Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1timspalding
Pew: Religion in Everyday Life
"Highly religious Americans are happier and more involved with family but are no more likely to exercise, recycle or make socially conscious consumer choices"
Link: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-life/
One key graph:
Article in Religion News: http://www.religionnews.com/2016/04/12/happiness-christians-nones-pew-research/
"Highly religious Americans are happier and more involved with family but are no more likely to exercise, recycle or make socially conscious consumer choices"
Link: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-life/
One key graph:
Article in Religion News: http://www.religionnews.com/2016/04/12/happiness-christians-nones-pew-research/
2paradoxosalpha
> Only 14 percent said being Christian means “buying from companies that pay a fair wage.”
I'm surprised it was that high!
I'm surprised it was that high!
3lilithcat
>2 paradoxosalpha:
Why so? I'd have expected it to be higher.
The United States Conference of (Roman Catholic) Bishops believes "the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative."
The Episcopal Network for Economic Justice argues for a living wage, as do the Presbyterian Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The United Methodist Church takes the view that "Exploitation or underpayment of workers is incompatible with Christ's commandment to love our neighbor."
Discovering these official positions took just a few minutes of online research. I'm sure I'd find more given more time.
This would suggest that the percentage should be higher.
Why so? I'd have expected it to be higher.
The United States Conference of (Roman Catholic) Bishops believes "the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative."
The Episcopal Network for Economic Justice argues for a living wage, as do the Presbyterian Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The United Methodist Church takes the view that "Exploitation or underpayment of workers is incompatible with Christ's commandment to love our neighbor."
Discovering these official positions took just a few minutes of online research. I'm sure I'd find more given more time.
This would suggest that the percentage should be higher.
5richardbsmith
I wonder if there how the survey results looked for Jews compared to Christians. Judaism might be more focused on doing mitzvot.
Is ethical living a central idea to Christianity? Or salvation apart from works?
Is ethical living a central idea to Christianity? Or salvation apart from works?
6timspalding
>3 lilithcat:
I think you guys misunderstand the issue. The question was not "should you pay your workers a fair wage" but "is buying from companies that pay a fair wage an essential part of being a Christian?"
I say no, it's not. If it were, there are no Christians in the US, and precious few anywhere else in the world. No one typing on a computer right now--that is, using this site--can in fact believe that buying from companies that pay a fair wage is essential to who they are. If you do, you are either having a massive identity crisis, or have no idea what the economy is like.
I think you guys misunderstand the issue. The question was not "should you pay your workers a fair wage" but "is buying from companies that pay a fair wage an essential part of being a Christian?"
I say no, it's not. If it were, there are no Christians in the US, and precious few anywhere else in the world. No one typing on a computer right now--that is, using this site--can in fact believe that buying from companies that pay a fair wage is essential to who they are. If you do, you are either having a massive identity crisis, or have no idea what the economy is like.
8reading_fox
>4 cpg: finding clothing like that is very difficult. I know because I try. "None" is impossible.
9cpg
This morning, my Hagar slacks were made in Bangladesh, my Tommy Hilfiger shirt was made in Indonesia, my Salomon shoes were made in Vietnam, as was my Patagonia raincoat. Bangladesh's minimum wage appears to be 68 USD per month, Vietnam's is 107 USD per month, and Indonesia's appears to be 1.29 USD per hour. It's possible that these companies are paying 15 USD per hour despite the low minimum wages, but I kind of doubt it.
I don't think a true Christian would have even taken the time to participate in the survey. In the 5 minutes that would have taken, a true Christian could have made significant headway crocheting a hat for a destitute newborn in some Third World country.
And don't get me started on how many books a true Christian would own in a world in which poverty exists.
I don't think a true Christian would have even taken the time to participate in the survey. In the 5 minutes that would have taken, a true Christian could have made significant headway crocheting a hat for a destitute newborn in some Third World country.
And don't get me started on how many books a true Christian would own in a world in which poverty exists.
10John5918
>9 cpg:
Can't say I've ever come across a crocheted hat, but you'd be amazed at some of the rubbish that well-intentioned people from the richer countries send.
But I would assume that a "true Christian" would actually be spending that spare five minutes (and a good few minutes more) writing regularly to their congressperson or member of parliament demanding a level economic playing field for developing countries, an end to bombing them and killing their people with drone strikes, and opening up the US and European borders to welcome those from poor and strife-riven countries who want to come.
