The argument would likely be that the choices you make during the "eyeblink" might determine how you spend eternity.

In regard to that, there are also aspects of religion which I find unfortunate.

You find it unfortunate that some people think there is more to life than +/-70 years and then getting sick and dying?

I find it unfortunate if there isn't an afterlife and people end up wasting the short time they've got planning for something that will never come.

I think it's unfortunate that people view life in that manner. I find Heaven to be a poor excuse for being judgemental.

I'm agnostic. I see nothing wrong with people applying religion to themselves. If someone needs "god has a plan" when their dog dies, or an authority figure to say "do unto others," I would not dream of denying them that. People do plenty of good for the sake of religion. But when it's applied outwardly as an excuse to judge and control others (and it frequently is), I see a problem.

We find it unfortunate when those people want to control others to behave in the ways dictated by their understanding of God and faith. That's all.

The vast majority of agnostics and atheists agree that western religions, for the most part, espouse values that are a great idea for most people to live by as a personal code. Speaking personally, the teachings attributed to Jesus are a great guide to living a happy life. But I don't need you or anybody else who believes in God and the Bible as you do expecting me to adhere to said code when it goes against the conclusions I've reached. It doesn't bother me at all if you or anyone else believes God will punish people for being gay or anything else that the Bible claims is a sin. It does bother me when you or anybody else wants to prevent me or anyone else from acting however I or we wish to, when it doesn't negatively impact you in any way.

Hang on Kevin. It sounds like you are making this personal. Leave it at "anybody". I don't think Joel has tried to force his beliefs on anyone here as far as I can tell. He has only shared them.

It is personal, for all of us. Everybody in this thread participating in the discussion is coming from his own personal viewpoint. Note that I didn't accuse anybody of personal attacks and I don't think I said anything that would be construed as such. I just think it's disingenuous for us to have a debate involving the details of religion, faith and dogma and pretend that we're not personally invested in our own parts of the discussion. So I say "you" and "I" because it's applicable. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as none of us is presuming to speak for others when we do it.

I understand what you are saying. I guess it comes down to your definition of wasting.

Since I can only speak for myself, lets use me as an example. I am 26. I am married to a woman that I love. I have 2 beautiful sons. I have a loving family and many close friends. I like beer and wine tasting, playing football on weekends, camping, boating, hunting, going to movies, playing video games, having a lot of heterosexual sex, building things, drawing, and hopefully I will soon add racing to the list:cool:. I also go to "church" 2 times a week where we study the bible. I make it a point to talk to people about my beliefs if there is an opportunity because it is a big part of who I am.

Please be honest because you can't hurt my feelings. Does this sound like I am wasting my life? I honestly don't think we are that different.

There are hundreds of thousands of religions in the world. To say that all religions push their beliefs on people and are judgemental is a false and unfair statement. I agree with Kevin and the rest of you when you say its not right to judge someone or try to control them based on what you feel is right. I can only speak for myself when I say that I do not do that in life and I don't think I have in this thread.

On the other hand, and I am not talking to any one individual here but, please do not assume what I believe. I do not believe that I will go to heaven or hell. I have had lots of pets die and I don't believe God has any plan for them. I do not believe when a person is killed in an accident that "God needed another angel". How you live your life is completely up to you and I would never try to do anything to stop you.

Let me ask a question. If an individual believes completely in their heart that there is a God and a purpose and a way to gain everlasting life free from sickness and death(like it talks about in the bible). Wouldn't you feel obglated to tell people about it?

To me that doesn't seem unfair. You already try to help people in smaller ways just on this forum. What if you posted a thread on some new tires that you absolutely love and that you feel, handle better than others you have tried. Would it be fair for someone to say "I find it unfortunate that you are trying to impose upon me what tires I should and should not run." No. That wouldn't make any sense.

I construed it as such or I would not have said something.

When you quoted Joel, using "you" implies him personally and he has not "expected" you to do anything as far as I know, just shared his beliefs as you are. Your comments would not have had less value had they said 'anybody' in place of "you or anybody else" where appropriate IMHO.

I am just suggesting we stick to "anybody", "people" and such. Yes, Joel used "you", but in terms of asking an individual a question.

As we are on one of the topics you don't discuss at a dinner party, just suggesting we all to be mindful of our word choice.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, in fact not even in the faintest. I was more thinking along the lines of a 20 year old Muslim that straps a bomb to his chest and dies because he thinks he can help his cause on the way to 72 virgins and everlasting awesomeness.

That's religion used as a brainwashing tool and not at all as a belief system for improving your life here on earth, which how most religious people I know approach religion. When religion is an all-encompassing, fundamental tenant of your life to the exclusion of everything else that's wonderful in the world, then you're doing it wrong.

But when was the last time you heard someone say, "run those tires and you're going to hell?" ;)

I've said that to anyone that plans to buy another set of RE92s.

I find that unfortunate

If people (and by people I mean me, you, Joel, and everyone else posting in this thread) are going to discuss religion/God/faith/beliefs, then a certain measure of "polite" line-toeing has already become moot. I maintain that nobody here has gone on to get into offensive territory, i.e. flaming, name-calling, etc. I just don't see the point in discussing religion in a purely abstract fashion. If I'm going to debate Joel or anybody else, it's coming down to what he believes or what I believe, and that's personal by nature. "Personal" shouldn't have to mean offensive though.

