Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Now, you may know that in Roman Catholicism a Priest who has heard confession can not under any circumstances repeat what he has heard to anyone other than the confessor.

However, consider this situation.

A man is being accused of murder but he is innocent- a local priest knows the trial is going on and the real murder came to him in confession and admitted to the crime. Should the Priest go forward to the Court?

Is it right that US Law allows for Priest's not to reveal things they have learned in confession?

It should be noted that a Priest who breaks the Seal of Confession incurs automatic excommunication from the Church.

The priest should inform the Court. Unless he has very good reason to believe the person will not kill again (the basic assumption of Confession probably isn't enough) there is a greater responsibility to protect the innocent.

US law should allow for subpoenas to acquire things learned in Confession if needed but, given the penalty, should have some sort of threshold.

Can psychiatrists reveal information about a murder? I can't recall.

Originally posted by Devil King
Can psychiatrists reveal information about a murder? I can't recall.

I'm not sure, I have a feeling they can...

The defiantly can break the doctor-patient privilege to save a life.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
US law should allow for subpoenas to acquire things learned in Confession if needed but, given the penalty, should have some sort of threshold.

The priest isn't allowed to break Confession even if his life is at risk...so I'm not sure how the subpoena would be resolved.

Originally posted by Devil King
Can psychiatrists reveal information about a murder? I can't recall.

In the state of Oregon they have too.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In the state of Oregon they have too.

and Texas

Originally posted by Devil King
Can psychiatrists reveal information about a murder? I can't recall.

In most places, yes.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Now, you may know that in Roman Catholicism a Priest who has heard confession can not under any circumstances repeat what he has heard to anyone other than the confessor.

However, consider this situation.

A man is being accused of murder but he is innocent- a local priest knows the trial is going on and the real murder came to him in confession and admitted to the crime. Should the Priest go forward to the Court?

Is it right that US Law allows for Priest's not to reveal things they have learned in confession?

It should be noted that a Priest who breaks the Seal of Confession incurs automatic excommunication from the Church. There should be a right to refuse giving a testimony at all times for anyone.

Why would such a situation come up though? Would the defendant for some reason not want to reveal the truth?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why would such a situation come up though? Would the defendant for some reason not want to reveal the truth?
I assume that the defendant would need a witness to clear his name.

But on the question, no the priest should never break the seal of confession. It is far holier for a man to suffer through injustice, for his reward in heaven would be greater than the latter, in which a soul is cast out of salvation. In such cases, God's will be done.

That should be the real murderer came to the Priest in Confession. The defendant is being falsely accused and the Priest knows this- but should he intervene?

Someone has been watching too much Law and Order

Originally posted by chithappens
Someone has been watching too much Law and Order

It was the Practice, and no I thought of it because of the Exorcist when the Detective threatens Father Karras.

Practice > Law & Order. Good man.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
and Texas

Then there is no rational reason for a priest to be granted some freedom from obligation under the laws of the United States. To do otherwise represents an obvious and blatant consideration of a religion's validity, and thus can be interpreted as a subscription to its validity under some measure of inherent patiality. Fortunately for many dishonest catholics, their priests bend knee to a Pope over their own nation's governement. (coupled with the idea that by saying aloud the wrongs of which you're guilty will some how free from their reality) I suppose, there should not legally be a reasonable excuse to explain away a priests obligation to report the offense. But, as the catholic church often exhibits in it's appalling submission to the laws of Rome and the feeble image of the Roman Catholic Church, over the laws of actual morals and justice as set forth by the excessivly rational laws of the men who had the foresight to cast off the burden of the lazy, self-imposed ideology of organized religion, such things do not matter.

Basically, there should be no consideration of Roman Catholic mandate or superstition in American law.

I believe it's similar with lawyers who gain knowledge through a client confidentiality act,and can not reveal what they know, less they be disbarred. If that is relevant to this topic.

I think it would be a more of a sin for a priest to both let a known innocent suffer and potentially risk the lives of other people. If Jesus-God is forgiving, he would excuse they priest, no?

Reminds me of the 1994 movie Priest, where a homosexual; priest who secretly indulges in gay sex, decides to not speak out against a father who is raping his young daughter on a regular basis because she confessed it to him.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
I assume that the defendant would need a witness to clear his name.

But on the question, no the priest should never break the seal of confession. It is far holier for a man to suffer through injustice, for his reward in heaven would be greater than the latter, in which a soul is cast out of salvation. In such cases, God's will be done.

I'm still on the fence if you're just another religious ranting sock. Regardless though, it's scary that there are people who actually believe what you just stated and they have the right to vote and dictate laws of the land.

Might as well go back to to burning supposed witches on the mindset that if they're truly innocent, God will interject and the fire won't burn them.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe it's similar with lawyers who gain knowledge through a client confidentiality act can not reveal what they know, less they be disbarred. If that is relevant

Reminds me of the 1994 movie Priest, where a homosexual; priest who secretly indulges in gay sex, decides to not speak out against a father who is raping his young daughter on a regular basis because she confessed it to him.

Still, I think it would be a more of a sin for a priest to both let a known innocent suffer and potentially risk the lives of other people. If Jesus-God is forgiving, he would excuse they priest, no?


Innocents and lawyers are not my point. The legal consideration of a lawyer is much more valid to the idea that a man is innocent before and during judgment than is the idea that a priest is allowed to enjoy a similar position based on religion. I also understand the consideration is based on the idea that the confessor is confiding in a personality of trust. But, I still consider it to example an official consideration of religion, especially when coupled with the apparent reality that a mental health official is not expected to opperate under the same mandate.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm still on the fence if you're just another religious ranting sock. Regardless though, it's scary that there are people who actually believe what you just stated and they have the right to vote and dictate laws of the land.

God's will has no place in a nation constructed by and for men, regardless of those men's freedom to consider A, The or An god in their personal lives.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Now, you may know that in Roman Catholicism a Priest who has heard confession can not under any circumstances repeat what he has heard to anyone other than the confessor.

However, consider this situation.

A man is being accused of murder but he is innocent- a local priest knows the trial is going on and the real murder came to him in confession and admitted to the crime. Should the Priest go forward to the Court?

Is it right that US Law allows for Priest's not to reveal things they have learned in confession?

It should be noted that a Priest who breaks the Seal of Confession incurs automatic excommunication from the Church.

Originally posted by Devil King
Can psychiatrists reveal information about a murder? I can't recall.

Not in most states (including AZ). They couldn't, because it would be considered a violation of the 4th as well as patient confidentiality. And the shrink would be stripped of their license and never be able to practise again.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Practice > Law & Order. Good man.

Sorry homes, but you got it all backwards.

Chris Meloni, Marisa Hartigay, Ice-T, B.D. Wong and Adam Beach > all those suckers.

Originally posted by Devil King
Then there is no rational reason for a priest to be granted some freedom from obligation under the laws of the United States. To do otherwise represents an obvious and blatant consideration of a religion's validity, and thus can be interpreted as a subscription to its validity under some measure of inherent patiality. Fortunately for many dishonest catholics, their priests bend knee to a Pope over their own nation's governement. (coupled with the idea that by saying aloud the wrongs of which you're guilty will some how free from their reality) I suppose, there should not legally be a reasonable excuse to explain away a priests obligation to report the offense. But, as the catholic church often exhibits in it's appalling submission to the laws of Rome and the feeble image of the Roman Catholic Church, over the laws of actual morals and justice as set forth by the excessivly rational laws of the men who had the foresight to cast off the burden of the lazy, self-imposed ideology of organized religion, such things do not matter.

The excommunication actually happens just as disbarment or loss of license could happen to a lawyer or phychiatrist. You could even go run experiments. Validity of the Catholic faith doesn't enter the picture.

Confession does not free a person from the crime. First of all, technically speaking, Confession cannot be given unless the person actually does not intend to repeat the offense. Secondly there is usually some penance required and I'm pretty sure priests are supposed to tell people to admit their crime to the law of the land as well.

Why would the Catholic church not look to Rome? That's like asking a government to simply ignore its own legal system.

Everything else there is rhetoric though I do agree with the basic premise.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
I assume that the defendant would need a witness to clear his name.

But on the question, no the priest should never break the seal of confession. It is far holier for a man to suffer through injustice, for his reward in heaven would be greater than the latter, in which a soul is cast out of salvation. In such cases, God's will be done.

But the priest wouldn't be a witness. He'd just be a dude that heard the defendants story. But GMG cleared it up. Get it now.

Also, not everyone believes in heaven...and it might just be bullshit.

So, from the Priests POV, I'd break confession, even if that would mean excommunication, as you said, suffering injustice is good in his opinion, so he should be the one suffering it.

I'm not sure why DK looks to Rome as if its some sort of sinister operation...

Disneyland Paris bosses will look to the company board in the US.

McDonald's employees in in Australia will look to the company bosses in the United States aswell...

Just because the HQ of the RCC is in Rome shouldn't matter...

Also, the authority of the Pope is far greater than that of the President of the United States.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I'm not sure why DK looks to Rome as if its some sort of sinister operation...

Disneyland Paris bosses will look to the company board in the US.

McDonald's employees in in Australia will look to the company bosses in the United States aswell...

Just because the HQ of the RCC is in Rome shouldn't matter...

Also, the authority of the Pope is far greater than that of the President of the United States.

Well, he must have seen the South Park episode last night.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, he must have seen the South Park episode last night.