Can't say I've ever come across a crocheted hat, but you'd be amazed at some of the rubbish that well-intentioned people from the richer countries send.
But I would assume that a "true Christian" would actually be spending that spare five minutes (and a good few minutes more) writing regularly to their congressperson or member of parliament demanding a level economic playing field for developing countries, an end to bombing them and killing their people with drone strikes, and opening up the US and European borders to welcome those from poor and strife-riven countries who want to come.
11paradoxosalpha
>6 timspalding:
Yup. People might make consumer choices based on ethical decisions informed by their religious identity. But I can't offhand think of any religion where adherence is strongly predicated on attention to wages paid to the remote producers of products consumed!
Yup. People might make consumer choices based on ethical decisions informed by their religious identity. But I can't offhand think of any religion where adherence is strongly predicated on attention to wages paid to the remote producers of products consumed!
12southernbooklady
>11 paradoxosalpha: There is something skewed in the fact that in the US it is easier to buy dolphin safe tuna than it is to purchase clothes not made by slave labor.
13LolaWalser
So once again religion, Christianity anyway, is shown to be more or less pure bullshit as moral/ethical guidance.
14zangasta
A "true christian" might be expected to withhold painkillers from the poor while exhorting them to accept their pain as a "beautiful" way of sharing in the suffering of the "true christian's" imaginary fiend. After all, that kind of abuse gets rewarded with "sainthood".
15richardbsmith
No. I don't think so.
A true Christian would pray, and let a doctor administer pain killers and other medicine.
The question moves quickly as to what a true Christian would do absent the doctor. And the best teaching for the situation Zangasta describes is Luke 10.25-37.
And I think that an observer can measure the trueness of a person's Christianity, or humanity, according to that standard.
A true Christian would pray, and let a doctor administer pain killers and other medicine.
The question moves quickly as to what a true Christian would do absent the doctor. And the best teaching for the situation Zangasta describes is Luke 10.25-37.
And I think that an observer can measure the trueness of a person's Christianity, or humanity, according to that standard.
16blitzcreeg
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Ghandi
Fact is, all organized religion has become a meeting place for those who use it to validate their own prejudice and personal brand of hate. Whether this is by co-option from a few -- Islam & Judaism, for example -- or general consensus -- Evangelicalism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Christian Science, Christian Identity -- wherever there is dogma and exclusion you will find hatred and intolerance. Period.
To wit: ISIS, Israeli government oppression of Palestinians, Mormon dictates that Blacks were unfit for their clergy as late as 1977, current "religious freedom" laws legalizing LGBT discrimination, *former* religious freedom laws from the 50's-60's permitting miscegenation, *massive* Catholic & Mormon (from Utah) donations to California's Prop 8, ad nauseam.
With such as a foundation and *regardless* of the sometimes lofty rhetoric from them, social justice and concern for society are inconsequential and incidental by-products of organizations nurtured by hate. Religion's goal is to remake society in its image and such renders irrelevant the values of that society.
In other words, the highly religious don't give a crap about society and what might benefit it.
Fact is, all organized religion has become a meeting place for those who use it to validate their own prejudice and personal brand of hate. Whether this is by co-option from a few -- Islam & Judaism, for example -- or general consensus -- Evangelicalism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Christian Science, Christian Identity -- wherever there is dogma and exclusion you will find hatred and intolerance. Period.
To wit: ISIS, Israeli government oppression of Palestinians, Mormon dictates that Blacks were unfit for their clergy as late as 1977, current "religious freedom" laws legalizing LGBT discrimination, *former* religious freedom laws from the 50's-60's permitting miscegenation, *massive* Catholic & Mormon (from Utah) donations to California's Prop 8, ad nauseam.
With such as a foundation and *regardless* of the sometimes lofty rhetoric from them, social justice and concern for society are inconsequential and incidental by-products of organizations nurtured by hate. Religion's goal is to remake society in its image and such renders irrelevant the values of that society.
In other words, the highly religious don't give a crap about society and what might benefit it.
17timspalding
So once again religion, Christianity anyway, is shown to be more or less pure bullshit as moral/ethical guidance.
What bothers me here isn't the tone, lack of charity or any such. It's the lack of clear thinking.
