Non-religious number growing?

[steelers#1fan]

Bottom line, I believe that Jesus Christ is my Savior. I'm also pretty confident that in walking the path less taken I'll have a spot in Heaven. I hope the folks on the board that haven't given their hearts to Christ also find that kind of comfort that I have in knowing that the God in Heaven is the only God. Why are people so intent on disproving that God exists than proving that he does!?

[mrveggieman]

Some people make a religion out of proving that God does not exist. Other people make it a religion into trying to prove that every religion except their own is false. None of that really matters. Bottom line is do what you feel in your heart is right by God and let him deal with everything else.

[steelers#1fan]

This is true....

Some people make a religion out of proving that God does not exist. Other people make it a religion into trying to prove that every religion except their own is false. None of that really matters. Bottom line is do what you feel in your heart is right by God and let him deal with everything else.

[Star_Cards]

Bottom line, I believe that Jesus Christ is my Savior. I'm also pretty confident that in walking the path less taken I'll have a spot in Heaven. I hope the folks on the board that haven't given their hearts to Christ also find that kind of comfort that I have in knowing that the God in Heaven is the only God. Why are people so intent on disproving that God exists than proving that he does!?

Some people are perfectly comfortable without religion. I actually find it curious that more religious people don't experience more of the religions out there before deciding which one is for them or which one they believe to be "true". Typically religion is chosen simply by what you grow up in.

As far as intent on disproving that God exists or not... It's usually brought on by people using scripture from a religion to legislate to a society where not all of it's citizens believe the same things religiously. It's more of a defense to that then worrying about someone else's personal belief structure. I don't get the belief of religion, but have no problems with people believing in a religion. I just don't think it should govern a countries people as a whole.

[ensbergcollector]

Some people are perfectly comfortable without religion. I actually find it curious that more religious people don't experience more of the religions out there before deciding which one is for them or which one they believe to be "true". Typically religion is chosen simply by what you grow up in.

As far as intent on disproving that God exists or not... It's usually brought on by people using scripture from a religion to legislate to a society where not all of it's citizens believe the same things religiously. It's more of a defense to that then worrying about someone else's personal belief structure. I don't get the belief of religion, but have no problems with people believing in a religion. I just don't think it should govern a countries people as a whole.

as most on here know, i am a youth minister. I had lunch last week with a guy who nearly all youth ministers in the country know and no one else would (he heads up a national youth ministers organization). One of the things we talked about was gay marriage.
Now, you won't find me rallying against gay marriage or condemning those who are homosexual. However, I also cannot vote against my moral beliefs so I will always vote against gay marriage. I guess my question is this. If I vote against gay marriage does that qualify as trying to control people based on my religious beliefs? I am actually curious. I understand the anger directed at those who hold rallies, and scream hatred at the tops of their lungs. But do non-religious people expect christians to vote for gay marriage?

on a second note, i think that used to be the case, but non-christians seem to have taken a much more offensive tract instead of merely defensive the last decade or so. Now, maybe it is cause and effect and the explanation is that the offensive path is in response to christians but I now constantly find myself defending christianity in a conversation that was started by the opponent of christianity and not by christians. just what I see.

[steelers#1fan]

I agree. To each his own. But my question is, how do we govern a society if not by true Christian beliefs. Seems like there's too much corruption and self servingness in Washington right now that makes you wonder what "belief" is actually running Washington. Me being a Christian would say that corruption and self servingness, or greed, are not true Christian traits. Maybe a falling Christian, but not a true Christian. Maybe Athiests? Who knows.

Some people are perfectly comfortable without religion. I actually find it curious that more religious people don't experience more of the religions out there before deciding which one is for them or which one they believe to be "true". Typically religion is chosen simply by what you grow up in.

As far as intent on disproving that God exists or not... It's usually brought on by people using scripture from a religion to legislate to a society where not all of it's citizens believe the same things religiously. It's more of a defense to that then worrying about someone else's personal belief structure. I don't get the belief of religion, but have no problems with people believing in a religion. I just don't think it should govern a countries people as a whole.

