I ask questions here at DU and get accused of "nastiness".
Pointing out contradictions is apparently a no-no because Christians get their feelings hurt terribly easily. It's always taken out of context, or it's a metaphor or a parable.
Whereas my opinions are not wanted nor discussed in Real Life either, and I get told bullshit by Angrydude in Walgreen's, like "There are no atheists in foxholes" and "every person in intensive care in such and such hospital is praying, I can tell you that".
Husbo asked, "Do you go up to that hospital every day and survey them? You don't, do you? So you don't know."
Angrydude asked me if I believed in heaven, and I said "I don't know."
Angrydude gets mad at being challenged and walks off steamed yelling from the other side of the store "I'll pray for you".
I should have said "Knock yourself out" 
I also should have said "If you believe in prayer what are you doing buying pills in Walgreen's in the first place?"
= new reply since forum marked as read
Prolly more around. 
Responding to Stonepounder in Reply #25, "This Christianity is a cruel hoax" where I point out that Jesus said lots of absurd and cruel stuff and the response I get is "Jesus was speaking in metaphors" and "You're taking it out of context".
Happyslug said I took it out of context.
Cordelia said "This nastiness AGAIN? Taken out of context and totally useless."
They get really bent out of shape over the very simple example of Jesus cussing out a fig tree so it withers.
I cite Christopher Hitchens and Lin Yutang.
Asking the question "Why do you need this convoluted belief system to be a good person?" is highly offensive and hurts their feelings.
Looks like atheists and question-askers are an affront to them, me and others, by our very existence.
Here's the post you mentioned, squished together to make room for my reply. Original paragraph breaks marked with [/]:
"Matthew 5:17? Jesus does not abolish the law of the OT, he's supplanting it. He's not replacing it with kindness./There's plenty of fire and brimstone and cruelty in the words of Jesus. It's just that peaceful Christians ignore them. They pretend that Jesus is always a nice guy, rather than repeating the cruelties of the OT./A small part of the cruelty & injustice Jesus speaks in favor of in the NT, all these are from the Gospel of Matthew:/Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14./Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19/The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12 /Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21/Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32/Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen 19:24). 10:14-15/Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21/Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28/Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36 /Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24/.Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50/Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37/God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51/Jesus also hates a living thing: A fig tree. And because of the curse, it withers and dies. He cursed it because it was not fruiting because of the wrong season to fruit./Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20/Way to be positive and encourage life, Jesus.
Now I think you must have been confused about the meaning of "contradiction," as all those passages are rather consistent with each other, don't you think? I think the contradiction is actually between what you think Christianity should be, and what Christianity actually is. I also think that you are probably unaware of how Christianity views you, and all humanity, which contradicts probably how you view yourself and humanity. I for one am rather OK with the fact that the doctrines of Christianity are such that they divide families, pour the sweet milk of concord into hell, uproar the universal peace, and confound all unity on Earth. In fact, I celebrate it! Christianity wouldn't be worth believing in if it didn't cause such ferocious divisions! Christianity wouldn't be Christianity if it didn't claim exclusivity. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant to me. Certainly, we have the right to affirm it, regardless of what people say on the matter.
So let's go through Christianity 101 and get you onboard with what you SHOULD expect. Since you said "way to go Jesus in being positive and encouraging life," let's start with the first one that comes to mind, which is that I ought to make you feel despair of yourself, to make you cling to something better. According to the scripture, "there is none good but one, that is, God" (Mar 10:18). You are not considered good in the sight of God (neither am I), "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). In fact, not only have you (we) fallen short, but you were spiritually dead from the day you were born, so evil that evil flows like water out of your heart. "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Again, "for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Again, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" and again, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Gen 6:5, 8:21, Ps 51:5, Jer 17
). Not even our best deeds, in the sight of the perfect God, are seen as being clean. "But we are all as an unclean thing," saith the Prophet, "and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Isiah 64:6). This concept of "filthy rags" is more frightening when we point out that the word, in the Hebrew, basically refers to toilet rags. Our righteousness, therefore, in the sight of God, is like something we clean our butts with after a number two. Either it is born from impure motives, looks towards a reward, puffs itself up and makes the man proud, or it does not go far enough, or it is too little too late, so that it is worthless in the sight of God who requires a perfect obedience to the law with a perfect heart... and this (that is, perfect obedience), not even expecting a reward for it, but as the minimal duty that every person is obligated to: "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luk 17:10). And again, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." (Romans 4:4).
