"Also the gospels and letters that appear in the Bible were chosen by the Roman Catholic Church, not exactly the most open institution in the world."

Let's not let Prots off the hook, they simply axed whole books of the Bible that were inconvenient for their sola doctrines.

"My point is you cannot be too literal with religious texts, because religion is an ideal of living life, not a book of law (or should not be)."

Too literal? Nobody can midrash their way out of the fact that their god sanctioned horrific crimes, that Jesus claimed he was not overturning Mosaic law, and that if Jesus overturned Mosaic law he isn't fulfilling the OT prophecies he claims to have fulfilled.

At some point words have some meaning, or is the bible now an elaborate mad libs exercise, or something written by Mitt Romney, where it is all things to everyone?

The idea that this drivel is about love and peace is sheer nonsense. It's like saying Mein Kampf is about racial tolerance.

"The idea of an infallible Putin is perfect though, isn't it? Shall we start our own religion? Putinism? Divinism?"

When you got nothing, make it about Putin. *Yawn*

" The Christian religion is responsible for the wacked-out claims of any politician who says they subscribe to it?"

As if it was one or two wackos and that's it. That's the thing with you guys, you never take responsibility for what your religion is doing. It's supposed to be one church, and you do nothing but find excuses as to why Christianity can't be held responsible for what a huge number of its adherents and the main organizations are doing.

"Will you agree to the same standard for Communism?"

I've defended that standard. I don't sit here and claim you can't judge communists based on what 90% of the communist countries have done, as you Christians do with Christianity. I take accountability for the record of CP-run states. Try doing the same for once.

Putin, the problem is that you have no understanding of what it means to trust God, and instead of searching for truth through dialogue and debate, your words tell the world that you are more interested in provoking Christians. Yes, the passages you quote from scripture are some of the hardest to understand and accept, even for Christians. The good news is that you don't have to accept everything in scripture to come to God, because God himself opened a door to communication between you and him through Jesus' miraculous life, death on the cross, and resurrection, and the gifting of the Holy Spirit. As for Christians taking responsibility for others' actions, even if they call themselves Christians, that's totally unreasonable because anyone can call himself or herself a Christian, but the Bible says that we will know them by their love.

"
As if it was one or two wackos and that's it. That's the thing with you guys, you never take responsibility for what your religion is doing. It's supposed to be one church, and you do nothing but find excuses as to why Christianity can't be held responsible for what a huge number of its adherents and the main organizations are doing."

OK, please point me to the numerous Christians who have been saying the HPV vaccine causes autism.

Also, Putin, you don't understand that Christianity is not a worldly philosophy. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world," so don't expect Christian "organizations" to be the enemy of any particular economic philosophy. However, in the spiritual sense, Christians stand opposed to Satan, the prince of this world, and any organization that's strongly influenced by Satan will naturally put itself in opposition to any Christian organization, to freedom of religion, to freedom of evangelism. That's why Christians are jailed every week in China for practicing "unauthorized religion," why communist governments want to control religion (China appoints religious leaders, for example, including Catholic priests and bishops).

Oooh I can play, Semck! Start here. Not autism specific but...

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/vaccines/mayHV1-1.pdf

It's more common than you think amongst the more idiotic faithful. After all: let no man dare cure what god has chosen to die a slow, horrible death.

Wikipedia has a fun little summary too if you type "vaccine controversies."

Ooh, are we playing how the churc has 'indirectly' killed millions through backwards policy making and misinformation?

Yellowjacket, I'd to play AIDS! How many points do I get?

And, of course, a wiki article for support

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_AIDS

I love how all the religious people in this debate keep admonishing the irreligious people to come to the question with an open mind, willing to "accept the truth as it is". You're kinda giving the game away with your wording there if you see what I mean. You're going into the debate saying that you already believe in your god and your religion as "true". It's not just "I believe this" it's "This is true" so you go in certain that you're correct, and now you're admonishing Putin to do the opposite. Taking a critical approach to an opposing viewpoint is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a debate, and if the only way you can debate is if your opponent takes a naive approach rather than a critical one, you might want to reevaluate your position.

Agnosticism is truly the best approach I think. I won't believe there is a god unless I get sufficient proof of it, but nor will I completely dismiss the idea unless it is proved there is not.

Except you would deny the truth if it were in front of your face, because your mind is made up. Plenty of people over time have examined the complexity of the universe and concluded it is sufficiently complex to denote intelligent design (if you are afraid to use the word "God") Bring in the whole 3rd Law argument (you'll know what I mean if you know it, otherwise I'm too tired to explain)....there is plenty of "proof" if you choose to accept it as such.

Diplomat33 - The problem with that stance is that universal proof of a negative proposition is impossible. You cannot ever conclusively prove that something does not, has not, and will not ever exist.

@Krellin I'm sorry man but that's just not true.

I can think of dozens of things that would make me an instant believer, and many of them are far less ridiculous or absurd than things presented as history by the Bible.

