discrimination against christians [Archive]

Eileen

28 Jan 2005, 12:12 AM

1. People talk about Christianity as if all Christians are right-wing nut jobs, when in reality, most Christians are not right-wing nut jobs. Most are rather dully moderate, and some of us are even left-wing nut jobs, goddamn it.

2. I have faced a lot of hostility in academia towards Christianity. I wouldn't call it persecution or discrimination (because while it IS prejudice, it's nothing like Jim Crow and it's not nearly so dramatic as martyrdom, which some would love to claim...), but I know what it's like to be a person of faith in a classroom full of arrogant atheists--especially in my religious studies classes, actually. Now, my professors were all great and didn't badmouth anybody--they just taught the stuff (and let the canonical critics of Christianity/Western Culture speak for themselves). But I remember sitting in my Myth and Theory class in college (where my INTP and I first really connected actually!) and we were reading Eliade, and this jackass commented on how he totally agreed with Eliade that Christianity was the ruination of everything ever (even though Eliade didn't actually say that...). All I could say was "Wow." My professor looked at me and asked if I had anything to say to that (because while I'm not evangelical, I also don't hide my religiousity) and I just shook my head, because you can't communicate with that viewpoint. It's no different than the Christian who believes that about Islam, homosexuality, feminism, or whatever the latest ruination of everything ever is. It's the same shit with different words plugged in, and the problem is the attitude, and Christians are hardly the only ones who express it. It's just that they're the majority, which makes them more dangerous and probably more annoying.

3.
I do remember their sad little faces when I told them there was no Santa Claus. They were "victims" of the people who conditioned them.

That someone has faith (hell-even a conservative faith, which I generally take issue with on doctrinal grounds as well as social ones) doesn't mean that he is "conditioned" any more than anybody else. Many people arrive to faith thoughtfully and--dare I say--rationally...

CreativeChaos

28 Jan 2005, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by Booyalab:
I know you're not familiar with the American political dynamic so let me clue you in. Any victimization that is declared of any race/people group is a result of liberal opportunism (though it may also be derived from good intentions.....still is a political tactic). Since Republicans have the Christian base pretty much in cement, Democrats need to attack that base in order to cement theirs (secularism, intellectual elitism). Christians will never be considered "victims" unless a drastic change in the political dynamic occurs.

This is absolutely correct. Anyone who knows anything about Christianity should know it is far from "withuring away". The Religious Right is very much a powerful influence in our country and politics today. "Those poor little faces?" I think not. Have you not seen the advertisements on public TV that are by these Fundamentalist Christians. Do you not see the growth of Christian oriented TV stations and Christian music. Oh, NO! Christianity is alive and well! So I personally wouldn't back down when faced with one. Laughing at individuals in a class is reprehensable. But the main reason for this behavoir to get by is that Christianity is still a threat, especially to the usualy liberal minded college proffessor. The other smaller faiths are of little consequence.

CoHo

28 Jan 2005, 06:10 AM

I've reached the point where I view all religious people with contempt. I can't fucking stand these people. So much so that I was jogging around the park and this young woman shouted out "Jesus Loves you!" to me while jogging in the opposite direction. I could’a clothes-lined her! Ok that isn't the best example.

I can’t stand them because they are quacks that don’t want to admit to their sheer quackery!

You’ve got Priests that say homosexuality is a sin, you’ve got Priests that say homosexuality isn’t a sin Last year on CNN I heard a Father say that a “vote for John Kerry is a sin”. Christians, Mormons, Prebyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, you can tailor your belief structure so it fits with your political and ethical fucking viewpoints! With a little bit of effort I could find a group that believed in everything I did so I wouldn’t have to do jack to get into heaven, I’m already perfect!

Speaking Heaven and Hell, now there’s the ducks platter! I’ll admit my first two paragraphs are unordered and sketchy. And I don’t plan on changing that before finishing this post. Hopefully this little scenario will help express my viewpoint.

Say the Catholics are correct

Do Muslims go to heaven?

First of all, most traditional religions (not including the fringe “I’ll let you believe whatever religions”) feel that you need to believe in them in order to get the great afterlife. This means that up in the sky is a heaven filled with Catholics/Muslims/Jews or “Other”. This means that God turned heaven into some sort of holy roulette game. You spin the wheel and as long as you get born in one of the favored countries you can go to heaven! So those unlucky bastards that grew up never knowing Christianity die and get sent down the shaft. People that were born into a Muslim family? Shaft!

So at one point, you have these two babies in a nursery. One is going to be a Muslim and the other a Christian. If you just walked in and switched them around you would have altered who had a chance to go to heaven.

Do rapists and murderers go to heaven?

Same concept. At one point in time that murderer was a baby in a crib. Once again if you switched that baby with another then someone completely different has to go through that life. This new person will be subjected to the torment, abuse, drug addiction and hatred that the initial murderer received while growing up. Once again, this new individual winds up a killer as well. Who is to blame? Is it the parents who beat and tormented the child? Is it the child who never knew an alternative to hate? Or is it the parent’s parents who beat them when they were younger? Is it an endless cycle of past aggression until you get back to Adam? Who is really to blame (on a spiritual standpoint)?

ObstinateBane

28 Jan 2005, 09:04 AM

hypocrite

Hahaha caught that huh. I believe that's called a "Figure of speach" perhaps I should have closed it in " ".

Spartan26

28 Jan 2005, 10:52 AM

So is this your best alternative???

For the constant Christian-bash that is INTP Central, I've yet read anything that would remotely want to make me jump ship. Not by word and certainly not by example.

I don't want to know what it's like to live with that much hate inside me. I don't want to go through life wishing ill on others or being elated by others suffering.

What is your hope for mankind? Apathy? Is the world really made a better place through resentment? Any health benefit in having a callous heart? Why would I want to renounce my faith by what's been posted in this forum? Solidarity?

I've seen no great understanding of life nor the universe. No consistent model for living. If all the Christians in the world rejected Jesus and decided to live solely for themselves, that would be a good thing?

There's been no plan to improve life. Nothing to indicate a greater sense of tranquility. No strategy for how to deal with life or others when things go wrong. When in doubt, criticize.

Post after post after post about how dumb Christians are, yet I challenge anyone to find the person who, even by self-admission, has not been made infinitely wiser by learning forgiveness, humility and love for one another.

PsiKik

28 Jan 2005, 11:33 AM

I don't like it when any group is discriminated against, even if they are christians. I don't like what goes on in the name of xtianity - organised religion, those who try to convert me, those who use it to further their ends( eg the republicans ).

I don't hate individual xtians, but I do despise some of the institutionalised manifestations of the formalized religion.
Whenever I see some apologist going on about creationism/evolution
I do get quite mad.

What I think many will agree with is that the fundamental tenets of most religions, those traits that are cited as examples of how peaceloving and great a particular religion is are the traits least likely to be followed by self proclaimed followers of said religion.

Ascending

28 Jan 2005, 06:55 PM

Saying you hate Christains as a general statement is one that can only be made with a degree of ignorance. In any faith\belief\philosophy you will find many people that profess yet actually live completely different lives. Needless to say there are many faiths that spring up as "Christains" yet at closer inspection one will find they actual adhear to the basic standards very very loosly.

This is because despite being rational beings out in the light humans have the amazing ablity to convince themselves of things that are not true. Many people find a belief they see requires minimal work from there and go on to have the psychological relief of "Being Saved". Usual these are the people who fuel the anti-christain fire. Having zeal to show they believe something they do not really practice or know very much about.

The problem with such arguments and the very reason anti-Christains have so much to work with is this.
Quote:

"In general, I don't advocate arguing with Xtians. They have God on their side, after all, and all you're armed with is the paper swords and cardboard shields of Satan's deceptions. If you do argue with an Xtian, expect to be told something like that."

There is no end to the ad hominem attacks where the person arguing consistantly shows quotes and such from people who really do not know what they are talking about.

In my experience I have found that such arguments are so very often riddled with sarcasm and that the people making them usualy seem unhappy.

I also agree that "religion" is used to meet political gains and also agree that this is wrong. My faith does not participate in any poltics whatsoever.

I am saved from making an excelent point by Spartan26.

CreativeChaos

28 Jan 2005, 07:15 PM

Well, my father is a Methodist Minister, and I used to be a "born-again", "spirit-filled" Christian. I was one of those girls who would say "Jesus Loves You". I've spent time handing out tracts and trying to convert people. And let me say this:

Most of those people trying to convert you are doing so out of KINDNESS!!!! You must NOT take their comments as judgemental or argumental. You will NOT be able to argue most of them from their beliefs. They are beliefs that are totally subjective and alogical. I wouldn't even TRY! Simply thank them for their time and interest and leave. If you are not Christian, why put them down! Most Christians I have met and know are regular people and most try to uphold the Christian virtues of being kind and "loving their neighbor as themselves". Yes, you meet jerks in churches. You will meet jerks EVERWHERE! Do not generalize and place judgement on the whole group because of the actions of some of the people of the group. That's called PREJUDICE!

The Christian Church does a lot of good and it does a lot of stupid stuff. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!!!!

(As, I said I am now Atheist, btw).

CoHo

28 Jan 2005, 08:02 PM

Saying you hate Christains as a general statement is one that can only be made with a degree of ignorance. In any faith\belief\philosophy you will find many people that profess yet actually live completely different lives. Needless to say there are many faiths that spring up as "Christains" yet at closer inspection one will find they actual adhear to the basic standards very very loosly.

I don't know if anyone specifically said they hate Christians. I said I view them with "contempt" and "I can't fucking stand them". My contempt for a Christian is akin to trying to debate with a believer in Spontaneous Generation that their meat did not suddenly "transform" into maggots. Or trying to convince a child that their imaginary friend isn't real. It is belief vs. science and it just leads to frustration.

The fringe people bother me more then the righteous. I consider these people to be merely afraid of hell and doing as little as possible to console themselves with everlasting life.

If you are going to believe then go balls out and actually believe. If you don't agree with a bullet point then change the system. Don't set up your own little tree-house and call it "Christians who believe in everything the Catholics Say except when it comes to Masturbation (or The House of TCWBIETCSEWICTM for short)"

melancholeric

28 Jan 2005, 08:09 PM

Luckily, Christianity ( like most other monotheistic religions ) has always been the epitomy of tolerance.

"They talked all about how Christianity has ruined so many things, and I kind of felt embarrassed to be a Christian."
Truth hurts. Makes me wonder if she never knew anything about the bloody past, present and ( probably ) future of her religion. However, Christians tend to take criticism personally, even when it's directed towards the organization. There's a difference.

At Harvard, Ms. Elguardo says, secular humanism is the mainstream view. "There are ways of thinking that went against mainstream views ... and students in class were shut down by others"
Last time I checked The Humanist Manifesto, religious tolerance was among the top priorities. ( Wish it was in the Bible too... )

"The attitude here is if you're of faith, then you are intellectually inferior," says Gruener.
Obviously, there's nothing "intellectually inferior" in a blind belief in an invisible guy upstairs. I can't comprehend how anyone could think that.

It is excessively stated in the Bible that Christians should expect persecution,
If it's in the Bible, it must be true. After all the Bible is Worf of God. That's in the Bible too.

...some of us...
This is why I initially didn't want to respond. I was afraid that I might hurt someones precious feelings.

But the main reason for this behavoir to get by is that Christianity is still a threat, especially to the usualy liberal minded college proffessor.

Any organized religion is a threat to anyone who values independent thinking. The amount of brainwashing and indoctrination I've seen is frightening to say the least.

If all the Christians in the world rejected Jesus and decided to live solely for themselves, that would be a good thing?
It's just sad us infidels live only for ourselves, without giving a half flying fuck about anyone else. ( Then again, I'd rather live for myself than the sky fairy. )

yet I challenge anyone to find the person who, even by self-admission, has not been made infinitely wiser by learning forgiveness, humility and love for one another.
Forgiveness, humility and love require a belief in an invisible guy upstairs how exactly?

Saying you hate Christains as a general statement is one that can only be made with a degree of ignorance.
True. I don't give a shit if you are atheistic towards one god less than what I am. The problem is that...

Most of those people trying to convert you are doing so out of KINDNESS!!!!
I certainly appreciate the "kindness". Almost as much as been boiled alive by giant mutant alien cannibal spiders. In soy sauce.

"As soon as you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours."

jimbowley

28 Jan 2005, 08:30 PM

Spartan26, I wouldn't normally 'debate' with the religious, but I have a vague fascination with religious INTPs. I identify with the INTP traits of intellectual arrogance and looking down on people who think differently (ie less logically) than me. Because I can see no reason for believing in supernatural beings I assume that all religious people either think very differently from me, or have been indoctrinated to a higher degree. This explains my longheld view of the religious as weakminded. Note that I look down on all weakminded people not just those of a religious bent.

As to disliking Christians, you seem to not understand how people can dislike christians when they are of course good caring people. That way of thinking is both black&white and not logically correct, neither of which are INTP like.

The mistake you are making is that you associate being good with being christian and then make the logical fallacy that therefore not christian equals not good. It is this sort of attitude,trying to monopolise all the good behaviours, that can cause good non-christians to dislike you. That's dislike 'christians' the group, not you, the christian. This monopolisation of all things good is not an accident, it's an important part of the indoctrination.

Behaving well to your fellow man is a good thing. Doing it from fear of damnation is the worse reason for doing it. You could take a practical view that at least instilling the fear of god into people gets the job done, but where does that leave us when someone realises that their particular indoctrination is a load of hogwash and they don't have a properly thought out moral code to fall back on.

floid

28 Jan 2005, 08:46 PM

Perhaps one day the big story will be, "INTP faction at the MBTI Pigeonholing Ashram have executed last Christian".

Whether you base it on faith or rationality, you still believe something. There are rational assumptions and irrational assumptions.
All are only assumptions and people, nature, and the universe have both rational and irrational aspects to them.

Rabid rationalism is just as damaging as rabid christianity.

It's the frothing at the mouth you should be wary of, not the belief system they use to back it up with.

jimbowley

28 Jan 2005, 09:01 PM

If I was sure what you mean by rationality I'm guessing I would disagree with you.

In any case the relative damaging'ness of the extremes is not important, it's the relative damaging'ness of the mainstream that counts.

Miss Anthropic

28 Jan 2005, 09:01 PM

Post after post after post about how dumb Christians are, yet I challenge anyone to find the person who, even by self-admission, has not been made infinitely wiser by learning forgiveness, humility and love for one another.

If all Christians practiced the above attributes we wouldn't be having this conversation. I will concede that many who call themselves Christians practice forgiveness, humility and love for one another, but there are a good lot of them who use the religion to garner and hold power over others. Many terrible acts have been perpetrated in the name of religion. (Not only Christianity, but Christianity is definitely included.) It is the hypocracy that bothers me the most!

Is it a requirement to be Christian in order to learn wisdom through learning forgiveness, humility and love for others?

tragula

28 Jan 2005, 09:09 PM

The mistake you are making is that you associate being good with being christian and then make the logical fallacy that therefore not christian equals not good. It is this sort of attitude,trying to monopolise all the good behaviours, that can cause good non-christians to dislike you. That's dislike 'christians' the group, not you, the christian. This monopolisation of all things good is not an accident, it's an important part of the indoctrination.

