One does not have to believe that there is some vain, vindictive, vengeful god creature standing behind you holding over your head the hammer of eternal damnation, in-order to be, and do, good. There are ethical concerns that far outweigh the coerced behavior modification believers seem to need because they are incapable of coming to an independently arrived rationale for treating their fellow Human beings with dignity. It has been amply illustrated throughout history, that some of the most heinous abuses of our fellow beings have been carried out in the name of one god, or another, and by religions that are still doing it in their need to enforce "their truth", whatever that may be.

Robert - What has documented through out history is our own ability to take even the simplest ideas such as love your neighbor and twist them to rationalize the most abhorrent abuses of our neighbors and then rationalize it as being in the name of the very God that called for us to love our neighbor. It’s kind of funny you giving a lecture on treating fellow humans with dignity when you treat those who do believe in God with everything but dignity. Maybe you should try following your own advice. Just some food for thought.
ravensfan

How on earth are Robert's comments treating believers in god with indignity? Besides saying that a person can be good without a belief in god he makes the following comment: “It has been amply illustrated throughout history, that some of the most heinous abuses of our fellow beings have been carried out in the name of one god, or another, and by religions that are still doing it in their need to enforce "their truth", whatever that may be.” Is this a false statement intended to harm believers in god (and therefore attack their dignity)? I don’t think so.

It’s odd to me that Christians (among others) can see other human beings as “sinners” who are worthy of eternal damnation (i.e., torture) and yet still lecture others about dignity. Could there even be a more blatant attack on a person’s dignity than to assume they are wicked, evil, wretched creatures deserving of eternal torment? I think not. And that is the foundation of salvation and the entire basis of Christianity (after all, without the need to be saved from an eternal, hellish life after death we don’t need Jesus, do we?).

ravensfan - I treat religion with all the respect it deserves. As it is an institution that has its roots in fear driven needs to abrogate the believers responsibility to use their minds, it is dangerous, no matter what kind of face you choose to paint on it. If you think that the ethical basis of loving your neighbor based on mutual respect for their well being is superior to your, imposed at the point of damnation, form of behavior, then you are denying the real Human potential in favor of the delusional.

Robert – The fact that you feel that you have the right to determine what beliefs do and don’t deserve respect indicates extreme arrogance on your part. As far as what you believe religion is rooted in that is simply your biased opinion and nothing more. You can say it as many times as you wish and it will still only be an opinion not a fact. You can also continue to delude yourself that faith and intelligence can not co-exist and it too will be nothing more than an opinion with no basis in fact.

“ If you think that the ethical basis of loving your neighbor based on mutual respect for their well being is superior to your, imposed at the point of damnation, form of behavior, then you are denying the real Human potential in favor of the delusional.”

You’ve confused me on this one Robert. Since my position is the ethical basis of loving ones neighbor is based on mutual respect I don’t know what point you are trying to make. You are the one, not me, making determination on whom and what deserves respect. As for human potential I’ve never taken any position that denies human potential. Again through your own dogma and bias you equate belief in God with denying human potential.
ravensfan

Wiseclam – You raise some very good points at least as far as Christianity is concerned. Part of the problem I believe is that the concept of looking at humans as sinners is a call for us to look at ourselves. Far to often, however, we end up looking at others instead. It’s always easier to find fault in others rather than ourselves. I believe another part of the problem is that we Christians sometimes fail to properly distinguish the act from the person. The result of both is that we end up doing the very thing we are told not to do judge others. That’s just my view on the subject.
ravensfan

ravensfan - I have also read D.James Kennedy's book on how to argue with an Atheist, and believe me, you are following his script to a tee. Never commit, never give in and repeat any phrase, or accusation, no matter how trite and unfounded, until your opponent gives up. In other words, bury them with stupid. It is not as effective as the old tried and true practice of killing your opponent (now frowned on here), but as a form of shunning, where you gather your community, (like minded dolts) and galvanize them behind a shield of delusional self righteousness, you believe we can be marginalized. You would come back with a scathing attack even if I posted something you would be in full agreement with, only to keep up the facade. Lastly, faith can exist in the mind of someone who is also intelligent, but the internal pressures can crush them unless they sell out the most important part of being intelligent, to accomodate the delusional side of the equation. I suspect that is the case with you and that is a pity.

I must be the “third wheel” in this conversation. It’s obvious that Robert Little has at some point in the past made strong statements declaring that he has “the right to determine what beliefs do and don’t deserve respect ” and must have, on at least one occasion declared that “faith and intelligence can not co-exist”. I see no indication that he holds either of these positions but ravensfan obviously has evidence to this affect, otherwise how could one explain his remarks here? Mr. Little has proffered no such opinion in this short exchange - perhaps he has in another?

I will respond to this comment, however… “…you equate belief in God with denying human potential”. This statement could be aimed at me quite legitimately. Perhaps not any one person’s specific belief in god (like yours, ravensfan) but on the whole it does seem quite clear that the human tendency to believe in god does end up limiting human potential. I can offer examples if necessary but I think a brief reflection on my prior comments about the sinful nature of human beings might suffice to make the point. A couple stories about how religion has held back scientific progress should bolster this position, I should think.

open the link at the end of this comment. it's a piece entitled "how to talk to idiots" and basically says ignore them.
i haven't seen evidence of idiots here but i believe the advice holds true for intransigents too.
to compete with other otgainzations, masons etc., ought atheists have a secret handshake? i suggest the shrug.
mac in manhattan
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2009/09/25/notes092509.DTL

Robert – Sorry to disappoint you but I’ve never read that book. In fact I’d never heard of it until you mentioned it. All I’ve done here is use common sense and point out the numerous flaws and logical fallacies like, ad hominem, ad nausea, appeal to ridicule and burden of proof in your arguments. The only person who has trouble with points we agree on is you my friend. I agreed with you on separation of church and state, forcing religious view on others and your right to deny God. You were the one who grudging conceded that God could exist and that all the abuses throughout the ages would have occurred even if religion hadn’t existed. You admitted it quickly and then proceeded to ignore that and argue against those points anyway. One does not have to sell out anything intelligent to have faith. That’s simply what you tell yourself to try and feel superior to those who have something you can’t comprehend. You use it to convince yourself that you are on the high ground and put your own mind at ease when doubt creeps in. In the end Robert the one harboring the delusions is you and you are too blinded by your own dogma to see it and that is the real tragedy.
ravensfan

Thank God that He does not distinguish between doing good and being good. All the atheists who are good people, according to the common human distinctions, will find their heaven where there is no God. He's busy enough without being everywhere for everyone. We can't wait to not see Him there!