The minimal duty of an individual is to be good, all the time, on every thing. He is to "love your neighbor as yourself," and "love your enemy, do good to them that curse you," or in its full quote:
"... I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Mat 5:43-48)
And again "whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." And again, "Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. And... sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luk 18:20-22). To which the Apostles replied, a little further, "Who then can be saved?" As if to say, who then can go to heaven, for no one can meet all these requirements? "And he (Christ) said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."
(Whenever I say "you," I'm speaking of the generic you, and therefore do not leave myself out of this, except where unbelief and belief are concerned.)
It is fair to say that Christianity teaches you not to be positive about yourself at all, so far as it is anything that is of ourselves. The individual is altogether "dead in sins" and in desperate need of new life, as "we (believers) all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others" (Eph 2:3-5). Hence the reason why Paul, denying that any good thing is of himself, declares "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves;" and he immediately adds, "but our sufficiency is of God" (2 Co 3:5). In fact, not even the faith which we have is from ourselves, but is something that must be given to us from above. As Christ says, when explaining the unbelief of those who heard His message:
"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."
(Joh 6:64-65)
So not only does God not save all mankind effectually, He makes it a point to explain to them that He saves only whom He wills, and not any more than that! And though His offer is to all, it is such an offer that it condemns them for not believing! For they are told how easy salvation is, what is to be done about it, what it is that they should not do, yet they do it not and they deny it. And this message, therefore, is "to the one... the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life" (2Co 2:16). Or as Augustine explains it:
"But however strong may be the purposes either of angels or of men, whether of good or bad, whether these purposes fall in with the will of God or run counter to it, the will of the Omnipotent is never defeated; and His will never can be evil; because even when it inflicts evil it is just, and what is just is certainly not evil. The omnipotent God, then, whether in mercy He pities whom He will, or in judgment hardens whom He will, is never unjust in what He does, never does anything except of His own free-will, and never wills anything that He does not perform." (Augustine of Hippo, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 102).
And elsewhere, "let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who works all things. Ephesians 1:11 He, therefore, works the beginning of our belief who works all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance; Romans 11:29 and of which it is said: Not of works, but of Him that calls Romans 9:12 (although He might have said, of Him that believes); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. John 15:16 For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe." (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 38).
Therefore God uses them for His own purpose, and saves whom He will, and uses the sinner for His purpose. As Paul says, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Rom 9:19-24)
While it is true that the scriptures teach constantly on sin, and what to do and not to do, it is always in the context of absolute obedience to the law. As Paul says, quoting Moses, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal 3:10). So we see that the scripture teaches that we ought to despair of ourselves, and rely then on God alone. The lesson is not that we are good, or that we can be good, or that those who are not good are run out of heaven, as "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom 3:10) which would render us all damned from such a perspective, but that without God we can do nothing, for "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20). And again, "And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified" (Psa 143:2). And again, "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing" (Joh 15:5).
We conclude, then, that righteousness is not by your goodness, for you are not good, but are rather, in the sight of God, a sea of sin; but that the hope of Jesus Christ is that, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8-9). And this salvation, to annoy you further, is given not to all universally, but only to those who believe in Jesus Christ. There is indeed a hell, in which such tortures will exist beyond any thing that occurred in the Old Testament. And, FYI, since Jesus Christ claimed to be God, then He IS the God who ordered the extermination of ancient peoples, destroyed entire nations, cut down men, women, children alike, and had mercy alone on Abraham and made a promise He did not have to make with Him and His seed. In fact, from the Biblical perspective, he's killed us all already, for we are all "appointed once to die, and then the judgment" (Heb 9:27). And again, "Seeing his [man's] days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;" (Job 14:5). In fact, there is not one death in this world, no matter how tragic or horrible, or peaceful and gentle, that God does not have His eye on and did not ordain before the beginning of the world. If you should escape death in a storm, it is because God ordained that you should survive. If you should die in a storm, or lose your family, as Job did, the proper reply is, "the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). Though it was Satan who was the immediate cause, it was God who gave the command. Though it was Satan's desire to kill, yet it was God who set the bounds and the limits, and who willed that it should be so, and did not put an end to it. So it was that even if a person just happened upon robbers in the woods and was killed, it is God's doing, though the killers were not absolved of guilt. For God merely used their evil natures, to perform his judgment. And if a man receives blessings, it is also by God, who so ordered providence that it should be so.