Behaving well to your fellow man is a good thing. Doing it from fear of damnation is the worse reason for doing it. You could take a practical view that at least instilling the fear of god into people gets the job done, but where does that leave us when someone realises that their particular indoctrination is a load of hogwash and they don't have a properly thought out moral code to fall back on.

Excellent point! Couldn't have said it better myself.

I was raised Catholic (probably not a big surprise), but am no longer "religious". That doesn't mean I don't like Christians of course. I agree that people can become a little too vehemently anti-religious around here. There are plenty of intelligent Christians in the world, and most of them are not of the super-preachy-judgmental variety. For example George Bush is very religious, but John Kerry was religious too...

I think it's a valid point that most people are helped by having a "system" that deals with moral values. And that modern secular society has not replaced traditional religion with anything that fills the need people have for spiritual meaning.

This is why I myself have turned to the basically "non-deistic" Taoism for guidance. Many other people turn to Buddhism or Universalism to accomplish the same thing. I like to see this as the sensible choice between Deism and Atheism.

For me these non-deistic religions do make more sense ultimately. I personally do not want to make a leap of faith--it goes against everything I "believe" in! LOL

sbw

28 Jan 2005, 09:14 PM

Do rapists and murderers go to heaven?

If you're catholic, no. If you're baptist, yes. Is that any help?

I have a friend who is baptist. (incidentally, I'm an atheist and strident libertarian, so he regards me as an evil nihilistic heathen. We get along great. What gives?) As an ex-catholic, I was familiar with their doctrine, so I asked him about his. Once he got done, I was frightened that so many people could believe such a thing, so I asked the following: "I am an atheist, but I don't steal, murder, rape, or really do anything else in the 10 commandments. I'm probably a better (behaving) christian than you are. Jeffrey Dahmer killed a buncha folks, chopped them up, and ate them with fava beans and a nice chianti. He has embraced evangelical christianity while in jail (i.e., started saying that he BELIEVES.) Your religion states that Mr. Dahmer goes to heaven while I go to hell, correct?"

his response: "Yep. Absolutely."

this person not only teaches in our school system, but is regarded as normal and stable. 95% of our citizens are living under some sub-group of the larger collective delusion. I am awed by whatever man was able to set this ridiculous set of circumstances in motion. Somebody made it up to control large groups of dumb people, in my opinion, and did a truly fantastic job.

Scott

crule81

28 Jan 2005, 09:15 PM

Any organized religion is a threat to anyone who values independent thinking. The amount of brainwashing and indoctrination I've seen is frightening to say the least.

One could say that about any organization. In order to do anything as a group, one has to sacrifice a certain degree of independent thinking and doing. I think in many forms of modern government, ideologies, or bureaucracy, people are just as blinded by thoughtless patriotism or belief in a certain system, as well as irrational regulations and red tape. As one who lives next door to one of the greatest perpetrators of crimes in the name of "reason", you should be aware of this.

melancholeric

28 Jan 2005, 09:44 PM

One could say that about any organization. In order to do anything as a group, one has to sacrifice a certain degree of independent thinking and doing. I think in many forms of modern government, ideologies, or bureaucracy, people are just as blinded by thoughtless patriotism or belief in a certain system, as well as irrational regulations and red tape. As one who lives next door to one of the greatest perpetrators of crimes in the name of "reason", you should be aware of this.
That's true, but religion is a somewhat extreme example of that.

Organized religion hasn't traditionally been very open to criticism or questioning. ( Vatican accepted Heliocentric view, as opposed to geocentric, somewhere circa mid-nineties, IIRC. )

The very belief is quite irrational to begin with. The fear ( and hope ) of afterlife and omnipotent God are very powerful tools in manipulating. I've witnessed this first-hand and second-hand, and it's not pretty.

I sound like I am dumping mainstream Christianity to the same category with cults, such as Transcendental Meditation, but it's not that far off. ( More info of TM at trancenet (http://trancenet.org/). Some of the stories told there are quite disgusting. )

I'd also like to point out that I've seen Christians from both ends of the spectrum, the nutjob fundies, and on the other end two High School math teachers and a philosophy teacher, all of the latter category Christians being fairly intelligent. I've yet to meet an intelligent fundie...

CreativeChaos

28 Jan 2005, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by:sbw
I have a friend who is baptist. (incidentally, I'm an atheist and strident libertarian, so he regards me as an evil nihilistic heathen. We get along great. What gives?) As an ex-catholic, I was familiar with their doctrine, so I asked him about his. Once he got done, I was frightened that so many people could believe such a thing, so I asked the following: "I am an atheist, but I don't steal, murder, rape, or really do anything else in the 10 commandments. I'm probably a better (behaving) christian than you are. Jeffrey Dahmer killed a buncha folks, chopped them up, and ate them with fava beans and a nice chianti. He has embraced evangelical christianity while in jail (i.e., started saying that he BELIEVES.) Your religion states that Mr. Dahmer goes to heaven while I go to hell, correct?"

his response: "Yep. Absolutely."

this person not only teaches in our school system, but is regarded as normal and stable. 95% of our citizens are living under some sub-group of the larger collective delusion. I am awed by whatever man was able to set this ridiculous set of circumstances in motion. Somebody made it up to control large groups of dumb people, in my opinion, and did a truly fantastic job.

Oh yeah! This is EXACTLY what I was taught to believe and did so up until the age of 21, when I met people from other parts of the world and realized how rediculous it all was.

It IS about CONTROL! The concept of hell was around before Jesus was theoretically born. The Greeks already had "hades". Other religions have had the "underworld". But generally these were inocculous places where the dead went. Chrisitanity has the WORST concept of punishment of ANY religion I have ever heard!

YOU BURN IN A LAKE OF FIRE FOR ALL ETERNATY?!?!?!?!!WIth no chance of getting out?!?!?!?!

Doesn't that just fly in ANY decent persons face as GROSS INJUSTICE?!?!

Any normal person with a normal sense of what is just and unjust would not believe this. IT'S INSANE!

Excuse all the capital letters. I'm not angry, just adament. VERY adament. I HATE the belief in hell with a passion.

melancholeric

28 Jan 2005, 09:54 PM

Personal note: 01. 28. 2005. 11:55 PM. I agreed with CC for about the first time on something. ( The capital letters still annoyed me. Atleast the smiley use was quite limited. )

Eileen

29 Jan 2005, 12:25 AM

This is why I initially didn't want to respond. I was afraid that I might hurt someones precious feelings.

Where did I say anything about feelings? Good God. Just because my auxilliary function is extraverted feeling doesn't mean that everything I say is Emotional Not Logical. Being a Christian in academia was often frustrating because people had REALLY FUCKING ILLOGICAL AND IGNORANT ways of looking at Christianity, one of those ways being that they look at Christianity as one big mass of stupid evangelizing hypocrites, when the FACT is Christianity is very diverse.

Also, I find it frustrating that people get so worked up about the arrogance of Christians that they become arrogant about their own world views. The world would be a better place if everybody would put on a little bit of humility and acknowledge that there's much we can't know... KNOWING that Christians are wrong and stupid and illogical is just as asenine as Christians who KNOW that you are wrong and damned for all time and eternity.

In general, I think that my frustrations at being a Christian in academia were good for me, because there are plenty of people with reasonable criticisms of the institution of it, and I gained a more thoughtful faith while I studied religion academically. But there are also a whole lot of stupid bitter people who are lacking in the ability to make a sound argument or say anything other than "Christianity sucks. Christians suck. What a bunch of retards. They're illogical. Duuuhhh, I hate Christians. They ruin everything." (And then they want to herald SCIENCE as the way to understand the world--that, or faeries--and while I am certainly NOT anti-science, I view science as every bit as much of a "story" as any religion is...)

melancholeric

29 Jan 2005, 12:45 AM

Where did I say anything about feelings? Good God. Just because my auxilliary function is extraverted feeling doesn't mean that everything I say is Emotional Not Logical. Being a Christian in academia was often frustrating because people had REALLY FUCKING ILLOGICAL AND IGNORANT ways of looking at Christianity, one of those ways being that they look at Christianity as one big mass of stupid evangelizing hypocrites, when the FACT is Christianity is very diverse.

Also, I find it frustrating that people get so worked up about the arrogance of Christians that they become arrogant about their own world views. The world would be a better place if everybody would put on a little bit of humility and acknowledge that there's much we can't know... KNOWING that Christians are wrong and stupid and illogical is just as asenine as Christians who KNOW that you are wrong and damned for all time and eternity.

In general, I think that my frustrations at being a Christian in academia were good for me, because there are plenty of people with reasonable criticisms of the institution of it, and I gained a more thoughtful faith while I studied religion academically. But there are also a whole lot of stupid bitter people who are lacking in the ability to make a sound argument or say anything other than "Christianity sucks. Christians suck. What a bunch of retards. They're illogical. Duuuhhh, I hate Christians. They ruin everything." (And then they want to herald SCIENCE as the way to understand the world--that, or faeries--and while I am certainly NOT anti-science, I view science as every bit as much of a "story" as any religion is...)

1. You didn't say anything about feelings. I wasn't referring to you in particular. It just happens that this somewhat a sensitive topic, and in my experience people can get hurt when discussing this.

2. Was the rest of the post directed to me aswell? That is, are you accusing me of 1. ignorance 2. arrogance. 3. being illogical?

3. Christianity is diverse. That's the beauty of it. It's like tabloid horoscopes or Bob Dylan lyrics, so ambigous and open for interpretation that it works for everyone who wants. ( That's why Christians over the globe haven't ben able to agree on even the most basic issues. Pick what you like, take it as you wish, ignore the rest. Most religious texts -The Bible included- are like this. )

floid

29 Jan 2005, 03:33 AM

If I was sure what you mean by rationality I'm guessing I would disagree with you.

Rationality is the process of arriving at conclusions by the use of the peculiarly human mental processes by which man strives to connect his ideas as consciously, coherently and purposively as possible in order to plan the attainment of ends sought.
In view of the human fallibility in selecting the best possible reasoning for attaining the ends sought, there is no implication as to the correctness or incorrectness of the reasoning.
Consequently, all conscious human actions, whether or not appropriate for the ends sought, are rational to the person who believes in them.

mgb

29 Jan 2005, 04:20 AM

Beat the Christians like dogs I say. Let's round them all up and give them there own country too....

Asmodiel

29 Jan 2005, 04:35 AM

Eileen

29 Jan 2005, 05:00 AM

1. You didn't say anything about feelings. I wasn't referring to you in particular. It just happens that this somewhat a sensitive topic, and in my experience people can get hurt when discussing this.

2. Was the rest of the post directed to me aswell? That is, are you accusing me of 1. ignorance 2. arrogance. 3. being illogical?

3. Christianity is diverse. That's the beauty of it. It's like tabloid horoscopes or Bob Dylan lyrics, so ambigous and open for interpretation that it works for everyone who wants. ( That's why Christians over the globe haven't ben able to agree on even the most basic issues. Pick what you like, take it as you wish, ignore the rest. Most religious texts -The Bible included- are like this. )

Sorry. You quoted me, and so I presumed that the comment beneath the quote was directed at me.

No, the rest of the post was an exasperated attempt at clarification of what I'd tried to say originally with emphasis on the fact that my reaction was not merely emotional. I don't think that you're ignorant or illogical and probably not arrogant, though maybe, I don't know.

Vagabond

29 Jan 2005, 05:20 AM

Christians (and religious people in general) are stupid to the degree the rest of the humans are; humans are humans - they will twist a certain philosophy/belief/whatever according to their likes and dislikes, they will use it to point fingers but god forbid, not on themselves, they will be hypocretical because introspection and looking in the mirror is not easy etc... so what are we talking here, if christians are saints? Hell no. They are just as flawed, stupid, hypocretical, egotistical, self-interested blah blah blah as humans in general are. And just like in everything else, generalisations are usually wrong, so there are wonderful religious people just like there are wonderful non-religious people. It is discrimination to say "christians suck and should vanish", just like it is discrimination to say "if you are not christian, you are a sinner and will burn in hell". What sucks basically is fanatism, and that applies to everything - religion, politics, philosophy, ideals, you name it. If you are saying that fanatics are a pain in the ass, then yeah I'm with you.

Miss Anthropic

29 Jan 2005, 07:06 AM

I only read through pages one and two...but I will just make some blanket statements. My own beliefs are irrelevant.
I find it quite annoying that there is so much Christian bashing going on these days. It seems to me that it has become nothing more than a fad.

I commonly see the crusades cited as an example of Christian atrocities. Yes, the Crusades were terrible. Now, does that make Christianity bad because some fools happened to see their little larks as good ideas? No, not at all. That was human stupidity, and is of no fault of the religion itself. If someone kills another, and says they did it to fend for some ideas I held, am I to take the blame? No...the act was committed in my name, but that does not mean I had anything to do with it.

Amongst all groups of people, one will find imbecility, it cannot be escaped. Thus, we can assume that stupidity is found among Christians. However, damning the lot of them due to the amentia of a few simply casts one into the very pool of the simpletons that are the object of their abhorrence.
A few? A lot more than a few...If you choose to label yourself, or associate with a particular group you have the privilege and/or misfortune of being associated with acts committed by said group (whether positive or negative.) Christianity has been around an incredibly long time and has a lot of history with which to be associated.

I don't think any of the atrocities carried out by anybody in the name of any religion have to do with stupidity. Quite the opposite. Those involved in atrocious acts manipulated an institution to their own gain. It isn't morally correct, but it's a shrewd way to get what you want.

ObstinateBane

29 Jan 2005, 11:14 AM

What I don't understand is why "They" need to take an attack on Christianity so personally.

I don't necessarily automatically think the person is bad just because they hold illogical beliefs.

It'd be like me saying I think Orange cars are stupid and you owning an Orange car thinking I'm saying your stupid for owning an Orange Car. (Makes No sense) That's the point!

It's not the individual that I have trouble with it's the false notion that everyone needs to believe like you or be saved. It's the whole premise of there being one "Being" and it possibly having any {what's the word} desire?, care?, about any individual thing. This whole universe would be less than a strand of interlocking DNA to "IT".

If we all ceased to exist today, the planet and all, do you really think it would make a bit of difference in the "Grand Scheme". If this Christian God made everything, does that include the rest of the universe or just Earth?

The universe is a big place do you think we're that unique in all of it or do you believe "God" put more life out there somewhere?

I just can't see attributing "Everything" to a single sentient being. Unless that being is of another ????

Ok I'd believe (not in God) in a single being having created everything, but only if I and the reality that exists for me in fact actually make up that being.

My reality, home, planet, universe, would make up a single "Chromosome" in this "Beings" DNA.

Everything connected.

Eileen

29 Jan 2005, 03:13 PM

What I don't understand is why "They" need to take an attack on Christianity so personally.

I don't necessarily automatically think the person is bad just because they hold illogical beliefs.

It'd be like me saying I think Orange cars are stupid and you owning an Orange car thinking I'm saying your stupid for owning an Orange Car. (Makes No sense) That's the point!