The Great Spider!

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The Great Spider!

Yes.

I would trust Benedict more than Bush anyday.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would the Catholic church not look to Rome? That's like asking a government to simply ignore its own legal system.

I didn't say the church shouldn't look to Rome. I said the law and consideration by the US government need not.

And I'm familiar with Catholicism. I was raised a Catholic and attended 13 years of Catholic schools.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I'm not sure why DK looks to Rome as if its some sort of sinister operation...

Disneyland Paris bosses will look to the company board in the US.

McDonald's employees in in Australia will look to the company bosses in the United States aswell...

Just because the HQ of the RCC is in Rome shouldn't matter...

Also, the authority of the Pope is far greater than that of the President of the United States.

I did not say it was sinister, I said it was self-serving and self-preserving, at any expense. Be that the current Pope ordering the cover-up of thousands of cases of child molestation when he was John Paul the 2nd's #2 man or Wendy's paying off a guy that found a hypodermic needle in his french fries.

Sure, the Pope has a billion people bending knee to him, but actual authority is up for debate.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I would trust Benedict more than Bush anyday.

I wouldn't trust either of them.

Originally posted by Devil King
Wendy's paying off a guy that found a hypodermic needle in his french fries.

That was a conspiracy by the Catholic church?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That was a conspiracy by the Catholic church?

It clearly says Wendy's in the sentence. Read Gav's post and then apply my response.

Oh, lawlz.

Why confess if god is all knowing. According to the scriptures, god know what your heart asks even before you say it. So why confess.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Why confess if god is all knowing. According to the scriptures, god know what your heart asks even before you say it. So why confess.
Because God tells us to in the Holy Scriptures, namely John 20:21-23:



And so, when Jesus said this to the disciples, he in essence instituted the sacrament of confession, for the disciples were the first clergymen of the Church.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Now, you may know that in Roman Catholicism a Priest who has heard confession can not under any circumstances repeat what he has heard to anyone other than the confessor.

However, consider this situation.

A man is being accused of murder but he is innocent- a local priest knows the trial is going on and the real murder came to him in confession and admitted to the crime. Should the Priest go forward to the Court?

Is it right that US Law allows for Priest's not to reveal things they have learned in confession?

It should be noted that a Priest who breaks the Seal of Confession incurs automatic excommunication from the Church.
True repentance, and thus confession includes confession to all that were harmed through sin. I believe that this includes the victim/s even in the Catholic Church, although I could be wrong. If the confessing individual does not confess to his victim/s then he has not fulfilled his obligations under the confession. In the case of murder, or other serious crimes, the victim is not solely the one who lost his life but also all whose life was effected by such an action. Given this, public confession is a part of the obligation of the penitent. IMO, if the individual does not complete his penance, the priest should not feel obliged to maintain the confidence if such is the case.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But the priest wouldn't be a witness. He'd just be a dude that heard the defendants story. But GMG cleared it up. Get it now.

Still the fact that the priest should never break the confidentiality of the confessional holds.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, not everyone believes in heaven...and it might just be bullshit.
Well I'm assuming that anyone who commits a heinous deed and goes and confesses it to his priest believes in heaven and the ramifications that would ensue if he did not confess, otherwise there would be no reason for him to confess.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, from the Priests POV, I'd break confession, even if that would mean excommunication,
Or, as almost always is the case, the priest gives a penance that involves the criminal to turn himself/herself in, which has the added bonus of keeping in communion with the church. Also, any criminal that would go to confession would most likely follow the penance because, as I said before, they believe in Heaven and Hell, good and evil, holiness and sin.
Originally posted by Bardock42
as you said, suffering injustice is good in his opinion, so he should be the one suffering it.
It is a shame that you go so far as to twist my words. On the topic, I doubt anyone who goes and takes the vows of Holy Orders would ever want to leave the Church which they believe is the only mechanism to salvation

You're answering a false dilemmia

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Why confess if god is all knowing. According to the scriptures, god know what your heart asks even before you say it. So why confess.

It is less a matter of God hearing if for the first time and more a matter of the sinner being willing to admit to his own human frailty...

and continuing to remember their place and perpetuate the bent-knee subserivence of their human soul to the idea of a divinely-inspired, yet appalingly equally frail human hierarchy.

Originally posted by Devil King
Wendy's paying off a guy that found a hypodermic needle in his french fries.


I'd still rather find that than a finger in my chili.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Still the fact that the priest should never break the confidentiality of the confessional holds.

How does that refer to what I said?


Originally posted by Transfinitum
Well I'm assuming that anyone who commits a heinous deed and goes and confesses it to his priest believes in heaven and the ramifications that would ensue if he did not confess, otherwise there would be no reason for him to confess.

Yes, but that person would get off free. While an innocent person would be forced to suffer by the priests silence. A person that could very well not believe in an afterlife. A person that could very well just have the one chance at happiness in this life.


Originally posted by Transfinitum
Or, as almost always is the case, the priest gives a penance that involves the criminal to turn himself/herself in, which has the added bonus of keeping in communion with the church. Also, any criminal that would go to confession would most likely follow the penance because, as I said before, they believe in Heaven and Hell, good and evil, holiness and sin.

If that works I agree. If it doesn't then the priest should bear wittness.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
It is a shame that you go so far as to twist my words. On the topic, I doubt anyone who goes and takes the vows of Holy Orders would ever want to leave the Church which they believe is the only mechanism to salvation

There are things bigger than once personal wishes. At least your church believes so. I am also not twisting your words. You said "It is far holier for a man to suffer through injustice, for his reward in heaven would be greater than the latter, in which a soul is cast out of salvation.". But why should an innocent person not related to the crime or the catholic church suffer through the injustice? Why not the priest instead, since he is the one that believes he will be rewarded?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The priest isn't allowed to break Confession even if his life is at risk...so I'm not sure how the subpoena would be resolved. Even under subpoena a member of clergy can claim that an exchange was a privileged communication and thus cannot be divulged, however a communication has to meet certain requirements.

However certain states have mandatory reporting laws for suspicion of child abuse and some list clergy amongst the professionals bound by these laws and privilege is specifically denied.Originally posted by Robtard
I believe it's similar with lawyers who gain knowledge through a client confidentiality act,and can not reveal what they know, less they be disbarred. If that is relevant to this topic.Under Common Law, Attorney-Client privilege falls under the same privileged communication legislation as clergy, marital and doctor iirc. Under English Law, I think it's the only form of privileged communications. Also iirc a lawyer cannot knowingly permit false testimony. Ergo defense lawyers may decline to know if their client is actually guilty.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Even under subpoena a member of clergy can claim that an exchange was a privileged communication and thus cannot be divulged, however a communication has to meet certain requirements.

However certain states have mandatory reporting laws for suspicion of child abuse and some list clergy amongst the professionals bound by these laws and privilege is specifically denied.Under Common Law, Attorney-Client privilege falls under the same privileged communication legislation as clergy, marital and doctor iirc. Under English Law, I think it's the only form of privileged communications. Also iirc a lawyer cannot knowingly permit false testimony. Ergo defense lawyers may decline to know if their client is actually guilty.

That's a pretty good system so long as the church doesn't go apeshit over it.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
certain states have mandatory reporting laws for suspicion of child abuse and some list clergy amongst the professionals bound by these laws

Ouch! Anyone else see the loophole there?

Originally posted by Devil King
It is less a matter of God hearing if for the first time and more a matter of the sinner being willing to admit to his own human frailty...

and continuing to remember their place and perpetuate the bent-knee subserivence of their human soul to the idea of a divinely-inspired, yet appalingly equally frail human hierarchy. Yes, more proof that this god is full of human ego flaws. Now a man would subject his beings to grovel for his ego stoking, but a god wouldn't care. Therefore, this god is flawed with superiority issues such as narcissism or insecurity issues requiring a lessor being to perform to his/gods requirements that he/god created in the first place.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Yes, more proof that this god is full of human ego flaws. Now a man would subject his beings to grovel for his ego stoking, but a god wouldn't care. Therefore, this god is flawed with superiority issues such as narcissism or insecurity issues requiring a lessor being to perform to his/gods requirements that he/god created in the first place.

Its not about stroking God's ego, its about recognising and accepting an error you made.

Like when you have a child who does something wrong, it is required that they realize they did something wrong if they are to learn anything.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Its not about stroking God's ego, its about recognising and accepting an error you made.

Like when you have a child who does something wrong, it is required that they realize they did something wrong if they are to learn anything. But this god made this child with it's flaws in the first place. Would a loving god send this child into everlasting torment because it rebelled or didn't ask for an apology? What kind of father is that, may I ask.

A human would never even consider such a punishment, especially an eternal torment for rebellion.

So, humans are more compassionate than a god?

A stern Father who plays by the rules.

Compassion? There is no crime you can commit that God won't forgive. That is compassion.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
A stern Father who plays by the rules.

Compassion? There is no crime you can commit that God won't forgive. That is compassion. 'cept the one of not searching his forgiveness.

Originally posted by Bardock42
'cept the one of not searching his forgiveness.

As i said he has rules.

You have to admit you were accountable.

Its your choice, not his.

Originally posted by Devil King
Can psychiatrists reveal information about a murder? I can't recall. according to the sopranos they can

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
As i said he has rules.

You have to admit you were accountable.