I like how Augustine explains the whole argument and the conclusion to make from all these things:
"Thus, then, matters stood. The whole mass of the human race was under condemnation, was lying steeped and wallowing in misery, and was being tossed from one form of evil to another, and, having joined the faction of the fallen angels, was paying the well-merited penalty of that impious rebellion. For whatever the wicked freely do through blind and unbridled lust, and whatever they suffer against their will in the way of open punishment, this all evidently pertains to the just wrath of God. But the goodness of the Creator never fails either to supply life and vital power to the wicked angels (without which their existence would soon come to an end); or, in the case of mankind, who spring from a condemned and corrupt stock, to impart form and life to their seed, to fashion their members, and through the various seasons of their life, and in the different parts of the earth, to quicken their senses, and bestow upon them the nourishment they need. For He judged it better to bring good out of evil, than not to permit any evil to exist. And if He had determined that in the case of men, as in the case of the fallen angels, there should be no restoration to happiness, would it not have been quite just, that the being who rebelled against God, who in the abuse of his freedom spurned and transgressed the command of his Creator when he could so easily have kept it, who defaced in himself the image of his Creator by stubbornly turning away from His light, who by an evil use of his free-will broke away from his wholesome bondage to the Creator's laws—would it not have been just that such a being should have been wholly and to all eternity deserted by God, and left to suffer the everlasting punishment he had so richly earned? Certainly so God would have done, had He been only just and not also merciful, and had He not designed that His unmerited mercy should shine forth the more brightly in contrast with the unworthiness of its objects." (Augustine of Hippo, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 27)
Are you keeping up? Or is this a lot of information? It's just the BASICS, you know.
So all the law has for this purpose to show us that we are unfit for heaven. Every commandment, to the harshest penalty, to the smallest commandment to not eat this or that, designed to teach us those things which are required of obedience, at the bare minimum, for all humanity.
But then you might say, why does God command us not to kill, and yet God Himself declares of Himself, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (Isa 45
)? The answer is, that God is sovereign, and whom He will He kills, and whom He will He saves. God is not obligated to give mercy to everyone, as the scripture declares "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Rom 9:14-16). If God is obligated to show mercy, then mercy is justice; and justice, therefore, must be injustice. The punishment of sin would be a crime, the demands of obedience would be meaningless, His eternal justice would be branded eternal evil. Certainly you would like to say those things! But the truth is, that when God does not destroy, it is in mercy that He does not destroy. When God does destroy, it is in justice that He destroys. For everything that in man that seems good, is from God, who "puts his law" into the hearts of men that they should follow them (somewhere in Romans 1), and through His manifold gifts to men renders them able to perform those things. And when a man is damned or otherwise perishes, he knows in himself that he lied, and was not good to his fellow man, and was a criminal all his life in the sight of God, albeit men often excuse themselves. But on the day of judgment they are found absolutely guilty, and they cannot say that the punishment was unjust, since they sinned according to their own desires. Neither are those things which are material very wonderful either! As God reckons all wealth to be without value, and speaks only of spiritual wealth which is greater than all. And when a man dies, it is to God that He dies. And if a man suffers, it is for God's purpose that He suffers. "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake" (Php 1:29).
Therefore God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and is not obligated to do those things which you desire, but is sovereign in the taking of life, and in illness, and in eternal damnation, and in happiness, love and everlasting life.
So that is Christianity 101! Albeit, from the Reformed/Augustinian perspective! Have fun!
For that particular thread, I think part of the reason you got a bad response is that the poster you replied to was looking to defend their religion from what they felt was the corruptions of the far right in an echo chamber, and was not looking for a challenge. Im sure to them its like you came out of no-where looking for a fight.
From my experiences, non-believers come off as an after thought if that much to some believers. My high school had a forced baccalaureate and I went up to the guidance council to complain. Her reply to me was "Don't worry, its nondenominational." I just dropped the subject there and then. The possibility that someone was not christian did not even cross her mind.
Another part is I think people get defensive when they see their deepest held beliefs challenged. It stops being about a conversation to find truth but about defending one's own side and winning the argument. For example, if someone insulted my mother, and lets say they are completely justified in their insult, I would still rush to her defense. She my mother and I love her and I would not stand by and allow that to happen.
