Comments on: As a moderate Christian pastor

By: Food for thought...

Food for thought... — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:37:56 +0000

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. – C.S. Lewis

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Heartburn Home Remedy

Heartburn Home Remedy — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:19:42 +0000

Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is a lot more than I expected for when I found a link on SU telling that the info is quite decent. Thanks.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Kosher Meatballs

Kosher Meatballs — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:01:40 +0000

This guy sounds like my mom on religion…

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Alice

Alice — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:36:53 +0000

It just goes to show what a sad state Christianity is in if people can come on here and say something ‘moderate’ and have everyone else be shocked by it (no way! A Christian says this stuff?). Though to be honest it shocked me also. I have been wondering whether or not I can call myself Christian due to my ‘moderate’ beliefs (see below) so to have a pastor acknowledge them gives me a new hope… perhaps…

I consider myself Christian, and I think along the same lines as the pastor – though to answer someone’s questions, my ‘holy book’ does say that you have to trust in God and have faith in Jesus to be saved. So I guess I’m still working things out. Mostly, I figure it’s not my place to judge. I believe in Jesus’ teachings because I know them and have decided that those values are important; someone who doesn’t cannot be judged the same way. I do think that there is a difference between a moral, and an immoral life but I have no idea where to draw the line (goes back to ‘I can’t judge’).

Pastor Pirate Dave did sum up quite nicely what my general idea of a moral life is, but I would even argue that you can demonstrate your love for God without even believing in him (through the ‘love your neighbor’ and ’share what you have’ points). I think it’s better to do these things without expectation of a reward than to do it to get to heaven (or a beer-filled volcano) and that doing so is, in essence, worshiping and loving the creator (or FSM).

Peace, Love, Pasta,

Alice

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: mentos

mentos — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:13:36 +0000

I’m guessing the Bible and the Koran and other books were originally used to make the world a better place. I think by saying there’s eternal happiness for everyone who lives his life crimeless, you trick people into getting along without any violence needed.

Sadly enough, over the course of time this purpose was altered into a reason for war. I really wish people would have evolved over 2000 years, but sadly enough they take these books and use them for evil. They teach the contents of these books everywhere, so a holy war is easily started because people truly believe the “possibilities” described in these books. I know the books are loving. But the people using these books to fulfill their needs are not.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: capt. kidd

capt. kidd — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:16:27 +0000

i am also a Christian, and i’d have to agree with this pastor, while i can’t join your religoin, i will support it’s goals.
thx guys,
for having an open mind.
:)

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Cap'n Wolf

Cap'n Wolf — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:15:38 +0000

Fianlly, a good Christian.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: gordos

gordos — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:55:05 +0000

if there would be some more guys like you…
religion is created in mind and of course a good thing as long as it isn´t “used” wrong…

sorry 4 my bad english :]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Wench Pink Shoes

Wench Pink Shoes — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:29:44 +0000

Aww, that was nice.
.
I have a question for the prophet – What about all of the people that don’t like beer? Is there a liqour volcano or are we just just screwed?
.
And seeing how there is a stripper factory, that couldn’t be too bad!

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: sheldon

sheldon — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:00:41 +0000

yes i wish there were more christians like you but one thing doesnt your holy book state that for not beliving in him we are damned to hell?? i dont wanna go to hell…

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Bob of The Rubber Duck

Bob of The Rubber Duck — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:02:36 +0000

Pirate David,

It is remarkably refreshing to hear you admit such things. I am also glad that you have decided that co-existing is the best option. I want to congratulate you, and hope that you run for the Dictator of Earth (president) someday. RAmen

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Fizzmick PaChee

Fizzmick PaChee — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:15:28 +0000

@Sarah,
We are not that different. However, I think you are not clear on the reasoning for my objectives and the true spirit in which they are delivered. It is with the best of intentions, and I do try to be as nice as possible.
I disagree with your weighting of benefits. While religion may provide a sense of comfort, it is an illusion that carries many dangerous seeds of destruction. Sometimes success temporarily comes in spite of, not because of traits. Reason must prevail over superstition. If the “seeing the light” comment was interpreted as being disrespectful – my actual wording was more tactful… Well uh, only in the way that I do want my views to be adopted. Showing respect for what I percieve as an inferior view only perpetuates the problem, and would be dishonest on my part.
Do you see what I mean? – Fizzmick PaChee

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Sarah

Sarah — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:12:33 +0000

Perna de Pau,

May I request some data regarding your claims? I am especially interested in the claim of “Most religious persons would agree that their religion is worth dying for and this is just the same as agreeing that their religion is worth killing for.” – I would really like to see some hard numbers on this, because it does not jive with my experience or my psychological and historical education.

As for Dread Pirate David, how exactly did he “throw God at us”? Did he imply in any way that there was something wrong with being an Atheist, because I did not detect that at all; he merely stated his profession and why he could not join the church of the FSM. I am also much confused by your claim that there is something wrong with the fact that Dread Pirate David has not posted beyond his original message. He basically said “way to go” – when you post that on a website, are you expected to return and see what responses have been made to you comment? Does it imply that there is something wrong with you if you don’t? Please clarify, because I am really quite confused.

-Sarah

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:46 +0000

Fizzmick PaChee,

My apologies for missing your apology, I was affronted by the end of you post (I took that “seeing the light” comment as disrespectful of other people’s beliefs) and felt the need to challenge some of the assumptions you seem to be making. You seem genuinely interested in what I am try to say, so let me try to explain.