1. It is sort of insulting to be told that you hold illogical beliefs. I am not saying that I am personally offended (again, I have gained much from criticisms and I'm glad that there are people around to scrutinize it and point out problems; I would consider myself one of those people, generally, except that my position is from the inside, personally invested point of view). Nonetheless, I don't see why you don't see why they take it personally.

2. Logic and rationality depends on givens. Given x and y, then z can be true. What I consider to be good, logical Christian theology might work on different givens than what you call logical. So maybe you believe the Christian x and y are wrong. It all really depends on what you privilege at base.

3. I assume that I'm not alone in believing that one's association with a religion and every notion that comes along with that is much more significant and personal than the color of his car.

mgb

29 Jan 2005, 04:00 PM

1. It is sort of insulting to be told that you hold illogical beliefs. I am not saying that I am personally offended (again, I have gained much from criticisms and I'm glad that there are people around to scrutinize it and point out problems; I would consider myself one of those people, generally, except that my position is from the inside, personally invested point of view). Nonetheless, I don't see why you don't see why they take it personally.

2. Logic and rationality depends on givens. Given x and y, then z can be true. What I consider to be good, logical Christian theology might work on different givens than what you call logical. So maybe you believe the Christian x and y are wrong. It all really depends on what you privilege at base.

3. I assume that I'm not alone in believing that one's association with a religion and every notion that comes along with that is much more significant and personal than the color of his car.

Sorry, Christianity is not about logic, it is about faith. You can't "logically" believe in God. There isn't any proof out there that he exists without taking a leap of faith. So yes, belief in God is "illogical", enjoy it, embrace it.

mgb

29 Jan 2005, 04:05 PM

I think most people dislike Christians because of their prostheletizing attitude. They don't hide their Christianity and they try and convert everyone. Christianity, should have been the end of all evils on Earth (if people actually followed Christ they way they say they do). But it's not. So you have a bunch of hipocrites walking around telling everyone that they should be more like them. If you get beat with that message enough times you learn to hate it.

Eileen

29 Jan 2005, 04:41 PM

Sorry, Christianity is not about logic, it is about faith. You can't "logically" believe in God. There isn't any proof out there that he exists without taking a leap of faith. So yes, belief in God is "illogical", enjoy it, embrace it.

Since nothing can be proven either way about God, then both sides of any debate as to whether God exists is without logic. Belief in God, I can concede, is not something that's even in the realm of logic because you cannot prove that God exists or does not exist. *shrug* I haven't found that debate interesting since I was about seventeen. Yes, in the end, we can not know whether God exists, and therefore we must have faith that he does or faith that he doesn't.

I don't think that Christianity itself is without logic, however--given belief in God, then xyz. Early Christian thinkers valued reason greatly, and so do I. In fact, the reason I decided to convert to the Episcopal church from the Lutheran church was that I could not logically accept sola scriptura, this idea that the Bible is all we need and all we HAVE outside of grace and faith... The Episcopal church uses scripture as one leg on a three-legged stool on which humans can be supported in their quest for God: scripture, tradition, and reason. As William Sloane Coffin says, "The first of the four cardinal virtues of the Roman Catholic church is 'prudentia,' which basically means damn good thinking. Christ came to take away our sins, not our minds."

Edmond Zedo

29 Jan 2005, 04:58 PM

Eileen

29 Jan 2005, 05:12 PM

BS, Eileen. It's logical to say there could be a god, or gods, but illogical to say there is one. And further down the path of ill logic, you find people who claim to know things about these gods. Few really follow logic.

Is it logical to say that there isn't a god? I see that it is logical to be agnostic, but as for definitive conclusions either way, I'm not sure I think that it's really in the REALM of logic insofar as you can even call it logical or illogical. Can we imagine something in which Logic-with-a-capital-L doesn't apply?

And is it illogical to say... If there is a God, then x, then y, then z? I'm not trying to say this in an antagonizing way, btw... I'm trying to understand what you think about this. If you add the conditional "if" and then go on to reason based on the possibility of God and construct a theology about that God who is possible, is that illogical in your book?

Edmond Zedo

29 Jan 2005, 05:41 PM

Whoa, whoa, are you telling ME what logical is, miss J, miss F? :)

Uncertainty is logical, but I wouldn't call it agnosticism, since that word has meanings beyond lack of faith.

I say there is no knowable god, and therefore contemplation on the issue is without merit.

CoHo

29 Jan 2005, 06:51 PM

It'd be like me saying I think Orange cars are stupid and you owning an Orange car thinking I'm saying your stupid for owning an Orange Car. (Makes No sense) That's the point!

No. There is no basis for having a god in the first place.

I could say evolution started because a toaster filled with moldy bread time-warped from my kitchen several billion years into the past. Just because you can't prove me wrong doesn't make it possible!

It would be like saying I think that a giant mouse that lives behind the moon rules over us and watches us with its all knowing monocle. The mouse is invisible and has powers beyond your imagination so you'll never find it.

If you disbelieve me then prove me wrong. Would you consider me a normal logical individual by having such a faith?

What is the difference between believing in that and having faith?

Edmond Zedo

29 Jan 2005, 07:07 PM

Well said, um, Whore.

songbird36

29 Jan 2005, 07:46 PM

Religious faith is not a matter of logic; it is a matter of belief.

The evidence is experiential. I won't go into this because I don't particularly want to be ripped to shreds on this particular issue, but essentially one can accept the presence of God because of the work that He can be seen doing in one's own life. It's not about logic, or whether the scriptures stand up to scrutiny or whatever - it's about personal experience of a creator.

Eileen

29 Jan 2005, 08:03 PM

jimbowley

29 Jan 2005, 08:05 PM

cool, you've seen god doing something.
What was it, by the way?

songbird36

29 Jan 2005, 08:13 PM

Private message me about it. As I said I don't want to be torn apart on this topic here.

Eileen

29 Jan 2005, 08:21 PM

CoHo

30 Jan 2005, 06:02 PM

It's not about logic, or whether the scriptures stand up to scrutiny or whatever - it's about personal experience of a creator.

Huh?! This is a good counter-point?

Yesterday I was taken into a spaceship and flown to an asteroid that circles the planet Saturn. Over there the aliens told me there was not a god. They sent the entire history of the universe through my brain and explained everything. For a brief minute I knew all answers to the world and I saw that there was no god behind the creation of man. There was no true “Deity” in that sense.

Did I just counter your counter point? Does my acid trip trump your life experience?

I know I sound rude… I’m sorry. But that was exactly what bothers me.

Apparently people see God all the time. You get a flat tire on the highway and are spinning off towards oncoming traffic just to stop at the last minute do you thank God? I thank fucking GM for making a stable product!

When someone endures hours of surgery after a terrible heart-attack is it God that saved that person or was it the doctors?

What about when people die from the doctors hand, or when they are thrown into oncoming traffic what happens then? Oh, that’s right, now God is working in “Mysterious Ways”.

euterpenc

31 Jan 2005, 01:18 PM

To me, God = fate.

ObstinateBane

31 Jan 2005, 03:22 PM

zeitgeist posted To me, God = fate.

Ok then what is fate? Are you saying your future is preordained? No matter what you do your "Fate" is XXX or YYY and nothing will change that?

Where's the free will?

I can't believe in fate. It's hard for me to think that no matter which choice I am to make in any given situation the outcome is already decided.

Except I guess death would fit the description.

Fate=Death=God=???

Lee

31 Jan 2005, 04:45 PM

Does anybody else find this thread ironic

Nyairj

1 Feb 2005, 01:17 AM

"Christians" are being "persecuted"? I don't trust that article. For one, it is mostly anecdotal evidence; facts and figures are less prone to distorting reality than carefully selected individuals with an axe to grind and unverifiable stories of uncertain credibility to tell. Also, "Christian" and "persecution" have very different meanings depending on who is using them. Even so, I think that the Intolerant Right is justified in their seige mentality.

According to the Mullahs and Radical Clerics of the Irascible Right, "Christian" has a very specific meaning: people who agree with them. That's it. Everyone else, like people who tolerate homosexuality or accept evolution or deny the 100% literal truth of the Bible, is not a "True Christian".

To the Archaic Values Community, "persecution" means trying to make them change their mind (and colleges are the worst offenders, since they are designed to broaden our views and train us to think critically), pointing out when they are hateful and intolerant (which they usually are), laughing at them when they earnestly try to persuade us that Spongebob Squarepants and Tinkle-winkie are co-conspirators in the "Gay Agenda", which wants to destroy America and make everyone gay, teaching them modern biology or geology among other things, or preventing them from persecuting others, like gays and lesbians.

But they have good reason to be afraid, because their views are rapidly becoming outdated -- even in America -- and no one can stop it. We'll never go back to that blessed time 50 years ago, when women were subjugated, the races were segregated, and everything on God's Green Earth was Perfect.

The liberal "60's mentality" they so hate continues to gain ground. Homosexuality, among other things, is becoming more and more excepted, the polls show. Reagan could not stop it. The Religious Right, no matter how much political power they gain, cannot stop it. George Bush cannot stop it. Once the old people (who are disproportionately likely to vote) that still cling to outdated morals die off, the more liberal Baby Boomers and their children will gain even more strength.

If the right uses their current political power to outlaw abortion, the silent majority (which leaves things well enough alone as long as it isn't personaly threatened) will crush them completely. If they do not, the "60's mentality" will continue to gain ground, because we controls the levers of cultural power -- Hollywood, literature, the universities, and other factors of popular culture such as music and fashion trends (more revealing clothing, tattoos, piercings, etc.). As conservative columnist George Will once lamented, politics

"seems peripheral to, and largely impotent against, cultural forces and institutions permeated with what conservatives consider the sixties sensibility."

They look across the Atlantic to the sinful land of Europe -- and to the unAmerican heathen country of Canada -- and fear that America could be next. The rest of the developed world is becoming more liberal at an uncomfortable pace. As America tries to ban gay marriage, Canada is legalizing it. Europe is generally indifferent about religion -- especially in the northern parts, like the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, and it is much more liberal overall. Godhatesfags.com explains that God sent the tsunami to punish vacationers from "faggot Sweden". Radical Right sites on the whole were conspicuously quiet about the disaster.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and the future is one of despair and increasing marginalization. It's a bad time to be backwards.

euterpenc

1 Feb 2005, 02:30 AM

damn religious activists.

PsiKik

1 Feb 2005, 09:39 PM

[QUOTE=Nyairj
Everything this person said in previous post[/QUOTE]

Agree mostly.

It is my belief that the conservative/right have mobilized themselves to counter what they considered the 'moral rot' of the sixties. Think about it. People who favour a rigid structured society, a suffocating religious atmosphere, mind control etc.

Again , it seems obvious to me the conservatives have made a deliberate and conserted effort to go about regrouping and entrenching their ideology. For the short term they seem to be succeding, with the Repub/Bush coup and the likes of the federalist society in the legal system.

Will the silent majority eventually wake up?
This post actually has a lot to do with religion and the rejection or understanding of what it really is - mind control.

CreativeChaos

1 Feb 2005, 10:40 PM

Read this:

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=49546#post49546

alogical, arational, aintelligence

Eileen

1 Feb 2005, 10:51 PM

It makes sense to call faith alogical, but I will still contend that the practice of reasoning based on givens that are givens because of faith (THEOLOGY!) is logical. Some theologies are better than others because they're more logical than others, in my opinion.

As for the rest of this: feh. FEH!

Spartan26

2 Feb 2005, 04:47 AM

Spartan26, I wouldn't normally 'debate' with the religious, but I have a vague fascination with religious INTPs. I identify with the INTP traits of intellectual arrogance and looking down on people who think differently (ie less logically) than me. Because I can see no reason for believing in supernatural beings I assume that all religious people either think very differently from me, or have been indoctrinated to a higher degree. This explains my longheld view of the religious as weakminded. Note that I look down on all weakminded people not just those of a religious bent.

As to disliking Christians, you seem to not understand how people can dislike christians when they are of course good caring people. That way of thinking is both black&white and not logically correct, neither of which are INTP like.

The mistake you are making is that you associate being good with being christian and then make the logical fallacy that therefore not christian equals not good. It is this sort of attitude,trying to monopolise all the good behaviours, that can cause good non-christians to dislike you. That's dislike 'christians' the group, not you, the christian. This monopolisation of all things good is not an accident, it's an important part of the indoctrination.

I think way more is being added to my post than I wrote or intended. (not just you, JBL). My points were and are that Christians get bashed in this forum. I don't want the hatred in my heart these bashers have. I have not read anything that would persuade me to reject Jesus either through direct 'argument' or other various posts.

For all the Christian bashing that goes on up in here, I haven't seen any advantages in not being a Christian. Show me a lit'l sumptin', sumptin. That's all I'm sayin'.

Even in criticizing an arguement I never made (only Christians are good, all non-Christians are selfish/bad, etc) no one is showing me a reason to dis Jesus.

I issued the challenege to seek humility, forgiveness and love one another because I'm ain't seeing it with all the hating on.

CoHo

2 Feb 2005, 05:22 AM

Some theologies are better than others because they're more logical than others, in my opinion.

....like?

Spartan26

2 Feb 2005, 05:33 AM

If all I will concede that many who call themselves Christians practice forgiveness, humility and love for one another, but there are a good lot of them who use the religion to garner and hold power over others. Many terrible acts have been perpetrated in the name of religion. (Not only Christianity, but Christianity is definitely included.) It is the hypocracy that bothers me the most!

OK, (and I'm not singling you out Miss A but just an easy quote to get to), if I can just leave everyone with one Bible lesson it's this: The people who say the most horrendous things and do the most despicable things are exactly the people Jesus died for.

Humility, forgiveness, love one another.

*Steps off soapbox*
OK, who wants it?

QrioCT

2 Feb 2005, 05:40 AM

i dont accept faith as a reason to believe. you need to really know, or otherwise you are deceiving yourself by denying your doubt because you think doubts are bad. this way, doubt isn't eliminated by conviction but by deception. you can have faith, because faith comforts people and has advantage in some ways, but you need to know that it's really just FAITH.

ohnoaninfp

2 Feb 2005, 05:53 AM

Link to article:
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0125/p12s02-legn.html

I am not a christian or anything but I found it amusing that christians are being discriminated against. while I see this as a positive, will it last or become more of a trend? how long until christians become the "victims" ?

Why is that a positive? I am Catholic and I am not afraid to admit it. I don't judge you. Why do people judge me? I have a friend who is an athiest and I don't believe he is condemned. I just hate when he calls me a dirty Irish Catholic. I know he is just joking, but still he kinda overkills it. I have been put down by some people that I called friends, for my beliefs that stemmed from the Catholic Church? Whatever happened to being "open minded" or does that only apply to left wing beliefs. I try to be " open minded" and I don't condemn people with different religious beliefs? I don't believe that my religion is the only religion who is going to heaven. So tell me why is this a good thing.

Edmond Zedo

2 Feb 2005, 06:29 AM

I don't believe that my religion is the only religion who is going to heaven. So tell me why is this a good thing.
"You're blaspheming again. I don't have to work with a blasphemer."

Aren't you too open minded for your own church? I've happily closed mine.