I like linking to this cracked article because I see alot of this:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html
I think it could be argued that every single one of these fallacies except the one about statistics was exhibited by those arguing with you in that thread (but being an atheist I admit to being biased in favor of your posts and am probably guilty of those fallacies myself). To a degree I think this explains why your posts were not well received.
I don't know about you, but my loss of faith was slow and it took alot of thought and time. I don't know how I would have reacted had I been confronted in such a manner when I first had my doubts. I don't think i would have reacted positively. So I think its best to talk to believers in as respectful manner as I can and avoid being too confrontational for most situations.
Of course, different people are different and different situations are different as well. Sometimes being confrontational is called for, but what I am trying to say is that alot of these situations its actually detrimental to the converstation. Sometime you have to confront these situations with kid gloves. Like someone who is just beginning to doubt going up to a minister or a member of their religion with questions for the first time. If we go full throttle it comes off as if we just want to make them look dumb instead of expressing our problems with their statements.
Also, tone of voice does not exist on the internet and its very very easy to take a comment the wrong way. Looking over your post I don't see anything nasty but at times it does seem like you are mocking them. For instance this section here:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Everytime I point out the mean stuff in the NT, where Jesus is busy condoning mass slaughter or murder for foolish reasons or sending somebody to hell, somebody at DU gets mad at me for pointing out that it's there. Not my fault it's in your bible and mine too.
and here:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Not a guy I would hire to do my landscaping.
Come off sounding passive aggressive and sarcastic. Some of the emotes also come off like that. 
Might be how we feel but it can also looks like we are mocking them. We want them to think about these things right? A lot of people won't listen if it seems in the slightest bit that we are making fun of them or their beliefs. If we really want to have that conversation with them we have to assess the situation and see what is best, wit and humor or us walking on eggshells.
I think it could be argued that this approach applies to all delicate issues not just religion. Honestly, I have not been here very long and don't know you very well and just typing up this response im having a hard time finding the right words to write this in a way where you or others won't take my post the wrong way or think I am criticizing you.
And of course, as you said earlier, there are people who our very existence is an affront.
People think I'm being confrontational for asking questions. I'm being careful, but any questioning of xianity by anyone can be considered rude by some.
I got run off from the Interfaith group, was told I was offending people when I was being careful not to use ad hominem insults. I NEVER said anyone was a bad person.
They told me to leave and go back to R&S Religion group (here).
So they are even more sensitive in Interfaith, since non-Christians are apparently not welcome to discuss theology.
I'm not supposed to criticize their "Christians are all warm and loving liberals because my church is warm and loving liberals, and you can beiieve practically anything and be a Christian" line.
They use anecdotal evidence; I use anecdotal evidence, clearly stated, in that I have never met a self-identified UU Christian or UU Christian minister, and they tell me I'm wrong. They dance around my simple questions.
This is what I get by not resorting to logical fallacies or ad hominem arguments. I'm following the rules of reasoned argument.
As I see it they are coming up with nothing to counter my arguments.
I don't think you are challenged as to why you question others beliefs. I think you are challenged because you take the definitive position that you are right and others are wrong. There is no opportunity for discussion when someone takes that position, whether they be a believer or a non-believer.
But you are not nasty about it at all and I remain hopeful!
I was taken to task over and over as to why should I care, what business is it was of mine and why we can't all just get along.
My resolute atheism is another ball of wax. 
I am open to discussion, but can i lisen to what people say and then disagree. I can discuss things with people and find their inadequate, wanting or just wrong.
"Why do you need this convoluted belief system to be a good person?"
My answer would be that you don't.
Fellowships often do not even have a trained minister, so you get a parade of guest speakers that may or may not talk about moral or philosophical issues. I belonged to one fellowship that had a half time minister and they fired him. The old people who started the fellowship in the late 50s-early 60s just wanted their own Sunday morning sandbox to play in and nobody could change anything.
I got a choir together and rehearsed with them and played the piano and selected music for them to sing, to add something positive and beautiful on Sunday mornings. Some board member informed me, "This congregation is only interested in instrumental music, not in choral music." 
I figured if they weren't interested in what I was attempting to do to make a positive difference, I'd leave. So I did.
I'm asking a simple question about "Why do you go to church" and so far all I've gotten is dodges.