It's not a "fault", or a defect, it's a feature... to illustrate a point. My point was not that homosexuality is okay with Jesus, my point is that if is so fucking important, then why isn't it spelled out more clearly and talked about more often by Jesus in the New Testament? It is barely mentioned even by his surrogates (including one who never even met him), but it is never ever talked about specifically by him at all, aside from what you mentioned - presumptively lumping it in with general fornication/adultery/<insert any "sexual immorality" here>. Jesus was too caught up in other shit like feeding the poor and loving thy neighbor. For all I know homosexuality is as bad and unclean as premarital sex... or menstruation... or other Leviticus abominations like eating pork and shellfish... based on the NT. Just seems to be pretty low on the priority list I guess.

... <double post?>

There are many details about the law that Jesus didn't address specifically...mostly because it was unnecessary. His audience at the time was made up mostly of torah-observant jews, who needed no clarification on points of torah law. When speaking to jews (which was practically all of the time), Jesus had no need to explain that homosexuality fell under the category of sexual immorality any more than people in here need to know that street racing falls under the category of stupid driving. You don't go into details about something that everyone already knows about. This is the reason why Paul DOES go into details...because he was preaching to non-jews (gentiles) who had no prior knowledge of torah law, and who needed to be brought up to speed on specific details, or at the very least have the definitions explained. In any case, the issue of homsexuality had been clearly dealt with in the torah...a book that Jesus refered to and quoted from constantly. Many people don't seem to understand that the Old and New testaments aren't isloated form eachother, but you do have to account for cultural differences.

Just as a note about your facts...the "surrogate" who you claim never met Jesus (I assume you are talking about Paul) did in fact know Jesus, and would have heard Him teach directly. Paul was a Pharissee (part of the jewish leadership), and would have been in Jerusalem every time Jesus came there to teach. Paul and Jesus could have easily met and talked beforehand. Just because the bible doesn't specifically record an event, doesn't mean it didn't happen. In addition, the bible teaches that Paul did talk to Jesus on several occasions after Jesus' resurrection, most notably on his trip to Damascus. I have no doubt that you would not believe that account, but for what it's worth , it is in the scriptures. Also, if you believe that Jesus spent most of His time being concerned about the poor and teaching "love thy neighbor", then it seems likely that you have not actually read the gospel accounts, or at least remembered what was in them. Jesus spoke on many subjects, including pointing out hypocricy in other people. Jesus clearly taught that sin of any kind was serious, but He did not find it necessary to define every single point of sin, since that had already been done in detail in the torah, specifically Leviticus. His audience would have known that. People today only seem to have issues with it because they cannot recognize that the New Testament compliments and completes the Old Testament...they were never meant to be seperate, and Christians who actually study the entire bible know this.

But if Jesus is God, and God is all-knowing, why didn't he foresee the confusion nowadays?

An unfair and unanswerable question. The Bible does not claim to know or understand the mind of God. It just tells people how to live and act, not the secrets of the universe. It's a bit ignorant for someone to say (in earnest, not sarcastic jest as Scott did to kick this whole thing off) that God hates gays, or anyone else, or to presume any other views God may hold that aren't expressed in the canonized books of the Bible. It is different for someone to say "God says..." if there's Scripture to back it up. Someone who believes in the literal interpretations of the Bible is correct to say that it is (or was, depending on your specific beliefs) a sin to do or not do something specific, from their perspective. But there are no verses of scripture that answer a "why" question.

I think Rob asked a fair question. To keep from sending this thread in another direction I have PMed Rob an article dealing with that exact subject. If anyone wants to read it, let me know.

I don't believe it is an unanswerable question. In fact, I'm willing to bet that anyone who believes in God has answered questions like that for themselves. The biggest test of faith is to challenge it. If you can get past those obstacles, in a manner that makes sense to you, it only serves to strengthen your faith.

Personally, I don't believe in God. I have many reasons. A lot of them stem from that question, but mostly comes down to the fact that I just don't believe. And that is what makes these conversations so dangerous. Your (you, me, everyone) beliefs are shaped from years of internal debate (at least they should be, or they are weak).

Seems like that ship sailed a while ago

The problem with religious tomes are the editors and in some cases translators. Both testaments were compiled by men with human failings and opinions. It has been a while, but the Discovery channel had an interesting show on "books" left out of the bible.

And the "books" themselves are a product of their times and any interpretation IMHO has to be taken in that context.

I do not really disbelieve anything in the bible, but in no way shape or form trust the men who may or may not have had good intentions over the centuries in changing/shaping those ideas/words.

My problem with religion is not faith itself, but with the organizations and organizers of religion.

To take that to an extreme, are the Pope and Osama Bin Laden really that different? In some ways, you could say the only difference is the pulpit they speak from and in that respect, which appears more opulent and self aggrandizing?

I think we should revoke the tax exempt status on all religious organizations and tax the snot out of any profits they make. Religion should not be a business model.

So I guess there are people in the world practicing "Jedi" as a faith/religion these days. . . I have to wonder if, 2000 years from now, it will have its origins lost in time and garner a substantial following