Imagine a group of Canadian dreamers decided to found a new country, New Canada, built on somewhat vague ideas about love. For some reason, space was available nearby, and a large number of volunteers left Canada and joined together to create this new country. Citizens found their sense of nationality in these ideals, but never reached full agreement on their meaning. Some years later, a researcher visited Canada and New Canada. They discovered that the residents of New Canada were 56% more likely to spend time with extended family, 60% more likely to volunteer, 58% more likely to donate their time and money to the poor, 37% more likely to call themselves happy and so forth. (These are all the actual Pew numbers, btw.)(1)
Together with these large demographic differences, the researcher also found that New Canadians continue to hold varying ideas about what was essential to being "New Canadian." Most believed it required forgiving others and being grateful, a majority that it involved helping the poor. But only 14% believed that buying from companies that paid a fair wage was an essential part of being a New Canadian. (Of course, many more thought it was good, but only 14% said it was essential.)
Upon reading the report, a disgruntled Canadian, whom we shall call, for convenience, Lola Walser, proclaimed "So once again New Canada is shown to be more or less pure bullshit."
What would we say of this critic? It seems to me the criticism shows a simple lack of clear thinking. Just because New Canada does not live up to the critics' every expectation does not, I think, negate its many positive differences. Ideals are not "bullshit" if they create substantial change, but fall to change everything. Are they?
Besides this, I think the most charitable thing we could say was that she had a very presumptuous view of others' views. She thinks herself capable of saying what a true "New Canadian" should find essential, although she herself hates and despises New Canada.
And I think we would say that she very high moral expectations. The latter may indeed be very good. But I think the New Canadians she slandered—again, for this was a common performance—would demand to know what standards she herself upheld, and since she apparently believes that not buying from companies that pay their workers poorly is a requirement for moral life, they'd like to go through her closets and other possessions, to see if her harsh criticism of others matched up to her own purchasing choices.
1. I am ignoring, of course, the fact that these are self-reported actions and attitudes. Maybe Christians are not 58% more likely to donate to the poor, but just massive liars. Frankly, I suspect over-estimation closes the gap somewhat.
What bothers me here isn't the tone, lack of charity or any such. It's the lack of clear thinking.
Imagine a group of Canadian dreamers decided to found a new country, New Canada, built on somewhat vague ideas about love. For some reason, space was available nearby, and a large number of volunteers left Canada and joined together to create this new country. Citizens found their sense of nationality in these ideals, but never reached full agreement on their meaning. Some years later, a researcher visited Canada and New Canada. They discovered that the residents of New Canada were 56% more likely to spend time with extended family, 60% more likely to volunteer, 58% more likely to donate their time and money to the poor, 37% more likely to call themselves happy and so forth. (These are all the actual Pew numbers, btw.)(1)
Together with these large demographic differences, the researcher also found that New Canadians continue to hold varying ideas about what was essential to being "New Canadian." Most believed it required forgiving others and being grateful, a majority that it involved helping the poor. But only 14% believed that buying from companies that paid a fair wage was an essential part of being a New Canadian. (Of course, many more thought it was good, but only 14% said it was essential.)
Upon reading the report, a disgruntled Canadian, whom we shall call, for convenience, Lola Walser, proclaimed "So once again New Canada is shown to be more or less pure bullshit."
What would we say of this critic? It seems to me the criticism shows a simple lack of clear thinking. Just because New Canada does not live up to the critics' every expectation does not, I think, negate its many positive differences. Ideals are not "bullshit" if they create substantial change, but fall to change everything. Are they?
Besides this, I think the most charitable thing we could say was that she had a very presumptuous view of others' views. She thinks herself capable of saying what a true "New Canadian" should find essential, although she herself hates and despises New Canada.
And I think we would say that she very high moral expectations. The latter may indeed be very good. But I think the New Canadians she slandered—again, for this was a common performance—would demand to know what standards she herself upheld, and since she apparently believes that not buying from companies that pay their workers poorly is a requirement for moral life, they'd like to go through her closets and other possessions, to see if her harsh criticism of others matched up to her own purchasing choices.
1. I am ignoring, of course, the fact that these are self-reported actions and attitudes. Maybe Christians are not 58% more likely to donate to the poor, but just massive liars. Frankly, I suspect over-estimation closes the gap somewhat.