Its your choice, not his. Sure. He's just not very compassionate. Also a dick.

Hence humans are more compassionate than this god. If this god is perfect, then this god would by it's own writings according to the man made Bible, surpass the emotions of a mere human with all his humans flaws, yet this god doesn't. This god is inferior to the human father, which it created.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Hence humans are more compassionate than this god. If this god is perfect, then this god would by it's own writings according to the man made Bible, surpass the emotions of a mere human with all his humans flaws, yet this god doesn't. This god is inferior to the human father, which it created. Oh STFU.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh STFU. <--- U

go sit in some corner somewhere. Mr. Lovely.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Hence humans are more compassionate than this god. If this god is perfect, then this god would by it's own writings according to the man made Bible, surpass the emotions of a mere human with all his humans flaws, yet this god doesn't. This god is inferior to the human father, which it created.

Surely allowing your emotions to cloud your judgments is a big big flaw?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Surely allowing your emotions to cloud your judgments is a big big flaw? Does god have emotions?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Does god have emotions?

It was your argument that he did.

The Bible stated that your god did/does. If god is love and love is an emotion then god has emotion. Just like the emotions of jealousy and hate which are stated in that Bible.

Does god have a flaw with his emotions?

I said allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment was a flaw.

And I said that your god also has emotions. Emotions, as you have said , have flaws and can cloud judgment. Is your god so emotionally handicapped that It/He cannot discern between the logical and the emotional?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
And I said that your god also has emotions. Emotions, as you have said , have flaws and can cloud judgment. Is your god so emotionally handicapped that It/He cannot discern between the logical and the emotional?

I'm sorry, but are you dense?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
A stern Father who plays by the rules.

Compassion? There is no crime you can commit that God won't forgive. That is compassion. Originally posted by Deja~vu
Hence humans are more compassionate than this god. If this god is perfect, then this god would by it's own writings according to the man made Bible, surpass the emotions of a mere human with all his humans flaws, yet this god doesn't. This god is inferior to the human father, which it created. Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Surely allowing your emotions to cloud your judgments is a big big flaw?

Read that, and try to understand.

I believe you are in denial.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I believe you are in denial.

I see what Bardock meant now...

Look, you said

God isnt compasionate
I said he is
You said Humans have more compassion because they forgive more
I said that allowing emotions to cloud your judgment is a flaw

Can you not get from that conversation that I clearly believed God had emotions and did not allow them to cloud his judgment?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
And I said that your god also has emotions. Emotions, as you have said , have flaws and can cloud judgment. Is your god so emotionally handicapped that It/He cannot discern between the logical and the emotional?

Thus answering that, and your other questions before you asked them.

Aren't jealousy, hate, love, tenderness emotions that your god has? Your god would subject someone to a torment because they didn't say "I'm sorry, I'll do better." This god is an emotional god and throws it around when it suits him.

"I hate you Israel...I love you.
I'll smite you because you worship others. (keep in mind that is were servants and not the owner of the house."
I'll kill your offspring, even unto the 7th generation that I'll punish them.
I'll damn your generations for years to come." Paraphrased.


Yet, he loves David and Solomon. many wives Solomon had and concubines. Yet he later said that you should only have ONE wife? Your god is fickle.

Punishing someone doesnt mean he doesnt love them

and as I said. He doesnt let it cloud his judgement.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Punishing someone doesnt mean he doesnt love them

and as I said. He doesnt let it cloud his judgement.

Punishing someone eternally does, to me, mean that you don't love the person and that you are not very nice and compassionate. But, hey, everyone's a critic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Punishing someone eternally does, to me, mean that you don't love the person and that you are not very nice and compassionate. But, hey, everyone's a critic.
In actuality they are punishing themselves. We have free will to sin against God, and by doing so we move away from God's love and compassion and enter into a state of sin that leads to eternal damnation. God wants all men to be saved, as is evident in Timothy 2:4,

So, as a direct consequence of free will, God allows us to fall away from His love and slip into sin and as a result, eternal punishment.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
In actuality they are punishing themselves. We have free will to sin against God, and by doing so we move away from God's love and compassion and enter into a state of sin that leads to eternal damnation. God wants all men to be saved, as is evident in Timothy 2:4,

So, as a direct consequence of free will, God allows us to fall away from His love and slip into sin and as a result, eternal punishment. Bullshit.

He created us. He knew we wouldn't see his "light". He created hell. He damned us.

On top of it, depending on what you believe, he has a "limited time only" clause on salvation.

If the whole believing shit wouldn't be nonsense to begin with I'd be really upset with the dude. He's one of the lowest, most horrible and sadistic fictional characters there is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bullshit.

He created us. He knew we wouldn't see his "light". He created hell. He damned us.

On top of it, depending on what you believe, he has a "limited time only" clause on salvation.

If the whole believing shit wouldn't be nonsense to begin with I'd be really upset with the dude. He's one of the lowest, most horrible and sadistic fictional characters there is.
He allowed free will to exist, that is why there is Hell and sin. If there was no sin, there would be no completely free choices, for you would not be able to make a choice that would go against God. The reason that God allowed the fall in the garden of Eden and all sin following that, is so that humanity could have completely free will.
Because of this free will, we have the ability to commit sin and damn ourselves, by choosing against virtue and God's commandments. Take blasphemy for example, you had the free choice to blaspheme God's name, that was your free choice; but as a result, there will be ramifications.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
He allowed free will to exist, that is why there is Hell and sin.

Yeah, he's to blame.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
If there was no sin, there would be no completely free choices, for you would not be able to make a choice that would go against God.

He wouldn't have to punish "sin".

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The reason that God allowed the fall in the garden of Eden and all sin following that, is so that humanity could have completely free will.

So? Not thanking him for damning us.


Originally posted by Transfinitum
Because of this free will, we have the ability to commit sin and damn ourselves, by choosing against virtue and God's commandments.

He didn't really reveal his commandnments well. In fact, one could argue he did everything to hide them as well as possible. Particularly from people that seem to have the most "positive" impact on human lives, Scientists for example.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Take blasphemy for example, you had the free choice to blaspheme God's name, that was your free choice; but as a result, there will be ramifications.

Nah, there won't be. But if there would, he'd be a dick for it. He behaved like an *******, so I called him that. He created me in a way that it was clear I would call him on being an *******. Again, he's to blame.

****, Religious doctrine is such an incredible amount of doublethink...

Originally posted by Bardock42
He wouldn't have to punish "sin".

In fact he would, for heaven to exist, by its very definition as perfection it must be without sin. So there must be a place outside of heaven that all those who reject holiness and God himself go to. It cannot be heaven, or else heaven would cease to be heaven, that is perfection. And so that place is without God and as a result, without holiness or virtue or good. Namely Hell.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He didn't really reveal his commandnments well. In fact, one could argue he did everything to hide them as well as possible. Particularly from people that seem to have the most "positive" impact on human lives, Scientists for example.
God had shown his commandments clearly to the Jews with Moses, and later on to the Church. The ten commandments, the Scriptures, ever heard of them? And throughout centuries scientists have learned more about God's universe. That was the entire purpose of science until very recently: to better understand God's universe and as a result, to better understand God.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, there won't be. But if there would, he'd be a dick for it. He behaved like an *******, so I called him that. He created me in a way that it was clear I would call him on being an *******. Again, he's to blame.

God created you with the ability to rebel against Him. Enjoy your cursing of God's name, just remember God allows you to do it.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
In fact he would, for heaven to exist, by its very definition as perfection it must be without sin. So there must be a place outside of heaven that all those who reject holiness and God himself go to. It cannot be heaven, or else heaven would cease to be heaven, that is perfection. And so that place is without God and as a result, without holiness or virtue or good. Namely Hell.

Wow. You sure are a Christian. Nothing you said follows logically from anything you said before.

Lets just assume that your first sentence is true (even though it isn't necessary in the English language nor in the belief system of many Christians) and "for heaven to exist it must be without sin". Even if that was true there doesn't need to be a place where those reject God have to go to. They could just cease to exist fully for one...or there could also be multiple places for them to go to...one for each sinner. Also, that place doesn't need to be without God, it could be easily with God and not threaten Heaven's status as perfection. Just STFU, your inability to apply logic to your thoughts even though you use terms from it is nauseating.



Originally posted by Transfinitum
God had shown his commandments clearly to the Jews with Moses, and later on to the Church. The ten commandments, the Scriptures, ever heard of them? And throughout centuries scientists have learned more about God's universe. That was the entire purpose of science until very recently: to better understand God's universe and as a result, to better understand God.

He has shown them 4000 years ago to the Jews. He has revisited them 2000 years ago with a lone lunatic of his flesh. Hardly credible. If he loved me, he'd truly give me a chance by making something in front of me float ... for example a pen...that pen could then write "I am God, I exist, believe in me or you are damned" on a wall. I'd still think he's a dick, but he'd have given me a decent chance. A few ass old books full of contradictions, absurdities and cruelty is the opposite of revealing yourself...it is making yourself better hidden to any reasonable person...if the book was at least historically accurate. But anyone that reads parts of that piece of shit and applies scientific standards (proven to work...over and over again) to it will be close to unable to make themselves believe it.




Originally posted by Transfinitum
God created you with the ability to rebel against Him. Enjoy your cursing of God's name, just remember God allows you to do it.

He did not. And if he did he should be man enough to not punish me for his shortcomings.