[mrveggieman]

I agree. To each his own. But my question is, how do we govern a society if not by true Christian beliefs. Seems like there's too much corruption and self servingness in Washington right now that makes you wonder what "belief" is actually running Washington. Me being a Christian would say that corruption and self servingness, or greed, are not true Christian traits. Maybe a falling Christian, but not a true Christian. Maybe Athiests? Who knows.

Power corrupts regardless of religion. I judge a man/woman by his actions not because of his religion. That being said I prefer a diverse group of politicians who work for the betterment of society and can stand of their own when they have to make tought decisions and does not hide behind their religion.

[habsheaven]

I agree. To each his own. But my question is, how do we govern a society if not by true Christian beliefs. Seems like there's too much corruption and self servingness in Washington right now that makes you wonder what "belief" is actually running Washington. Me being a Christian would say that corruption and self servingness, or greed, are not true Christian traits. Maybe a falling Christian, but not a true Christian. Maybe Athiests? Who knows.

You govern it by a sense of what is RIGHT and WRONG. An individual (or society) does not need a religion to tell them what is right and what is wrong. We know it in our hearts and minds.

[Star_Cards]

as most on here know, i am a youth minister. I had lunch last week with a guy who nearly all youth ministers in the country know and no one else would (he heads up a national youth ministers organization). One of the things we talked about was gay marriage.
Now, you won't find me rallying against gay marriage or condemning those who are homosexual. However, I also cannot vote against my moral beliefs so I will always vote against gay marriage. I guess my question is this. If I vote against gay marriage does that qualify as trying to control people based on my religious beliefs? I am actually curious. I understand the anger directed at those who hold rallies, and scream hatred at the tops of their lungs. But do non-religious people expect christians to vote for gay marriage?

on a second note, i think that used to be the case, but non-christians seem to have taken a much more offensive tract instead of merely defensive the last decade or so. Now, maybe it is cause and effect and the explanation is that the offensive path is in response to christians but I now constantly find myself defending christianity in a conversation that was started by the opponent of christianity and not by christians. just what I see.

I do see how one's religious beliefs make up their views on many things, but there is also a difference between not being okay with something due to religious beliefs and not allowing others to have the same rights in the eyes of a government when they have the right to not follow the same beliefs. Allowing gay marriage doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone that isn't gay or doesn't approve of it because of their religious affiliation. I guess for me that is the major thing that is so confusing. Allowing the state to recognize gay marriage isn't forcing a religion to recognize it. They'd have the right to choose. Different religions have many different rules that people have to follow to have a marriage recognized by the religious institution. There are also many different rules for divorces, second marriages, and annulments. None of those rules have any bering on any marriage being recognized by the state. Also, if I go to the justice of the peace and get married that wouldn't be recognized by many churches, if any. That fact doesn't mean that those marriages should also be banned. I guess I don't see the difference. Straight marriage exists and is fine when done outside of the church so why wouldn't gay marriage be the same way? I know that marriage has a root in religious text, from what I've heard, but it has also been adopted by the state to have meaning outside of the religious umbrella.

As far as your direct question, I guess I would classify a vote against gay marriage as controlling people based on a religious belief. I feel that someone can be against something and still be able to let another group practice under their beliefs, especially when it doesn't infringe on another's right.


for the discussion about religion and attacking in general... I think it happens on both sides. I try to respect the beliefs of everyone but will admit that at times I become very annoyed when I hear people using religion as the template for how everyone should live. If someone wants to live a certain way, I have no issue with that, but I will also defend the right of anyone to choose not to live under that template. That said, I'd defend and have defended the rights of religious people being able to live by their individual beliefs.

[mrveggieman]

I personally think if one is against a particular activity such as gay marriage one can abstain from voting on it but as far as someone using their religious views to vote to restrict peoples rights I have a problem with that.