wiseclam - Robert's post from 12:22PM is a mild example of his views on what deserves respect. As for religion denying human potential it's an interesting subject and one worth looking at. Of course one needs to define what exactly is meant by human potential. Robert's problem from previous posts in other places is that he's made a lot of accusations but been non-existent on actually supporting them. There would have been a point we could have agreed on had Robert been open to actually discussing rather than simply repeating the same old rhetoric over and over as if it were fact. When you discuss any religion are we discussing the people in power or the doctrines that the religion is supposed to be following. Being Catholic myself I’ll be the first one to admit that the leadership of the Catholic Church throughout history many back marks on it. In fact the very fact that we have so other Christian denominations is in large part the Church’s own fault and it’s own failure to live up to the Bible. The question is what represents the religion the leadership or the doctrine. While I believe it’s the doctrine I can see the other side of that argument. If one were to accept that side as representative then the assessment has validity. Had Robert argued from that perspective instead of broad brush attacks on the entire faith we might have reached a point of mutual agreement. My own position is that bad leaders messengers doesn’t not invalidate the message. That being said I can agree to disagree with those who feel that it’s the people that define it. Anyway that’s my view on the issue.

ravensfan - How desperate can you be to take my one in a hundred trillion odds that a god, or gods, had something to do with our being here, and try to hang your argument on that? You are no longer entertaining, as you have hit a wall you will not, and cannot climb. There is no argument that will convince you of how foolish you are to invest so much, in so little, and expect to garner huge rewards based on your stupid blind faith.

As to comprehending what you have, you will have to remember that at one point in my life I was as cluelessly delusional as you and it is to my greatest joy that I was able to leave it behind. Unlike you, I accept death for what it is and don't need some fairy-tale god creatures to delude myself into believing I'm going anywhere than where we are all going when we die, into the void of non-existence. You will not cheat death and you will not be at one with any god creature to whom (even if it existed) would consider you any more important than we consider the bug that squashes on our windshield to be. Faith is the excuse for ignorance and how smart do you have to be to swallow that load of bilge? Faith is the killer of intelligence, it is the ultimate DUH!

Ignorance is calling what someone else believes as ignorance or fairy tale when your own belief is questionable at best. This age old argument will never end and those who fight it are the ultimate DUH! You want to believe in God then believe. You don't want to then don't. Calling one another foolish is ignorant or better yet, down right stupid. Until you have died you can't be sure what is beyond, something or nothing, so making statements about it is simply ridiculous and elementary. There is no absolute evidence for either side so both should remain open minded.

Tom M. - Try this on for size. When you die, your essence is is dissolved in the "Great Vat" and is then painted onto the great ball of souls, where you become part of the great whole, in an eternal orgasmic explosion of energy and light. Does that sound plausible? Would you respect someone who told you that is what to expect when you die? Would you want your children to hear such rubbish? Well its the same with all god concepts. They are all based on wishing it were so, and that IS NOT worthy of respect, no matter how you dress it up, or how many people believe it with you. Produce this god creature, or die for a week and come back and maybe you would merit respect for beliefs that until you do, are just so much pap.

All you keyboard warriors - lets just conclude this:

1. Stop hiding behind your computer screens, but have a debate over the phone in real life.

2. If you are game enough, then meet each other in real life, face-to-face, man-to-man.

3. Doesn't matter if you do or don't believe God. Just don't be vindictive and lash out. If you don't believe in God, does the world care? If you do believe in God, does the world care?

Its simply a phenomena that Christians go about preaching the Gospel of our LORD, as we are instructed to. If you don't like us doing it then you can put your palm in our face and say "No". Otherwise don't be aggressive about it.

Please re-visit points 1-3 again if you're not happy.

Michael
P.S oh - and you guessed it, I'm from Australia :)

Michael - If you feel your make-believe deity has instructed you to go out into the world and pee in the intellectual pool, you are going to have to understand that there are those of us who are going to object. We don't mind when you pee in your pool, but stay the hell out of mine.

Robert – Your entertainment is no concern of mine. You seem to have suffered memory loss yet again. Quite a while back I gave my reasons and they had nothing to do with your opinions on God’s existence. Might I suggest before your next tirade you take a deep breath count to ten, think and check your facts before firing off a response? The rest of your post was one of your typical opinionated, anger filled rants. You certainly don’t come off as someone who’s found their greatest joy. I’ve people who have suffered great hardship that sounded more joyful and at peace than you. If that’s your idea of joy you can have it. Your views on death are nothing more than personal opinion or faith. You can provide no more to back that then of anything else you’ve said. Maybe we should call it the gospel according to Robert. In fact the only correct thing you’ve ever said is that “you don’t know yet”. One thing I have noticed is that people who resort to insults and personal attacks usually do it because the lack the intelligence or support to present any logical arguments for their position. Another thing for you to ponder before you go off again. The only thing faith kills is the arrogance, rudeness and general distain for others that you seem to be filled with.
ravensfan

ravensfan - My position is based on what is known, what can be illustrated and what has (and has not ) been proven. It is a position that does not rely on invisible creatures, myth, superstition, institutionalized dogma formulated over centuries by people who thought the world was flat and disease was caused by demons. My position does not claim a monopoly on truth, nor does it demand blind fealty, obedience to arcane perceptions of reality, or that I prostrate myself before a made-up creature to escape what Humans fear most, death.

Your concern for my psychological health is touching, in that it denies the fact that my position is supported by sound logic and thinking, while yours is dependent on delusional belief in-order to sustain it. Lastly, (until you post another of your meaningless personal attacks against my character in lieu of being able to attacks my premises), my position needs no defense, because it makes no outrageous claims that cannot be supported, unlike your entire god scenario, which is not up to me to prove false, as it is your assertion to begin with.

Robert – it’s rather humorous for you mention character attacks given the enormous amount that you’ve made during our exchanges. I dare say you may have made more than every other person that’s posted here combined. I’ve made no character attacks simply stated the truth about you and you don’t like hearing it. As for your premises, the few you actually made, I’ve debunked them more times than I care to count and in the end we both know that your opinion has no more basis from what has been illustrated and has or has not been proven then mine. You simply appear to lack the objectivity to admit it. The difference between us is that while I can respect your right to your beliefs or lack of, you don’t feel the need to reciprocate. You routinely insult, mock and attack those who don’t share your views. That you feel your position requires no defense simply shows just how far out on the extreme your views are and an inability to make an argument devoid of logical fallacy. What I find interesting is for someone who says he doesn’t know and how his position makes no outrageous claims; you have told us what does or doesn’t happen when we die, where we rate in comparison to other life on earth and given a definition on when life begins. Since there is no scientific or other conclusive evidence I’m aware of on those subjects I would have thought they qualify as outrageous claims. What I’ve said is it’s up to you to prove those things you state as factual.
ravensfan

ravensfan - We have now moved far beyond my humble ability to delve into the recesses of a religiously deluded mind. I suggest you find a competent therapist , hopefully one who isn't also infected with your delusional beliefs, who could sort things out for you.

