intentions and show my respect by trying to convert them in return. ;D

But in the end I'm sure we'd end up being great friends, if our beliefs are fundamentally the same.

But getting back to atheism - if you saw someone drowning and who didn't want to be rescued, what would you do? ;)

And in the end:

I fully acknowledge that religious organizations do fantastic work around the world from feeding the hungry and housing the homeless to just being there in the community for anyone who needs them.

Well, then why exactly are we arguing again? :)

[Acriku]

Edric, as I've said previously, the Stalin situation and him being an atheist is very different than the Crusade situation and them being christians. Stalin did it in the name of communism, not atheism. And read my previous post in which I go further.

[Edric O]

You are right about Stalin. But then again, what the crusaders did was directly AGAINST the core teachings of Christianity!

So if you reserve the right to call the crusaders "christian", I reserve the right to say that Stalin killed people in the name of atheism as well as communism. (which is true, especially about the many priests he murdered).

[Acriku]

Edric you don't understand. Atheism has no body to be in the name of something. It's simply the lack of belief. The lack, not the existence. Nothing, not something. Stalin did it in the name of Communism, and that's it. Communism is something. Atheism is nothing. Get it?

And if it is so against the teachings of Christianity, why does the Bible set so many examples of killing, murdering, stoning, etc, to people such as adulterers, adultresses, sons who curseth thy father and thy mother, etc. The Bible is full of killing and punishing, it isn't some flower-sprouting-tree-hugging-book.