**** it. Invested way too much time in this shit. But at least it is fun to hand God's ass to his mindless followers.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
racles of God happening all over the world, you just choose to ignore them you bigot. Take the shrine at Lourdes for example, there have been over 60 cases where people were cured from diseases and illnesses that were deemed medically incurable by going to the shrine. The Lourdes Medical Bureau, an organization of doctors based in Lourdes have declared the following cures miraculous: (taken from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau#Jeanne_Fretel)


A small number of doctors directly affiliated with the church wearing pins that state "I Believe" in Latin are not a good gauge of medical science. Furthermore the doctors do not declare the cures miraculous a Bishop does.

Anyway. They supposedly informed of cases at a rate of 35 per year. Of those only an average of four even warrant looking at. A total of twelve are listed as miraculous.

150 years
5250 people that seem like they might possibly be miraculous
600 that are remotely interesting
12 that pass muster with both the score of doctors and a Bishop at the Vatican.

Those are terrible numbers to try using to make a case.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A small number of doctors directly affiliated with the church wearing pins that state "I Believe" in Latin are not a good gauge of medical science. Furthermore the doctors do not declare the cures miraculous a Bishop does.

Anyway. They supposedly informed of cases at a rate of 35 per year. Of those only an average of four even warrant looking at. A total of twelve are listed as miraculous.

150 years
5250 people that seem like they might possibly be miraculous
600 that are remotely interesting
12 that pass muster with both the score of doctors and a Bishop at the Vatican.

Those are terrible numbers to try using to make a case.

Even if there were only twelve miraculous cures, those are still miraculous! And the doctors from Lourdes do not have to be a memeber of the Church, or any faith for that matter. Also they are not forced to wear the "I Believe" badge, it is just customary.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It was your argument that he did.


Compassion is not an understandable and attirubate emotion because god had it "first"?

Originally posted by Bardock42

He has shown them 4000 years ago to the Jews. He has revisited them 2000 years ago with a lone lunatic of his flesh. Hardly credible. If he loved me, he'd truly give me a chance by making something in front of me float ... for example a pen...that pen could then write "I am God, I exist, believe in me or you are damned" on a wall. I'd still think he's a dick, but he'd have given me a decent chance. A few ass old books full of contradictions, absurdities and cruelty is the opposite of revealing yourself...it is making yourself better hidden to any reasonable person...if the book was at least historically accurate. But anyone that reads parts of that piece of shit and applies scientific standards (proven to work...over and over again) to it will be close to unable to make themselves believe it.


Why so bitter? You always curse, fly off the handle and use disrespectful language when discussing religion.

Why give god an ultimatum? And say he does prove himself to you with your floating pen example, then what, you'll suddenly be humble and an avid believer?

Lulz at free will and the Christian god.

Free will and an omniscient precognitive infallible god are mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Even if there were only twelve miraculous cures, those are still miraculous! And the doctors from Lourdes do not have to be a memeber of the Church, or any faith for that matter. Also they are not forced to wear the "I Believe" badge, it is just customary.

Hoax, and faith-healing is a crock...

Originally posted by Devil King
Compassion is not an understandable and attirubate emotion because god had it "first"?

Otherise, god would have had the foresight to have attributed some measure of enlightenment to his own creation. Instead, apparently, he was manipulative and sadistic enough to torture us with limitations that he himself imposed and designed. It's like a galactic and divine ant-farm!

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why so bitter? You always curse, fly off the handle and use disrespectful language when discussing religion.

Why give god an ultimatum? And say he does prove himself to you with your floating pen example, then what, you'll suddenly be humble and an avid believer?

Cause Religions and Religious people with their idiotic views cause horrible things around the world and I think we would be way better off without them. Also, cause Christians use immenese 1984 doublethink about God. And because God is a villain more horrible than most in any book, yet he is worshipped by billions and has influence on Politics and day to day life in many countries. How would you feel if the majority of people let their politicial decisions be influenced by the thoughts and opinions of the Joker?

Also, I'm not giving him an ultimatum. I am just saying that if he actually wanted to reveal himself that would be a way better way than sending his "son" (raping a virgin) to get tortured and killed (a fate many others have endured and worse) with next to no historical evidence of it.

Shame on you for comparing that murdering lunatic to the Joker.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause Religions and Religious people with their idiotic views cause horrible things around the world and I think we would be way better off without them.

Dangerous idiots will be dangerous idiots no matter what they claim to let guide them. Not to mention that there a great numbers of theists that don't cause horrible things and even actively stop them while others sit around and talk about how sad it is that disasters happen.

Well, if you realize that, could you please let some of your christian bothers in on the idea? Because I am sick of hearing that all terrible things are the result of atheists.

Christian brothers? lol

Homosexual lovers?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause Religions and Religious people with their idiotic views cause horrible things around the world and I think we would be way better off without them.

You know, Atheists would love nothing more than religion to simply disappear. But they know that that's not going to happen so some of them wrote a book in which they rant about their dislike of religions, but they still didn't really accomplish much. I guess they figured the John Lennon style was the wrong approach.

---

Let's say that, for whatever reason, religion does disappear, completely a thing of the past. Now think Bardock, do you honestly think that murder, mayhem and violence will never occur again, just like in "Imagine"? Seriously, I want you to take some time to mull it over.

Well said, quiero. I just love the line that bardock is willing to risk his whole belief system on a floating pen. That's the quote of the day.

Like it said above, idiots will always be idiots, and those who do evil "in God's name" aren't doing God's will. They're doing their own will and using God to justify it and make people fear them.

Devil King, if you're so sick of Christians sticking up for their faith, you came to the wrong place. You can dish it out, but can't take it? At least the world says it's politically correct to ridicule and demean Christians, so your atheist ways aren't nearly as persecuted as our Christian ways. Here you are with free will saying whatever comes to mind in a world created for you by a God who chose to become a human just to die for you. Cry me a river.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Well said, quiero. I just love the line that bardock is willing to risk his whole belief system on a floating pen. That's the quote of the day.
If my "belief system" is based around the impossibility of such a thing happening I don't see the problem. Besides, I said that that would be a better effort on God's part than getting some dude to die on a cross and some other dudes to write about it, not that I'd drop to my knees and suck Jesus off if that did happen.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You know, Atheists would love nothing more than religion to simply disappear. But they know that that's not going to happen so some of them wrote a book in which they rant about their dislike of religions, but they still didn't really accomplish much. I guess they figured the John Lennon style was the wrong approach.


I am not sure what you are talking about. As far as I can see Religion and especially Religion's power over the happenings of the world has dramatically decreased in the last 200 years and continues to decrease. So, whichever "book" you are referring to, might have done more than you wish to admit.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Let's say that, for whatever reason, religion does disappear, completely a thing of the past. Now think Bardock, do you honestly think that murder, mayhem and violence will never occur again, just like in "Imagine"? Seriously, I want you to take some time to mull it over.

Why would I need time to think about that. Obviously that would not happen. As Sym said, evil people will continue to be evil, I just wish they couldn't find justificaion of it in the believe shared by the majority of the world.

Also, you should listen to imagine again. It doesn't say "If there's no Religion everything is awesome" anywhere in it.

Also, Christians more persecuted than Atheists. Good one.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Devil King, if you're so sick of Christians sticking up for their faith, you came to the wrong place. You can dish it out, but can't take it? At least the world says it's politically correct to ridicule and demean Christians, so your atheist ways aren't nearly as persecuted as our Christian ways. Here you are with free will saying whatever comes to mind in a world created for you by a God who chose to become a human just to die for you. Cry me a river.

Oh, I think the battle wounds of the religion forum I have are deeper and older than yours. You pay so much attention, that you have failed to realize that I am not an atheist. But that reveals the black and white way most christian minds work; if he isn't a christian, then he must be an atheist because that's all the options there are in this world! Well, like most, you also make it a way of life to talk out of your ass. Oh mew wmwmeww booo hoooo oohoho hboob o oo o o on o o ooo in the name of the father we are SO persecuted!! The youth group might not be able to afford to go to the water park this summer because we had to buy a new van for them!!! Spare me the mindless, unrealistic rhetoric of your bloated American christian ego. You aren't persecuted for being a christian. You're, at most, told to keep it to yourself. (And before you blow an -o- ring on those satisfied female parts, I'm talking about out in the world, this is a religion forum, this is a place for you to spew your shit babble) When someone tries to make a law saying your faith should be illegal, then you can fall on your sword for your faith on an internet forum. (And I whole-heartedly welcome your descision to do so when that times comes) What I have found to be the most common cause of your supposed persecution, is that you feel so strongly in your particular version of christianity that you can't handle people not letting you beat them over the head with it. And that certainty is where your baseless accusations of persecution originate: not being able to stand anyone not validating your beliefs by sharing in them.

Again, that free will argument goes back to your dumb comment on accepting the divinity of Jesus in order to participate in an argument about his divinity. It's just plain wrong. Remember, these are the excuses you feed yourself to justify your faith in Jesus. I don't need it to convince myself of anything. Standing outside a group of people and saying everything they do justifies your beliefs doesn't mean jack shit to the group.