In your afflicted mind, you can't stand that there are people out here, in the real world, who can't, or won't, lower their perceptions enough to accede to the foolishness represented by religion. The institution of religion has always sought to silence detractors, either by burning, butchering, hanging or exiling them to the hinterlands, but today they rely on people like you, who take it upon themselves to shut down the contrary voices, in lieu of the now outlawed previous remedies, so effective in the past because of their permanent nature. You are a tired remnant of an institution that is losing out to the fact that people are more educated today and in this educational process, they have learned to think on their own, rather than have their "truths" spoon-fed to them by a fat dogma laden priest.

You are nuts Robbie!

Robert – While I’m touched by your concern for my mental well being trust me it’s far better than yours. I suffer from no paranoid delusions or persecution complex as you seem to. You would be wise to heed your own advice and get that help.

There was never anything humble about anything you’ve said here. Your inability to simply state your own views without making derogatory comments on the intelligence of others is a testament to your nonexistent skills in logic. Your completely false views on education and religion are really rather tragic. I always am amused when individuals like you try and claim superior intellect is on their side. It always ends up sounding like the village idiot laughing at something beyond his comprehension and calling someone else dumb. Keep telling yourself that nonsense and maybe someday you’ll convince yourself about it.

Fake Anonymous - I suppose I'll have to take that for what it means. You haven't the means to refute any of it, or the ability to frame a defense of religion that will satisfy the minimum requirements for being cogent, so a cheap personal attack is all you have left. I realize how frustrating it must be to have a position that can only be defended by touting unsupportable rubbish.

Robert – While I’m touched by your concern for my mental well being trust me it’s far better than yours. Only someone somewhat insecure in their own beliefs would continue to maintain anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their dogma as somehow deluded. Only look at the wrongs that have happened and ignoring the good further reveals your blind adherence to your own narrow dogmatic views.

Your need to attribute to me behavior which applies to you is also someone tragic. Which one of us repeatedly has denied the need to respect opposing views? Your inability to simply state your own opinions without making derogatory comments on the intelligence of others is a testament to your nonexistent skills in logic. Your completely false views on education and religion are really laughable. I always am amused when individuals like you try and claim superior intellect is on their side. It always ends up sounding like the village idiot laughing at something beyond his comprehension and calling someone else dumb. Since I’ve already stated how I came to my views several times in the past and you still post in denial there is no point in restating again. All I can do is pity you for your arrogance and ignorance.
ravensfan

Robbie - Are you familiar with the old saying about the pot calling the kettle black? If not look it up. If so keep it in mind when commenting on personal attacks and inability to defend a position.

Respecting opposing views is dependent on there being something to respect. Delusions and institutionalized superstition are hardly worthy of respect. That you seem to give them so much value, IS NOT MY PROBLEM, unless you count all the intrusions being made by such institutions on the rest of us, then it becomes not something to not respect, but something to be feared and gotten rid of. Humanity needs to get well past such foolishness and retrograde people like you are just in the way.

Robert – What you either fail to realize or refuse to accept is that is only your opinion. You seem to feel that one only needs to respect opinions they deem respect worthy. As for the intrusion nonsense it is simply that nonsense. The paranoid delusion of someone so selfishly caught up in his beliefs and opinions that he views anyone else expressing theirs as intrusion. On the one hand you rail against religion for trying to impose its ideas then do the same with your own. That sounds rather hypocritical to me. If your thought process is the future then I’m sorry to say as a species we don’t have much of one. Hopefully we will outgrow such selfish concepts and progress as a species rather then take the regressive path back to lunacy you advocate so blindly.

ravensfan - You seem to forget that it is your side with the vested interest in reaching an end time. It is also the goal of several of the other institutionalized superstitions (religions) your religion is having a breeding contests with. I have far more hope for Humanity, but find little hope of our surviving long enough to get enough of us off the planet before the "Holy" wars start. I have little doubt that the Christians (aka god eaters) and the Muslims (aka meteorite worshippers) will in the course of time, go at each other in an orgy of righteousness, during which the Jews (aka penis mutilators) will be exterminated and then the victor will come after all us heathens. It is a pattern that has pretty much been followed throughout history, but with current technology, will be given a new and horrible potential. My opinion, as you call it, is based on the past performance of religion and the religious, and has its base in the stated goals of these organizations to evangelize the world, be it like brow-beating, at the point of a sword, or on the tip of a nuclear war-head. Despite all you protestations to the contrary, the inherent evil that religion is capable of always comes to the surface, if not properly restrained (in a secular fashion). It is the nature of absolutist belief systems and nothing you say is going to change that and nothing I may accomplish will unfortunately be able to stop it either, but I must try. If Humanity is to survive, religion has to either fade away, or be made to go away, it is too much archaic baggage for us to carry into the technologically complicated future.

Robert – Since you have so many incorrect or down right lies stored up regarding religion it’s actually kind of scary. Your opinion is based on looking at history and interpreting it through what I can only describe as your own very warped paradigm. You then project it out using that same paradigm to try and justify the most ridiculous bunch of rubbish I’ve ever seen. You’re advocating doing what you’ve charged as the evil of religion with throughout history imposing your dogma on everyone and eliminating any and all conflicting beliefs and ideas for the good of humanity. In many ways it is you who is the one going backwards towards a philosophy where we as a species were centuries ago. Maybe you could explain how your idea of retraining or making something go away is actually any better from the brow beating you accused religion of doing? It sure sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Like I said if your faith is the future then we as a species don’t have much of one.
ravensfan

Personal religious beliefs practiced by the individual in the privacy of their home is one thing, but an archaic, absolutist organization that has the end of the world as their stated goal, is another thing altogether. Political power being applied to further the interests of delusional superstitionist organizations that want to exert their ideals and doctrines on everyone, should be held in the same regard as organizations that once demanded the sacrifice of virgins to insure societal well-being. Religion is a dead albatross hanging around the collective neck of Humanity and we would be far better off rid of it. Perhaps we would have more people interested in their fate rather than leave it in the hands of a fickle and seemingly disinterested god creature.

Lastly (I hope), do I not have the right to my belief (based on far more than yours is) that religion is just as I say it is, that it is leading us where it seems to be and do I not have the right to express it in this, or any forum? Perhaps you feel that we should just keep our mouths shut, like we have for centuries, but now with the threat of death removed from the equation, I'm afraid that is one box that that is not going to be shut again.

Mr. Littel, i just wanted to thank you for fighting the good fight.

quixotic - Would that we could get more to fight the good fight, thank you.