CapnEnnui

2 Feb 2005, 06:32 AM

Why is that a positive? I am Catholic and I am not afraid to admit it. I don't judge you. Why do people judge me? I have a friend who is an athiest and I don't believe he is condemned. I just hate when he calls me a dirty Irish Catholic. I know he is just joking, but still he kinda overkills it. I have been put down by some people that I called friends, for my beliefs that stemmed from the Catholic Church? Whatever happened to being "open minded" or does that only apply to left wing beliefs. I try to be " open minded" and I don't condemn people with different religious beliefs? I don't believe that my religion is the only religion who is going to heaven. So tell me why is this a good thing.

The Catholic Church, as an organization, makes it pretty clear that their way is the only way that they believe is correct, and therefore all others are hellbound. Many Catholics continue to hold the belief that they are destined for Heaven due to their faith, and all others are going to Hell. THAT is closed-minded, and you can't deny that the Catholic organization promotes that belief as an organized religion. Strongly. While you may not think non-Catholics aren't going to Hell forever, your group does. It's a "good" thing to me because the vast majority of people are Christian, and they've been oppressing people for a long time. Now that there's a very, very small group of non-Christians, they think THEY'RE being oppressed? I don't think it's "good;" it's actually rather insulting. Until they quit sending missionaries everywhere and stop believing that they have the answer to eternal happiness after death and all others do not, I couldn't care less about how horribly oppressed they feel. I don't really have a problem with other people's faith until they start making it clear that they have a huge problem with the faith, or lake thereof, of others.

ohnoaninfp

2 Feb 2005, 06:43 AM

We are not predestined to go to heaven. You have to live a good life to get there.

Vagabond

2 Feb 2005, 07:08 AM

Discrimination is discrimitation, no matter which way it happens and what the majority is. Atheists discriminating against people because they are religious are just as bad as religious people discriminating against atheists. Simple as that. And I don't get all that "group culture" thing... so hardcore religious people are idiots, but since they don't give a shit whatever we tell them, we should take our frustration out on the receptive ones that don't shove the bible down our throat, just because they "belong in the same group" with the fanatics? Like hell they do. Fanatics suck whether they are religious or not. Fanatism implies blind support to a cause, just because you are being loyal to it and never judge it. Narrow-mindedness implies blind support to an idea(l), just because it suits you best and never judge it. I don't really see any difference.

On a personal note, I don't know if there is a god, but if there was, I doubt he'd be anything like what most churches describe because that would make no sense. That's one thing, and it is a completely different one to throw every christian to the lions (figuratively speaking) just because "being religious is narrow-minded". Lack of respect is narrow-minded and I would detest a religious lecture as much as I would detest a lecture about atheism. Thank you people, I think I can do my own introspection/reading/searching and draw my own conclusions. If I need your help, I will ask you - stop shoving your beliefs down my throat whether they are religious, political, philosophical or whatever... who died and made you responsible for my enlightement?

Arioch

2 Feb 2005, 02:59 PM

The Catholic Church, as an organization, makes it pretty clear that their way is the only way that they believe is correct, and therefore all others are hellbound. Many Catholics continue to hold the belief that they are destined for Heaven due to their faith, and all others are going to Hell. THAT is closed-minded, and you can't deny that the Catholic organization promotes that belief as an organized religion. Strongly. While you may not think non-Catholics aren't going to Hell forever, your group does. It's a "good" thing to me because the vast majority of people are Christian, and they've been oppressing people for a long time. Now that there's a very, very small group of non-Christians, they think THEY'RE being oppressed? I don't think it's "good;" it's actually rather insulting. Until they quit sending missionaries everywhere and stop believing that they have the answer to eternal happiness after death and all others do not, I couldn't care less about how horribly oppressed they feel. I don't really have a problem with other people's faith until they start making it clear that they have a huge problem with the faith, or lake thereof, of others.

Why do I feel that your misstating the real problem.

Do you really care if some people think your going to hell? If so why?

Or do you really mean that you hate it when they try to convince you that you're going to hell and that they send missionaries everywhere?

[Edit: I don't mean this specificly at CapnEnnui but more how people in general don't seem to state their percieved problems correctly}

Eileen

2 Feb 2005, 10:43 PM

....like?

Like my theology is better than George W. Bush's theology.

CoHo

3 Feb 2005, 06:32 AM

Like my theology is better than George W. Bush's theology.

According to you... if I asked dubya I would get a different answer. And neither of you would be able to provide any facts to support your arguments.

Miss Anthropic

3 Feb 2005, 08:08 AM

OK, (and I'm not singling you out Miss A but just an easy quote to get to), if I can just leave everyone with one Bible lesson it's this: The people who say the most horrendous things and do the most despicable things are exactly the people Jesus died for.

Humility, forgiveness, love one another.

*Steps off soapbox*
OK, who wants it?
I'll step up again. So that makes it OK for people who do horrendous and and despicable acts to one another sometimes in the name of Christianity (and they KNOW that what they are doing is horrendous and despicable) just because Jesus died for them? I get the concept of asking for forgiveness, but why can't people just NOT do cruel, mean and controlling and negative things to one another? And what is your belief Spartan...do I actually need to "ask" Jesus for forgiveness before being allowed into heaven? Or am I just automatically accorded forgiveness. I ask because I've been told by more than a couple Christians that I need to "ask" for forgiveness, or I will burn in hell. I have some real issues with that particular concept!

Eileen

3 Feb 2005, 11:22 AM

According to you... if I asked dubya I would get a different answer. And neither of you would be able to provide any facts to support your arguments.

I'd be able to show you basic tenets of the religion and how my theological conclusions logically follow. No, they aren't facts. But mathematical theorems are based on postulates--statements that are given, assumed to be true. Math is an exercise in logic, and so is theology. You may fundamentally disagree with the conclusions of a theologian because you don't believe his postulates, but he is still performing logic.

melancholeric

3 Feb 2005, 11:40 AM

Discordian logic, that is.

If you want to debate the logic of your conclusions, I'm all for it. Assuming you don't mind the logic of yours being torn apart. Religion can't be defended logically, but debating is always fun.

Oh yeah, you could also probably demonstrate how Dubya's theology is logically inferior to yours, as you implied.'

Edited to add: By saying "religion can't be defended logically", I didn't imply that religious people are logically inferior to nonreligious. That's not what think and I have said it before in this very thread and I don't feel like repeating myself here.

Utopmk

3 Feb 2005, 12:06 PM

We are not predestined to go to heaven. You have to live a good life to get there.

Definitions for: good

benefit; "for your own good"; "what's the good of worrying?"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

moral excellence or admirableness; "there is much good to be found in people"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

that which is good or valuable or useful; "weigh the good against the bad"; "among the highest goods of all are happiness and self-realization"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified; "good news from the hospital"; "a good report card"; "when she was good she was very very good"; "a good knife is one good for cutting"; "this stump will make a good picnic table"; "a good check"; "a good joke"; "a good exterior paint"; "a good secretary"; "a good dress for the office"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

full: having the normally expected amount; "gives full measure"; "gives good measure"; "a good mile from here"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

morally admirable
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

estimable: deserving of esteem and respect; "all respectable companies give guarantees"; "ruined the family's good name"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

beneficial: promoting or enhancing well-being; "an arms limitation agreement beneficial to all countries"; "the beneficial effects of a temperate climate"; "the experience was good for her"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

fine: superior to the average; "in fine spirits"; "a fine student"; "made good grades"; "morale was good"; "had good weather for the parade"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

agreeable or pleasing; "we all had a good time"; "good manners"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

of moral excellence; "a genuinely good person"; "a just cause"; "an upright and respectable man"; "the life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous"- Frederick Douglass
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

adept: having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude; "adept in handicrafts"; "an adept juggler"; "an expert job"; "a good mechanic"; "a practiced marksman"; "a proficient engineer"; "a lesser-known but no less skillful composer"; "the effect was achieved by skillful retouching"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

thorough; "had a good workout"; "gave the house a good cleaning"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

dear: with or in a close or intimate relationship; "a good friend"; "my sisters and brothers are near and dear"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

benevolent: having or showing or arising from a desire to promote the welfare or happiness of others; "his benevolent smile"; "a benevolent nature"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

dependable: financially sound; "a good investment"; "a secure investment"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

most suitable or right for a particular purpose; "a good time to plant tomatoes"; "the right time to act"; "the time is ripe for great sociological changes"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

resulting favorably; "its a good thing that I wasn't there"; "it is good that you stayed"; "it is well that no one saw you"; "all's well that ends well"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

effective: exerting force or influence; "the law is effective immediately"; "a warranty good for two years"; "the law is already in effect (or in force)"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

good(p): feeling healthy and free of aches and pains; "I feel good"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

capable of pleasing; "good looks"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

appealing to the mind; "good music"; "a serious book"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

in excellent physical condition; "good teeth"; "I still have one good leg"; "a sound mind in a sound body"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

beneficial: tending to promote physical well-being; beneficial to health; "beneficial effects of a balanced diet"; "a good night's sleep"; "the salutary influence of pure air"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

not forged; "a good dollar bill"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

not left to spoil; "the meat is still good"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

generally admired; "good taste"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

well: (often used as a combining form) in a good or proper or satisfactory manner or to a high standard (`good' is a nonstandard dialectal variant for `well'); "the children behaved well"; "a task well done"; "the party went well"; "he slept well"; "a well-argued thesis"; "a well-planned party"; "the baby can walk pretty good"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

thoroughly: in a complete and thorough manner (`good' is sometimes used informally for `thoroughly'); "he was soundly defeated"; "we beat him good"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

The good is what it is rational to want. Therefore a good knife is one that has characteristics that are rational to want in a device with one blade used for cutting. When one considers what makes a good person, or good character, the matter becomes more complex, because it then becomes important to ask whether the traits under discussion are those that people would want in themselves, or those that they would want in others, and whether those are the same, or in what sort of society those would be the same.
onlineethics.org/glossary.html

Used in the context of general equities. Including among the group and side (buy or sell) being discussed during the block call.
www.americancapital.com/resources/glossary/bfglosg.cfm

Good describes the average used and worn book that has all pages or leaves present. Any defects must be noted. (AB Bookman.)
www.hollanderbooks.com/glossary.htm

*. The good is what it is rational to want. Therefore a good knife is one that has characteristics that are rational to want in a device with one blade used for cutting. When one considers what makes a good person, or good character, the matter becomes more complex, because it then becomes important to ask whether the traits under discussion are those that people would want in themselves, or those that they would want in others, and whether those are the same, or in what sort of society those would be the same.
www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html

This book is in average worn condition. It has all pages or leaves present. Any defects should be noted.
www.usedbookcentral.com/book_condition.html

A moveable tangible object. For the purposes of United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, goods do not include things bought for personal use or at an auction or foreclosure sale, nor may they be ocean-going vessels or aircraft.
august1.com/pubs/dict/g.htm

describes the average used and worn book that has all pages or leaves present. Any defects must be noted.
www.thephildickian.com/bookgrading.html

An average used book that has all pages or leaves present. There will be a little wear, and any defects will be noted.
www.usedbooksfinder.com/glossary.htm

Generic Object Oriented Database. A database structure used to store design and library information.
focus.ti.com/docs/general/glossary.jhtml

Any article, natural or man-made substance, material, supply, or manufactured product, including inspection and test equipment, and excluding technology.
www.exportcontrols.org/glossary.html

many approaches to ethics are centred on achieving what is good, although others are based on doing what is right. Priority to one goal need not exclude the other, but might shape the contents or limit how we pursue the other. We can ask about the relationship between human goodness and the goodness of other things, such as a knife that cuts well. On some views, goodness is reduced to one quality, like happiness or pleasure or satisfying desire, but others think of goodness as inherently complex. In either case, goodness has a place in moral psychology, motivating our actions and explaining our emotions.
www.hku.hk/philodep/ugrad/glossary.htm

a grading term for a coin that is very worn but which has most of the devices outlined.
www.coinfacts.com/Administrative/glossary.htm

a product, service, or a process that can be used to make products or deliver services
www.seeport.com/usda/GLOSSARY.htm

The rating you get on a step when you hit the arrow more than slightly off-beat
www.ddrfreak.com/library/dictionary.php

Some minor replacement parts; metal smoothly rusted or lightly pitted in places, cleaned or reblued; principal lettering, numerals, and design on metal legible; wood refinished, scratched, bruised, or minor cracks repaired; in good working order.
www.auctionarms.com/NRAGrade.cfm

A spell descriptor denoting spells usable by good and neutral beings. Also an aspect of alignment that focuses on protecting innocent life; the opposite of evil. Good creatures maintain a strong respect for life, concern themselves with the dignity of sentient beings, and make personal sacrifices to help others. Also, when capitalized, a spell domain composed of nine divine spells and a granted power embodying the principles of good.
www.wizards.com/dnd/DND_PH_Glossary_Print.asp

That which is desirable. The object of the will. The will, by nature, desires the good. Even if the will chooses evil, it must desire it as a good. It must impose this deception upon the object in order for that object to be desirable. Also, ontologically, that which perfects a nature is a true good.
www.catholicism.org/Philosophia/glossary.htm

An object-oriented object-oriented framework framework for graphical applications from TU Ilmenau running under X Windows X-Window-System with special support to IRIS GL, OpenGL OpenGL, VOGL, etc. - . /GOOD
www.laynetworks.com/users/webs/g.htm

A tangible physical entity. p. 249
users.wbs.warwick.ac.uk/dibb_simkin/student/glossary/ch08.html

Generic Object Oriented Database. A database structure used to store design and library information. (TI*)
www.ee.pdx.edu/~mperkows/IC_LAB/glossary.html

Yield prospects are normal. Moisture levels are adequate and disease, insect damage, and weed pressures are minor. Pastures are providing adequate feed supplies for the current time of year.
www.hagertygrain.com/futures_glossary.htm

adj [clever (He's a good cook.)] pandai 2. adj [not bad (That was a ~ meal.)] baik
www.info-indo.com/language/engindo.htm

Truth Appearance
www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy/instructor/gloss/w+u.html

Anything that anyone wants. All options or alternatives are goods. Goods can be tangible or intangible. [FACS]
smokeping.planetmirror.com/pub/lynn/paygloss.htm

bueno / buena; Good afternoon., Buenas tardes. ; Good-bye., Adios. ; Good evening.; Good night., Buenas noches. ; Good morning., Buenos dias.
lms.thomsonelearning.com/hbcp/glossary/glossary.taf

:confused: I'd rather go to hell.

Clara

3 Feb 2005, 03:42 PM

Utopmk - tempted as I am to say, "But tell us how you _really_ feel..."
... I do get the distict impression that there's a lot more to this than you've said in this lengthy-yet-circumscribed ... exercise ;) ... entertaining though it is.

You do realize that when applied to Real Life ... "goodness" is quite different from any linguistic or philosophical definition ? And that _none_ of us are "perfect" (despite any revisionist portrayals of whichever notable historic figures) ?

CoHo

3 Feb 2005, 03:52 PM

"religion can't be defended logically", I didn't imply that religious people are logically inferior to nonreligious

If religion can’t be defended logically then religion is illogical. If religion is illogical that means the religious people hold illogical beliefs. If religious people hold illogical beliefs then aren’t they logically inferior?