18LolaWalser
>17 timspalding:
You're arbitrarily substituting stuff for injunctions in >3 lilithcat: which are spelled-out official positions on fair wage and worker compensation from several Christian denominations. If your church tells you that paying people a fair wage is a Christian-ly moral thing to do, you don't get off the hook by saying "no, I'll knit an extra pair of socks for the needy instead". I mean, individually, of course, you can be as poor as the sods who need your socks, and fair enough, but the moral principle remains: it is fair to pay people a living wage, anything less is not.
And the problem with ethics displayed in #1 should be clear even to you: it's not 86% of Christians saying "it is moral to pay people a fair wage, if only we could afford it", it's 86% of Christians saying that's not even in the picture of what being Christian means.
You're arbitrarily substituting stuff for injunctions in >3 lilithcat: which are spelled-out official positions on fair wage and worker compensation from several Christian denominations. If your church tells you that paying people a fair wage is a Christian-ly moral thing to do, you don't get off the hook by saying "no, I'll knit an extra pair of socks for the needy instead". I mean, individually, of course, you can be as poor as the sods who need your socks, and fair enough, but the moral principle remains: it is fair to pay people a living wage, anything less is not.
And the problem with ethics displayed in #1 should be clear even to you: it's not 86% of Christians saying "it is moral to pay people a fair wage, if only we could afford it", it's 86% of Christians saying that's not even in the picture of what being Christian means.
19richardbsmith
What I think is more accurate is that churches could make their social positions more of a focus. Ministries exist in the church, the diocese, national and global levels. And members participate with time, talent and money.
At least in my church, I think there is room for more discussion and emphasis.
Describing churches as full of hate for others in society is just inaccurate.
At least in my church, I think there is room for more discussion and emphasis.
Describing churches as full of hate for others in society is just inaccurate.
20zangasta
>14 zangasta:
Shock! Gasp! Horror! Are you saying that "mother" "Teresa" wasn't a "true christian"? Wouldn't that further imply that Señor Bergoglio isn't a "true christian"?
Shock! Gasp! Horror! Are you saying that "mother" "Teresa" wasn't a "true christian"? Wouldn't that further imply that Señor Bergoglio isn't a "true christian"?
21zangasta
>15 richardbsmith:
And I just have to attempt to take this a tad further.
My dear friend Friedrich claimed that "there was only one Christian, and he* died on the cross." The point being that you can define this gibberish in any number of ways, so how does one discuss it meaningfully? By trying one's best to make any definition comport with one's understanding of whatever is "nice behaviour"? ie If the definition allows for "bad" behaviour, so much the worse for the definition: Change it!
* To which I'd add that I think it quite likely that even that one never actually existed, which leaves the question even more pointless...
And I just have to attempt to take this a tad further.
My dear friend Friedrich claimed that "there was only one Christian, and he* died on the cross." The point being that you can define this gibberish in any number of ways, so how does one discuss it meaningfully? By trying one's best to make any definition comport with one's understanding of whatever is "nice behaviour"? ie If the definition allows for "bad" behaviour, so much the worse for the definition: Change it!
* To which I'd add that I think it quite likely that even that one never actually existed, which leaves the question even more pointless...
22zangasta
>17 timspalding:
Maybe Christians are not 58% more likely to donate to the poor, but just massive liars.
Well, given that they are participating in something where systematically lying to children and teenagers is the order of the day, should we be so surprised if some of them learn the lesson?
Maybe Christians are not 58% more likely to donate to the poor, but just massive liars.
Well, given that they are participating in something where systematically lying to children and teenagers is the order of the day, should we be so surprised if some of them learn the lesson?
23richardbsmith
Was Jesus a Christian?
I think he was a Jew.
And, assuming that is correct, then perhaps we, Christians, could benefit from remembering that.
Paul notwithstanding.
I think he was a Jew.
And, assuming that is correct, then perhaps we, Christians, could benefit from remembering that.
Paul notwithstanding.
24John5918
>23 richardbsmith: Was Jesus a Christian?
If Christians are followers of Jesus, then almost by definition Jesus was not a Christian.
If Christians are followers of Jesus, then almost by definition Jesus was not a Christian.
26JGL53
"Happiness" seems rather a subjective term. How is the concept effectively defined, or much less quantified?
By my definition I couldn't be happier. And I'm an atheist. Go figure.