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh, I think the battle wounds of the religion forum I have are deeper and older than yours. You pay so much attention, that you have failed to realize that I am not an atheist. But that reveals the black and white way most christian minds work; if he isn't a christian, then he must be an atheist because that's all the options there are in this world! Well, like most, you also make it a way of life to talk out of your ass. Oh mew wmwmeww booo hoooo oohoho hboob o oo o o on o o ooo in the name of the father we are SO persecuted!! The youth group might not be able to afford to go to the water park this summer because we had to buy a new van for them!!! Spare me the mindless, unrealistic rhetoric of your bloated American christian ego. You aren't persecuted for being a christian. You're, at most, told to keep it to yourself. (And before you blow an -o- ring on those satisfied female parts, I'm talking about out in the world, this is a religion forum, this is a place for you to spew your shit babble) When someone tries to make a law saying your faith should be illegal, then you can fall on your sword for your faith on an internet forum. (And I whole-heartedly welcome your descision to do so when that times comes) What I have found to be the most common cause of your supposed persecution, is that you feel so strongly in your particular version of christianity that you can't handle people not letting you beat them over the head with it. And that certainty is where your baseless accusations of persecution originate: not being able to stand anyone not validating your beliefs by sharing in them.

Again, that free will argument goes back to your dumb comment on accepting the divinity of Jesus in order to participate in an argument about his divinity. It's just plain wrong. Remember, these are the excuses you feed yourself to justify your faith in Jesus. I don't need it to convince myself of anything. Standing outside a group of people and saying everything they do justifies your beliefs doesn't mean jack shit to the group.

hang giljotiini gun_bandana gunsmilie

~ Ca Ca Ca Combo Breaker!~

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh, I think the battle wounds of the religion forum I have are deeper and older than yours. You pay so much attention, that you have failed to realize that I am not an atheist. But that reveals the black and white way most christian minds work; if he isn't a christian, then he must be an atheist because that's all the options there are in this world! Well, like most, you also make it a way of life to talk out of your ass. Oh mew wmwmeww booo hoooo oohoho hboob o oo o o on o o ooo in the name of the father we are SO persecuted!! The youth group might not be able to afford to go to the water park this summer because we had to buy a new van for them!!! Spare me the mindless, unrealistic rhetoric of your bloated American christian ego. You aren't persecuted for being a christian. You're, at most, told to keep it to yourself. (And before you blow an -o- ring on those satisfied female parts, I'm talking about out in the world, this is a religion forum, this is a place for you to spew your shit babble) When someone tries to make a law saying your faith should be illegal, then you can fall on your sword for your faith on an internet forum. (And I whole-heartedly welcome your descision to do so when that times comes) What I have found to be the most common cause of your supposed persecution, is that you feel so strongly in your particular version of christianity that you can't handle people not letting you beat them over the head with it. And that certainty is where your baseless accusations of persecution originate: not being able to stand anyone not validating your beliefs by sharing in them.

Again, that free will argument goes back to your dumb comment on accepting the divinity of Jesus in order to participate in an argument about his divinity. It's just plain wrong. Remember, these are the excuses you feed yourself to justify your faith in Jesus. I don't need it to convince myself of anything. Standing outside a group of people and saying everything they do justifies your beliefs doesn't mean jack shit to the group.

Well, I do owe you an apology. Based on the posts written by you that I have read, I assumed you were an atheist. That was wrong, and I'm sorry for that. If you stated what your beliefs are very early on in the thread, I'm afraid I missed them. Excuse me.

I like that you held onto my comment about being satisfied. Since I mentioned it in a completely different forum on this website, I don't think a lot of people here really get it, and I take no offense to it. Glad you remember me for something so positive.

I never said I am physically persecuted for being a Christian. What I said is that Christians are demeaned and ridiculed much more than atheists are, and what's more, the rest of the world welcomes it. Any other religion has the protection of political correctness. Schools and workplaces take great measures to make sure Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and other non-Christian individuals are not offended by anything, but no such measures are made for Christian individuals. If that's not how it is in places other than the United States, clue me in, because while I've never lived in a foreign country I have traveled to many of them and have found that Christians are even more dismissed in the rest of the world.

I think you're being a little too sensitive to actually wish me dead...I find your rants that these giant, powerful Christians just pick on everyone else a little hard to swallow. I grew up in a secular school system, so I know many people with all kinds of belief systems and nobody ever picked on anyone. I have Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and atheist friends and I'm pretty sure none of them would ever say that I or any other Christian they know can't stand them just because of what they believe. It's how a person represents themselves that makes me like or dislike them and I think you're doing a pretty poor job of representing yourself and whatever your belief system is by wishing me to fall on my proverbial sword.

Someone defended my dumb comment and explained it....so you're the only one that's called it dumb so far. But once again, that's just you deciding to resort to name calling and death wishes.

Originally posted by willofthewisp

Someone defended my dumb comment and explained it....so you're the only one that's called it dumb so far. But once again, that's just you deciding to resort to name calling and death wishes.

Seriously, you are in no position to say that after you make the assumption you made.

Damn, you were wrong. It's ok, but don't try to lessen the blow yourself.

What?

Between when I posted it and now, Devil King is the only one that really argued with me on the divinity issue, so that's not wrong.

You really consider anything that's said on a forum a blow to someone else? Devil King has his opinions and I have mine. There is no right and wrong here unless people resort to attacking the person rather than the post. Devil King seems to like resorting to keep referring to something I said in the general discussion post and wishing me to fall on a sword and die. That's wrong.

Generally speaking, the person who you made the comment to should be the one to excuse you, not yourself.

Wonder when this changed...

Edit: (To comment on to the edit you made) The insult came after you made an assumption of what he believes in. I'm not sure why you said that, and I could make assertions as to why you did that, but that solves nothing.

It seemed completely in line from this PC monitor.

Making an assumption is not the same as wishing someone dead. Both things were out of line, but two wrongs don't make a right. I made an assumption based on what I had read, nothing more. If someone mistook me for being something I'm not, I would correct them and that would be it.

I fail to understand why these threads start out in the spirit of good-natured debate/discussion and turn into who can make the other person appear stupid. When I argue, I use research and personal experience. Oh, and I apologize when I am proven wrong on something. I don't need to apologize for my opinions or just accept being insulted.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
What?

Between when I posted it and now, Devil King is the only one that really argued with me on the divinity issue, so that's not wrong.

You really consider anything that's said on a forum a blow to someone else? Devil King has his opinions and I have mine. There is no right and wrong here unless people resort to attacking the person rather than the post. Devil King seems to like resorting to keep referring to something I said in the general discussion post and wishing me to fall on a sword and die. That's wrong.

Ya, your right. Falling on a sword is so yesterday. Everyone knows that flying airplanes into buildings is the modern thing to do.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Well, I do owe you an apology. Based on the posts written by you that I have read, I assumed you were an atheist. That was wrong, and I'm sorry for that. If you stated what your beliefs are very early on in the thread, I'm afraid I missed them. Excuse me.

I like that you held onto my comment about being satisfied. Since I mentioned it in a completely different forum on this website, I don't think a lot of people here really get it, and I take no offense to it. Glad you remember me for something so positive.

I never said I am physically persecuted for being a Christian. What I said is that Christians are demeaned and ridiculed much more than atheists are, and what's more, the rest of the world welcomes it. Any other religion has the protection of political correctness. Schools and workplaces take great measures to make sure Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and other non-Christian individuals are not offended by anything, but no such measures are made for Christian individuals. If that's not how it is in places other than the United States, clue me in, because while I've never lived in a foreign country I have traveled to many of them and have found that Christians are even more dismissed in the rest of the world.

I think you're being a little too sensitive to actually wish me dead...I find your rants that these giant, powerful Christians just pick on everyone else a little hard to swallow. I grew up in a secular school system, so I know many people with all kinds of belief systems and nobody ever picked on anyone. I have Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and atheist friends and I'm pretty sure none of them would ever say that I or any other Christian they know can't stand them just because of what they believe. It's how a person represents themselves that makes me like or dislike them and I think you're doing a pretty poor job of representing yourself and whatever your belief system is by wishing me to fall on my proverbial sword.

Someone defended my dumb comment and explained it....so you're the only one that's called it dumb so far. But once again, that's just you deciding to resort to name calling and death wishes.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
What?

Between when I posted it and now, Devil King is the only one that really argued with me on the divinity issue, so that's not wrong.

You really consider anything that's said on a forum a blow to someone else? Devil King has his opinions and I have mine. There is no right and wrong here unless people resort to attacking the person rather than the post. Devil King seems to like resorting to keep referring to something I said in the general discussion post and wishing me to fall on a sword and die. That's wrong.

You don't owe me an apology, you owe the world the courtesy of not living in your two-sided, blak and white glass house. Of course you assumed I was an atheist, because, as I said, I don't buy into the divinity of Jesus, so I'm not a Christian, which means I must be an atheist. Creation vs Evolution, black and white, Christian vs atheist(et al).

Oh, I did hold on to the satisfied comment, because it serves as one of the 4 dumb things that I've read and constitute the foolishness of your perspective. 1 you're boyfriend satisfies you, which was out of context and irrelevant to the topic, even if had been accusing you of being a lesbian. Which I was not. 2 To discuss Jesus, you have to at least accept the premise of his divinity. 3 Christians are the only religious group in this country that are persecuted.

I never argued Jesus' divinity in this thread, as it is not a topic.