Johnny

3 Feb 2005, 03:57 PM

... who died and made you responsible for my enlightement?Good question. For me, it also begs the following question: who died and made me responsible for my enlightenment? :devil:

Johnny

3 Feb 2005, 04:22 PM

If religion can’t be defended logically then religion is illogical. If religion is illogical that means the religious people hold illogical beliefs. If religious people hold illogical beliefs then aren’t they logically inferior?Anything can be defended logically. You assume too much. Logic doesn't have to be gravity, it's not something that binds us. It can also be something we fashion as a tool to get some kind of work done.

If you look at logic as a flathead screwdriver, it exists to manipulate flathead screws. Such is the label we grant it. That doesn't mean you can't do other things with it. Of course you can do other things with it. Seems kinda silly to then assert flathead screws are inferior because those other things seem easier to do, doesn't it? If anything, I'd call out some hidden motive on someone's part to ridicule flathead screws for these experiences...like fear of flathead screws, or desire to sell some other kind of screw for which a different tool might be more suitable (Phillips, Allen, et al).

What is your hidden motive? :devil:

CoHo

3 Feb 2005, 08:16 PM

Clara

3 Feb 2005, 08:25 PM

Also :
Nonreligious believe without proof
Nonreligious believe without tangibility
Nonreligious believe without fact
Nonreligious believe without evidence

melancholeric

3 Feb 2005, 08:31 PM

I concede, after researching the definition of logic you can say you are logical, but I can also say you are illogical. Both of us would be correct therefore to say something is logical is meaningless.

So I?d like to add the words: Provable, Tangible, Factual and Evidential

So, I can say:
The religious believe without proof
The religious believe without tangibility
The religious believe without fact
The religious believe without evidence
All of those being ( more or less ) subjective. So is logic, in case you didn't know. The point is that I don't think it's possible to find objective truth on this. Otherwise, we wouldn't be debating this.

Also :
Nonreligious believe without proof
Nonreligious believe without tangibility
Nonreligious believe without fact
Nonreligious believe without evidence
That's different.

If I claim that I have a dead invisible green alien and his dentist in my closet, is it your job to prove me wrong?

Still, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but you get the point.

CoHo

3 Feb 2005, 08:37 PM

No, wrong side of the chicken, the correct wording would be:

Nonreligious believe because there is no proof
Nonreligious believe because there is no tangibility
Nonreligious believe because there is no fact
Nonreligious believe because there is no evidence

Clara

3 Feb 2005, 08:47 PM

What is this ? A vocabulary test ?

melancholeric, I'm interested in understanding what you mean. (*much amusement at the adjectives in your example* :rofl: but no, not that - because it's difficult for me to think, when I'm laughing so much. Be fair.)

Edit (moved here, for tidiness) : I'm, belatedly, reading the previous posts more attentively...

(Yes, I deleted another one - )

Geoff

3 Feb 2005, 09:08 PM

He means that religion requires 'proof'. So in the absence of proof it is logical to be a non believer.
Conversely there does not need to be proof to be a non-believer, as this situation is merely the absence of proof that one should be a believer. Proof is therefore only needed for religious belief, and the absence of it would leave one a non-believer.
At least, I think that is what he means (not quite sure why the dentist is in his closet, to be honest).
-Geoff

melancholeric

3 Feb 2005, 09:17 PM

Religion doesn't "require" proof, it requires belief. Belief, on the other hand...

If someone makes a ludicrous assertion of a tooth fairy, he has the burden of proof. If he can't prove the existence of the said fairy, do we have any reason to assume he is right?

Otherwise, we'd have to accept not only every deity humankind has come up with, every fairy tale, horoscopes, etc.

And there's a difference in "believing that god doesn't exist" and "not believing that god exists". I choose the latter, as I consider the first about as illogical as belief in the existence of god. Belief without proof.

Clara

3 Feb 2005, 09:50 PM

Ah, there's a lot of truth, in some of those fairy tales...

But that's a different thing, from what you meant. It's strange to me : I just re-read your post, and Geoff's just before it... and again. Semantics aside... Thanks.

Utopmk

3 Feb 2005, 10:15 PM

Eileen

3 Feb 2005, 10:18 PM

Wheeeeeeeee.

Brain's fried. (Maybe it was to start with.) Teenagers fried it.

So, uh, Christians are being discriminated against, huh?

Eileen

3 Feb 2005, 10:24 PM

And there's a difference in "believing that god doesn't exist" and "not believing that god exists". I choose the latter, as I consider the first about as illogical as belief in the existence of god. Belief without proof.

I would agree with this. I think that I might separate belief and faith, myself. I would classify myself as an agnostic Christian (because we can't know, of course we can't know) who is very.... faithful...

I'll have to think about this some more.

CoHo

3 Feb 2005, 10:57 PM

Agnostic Christian....

If you aren't sure if there is a god then why bother with the rituals?

Why (specifically) do you go to Church, or worship, or eat wafers, or however you practice your faith?

Geoff

3 Feb 2005, 11:07 PM

Wheeeeeeeee.

Brain's fried. (Maybe it was to start with.) Teenagers fried it.

So, uh, Christians are being discriminated against, huh?

Have you considered wrapping a cold towel around your head and sitting in darkened room?

-Geoff

Eileen

3 Feb 2005, 11:25 PM

Agnostic Christian....

If you aren't sure if there is a god then why bother with the rituals?

Why (specifically) do you go to Church, or worship, or eat wafers, or however you practice your faith?

For some inexplicable reason, I am drawn to it. That's a simple answer.

Just because I don't know if God exists doesn't mean I don't find meaning in the teachings of Christianity or profundity in the ritual of ingesting a metaphorical (I am careful to use this instead of simply saying figurative, as metaphor is the figure of speech in which one thing becomes the other without the use of like or as, and I have a whole schpiel about this but it's not all that relevant) body of Christ (which is the whole Christian body). It isn't even that practicing makes me feel good, because sometimes it just doesn't.

A breakthrough in my thinking on this matter came when I took the class that made me a Religious Studies minor. In the early church, it was heresy to read the Bible strictly "by the flesh," (literally). It was prescribed by Origen (the first New Testament scholar) that Christians should read it by the "soul" (morally) and "spirit" (allegorically or figuratively). He actually cited the Creation story as an example of something that shouldn't be taken literally, which has always amused me. The point of it all was primarily to gain moral truths and deeper, spiritual, allegorical truths. Do I know whether there is LITERALLY a God? No--and it doesn't matter to me. It isn't the point. The point is that there are soulful and spiritual truths that I can gain from His stories.

Eileen

3 Feb 2005, 11:27 PM

Have you considered wrapping a cold towel around your head and sitting in darkened room?

-Geoff

What? There are papers to grade! Lessons to write! PINS TO STICK IN STUDENT VOODOO DOLLS! No time for darkened rooms!

Geoff

3 Feb 2005, 11:29 PM

Eileen

3 Feb 2005, 11:33 PM

So you take from it that maybe wise humans wrote the bible as a guide to living one's life, and that that in itself is perhaps a good thing? If you are saying it doesnt matter if there is no God.

If so I can see the wisdom in following the advice of a wise human(or body of humans) -which is where buddhism fits in I believe. But a basis like this would suggest it needs updating to the modern world for things that have changed. Like views on homosexuality, contraception, the acceptance of other religions, the role of the female in society etc.
-Geoff

Well--I'm saying that it doesn't matter if there's no literal/actual God. Any metaphor there may be is still important to me.

That said, when I go to church these days, it's at a place two hours away from Podunk, NC where I live, and it is what you might term a "Progressive (and yet strangely and beautifully traditional and orthodox) church." It balances the old stories and the new stories pretty well, in my opinion.

Eileen

3 Feb 2005, 11:36 PM

And I want to clarify that to me, metaphor is really powerful. Letting go of a firm belief in a literal god allowed me to accept the power and beauty of metaphor; it doesn't make anything LESS true... so this is not a watered-down faith. It is a strengthened, infused faith.

Geoff

3 Feb 2005, 11:39 PM

Belief in a metaphor as important is an interesting twist on religion. It is almost like an agnostic protection against being wrong.
However, I can see why the bible and the church works well as a basis for many people to live their lives on. Better interpretation by many would be helpful, of course.
Me, I am a definite atheist. But I do not mock those who believe, only seek to understand why or what. I often wonder what this magic 'thing' is that they seem so sure of that for me (as a logical person) seems to be just 'blind' (because you were told to) faith.
-Geoff

Eileen

3 Feb 2005, 11:48 PM

Belief in a metaphor as important is an interesting twist on religion. It is almost like an agnostic protection against being wrong.

I suppose you can look at it that way. But letting go of the literal (although acknowledging also the possibility of the literal) made room for me to experience God in a more significant/deeper? way.

However, I can see why the bible and the church works well as a basis for many people to live their lives on. Better interpretation by many would be helpful, of course.

That's for sure.

Me, I am a definite atheist. But I do not mock those who believe, only seek to understand why or what. I often wonder what this magic 'thing' is that they seem so sure of that for me (as a logical person) seems to be just 'blind' (because you were told to) faith.
-Geoff

I appreciate people who don't mock believers. Flaky NF: Mocking believers isn't very nice. ;)

Johnny

4 Feb 2005, 12:24 AM

I concede, after researching the definition of logic you can say you are logical, but I can also say you are illogical. Both of us would be correct therefore to say something is logical is meaningless.

So I’d like to add the words: Provable, Tangible, Factual and Evidential

So, I can say:
The religious believe without proof
The religious believe without tangibility
The religious believe without fact
The religious believe without evidenceI'm not offering to you that work cannot be done because it's possible that logic won't get the work done for you. If you're motive here in trashing religion is to hone your skills with logic, that's fine. If you're trying to sell something, I don't mind if you skip trashing the competition and reveal your product. No product, no sale, and no profit.

Eileen

4 Feb 2005, 12:28 AM

Good question. For me, it also begs the following question: who died and made me responsible for my enlightenment? :devil:

Whisper: You are excellent and I enjoy reading your posts.

Johnny

4 Feb 2005, 02:43 AM

Whisper: You are excellent and I enjoy reading your posts.Thank you, Eileen the INFJ. Your courage inspired me.

CoHo

4 Feb 2005, 04:19 AM

...If you're trying to sell something, I don't mind if you skip trashing the competition and reveal your product. No product, no sale, and no profit.

It isn't necessary for me to reveal what I THINK when it comes to religion. These are the questions people should be asking. No, these are the questions that should be demanded of religion.

It is fine to have a theory and it is fine to have an idea. Blind faith is simply that, blind.

Pierce

4 Feb 2005, 04:36 AM

It isn't necessary for me to reveal what I THINK when it comes to religion. These are the questions people should be asking. No, these are the questions that should be demanded of religion.

It is fine to have a theory and it is fine to have an idea. Blind faith is simply that, blind.

Yeah, I agree... and so did Jesus.

Matthew 15:14 - Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Spartan26

4 Feb 2005, 06:40 AM

I'll step up again. So that makes it OK for people who do horrendous and and despicable acts to one another sometimes in the name of Christianity (and they KNOW that what they are doing is horrendous and despicable) just because Jesus died for them? I get the concept of asking for forgiveness, but why can't people just NOT do cruel, mean and controlling and negative things to one another?
No. (Rom 6:1-4;Heb 10:26-30) Forgiveness is a hard concept/subject/thing to grapple with. It doesn't mean people should not be punished for crimes or that people should walk around like they're carrying get out of jail free cards. And it's certainly not easy. I guess one way to look at it is in the big picture of time, and its eternity. The idea is to be restored to God. In some sense one could say that people don't have that authority to close off doors to God and lack of forgiveness could be contribute to that.

This is actually a big question. I don't think a quick couple of sentences would suffice all that's mentioned in the Bible or all the essence of what forgiveness means in the Christian life. To fully get on board with the Biblical concept of forgiveness, you'd have to believe God is merciful and just. But understand God's concept of "just" doesn't always fit human's expectation of "fair." (Is 55:6-9; the entire book of Job)

Back in the early 90's, I lived with a guy who could often be a real jerk, [radio edit]. His own brother called him Hitler, three people moved out in under 4 months, so it wasn't just me. Anyway, we weren't on good terms when I was moving out, not long after moving in. He stole money out of my deposit, broke some of my stuff and was totally swearing at me and lying when we were figuring out my final bills. At the time in my head I’m going, ‘I know you don’t think you’re that bad that you can take me.’ I mean practically wishing there would’ve been a slight earthquake just so he’d lose his balance enough to brush me so I could go off on him and then not spend the night down in county. But, even though I was nowhere near as committed in my faith, I still prayed for him and even left my fridge for him and my other roomie when I left. I was really upset but the initial process of forgiveness help me. I could carry around a grudge and it’d never hurt him. I could’ve saw to it that he would’ve had twice the expense to fix his car as what he took from me but didn’t. Plus, I found out later that my fridge ended up dying on them a few months after I moved out so to me it was poetic justice.

Some ten years later, I’m looking for some former co-workers who I know hang out at this one restaurant for happy hour on Friday nights and I hear someone calling me. I was kinda surprised because it wasn’t from the bar area where I was walking. I looked over and sure enough it was Hitler wanting me to sit down. I thought he was just going to say hey what’s up but he really insisted that I eat with him and his wife, actually buy my dinner. He was so apologetic for the time that I lived there and the way he acted toward me. Honestly, it was barely a blip in my memory but I could see how much he had changed. I have no idea what his religious views were, never came up. Not to break out the Hallmark cards but that evening made me feel far better than dropping him with a left hook ever would’ve.

A quick micro tale, by no means the worst thing anyone’s done to me, and not one meant to compare to the numerous evils people commit against their fellow man, but prayer and forgiveness are very real to me. It’s hard to really feel like forgiving when the wounds are still open but I believe being pro-active in forgiveness can really shape how they heal.

{I'm going to break this up over a couple of posts...}

Spartan26

4 Feb 2005, 08:57 AM

people who do horrendous and and despicable acts to one another sometimes in the name of Christianity (and they KNOW that what they are doing is horrendous and despicable) just because Jesus died for them
There are a lot of issues of doctrine that people argue about and get upset over. So much so that it’ll cause churches to split. You worship over there; I’ll worship over here. May sound silly. The issues may actually be silly. It wasn’t God’s intention but people take being right with God very seriously.

We’ve all heard people proclaim things in the name of Christianity that you don’t have to ever have read the Bible to know they’re full of it. Probably more of what you were referring to in your questioning, Miss A. And then there’s the mixture. Where people can believe they’re right (or believe they have some slight justification or rationale) in doing or saying something in the name of Christianity where there is, at least, room for debate, if not them being out and out wrong.

While it’s really easy to dismiss some televangelists as being used car salesmen trying to guilt people out of their money or ignore the hate monger who twists the Bible to feed his cult following, and clearly both are wrong, I don’t think quick separation is the cure-all answer that Jesus taught.

