What I have underlined above may be one of the reasons that you are having difficulty. The people you are referring to gave their lives for a book that tells them that they get something cool like a bunch of virgins…( Actually, other translations have found that the word was actually meant to be "wine"…go figure) . The disciples of Christ had no such thoughts. They were told to give everything away, live off what others would give them, and tell everyone what Christ had done and said. What they did NOT do however, was run into the nearest building full of people in order to blow themselves up. They did not want to die, but did so regardless of the personal sacrifice. The terrorists, on the other hand, believed that they would be given reward after reward in the afterlife, and that their families would be rewarded as well, monetarily as well as socially. Therein lies the difference.

My problem is these texts have incompatable claims. You say your's are correct and they say their's are. Who is to say which is heretical given the evidence? Secularists such as myself don't care, unless they are forced to by legislation advancing a certain dogma. Understand that a growing segment of our population agrees with me, and does not want any dogma expressed as law. We vote and we're out there, and we will be heard.

As well you should be.

I don't have a problem with religion itself. Even if I don't believe in it myself, I can at least see that it does have some good points, like charity and a strong sense of community. My problem is with those who feel that my lack of belief or questioning of their dogma makes me an enemy, or at best a terrible person.

In my office, the only people that knew of my divorce were myself, a HR rep, and the woman who would eventually become my second wife, let's call her Lucy. A woman who worked for me, let's call her Nancy, a devout Pentacostal, observed myself and Lucy in close quarters and was appalled at the asummed adultery, and prayed over it with her minister for a solution. That solution was to report the affair to the authorities. These authorities sequestered myself and Lucy, and subjected us to an interrogation as to our relationship. Guidelines prohibited office romances, but I pointed out that Lucy was not under my supervision, nor was she an officer for the company but an outside contractor. A confab ensued, and apologies were given, but these were two hours I would never get back. All because of a woman who chose to insert her personal dogma, into my private life, certain of her rectitude.

Granted; however, was it because the woman was a Christian or was it because she was a nosy, sanctimonious d.o.u.c.h.e. bag? I know plenty of non-religious people who fit that description. Their religion has nothing to do with it. There are just as many judgmental non-religious people as there are non-judgmental religious ones. One must be careful when painting with such a broad brush. Different people behave different ways in different situations, whether they follow some kind of religious dogma or not.

The woman told me of her conference with her preacher to choose her path. This seemed to me incredibly arrogant, considering her lack of knowledge, as she painted with the broad brush you mention. I might have been vindictive, but this woman still works for me. I decided to turn a cheek.

Yep. It goes both ways. I just think that the responsibility for individual decisions falls to individuals – no matter where they are influenced. They are the ones who choose to use those influences as an excuse for their behavior. Sounds to me your employee used her "religion" to justify her own highly judgmental nature.

I don't know if I could have turned the other cheek.

The problem is that an individual can excuse a reprehensible behavior because it is justified by a "higher power." Chapter and verse recited from memory. Beyond the psychology, the absence of the twin towers in NYC is emphatic.

Again, if I haven't made my point here, I may never.

Assuming a broad group of people, in this case religious ones, with such a generalization reminds me of a part of history in America where minorities were generalized to the extent that they weren't even considered people, so much as animals that merely resembled a person.

But I digress. I'm not sure what the twin towers being smacked down have anything to do with religion. Sure you could argue it was done in the name of Islam, but it is obvious that people use religion as an excuse to power over lesser-minded people. Notice that not all Muslims condemn America.

As an example, I served with 2 Muslims, one who's parents were from Iran and the other who's Grandparents lived in Iran. Neither sabotaged the US, but rather served as a better Patriot than most. One is still honorably serving, while the other separated after his contract was up. As a matter of fact one was consistently searched in Airports at "random", once even while in uniform with the rest of us there.

Atrocities and nosiness may be committed by the religious as well as the atheist. Such is not the nature of religion, but rather the nature of mankind.

When one sites chapter and verse as to a claim, advancing that claim because it was given from a "higher authority," suggesting I accept that claim because one knows better than I, it is not convincing. There are many incompatible texts and claims, and many as I ask for evidence, before bowing and bending a knee.

What is this argument about? The person or their religion? Because you should separate the two. As for incompatible texts, I'm not sure I know of any really, but it doesn't really matter. I don't think this thread was made to convince anyone of anything. It seems to have started to veer off as my last post was about people and religion being separate and that the "evils" of this world are done so by the intent of a person and not necessarily by the religion.

I am a bit confused now as to what you are actually wanting to debate. The text, the religion, the people, or your own faith into whatever.

I am not debating anything. I am merely pointing out that incompatible dogmas lead to conflict which is expressed in behavior that is appalling, and unattached to the psychology of the dogmatic.

Point me towards your confusion.

If that is what you are debating, then prove that the source is the dogma, and not the person. The reason I say so is that generally speaking, most major religions try to instill peace. Whether someone twists words and claims to do bad things in the name of a religion doesn't mean anything about the religion itself.

Are you saying that the woman that prayed for a solution of your adultery would not have been just as nosy or concerned before? Its possible that she may not have said anything to the authorities, but she would have said and thought the same thing. Regardless, you seem to blame the person's religion, one that says that one should not judge others and that one should be meek and that one is imperfect and not faultless.

So there it seems that the person's religion agrees with what you would have rather have wanted, however, the person(s) twisted it into an excuse to do as they please. Using something as a tool towards the betterment of a person's ambition is most certainly human nature.

Once again, I can cite chapters and verse from the Quran and the Bible that are not peaceful nor just. The stoning to death of disobediant children, or wandering wives is abhorrent to those moderates who don't understand the literalists who agree that these penalties are warrented. This misunderstanding leads to the disconnect.

There are those that believe, in a large majority that the text they choose to believe, and base their lives upon, is the literal word of their creator, and they wish further to legislate these words through law upon all of us, without question. I, and others say no. If you don't understand why, I do not see a way to make you understand my position.