"oh senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worme, and yet will make Gods by the dozens" - Montaigne

not original;
but then none of this is exactly new material is it?

Robert – So what you’re saying is that the freedom of those who believe should be restricted to their own homes. Funny I don’t remember seeing that in the Constitution. You’ve never provided anything to support that nonsensical opinion that religion has as its stated goal the end of the world. It is in fact nothing more than an opinion. So are your other views on religion. That includes your odds for God’s existence. When have I ever said you weren’t entitled to your beliefs, based on far less than mine? In fact I don’t even recall placing any limits on it as you seem to advocate for mine. What I questioned was your advocating of political power being applied against religion to further your ideas and doctrines and correctly pointed out it makes you hypocritical. Again with the use of “we” as if you speak for some great silent majority. Along with your completely slapstick like views on religion it almost makes it tough to take you seriously. Do you think this stuff up or are you reading it off some website?
ravensfan

By coming out of the woodwork publicly shows just how desperately the atheists want God to be irrelevant. By justifying their belief in unbelief, they believe that they should have a better sleep at night. Someone idiot spending $25,000 on an ad campaign about something he claims isn't even real is the STOPIDEST thing I have ever heard.

Spend that $25,000 on stuffed-crust pizza and Mountain Dew for the atheist reception at Pizza Hut. Really though, this story has to be made up?

ravensfan - Freedom of religion, as defined by The Constitution also covers the concept of freedom FROM religion. The believer has the right to believe and the non-believer has the right to not believe. That religion has taken upon itself the role of spreading to everyone the message that puts into play religion's infringing the rights of those who choose not to believe (who would be more than happy to remain silent about the matter if it weren't for this intrusion) is what is of concern. Your right to evangelize (as you see it) bumps headlong into the rights of those who choose not to be evangelized. To us, it is like saying that people who have syphilis have a right to spread their affliction to a population that may, or may not be receptive to that idea. We would rather not talk about something like that, but because of its nature, we are left no choice. The same applies to religion.

The granting of special freedoms to absurdity was a major flaw in The Constitution (as was slavery), but was like slavery, an accepted norm of the time. Your use of The Constitution further the cause of religion, even to the point of destroying that document, is indicative of the inadvisability of granting special privileges to delusional superstition in the first place and we will be far better off when they are removed through amendment. If your religious freedom is to be protected at all, it will only happen when religion cannot undermine The Constitution and the right to personally believe, or not believe, can be guaranteed in a truly secular society.

Yes we need more people to fight the good fight so that such backwards ideas as the ten commandments and beatitudes can be left behind forever for more enlighten ones like abortion, perversion and survival of the fittest. Thank you Mr Little for showing us all the way to expand the human potential.

Robert – I completely agree with you on your first sentence on freedom. After that you start the journey to fanaticism. Your logic or lack of never ceases to amaze me. Freedom of speech allows anyone to spread or evangelize if you prefer their beliefs including atheism. Part of living in a free society is that you may have to listen to ideas you don’t subscribe to yourself. That’s why I voice no objection to atheists spreading their views. Did the constitution actually guarantee the slavery or simply not mention it?

It’s you who wants the Constitution destroyed, or at the least purged, in order to silence what YOU don’t agree with. It makes guilty of the very charge you’ve made against religion on countless occasions. For what you believe is the good humanity you desire to see another groups rights denied. What you are suggesting isn’t a secular society but an atheist one endorsed by the government. What’s really unfortunate is you don’t even see what a hypocrite that makes you.
ravensfan

Are we good without God? probably not because then we would have nothing to argue about which would lead to extreme boredom. We would not be called atheists and we would have to find something else to rebel against and pretend doesn't exist.

I'm finding that it is fairly hard to get a meaningful dialogue going with people who were obviously toilet trained with a gun to their heads. At first you were entertaining,but like all moral absolutists, you only have one one-sided record to play and like anything that gets spun so much, it becomes predictable and boring after a while. I'm taking a well deserved break to let you wallow in your parochial narrow delusions for a bit. Perhaps someone else can take up the slack for a bit, but I will be back when my contractual obligations are completed, as I'm sure you won't be going anywhere.....intellectually.

Hey, Anonymous--the fact that you continue to survive despite your squawking shows that you are one of the fittest--who did you kick to get there? Hopefully not your parents--that way you would have disobeyed the Ten Commandments.

As for abortion--every one of you religious guys is into other womens' reproductive tracts with your fiats. Into everyone's bedroom too you bring your vicarious eyes-- like the Taliban of Afghanistan.

No abortion, you say, bring out babies galore, let them be placed in foster care, abused here there and everywhere, be starved, be neglected, become addicts, become school drop outs--the more the merrier, we care not about where these babies wind up--how unwanted they are, how hated by their own, we just want them born, because life is divine even if these babies wind up starving in gutters, let there be more and even more of them.

To the "uterus control freaks" God is but an excuse for hegemony and authoritarianism--and Anonymous what's the perversion you speak of? Are you too afraid to articulate it or is this perversion so contagious that you are terrified it may catch you if you describe it or perhaps you practice this perversion in secret and, like most religious hypocrites, take up for the Bible in public?

Freedom of speech does not give Christians the right to knock on my door, all odd hours of day or night Ravensfan, and when I appear, hand me brochures and pamphlets about the Lord and ask me if I know Jesus or if I want to know Jesus and when I say, "No" to both questions read me passages from the Bible, promising to pray for my soul to be saved from the abyss in which it will find itself if I do not accept the Lord Jesus.

You say there should be freedom to proselytize? May be you ought to invite your fellow fanatics into your own home, serve them tea and discuss with them the First Amendment's sympathy for proselytization.

The thought police and the moral cops among the religious have bent the policies of this nation in an arc toward the Bible, a document that has been used through the centuries, to persecute women, birth more unwanted babies, hobble science and stifle free thought.

And atheism, by the way Ravensfan, is not the same as evangelism. It does not ask you to believe in anything. It asks you not to thrust your belief in a divinity or a deity on this country's policies, it asks you not to persecute others by calling them sinners because they don't follow the archaisms of a bunch of fables in a religious book, it asks you not to subvert the constitution into a document that lets you proselytize and add to the numbers of Bible thumping zealots.

For any kind of scientific progress to occur in this world the secular folks have had to wage verbal wars with the moral cops from the various churches of this world-- men like you Ravensfan who cannot possibly make a worme but will make Gods by the dozens--a timely quote from Mr.Rational.