I don’t your history, but you’ve probably heard of David out of the Old Testament. David, as in David and Goliath; David and Bethsheba; King David – David. And you may’ve heard of the Apostle Paul. Paul, once named Saul but was blinded on the road to Damascus, writer of much of the New Testament including “Love is patient. Love is kind. Love is blah, blah blah,” that you’ll hear recited at many weddings before you nod off wondering what they’ll serve at the buffet. Both of those people, who found remarkable favor with God, unparalleled favor, did unspeakable acts. Murder! torture! In Paul’s case, he really thought he was doing God a favor. And for David, even if you were a dictator who could produce your own biological weapons in your own kitchen sink, you literally would not be able to single-handedly cause the death and destruction he did.

The point of Jesus dying for the people who disavowed everything He lived for was to prove that they still have value. And even if they don’t in repentence do anything worthy of an appearance on Oprah, God still loves them. While it may not be easy or something we want to do, loving our enemies has been commanded by Jesus. Not only does it open the world up for change, but it makes getting along with our bosses so much easier. It prevents a bad situation from turning into a blood-soaked rivalry. It makes one open to God’s favor and rewards beyond what we can think or dream. (Ep 3:19-20)

Again, it’s not necessarily easy. Learning to forgive the small offenses helps you deal with the big, as well as forgiving the major wrongs helps you handle the small ones. And I think that’s more applicable, or relevant might be a better word, to people today.

As much as it bothers/hurts/annoys me when people read out of First Opinion in making a false Biblical claim, (first off, I wonder how’d these people even get on TV???) and how it gives more fuel for opponents, I don’t think that’s the biggest threat to Christianity or people coming to Christ. The problem is more what I mentioned at first. The seemingly silly doctrinal things. Or other internal church disputes.

It’s not even the hot-button TV debate issues but things like fashion or limiting another’s role in programs that can cause people walk away without ever looking back. I’ve been cut by my brothers and sisters. I’ve had people’s attitudes toward me change over gossip and lies. And I know I’ve hurt people by just acting out of anger and selfishness or plain not thinking. No one may ever "mean to," but man, when that trust has been violated...it's all over. What do you do when you feel isolated in church? What will become of the forgotten? Can we say who is causing the most destruction to God's design for the world?

So which person needs to be shown forgiveness? Who is it who needs to learn humility? Who in this world is most in the need of love and prayers?

(I’ll answer Part III tomorrow, err it is tomorrow. After I got to bed and wake up, later in the day sometime)

Johnny

4 Feb 2005, 06:41 PM

It isn't necessary for me to reveal what I THINK when it comes to religion. These are the questions people should be asking. No, these are the questions that should be demanded of religion.

It is fine to have a theory and it is fine to have an idea. Blind faith is simply that, blind.This is your point, that we can logically deduce the attribute blindness from blind faith?

That is correct. Keep going then. Give religion a run for its money!

Spartan26

8 Feb 2005, 04:27 AM

And what is your belief Spartan...do I actually need to "ask" Jesus for forgiveness before being allowed into heaven? Or am I just automatically accorded forgiveness. I ask because I've been told by more than a couple Christians that I need to "ask" for forgiveness, or I will burn in hell. I have some real issues with that particular concept!
Again, with fears of delivering an over-simplified answer, I believe what God wants is obedience and belief. Giving lip service to God and going through the motions ain't gonna get it done.

Why would you have to "ask" for something that's being freely offered? I supposed it would fall under the category of humility. Are you willing to announce your need for Jesus in your life? Is it enough to ask for firgiveness or do you need to be baptised as well? What happens after baptism? Christianity is about renewing your heart and transforming your mind. Seeking forgiveness, or turning away from your old life and way of thinking, I would definitely say is a required step to living a Christian life.

The idea is to allow yourself to be molded and transformed so that God can use you and also reward you.

Thermo

16 Feb 2005, 03:20 PM

file cabinet:
"I am not a christian or anything but I found it amusing that christians are being discriminated against. while I see this as a positive, will it last or become more of a trend? how long until christians become the "victims" ?"

Those damn christians just aren't happy unless someone is burning them at the stake.

mgbradsh:
"Sorry, Christianity is not about logic, it is about faith. You can't "logically" believe in God. There isn't any proof out there that he exists without taking a leap of faith. So yes, belief in God is "illogical", enjoy it, embrace it."

I don't understand why you are arguing about this in another thread when you completely agree with me.

Eileen the INFJ:
Why do you care so much what people think about your belief?

I am a christian, LUtheran actually. I don't hate myself or all other christians. I have contempt for Roman Catholism and right wing or left wing fanatics. This boils down to the people who blindly accept faith. This includes people who don't know what they are agreeing to or agree without careful consideration.

Chall T. Dow

16 Feb 2005, 06:12 PM

I heard about this book the other day in my Midieval Civ class that those of you who are wondering about whether God's existance can be logically proven might want to check out; I'll probably get it myself if I ever find it. It's called the Ontological Proof of God's Existance and was written by a scholastic at the start of the High Middle Ages. I can't remember the guys name at the moment but I'll try to find it and post it here. From what I've eard, no one has been able to "proove" the guy wrong, but I admit I haven't read it myself. Ok, I googled it and found it was written by St. Anselm.

Chall T. Dow

EDIT: Here's a link to a summary of his argument as well as a rebuttal by his contemporary, Guanilo, and his answer.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/anselm.html
Another link to criticisms by various other philosophers.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-critics.html

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 06:16 PM

melancholeric

16 Feb 2005, 06:22 PM

I googled too. Thank you for making my day. This is hilarious....

Anselm began with the premise that God is a perfect Being. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, all-wise, infinite, immutable (or changeless), timeless, etc. In other words, He has all of the qualities that one would expect of a perfect being. All of the properties that you can imagine a being having, He has, to a perfect degree.
Next, Anselm went on to point out that existence is a form of perfection. A thing which exists, is more perfect than something that is purely imaginary.
Logically, therefore, since God is a perfect being, and has all of the qualities one would expect of a perfect being, then He must have existence, since He would be less than perfect, if He did not.
Hence, Anselm's conclusion: if we imagine that God is the most perfect Being possible, then - by definition - He must exist!

Circular reasoning, anyone? God is perfect, therefore, he exists!

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 06:36 PM

file cabinet:
"I am not a christian or anything but I found it amusing that christians are being discriminated against. while I see this as a positive, will it last or become more of a trend? how long until christians become the "victims" ?"

Those damn christians just aren't happy unless someone is burning them at the stake.

Wasn't it the Christians who burnt witches at the stake Thermo? lol

mgbradsh:
"Sorry, Christianity is not about logic, it is about faith. You can't "logically" believe in God. There isn't any proof out there that he exists without taking a leap of faith. So yes, belief in God is "illogical", enjoy it, embrace it."

I don't understand why you are arguing about this in another thread when you completely agree with me.

If you don't understand, then you don't know him very well yet, do you?

Eileen the INFJ:
Why do you care so much what people think about your belief?

I am a christian, LUtheran actually. I don't hate myself or all other christians. I have contempt for Roman Catholism and right wing or left wing fanatics. This boils down to the people who blindly accept faith. This includes people who don't know what they are agreeing to or agree without careful consideration.

This sounds like the sort of statement that is made without careful consideration..

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 06:36 PM

oops some of my comments got included inside the quote..

Thermo

16 Feb 2005, 07:00 PM

songbird34:
"Wasn't it the Christians who burnt witches at the stake Thermo? lol"

The stake burning comment was partially sarcastic and partially mocking the christian desire to suffer for salvation. It was also a reference to the first christian martyrs, not the witch trials.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/saints/martyrs.asp
"In July AD 64, during the tenth year of Nero's reign, a great fire engulfed the city of Rome. It was only stopped after six nights and seven days, when several buildings were demolished. Strangely, the fire restarted in the garden of Tigellinus the next day. It was rumoured Nero himself ordered the fires, since he seemed to have taken so much joy in them. Reports of strange men torching houses saying only that they had orders, fueled the idea Nero started them. It may serve to note that many fires had afflicted Rome over its history, but as with the others it is generally thought that this fire started accidentally as well. Nero, nonetheless, sensing the growing suspicion, declared the "Christians" had started the fires. No one thought that they had, but they were rounded up anyway. Some were sewn up in wild beast skins and fed to wild dogs while still alive. Some were covered in pitch and wax and after being more or less impaled with stakes, set alight."

vbmenu_register("postmenu_59999", true);

ObstinateBane

16 Feb 2005, 07:19 PM

Some were sewn up in wild beast skins and fed to wild dogs while still alive.

I wish they'd bring back the good old days.

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 07:21 PM

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 07:23 PM

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 07:26 PM

To abate confusion, just because someone's argument for some thing has been discounted, doesn't mean that thing is illogical. It means the ARGUMENT is illogical.

Dman

16 Feb 2005, 08:03 PM

To abate confusion, just because someone's argument for some thing has been discounted, doesn't mean that thing is illogical. It means the ARGUMENT is illogical.

Alogical.

Thermo

16 Feb 2005, 08:04 PM

songbird34:
"I know..I was just razzing ya.." <-- requires emoticons!

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 08:26 PM

Alogical.

Stirrer..

lol

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 08:34 PM

Alogical.

If you were referring to isolated things, like God, then yes, they are alogical. :)

Dman

16 Feb 2005, 08:44 PM

If you were referring to isolated things, like God, then yes, they are alogical. :)

D'oh!

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 08:53 PM

To try and inject some logic and reason into this debate, I thought I would post a really good link to a site which discusses the arguments *for* the existence of God and what these are based on.

The argument I'd like to see some discussion of is the Argument from First Cause. It is one of the more difficult arguments to refute, so I'd like to see what people come up with.

Here is the link:

www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

melancholeric

16 Feb 2005, 09:12 PM

I never understood the First Cause argument. Maybe I'm too stupid to understand it, but it seems to boil down to "what caused God?".

Then, given my limited understanding of physics, cause and effect may not apply on quantum level, including the first 10-^43 seconds of the universe, nor anything before that. Maybe the only cause was HUP. I might be wrong though, some of our resident physics geeks could come and correct me.

mgb

16 Feb 2005, 09:14 PM

Alogical.

Ahh, the new buzzword.

MacGuffin

16 Feb 2005, 09:24 PM

Wait, why did we move the debate to this thread?

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 09:26 PM

Wait, why did we move the debate to this thread?

Yes I made a mistake - it should have been on the other thread.

can you fix it up for me Mac?

MacGuffin

16 Feb 2005, 09:27 PM

Yes I made a mistake - it should have been on the other thread.

can you fix it up for me Mac?
I wish, but I don't have the power. I can only strangle my admirals from a distance when they drop out of hyperspace too soon.

booyalab

16 Feb 2005, 09:29 PM

I wish, but I don't have the power. I can only strangle my admirals from a distance when they drop out of hyperspace too soon.

well since the anti-alogical crowd seem to have a disturbing lack of faith, I see no reason why you can't strangle them from a distance too :)

songbird36

16 Feb 2005, 09:30 PM

I wish, but I don't have the power. I can only strangle my admirals from a distance when they drop out of hyperspace too soon.

Hahaha. You're so scary

Eileen

16 Feb 2005, 10:41 PM

Why do you care so much what people think about your belief?

I don't actually care what people think about my belief or nonbelief. I like talking about it, and so I talk about it. Conversation about God and religion is interesting to me, and I speak from my own experiences with it. I am not looking for acceptance or affirmation. I think that my perspective is fairly unique in that I am a very faithful practitioner of Christianity AND at base a techinical agnostic, experience profundity in the rituals and the teachings, and end up in intellectual and religious disputes with both atheists and believers. So I share my perspective. I'm not asking for anybody's blessing, just talking like everybody else.

Eileen

16 Feb 2005, 10:47 PM

I am a christian, LUtheran actually.

I think this statement is quite revealing about Lutherans. We tend to have a lot of pride in our religious heritage and when someone asks us what religion we are, we respond "Lutheran" instead of "Christian." (I say this as one who has converted from Lutheranism but still identifies strongly with it... in fact, I tend to call myself an "Episco-Lutheran Universalist.") It's like we have to qualify our Lutheranism as the "right" Christianity. Lutherans are totally like that, don't deny it.

Geoff

16 Feb 2005, 11:06 PM

I wish, but I don't have the power. I can only strangle my admirals from a distance when they drop out of hyperspace too soon.

Can't you use the old Force mind trick?

"These arent the droids you're looking for"
"These arguments are perfectly logical"
"God may, or may not exist, and noone minds which one people choose to believe"

-Geoff

MacGuffin

16 Feb 2005, 11:15 PM

Can't you use the old Force mind trick?

"These arent the droids you're looking for"
"These arguments are perfectly logical"
"God may, or may not exist, and noone minds which one people choose to believe"

-Geoff
I try, but their illogical kung fu is quite powerful.

Thermo

17 Feb 2005, 03:09 AM

Eileen:
"I think this statement is quite revealing about Lutherans. We tend to have a lot of pride in our religious heritage and when someone asks us what religion we are, we respond "Lutheran" instead of "Christian." (I say this as one who has converted from Lutheranism but still identifies strongly with it... in fact, I tend to call myself an "Episco-Lutheran Universalist.") It's like we have to qualify our Lutheranism as the "right" Christianity. Lutherans are totally like that, don't deny it."

I guess it was more a reflex, not be associated with the religious right or Roman Catholics.

Eileen

17 Feb 2005, 03:51 AM

Eileen:
I guess it was more a reflex, not be associated with the religious right or Roman Catholics.

Maybe, but I do think that Lutherans tend to be ironically elitist--and I do not exclude myself.

Also, dude, you clearly have some anger issues about the RCC. Some (comparatively FEW considering how damn many there are, incidentally) Catholics have done bad shit, but man... FORGIVENESS? GRACE? COMPASSION? It doesn't mean overlooking the dirty stuff; it just means recognizing first and foremost that you have something in common with someone else--sin and the need for grace and mercy. Watch the self-righteousness, brother Thermo.

(I could certainly take a dose of my own medicine re: the religious right. They do enrage me. I'll work on it for myself, too.)

Thermo

17 Feb 2005, 06:10 AM

Eileen the INFJ:

Also, dude, you clearly have some anger issues about the RCC. Some (comparatively FEW considering how damn many there are, incidentally) Catholics have done bad shit, but man... FORGIVENESS? GRACE? COMPASSION? It doesn't mean overlooking the dirty stuff; it just means recognizing first and foremost that you have something in common with someone else--sin and the need for grace and mercy. Watch the self-righteousness, brother Thermo.

The problem is the leadership refuses to accept and deal with its pedophile problem, it is completely out of touch with the teachings of Jesus, and the realities of the outside world. However, anyone who remains a Roman Catholic, attends church and donates money is equally to blame. When regular Roman Catholics accept these sins, they are equally to blame. My action was to switch to Lutheranism and refuse to support the Church.

PsiKik

17 Feb 2005, 06:37 AM

Eileen the INFJ:
The problem is the leadership refuses to accept and deal with its pedophile problem, it is completely out of touch with the teachings of Jesus, and the realities of the outside world.

