[DISCLAIMER: Throughout this post, there are statements and questions which could easily be interpreted as being sarcastic.  They are not.  I have written this reply in the most even-handed manner that I can, with no emotions boiling to the surface as it was written.  Please accept this as a serious attempt to foster dialog and rest assurred that I make every attempt to make fun of no one, except myself ;-)]  gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:  >Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame >start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.  [...]  >1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced >mental facilities, developed religious as a satisfiable solution to >explain the unexplainable. [...]  	Hmmm.  There are other animals on this planet with advanced 	mental facilities which have not developed "religion" as a 	satisfactory explaination for the unexplained.  Why is this so?  	Further, it appears that only humans have a "need" to explain the 	unexplained.  Why is this so?  The other animals on this planet, 	including those with advanced mental facilities, seem perfectly 	content in their ignorance.  	I'd like to point out that your presuppositions scream out at me 	from your unsupported statement.  They are: 1) humans are animal 	*only*; 2) religion exists as a crutch so that the unexplained need 	not be researched; 3) religion was "made up" by humans to address a 	perceived need; 4) the biological aspect of humans is deified (that 	is, all aspects of human life can be categorized in a hierarchical 	structure with biology at the apex).  	Needless to say, I disagree with your strong opinion #1 and the 	underlying presuppositions.  >Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are  >because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life >a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is  >follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness." >For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"  	I disagree that Christianity is "an infectious cult".  It has 	certainly shown itself to be persistent as a belief system, in 	spite of various persecutions throughout the past two millenia. 	That it continues to persevere does not demonstrate that it is 	"infectious" in a derrogatory sense; it may be that it provides 	a workable system for its adherents (and I would argue that this 	is the case).  	I disagree that Christianity is "a safety blanket" which supplants 	hope and purpose.  Rather, it points an individual to the one 	Source of hope and purpose.  There is nothing hidden about a 	Christian's source for hope and purpose.  Of what usefulness to 	you is the distinction between internally motivated hope and purpose 	and externally given hope and purpose?  Is the (apparent) loss of 	control over one's own life the problem or is it something else?  	Finally, one does not appropriate "eternal happiness" by following 	Christian moral standards.  Indeed, the sole reason for the existance 	of Christianity is *because* standards are inadequate to save people 	from their imperfections.  Moral standards are merely guides to the 	Christian; the real power to moral living is given to the Christian 	in the Person of God's Spirit.  	Heaven is one of two final states that 	Christian doctrine postulates.  However, Christians are generally 	not motivated to live according to Christian moral standards by this 	promised future reward; rather, they are motivated by the perceived 	benefits to them in the here-and-now.  >but i digress...   The other reason christianity flourishes is its >infectious nature.  A best friend of mine breifly entered a christian >group and within months, they set ministry guidelines for him which >basicaly said this -->Priority #1 Spread the Word.  	Many Christian organizations are concerned with evangelism as a 	priority, and rightly so (for it was Jesus Himself who gave this 	as a priority for His followers).  However, it is not the penultimate 	priority as evangelism is normally understood (i.e. preach the word, 	convert at nearly any cost, repeat with new convert ad infinitum). 	Rather, such evangelism is generally best done through respecting 	the opinions of others while *demonstrating* the very real benefits 	of a Christian lifestyle.  This demonstration should be so powerful 	that it compels the non-Christian to seek out the Christian to ask 	"Why?"  Needless to say, such a demonstration is not easily accom- 	plished (it takes a radical committment to the person of Jesus), it 	does not happen quickly (so perseverance on the part of the Christian 	is required), and it cannot occur where no personal bonds of 	friendship exist (it is ineffective with strangers who cannot 	evaluate the demonstration over time, and it is easy to alienate or 	harm others if the sole purpose of being a "friend" is to gain a 	conversion).  	As a long-time Christian (nearly 20 years), I view with some skep- 	ticism *all* evangelism programs which incorporate a "hurry-up" 	attitude.  Pressured conversions may ultimately be worse than no 	conversion at all (because the pressured convert realizes s/he was 	coerced and disavows Christianity when they would have been open 	to it in the future had they not been taken advantage of now). 	The Bible states that it is the very Spirit of God which brings 	conviction of wrong-doing to people.  I am content to do my part 	(witness) and let the Spirit do the rest.  >We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we >die.        	We are far more than animals.  We sleep, eat, reproduce, and die 	just as other animals do - true.  But, we are also capable of more 	than this.  If your personal vision of humanity (or of yourself) is 	so limited, I can only hope and pray ;-) that you will someday find 	a more expansive view.  	(For reflection, what animals have the wide variety of performing 	arts that humans do?  How is it that humans can learn the language 	of other humans (or animals) but that other animals cannot do so? 	How is it that humans can organize themselves in various social 	structures whereas other animals have only one structure?)  >Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.  	Blatant assertion.  Christianity is not physically addictive. 	Christianity is not psychologically addictive.  Christianity is not 	a *thing* which one snorts/ingests/shoots-up; it is a relationship 	with a living being.  You might as validly characterize any close- 	knit relationship with this appelation.  >Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject >themselves with jeezus and live with that high.   	There are "Jesus freaks" who let the emotional aspects of worship 	and Christian living gain (and retain) the upper hand.  Even so, 	this does not by itself invalidate the foundation from which these 	things flow.  >It pities me how many millions of lives have been lost in religious >wars, of which Christianity has had no small part.  	Guilty by association?  That "christianity" which forces itself 	upon another is not Christianity at all.  >When Christians see a "non-believer", they say that person is blind >to the truth, but they cannot realize that it is _they_ who live >with this mask of fakeness each day.  Jesus was just prophet #37696  >who happened to have a large influence because at that time the Romans >were (circa 69ad) dispersing the Jewish population and communities >needed some sort of cohesive element to keep them strong in that time >of dire need.  	You appear to have an amazing certainty about what really happened 	2000 years ago.  How did you come by it?  	I cannot accept your conclusion that Jesus' influence was a sole 	result of the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD.  He was 30+ years 	gone by this time.  It strains the bounds of credulity to assert 	that nothing about Jesus' life was noteworthy _until_ the sack.  >I must go.  These are but a few of my thoughts on Christianity.  	Christianity is having a relationship with Jesus Christ Himself. 	What do you know of Him?