Find out that the Earth is round, the church will ask you to go amend your finding and write it down in stone that the Earth is flat, discover that we live in a heliocentric universe, the church will ask you to inscribe it on papyrus that you are wrong and put it down that the universe is geocentric, create pluripotent embryonic stem cells and ready them to wake up the quadriplegic spine, the church will tell you that the Lord watches you from afar and frowns on you that you have killed a blastocyst only few days old--discover fossils all over the world, describe dinosaurs, describe hominids galore, show how and why men rose up on two feet instead of crawling on four and the church will butt in to say that the Earth was made in 7days no more--thus goes your religion Ravenfan.

You can try and twist this argument to say that the fight of the atheists is also a religion--it is also a dogma-- and you can repeat ad infinitum that Robert Littel's strong language equals hate but when it comes to dogma the theists invented the word--they have been genuflecting to it ever since they invented it and Ravensfan all that the atheists are trying to do is prevent the total capitulation of scientific inquiry and the laws of this land to the moral cops who do as they please in private and tell us to obey the Lord in public.
Ravensfan Anon

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823,

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816,

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear."Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 Aug. 1787

Jefferson was a deist, not an atheist, but he would hardly put up with the attitude that religion deserves a pedestal.

Anon – I seem to recall agreeing with Robert on the freedom from religion point. I can’t comment on your personal situation having people at your door. In the last 20 years I think I’ve had someone knock once and it was during the day on a weekend. Most of my encounters usually involve someone handing out a brochure in a public place which I take out of courtesy and move on.

It would appear all atheists don’t share your view on evangelism or atheism for that matter.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/evangel.html

Robert and you should read it sometime. Since Robert claimed at one to be here to show us intellectually backwards religious folks the truth you may want to suggest to him to read the second paragraph under “What Is Your Purpose?”.

The only one twisting anything is you my friend. When did I ever deny that bad things have been done in the name of God? When did I ever say that the Church never abused or misused its position? For that matter when did I say that the Biblical account of creation is historically correct? You can have that argument with Clay. What I said to Robert and now you is that nowhere in the Bible were we commanded to do such things and that those who did were in violation of the very tenets of the very faith they claimed to represent.

To suggest that all Robert’s rants did was use strong language insults your own intelligence. Are you seriously now trying to justify Robert’s attacks by pointing to the very behavior both he and you criticized? Is that your basis of justification? That’s the kind of logic a child would use. Its ok for me to do something mean because someone else did. You disappoint me because although we have different beliefs or lack beliefs I thought you were above letting your emotions get the better of you. Why is it both you and Robert are so afraid of an institution which you claim is dying out? Please don’t give me that end of the world nonsense Robert preaches. I’ll be even more disappointed.

ravensfan

Anonymous – Your weak attempt at an insult simply shows Bobbie isn’t the only petulant child here. Your attempt to justify abortion is pathetic. We both know that most abortions are the result of nothing more that an unwanted pregnancy caused by someone doing they shouldn’t have been doing and not showing enough sense to use contraceptives on top of it then taking the easy way out. Get off your high horse about women’s reproductive rights. Abortion is legalized murder. Rationalize it anyway you want it doesn’t change the truth. Tell me this since abortion was legalized how much has the number of kids in foster care, abuse or neglect actually gone down? If it has I doubt it’s anywhere close to the number of unborn children killed. So your entire justification is without merit. Anyone who claims such concern for the plight of children and to save them endorses murder more than qualifies as a hypocrite as far as I’m concerned. The real tragedy here is that you are too blind to see it. You want me to mention perversions fine. Where would you like to begin Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality? How long before we start using the same warped logic used for homosexuality to rationalize the other two?

Anonymous, go out and do something for the born and stop yakking about the unborn. I am sure the unborn are happy to be unborn in a world where you and your ilk reside, spinning being born into a dogma. I am also sure you believe in God--you sound like the kind of man or woman who cannot help falling into the god trap. Let me tell you a little secret. This god of yours kills the unborn all the time by a process called spontaneous abortion. As for your stupid piece of nonsense about someone doing what they shouldn't have been doing, what are you are referring to? Sex? You think contraceptives don't fail? You think condoms don't break? You think every woman can tolerate oral contraceptives? You think no woman conceives after a rape, after incest, after intimidation, due to physical helplessness, or fear, due to consenting to sex from hunger or illiteracy or gullibility? Sexual exploitation is a global problem Anonymous and your grand pronouncements about pregnancy and abortions are no more than hooey, gooey baloney. As for classing homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia that is like me classing you with imbeciles and morons. I am tempted to do it but I won't because I know that despite the fact I don't practice your brand of ruthlessly judgmental morality, you may have some redeeming features. Try some tolerance Anonymous, you may yet save yourself when the apocalypse comes. I think it is Jesus who said that one must not cast stones at others when one lives in a glass house. You should worry about that one if you are a Jesus believer. It seems Anonymous you are living in a cardboard house and stirring up the winds of illogic.

And Ravensfan, I believe Robert is a bit like John Brown--his heart is in the right place -he is ahead of his times. Also Ravensfan, you want the comfort of god belief without its attendant superstitions, outlandish concepts, ill conceived regulations and outright persecutions. Robert has not been allowing you that comfort, neither is he willing to let you off the hook, when you contend that God should be separated from the practitioners of religion or that you yourself should be individualized as a more subtly constructed God believer. To Robert God belief is an erosive disease that arrests human development--I agree-- in the area of science this arrest is the most painfully evident. Robert has argued that by virtue of your god belief you have forfeited the right to separate yourself from all the negatives that religion has foisted upon mankind because if men from the very beginning of time never needed or believed in a god we would have avoided the following--the religious wars of Europe, the rise of Protestanism with the killing of so many Catholics under Henry the 8th, the persecution and annihilation of the Jews by the Christians, the forced conversion of the American Indians and the slaves to Christianity, the Crusades, the 1st and the second intifada, the Muslim invasion of India, the destruction of all the Hindu edifices there, the forced conversions of many Hindus to Christianity and to Islam, the forced re conversions of Christians to Hinduism, the Hindu Muslim conflict in Kashmir, the fall of the World Trade Center and the killing of 3000 innocents, the violence of the Arab Muslims in Sudan against the Christians and the animists, the rebellion of the Muslim North in Nigeria, the complete chaos sown by the Islamists in Somalia, the Catholic church's collaboration with the Nazis--I know what you would say Ravensfan--that all these things are driven by men, not by religion or by God, that men will always find things to fight about even if they would give up god belief, but those arguments are based on speculation--history is a potent indictment of religion Ravensfan and remember without god belief there would be no religion. Then of course you would take us to the communists and cast them as examples of atheists causing genocides. Pol Pot you would say was one of them. He was not Ravensfan. He was a Theravada Buddhist. Stalin you would say was one of them. He was not Ravensfan. The man created a Stalin cult. He became a God as did Mao. Centuries from now these men may be forgiven their trespasses and worshiped in churches as deities, and may find many followers. This is the problem with god belief. It endows on men, powers they do not possess. It makes saints out of the fallible and gods out of these saints, it is blind to reason and it is witless. Why do we fight this if it is dying out? If we fight it it may attain a quicker demise Ravensfan. But I have to concede Ravensfan, you are a worthy opponent. God belief may be in the process of corroding your brain, but it has not as yet done as thorough a job as it has wrought in fake anonymous or in Clay. I'd like to think that you have been saved by some atheists in your life--your spouse, your children, your parents, other rational beings to whom you are exposed may be inoculating you from the complete decay that has befallen some other god believers on these blogs.
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon – How do you know I don’t do anything for the born? Do you know the difference between most and all? I suggest you look both up. You can make up as many remote examples as you like in each it will always come down to the same thing, terminating a life because it’s convenient for someone else. Spin it anyway you want you can’t escape that reality. You can mock me or the concept but in the end if it isn’t terminating a life what is it? As for my belief in God that has no bearing on my position on abortion. If it were simply a religious moral issue then I wouldn’t even comment on it I notice that on opinions you don’t agree with you simply mock the person as though the idea was so dumb it needs no argument against it. It’s a popular tactic used especially by liberals. Conservatives don’t seem to do it as well. When did I pass judgment? I said things I believe are wrong nothing more. I’m no one’s judge and have more than enough of my own missteps to worry about to judge anyone else for theirs. There is a difference in saying a behavior is wrong and judging a person. Granted it’s a line that far no many Christians step over. I apologize to anyone who feels I stepped over that line.

