To the Christians here...

[infornography]

The quack doctor analogy is totally inaccurate, since magnetic therapy is a scientific claim that can be tested. Claiming to believe something is not scientific nor can it be tested.

And you can disprove false claims about a religion by consulting their holy book. I fail to see the difference here. Find me some verses that can be interpreted so as to endorse racism and I'll give the argument some credence, however it will still not prove that there is a universal trend of bigotry to religion. You are clearly demonizing your opponents and that is a hallmark of bigoted behavior.

Except that because adults can consentually molest each other, it is exactly like the smoking example you provided. Look, just stop using kids -- we have laws that protect them because we assume that children won't always make choices in their best interest.

Then could you provide a decent list of national laws that you believe ARE good examples of enforced morality inspired by religion? I think perhaps you are overspecifying the definition of the word.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And you can disprove false claims about a religion by consulting their holy book.

Sort of, but not really, the holy books are riddled with contradictions and other nuances that makes it very hard to disprove in any scientific fashion at all. Apologists use that to their advantage.

I fail to see the difference here.

Perhaps that's the problem with the religious, you fail to see the difference between claims of fact and claims of personal belief.

Find me some verses that can be interpreted so as to endorse racism and I'll give the argument some credence

In our Gospel today we have what looks like a very racist remark to a foreign woman in the neighboring country of Tyre and Sidon. When she asked Jesus to heal her demon possessed daughter, he said "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs" (Mark 7:27).

Here is a list of various anti-jewish parts of the bible:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/anti.html

however it will still not prove that there is a universal trend of bigotry to religion.

History is riddled with that evidence.

You are clearly demonizing your opponents and that is a hallmark of bigoted behavior.

I demonize the KKK and Nazi's as well. Being intolerant towards bigots isn't something I consider morally wrong.

Then could you provide a decent list of national laws that you believe ARE good examples of enforced morality inspired by religion?

The bans against same-sex marriage, nationally, the attempt to ammend the constitution against homosexual marriage.
Abstinence only programs being funded by government are also morality being enforced by the government because of the religious values of those in power. Oh wait, those are examples of bad things being done by the religious.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Actually, I'm writing as I choose and not justifying it post hoc. You're right; that's a poor way to act, and there is no justification.

But I did it anyway, and will likely continue.

Unfortunately, I'm a sinner.

I left the "other cheek" behind when both got slapped off many, many years ago.

Very weak....

Weak, but true. I'd rather tell it like it is than lie.

...You know, you think you'd realize that your God can tell you're not even trying....

He knows my past, present, and future. He also knows of my feeble attempts to do what's right.

If you're not going to put effort into being a better person, that's very sad.

You're right. It is very sad. I wish I could do better.

I hoped there was a good Christian will underneath that angry exterior.

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Depends on what that "real test" is, and whether or not God will bless me with the grace to live up to the test.

But I'd assume you're likely right.

Not all of us are destined to glory. And I'm probably not one of them, either.

What! I thought you had free will.

As best as I can control it.

I thought if you really wanted to be saved, you could be.

I am. Not by my works, but in complete faith that the sacrifice of Christ can save all who believe and appreciate the fullness of His love and sacrifice.

I cannot save myself. Only His salvation can save me.

If you don't think God is letting you be who you want to be, then that is a very pessimistic worldview. Rather, I think it is you who can and should take responsibility for yourself. Otherwise, who can trust you, when you're accountable to no man?

My family and friends trust me completely. I have proven myself to be, not good, but dependable, loyal, and trustworthy beyond question.

It's all about trust and faith. I trust them completely, as well, and trust God above all else.

If people can do anything they want and get into heaven just for believing in Christ then it's not going to be very exclusive at all, is it?

I'm not the judge of how exclusive heaven is supposed to be, nor whether I will be blessed with it's rewards.

I feel confident, however, that I will not be condemned to Hell. I believe that is reserved for those who reject God.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I would have to say that Huntster is probably more religious that ReFlex.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by ReFLeX :
But luckily you're incapable of misjudgement.

Not necessarily, it's just that on this topic, I'm right....

Oh, now you're being bashful.

Remember?:

I'm always right.

(See sig lines below......................)

I can't trust religious people fully because they have a god that can tell them to kill me and they'd do it.

Amazing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Amazing.

But true. Isn't "obeying god" a big part of religion?

 

[Huntster]

........you fail to see the difference between claims of fact and claims of personal belief.....

That from the same mind who has written:

My opinion has the authority of reality

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......................

...Being intolerant towards bigots isn't something I consider morally wrong....

Me, too.

However, I'm being chastised for it in this very thread.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Amazing.

But true. Isn't "obeying god" a big part of religion?

Yes, it is:

Thou shalt not kill.

 

[Dcdrac]

I agree with Ken- I wouldn't imagine the Ku Klux Klan would let an atheist join. This doesn't prove it's a religious group, it proves that it wants to APPEAR to be a religious group, partly because people like exclusive groups.

But Ken, what's your response to my previous post?

Weren't they called the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan originally, along with dragons and wizars?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Having not read the preceding 12 pages, that never stops me from butting in...