Has anyone spent any time thinking about why there is this pedophile problem in the church?
I am just starting to form an opinion on the subject and I think the root cause of the pedophile problem is the church's attitude to sex - which has
it's roots in mind control techniques.

shum

17 Feb 2005, 06:39 AM

I do remember their sad little faces when I told them there was no Santa Claus. They were "victims" of the people who conditioned them.

haha you are the devil fo sho.

while religion is srutinized totally in my household, we have santa and the easter bunny, tooth fairy, sandman etc. so we have juvenile religion (not sunday school but the same brainwashing techniques and attitudes)

Eileen

17 Feb 2005, 11:53 AM

Has anyone spent any time thinking about why there is this pedophile problem in the church?
I am just starting to form an opinion on the subject and I think the root cause of the pedophile problem is the church's attitude to sex - which has
it's roots in mind control techniques.

Duh. Of course the problem is the church's surface attitude to sex (and I will add--the body). These days, I don't really think that church members or even most of the clergy understand the reasons and motivations behind these attitudes. The early church, I believe, was profoundly LIBERATIVE re: sex and the body for women (and possibly men, but women especially) because suddenly, marriage and children were NOT the ideal; the highest calling was to be a celibate. Marriage was good, but not the best. This allowed a lot of women to take a measure of control over their own lives. Much has clearly changed since then.

I think that you're probably spot-on these days with mind control techniques, but I think that the attitude toward sex is NOW perpetuated with mind control techniques and has its roots in what were genuine and admirable self control techniques of the early ascetics.

I think that we should start another thread to open up this issue for discussion. I'd like to see some parameters set in the discussion such that we actually talk seriously about the structure, history, theology, dogma, and leadership of the RCC rather than simply bashing religion as mere mind control (this does not mean that people can't assert it, but they need more than just the assertion--evidence from the structure, history, theology, dogma, leadership, etc).

Thermo

17 Feb 2005, 01:46 PM

PsiKik:

Has anyone spent any time thinking about why there is this pedophile problem in the church?
I am just starting to form an opinion on the subject and I think the root cause of the pedophile problem is the church's attitude to sex - which has
it's roots in mind control techniques.

Pedophiles want easy acccess to children, remain single, and unnoticed. As a priest you get the bonus of being a self hating sinner and sexual denial through celebacy. The biggest perks though are that the RCC will keep your crimes secret and move you from Church to church so you can expand your dating pool molesting hundreds of children throughout your career. I am sure the RCC is the only job posting at NAMBLA. My theory is that the RCC had pedophiles from the beginning.

Saint Paul (1 Cor. 15: 36, 37, 44, 47, 50.), "thou sowest not the body that shall be . . . . It is sown a natural body; it is that shall be . . . . It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body . . . . The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven .... Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

Saint Paul had a self hating fixation with the physical body. His third sin (after usuring Jesus and creating the modern Roman Catholic Church) may have been pedophilia not homosexuality as is the common assumption.

greenintp

17 Feb 2005, 07:24 PM

Hey CreativeChaos,
Just wondering why you became atheist. Feel free to respond privately if you don't care to post it.

"(As, I said I am now Atheist, btw)."

Eileen

17 Feb 2005, 11:14 PM

PsiKik:

Pedophiles want easy acccess to children, remain single, and unnoticed. As a priest you get the bonus of being a self hating sinner and sexual denial through celebacy. The biggest perks though are that the RCC will keep your crimes secret and move you from Church to church so you can expand your dating pool molesting hundreds of children throughout your career. I am sure the RCC is the only job posting at NAMBLA. My theory is that the RCC had pedophiles from the beginning.

Saint Paul (1 Cor. 15: 36, 37, 44, 47, 50.), "thou sowest not the body that shall be . . . . It is sown a natural body; it is that shall be . . . . It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body . . . . The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven .... Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

Saint Paul had a self hating fixation with the physical body. His third sin (after usuring Jesus and creating the modern Roman Catholic Church) may have been pedophilia not homosexuality as is the common assumption.

Woah. A. Generalizations about pedophiles! B. Do you REALLY ACTUALLY believe that the RCC desires for pedophiles to wear vestments? Yes, the church has FUCKED UP re: the pedophile scandals but do you REALLY THINK that the Church wants that to be associated with it? REALLY? C. Complete and total fucking misunderstanding of Paul and Catholic theology of the body. I have a whole bibliography of books that you should read about this topic.

Geoff

17 Feb 2005, 11:18 PM

Woah. A. Generalizations about pedophiles! B. Do you REALLY ACTUALLY believe that the RCC desires for pedophiles to wear vestments? Yes, the church has FUCKED UP re: the pedophile scandals but do you REALLY THINK that the Church wants that to be associated with it? REALLY? C. Complete and total fucking misunderstanding of Paul and Catholic theology of the body. I have a whole bibliography of books that you should read about this topic.

I can fully understand why you feel so strongly about this. But you have to ask why a particular religion seems to have such a well known (and finally acknowledged problem). If enough people in any institution have a particular 'hobby/attitude/psychological disease' then you have a culture of turning a blind eye and acceptance.. and thus it breeds. So it depends what you mean by 'the church' - do you mean the members of the church excluding those who may have pedophile tendencies.. or do you mean god and his bible?

-Geoff

Eileen

17 Feb 2005, 11:35 PM

I can fully understand why you feel so strongly about this. But you have to ask why a particular religion seems to have such a well known (and finally acknowledged problem). If enough people in any institution have a particular 'hobby/attitude/psychological disease' then you have a culture of turning a blind eye and acceptance.. and thus it breeds. So it depends what you mean by 'the church' - do you mean the members of the church excluding those who may have pedophile tendencies.. or do you mean god and his bible?

-Geoff

The thing is, I'm not even Catholic. I just really hate generalizations.

And yes, I do see that the leadership has turned a blind eye, and it has bred. It's a problem and something that needs to be addressed and should have been addressed long ago. I just think it's stupid to claim that pedophilia is somehow, like, woven into the very threads of the Catholic church starting with Paul. It's definitely a pervasive PROBLEM, but this guy sure does make it sound like all of the Catholic leadership has pedophile tendencies or condones them.

I meant originally the members of the church (and the non-pedophile leaders of the church, too), but hell. God and his Bible too.

Thermo

18 Feb 2005, 01:12 PM

Eileen:

The thing is, I'm not even Catholic. I just really hate generalizations.
Its not a generalization when virtually the entire leadership agrees and there are hundreds of cases globally not just in the United States. I am only aware of one bishop who confronted these scandals head in California. I can't remember his name, but that guy deserves respect for his courage and standing up for principles.

And yes, I do see that the leadership has turned a blind eye, and it has bred. It's a problem and something that needs to be addressed and should have been addressed long ago. I just think it's stupid to claim that pedophilia is somehow, like, woven into the very threads of the Catholic church starting with Paul.
I said Paul may have been a pedophile and that it was a theory. We know the scandals go back to at least the 1950s. Who is to say how far back they do go?

It's definitely a pervasive PROBLEM, but this guy sure does make it sound like all of the Catholic leadership has pedophile tendencies or condones them.
Here are a couple articles on how the church handled the Boston pedophile problem.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeast/12/16/cardinal.law/index.html

While not specifically mentioning the scandal involving alleged sexual abuse by priests and the cover-up by church officials, Law, 71, said it is his prayer that the Archdiocese of Boston will experience healing, reconciliation, and unity...Earlier this year, Law wrote a letter to priests in the archdiocese acknowledging there were problems but saying he would not resign. He issued the letter after a meeting with the pope.
I am really moved by Bernard Law's compassion. He resigned only after he was forced out. By the way, he recently got promoted to a prestigious post in the Vatican.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/23/pope.scandal/index.html

Gregory blamed part of the problem on gay priests and a perceived proliferation of gay men in seminaries. "It is most importantly a struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men," Gregory said. "Not only is it not dominated by homosexual men, but to make sure that candidates that we receive are healthy in every possible way -- psychologically, emotionally, spiritually."...George said that calls for the resignation of the Boston archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law -- who has been under pressure to resign amid charges that he didn't do enough to protect children from known pedophile priests -- did not come up.
The actual source of the problem was homosexual priests not Bernard Law's coverup. What a relief!

I am pretty much done with this now. I would be happy to talk about Paul though.

Eileen

18 Feb 2005, 09:18 PM

I am pretty much done with this now. I would be happy to talk about Paul though.

My sentiments precisely. I'll start a new thread for Catholicism/issues of the body.

Darren

19 Feb 2005, 12:45 AM

Your religion states that Mr. Dahmer goes to heaven while I go to hell, correct?"

his response: "Yep. Absolutely."

There it is, the idiocy that lurks at the core of every Christian's world view, no matter how nice a person they seem to be. :banghead:

Darren

19 Feb 2005, 12:52 AM

The argument I'd like to see some discussion of is the Argument from First Cause. It is one of the more difficult arguments to refute.....[/url]

"Difficult to refute"????

"If everything requires a First Cause, where did God come from?"

;P

Darren

19 Feb 2005, 01:04 AM

I'd be able to show you basic tenets of the religion and how my theological conclusions logically follow. No, they aren't facts. But mathematical theorems are based on postulates--statements that are given, assumed to be true. Math is an exercise in logic, and so is theology. You may fundamentally disagree with the conclusions of a theologian because you don't believe his postulates, but he is still performing logic.

If you're ready for an atheist philosopher to come after your worldview in a big way :eek:, try George Smith's The Case Against God. (Basically, he says the postulates of theology are literally non-sensical and incoherent. They evaporate into meaninglessness as soon as you look closely at them, and therefore it makes no sense to attempt to reason from them. I think he's right).

Darren

19 Feb 2005, 01:16 AM

For all the Christian bashing that goes on up in here, I haven't seen any advantages in not being a Christian. Show me a lit'l sumptin', sumptin. That's all I'm sayin'.

I never thought of it in terms of "advantages". I'm not a Christian because Christianity strikes me as laughable, and morally bankrupt in most of its incarnations (ie 1 Sam 15, eternal hell for finite offenses, etc). I don't seek "advantage" from my world view, I merely seek to be right, because I love the truth above all things.

I think that atheists have the "advantage" when it comes to developing true and useful policies and explanations for the world we live in, but of course only another atheist would believe that, so you're not likely to find that very convincing.

I also don't need to spend any time wondering "How could God have allowed _____ to happen?" That frees up some time on the day-planner.

Darren

19 Feb 2005, 01:26 AM

Since nothing can be proven either way about God, then both sides of any debate as to whether God exists is without logic. Belief in God, I can concede, is not something that's even in the realm of logic because you cannot prove that God exists or does not exist.

However, the theist has the burden of *defining* what is meant by "God"... this must be taken care of FIRST, BEFORE any sensible "Yes He exists, no He doesn't" debate can take place. Smith said something like: "Defining the content of one's belief is not an optional chore the theist can undertake at their convenience, it is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility."

Lee

19 Feb 2005, 01:35 AM

Johnny

19 Feb 2005, 02:47 AM

However, the theist has the burden of *defining* what is meant by "God"... this must be taken care of FIRST, BEFORE any sensible "Yes He exists, no He doesn't" debate can take place. Smith said something like: "Defining the content of one's belief is not an optional chore the theist can undertake at their convenience, it is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility."Wrong. This theist only take the responsibility of living a life that honors God as he understands and recognizes...and the burdens associated with that don't compel me to define God in a manner that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

For some of us, it's not about selling products and making customers happy...

Eileen

19 Feb 2005, 03:17 AM

There it is, the idiocy that lurks at the core of every Christian's world view, no matter how nice a person they seem to be. :banghead:

Not every Christian's worldview. God. I fucking hate the word "every."

Eileen

19 Feb 2005, 03:36 AM

If you're ready for an atheist philosopher to come after your worldview in a big way :eek:, try George Smith's The Case Against God. (Basically, he says the postulates of theology are literally non-sensical and incoherent. They evaporate into meaninglessness as soon as you look closely at them, and therefore it makes no sense to attempt to reason from them. I think he's right).

I'm feeling antagonistic tonight, like I'm channeling Zedo, and my initial response is "Whoopty-shit."

[Edited to seem less like a flaky NF] Okay, so faith is "nonsensical." Whatever. Alogical, illogical, I have ceased caring about defining faith in such a way, because quite frankly, it's just going to be the same discussion that took place in eighty-five pages of another thread, and not much was accomplished then, so I can only assume based on this past experience that nothing will be accomplished now.

But if there's anything that faith isn't, it's meaninglessness. Being in a state of faith is being able to look at the world and FIND deeper meaning. Faith allows you to look at the world and read it like poetry. Faith lets me see a world crafted of puns and metaphors and beautiful imagery. I heard on NPR today the sentence, "We're all made of stardust, basically." Fact: We are made of the same spinning, dancing particles as the stars. Someone without faith might find this interesting. Someone with faith finds this profound and can experience connection with her world because of it.

So George Smith can make his case against God. He can look at the postulates of theology and find them meaningless. I don't believe that he'll go to hell for that, but I do believe he's missing out in this life by dismissing the possibility that reality holds more than he can reason about.

Darren

19 Feb 2005, 05:50 AM

Wrong. This theist only take the responsibility of living a life that honors God as he understands and recognizes...and the burdens associated with that don't compel me to define God in a manner that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

For some of us, it's not about selling products and making customers happy...

Fair enough... it would have been clearer for me to say "If a Christian wishes to proselytize, or debate the existence of God, then they first need to define God in a satisfactory way". This is just common sense... otherwise it's pretty hard to have a sensible discussion on the matter.

If you *don't* want to do either of those things, then no, you don't need to define God. (BTW, it's not about making me feel "warm and fuzzy", it's about having and stating coherent and comprehensible beliefs so that others may know what it is that they are being asked to accept).

Believe it or not, I actually do try to avoid being an asshole in these theism/atheism discussions. I certainly try not to pick fights with theists unless they are actively prostletyzing me, though I'm always happy to provide an atheistic take on the whole philosophy of religion, what it's like to be an atheist, etc.

Darren

Darren

19 Feb 2005, 05:56 AM

I'm feeling antagonistic tonight, like I'm channeling Zedo, and my initial response is "Whoopty-shit."
I've heard far worse.

[Edited to seem less like a flaky NF] Okay, so faith is "nonsensical." Whatever. Alogical, illogical, I have ceased caring about defining faith in such a way, because quite frankly, it's just going to be the same discussion that took place in eighty-five pages of another thread, and not much was accomplished then, so I can only assume based on this past experience that nothing will be accomplished now.

That is also my experience. I presumed that since you had expressed an interest in the philosophy of religion, you'd at least be interested in an atheist perspective. If you aren't, you aren't.

Darren

Eileen

19 Feb 2005, 06:05 AM

I've heard far worse.

That is also my experience. I presumed that since you had expressed an interest in the philosophy of religion, you'd at least be interested in an atheist perspective. If you aren't, you aren't.

Darren

No, I am. But I just got the atheist perspective for a couple score pages in another thread. If you see the "Finding Meaning" thread, I ask for your perspective with regard to what you find meaningful, if anything. I'm very interested in that. I am not, however, interested in the debate as to whether God exists because I believe that it is utterly impossible to come to any kind of conclusion in that discussion. I stopped being interested in that debate when I was about seventeen years old; I'm more interested in how one who professes no faith finds depth, purpose, meaning--which is not a question I mean to ask condescendingly.