wasAnon –To call Robert ahead of his time would be like saying the Ayatollah Khomeini was ahead of his time in 1964 when he fled Iran. I quite comfortable in my faith and nothing Robert could say could change that. What really bothers both of you is that I am not simple minded in theology as you like to believe all Christians are. It goes against your preconceived notion that to have faith requires giving up intelligence. You can try and claim people like Mao, Stalin, Hitler were some kind of god, however, it’s simply not true. You are simply looking for a way to deny the truth that the real source of evil comes from human beings. It’s much easier to place the blame for such evil at someone or something else. You try to get around the obviously secular ones by claiming they were became some sort of religion onto their own. Using that logic any dictator or government could be labeled a religion. I don’t think they were prayed to or that anyone looked to them for any sort of supernatural powers. When Alexander conquered Persia was he doing it for a religious calling of for personal and national gain? When Genghis Kahn was out killing and plundering was it to satisfy his god or himself? In those wars in Europe was religion the cause or justification? When the Revolutionary War occurred here was it some religious calling? In the end neither Robert nor you have still managed to refute that claim that those who did evil in the name of God were in fact not following His word. The problem you and Robert have is that you wish to believe that all of us are the same. You want to believe that having faith somehow lessens ones intellect. To be honest from my own experience after 12 years of education I was much better prepared both intellectually and philosophically then most every one I went to college with who had gone through the public school system. We were actually challenged during my pre-college years about faith as well. Contrary to what you want to believe no one at least in the schools my sons attend and the ones I attended seemed interested in cranking out dogmatic drones. The only atheists I’ve encountered have all been rather intolerant, bigoted and biased against anything or anyone to do with religion. As for faith dying out that my friend is wishful thinking on your part. Even if it were true that doesn’t make its teachings any less valid. If more people started to deny global warming would that make it less real?
ravensfan

Someone may do good deeds here and thats fine. The real question is, "how does God see us?" Are we working for Him or for ourselves? Do we do things for others because it is what He wants or do we do it for recognition from others? The bottom line is what happens after we die. Will Christ judge us to be for Him and send us to heaven or will He see us as working for the world and send us to eternal punishment and suffering? What we do in the world may give us rewards, but only while we are in the world. What we do for Him matters much more, and we couldnt do more for the world than present what God wants for the world. Someone once asked Mother Teresa how she expected to be successful with all the poverty around her. She replied, "God didnt call me to be successful, He called me to be faithful." So something to keep in mind when working for God is that we arent doing it to get rewards from others. They may not cooperate. We do it for heavenly rewards, and God watches us to see if we stay on the right path.

Ravensfan Anon - You are painful!

"This is the problem with god belief. It endows on men, powers they do not possess. It makes saints out of the fallible and gods out of these saints, it is blind to reason and it is witless."
- Ravensfan Anon

Besides your sweeping tirade which said nothing of substance, you should provide an ACTUAL objective breakdown of why this is. Why Ravensfan anon? and how? maybe use the Catholics as an example?... maybe the Hindus? maybe the Muslims? exactly how do present day religious faiths make gods out of men? You have pointed out that men (i.e. historical figures) have faltered in the name of religion. So your logic goes; If we were never to believe in God, we would never have the problem of extremists to begin with. You should use that logic more frequently Ravensfan Anon. You would be able to see that in order to free humanity from abortion and other sexual complications, we should just not have sex outside of marriage in the first place. In order to free religion from scandal and human injustices maybe people should actually practice what their faiths teach in the first place. In order to avoid a housing crisis, maybe not offer outlandish mortgages and incentives to people who can't afford them in the first place. However, you obviously think that is inconceivably devoid of any "rational thought". Strange don't you think? You seem logical enough, albeit only when it supports your dogmas.

