I will get back to you on Monday.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I agree that science, logic, and respect for others are essential to good society, but the right interpretation of Christian doctrine should encourage these things, not reject them.

"Religion" is not synonymous with "Protestant Christian," and your personal bad experiences with religion do not prove that all religion is harmful. It's funny how you just sort of skipped over the second part of my sentence, "However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people."

When I refer to the "watering down" of doctrines, I'm verifying what you said. It seems like most Christians today have no concept of the fact that faith does not have to be removed from logic, tolerance, and an open mind. "Faith," for some people, is a word to throw out when someone asks you a hard question. I do believe in faith. You and I both know that there are things that human beings don't and/or can't understand. Whereas you write faith off as belief in the supernatural, I believe that faith is belief in things that follow all of the laws of the cosmos, but that are beyond our power, knowledge, or understanding. Faith is not necessary for the purpose of dismissing science and logic. It is necessary so that we can have choice. People are always arguing with me about choice, saying that a god who threatens damnation is not truly offering choice. Well, that's a discussion for another day.

When religious people think that morality is black and white, when they are hateful, intolerant, or bigoted, they obviously don't understand Jesus Christ AT ALL. So when I say that religion is not inherently harmful, your 37 years of experience, I'm sorry to say, do not exhaust all of the possibilities religion has to offer.

In response to thePink,

I have been going to church for 37 years and I can tell you religion is harmful. It is an oversimplification of decision making and morality. This is right and that is wrong and we have God to back up what we say. This leads to intolerance and an unwillingness to explore different views. Churches and theologians do not rely on scientific advances that help us understand why people do what they do. They know their rights and wrongs. They don't care about hormones, pheromones, cognitive developement, cognitive biases... They already have the answers from God.

A religious upbringing and a religious wife have made my life and sex life more difficult and less happy than it should be. It amazes me that Christians think they get their sexual morality from the Bible. The hypocracy found in the Bible and with Christians is one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian.

Science, logic, reason and respect for others will produce a far better society than religion.

"However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself"

I have been going to church for 37 years and I can tell you religion is harmful. It is an oversimplification of decision making and morality. This is right and that is wrong and we have God to back up what we say. This leads to intolerance and an unwillingness to explore different views. Churches and theologians do not rely on scientific advances that help us understand why people do what they do. They know their rights and wrongs. They don't care about hormones, pheromones, cognitive developement, cognitive biases... They already have the answers from God.

A religious upbringing and a religious wife have made my life and sex life more difficult and less happy than it should be. It amazes me that Christians think they get their sexual morality from the Bible. The hypocracy found in the Bible and with Christians is one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian.

Science, logic, reason and respect for others will produce a far better society than religion.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Something is wrong with both their religious and sex educations if they think that anal sex is preserving their virginity. It's an oversimplification to say that religion and abstinence-only sex education are to blame. The type of religious parents that shove dos and don'ts down their children's throats, shouting "LOVE JESUS" without bothering to check whether their children have real values, faith, and integrity, are the type of people that are harming their children. The kids aren't truly converted to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and they obviously don't understand them. Perhaps they're addicted to the high that they get when they hear a live band in church. If they're having anal sex, they have a very misguided concept of virginity brought on by parents and church leaders that sensationalize religion to the point that children are confused beyond belief. If this is all that you know of religion, I can understand why you despise it. However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people.

Let's not forget that other types of sex education fail, too. However, abstinence-only sex education is bogus. The way I see it, if abstinence isn't being taught in the home, the school will probably be ineffectual, anyway. They might as well do some damage control and educate kids about safe sex and birth control. If parents are teaching abstinence, why should they worry that schools are encouraging teenagers to have sex? Stop expecting the government to fix your problems!

No need to tie the knot at first.

Owning a gun is a right and part of your freedoms. Guns can provide life saving protection. They are a tool and should be used wisely.

People who live without guns are conditioned to believe guns aren't necessary. People who live with guns are conditioned to believe guns are necessary.

It is your right to own a gun. Do it at your discretion

God as a moral barometer?

So, that must mean he likes the rules set forth in the Bible, I assume. He failed to mention that the Biblical view of marriage is polygamy and that there was no dating during Biblical times. Fathers gave their daughters in marriage to whom they choose at an age as young as 14 or so.

Also, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7
"12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?"

I suppose he doesn't want to be bothered by details.

Pick and choose. Make assumptions. Say you have faith in God. Bam! You just became a moral leader, even if you can't prove what you say.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Atheists are the largest minority and the only one that it's socially acceptable to discriminate against.

I think you just described 'Christianity' rather than atheism.


The majority of whites, blacks and Hispanics in America are Christian. Why would you say Christians are a minority?

I would be curious as to what Ehrman believes the proof is that Jesus was even real. I have been looking into the Historical Jesus which includes 2 Sunday school classes. The proof that he existed is weak.

Josephus, a historian, is the main proof given. Josephus made some references to Jesus in his work. However, Josephus could have never met Jesus because Josephus was born after the supposed death of Christ. I have seen no reference to a first-person meeting between Jesus and anybody.

The more I know about the Bible, the more I feel deceived.