I don't recall saying you were physically beaten for being a christian. I mean, come on, it's not like you're a ***! Right? I said the idea that you (read: christians) are so put upon by having the beliefs you do, is utter garbage! The only group that persecutes christians in this country, that I can see, are other christian sects. No one is saying that you can't practice your religion, only that you keep it to yourself. You guys, however think the operative word there is "religion", while it's really "yourself". This is why people get vocal about it! It's because you want to bash your personal beliefs over someone elses head to make you feel more secure about your beliefs. Most likely because deep down, you know it's a choice, not some whispered voice you heard on a spring day as you were walking through a feild or looking at a new born baby. And if everyone doesn't instantly agree with your beliefs, you tell them they're persecuting you. People call Obama a muslim because what? He's from the middle east? Or is that an insult? Hillarly is called a rabid socialist because what? Socialists are equated with atheists, and atheists are scum and killl babies, like Stalin and Hitler? Or is that an insult? I've never heard anyone go "HEY, so-and-so is an upstanding christian! I bet he eats babies and raises your taxes!" Doesn't happen. I've heard people call others "f@ggot!" and read stories of them being killed for it. I've heard "Hey niggar! Let's string 'em up". Never heard "Hey, I bet that guy's a christian! Let's castrate him and hang him by his toes! Doesn't happen.

I also find it amazing that in one post you know what a proverbial sword is, yet in another want to tell me I hope you die. Ugh-ugh-um; in my best Gav voice *um...persecution complex, much?...* I encourage you to do it because I know a law making your christianity illegal will NEVER happen in this nation that so belittles and demeans you.

Why join the military of a nation that so looks down on you? Please. Martyr complex?

Devil King...why are you so angry?

i would be 2 gav. will takes so much offense, and believes christians are persecuted, which is hilarious because christians are basically the only ones in this country does the persecuting

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Devil King...why are you so angry?

Not angry: disgusted. I'm disgusted.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i would be 2 gav. will takes so much offense, and believes christians are persecuted, which is hilarious because christians are basically the only ones in this country does the persecuting

American?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
American?

He doesn't know you are in Scotland. Even though your avatar says so.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i would be 2 gav. will takes so much offense, and believes christians are persecuted, which is hilarious because christians are basically the only ones in this country does the persecuting

You're a bigot and perfect evidence for will's point.

"Why join the military of a nation that so looks down on you? Please. Martyr complex?"------------Devil King

Because some of us believe in making the world a better place, and the military is a place where people of all beliefs can respect each other and work together to accomplish great things.

You take the word "persecution" and apply it to only its most severe context, which concerns people getting physically beaten and strung up and what-not for their beliefs. That's not what I'm talking about at all. Watch your average television program or read a novel that deals with religion and you will see other faiths are given the protection of political correctness and a sort of reverance, whereas Christian characters and concepts are either maniacs or hick-ish simpletons. It's offensive, and it's non-Christians who are doing that.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
"Why join the military of a nation that so looks down on you? Please. Martyr complex?"------------Devil King

Because some of us believe in making the world a better place, and the military is a place where people of all beliefs can respect each other and work together to accomplish great things.

As long as they don't talk about their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
You take the word "persecution" and apply it to only its most severe context, which concerns people getting physically beaten and strung up and what-not for their beliefs. That's not what I'm talking about at all. Watch your average television program or read a novel that deals with religion and you will see other faiths are given the protection of political correctness and a sort of reverance, whereas Christian characters and concepts are either maniacs or hick-ish simpletons. It's offensive, and it's non-Christians who are doing that. I agree, it's a big problem that, in particular Islam, gets so much consideration for their ridiculous believes. We live in a free society and as such everyone that writes a book should have the right to express their views on any Religion. Of course, the biggest of them all, will likely get the most negative press.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As long as they don't talk about their sexual orientation.

Is that really the kind of thing that comes up a lot in the army anyway?

I sympathize with DKs feelings. Though I admit these American Christians are...bind boggling- totally alien to anything I have personal contact with...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is that really the kind of thing that comes up a lot in the army anyway?

Wouldn't know, shouldn't be a problem if it did though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wouldn't know, shouldn't be a problem if it did though.

Don't they kick homosexual servicemen out of the American Army if they "come out"?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Don't they kick homosexual servicemen out of the American Army if they "come out"?

I think so. At least I thought that is what "Don't ask, don't tell" means.

Should an Army Priest who took confession of a gay soldier inform that soldiers commanding officer of his homosexuality then?

Just to veer this back to confession,

Does anyone take issue with the view that it should be a person's right, not to take the stand in any circumstance?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Should an Army Priest who took confession of a gay soldier inform that soldiers commanding officer of his homosexuality then?

Just to veer this back to confession,

Does anyone take issue with the view that it should be a person's right, not to take the stand in any circumstance?
Yeah, that was my stance. No one should be forced to bear witness.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
"Why join the military of a nation that so looks down on you? Please. Martyr complex?"------------Devil King

Because some of us believe in making the world a better place, and the military is a place where people of all beliefs can respect each other and work together to accomplish great things.

You take the word "persecution" and apply it to only its most severe context, which concerns people getting physically beaten and strung up and what-not for their beliefs. That's not what I'm talking about at all. Watch your average television program or read a novel that deals with religion and you will see other faiths are given the protection of political correctness and a sort of reverance, whereas Christian characters and concepts are either maniacs or hick-ish simpletons. It's offensive, and it's non-Christians who are doing that.

You're making the world a better place by spreading the ideas of hate and intolerance and the superiority of your life?

No, I do not take the word persecution to it's extremes. As I have already pointed out. Just because you repeat the same false accusation again, doesn't make it true.

Television? See if you can point to the atheist channel? Where is that one my dial? I can point you to no less than 10 religion channels, though.

Persecuted much?

Originally posted by Devil King
Television? See if you can point to the atheist channel? Where is that one my dial? I can point you to no less than 10 religion channels, though.

Persecuted much?

A point that would only hold if:

1) atheists tried to get their own channel
2) something other than the market blocked the attempt

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A point that would only hold if:

1) atheists tried to get their own channel
2) something other than the market blocked the attempt

Could you imagine, in the US, what would happen if someone tried to start an atheist channel. You would see almost every Christian group in the US screaming their heads off.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Could you imagine, in the US, what would happen if someone tried to start an atheist channel. You would see almost every Christian group in the US screaming their heads off.

And all the ragheads too, right? I mean if were going to presecute one group for the actions of a few it might as well go all around.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A point that would only hold if:

1) atheists tried to get their own channel
2) something other than the market blocked the attempt

Well, then I'm sure that every person on those 10 religious channels believe they are participating in the only channel that is not atheist and sinful.

And there's no more a reason for an atheist channel than there is for a christian channel. But see, contrary to what most people of a christian persuasion seem to think, atheism doesn't consume the atheist in the same way christianity does the christian. But they think it does, because they don't understand the concept of no religion.

Wide band seems to work pretty well. It encompasses everyone.

What would an atheist channel entail? Someone preaching on the proof that these is no God? I don't think many people would tune in, unless of course the guy preaching used some funny gimmick that we often see with the religious TV personalities. Like that TV preacher who randomly starts babbling in gibberish and claims "the Lord" is in him. Always worth a laugh.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, then I'm sure that every person on those 10 religious channels believe they are participating in the only channel that is not atheist and sinful.

Nice use of reason and thought. Imagine if someone jumped to conclusions based on nothing but fear hatred and ignorance. Oh, wait lulz.

Originally posted by Devil King
And there's no more a reason for an atheist channel than there is for a christian channel. But see, contrary to what most people of a christian persuasion seem to think, atheism doesn't consume the atheist in the same way christianity does the christian. But they think it does, because they don't understand the concept of no religion.

Then there's no need or desire for an atheist channel. Stop being a whiny little *****.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A point that would only hold if:

1) atheists tried to get their own channel
2) something other than the market blocked the attempt

it holds just fine

the argument wasn't that atheists are persecuted (at least not what I read of it) but rather that Christians are not.

Having the finances and market share to have 10 channels (at least half a dozen where I am from) is something I think is very difficult to equate with persecution.

probably not good to jump on ship with an argument that boils down to "When people don't believe what I do and say something to the effect of why they are persecuting my belief".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And all the ragheads too, right? I mean if were going to presecute one group for the actions of a few it might as well go all around.

"ragheads" normally don't have the political or financial clout to enact that type of change, and by in large, American Muslims are happy with freedom of speech.

During the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, many American publications refused to publish the pictures of Mohammed, and were rightly criticized (though admittedly, the critics were in the minority, many citing the violence in Pakistan rather than religious sensitivities. Possibly take it as a symbol of pride that people know Christians aren't psychopaths and can take a good ribbing now and then).

Originally posted by inimalist
probably not good to jump on ship with an argument that boils down to "When people don't believe what I do and say something to the effect of why they are persecuting my belief".

Of course that's a good argument against any beliefs when people are allowed to generalize the entire population

Originally posted by inimalist
"ragheads" normally don't have the political or financial clout to enact that type of change, and by in large, American Muslims are happy with freedom of speech.

Enacting change was not mentioned.

I was simply pointing out that while people are happy to assume that "all Christians" follow a certain view point people tend to go on a PC bender if someone makes an equivalent claim about other faiths.

Originally posted by inimalist
Possibly take it as a symbol of pride that people know Christians aren't psychopaths and can take a good ribbing now and then.