Come on Pattycakes--the Bible says that entire creation was, bang go, made in 6 days by God. Should we follow that and stop all scientific inquiry into the matter? Haven't you been reading Clay on these blogs? If we followed the religious teachings you say we won't be extremists. Clay has been saying all along that your Bible condemns homosexuality--that being gay is a sin. He protests, and quite frequently, that he still loves the sinners. Imagine being a teenager, recognizing that you are gay and having your parents, followers of the Bible, tell you that because they actually practice their faith they have to call you a sinner. You are trying to tell me that the extremisms occur because people are not practicing the true teachings of their faith and I am telling you that they are occurring because the faithful are actually practicing these tenets and the faithful can quote chapter and verse from their scriptures to justify their proscriptions and their intolerances. Then you will say they are misreading, misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misquoting--that the scriptures never said these things. That is the true problem Pattycakes. The religious don't exactly know what their scriptures say--there are 100 interpretations and 1000 disagreements. But they sure do fetter and persecute the irreligious by poking themselves in matters of the state. The Taliban in Afghanistan have said as per Koranic teachings a woman should have sex with her husband every 5 days--if she doesn't she can be brought before an imam by her husband for suitable punishment. Shaukat Malik who blogs in these precincts will say that the Taliban is using the Koran for persecution, that the Koran never says this. But the Taliban will read in Arabic from page 42 or 100 of the Koran to show what the Prophet meant by this that or the other and the religious will play with semantics while the women wait for justice. Listen, for an intelligent man or woman you are being dumb. The religious have been beating up the irreligious with rules books derived from their scriptures for ever. Come into the twenty first century man-or woman-as the case may be. All religions are no more than big business and control towers Pattycakes (by the way why are you plural instead of singular--are you an overeater with a food fantasy or something?). Finally Pattycakes the bad actors claim that they are practicing exactly what their faiths teach. You and Ravensfan constantly squawk that they are not doing so. Are you the authority on the Biblical verdict about homosexuality, or is Clay the one we should tap or is Ravensfan the final arbiter? Junk the fables from centuries ago or settle the scores with your own kind before you start meddling with the non believers and start making rules and regulations for all of us from the pages of unsettled, anachronistic and dubious sagas masquerading as divine pronouncements.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon – I was worried I was afraid I’d chased you away in utter frustration. Welcome back. I’m going to confine my response to Christianity and not speak for anyone else’s religion. First please don’t use Clay as an example he sets Christians back about 1000 years or so. He may mean well, but he’s hardly the person I’d quote as an authority on the Bible. The creation story in Genesis is not intended to be a historical or scientific account on creation. Its purpose is to teach a simple lesson that God was the ultimate creator of things. Nowhere does it call for us to close our minds to science and the world around us. Clay’s problem with homosexuality is he fails to draw a line between an act and the person. It does condemn the act as sinful, but it also calls on us not to pass judgment on the person. It’s a fine line and all Christians, myself included occasionally cross it. Some cross more than occasionally. I disagree with your view on practicing these tenets being the cause of extremism. First you never answered my questions to that very point. Next those who quote the Bible to justify wrong actions usually quote verses out of context. Another thing to look at is the motive for the acts. Was it really for the faith or was faith used to justify bad actions. I’m not knowledgeable enough on Islam to comment on the Taliban. I don’t hold myself up as an authority by any means. I simply follow the faith of the Church. While I believe homosexuality is a sin I also don’t believe that is a basis for denying homosexuals any rights under the law. CCC 2358 calls on Catholics to treat homosexuals with respect and dignity. The only way I would ever oppose any legislation on any gay rights issue is if I it was infringing on the first amendment rights for the Church or my right practice and teach my faith. I have no desire to force my faith on anyone who doesn’t want it.
ravensfan

Time is , in fact, a powerful evolutionary element, and force. And, we must travel well with it, as undisturbed as possible, even in the face of apparent conflict or adversity. Centered and focused, we can always find our way to a new truth or light -- to a new solution or condition, attempting in the process, of course, to better, to excel that one which we had before. Should we become disturbed, angered, and obscured, we might lose our ability to manage and to solve or decide wisely and remain for some time within a state of unhappiness and in suspended action.

In New York, the UK and other targeted sites of our Planet they are now saying that millions "are good without God," but, poor fools that they are, they do not realize their condition and state will never allow them to find any kind of light or constructive path or joy in living. For, as far as I know, along with billions of others, life can be lived with joy and fullness only by believing always in our God and in ourselves and the things we intelligently decide to accomplish and create with the passing of Time. The conception and belief in God is the establishment of a rational self and a healthy, creative mind. (In His Image...)

No distinction between the act and the person? I have stated on here that gay people should be welcome in any church, although God says that homosexuality is wrong. I have also stated that without sinners, churches would be empty. I am being accused of things I never did and said. God bless.

Clay - The fact that you need to use the words gay people already hints you consider them differently. Maybe you don't and if so I apolgize for saying you do. Your posts do come off sometimes as judgemental.

I have heard many people who are gay refer to themselves as gay people or the gay community. What am I supposed to say if I am talking about homosexuals coming into the church and not being considered as different or worse than any other sinner? Sodomites? I like gay people better. I dont really want to have to explain to a kid in church what sodomy is. And to be fair about it, I dont want to explain to a kid what a fornicator is either, given that a heterosexual man is fooling around with another woman not his wife. That is up to the parents to explain those things. Thanks.

Clay - If I am reading more into your post then I should I apologize. It is not my intent to label or judge you.

Thats no problem. Thanks.

So the article says that an anonymous donor is funding this with $25,000.00. Is he the guy who gets to define "good"?

Because its a pretty big presupposition to state that New Yorkers are good without God, if there is no clear definition and authority on "goodness".

"Good" point Tony, this is true indeed! We can know this was an objectively good point you raised because it is objectively good to question in order to seek truth. I would say that is a universal don't you think? If it was "wrong" to question, we would not get vary far. You don't have to be a "religious nut" to see this. The answer to the question could be "right" or "wrong". That is the real issue. When someone assumes that anyone is "good" without something (God), that already taints the question by not addressing what is "good". The real question should be "what is good" not "are we good...". The answer to this question has been the spark for wars, injustices, beliefs, religion, atheism, etc, etc since recorded history.

What I as a "believer" (Catholic) would like to point out is that once someone acknowledges that there IS an "untimate" good, which we call Yahweh, Creator, Buddha, God, etc, we can attempt to model ourselves after the practical examples in teachings, creeds, and reasoning which we put our "faith" in to lead us to live better lives on earth. This is objectively good in theory. Can we argue that? Now actual putting faith to action is what verifies and gives credit to belief. The goal being "goodness" or God.

I can assume that Ravensfan Anon is "good" without God, however I would need him to educate me on HOW and WHY he is good to make my (opinion) conclusive that it is because of an absence of God. This is objectively looking at the question. What is "good" and "evil" to an atheist? what sort of measuring stick do we use for the morality which is ever consequential to our human functioning? Ravensfan Anon, again, I would argue that the vary separation of the Christian Church is a direct result of "outside thinking" which is not objectively focused on Christ. The Catholic Churches abuses of old may have lead to the protestant reformation, which lead to this that the other thing because of a SELF-SEEKING paradigm (Why did Henry the 8th do what he did? HE WANTED new woman etc, etc, Why did the terrorist blow up the plane? so HE can have 6364518727 virgins in heaven... Why did Hitler do what he did? so HE could become powerful...etc, etc). What is Christianity about? giving ones self for others in good works for the good of that person. These aforementioned persons have not been adherent to the faith they claim to preach (Hitler was just totally out to lunch).

I will totally agree with you that the Christians must come to terms with the differences that separate them before "going out to the world" and proclaiming that "ours is the right faith".
Looking at it empathetically, I can see how comical we must look from your standpoint.

So if you were to use objective inquiry, maybe research WHAT DOES THE CHURCH TEACH and WHY. This is the only means by which to critically decipher which is the "straight and narrow". Clay, I'm sure you have good intentions and yes, I have been to a Pentecostal as well as a Baptist service. I have friends which attend these denominations. It is interesting to note that these denominations actually do promote early marriage and church "exclusiveness". I have experienced this first-hand. They are not a very welcoming bunch if you arn't "on fire" for God either.