I will see what the conversation is later but my 2 cents on this matter, I really can't find all the "God is Love" and stuff claimed by Christians to actually be in the Bible. There are lots of individual quotes but there are a greater number of passages about hate and smiting enemies.

 

[ceo_esq]

Not in their negative incarnations now, and not by you, but the fact remains that belief in such doctrine has been, is, and will be used as a launching point for such negative incarnations. If you honestly reflect on and answer my question you will see this.

But you seem to be confidently attributing some culpable role in this to Christian doctrine itself. Virtually any complex text can be (mis)used in this way. I could use Plato's Republic as the launching point for all sorts of agendas that Plato would have repudiated.

If God, Jesus, and all the prophets and saints were female, would women have had as rough a history as they did?

Wait a minute. Christian theology indicates that God in himself is neither male nor female. There are no female Hebrew prophets, but prophets by themselves are not the most important figures in the OT, which figures include many women. It is also my understanding that there are more female than male saints recognized, including many of the most important and revered saints. Do you think there would have been a net benefit to replacing all the men with women?

I would not disagree with that. This does not mean, however, that the status of women under Christianity is satisfactory, nor does it mean that Christianity is not responsible for the current treatment of women in Christian culture.

What do you see as the theoretical status of women under Christianity as such, and how would you articulate the responsibility borne by Christianity?

I know that homosexuality was not taboo in ancient Roman society and in fact the highest ranking in the social and military orders would often partake in homosexual experiences.

Acceptance of homosexual activity in ancient Rome varied across its activity. However, it seems to me that just as in ancient Greece, what was accepted (at least at certain times) was not homosexuality in the generic modern sense, but rather the specific institution of pederasty. I discussed some research on this topic in this post.

And I would bet that in the trading centers of the old world skin color had nothing to do with social rank. How could it, when the rich traders of all skin colors had to get along with each other?

How do you think this changed as Christianity began to spread, and why?

Yes -- those values were not as prevalent before Christianity swept through as they were after it swept through.

Honestly, I don't see much evidence of negative changes in most of these respects between, say, 1 AD and 700 AD, and quite a bit of evidence of favorable changes.

Let me ask you a serious question: Do you really think that women would have been as bad off then and now if the God of Christianity and Islam was female instead of male, and if she had a daughter rather than son, and if all her prophets and saints were female?

As previously noted, wouldn't that be the kind of gender-exclusive framework that Christianity specifically isn't?

I mean the trend of economics and industry competing with the church for power over the people, which seems to have started at the beginning of the Rennaisance, approximately 500 years ago. The result of this competition is the current state of Christianity in western countries. The church doesn't have anything close to the power it had in 1500, and rightly so.

I suppose that depends on your definition of power. I think the Church enjoys a great deal more autonomy than it previously did. But you really shouldn't think of the Church as competing with economics and industry. In many respects it has been a powerful engine of economics and industry.

Who cares what the leaders of the church endorse. What matters is the opinion of the average follower. And in that case, I stand by my claim.

Who is the average follower of Christianity (or did you mean of the Catholic Church specifically)? And do we know what his or her opinion is?

I completely agree. But unfortunately, Christian religious philosophy falls very short of Christian doctrine and dogma. Christians have alot of explaining to do if they claim that logic and reason are in any way responsible for their beliefs (except, of course, if one assumes the doctrine was formulated as a controlling tool -- in that sense, it is all very logical and reasonable).

I have no strong opinions here, I suppose. I'll leave you to dispute that with the Schoolmen and the rest of the philosopher-theologians.

So what happened to this form of Christianity? Why do Christians consider the bible so important?

That form is still around; it's called Catholicism. And Christians seem to me always to have considered the Bible important, but an insistence on a crude literalism in approaching Biblical inerrancy is associated with the Protestant Reformation and especially the appearance of the fundamentalist movement in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Yes, but for the most part, organized religion is the only one that explicitly claims to finally have it "right" on every iteration.

Again, this does not seem to be the case with every organized religion. And Christianity (of the traditional Catholic variety, anyway, which I use here because of its longer track record) would be a counterexample. Although I suppose it could reasonably be argued that, doctrinally, it never has really had to go through subsequent iterations - but in terms of theological thinking and speculation it surely has done.

 

[Cetecea]

Yes, it is:

Thou shalt not kill.

Actually, isn't it: Thou shalt not murder?

Leaving lots of room for the interpretation of what murder means. In this case perhaps that is what TBK is alluding to?

 

[Huntster]

Thou shalt not kill.

Actually, isn't it: Thou shalt not murder?

Yes, it is.

Leaving lots of room for the interpretation of what murder means. In this case perhaps that is what TBK is alluding to?

I accept the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. It would allow me to kill another person in the service of the government in war or law enforcement, and it allows lethal force in a limited way in the self-defense of oneself or another.

There is no mention of the faithful having "a god that can tell them to kill me and they'd do it."

Now, I suppose I can expect more insightful wisdom from he who is always right, straightening me out on my religious faith............