C.J.Woolf

19 Feb 2005, 07:09 AM

This, for me, was the highlight of this thread:

A breakthrough in my thinking on this matter came when I took the class that made me a Religious Studies minor. In the early church, it was heresy to read the Bible strictly "by the flesh," (literally). It was prescribed by Origen (the first New Testament scholar) that Christians should read it by the "soul" (morally) and "spirit" (allegorically or figuratively). He actually cited the Creation story as an example of something that shouldn't be taken literally, which has always amused me. The point of it all was primarily to gain moral truths and deeper, spiritual, allegorical truths. Do I know whether there is LITERALLY a God? No--and it doesn't matter to me. It isn't the point. The point is that there are soulful and spiritual truths that I can gain from His stories.

If so I can see the wisdom in following the advice of a wise human(or body of humans) -which is where buddhism fits in I believe. But a basis like this would suggest it needs updating to the modern world for things that have changed. Like views on homosexuality, contraception, the acceptance of other religions, the role of the female in society etc.
I think in terms of ends and means. I'm agnostic, and I don't see religion as an end but as a means to an end. But what end? I believe that religion -- or a non-theistic system like Buddhism or Taoism -- serves these purposes:

1. Provides a moral framework for those who want to be good. Note that philosophy can do the same.

2. Helps you cope with the awfulness of the world, whether it's caused by nature or by people. Philosophy can do this job too.

3. Satisfies your spiritual longings. Science is discovering that spirituality is as inherent to the human brain as fear or love. I have not encountered any secular philosophy that addresses this. I find the Buddha's ideas appealing but I haven't really explored them.

I have no quarrel with anyone's religion on the personal level. I might think they're wrong, but it doesn't affect me or anyone else. But when it becomes public, that's different. I object to the notion that democracy and the law do not apply to a political issue because of deeply held religious beliefs. Naturally, one's beliefs influence one's politics, but it's still politics. Christians who engage in politics are gonna get criticized by their opponents just like anyone else who engages in politics. If that's "persecution", then too bad. Which leads to this quote...

"I've yet to meet an intelligent fundie"

Fundies are giving all Christians a bad image, but I see fundamentalism not as a religious thing but as a anxiety/fear reaction to modernity. They don't feel persecuted because they're fundies; they're fundies because they feel persecuted. Fundamentalists grasp at things they believe are old and solid in a changing world. Usually it's traditional religion, but it's also ethnic traditions, sometimes including pre-Christian religious beliefs. Mid-20th-Century Fascism was a secular form of fundamentalism. But religious fundamentalism is particularly bad because they're so damn sure of themselves.

mgb

19 Feb 2005, 07:31 AM

I'm feeling antagonistic tonight, like I'm channeling Zedo, and my initial response is "Whoopty-shit."

[Edited to seem less like a flaky NF] Okay, so faith is "nonsensical." Whatever. Alogical, illogical, I have ceased caring about defining faith in such a way, because quite frankly, it's just going to be the same discussion that took place in eighty-five pages of another thread, and not much was accomplished then, so I can only assume based on this past experience that nothing will be accomplished now.

But if there's anything that faith isn't, it's meaninglessness. Being in a state of faith is being able to look at the world and FIND deeper meaning. Faith allows you to look at the world and read it like poetry. Faith lets me see a world crafted of puns and metaphors and beautiful imagery. I heard on NPR today the sentence, "We're all made of stardust, basically." Fact: We are made of the same spinning, dancing particles as the stars. Someone without faith might find this interesting. Someone with faith finds this profound and can experience connection with her world because of it.

So George Smith can make his case against God. He can look at the postulates of theology and find them meaningless. I don't believe that he'll go to hell for that, but I do believe he's missing out in this life by dismissing the possibility that reality holds more than he can reason about.

To be honest I actually most prefer this type of faith. It actually makes a lot more sense to me the prosthelitizing kind. Have your faith, be amazed by it, but keep it to yourself is what I say (not that you can't share it here, just that you don't attack people with it).

songbird36

19 Feb 2005, 07:55 AM

This, for me, was the highlight of this thread:

I think in terms of ends and means. I'm agnostic, and I don't see religion as an end but as a means to an end. But what end? I believe that religion -- or a non-theistic system like Buddhism or Taoism -- serves these purposes:

1. Provides a moral framework for those who want to be good. Note that philosophy can do the same.

2. Helps you cope with the awfulness of the world, whether it's caused by nature or by people. Philosophy can do this job too.

3. Satisfies your spiritual longings. Science is discovering that spirituality is as inherent to the human brain as fear or love. I have not encountered any secular philosophy that addresses this. I find the Buddha's ideas appealing but I haven't really explored them.

I have no quarrel with anyone's religion on the personal level. I might think they're wrong, but it doesn't affect me or anyone else. But when it becomes public, that's different. I object to the notion that democracy and the law do not apply to a political issue because of deeply held religious beliefs. Naturally, one's beliefs influence one's politics, but it's still politics. Christians who engage in politics are gonna get criticized by their opponents just like anyone else who engages in politics. If that's "persecution", then too bad. Which leads to this quote...

"I've yet to meet an intelligent fundie"

Fundies are giving all Christians a bad image, but I see fundamentalism not as a religious thing but as a anxiety/fear reaction to modernity. They don't feel persecuted because they're fundies; they're fundies because they feel persecuted. Fundamentalists grasp at things they believe are old and solid in a changing world. Usually it's traditional religion, but it's also ethnic traditions, sometimes including pre-Christian religious beliefs. Mid-20th-Century Fascism was a secular form of fundamentalism. But religious fundamentalism is particularly bad because they're so damn sure of themselves.

You're absolutely right with your #1, 2 and 3. In fact your entire post is very thoughtful on this topic (including your view of fundamentalists).

In terms of your item #3, religion is not simply a world view, it is a window onto eternity. It is a window that allows us to transcend the confines of the natural and material world we live in. No philosophical or scientific school of thought provides us with anything even approaching this sort of opportunity.

I am not a religious fundamentalist, and indeed am anti-fundamentalism, for the reason that fundamentalism combines and distills the worst aspects of superstition, narrowmindedness and religious bigotry that have pervaded Christianity since its inception in the early centuries of the first millennium AD.

The appeal of fundementalism (and the reason it is the biggest growth industry in the Christian church) is that it provides a very clear and unambiguous moral compass to people who have lost direction, or whose lives have been turned upside down by things such as drugs, sexual abuse or crime. There is nothing else in Western societies today which is providing such clear direction, and so people are flocking to evangelical churches in droves. There is a "gap in the market" here that desperately needs to be filled by some other options.

Geoff

19 Feb 2005, 12:31 PM

The appeal of fundementalism (and the reason it is the biggest growth industry in the Christian church) is that it provides a very clear and unambiguous moral compass to people who have lost direction, or whose lives have been turned upside down by things such as drugs, sexual abuse or crime. There is nothing else in Western societies today which is providing such clear direction, and so people are flocking to evangelical churches in droves. There is a "gap in the market" here that desperately needs to be filled by some other options.

Sounds exactly like the approach being taken to win supporters by the Church of Scientology to me. Something about which I know more than I wish to!

-Geoff

earwax

19 Feb 2005, 01:55 PM

... I'm more interested in how one who professes no faith finds depth, purpose, meaning--which is not a question I mean to ask condescendingly.

I can't say as I have found any meaning.. as in "is there a purpose for us being here".

I may not be a xian, but the words "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" could cure a lot of the ills in this world. (Much easier said than done.)

I believe that kindness, compassion and mercy are good goals to strive for.

melancholeric

19 Feb 2005, 01:57 PM

I may not be a xian, but the words "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" could cure a lot of the ills in this world. (Much easier said than done.)

Well no. The tastes may not be the same. For instance, masochists should avoid this rule like plague.

earwax

19 Feb 2005, 02:11 PM

Well no. The tastes may not be the same. For instance, masochists should avoid this rule like plague.

There is always that.... Guess there are a few bugs that still need to be worked out.

melancholeric

19 Feb 2005, 02:32 PM

There is always that.... Guess there are a few bugs that still need to be worked out.
The negative version of the rule, found in some Eastern philosophies, is a bit less buggy but still it has the same fundamental problem.
"Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you".

I have searched for an absolute ethical code for a while now, and have come to the conclusion that such thing does not exist. Immanuel Kant came close with categorical imperative: "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law" ( copypasted from Wikipedia. I could never write a sentence like that. ).

That's not perfect either. There are too many variables in real life. Not to mention that people are different. There are plenty of instances where this would have to be flushed down the drain in your everyday life.

earwax

19 Feb 2005, 03:05 PM

melancholeric

19 Feb 2005, 03:10 PM

OK - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.... Unless you know that they would find it distasteful. In that case, ignore them and hope that they go away.

If they refuse to go away, stick a fork in their eye. :P
How do we know if they find something distasteful? Do we have to ask before we do anything? Would you want me to reply to your message, or do you consider it distasteful?

earwax

19 Feb 2005, 03:48 PM

How do we know if they find something distasteful? Do we have to ask before we do anything? Would you want me to reply to your message, or do you consider it distasteful?

Reply away..that's why I am here. Looking for reasons and searching for rhymes.

Thermo

20 Feb 2005, 02:15 AM

Paul isn't as bad as I remembered. He basically says, hey its good to be celebate, but if you can't do it get married rather than live a lie.

http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207-8&version=31;&version=31;
Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Obviously, the modern catholic church has ignored Paul's direct advice and chosen that celebacy is a requirement not an option. The result is a massive number of actively gay priests.

http://www.reformed.com/pub/rc.htm
[17] In Mt. 19:12 Jesus Christ teaches that celibacy is voluntary. In 1 Cor. 7:8-9 Paul says that celibacy is a gift. If people are having trouble controlling their sex drive, they should get married. “In one of the very few studies based on hard data—1,500 interviews between 1960 and 1985—Maryland psychologist Richard Sipe, a former priest, concluded that about 20 percent of the 57,000 U.S. Catholic priests are homosexual and that half of them are sexually active. But since 1978, Sipe believes, the number of gay priests has increased significantly; other therapists think the true figure today may be closer to 40 percent” (Kenneth L. Woodward, “Gays in the Clergy: Homosexual Priests,” Newsweek, Feb. 23, 1987, p. 58).

C.J.Woolf

20 Feb 2005, 06:06 AM

I'd read that the Pope imposed celibacy on the priesthood only around 900(?) for political reasons. Priests tried to keep it in the family and pass their parishes on to their sons, and for some reason the Pope didn't like it. There was no grandfather clause either; the edict required married priests to abandon their families. A very cruel act then and now.

Darren

22 Feb 2005, 02:33 AM

No, I am. But I just got the atheist perspective for a couple score pages in another thread. If you see the "Finding Meaning" thread, I ask for your perspective with regard to what you find meaningful, if anything. I'm very interested in that. I am not, however, interested in the debate as to whether God exists because I believe that it is utterly impossible to come to any kind of conclusion in that discussion. I stopped being interested in that debate when I was about seventeen years old; I'm more interested in how one who professes no faith finds depth, purpose, meaning--which is not a question I mean to ask condescendingly.

First, I think we have been using "meaning" in two different ways. Your quote from before "if there is anything faith ISN'T, it's meaningless" highlights the difficulty.

When I was speaking of Smith and the underpinnings of any philosophical discussion of the existence of God, I was saying that if a theist wishes to say "God exists", they MUST clearly describe what they MEAN when they speak of this concept they call "God", otherwise no further discussion is possible.

My two cents: I find it hard to believe that you "stopped being interested in the debate when you were 17", because unless you've really considered what you MEAN by "God", you haven't even STARTED having the debate! (IMHO of course).

As far as I can tell, you have been using "meaning" to be a synonym for "that warm and fuzzy feeling that life is good". I don't mean to be condescending, that is honestly my best take on what you've been trying to say.

So we should be aware of this tendency we have to be ambiguous when we speak of "meaning".

It may well be that you find the atheist worldview cold, uncomforting, and "meaningless" (ie doesn't give you any warm fuzzies). That may well be so, neither Smith, nor I, nor any atheist can help you there.

Your question: how does an atheist find "depth, purpose, and meaning"?

As for "depth", the universe is a pretty deep place even if you're an atheist (in fact ESPECIALLY if you're an atheist).

As for "purpose", I don't even know how to answer that, except to say that I feel rather sorry for somebody who can't find a reason to get out of bed in the morning unless they think a big Sky Daddy is up there looking after them. No offence, but that's how I feel. The world is a wonderful (sometimes) place and I have many interests. "Purpose" is never something I've had to worry about. Philosophy alone could keep me going for a few centuries. I tend to be a solitary sort, but I have atheist friends with children, and they appear to me to be approaching parenthood with all the dedication, joy and enthusiasm that you could ask for. And these people are Atheists with a capital A. Sorry, no shortage of "purpose" here, even though it's all dust in the wind eventually.

As for "meaning", in the sense that you use it, that's not something I feel any need for, and I frankly view the need for "meaning" as a pitiable weakness. Shit happens, there is no "meaning" to any of it, the universe doesn't give a crap whether you or I are alive or not, and I am perfectly happy with that. I don't always like it when shit happens, so I do my bit to contribute to this thing called "civilization" (which is basically an elaborate organization to make shit happen less frequently).

Darren

Eileen

23 Feb 2005, 01:36 AM

As far as I can tell, you have been using "meaning" to be a synonym for "that warm and fuzzy feeling that life is good". I don't mean to be condescending, that is honestly my best take on what you've been trying to say.

So we should be aware of this tendency we have to be ambiguous when we speak of "meaning".

It may well be that you find the atheist worldview cold, uncomforting, and "meaningless" (ie doesn't give you any warm fuzzies). That may well be so, neither Smith, nor I, nor any atheist can help you there.

I leave meaning vague so that people can define it for themselves. My view of meaning is not going to necessarily be the same thing as someone else's.

I do not define meaning as you think that I do. For myself, "meaning" has to do with purpose (however weak that makes me in your opinion), what values I hold and why, how there are parallels between the stories people tell (science and religion), how there are parallels between the lives of different living things, and the question of what it means that I am here, that I am part of this universe, and what connections I can make with other things/people/ideas/whatever as a result of being a part of the universe. It's an NF pursuit, I think. Harmony is important to me but is not my ultimate goal, and comfort and lies for the sake of it I can do without. When I seek meaning, I expect my heart to be battered--for God/the universe to "break, blow, burn, and make me new" (Donne, Holy Sonnet 14). There's no way to grow if one insists on comfort.

I don't necessarily think that the atheist worldview is cold, uncomforting, and meaningless. I didn't ask the question with a condescending attitude. If you say the universe is deep especially to an atheist, I'm more than willing to take you at your word because I am not going to discount your experiences as you are so quick to discount mine. I'd like some elaboration so as to grasp it better, but I'm not going to assume that there's nothing there simply because I don't share your viewpoints on God. Just because you think I'm [whatever disparaging term you have for the religious person-weak, an idiot, pitiable, whatever] doesn't mean that I think that you find no joy in anything or have no real direction or deeper understanding of your environment.

As for God, I know what I mean by the word, and it isn't something that will ever be proven one way or the other in a debate, and I am uninterested in pursuing that discussion. Not because I am closed-minded, but because I am tired of discussions that span eighty-five pages and say the same things over and over again. It's damn boring.