My mind is not, "made up," as you say. I'm kinda like Diplomat, actually. An agnostic in principle, an atheist in practice. Until God makes his desires known to me (directly, don't give me any bullshit now) then he has no claim on my soul, and certainly none on my actions.

@Mafia haha doesn't that mean it takes more faith to be an atheist than it takes to be a theist? Knowing you can absolutely never have your belief validated? I fully admit to splitting hairs here, I've just never considered it from the angle you present.

As I said, I am not a believer. I don't look at the Bible from the perspective of an infallible book but more as a collection of the ideas of the leaders of Christianity when it started.

But the reason I don't believe is not because of the inconsistencies of the Bible. I just feel that I have no need for a God to guide me; I'm fine thank you.

The entire idea of the universe being so complex it MUST have a designer is simply lazy.

Just because you can't conceive of how things work doesn't mean you need God to make it so. It says more about the inadequacies of your own abilities than it does about any need for a Goddidit.

Ancient people used gods to explain thunder, tides, and creation. You're using your god to explain why you're here. Its equally silly.

We know a lot more than we did ten years ago. Or a thousand years ago. Imagine how much better we'll understand the universe in another thousand years.

I'm probably being too optimistic. By then, Scientology will be the dominant religion, and there will be an entirely new set of superstitious bullshit out there.

I've often wondered if Abraham or Moses ever confessed that they made shit up to their wives and their wives just keep it secret for them. You know, like L Ron Hubbard confessed that he made up Scientology to make money? Of course, that just proves some people are so gullible they'll believe the fiction even when the writer tells them it is pure fiction. Like teenage girls and Twilight...

Hey, David Koresh probably believed his own bullshit.

Doesn't make the bullshit any less so. For all we know, any given "prophet" could have thought they're completely in earnest and not lying at all.

I think after a certain point JK, you have to believe it. You gotta drink your own koolaid.

Jack, you're right as far as philosophy and religious constructs go. But once you've engaged the real God of the universe, you'll know, because it's amazing! However, that's just one person telling you my own experience. As long as you're not ready to listen to the evidence because your mind is already made up, there's not much hope that you'll understand. I'm very sorry about that.

The real God, of course, being Mr. C. Newsome, of 138 Cornmarket Road, Oxford, OX, UK

Are you sure it isn't Mr. and Mrs. Samuel E. Brainsample?

@YJ, I looked at both of those sources, and neither one says a single thing about religious people claiming HPV causes autism. Care to enlighten on their relevance?

HPV vaccine, rather.

As I stated straight out, Semck my friend, they don't directly relate to HPV or autism, but they do make a general case (which I feel encompasses your specific one) that whatever its intent, in practice religion has not been a friend to the advances of medicine or science.

And for good reason! After all, science dares to answer with logic and reason what religion can only answer with millenia-old speculation, and medicine dares to offer the cures previously reserved for millenia-old Jesus.

...You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5)

Make any sense?

Yeah. You assume I haven't spent part of my life genuinely seeking God. I've asked. Alone in my room, in a church, in a mosque, and even in the wide open prairie.

There is no god. Never was, never will be. We created him because the world is scary and confusing, and it feels good to have a made up father figure to reassure us that there is a plan, and we're part of it.

I find it far more liberating to realize that my life has precisely as much meaning as I choose to put into it. Master of my own destiny, Pinocchio realized that there are no strings.

Its liberating.


Also, Mujus, the only difference between the voice in your head that you call God, and the voice in the schizophrenic's head saying to take a shit on the salad bar at Wendy's is that your delusion enjoys widespread acceptance.

*clap* WELL SAID Jack. I found myself nodding, then grinning, then laughing out loud.

I'm seriously considering making your last paragraph my new facebook status.

Also, I think Mujus has had me muted even before this conversation. What did I do to deserve that?

"...You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5)

Make any sense? "

Well, not really. Christianity has not historically been against medicine, and most of the developers of modern medicine were Christians. So the fact that a few sects have gone in the anti-medicine direction is not too much of an argument, imho. Of course, I was pointing out a specific error of putin's just because it's fun to try to get putin to admit he's wrong on anything. Kind of a hobby.

"but they do make a general case (which I feel encompasses your specific one) that whatever its intent, in practice religion has not been a friend to the advances of medicine or science."

That would certainly be a controversial point, of course. It would be absurd to suggest that the sources you posted come anything close to establishing it. Nor would I, in fact, grant th epoint at all. For every argument that the church has been anti-science (all citing Galileo and little else, curiously enough), there is an argument, based on decent scholarship, that Christianity enabled science in the first place.

The truth, as usual, is more complex and in between. Rare is the historical narrative that falls neatly into any partisan's hands, ready for honest employment as propoganda.

@semck83 "there is an argument, based on decent scholarship, that Christianity enabled science in the first place"

"Decent scholarship"? - I think you may find that science has been around a little longer than the Jesus Christ stories.