First, my objection is not to you saying religion is dangerous (I agree that it can be) my objection is to the word “inherent”. As an atheist, I don’t think that any inherent value judgement can be placed on anything: anything can be either dangerous, benign, or helpful given the circumstances. The term “inherently dangerous” implies that there is some absolute measure of something’s “goodness” or “badness” – who but a supernatural deity could be capable of measuring the minds of humans well enough to determine if something has caused more suffering than joy?

But more importantly, I don’t think the question itself is important. It does not matter to me if something is overall more hurtful or harmful; what matters to me is weather that something it more hurtful or harmful in a given circumstance. For example, if something causes more harm than good 75% of the time, and more good than harm 25% of the time, then I think that something should be employed when it is useful and avoided when it is not – if one instead argues that because, overall, it causes more harm than good it should always be avoided, one is making (in my mind) the incorrect choice 25% of the time. You inferred that I am trying to excuse the harms of religion by saying it can also help. I was not trying to do that at all; that thought had not even occurred to me. Let me use an example I’m sure you are familiar with: religion as the opiate of the masses. Can opiates be harmful? Yes. Can they be useful? Also yes. Are they more harmful than helpful? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone can really know. Does using them when they are useful (e.g. morphine for cancer patients) somehow justify the loss of pain, loss of life, and violence that has occurred (and continues to occur) because of their discovery? Again, I’m not interested in justifying anything, I am simply interested in making the best of the current situation. Opiates have been discovered, people have become addicted and have died, and banning the use of morphine in hospitals is not going to change that.

And that leads me into the clarification of my ideal world comment – what I meant by saying that the world is not ideal is not that you should not attempt to make it so, but rather that you should not behave as if it is. In an ideal world, no human would ever have need of opiates, because no one would ever get hurt or sick (and they probably should all be destroyed in such a circumstance), but in this non-ideal world we have, there is need of them and I don’t think they should all be destroyed. Humans evolved, messily and imperfectly, and as they exist now (non-ideal and all) many of them have a psychological need for religion, and behaving otherwise will hurt more than it helps.

I’ve just realized I spent 2 hours composing this message (man am I lame) so I’m going to end this. I look forward to you reply. FSM bess!

-Sarah

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: JTown Barrett

JTown Barrett — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:06:19 +0000

Yay!!! Another Christain with sense!!!

I have known a few, but not many. They need more guys like that to calm the zealotic masses.

Like or Dislike: 1 0

By: Perna de Pau

Perna de Pau — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:54:27 +0000

I should like to state very clearly my support for the views of Fizzmick PaChee against those of Sarah. I tend to agree that religion is inherently bad and dangerous and fundies are certainly not in a minority: every religious person is a potential fundie, even our well articulate and apparently tolerant visitor. Most religious persons would agree that their religion is worth dying for and this is just the same as agreeing that their religion is worth killing for. And this is what I would call a fundie.
.
I know however that, as long as there will be uneducated people, it will be useless to try to suppress religion. All those who have tried to do so have failed and religions even come off better when they are persecuted.
.
The solution is to educate people into understanding the real face of religion. The fact that the most educated countries in Europe are also those where religious practice is lower seem to support this view.
.
As for Dread Pirate David I would point out that after throwing God at us (even if he was liberal with the notion of god) he did not bother to come back and reply to our own posts.
.
RAmen and may you all be touched by his noodly appendages.

Like or Dislike: 1 0

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:50:44 +0000

Fizzmick PaChee,

*shrugs* I don’t think the evidence is on your side, and I don’t think you understand how most people who classify themselves as “Christian”, or any other religion for that matter, really think. Fundies are in the minority (albeit a very vocal minority). Perhaps the world would be more ideal if there was no religion, but the world is not ideal, and I don’t think that’s likely to change any time soon. I any case, my only real objection to your posts is the fact that you responded with hostility to a friendly (and all too rare) post that encourages tolerance, and that kind of thing makes Atheists (and Pastafarians) look bad. Debate all you like, but do it with a clear head, else you’re to one who will come off as the fundie. My you be touched by his noodely appendage!

-Sarah

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: JBENDER23

JBENDER23 — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:39:21 +0000

Your a good man, and a good pastor. That is what religion, not just FSMism or Christianity, is all about. I wish people would stop just reading their religious texts, and actually READ them.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Shrödinger's Wife

Shrödinger's Wife — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:50:41 +0000

David, you most certainly are not goober-head – you are spreading inter-religious love and understanding. Perhaps you should do a sermon on this. Think of the strides you could make towards universal goodwill towards man.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Fizzmick PaChee

Fizzmick PaChee — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:45:15 +0000

@Sarah,
Not that I felt I was mean, but in deference to comments – in my second post on this thread, I said that I applauded his letter for being tolerant and embracing. Upon further reflection I stated that, “in light of the general tone of acceptance and lack of threats in your letter, perhaps I could have been kinder.” Did you miss that?
At least my comments are consistent and logical. In your previous post you said, “No human invention is inherently dangerous, religion included; unless you are willing to claim that every human invention is inherently dangerous, beer and strippers included.” Not that I said that inventions are dangerous, but can you tell me why any particular invention cannot be dangerous without every invention being dangerous? You then go on to list; “many cases, (where) religion has harmed people” and write of ‘good’ -read up on Mother Teresa- as if that makes the bad okay.
YOU ALSO SAID, “perhaps the world would be more ideal if there was no religion”. Isn’t an ideal something to be strived for, not dismissed as too difficult? It absolutely is unlikely to happen without the efforts that Fizzmick PaChee and the like-minded are providing.
Thank you again for giving me the motivation to elaborate. -Fizzmick PaChee

Like or Dislike: 1 0