"Highly religious" also seems rather a subjective term. E.g., did anyone compare highly religious Taoists or Sikhs or Baha'is or Zoroastrians to highly religious christians? I doubt it. For all we know one of the former will, on average, provide much more happiness than adherence to christianity.
Even if it were possible to prove that being a highly religious christian was the most effective way on earth to be happy that would only prove that it was more effective in producing happiness than alcohol, cocaine, heroin and all the myriad other ways people seek to maximize their happiness. It would not prove that christianity was true, or more likely to be true. I thought that was the important thing. Guess not.
Seems to me christianity is the equivalent of a medicine show snake oil cure-all - i.e., if you believe in it strong enough then the placebo effect (of producing happiness) is freaking AWESOME.
Jesus.
By my definition I couldn't be happier. And I'm an atheist. Go figure.
"Highly religious" also seems rather a subjective term. E.g., did anyone compare highly religious Taoists or Sikhs or Baha'is or Zoroastrians to highly religious christians? I doubt it. For all we know one of the former will, on average, provide much more happiness than adherence to christianity.
Even if it were possible to prove that being a highly religious christian was the most effective way on earth to be happy that would only prove that it was more effective in producing happiness than alcohol, cocaine, heroin and all the myriad other ways people seek to maximize their happiness. It would not prove that christianity was true, or more likely to be true. I thought that was the important thing. Guess not.
Seems to me christianity is the equivalent of a medicine show snake oil cure-all - i.e., if you believe in it strong enough then the placebo effect (of producing happiness) is freaking AWESOME.
Jesus.
27timspalding
By my definition I couldn't be happier. And I'm an atheist. Go figure.
Statistical spreads vary. Go figure. Math! Science!
Seems to me christianity is the equivalent of a medicine show snake oil cure-all - i.e., if you believe in it strong enough then the placebo effect (of producing happiness) is freaking AWESOME.
That, or maybe the other items reported--spending more time with family, spending more time helping others, higher belief in the importance of forgiveness, etc.--has some connection to happiness. One need not believe in supernatural beings to imagine that spending time with loved-ones promotes well-being.
By the way, for those who think Christians are jerks, 19% of highly religious Christians think "Buying from companies that pay a fair wage" is important to Christian identity. Among unaffiliated "nones," 20% say it's constituent of being a "moral person." The difference is entirely erased when you do the margin of error. See http://www.pewforum.org/files/2016/04/Religion-in-Everyday-Life-FINAL.pdf
Statistical spreads vary. Go figure. Math! Science!
Seems to me christianity is the equivalent of a medicine show snake oil cure-all - i.e., if you believe in it strong enough then the placebo effect (of producing happiness) is freaking AWESOME.
That, or maybe the other items reported--spending more time with family, spending more time helping others, higher belief in the importance of forgiveness, etc.--has some connection to happiness. One need not believe in supernatural beings to imagine that spending time with loved-ones promotes well-being.
By the way, for those who think Christians are jerks, 19% of highly religious Christians think "Buying from companies that pay a fair wage" is important to Christian identity. Among unaffiliated "nones," 20% say it's constituent of being a "moral person." The difference is entirely erased when you do the margin of error. See http://www.pewforum.org/files/2016/04/Religion-in-Everyday-Life-FINAL.pdf
28richardbsmith
Do most Christians discuss freedom in Christ? Generally for instance discussing NT debates such as circumcision and loosening of food restrictions?
Are there as frequently discussions of responsibility in Christ?
My church has many ministries available - food ministries, clothes, shelters, Alzheimer's, cancer, several others. And all are encouraged, and generally supported.
I think our regular discussions though tend to our freedom and personal salvation.
Once those are claimed, should discussions about responsibility and ethics then take come to the front.
Are there as frequently discussions of responsibility in Christ?
My church has many ministries available - food ministries, clothes, shelters, Alzheimer's, cancer, several others. And all are encouraged, and generally supported.
I think our regular discussions though tend to our freedom and personal salvation.
Once those are claimed, should discussions about responsibility and ethics then take come to the front.
29zangasta
"Christianity holds forgiveness important." lol
What christianity teaches is that if a child does not "forgive" its rapist then the child will not get to spend "eternity" with its rapist's imaginary friend. And the priest that raped it.
This is not forgiveness.
What christianity teaches is that if a child does not "forgive" its rapist then the child will not get to spend "eternity" with its rapist's imaginary friend. And the priest that raped it.
