Thats the biggest problem in this thread. We are all arguing about "Christianity" what about other religions with other belief structures?

We all?

Well everyone in here has an opinion so when I say all I mean all in here?

Here as in this thread or here as in this website or here as in this world or here as in this reality?

(Yes I am screwing with your current Plime Goal)

I can actually agree with this.
I believe the same thing.
After you die, there will be no pain or tears.

For example this one:
isn't even necessarily about religion. Definitely not about Christianity. At least I have a hard time picturing a crucified tortoise.

Out, Out, Damned Atheists
I wonder what you say to this article.

My opinion is that there are religious practices that I hope I will not see becoming popular. It is all very disturbing. It seems she is advocating DIY brainwashing. Doing religion without faith.

Revelation 3:16 (New International Version)
"So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

Statements made by either side (faith vs. reason) tend to take inferences from their own belief system that just don't make any sense to another. Hence the argument persists.

Statements like this...
"today all kinds people believe in a God that in no way resembles the God the atheists despise"

If it makes you happy, believe! By all means. I don't believe in "god" and therefore I don't despise "him." Nor do I despise any practice aimed at transcendence.

And I also understand that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. It's more like a spectrum. I would never accuse a person of "faith" to be without reason.

Lying.
Can God do it?
Well, of course he can, since he is omnipotent.
Does he do it?
There is a set of man-made rules of good moral or ethics. In most cultures lying is not OK. I am not sure how universal this is. I know of at least one culture, where stealing is OK (They even have a myth about how they have stolen the 4th nail of Jesus, so for them practicing stealing became a virtue for sparing Jesus the pain of the fourth nail). I guess there might be cultures where lying is OK too.
Politicians seem to lie a lot and mostly that is just considered to be part of their job, so maybe a closer look at western subcultures would show me the milieu where lying is a virtue.

I guess God is not compelled to behave in compliance with mortal law. After all he is omnipotent so our moral laws should not bind him. If we take a closer look at the Old Testament it seems to support this statement. Clearly he is not a servant of human laws. So why would lying be any exception?

Now if he lies how could we know when did he lie and when did he tell the truth? Of course if he lies he should do this with perfection too. I think there is no way of catching him. That would explain the contradictions in the statements of the various prophets.

What do religous people think of this statement:

"If what Jesus said was good, what can it matter whether he was God or not?"

I personally agree with this a lot, because it makes sense. When he talks about love and compassion I think people can learn to make the world a better place.

That article seems to misunderstand the debate.

It seems to give too much weight to arguments about the immorality of the God of the Old Testament. She seems to say that atheists are saying that we ought not to believe in God because the God in the Old Testament was such a villain.

I think that that is just a sideshow in the whole debate. In my opinion:
The main part of the debate is about the existence/nonexistence of God.
The only reason atheists raise the question of the Old Testament God's morality/immorality is because the religious side says that atheists have no conscience/morality/values/etc.

Therefore, one of the core arguments of the article, that:
is to me ridiculous because atheists aren't trying to knock God down, they are trying to show that religion does not posses a monopoly on any kind of morality or conscience. The morality of God is inconsequential to his existence.

The other core argument(the one about practice):
Why doesn't she just do Tai-Chi or meditation or Yoga? Why include religion at all in this?

On religious people building their society...is she trying to say that religion is really a political theory? I think that this is certainly an implication of what she is saying, and she bit off far more than she could possibly chew. The religion/atheism debate isn't primarily about politics (she isn't referring to the politics of separation of church and state here, she seems to be talking about some sort of political economy). She seems to be making an accusation against atheists that they don't honor the humanity of their fellow man (otherwise, why state that this is something that mystics do?). But she doesn't seem to back up this implied accusation about either atheists personally or secular/nonreligious societies.

I think that is more than that. If you think about religious practices, there is a lot of practice that is illegal by now and I am happy they are, I am sure even the writer of the article is happy they are illegal, and there is a lot of religious practice that should be illegal. And then there is a relatively small set of religious practice that is legal, but these are usually not much related to religion either.

As I have seen practicing religion by peaceful people who weren't into torturing, killing or mutilating others, so the practice seems to be the same as self help. This is: they use the church and the Bible as a self help resource. Just as it is in the case of self help books, they just disregard everything that does not help them, they care only about the details that makes their life more full, balanced and happy. They get together in the church to listen to some singing, a speech that tells them how they are OK, the world is OK and if something is not OK it will be on the next one anyways; and then they go into small group activities that seem to discuss aspects of religion, but they are really closer to the phenomenon of self-help groups and group therapy than to any particular form of worship.

Religious practice in the modern understanding of Christianity in no way includes the observation of any of the following rules:

Luke 6:27-30 (New American Standard Bible):
But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.

Matthew 19:21 (New International Version):
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

I would go even further. If what Jesus was supposed to say is good, it does not matter if he really lived. One can accept an imaginary figure as his Lord and Savior; since God is almighty, an imaginary son of God can be just as much a savior as a real one. Every story has magic, if a story was given to us by God that story can accomplish anything, the limit is really just your faith.
Actually anyone can believe in a historical figure and follow his teachings. Believing in a fictional figure and following his morals requires real faith.

It only matters as it pertains to the question of whether one views Jesus as a religious figure or a philosopher.

Without even touching the rest of the debate, let me assure you that meditation and yoga are religious practices.

If you don't believe me, come to my yoga class. I thought it would be all kinds of secular (like my last class), considering it's taught at the city rec, but oh how wrong I was.

It's not Christian, but it is religious. Or can be. (at its root, it is. It's only recently been used secularly).

But it can be used secularly. That's the point I was trying to make.

I think it is the other way around.
In the US religious practice became something like yoga or meditation, or other self help and self improvement activities.

You could say that any religious activity is self-help.

I won't and I don't think that's why people do it (barring perhaps the "Prosperity gospel" followers...bleah).

But yoga/meditation was/is a religious practice. If you do it in an Eastern country, it'll be definitely as religious as attending a Catholic mass here.

Genesis 3:16 (New International Version)
God talks gives women a 'desire' for men, but in Genesis 3:17, 3:18, and 3:19
No mention is made of male lust.

So, with this in mind, could one say that the Bible says that women are hornier than men? Imagine the potential pickup lines from this...