What does the upside down star(pentagram) mean to you?

Intrepid wrote:

snood wrote:

Intrepid - just for the record, I read the same posts as every one else, and I didn't take away from it that you think Christians are better than everyone else, or that they're the only ones who know right from wrong.

Thank you Snood. I was not saying that, as you wisely picked out. I said that there is a difference. I have never said that Christians are better, or worse, than anybody else. I am only speaking to what works for me.

What then did you mean by a difference when you wrote these words and put the emphasis on "IS"?

Intrepid wrote:

I have also seen young children brought up in Christian and non-Christian homes and there IS a difference in their perception of good and bad. I am not saying that all Christians are good. Just as in anything you have your bad apples. However, when children are brought up in a truly honest religious family they get exposure to others with the same moral values. They have a wider exposure to those things that are considered right and good. No, I am not talking about fanatical religionism.

I have also seen young children brought up in Christian and non-Christian homes and there IS a difference in their perception of good and bad.

Setanta wrote:

Since you posted your pie chart, you have not provided a link. You have only mentioned aherents-dot-com. That's not the same as providing a link. Since you are unwilling to provide one, i can only assume that your source is horsie poop, and you know it.

That is where I got the chart!!!!! sheesh

J_B wrote:

Not that I doubt there will eventually be studies attempting show a cause and effect relationship between the correlation described in Paul's article, he clearly states his study is preliminary and only demonstrates a correlation and was not robust enough to establish causality.

If the study in question was viewed in isolation, your viewpoint as per causality would have more merit, however for more definitive causality scenarios I suggest historical impetuses such as found in religious censorship, religious war, religious pogroms, religious bigotry, religious prejudice etc. Further all the US's military forces have the participation (and hence tacit endorsement) of the Christian Clergy and the US president GWB himself often evokes god in his morally questionable doings.

Intrepid wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Since you posted your pie chart, you have not provided a link. You have only mentioned aherents-dot-com. That's not the same as providing a link. Since you are unwilling to provide one, i can only assume that your source is horsie poop, and you know it.

That is where I got the chart!!!!! sheesh

Well duh . . . no ****, Sherlock . . . now, how about posting a link?

Kirk,
Given that a number of posters (myself included) have apparently so poorly and consistently misunderstood you, pray tell, why keep it a great big secret page after trembling page? Spit it out Shatner!

Chumly wrote:

Kirk,
Given that a number of posters (myself included) have apparently so poorly and consistently misunderstood you, pray tell, why keep it a great big secret page after trembling page? Spit it out Shatner!

That "a number of posters perceived something a certain way doesn't necessarily mean anything - it so happens that "a number of posters" have an axe to grind against religions in general, and about Christianity in particular.

Chumly wrote:

J_B wrote:

Not that I doubt there will eventually be studies attempting show a cause and effect relationship between the correlation described in Paul's article, he clearly states his study is preliminary and only demonstrates a correlation and was not robust enough to establish causality.

If the study in question was viewed in isolation, your viewpoint as per causality would have more merit, however for more definitive causality scenarios I suggest historical impetuses such as found in religious censorship, religious war, religious pogroms, religious bigotry, religious prejudice etc. Further all the US's military forces have the participation (and hence tacit endorsement) of the Christian Clergy and the US president GWB himself often evokes god in his morally questionable doings.

Chumly, it's not my viewpoint as per causality, it's the viewpoint of the author of the study you posted. He identified a correlation but clearly stated he could not conclude causality. Any number of effects can be shown to have a correlation in a study but no substantive conclusions can be drawn from them without further study. I actually have no viewpoint toward causality and you once again are attributing thoughts to me that I don't have.

As a new parent I searched out a faith tradition for my children for that very reason. We ended up UUs, which is more heavily entrenched in promoting morals and values than any other faith I found. It's exactly why we chose it.

I agree with Intrepid that exposure to a faith tradition that is steeped in morals has some advantages for children.

Question for those of faith: do you have any evidence to support the view that those of a religious upbringing are less violent and/or warlike?

Quakers, Mennonites, and UUs are all professed pacifist religions.

Relying on the judgement of some knowledgeable experts (A2K members) may be far more productive in identifying obvious truths than trying to develop a list of unfounded accusations in randomly selected pieces of posts. Ciao.

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

* Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
* Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
* Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
* Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
* Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
* Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.

Hi J_B,

Yuppers, for some pretty funny reasons we did the Who's On First? and for any part I played, it was without malice or ill intent.

To move the dialogue in what might be a more interesting direction, let me simply present a salient query or two:

Can you provide a merited argument as to why the teachings of morality need be accompanied with a belief in the supernatural? Nope If you cannot provide such merited argument, why are you an adherent to a belief system which is based of the supernatural, when clearly no supernatural activity is to be found? It isn't, hence "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" Do you believe that the teachings of morality can have as good, or better efficacy without the accompanying belief in the supernatural?Certainly If no why not?

Caveat: I'll assume the questions are pertinent unless directed otherwise, which might stop the "Who's on First?" humors. Then again, it could simply end up being a byproduct of our combed communications stylings and we will have to laugh it off.

Religion can be defined as a collection of like-minded individuals who find support and strength in each other's company.

Spirituality can also be independently defined.

………exclusion of a belief in a super-natural power do not define religion.