This is not forgiveness.
30JGL53
> 29
Yes, Zangasta, christianity is, metaphorically-speaking, an utterly fucked convoluted self-contradictory load of sheep manure, even more so than most other religious traditions. You know this, I know this, rational people in general know this.
But, as opposed to preaching to the choir, here, with the few noted exceptions, you are mainly preaching to the brainwashed. It becomes an operation similar to attempting to knock down a wall by banging your head against it.
You do not go to the circus to denounce the clowns as being fools beneath contempt. You attend the circus and view the clowns strictly for amusement. Laughter is, after all, the best medicine.
Just keep the right perspective regarding the inherently nonsensical and the schizophrenic. Happiness thus can then be yours on the cheap.
Have a nice day.
Yes, Zangasta, christianity is, metaphorically-speaking, an utterly fucked convoluted self-contradictory load of sheep manure, even more so than most other religious traditions. You know this, I know this, rational people in general know this.
But, as opposed to preaching to the choir, here, with the few noted exceptions, you are mainly preaching to the brainwashed. It becomes an operation similar to attempting to knock down a wall by banging your head against it.
You do not go to the circus to denounce the clowns as being fools beneath contempt. You attend the circus and view the clowns strictly for amusement. Laughter is, after all, the best medicine.
Just keep the right perspective regarding the inherently nonsensical and the schizophrenic. Happiness thus can then be yours on the cheap.
Have a nice day.
31timspalding
Just keep the right perspective regarding the inherently nonsensical and the schizophrenic. Happiness thus can then be yours on the cheap.
Prove it with a study.
Prove it with a study.
32JGL53
> 31
I don't need no stinkin' study to demonstrate what to me are unavoidable conclusions, based on decades of close and personal dispassionate and disinterested observation.
Also science, which seems to track my basic thinking on the subject if not engender it. Physicalism is demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt for the person dedicated to reason and who has put away childish things in order to become an adult with an adult psychology.
Religion, on the other hand, is unreasoned devotion by adherents to blind acceptance of some authority as such conforms and caters to basic human wish fulfillment fantasies reified as actual reality. Such adherents conclude a priori what each wishes then accepts the best deal on offer provided by some religious tradition, either such as that with which one was inculcated as a toddler, child and teenager, or some similar but personally preferred tradition of some out-group.
So - have I left something out here? No, I don't think so.
Please go with god, Tim.
I don't need no stinkin' study to demonstrate what to me are unavoidable conclusions, based on decades of close and personal dispassionate and disinterested observation.
Also science, which seems to track my basic thinking on the subject if not engender it. Physicalism is demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt for the person dedicated to reason and who has put away childish things in order to become an adult with an adult psychology.
Religion, on the other hand, is unreasoned devotion by adherents to blind acceptance of some authority as such conforms and caters to basic human wish fulfillment fantasies reified as actual reality. Such adherents conclude a priori what each wishes then accepts the best deal on offer provided by some religious tradition, either such as that with which one was inculcated as a toddler, child and teenager, or some similar but personally preferred tradition of some out-group.
So - have I left something out here? No, I don't think so.
Please go with god, Tim.
33JGL53
> 27 "....By the way, for those who think Christians are jerks, 19% of highly religious Christians think 'Buying from companies that pay a fair wage' is important to Christian identity. Among unaffiliated 'nones,' 20% say it's constituent of being a 'moral person'....."
LOL.
I don't think the above constitutes a good selling point for christianity. I.e., you might NOT want to argue "Hey all you non-christians, come join us and become a christian! You will not be any less of a jerk if you do but, then, you won't be more of a jerk either!"
LOL.
I don't think the above constitutes a good selling point for christianity. I.e., you might NOT want to argue "Hey all you non-christians, come join us and become a christian! You will not be any less of a jerk if you do but, then, you won't be more of a jerk either!"
34zangasta
>30 JGL53:
What I have discovered is that there are a considerable number of self-reportedly non-religious who perpetuate an unconscionable amount of religious propaganda, eg "forgiveness". I like to keep clarifying these things for such suckers.
What I have discovered is that there are a considerable number of self-reportedly non-religious who perpetuate an unconscionable amount of religious propaganda, eg "forgiveness". I like to keep clarifying these things for such suckers.