I'll remember that philosophy the next time I nail a flaming cross in a black guy's yard.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course that's a good argument against any beliefs when people are allowed to generalize the entire population

I wasn't generalizing anything. You seem to be agreeing that someone on television voicing an opinion against Christianity or in some way derogatory of Christian dogma constitutes persecution.

Or you are saying that the mainstream media isn't nuanced in its portrayal of the diversity in Christian belief?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Enacting change was not mentioned.

I was simply pointing out that while people are happy to assume that "all Christians" follow a certain view point people tend to go on a PC bender if someone makes an equivalent claim about other faiths.

I don't necessarily agree with this. On this forum, at the very least, the prophet of Islam is called a pedophile quite often.

But, lets be honest, Christians are in many ways among the only groups to complain in society because they are privileged enough to do so. The Jews have the anti-defamation league, which is a huge organization, Christians have many similar organizations. They enjoy the prosperity to set up groups to organize campaigns to institute their agenda into media and government. You cannot do this as effectively if you are a minority. Yes, there are very vocal groups that support minorities, and the media loves sensationalism, but feminists, humanitarian groups and many other groups are highly critical of Islam as well as defending minorities from majority persecution.

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? In the 80s an artist took a picture of a crucifix in a bottle of urine and almost had all federal arts funding in America shut down. Christians are very active in making sure they are depicted well in the media.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'll remember that philosophy the next time I nail a flaming cross in a black guy's yard.

that example proves my point though

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nice use of reason and thought. Imagine if someone jumped to conclusions based on nothing but fear hatred and ignorance. Oh, wait lulz.



Then there's no need or desire for an atheist channel. Stop being a whiny little *****.



Thanks, you just proved my point. You can't understand it. But, like most, you've translated that fear of being wrong or that you're wasting your time into an overpowering sense of certainty and disgust with everyone who disagrees with you.

There is no logic in this argument. That's been my position all along. Well, that and folks like yourself. There's no need for an atheist channel. There's no need for Total Christ Television, either.

I can't believe you put that much effort into calling me a b*tch. You've really got to be committed to an insult to type out that many brackets.

Originally posted by Devil King
Thanks, you just proved my point. You can't understand it. But, like most, you've translated that fear of being wrong or that you're wasting your time into an overpowering sense of certainty and disgust with everyone who disagrees with you.

There is no logic in this argument. That's been my position all along. Well, that and folks like yourself. There's no need for an atheist channel. There's no need for Total Christ Television, either.

I can't believe you put that much effort into calling me a b*tch. You've really got to be committed to an insult to type out that many brackets. the way he acts towards other people is rediculus. a single disagreement and he procedes to try to rip them apart.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
the way he acts towards other people is rediculus. a single disagreement and he procedes to try to rip them apart.

And what's up with that name. It doesn't even make sense, lulz.

Originally posted by Devil King
Thanks, you just proved my point. You can't understand it. But, like most, you've translated that fear of being wrong or that you're wasting your time into an overpowering sense of certainty and disgust with everyone who disagrees with you.

I only react with disgust to people who's actions disgust me. While you seem content to be disgusted by any mention of religion and then quickly turn that same spittle on individuals who follow it without apparent regard for any other factors.

Originally posted by Devil King
There is no logic in this argument. That's been my position all along. Well, that and folks like yourself.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here. What are those sentences trying to say?

Originally posted by Devil King
There's no need for an atheist channel. There's no need for Total Christ Television, either.

Of course not. But the desire clearly exists which is far more important in reality. Nobody needs any television channel so we only have the ones that the market can support due to what people want. Your welcome to go sulk that people want to hear drivel you disagree with rather than drivel you agree with.

Originally posted by Devil King
I can't believe you put that much effort into calling me a b*tch. You've really got to be committed to an insult to type out that many brackets.

I've got a Notepad document full of useful things like that. Don't go thinking you're so special unless it helps you get through the day.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, then I'm sure that every person on those 10 religious channels believe they are participating in the only channel that is not atheist and sinful.

And there's no more a reason for an atheist channel than there is for a christian channel. But see, contrary to what most people of a christian persuasion seem to think, atheism doesn't consume the atheist in the same way christianity does the christian. But they think it does, because they don't understand the concept of no religion.

Is there a "demand" for any kind of channel? Do we really need 2/3 of the channels that are out there? Was there really a "demand" for E! and all those other pointless channels out there? It's a small point of your argument, but just because a type of programming is not in demand doesn't mean people don't have the right to broadcast it. Christians have a right to express their faith and non-Christians (and even some Christians) have the right to not watch. Hence the beauty of freedom of religious expression.

That said, what do you mean by "consume?" I have met a person or two that I would call a "zealot," but faiths are supposed to have heavy influence on a person's life. If Christianity "consumes" a Christian, then Islam "consumes" a Muslim and so on. That's not something that is unique to Christianity, so it's once again you deciding to pick on one particular religion rather than all of them. Everyone is consumed by something, rather it is religion or not. Some people live for their jobs, live for music they make, etc. It's called passion and when religion is involved, it's called inspiration. If the Christian religion consumes someone to the point where they feel it necessary to, I don't know, be a good neighbor, be more charitable, and pray for others, then that certainly is better than being consumed by bitterness and self-righteousness.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I don't know, be a good neighbor, be more charitable, and pray for others, then that certainly is better than being consumed by bitterness and self-righteousness.

this line made me lulz for reals

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I only react with disgust to people who's actions disgust me. While you seem content to be disgusted by any mention of religion and then quickly turn that same spittle on individuals who follow it without apparent regard for any other factors.

Oh, I have no doubt I disgust you. That's the knee jerk reaction of most people with a self-imposed christian perspective. And you'll rarely find me disgusted with people of faith or members of one religion over another, until they feel the need to tell me that unless I believe what they believe and the way they believe it, that I am somehow persecuting them. All I ask is that they take a moment and realize that their rights are not more important than mine, simply by virtue of their faith in Jesus. But that's not what they do. They think they have some secret insight that makes their outrage justifiable. Well, they don't and it's not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. What are those sentences trying to say?

The basis of this argument is that the poor christian majority is being beaten up on by a godless, heathen society that holds them down at the point of a spear and forces them to feel bad at the end of a loaded politically correct gun barrel. Well, that's just ****ing stupid. I don't see atheists marching and screaming outside the funeral of a dead soldier, carrying vulgar, hateful signs. I don't see an atheist channel. I don't see the rights of christians being up for political debate that filters it's way down to the dinner tables and pulpits of ordinary people. Why? Because the argument is ridicuous and people of no specific organized faith or no faith at all, aren't talking about their own rights as a matter of "superior rights", they're talking about them as equal rights. Christians who take these things to an extreme are doing just the opposite. Their descision to impose certain faith-based parameters on their own lives lends them the supposed credence to display outrage at anyone else who does not. To you or Will, this is bashing christians. You people just don't get it: it has nothing to do with getting rid of Christianity or bashing it; it has everything to do with getting them to understand they aren't the only ones with rights. You guys think it's politically correct to bash christians, but not gays or muslims or jews. But I don't see a country where every one is supposed to enjoy equal rights debating your lives in regards to legality.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course not. But the desire clearly exists which is far more important in reality. Nobody needs any television channel so we only have the ones that the market can support due to what people want. Your welcome to go sulk that people want to hear drivel you disagree with rather than drivel you agree with.

Nope, the desire is not there. These channels are funded by their viewers, not the market. It's a lot like those fundraising telethons for Public Television. The difference is that the telethon season never ends. If you actually watch those channels, which I do sometimes, they spend half their time telling the viewer that if they don't send money, as often as they can, then their channel will go away and they won't be able to broadcast in the third world countries that are the only remaining market for growth in their religon. Even if atheism became a majority, there would be no need for a channel and no atheist would watch it, because atheism is not a religion. And then there is the matter of channels that broadcast certain religious programs on Sunday, who often do so at a loss of viewers and revenue while those shows are being broadcast. I'm not sulking because these channels exist. (I know you don't understand this. It was the reason for the example of the channels in the first place) People can watch whatever they want. I simply don't think there would be such a multitude of these channels if you poor christians were so persecuted.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've got a Notepad document full of useful things like that. Don't go thinking you're so special unless it helps you get through the day.

Oh, wow. I'm not sure if that's more sad or not. I don't know that I've ever met anyone with an internet forum trolling kit he keeps on his desktop. I didn't assume I was special to you, I said you have to really be committed to an insult to do that much typing for a single word to get it through the filter.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Is there a "demand" for any kind of channel? Do we really need 2/3 of the channels that are out there? Was there really a "demand" for E! and all those other pointless channels out there? It's a small point of your argument, but just because a type of programming is not in demand doesn't mean people don't have the right to broadcast it. Christians have a right to express their faith and non-Christians (and even some Christians) have the right to not watch. Hence the beauty of freedom of religious expression.

Freedom of Religious expression? In a country that persecutes and harasses Christians? How could it be?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
That said, what do you mean by "consume?" I have met a person or two that I would call a "zealot," but faiths are supposed to have heavy influence on a person's life. If Christianity "consumes" a Christian, then Islam "consumes" a Muslim and so on. That's not something that is unique to Christianity, so it's once again you deciding to pick on one particular religion rather than all of them. Everyone is consumed by something, rather it is religion or not. Some people live for their jobs, live for music they make, etc. It's called passion and when religion is involved, it's called inspiration. If the Christian religion consumes someone to the point where they feel it necessary to, I don't know, be a good neighbor, be more charitable, and pray for others, then that certainly is better than being consumed by bitterness and self-righteousness.

