NeedleDee, I know it is off topic but you might want to sign up to IntenseDebate and get a real account! :)

I think I forgot to mention the similarity why I dislike the word "feminist", it implies a similar meaning, as if the woman would be the ruler instead of the man. While I understand that many humanists may very well be nihilistic as well, that's not the impression I got from the site I linked anyway. You have to remember I base most of my impression on that site, and unfortunately I cannot help you since it's in Swedish... but suffice to say, while the site does seem neutral at first, I almost get a fundamental impression by it.

I know what you mean with comparing organizations and religions; the point is that Buddhism is a religion, but it does not focus much on the metaphysical and there is no existence of god, and it supports the idea of environmentalism, you being a part of a greater whole. This is why the idea that religion alone is a religion because of a god-concept is flawed to me, because a lot of religions don't believe in god at all, they are in fact, quite a few once you start counting them and compare them to other religions, worldviews or cosmologies.

Is humanism a worldview? I suppose it is for some, and in that warrant it is SIMILAR to, but not equal to religion. I don't think I ever openly said it is religion, but it is becoming a lot like a FUNDAMNETAL religious group. And this is what I disagree with.

Of course, and I am aware of that. And I am aware that neither of you are proclaimed humanists :)

I have to say though, that when you start looking at the humanist movement a bit at least, it seems just a tad like a religious institution, minus the faith. The creation of dogma is there, for example. You have an institution, and while there is not yet something akin to scripture, as it seems the humanist movement is mostly carried out by verbal means, many a humanist do share the same set of ethics. I suppose this is the part that I find just a bit scary. And it seems that many humanists find it their cause to push their non-theistic beliefs upon theists, something I believe none of us here would agree with (and this is one of the reasons why I would never call myself or consider myself a humanist). I wholly support the idea of secularism; what you believe in should have nothing to do with how to control a country, and it becomes even more evident if you got many different groups who believe in different religions in the same country. Which group should have the surpreme right then, in such a case, to say that OUR ethics are better in standard than the other groups' ethics? That is not fair to anyone, and should be one of the primary arguments why religion and state should be seperated as well.

Well, not much else to say than Waldheri already said :)

It should not, as I was just a "guest" for a long time as well before I became an author. ID is related to the Wordpress account.

Not to add the cpu/memory usage differences with notebad vs Word ;) But yes, it might be because you don't have an ID account. I have not experienced this before though, as I used to post here on this site without being signed up to ID (and db0 knows I had great issues getting started XD), and I used to write as obscenely long posts back then as I do now.

angiebarna, you can post more in one post. Using the enter key will work properly when you wish to organize thoughts. You don't have to doublepost, there is no character limit as I am aware of. I also sorely disagree with you, and I am what some people would maybe label me as a spiritual person, to a varying degree depending on the personal definition with the word "spiritual".

So, I will not attack all of your arguments, but I will bring up some critique to some of your ideas to not necessarily prove you wrong, but because I think you need to reevaluate whether you truly are a Christian:

"but Jesus' goal was for people to grow in Spirit, so I wouldn't be surprised if he himself is disgusted at how religion has evolved since it so often turns people away from him."
I find it funny that you mention this, because everyone has different opinions, and that's one of my issues. While I agree that if Jesus would live today, he would probably be shocked how some people have twisted his values; but then Jesus would also consider that this might be inherent in our human nature. Humans are by default curious, we like to understand the world around us. Additionally, considering that the Bible as a scripture is never clearcut when it comes to its varying messages, obviously different people would interpret said verses differently. This is also a major problem. Every Christian claims they know what Jesus thinks or what he should do. It's fallacious, because it's clear you don't. Being a Christian or a believer does not equal to you always know what god or Jesus think.

"I accept that God knows the environment and circumstances in which we live. He doesn't expect us to be perfect, so I don't"

Here I disagree again. Why? Because if humans would admit they are imperfect, then what reason is there to repent for your sins? Repenting is a major feature in all Christian religions, and is ultimately one of the major driving forces into allowing people into heaven.

"One of the best things Chrisianity did for me was remove my self-centeredness"
Could you possibly imagine that it was not the religion itself who did this, but you? Can you imagine yourself doing this without any religion?

"When it comes to free will, it makes perfect sense to me. God created heavenly beings who were perfect and sinless, until the cherub Lucifer became so filled with pride and conceit that he exulted himself above God. Lucifer recruited angels to form a rebellion against God and there was a great battle in which God and his angels conquered Lucifer. They were cast out of heaven and sent to earth. The bible says Satan is the ruler of this world. At the point that God's creation no longer CHOSE to have fellowship with him, God had to allow the opportunity for choice. Humans too have that choice, because if we were forced into fellowship with God, we too might reject him."

But you see, once you start to logically evaluate this, it doesn't make sense. Why? Free will for example allows us to reject god even after having "invited god into our hearts". If god was so keen about keeping us humans into believing, then god would not give us free will. God is a jealous god, many times has it been stated in the Bible that god does not accept people who are not believers and that those will be punished appropriately. Free will also causes a paradox with god being omniscience and omnipotence. I will not go into that now though.

Also, your final sentences makes no sense. Because without free will, if we were coerced into believing in god, we have no choice but to believe anyway. It is the choice, the freedom, the free will, that allows us to reject god is we would so wish.

"If a group of terrorists moved into your country and began a rebellion, would you allow them to dominate and bring suffering to all of those people who were happy living in that country, or would you try to remove them and let them go live somewhere else with their own like-minded people?"

This is a logical fallacy called false dichtomy. You set up two polarized examples of how you can solve the situation when there are many other choices you can take. Also, you don't quite answer your own question, you just goes into saying that god loves everyone.

What would I do? I would try to look into the reasons what would motivate such a terrorist group. More often than not, you see that these people have nothing to live for, what they do they do because it's the last stand for them to take to survive. If nothing changes or if they die it doesn't matter to them, and once you know the cause of the problem you can start working into how to make it better. Once you know how to make it better, you can start to negotiate. That's what I'll do. Not pray for god to bring sanity to their minds, not turn the other cheek, not sign on a paper to destroy the utterly.

Exfundi, I am sincerely glad for you that you are here you are today, and that you dare doubting :) Anath, Cleric, Waldheri and I at least, actively participate on different message boards and debate Christians. Often, we bring up such fallacious concepts as why the biblical god cannot be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent at the same time and do quote examples from the bible itself. the problem is for many Christians that they don't listen. They try to weasel out by making mental leaps, such as those errors are simply considered errors because the human mind cannot fully comprehend god. If we can't, so can't they, but then they say they got faith and they know god in their hearts so it does not apply to them etc... Sometimes it works, most often not.

As I understood it, Jehovah's Witnesses parents are very strong with their parenting as well. It happens every now and then that a Jehovah's Witnesses kiddo enters the school and they are not allowed to do this and that because of the PARENTS' faith. It is very cult-like after all, and it wouldn't surprise me that many a Jehovah's Witnesses child might even be afraid of their parents and disobeying them. I know a person who went in a senior class to me whose parents were of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and she didn't like they didn't celebrate such small things as Christmas when every other kid did (and of course got presents). For her, it was a great unjustice, she wanted to be like everyone else and she didn't understand. She barely spoke of her parents as well, I think she was ashamed of her parents and their faith. Here, Jehovah's Witnesses are generally considered nutcases... While I respect them as human beings, I cannot respect their faith, and people go like, "OMG, Jehovah's Witnesses are coming to town!" like it would be the end of the world sort of deal etc, so they are not very liked.
'