Maybe I'm nuts but in the beginning their was just ONE Church. Today churches are now dividing and dividing as prominent individuals or families feel they have the "right" ideas and "feel-good music" to draw the masses into "their church". And for what? social status? maybe they do feel they are doing good for the Lord however objectively I do not see segregating further and further away from the One Church as accomplishing that. You have to look deeper Clay. Does the church build on a rock? Catholicism hasn't deviated from the cross. It is rooted in teaching and structure right from day one. Before Jesus went up to His folks, he had to experience the cross and this is HUGE. Without the cross there is no salvation. Before the bubbly, you have to win the Super Bowl. Denominational Christians do not seem to realize this. They are happy to be already saved but don't acknowledge the cross. It is all about the music and the emotion. Great! but is this all? What happens when the guitars stop and the clapping subsides? Sorry Clay, there is more to it buddy. If you can sincerely acknowledge the cross, then it gives credibility to the message of Christ, His instructions to His disciples, His formulation of His Church on earth through Peter down the centuries to Benedict; His leader on earth stemming from the Holy succession of popes, and lastly, the teachings which abound from the overwhelming forces of GOOD (Holy Spirit) which are at work in the one church on earth. Once you see that, it just makes sense. Thanks.

Like I said in the other blog, the thought that Baptist and Pentecostal churches arent built on the cross is ridiculous. Also, the thought that the Catholic church is the one true church that Christ founded is prideful. We are all Christian brothers and sisters and all part of His church. God bless.

Thats not prideful but FACT Clay, i know it might sound that way but do your research... "Catholic" just means "Universal". So this one original church was UNIVERSAL. Now it has become more so. People decided they could do better or that they did not agree with some of the "universal" churches teachings (i.e. pope being successor to Peter, church tradition etc). Is it not that from Jesus' established church people have "split" off? Why then are we not all united in tradition? If we could use the term "prideful", I would argue the ones who "split" could be referred to as such. I do not wish to draw lines here Clay, I am only informing you of the FACTS.

p.s. I have not noticed any crucifixes in the denominational churches... is there one in your church? just a thought.

Well you have to admit that if Christ started a universal church with Peter that it certainly has changed over the years. Who can say that Christ would have approved of Roman traditions being added to it, the uniforms, the crucifixes, etc., and certainly the statues of Mary? What would He have said if one of His disciples brought in a crucifix after He said that He must die and come back again? Would He have said that the crucifix is important or that loving Him is more important? What if they had placed the crucifix at the front of the room? In my opinion, He would have said something like, "be sure that you remember what that stands for and keep it in your heart, never let an object replace that love." What would He have said had someone brought in a statue of Mary? He would have been angry to the point of raising His voice in my opinion. Churches I have been to all have crosses and sometimes but not always a crucifix. A church without even a cross but people on fire for God is much better off than one with a bunch of symbols where people sometimes think that they are ok because of those symbols and those symbolic rituals that can add to but not replace faith. I hope that not only answers your question but encourages you to open up your eyes a little more. These are the most important ideas that any universal church can have. Anything else is someone's way of interpreting scripture ("we must take communion every service") that probably isnt exactly what God intended. God bless.

Clay - I agree with you that these "symbols" and statues are just that in the physical sense. Absolutely do not believe for one second that we should think we are "faithful" only because we have these in the church. Good point Clay. This was not my point however, if you look at the spiritual and psychological significance of artifacts and objects -- including crucifixes and statues -- there is a visual connection which people can connect with and assist in the mental focus of that which is being prayed to, adored, contemplated, meditated upon. This is why it is important to also SEE Jesus (God) on a cross. It is tradition and a matter of acknowledging the reality of His sacrifice.
In the Roman Church, rituals were necessary as an act of obedience and homage. These played out so as to give formal glory and respect to God. It also encourages total absorption of mind and spirit in the task being performed. You can't tell me that biblical figures did not have sacrificial and ritualistic processes which they used as a form of communication with a higher force. Using your very own interpretation of the bible Clay, how is the Catholic Church so far off with the "Eucharistic meal" at each mass in honoring the last supper? This is what Jesus did is it not? He gave Himself up for His disciples then in the garden, and for humanity on the cross. He broke bread with his disciples, and shared it with all. "This IS My Body, this IS My Blood". Is this so difficult to recognize?
Denominational Christianity also has a HUGE lack of knowledge on Marian Doctrine. As with saints, we do not worship her or pray at her. It is a holy and yet maternal bond which she shares with Jesus. Who was Jesus? basically God. So who was the mother of God? it wasn't Amanda or Jezebel or Ashley... it was Mary. Quite frankly, I find it absurd that anyone can have so little respect for the Mother of God.
"What would He have said had someone brought in a statue of Mary? He would have been angry to the point of raising His voice in my opinion."
- Clay

Are you kidding me man? This is His own mother; God's chosen mortal to bare His Son whom would save us through his sacrifice. Angry? Hardly. More like happy Clay. Or maybe overjoyed that we have established a real friendship and acknowledgement of the sacredness of the womb from which He was born. One of my baptist friends argued this point once. "Whats so special about Mary? She's just a human". Ya, a human who only received the most special graces ("... she was full of grace." Luke-1:28) in order to only bring the Son of God into existence. That is sort of a big deal my friend. My apologies for being frank, however I think once you really do your homework, it makes all the sense in the world to put Mary up where she belongs. Your comment makes no sense Clay... Jesus getting mad at us for honoring His mom? Clearly you must continue your study in order to make such an opinion.
Speaking of studying, the holy men (popes, theologians, saints, scholars) who have formulated the framework for catechesis through the ages down to present day, have all DEVOTED lives to this cause. Lets look at this for what it is here: A job inspired by the Holy Spirit (We are trusting). We all have our “9-5”. These guys, thats all they did! Can you believe the dedication to the cause of interpreting, reflecting, praying, pondering, etc, that went into this “formulation”? It’s not like the Catholic faith was “made up one day by joe shmoe”.

Hi. I agree that a lot went into the Catholic church. However, I dont believe God has a mother or a father. Mary was a woman chosen by God. She was certainly holy but that doesnt make her God's mother or one to be prayed to, just admired and respected. I wasnt being disrespectful to any holy person. I just feel that God's word is what He intends for us to do more than some traditions. If those traditions go along with what God tells us fine, if not I tend to look the other way at times. I dont know whether or not Christ intended for us to take communion with Him every service or if it was just an example of something He was giving for us to do if we need it. He did say what He said at the last supper. He didnt say that this shall be a part of the worship services whenever we worship Him. So there is a number of different ways that scripture has been interpreted by different denominations. The main point is that we love Him and each other in my opinion. Thanks again.