 

[rocketdodger]

Ok we have to cut down on the post size... lets limit this discussion to one topic at a time so perhaps others will be more likely to join in. First..

But you seem to be confidently attributing some culpable role in this to Christian doctrine itself. Virtually any complex text can be (mis)used in this way. I could use Plato's Republic as the launching point for all sorts of agendas that Plato would have repudiated.

And if people worshipped Plato like they worship God, I would make the same claims against "Platoian" doctrine. People who worship Ayn Rand turn her great ideas into oppresive dogma as well. The important difference, however, between organized religion and everything else is that religious doctrine includes pledging one's self to the supreme being rather than the ideas in the doctrine.

I doubt I could find many Christians who would admit that they really like some of the ideas in Christianity and would forsake God "himself" if he tried to change them. On the other hand, if Rand came back to life and tried to change objectivism into something else, most objectivists would tell her to f--- off.

Wait a minute. Christian theology indicates that God in himself is neither male nor female. There are no female Hebrew prophets, but prophets by themselves are not the most important figures in the OT, which figures include many women. It is also my understanding that there are more female than male saints recognized, including many of the most important and revered saints. Do you think there would have been a net benefit to replacing all the men with women?

Then why is God always referred to using the male pronouns? English doesn't use gendered pronouns for non-animal entities, you know that. If female saints are as important as male ones, then why are women not allowed into the priesthood?

As to whether there would be a net benefit -- if my agenda was to further equality of women, or even to make them "better" than men, ABSOLUTELY. Whether men were in control first and made the religions to reflect that or the religions contributed to their control in the first place is disputable. But the fact remains that having a patriarchical theology positively reinforces patriarchies in society. Until organized religion really is gender-neutral, worshippers will be biased as well.

I don't think you can seriously argue that worshipping female rather than male entities wouldn't greatly change the status of women throughout history. You are smarter than that.

What do you see as the theoretical status of women under Christianity as such, and how would you articulate the responsibility borne by Christianity?

Ok, I will pretend I am a woman who buys into Christian doctrine. God is male. Jesus is male. Women cannot be part of the priesthood. Clearly, women are substandard when it comes to leadership. And, since being a leader is (for most people) one of the greatest positions, women are substandard in general.

Honestly, how could Christian women feel truely equal to men, given this doctrine?

As to the responsibility, well... If the church is so powerful, and if they advocate true equality of women, then why are women subordinate to men in virtually every culture on Earth, INCLUDING ours?

With all of their leverage, which is apparent given then current battles waging over abortion, evolution, homosexuality, and more, why aren't they advocating allowing women into the priesthood?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, it is:

That's strange, because your god tells people to kill other people in the bible quite a few times. Nice try, though. It seems like your god tells people when to kill, not "don't kill."

 

[thaiboxerken]

I accept the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. It would allow me to kill another person in the service of the government in war or law enforcement, and it allows lethal force in a limited way in the self-defense of oneself or another.

Or to kill heretics, infidels and maybe even homosexuals. At least, that's the way the RCC interpreted things before. However, let me get this straight, you really don't obey your god, you obey your church's interpretation of your god's word. Ok.

 

[ReFLeX]

Not necessarily, it's just that on this topic, I'm right. I can't trust religious people fully because they have a god that can tell them to kill me and they'd do it.

You have produced nothing but anecdotal evidence and emotional rhetoric like the above. You are only "right" by assertion.

I would have to say that Huntster is probably more religious that ReFlex.

I'd have to say Huntster is more religious, since I'm an atheist...

 

[ReFLeX]

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Your flesh is preventing you from not being angry. Right.

My family and friends trust me completely. I have proven myself to be, not good, but dependable, loyal, and trustworthy beyond question.

Ok, now why do you think this is? Is it because you insulted them and were intolerant of their opinions? No, you don't do that to your friends, which should show you are capable of being a nice person on here as well, if YOU actually put in the effort. Instead, you blame God, since only he can give you the grace to be good, and apparently he hasn't done that for you. Huntster, SOMEbody has to be responsible for your behaviour.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I accept the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. It would allow me to kill another person in the service of the government in war or law enforcement, and it allows lethal force in a limited way in the self-defense of oneself or another.

Or to kill heretics, infidels and maybe even homosexuals. At least, that's the way the RCC interpreted things before.....

But not today.

However, let me get this straight, you really don't obey your god, you obey your church's interpretation of your god's word. Ok.

Both.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Your flesh is preventing you from not being angry. Right.

Yes. Right.

My family and friends trust me completely. I have proven myself to be, not good, but dependable, loyal, and trustworthy beyond question.

Ok, now why do you think this is? Is it because you insulted them and were intolerant of their opinions? No, you don't do that to your friends...

And my family and friends don't do that to me.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

...which should show you are capable of being a nice person on here as well, if YOU actually put in the effort....

Correct.

Instead, you blame God, since only he can give you the grace to be good, and apparently he hasn't done that for you. Huntster, SOMEbody has to be responsible for your behaviour.

I blame God for nothing. I accept full responsibility for all my words, actions, and lack thereof.