The only UU church I went to that talked about Jesus had an "Ancient Reading" and a "Modern Reading". The Ancient Reading was something from the bible.
It was in a rich part of a very large city, and everyone I ever met that visited it called it "The Icebox" or "The Walk-in Refrigerator" because when you visited, NO ONE greeted you, or acknowledged your existence.
Granted, there are many churches and synagogues with the problem of not greeting people and making them feel welcome.
I have no idea where those UU churches are that "talk about Jesus a lot" and I'm in the South. I personally have no interest in them telling me how wonderful Jesus is on Sundays, unless they are discussing him in a historical, sociological or mythological contest, and that is not allowed in Christian churches. And I have never met a UU Christian.
UUs generally want to get far away from Christianity because of realizing it just didn't make sense and didn't fit their needs (At the churches and fellowships I've been to) but want a community of ideas and social action and lots of discussions.
UUs have two of their own seminaries, Starr King in Berkeley, and Meadville Lombard in Chicago. Their websites state they are specifically but not exclusively for UUs. Starr King's website says "Student Centered Multi-Religious Counter-Oppressive Theological Education."
I've met two UU ministers who graduated from Harvard. Harvard Divinity School's website says it is non-sectarian.
The Guiding Principles and Goals of Harvard Divinity Schools
Guiding Principles
•Religious and theological studies depend on and reinforce each other;
•A principled approach to religious values and faith demands the intellectual rigor and openness of quality academic work;
•A well-educated student of religion must have a deep and broad understanding of more than a single religious tradition;
•Studying religion requires that one understand one's own historical context as well as that of those whom one studies;
•An exemplary scholarly and teaching community requires respect for and critical engagement with difference and diversity of all kinds.
Goals
•To offer significant scholarly expertise in the Christian and other religious traditions;
•To offer, in collaboration with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, world-class religious and theological studies for undergraduate, master's, and doctoral students;
•To help diverse communities address contemporary issues in the light of the best scholarship and through exemplary preparation of ministers and other religious leaders;
•To provide strong resources for studying religion with attentiveness to issues of diversity—in regard to gender, race, ethnicity, religious tradition, and class;
•To foster a strong sense of community among our faculty, students, alumni, and staff.
============
So I don't know where you get the idea that UUs "talk about Jesus a lot" or specifically identify as Christian. There is a subgroup called the UU Christian Fellowship just as there are other subgroups of the denomination like the CUUPS, Covenant of UU Pagans. Other self-identifying groups in the UU fold are Jews, Buddhists and Humanists, although I do not know if they have named groups.
I have seen meditation and contemplation in UU services but never any prayers beseeching a supreme being.
Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 05:06 AM - Edit history (1)
And they linked me this picture:
It makes the point that just because someone's tone sucks does not mean they aren't right.
Of course, to me, it also suggest that having a bad tone can make the most unacceptable of arguments sound reasonable by comparison, so we should try and sound calm and reasonable if we really want to convince people of our position.
Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 03:13 AM - Edit history (1)
TO REPEAT MYSELF FOR THE FOURTH TIME:
If I point out contradictions in the bible, I get no answers other than "It's a metaphor" or "you're taking it out of context" or logical fallacies.
If people here think I'm being nasty, they should back up. I'm doing my best to be polite and use logic.
Seems that a question as simple as "Why do you believe in such a convoluted any illogical belief system?
And do you just follow it because you were taught it by your family, or have you thought it through? Whether you thought about other moral and religious alternatives in your spiritual journey, and made a conscious decision to be a Christian because you get some non-quantifiable reward from it?"
is something Christians cannot or will not answer. Why I do not know.
I think those are quite reasonable questions. Here they are offensive and I don't know why.
So far I have not gotten any answers other than one person saying "You don't need such a convoluted and illogical belief system to be a good person", just justifications for being offended that I'm asking such foundational questions of others.
I honestly do not understand the hostility. And I've been out of college over thirty years.
I think they are afraid of God's wrath/going to hell, but don't want to admit it.
Back when I took Nature & Function of Religion in college, these were the kinds of questions we read about. Why do humans have religions and rituals? What are the psychological payoffs to the individual and the group? Sigmund Freud and others were writing about this in the 19th century, so it is certainly not a new concept.
<--I went to college to learn historical, sociological and psychological perspectives of religion as part of a true liberal arts education.