Ah, but there's a difference between a positive and an ultimately negative influence. If your religion (because that's what this is about, religion, not faith) is a source of strength, then that's fine. But if it becomes your crutch to further indifference, intolerance and bigotry, then it hasn't had the positive impact on your life it was meant to have.

I think all religions are goofy and have always said as much in this forum. But, it was you that said christians in the US are so picked on and degraded and harassed and persecuted. So it was you that chose christianity to be the focus of this discussion, not me.

I have no use for a quiet and polite neighbour who will walk into a voting booth with a smile on their face and cast a ballot to deny me the same rights they have.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nice use of reason and thought. Imagine if someone jumped to conclusions based on nothing but fear hatred and ignorance. Oh, wait lulz.



Then there's no need or desire for an atheist channel. Stop being a whiny little *****.
Do not try and bypass the censor!

Originally posted by Devil King
Freedom of Religious expression? In a country that persecutes and harasses Christians? How could it be?

Ah, but there's a difference between a positive and an ultimately negative influence. If your religion (because that's what this is about, religion, not faith) is a source of strength, then that's fine. But if it becomes your crutch to further indifference, intolerance and bigotry, then it hasn't had the positive impact on your life it was meant to have.

I think all religions are goofy and have always said as much in this forum. But, it was you that said christians in the US are so picked on and degraded and harassed and persecuted. So it was you that chose christianity to be the focus of this discussion, not me.

I have no use for a quiet and polite neighbour who will walk into a voting booth with a smile on their face and cast a ballot to deny me the same rights they have.

Again, you think persecution only implies physical harm. You are overlooking all the ridicule and stereotyping that goes on. Christians are only portrayed as well-meaning idiots or aggressive bigots. Look at it the way the AMC Network is showcasing the Asian population in film. When the participants are interviewed, they show resentment at the way Asians are portrayed in films and view it as persecution in the form of reinforcing stereotypes. But that doesn't mean they have all concluded the film industry evil or purposely intolerant. They just acknowledge there is a long way to go before equality and respect become a reality.

As for your last sentence, no one is talking about stripping away your rights through voting, so I, for one, fail to see what you're trying to say there. No one has suggested or encouraged voting for some kind of policy that prohibits you from speaking your mind. I just find it ridiculous that some prejudiced people here refer to everyone else that way. Pot's calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Again, you think persecution only implies physical harm. You are overlooking all the ridicule and stereotyping that goes on. Christians are only portrayed as well-meaning idiots or aggressive bigots. Look at it the way the AMC Network is showcasing the Asian population in film. When the participants are interviewed, they show resentment at the way Asians are portrayed in films and view it as persecution in the form of reinforcing stereotypes. But that doesn't mean they have all concluded the film industry evil or purposely intolerant. They just acknowledge there is a long way to go before equality and respect become a reality.

As for your last sentence, no one is talking about stripping away your rights through voting, so I, for one, fail to see what you're trying to say there. No one has suggested or encouraged voting for some kind of policy that prohibits you from speaking your mind. I just find it ridiculous that some prejudiced people here refer to everyone else that way. Pot's calling the kettle black.

However, you are ignoring all the unfair stereotypes portrayed by Christians of other religions or atheists. You don't know how many times I have been persecuted by Christians because I'm a white man who is also a Buddhist. They assume a lot about what I believe, without ever asking. How many times have I been told that I am going to hell because of their beliefs and not mine. That is a form of persecution.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Again, you think persecution only implies physical harm. You are overlooking all the ridicule and stereotyping that goes on. Christians are only portrayed as well-meaning idiots or aggressive bigots. Look at it the way the AMC Network is showcasing the Asian population in film. When the participants are interviewed, they show resentment at the way Asians are portrayed in films and view it as persecution in the form of reinforcing stereotypes. But that doesn't mean they have all concluded the film industry evil or purposely intolerant. They just acknowledge there is a long way to go before equality and respect become a reality.

As for your last sentence, no one is talking about stripping away your rights through voting, so I, for one, fail to see what you're trying to say there. No one has suggested or encouraged voting for some kind of policy that prohibits you from speaking your mind. I just find it ridiculous that some prejudiced people here refer to everyone else that way. Pot's calling the kettle black.

Are you mental? You keep telling me that I am talking only about physical harm and I have repeatedly said that is not the case. In fact, all one has to do is read my posts and understand english for that accusation to be soundly untrue.

And homosexuals are protrayed only as freakishly femenine flamers that float 2 feet off the ground when they skip by carrying their purse and telling you how to decorate your living room! Use your own example, which I'm not familiar with, but applies. You're saying christians are the most persecuted group in the country and then you point out how Asians are misrepresented and persecuted?

I completely understand you fail to see my point. That is your problem. You keep repeating the same argument and totally failing to understand any one's response to it. Freedom of speech is not my point. All rights, period, are my point. And you are sitting there telling me that as a gay man I have the same rights as you? And that you wouldn't walk into a voting booth and cast a ballot for a homosexual not to have the rights to equal marriage? But, lets go one step further and apply your inability to get over freedom of speech. You are aparently outraged at teh way christians are persecuted, but acknowledge only your right to belittle and persecute others by saying what ever you will about them. But then you turn around and think it's unfair when people exercise that same right in regards to their opinion of christianity? You call it persecution.

Media stereotypes hardly constitute prejudice...

Christian media outlets, and non-Christian ones, have the right to portray people of any race, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender, class, religion, etc, in as uni- or mullti-dimensional a light as they see fit.

I think the point needs to be made that, as entertainment, archetypes are much more suitable for, at least American, mainstream tastes.

Originally posted by inimalist
Media stereotypes hardly constitute prejudice...

Christian media outlets, and non-Christian ones, have the right to portray people of any race, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender, class, religion, etc, in as uni- or mullti-dimensional a light as they see fit.

I think the point needs to be made that, as entertainment, archetypes are much more suitable for, at least American, mainstream tastes.

That's what I'm saying. All groups are stereotyped in media. But there are no atheists channels because atheists see no need for one, because they aren't propogating an agenda. Atheists or non-denominationalists don't need anyone to agree with them. They simply need not to be bashed over the heads with christian's opinion and condemnation. But when it happens to a christian, they cry prejudice and unfair persecution and immeadiately profess their right to do the same thing as protected by freedom of speech and religion. They seem to think that they should be protected from criticism or rebuttal simply by virtue that they are christians. Well, those rights don't magically become more important when the person possesing them is a christian.

It's why they always make up the argument that America was founded by and for christians.

As for the last sentence, why not just say "mainstream tastes"? Why does it have to be "American" mainstream tastes?

Originally posted by Devil King
That's what I'm saying. All groups are stereotyped in media.

of course. Wait, as a male, you are a sex crazy booze drinking, beer bellied, slob jock right? don't have 3 working brain cells? Obnoxious friends your wife/partner hates?

men are oppressed!

Originally posted by Devil King
But there are no atheists channels because atheists see no need for one, because they aren't propogating an agenda. Atheists or non-denominationalists don't need anyone to agree with them.

I just think it is that there is no demand for programming that just re-iterates atheists believe to themselves, largely because atheists normally define themselves by other lines, like political or social, rather than religious, and have massively various tastes.

That being said, the plethora of atheist books have done gangbusters, so to say there isn't a market or that atheists don't want propoganda is a mistakes imho. Sam Harris talks about something related at the atheist alliance banquet: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6c.

Especially pay attention to the woman who introduces her. It is exactly like she is describing a religious experience when describing Harris' book. And I agree with everything he has to say about why calling oneself an atheist is unhelpful. Personally, I'm more a fan of Jonathan Miller's reasoning: http://www.abriefhistoryofdisbelief.org/ (I don't have a special word for disbelief in faeries and unicorns) but it is good.

But ya, a general skeptical/atheist channel on TV... maybe its just a numbers thing, I largely don't think there are many differences between large organized groups. If atheists become so organized, a propoganda outpost would probably be in their interests.

Originally posted by Devil King
They simply need not to be bashed over the heads with christian's opinion and condemnation. But when it happens to a christian, they cry prejudice and unfair persecution and immeadiately profess their right to do the same thing as protected by freedom of speech and religion. They seem to think that they should be protected from criticism or rebuttal simply by virtue that they are christians. Well, those rights don't magically become more important when the person possesing them is a christian.

we are in total agreement.

In a country where calling someone possibly having at one point been a Muslim could make them unelectable, it seems laughable to think Christians are oppressed.

However, they think not saying prayer in school is oppression of their beliefs.

(and by they I am refering to christians who think this. If you don't thats great, I'm not the idiot you should be pissed at. Its not like I'm making stuff up).

Originally posted by Devil King
It's why they always make up the argument that America was founded by and for christians.

Which, were I an American, I would spend the majority of my time trying to debunk. Most founding fathers, at least those I am familiar with, were very strongly against the power of the church and religion in the political sphere.

Originally posted by Devil King
As for the last sentence, why not just say "mainstream tastes"? Why does it have to be "American" mainstream tastes?

Its all I am really familiar with, aside from Canadian, which is ok. We make good art house movies, better than some American, but there isn't enough of a distinction to warrant them being different genres, more just different flavours.

It wasn't a put down, more just specifying what I was talking about.